CA Governor Gavin Newsom proposes 28th Amendment to US Constitution to help end gun violence crisis.

[squistion 1,949]

Please share your thoughts. 

 

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1666784034406666241

 

NEW: I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation’s gun violence crisis. The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction. The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms -- while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:

1) Raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21

2) Universal background checks

3) A reasonable waiting period for gun purchases

4) Banning the civilian purchase of assault weapons

[Strike 5,186]

Who cares?   It won't happen.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

Aka - “I’d like to run for President please”

[The Real timschochet 6,416]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

Who cares?   It won't happen.

Unfortunately this. 

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

Does nothing to prevent straw purchases 

[Cdub100 3,837]

Checkmate criminals. 

[BillyKing 83]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

Who cares?   It won't happen.

This. He can propose it all he wants. However, it’s unconstitutional. Can’t ban assault weapons especially when the left has zero clue about what an “assault weapon” is. And knowing the left, they’ll claim it’s just “AR style rifles” until in a year or two they change their mind & wanting more guns banned. Sorry but if the Biden admin tries this there’s gonna be an influx of assassination attempts for trying to disarm citizens 

[seafoam1 2,799]

6 minutes ago, BillyKing said:

This. He can propose it all he wants. However, it’s unconstitutional. Can’t ban assault weapons especially when the left has zero clue about what an “assault weapon” is. And knowing the left, they’ll claim it’s just “AR style rifles” until in a year or two they change their mind & wanting more guns banned. Sorry but if the Biden admin tries this there’s gonna be an influx of assassination attempts for trying to disarm citizens 

Keep saying "can't". Liberals win elections and have a lot of support.

[AxeElf 787]

Let's have a moment of silence for all of our brave schoolchildren, courageously putting their lives on the line every day to protect our right to bear arms.

[squistion 1,949]

1 hour ago, BillyKing said:

This. He can propose it all he wants. However, it’s unconstitutional. Can’t ban assault weapons especially when the left has zero clue about what an “assault weapon” is. And knowing the left, they’ll claim it’s just “AR style rifles” until in a year or two they change their mind & wanting more guns banned. Sorry but if the Biden admin tries this there’s gonna be an influx of assassination attempts for trying to disarm citizens 

Amending an amendment is unconstitutional? I don't think so.

[crackattack 520]

3 hours ago, Strike said:

Who cares?   It won't happen.

This. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,482]

5 hours ago, squistion said:

Please share your thoughts. 

 

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1666784034406666241

 

NEW: I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation’s gun violence crisis. The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction. The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms -- while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:

1) Raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21

2) Universal background checks

3) A reasonable waiting period for gun purchases

4) Banning the civilian purchase of assault weapons

Interesting... he wants to GOVERN a body of legislation that was put in place by the Founding Fathers to protect the citizenry from the GOVERNMENT.  Yeah, good one. 

 

Personally, him just proposing this legislation is enough for me to say that he should be put on trial for treason.

[5-Points 3,387]

5 hours ago, squistion said:

Please share your thoughts. 

 

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1666784034406666241

 

NEW: I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation’s gun violence crisis. The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction. The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms -- while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:

1) Raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21

2) Universal background checks

3) A reasonable waiting period for gun purchases

4) Banning the civilian purchase of assault weapons

Leave it to a lib to claim new restrictions are actually "freedoms." 

The left sure like to proclaim themselves the educated ones, yet they fall for stoopid sh!t like this all the time. 

Banning civilian purchase of ________ = FREEDOM!  Retards. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,237]

His proposal shows absolutely how stupid and uneducated of a person he is about firearms 

 

[BudBro 173]

3 hours ago, AxeElf said:

Let's have a moment of silence for all of our brave schoolchildren, courageously putting their lives on the line every day to protect our right to bear arms.

Our right to bear arms was originally written to keep the newly formed government from becoming as tyrannical as the one they had escaped.  The British had attempted to disarm its citizens to gain control over them.  The founding fathers wrote assurances into the Constitution to keep that from happening here also. 

[Drizzay 699]

1) hard to put an age limit on a right.  Shall we put an age limit on the 1st?

2) he doesnt specify "what" they are looking for.

3) what does he consider "reasonable"?

4) can he define what qualifies as an "assault weapon"?

 

Just a bunch of buzz words that the simpletons will eat up.

[AxeElf 787]

29 minutes ago, BudBro said:

Our right to bear arms was originally written to keep the newly formed government from becoming as tyrannical as the one they had escaped.  The British had attempted to disarm its citizens to gain control over them.  The founding fathers wrote assurances into the Constitution to keep that from happening here also. 

