> An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm...
It’s not as rare as you might be imagining. The last amendment was finalized in 1992.
If you want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, yes there is a process for this. So let's fast forward and imagine that, somehow, you've gotten enough people and States on board with changing the Bill of Rights, and to keep it simple the 28th Amendment simply says "the 2nd Amendment is hereby REPEALED".
But then what? Pass laws that do, what, exactly? Confiscation?
>It’s not like Steve grabs a pitchfork and YOLOs his way to no second amendment.
Well ... the original founders of this country did, in fact, YOLO their way to a new one. They did it with guns though, not pitchforks.
It’s called changing our culture and it doesn’t happen overnight.
Like I said in another comment, another good option is to just say, “Welp, this won’t work.” Then acted surprised when the next school gets shot up.
Given the structure of the political system in the US, it is impossible for a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to agree on any even mildly controversial topic. You’ll note that the 1992 amendment was about a boring and uncontroversial topic. The last one that had anything to do with a cultural hot-button issue was the repeal of alcohol prohibition, in 1933, when the political system operated completely different to how it does now.
So, yes there’s a mechanism. But getting together enough votes to activate that mechanism is impossible in the actually existing reality of the United States. So, now what?
It didn’t sound like you were.
Let’s start with one state or 1 member of congress saying they want to amend the constitution. Then get a 2nd and perhaps a 3rd. You can probably see where this is going.
It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Believing that is very defeatist.
We can also just sit around and wait for the next school to get shot up and act confused again.
However, given the present composition of the Supreme Court, it’s reasonable to assume that they will not do anything meaningful on this subject for decades, at least.
