Gavin Newsom Officially Introduces Amendment To Overrule The Second Amendment

[jwamplerusa]

We will always be able to find people who, given the authority of the State, are willing to commit atrocities if the State tells them it’s right. That is a history that has repeated so often that it should be expected, not a surprise.

Those who have not learned from history, think that it will all happen in one big event that they can resist. It rarely happens like that, it’s a death by 1000 cuts. By the time the Stasi are kicking in the door, there are not enough people who are willing to resist, because they think better them than me.

Equally, there will always be people who, given the absence of the rule of law will also be willing to commit atrocity. Mob rule will happen when the mob feels insulated from being held accountable.

I fear the ideologues on both right and left equally as much.

This ^^^^ right here is exactly what terrifies me for my, and most especially my children's, future.

The communists and their allies are already at the mob rule stage on occasion (summer of love). Both sides going to the mob rule behavior will be catastrophic, and the USA will likely not survive it.

 

[KellyinAvon]

This ^^^^ right here is exactly what terrifies me for my, and most especially my children's, future.

The communists and their allies are already at the mob rule stage on occasion (summer of love). Both sides going to the mob rule behavior will be catastrophic, and the USA will likely not survive it.

Same mob is intimidating juries...

 

[spencer rifle]

This ^^^^ right here is exactly what terrifies me for my, and most especially my children's, future.

The communists and their allies are already at the mob rule stage on occasion (summer of love). Both sides going to the mob rule behavior will be catastrophic, and the USA will likely not survive it.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

I am not at all sure that more major false flag mass shootings won't be tried to tip the scales. Lukewarm sheeple are easily manipulated, and getting a big emotional reaction, along with "we must do something," could be enough to push this over the line.

Read "Enemies Foreign and Domestic."

To me, it would have to be very visceral without any plot holes that could shoot it down. In a way, we already had the theoretical "stadium massacre", but it was in Las Vegas with a potential arms dealer with a belt fed/bump-stock (depending on whose take you give credit to) instead of "confused vet" supposedly playing artillery with an SKS. Thing is, Las Vegas had so many anomalies it's rarely brought up anymore.

My fear is an alleged scenario where the leftists/ANTIFA crowd staged as conservatives/gun owners/anti-establishment do a massive assault on a children's "March for our Lives" protest. That would be very bad.

 

[Expat]

I would like to state for the record that I am against this.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

I hope for the sake of this Republic Bracken is no prophet. But a lot of what he wrote in those novels seems to be coming true.

Let's just hope it doesn't get as far as his blue book "Foreign Enemies and Traitors". I swear, there were several times in that series I was mad enough to chew rebar and spit nails. A lot of characters get their just desserts, but still.

 

[Magyars]

 

[dburgette]

"The Right to Safety Amendment will raise the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21, mandate universal background checks, institute a waiting period for all gun purchases, and ban assault rifles for civilians – while leaving the Second Amendment intact. Additionally, the Right to Safety will affirm Congress, states, and local governments can enact common-sense gun safety laws that save lives."

Help me understand the "overrule" 2nd amendment part. Raising the minimum age...not a huge deal. Background checks...every gun I've purchased from online or gun store...check. Waiting period...not specified to what that means in detail...jury's still out on that one. Ban on ARs...nothing new there. Don't own one, but don't care if a private citizen does. That might be the only point I am in disagreement with.

Help me understand the sky is falling and I should be very afraid. I'm not one to jump on the "it's coming from the other side", whichever side that may be, then it's bad.

 

[bobzilla]

"The Right to Safety Amendment will raise the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21, mandate universal background checks, institute a waiting period for all gun purchases, and ban assault rifles for civilians – while leaving the Second Amendment intact. Additionally, the Right to Safety will affirm Congress, states, and local governments can enact common-sense gun safety laws that save lives."

Help me understand the "overrule" 2nd amendment part. Raising the minimum age...not a huge deal. Background checks...every gun I've purchased from online or gun store...check. Waiting period...not specified to what that means in detail...jury's still out on that one. Ban on ARs...nothing new there. Don't own one, but don't care if a private citizen does. That might be the only point I am in disagreement with.

Help me understand the sky is falling and I should be very afraid. I'm not one to jump on the "it's coming from the other side", whichever side that may be, then it's bad.

