It’s not culture, it’s repeated Supreme Court rulings since 2008.
Lots of cited sources below, but the tl;dr is you can’t ban entire classes of weapons, you can’t require militia membership, everyone has the right to defend themselves and requiring guns be locked up or disassembled defeats that right, the 2nd amendment is not limited to the weapons extant at the time of passing, and states can’t place special restrictions on ownership or possession.
Now, could all that change? Sure, this court did strike down Roe vs. Wade after all… it just took 50 years to swing the court the other direction. So maybe by 2073?
“(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”
and further:
“(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
Because that was decided against Washington D.C. and not an actual state, there was a 2nd ruling making it clear that this applies to states as well:
““the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]”
2016 had my favorite ruling in all this because it wouldn’t INITIALLY seem to deal with guns. A woman bought a taser to protect herself from an abusive ex. MA ruled the 2nd amendment didn’t apply because tasers didn’t exist when the 2nd amendment was written.
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”.[6] The term “bearable arms” was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]
The most recent is the New York ruling where you needed special permission from the state to get a concealed carry permit, which was often denied, even if you were a law abiding gun owner.
“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”[28]
Where this ruling is especially different is that it sets the grounds for striking down other, in place, gun laws all over the country:
"When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “‘unqualified command.’”
bruh your constitution isn’t some holy scripture handed down from heaven in some perfect form. why do you think “ammendments” happened in the first place? they are a legal expression of your cultures appetite for what your country stands for, and can be changed.
The amendments are there because a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate voted for them and 3/4 of the states ratified them. Until a similar vote un-does them, they are the law of the land.
The problem here is once they get the 34 states on board, and write a new Constitution, they need 38 states to ratify the new Constitution.
As a bonus, because this drive is coming from the right, any new Constitution is going to be filled with poison pills that the Democratic states will never support (banning corporate taxes, outlawing abortion, restricting voting rights, and expanded gun rights).
It’s not culture, it’s repeated Supreme Court rulings since 2008.
Lots of cited sources below, but the tl;dr is you can’t ban entire classes of weapons, you can’t require militia membership, everyone has the right to defend themselves and requiring guns be locked up or disassembled defeats that right, the 2nd amendment is not limited to the weapons extant at the time of passing, and states can’t place special restrictions on ownership or possession.
Now, could all that change? Sure, this court did strike down Roe vs. Wade after all… it just took 50 years to swing the court the other direction. So maybe by 2073?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
“(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”
and further:
“(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
Because that was decided against Washington D.C. and not an actual state, there was a 2nd ruling making it clear that this applies to states as well:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
““the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]”
2016 had my favorite ruling in all this because it wouldn’t INITIALLY seem to deal with guns. A woman bought a taser to protect herself from an abusive ex. MA ruled the 2nd amendment didn’t apply because tasers didn’t exist when the 2nd amendment was written.
Enter the Supreme Court:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”.[6] The term “bearable arms” was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]
The most recent is the New York ruling where you needed special permission from the state to get a concealed carry permit, which was often denied, even if you were a law abiding gun owner.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen
“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”[28]
Where this ruling is especially different is that it sets the grounds for striking down other, in place, gun laws all over the country:
"When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “‘unqualified command.’”
bruh your constitution isn’t some holy scripture handed down from heaven in some perfect form. why do you think “ammendments” happened in the first place? they are a legal expression of your cultures appetite for what your country stands for, and can be changed.
you guys (as a whole) don’t want it to.
ergo, its cultural
The amendments are there because a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate voted for them and 3/4 of the states ratified them. Until a similar vote un-does them, they are the law of the land.
so why doesn’t another vote undo them? oh that’s right, the fucked up gun culture
Another vote won’t undo them because we’re too polarized as a nation.
Republicans won’t support an amendment proposed by Democrats purely because Democrats propose it.
They also won’t propose their own because, like you say, gun culture.
OTOH - Republicans ARE (oddly) down for throwing out the ENTIRE constitution and re-doing it. The process is calling for a Constitutional Convention and currently there are 28 of the necessary 34 states down for doing this. https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/article-v-convention/#
The problem here is once they get the 34 states on board, and write a new Constitution, they need 38 states to ratify the new Constitution.
As a bonus, because this drive is coming from the right, any new Constitution is going to be filled with poison pills that the Democratic states will never support (banning corporate taxes, outlawing abortion, restricting voting rights, and expanded gun rights).