Yeah, but people always seem to gloss over the right to bear arms as a prerequisite for a "well regulated militia," and interpret it as the right of rednecks to shoot Coke bottles down by the river or something.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country;"

28 minutes ago, Drizzay said:

hard to put an age limit on a right.

Not really; the right to vote has an age limit, and things are only "rights" if we say they are, anyway--so we can say whatever we like about when those rights are conferred.  It's not like bearing arms is necessary to sustain life.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

like i say, they could ban guns and repeal the 2nd, but all it would mean is that criminals will 3d print guns and those will have no serial number so you cant trace them.  so youd just make the problem worse as a cottage industry would take off, only criminals would have guns, and guns would spread across europe.

[AxeElf 787]

11 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

criminals will 3d print guns

Background checks and waiting periods to buy 3d printers should take care of that...

[JustinCharge 2,397]

3 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Background checks and waiting periods to buy 3d printers should take care of that...

the only reason they dont do it right now is acquiring traditional guns is not difficult.  but the technology is there and would take off if they banned guns.

[AxeElf 787]

28 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

but the technology is there

To some extent, although you still can't 3d-print a functional barrel, and of course then the gun would need ammunition.

But just having something that LOOKS like a gun would be enough; most crimes involving guns don't get to the point of actually discharging the weapon.

[shorepatrol 1,870]

29 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

To some extent, although you still can't 3d-print a functional barrel, and of course then the gun would need ammunition.

But just having something that LOOKS like a gun would be enough; most crimes involving guns don't get to the point of actually discharging the weapon.

Straight from a DU board. 

[AxeElf 787]

5 minutes ago, shorepatrol said:

Straight from a DU board. 

What's a DU board?

Given that it is your reaction to my post, I'm assuming it's a stronghold of reason and wisdom?

[listen2me 23 1,825]

Toughen gun crimes.  Severely.   Less deaths.  No doubt.  

[shorepatrol 1,870]

30 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

What's a DU board?

Given that it is your reaction to my post, I'm assuming it's a stronghold of reason and wisdom?

Eh, stronghold for weakness, pronouns, and self anointed intellectuals. Your posting style fit the description 

[TBayXXXVII 2,482]

12 hours ago, AxeElf said:

Yeah, but people always seem to gloss over the right to bear arms as a prerequisite for a "well regulated militia," and interpret it as the right of rednecks to shoot Coke bottles down by the river or something.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country;"

Not really; the right to vote has an age limit, and things are only "rights" if we say they are, anyway--so we can say whatever we like about when those rights are conferred.  It's not like bearing arms is necessary to sustain life.

So wait, you think that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that the citizenry had guns as a protection from the government, and their use of the phrase "well regulated militia", meant that said government was to control those guns?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!   GTFOH with that crap.

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

23 hours ago, squistion said:

Please share your thoughts. 

 

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1666784034406666241

 

NEW: I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation’s gun violence crisis. The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction. The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms -- while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:

1) Raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21

2) Universal background checks

3) A reasonable waiting period for gun purchases

4) Banning the civilian purchase of assault weapons

Raising age to 21 - Would that impact military or police service?  If we feel a person is not of an age to own a firearm why wiould we allow them to carry one on behalf of the government? Are we not setting a standard that they lack the judgment to carry?  

Universal background checks - I don't know what this means and neither does anyone else.  We all have our current impression as to what it means but it needs definition.  Is this the current form one fills out asking a few simple questions, questions the government has to confirm or deny, or is this something more, a ten page docuemnt requiring the citizen to present supporting documentation?  Is this free, or is there a prohibitive cost?

Reasonable waiting period - What is that period, a day three days, a week, a month, a year?  If one is going to be creating consitutional law ought one not be obligated to give the courts direction in the interpretation?

Assault Weapons - I don't know what those are.  I can assault you with my hatchet, ax, knife, entrentching tool, louisville slugger, crow bar, tire iron, soap on a rope, weed wacker, hammer, double barrel shotgun, revolver, lever action or pump action rifles, or semi-automatic handguns and rifles?  

 

Gavin Newsome has no real thought here, just a desire to be in the news.     He can get back to me when he spends as much time thinking about this proposal as he does combing his hair or coordinating his socks and ties.

[jonmx 2,424]

Not seeing the Democrats up in arms about federal bureaucracies becoming armed to the teeth.

There are 458 ‘Special Office of Inspector General Agents’ within Health and Human Services (HHS) armed with sophisticated weaponry and trained by military special forces contractors. Why?

The special agents at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are equipped with machine guns and AR-15s. Is an alien invasion imminent?