You lay out all the things subverting the 2nd then ask where the subversion of the second is? Either you have a reading comprehension issue or are willfully sticking your head in the sand.

The 3rd option is you’re just trolling.

 

[jwamplerusa]

Help me understand the "overrule" 2nd amendment part. Raising the minimum age...not a huge deal. Background checks...every gun I've purchased from online or gun store...check. Waiting period...not specified to what that means in detail...jury's still out on that one. Ban on ARs...nothing new there.

@dburgette It's a holiday and I have a little time, so I'm going to pretend you are not a troll.

You have been a member of the Militia since you were 17 (United States Code Title 10, 246), you should have an effective arm of a common military caliber and be at least nominally capable with it. An AR-15 is an excellent choice. Why don't you have something if you are called to service in the unorganized militia?

So, what part of Shall not be infringed do you not understand?

The Second Amendment is a restraint upon the Federal Government to do ANYTHING, which infringes upon a citizen's inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains this in pretty basic language.

"Preamble to the Bill of Rights​

Congress of the United States​

begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine​

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.​

...​

​

Amendment II.​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​

​

For those who still don't "get it" there are contemporaneous writings which further clarify and substantiate the meaning and intent of the above element of our Constitution. From Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States by Justice Joseph Story.

"§ 1000. The next amendment is : "A well regulated " militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

§ 1001. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep, and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist, and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."​

Then there is the Indiana Constitution, which in a Republic of Republics is the law of the land in Indiana, only to be subservient to Federal Law in compliance with the 10th Amendment's provisions for Federalism to take precedence via the enumerated powers granted by the States and the People to the Federal government.

"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."​

​

Indiana's Constitution also has a Militia clause, you might want to read Article 12 of that document as well.​

​

If we are going to play let's propose a 28th Amendment, I like mine much better than the Communist and subversive Newsome's proposal.

As far as Newsome, or anyone else, if they cannot understand and abide by the Constitution then I recommend emigrating to the nation of their choice. China, Cuba, North Korea, Valenzuela, or Vietnam would all be worthy options for those who cannot wrap their heads around the reason and continuing need for the 2nd Amendment.

​

 

[KLB]

"The Right to Safety Amendment will raise the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21, mandate universal background checks, institute a waiting period for all gun purchases, and ban assault rifles for civilians – while leaving the Second Amendment intact. Additionally, the Right to Safety will affirm Congress, states, and local governments can enact common-sense gun safety laws that save lives."

Help me understand the "overrule" 2nd amendment part. Raising the minimum age...not a huge deal. Background checks...every gun I've purchased from online or gun store...check. Waiting period...not specified to what that means in detail...jury's still out on that one. Ban on ARs...nothing new there. Don't own one, but don't care if a private citizen does. That might be the only point I am in disagreement with.

Help me understand the sky is falling and I should be very afraid. I'm not one to jump on the "it's coming from the other side", whichever side that may be, then it's bad.

You think that someone that is eligible to carry a M4 in service of this country and possibly give their life doing so, should not be eligible to buy a gun until they are 21?

UBCs are not about buying a gun from a shop. They are about tracking every transfer. Want to give a gun to your child, do a background check. Loan a gun to a friend, background check.

Jury isn't out on waiting periods. Why should I have to go out of my way twice in order to buy a gun?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

"The Right to Safety Amendment will raise the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21, mandate universal background checks, institute a waiting period for all gun purchases, and ban assault rifles for civilians – while leaving the Second Amendment intact. Additionally, the Right to Safety will affirm Congress, states, and local governments can enact common-sense gun safety laws that save lives."

Help me understand the "overrule" 2nd amendment part. Raising the minimum age...not a huge deal. Background checks...every gun I've purchased from online or gun store...check. Waiting period...not specified to what that means in detail...jury's still out on that one. Ban on ARs...nothing new there. Don't own one, but don't care if a private citizen does. That might be the only point I am in disagreement with.

Help me understand the sky is falling and I should be very afraid. I'm not one to jump on the "it's coming from the other side", whichever side that may be, then it's bad.