Then, there’s the museum and zoo-forces — even the Smithsonian Institution employed up to 620-armed officers. Guarding pandas at the national zoo is expensive.

But these security forces pale in comparison to the Department of Homeland Security’s 259,891 firearms (that doesn’t even include the Transportation Security Administration, which doesn’t offer disclosure).

We quantified nearly $1 billion spent on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment in the federal agencies outside of the Defense Department (DOD) between 2015 and 2019 (the latest year available). 

 

• There are more non-DOD federal employees with firearms (200,000+) than there are U.S. Marines (186,000).
• 27 traditional law enforcement agencies spent $800 million on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment during fiscal years 2015 and 2019. These agencies include those at the Department of Justice and Homeland Security.
• 76 administrative agencies spent $110.6 million on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment 

In 1996, Veterans Affairs did not employ a police force. Since 2010, the VA spent $25.5 million on guns, 11 million rounds of ammunition, and other military-style equipment. Today, the VA has 4,547 law enforcement officers armed with weapons including semi-automatic “long-guns” (i.e., AR-15-style). A spokesperson responded after publication with clarification of their weaponry.

The Internal Revenue Service, with its 2,159 “Special Agents,” spent $21.3 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment between fiscal years 2006 and 2019. The agency stockpiled 4,500 guns and five million rounds of ammunition.

[AxeElf 787]

4 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

So wait, you think that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that the citizenry had guns as a protection from the government, and their use of the phrase "well regulated militia", meant that said government was to control those guns?

I don't think you read the amendment closely enough.  It doesn't say that the government has to regulate the militia, just that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of securing a free country through the operation of a well regulated militia--not so that vigilantes can patrol the malls.

[The Real timschochet 6,416]

Newsom’s point about Bakersfield having the highest murder rate in the state (more than double San Francisco and Los Angeles) is a good one, and puts the lie to the mantra that violence in our cities is caused by liberal governments and liberal governments prosecutors- are you paying attention, @Hardcore troubadour? 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

21 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Newsom’s point about Bakersfield having the highest murder rate in the state (more than double San Francisco and Los Angeles) is a good one, and puts the lie to the mantra that violence in our cities is caused by liberal governments and liberal governments prosecutors- are you paying attention, @Hardcore troubadour? 

gun rights correlate strongly with lower crime rates.  unfortunately, the super biased MSM, when asked this question, always refuse to answer it.  instead, the MSM compares gun rights vs "violent crime" or gun rights vs "homicides" or gun rights vs "people getting shot".  this is because if they actually asked the question being asked, it defends the concept of gun rights.  and that is exactly the lie YOU are pimping here as well, comparing violence vs gun rights when people want to compare overall crime rates vs gun rights.

how about just being a stand up person and making the correct comparison instead of focking lying you dipshiit.

this is anther example of the desperate need to fortify freedom of the press.  the press as it is currently constructed is not free but an arm of the democrat party.

[TBayXXXVII 2,482]

3 hours ago, AxeElf said:

I don't think you read the amendment closely enough.  It doesn't say that the government has to regulate the militia, just that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of securing a free country through the operation of a well regulated militia--not so that vigilantes can patrol the malls.

I know what the amendment says, it was the wording of your post that implied that you didn't.  The post you responded to was one of stating the purpose of the amendment.  You chimed it with something like, "it wasn't for shooting coke bottles" and specifically highlighted "well regulated militia".  

[AxeElf 787]

10 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I know what the amendment says, it was the wording of your post that implied that you didn't.  The post you responded to was one of stating the purpose of the amendment.  You chimed it with something like, "it wasn't for shooting coke bottles" and specifically highlighted "well regulated militia".  

Well, you seem to have it figured out now, so we're all good...?

[5-Points 3,387]

22 hours ago, AxeElf said:

To some extent, although you still can't 3d-print a functional barrel, and of course then the gun would need ammunition.

But just having something that LOOKS like a gun would be enough; most crimes involving guns don't get to the point of actually discharging the weapon.

You wouldn't need to, you just need a lathe and you can crank out all the barrels you want. 

Brass, bullets and powder, a few dies and a couple of pieces of equipment and you can crank out all the ammo you want. 

[AxeElf 787]

5 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

You wouldn't need to, you just need a lathe and you can crank out all the barrels you want. 

Brass, bullets and powder, a few dies and a couple of pieces of equipment and you can crank out all the ammo you want.

All of which is kind of beside the point in light of my second point--that the gun really doesn't HAVE to be functional, anyway.

Well, at least to commit crimes with it.  If you want to shoot Coke bottles, that's another matter...