Raising the minimum age is no big deal? Do you have any children? A 18-20 yr old living on their own can't have a firearm for protection? Waiting periods? Imagine a woman who gets out of an abusive relationship whose ex threatens to get her, she has to wait several days to weeks to obtain a firearm for protection? Now imagine that woman is your daughter. Still feel the same? And yes a woman was killed by an abusive ex in NY while waiting for permission to obtain a firearm.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How to recognize if you’re a Butter:

I’m all for the 2nd Amendment but since I’m already over 21 I don’t care if other folks younger than me have to wait a few more years before exercising their God given rights.

I’m all for the 2nd Amendment but since I don’t have anything to hide I’m ok with the government tracking what I own and to whom I sell it.

I’m all for the 2nd Amendment but since I’ve already got mine if some woman in a violent relationship has to wait days or weeks before she can buy a gun to protect herself, *shrug*.

Fudds and Butters are more detrimental to our 2A rights than the nutters.

 

[indykid]

Background checks? I remember walking in to a K-mart, handing the cashier some money and showing my drivers license to prove my age, and then walking out with a rifle. I also remember doing that in Sears, Montgomery Ward, Penny's, Ace Hardware, and a couple of other places. Show my drivers license to prove my age, hand over the money and walk out with a firearm, no Big Brother approval required.

 

[dburgette]

Raising the minimum age is no big deal? Do you have any children? A 18-20 yr old living on their own can't have a firearm for protection? Waiting periods? Imagine a woman who gets out of an abusive relationship whose ex threatens to get her, she has to wait several days to weeks to obtain a firearm for protection? Now imagine that woman is your daughter. Still feel the same? And yes a woman was killed by an abusive ex in NY while waiting for permission to obtain a firearm.

There we go. This is helpful. I do have a child who is 18 and understand the mindset of some of the friends. I am now enlightened. Thank you for helping me understand. Definitely not trolling, just truly wanting to understand. Thanks to all for helping along the way.

 

[tv1217]

The only acceptable "but" to the 2nd Amendment is something like "I support the Second Amendment but it needs to be rewritten in Barney language so democrats can understand what 'Shall not be infringed' means."

 

[jwamplerusa]

The only acceptable "but" to the 2nd Amendment is something like "I support the Second Amendment but it needs to be rewritten in Barney language so democrats can understand what 'Shall not be infringed' means."

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so,"
Ronald Reagan

Locally and on the state level thieves and felons walk free. On the national level the federal Justice system has been weaponized against political opponents.

Newsom and the rest of the country club political left are hell bent on gaining power. Interesting times await.

 

[DDadams]

My biggest fear about this next election isn't that they're going to pull some absurd 100,000,000 mail-in ballots out of a hat for Biden like a magic trick.

It's that they simply won't let him run and will choose to run Newsom.

This guy is scary. He's charismatic, well spoken, and would be a hell of an Uno player the way he can reverse his failures SO confidently to make them sound like victories.

Having a bad reputation used to mean something. He's failed California BAD. But that doesn't matter anymore.

If he gets on the ballot I really think they'll pull out all the stops like they did for Hillary in 2016 and play with the machines like they did too in 2020 because with this guy they can just make him go all the way. They'll have him push the most blatantly unconstitutional 'executive orders' out in the same way the ATF is making 'rule changes' and I'm sure he will abuse the hell out of the new-ish state of emergency powers POTUS has.

Most of us thought the Patriot Act was bad. The stuff it's given birth to and the powers they could wield now are immense.


Newsom would single handedly destroy the second ammendment in his first year of being in office.

I don't care what gets challenged in court and overruled. Something always sticks. And it would be something big given what he would enact.

 

[DDadams]

The only acceptable "but" to the 2nd Amendment is something like "I support the Second Amendment but it needs to be rewritten in Barney language so democrats can understand what 'Shall not be infringed' means."

Now, hear me out, what do you say about private citizens owning hydrogen bombs or ICBMs?

When I argue with people about 2A and they ask me this, I honestly don't know how to reply. I feel like saying sure, because the equivalent arms 300 years ago were private citizens owning a fleet of their own personal warships with the ability to muster a militia at any time.

And it wouldn't be like every other person could afford a nuke. It would just be a very small amount of people, like in the past with owning a fleet of warships.

But I dunno if I'd want Jeff Bezos to be able to buy nukes?

But shall not be infringed kind of means its absolute...