Newsom proposes 28th constitutional amendment to restrict gun access
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
I read that we could be looking at a Newsom/Susan Rice ticket for the next election
It's nothing more than political grandstanding: Sure he could call of the Congressional Representatives of California to introduce the Amendment to the Constitution, but the chances of it ever being voted on are slim and getting three fourths of the States to Ratify the Amendment are nil.
Along with Hochul, Newsome can go fuck himself with a donkey dick.
Along with Hochul, Newsome can go fuck himself with a donkey dick.
Amendments are hard for a reason. It will never be ratified and he knows it.
C3D
.338 Win Mag
I welcome Newsome's proposal. Let the antis propose such an amendment and they will understand that the overwhelming majority of the American people support the RKBA as it exists today.
And while we are at it, let's bring up a few other potential changes at a Constitutional Convention. Newsome may be surprised at how well some other proposals might do.
And while we are at it, let's bring up a few other potential changes at a Constitutional Convention. Newsome may be surprised at how well some other proposals might do.
Modean
.223 Rem
OMG, just the thought that Newsome has his head so far up his ass that he thinks a Constitutional Convention would go well for his worldview is astounding.
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
byron
.308 Win
is he brain dead it's the bill of RIGHTS you don't write laws into the bill of rights. It's We The People not we the government
C3D
.338 Win Mag
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
How ironic. I propose this guy go stand in front of a fast moving train.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Grandstanding at its finest. He knows that amendment has no chance of ever getting passed.
Government is slowly losing its grip on the people. So many are already say they don't give a shit anymore.
RedBreast21
6.5 Creedmoor
An amendment to restrict and existing amendment? That would be a first. It would reach actually be voted on as it would basically be rewriting 2A which can be done through the constitutional convention process. I would imagine there would be competing version from is and neither would come to a vote.
Deplorable Me
.700 Nitro Express
Make that an electric train.
Not a first. 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.
When democrats it is not a serious attempt but pandering that amounts too:
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
This is what happens when you've been shoving cans of hair spray up your ass for too long. This will never happen. Never. Not enough cucked states to do it regardless of all the "JUsT MoVe tO a FReE sTAtE" haters.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
I have no issue with this being proposed. Put into action, yes. Proposed? No. This is the point of our country. We should be having discussions and pointing out why this is a stupid idea. We're a country of debate, where it's difficult to change amendments for a reason, as @dsdmmat said.
The problem is most parties don't want to have a deep dive because they know the flaws in their arguments on big issues. They want sound bytes to manipulate the emotions of their ignorant followers.
The problem is most parties don't want to have a deep dive because they know the flaws in their arguments on big issues. They want sound bytes to manipulate the emotions of their ignorant followers.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
He can propose it.
But if they did pass it, that would be the end of the constitution.
Why should the opponents consent to be bound by such a document ?
Just like the participants in a gang rape can't make it legitimate by taking a vote, having a majority isn't magic either.
Democracy and a having majority only make a government legitimate when the people agree to be bound by the will of the majority.
If that becomes too onerous, then a sufficiently large group can simply withdraw their consent.
At that point, it's a civil war, and anyone working for a level of government that recognizes the former one is a legitimate target. From POTUS to the local dog catcher.
These people do not know what they are asking for. They think they will just order the military to go in and kill all the "rednecks".
What they don’t realize is that rednecks will not be fighting the military, they will be killing the supporters of the old government, where ever they can be found.
So, have fun bunkering down in the "green zone" and hope the guys bringing this week's food ration don't get ambushed.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
29th Amendment .
Term Limits ..( including the States )
IQ tests ( including the States )
Drug Tests ( including the States )
Mental Health Checks ( including the States )
50 % cut in pay .. ( including the States )
no more Qualified Immunity ( including the States )
Jail time and more with real punishments ( including the States )
Recalls on all Govt Employees ( including the States )
paper ballots ( including the States )
The Budget must balance .. no more debt ceiling ( including the States )
funny how his 28th proposal is all unconstitutional on it face ..
Term Limits ..( including the States )
IQ tests ( including the States )
Drug Tests ( including the States )
Mental Health Checks ( including the States )
50 % cut in pay .. ( including the States )
no more Qualified Immunity ( including the States )
Jail time and more with real punishments ( including the States )
Recalls on all Govt Employees ( including the States )
paper ballots ( including the States )
The Budget must balance .. no more debt ceiling ( including the States )
funny how his 28th proposal is all unconstitutional on it face ..
Last edited:
I am more than fine with this, and I openly welcome a Convention. Think about what can be accomplished.
Get rid of the 16th Amendment.
Correct the wording of the 14th.
Strengthens the 14th.
Simplify the 2nd.
Much positive can be done with a Convention.
Get rid of the 16th Amendment.
Correct the wording of the 14th.
Strengthens the 14th.
Simplify the 2nd.
Much positive can be done with a Convention.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The 2A doesn't need simplification. It needs teeth.
Make any attempt to violate it an automatic imminent deadly threat (i.e. anyone attempting to violate it is treated like they pointed a gun at your head).
That makes it a justification for use of deadly force to stop.
Government agents (including legislators) should be scared shitless that when they are proposing anything that comes anywhere *near* infringing the RKBA.
Depick
.308 Win
I’ve been getting a lot of use out of this lately.
stokes
.338 Win Mag
Not too mention their apparent ability to rig an election process.
Except that it's not. Two completely different positions. Two different reasons for use. One is federal office the other is state. Penalties are very different. Etc.
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
first, Newsome ( Henceforth, TBK as *the asshole* ) will need to find at least 34 states to consider this idea. ( my comments are in orange )
Step 1. Passage by Congress. Proposed amendment language must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses. ( never going to happen )
Step 2. Notification of the states. The national archivist sends notification and materials to the governor of each state.
Step 3. Ratification by three-fourths of the states. Ratification of the amendment language adopted by Congress is an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. A state legislature cannot change the language. If it does, its ratification is invalid. A governor’s signature on the ratification bill or resolution is not necessary.
Step 4. Tracking state actions. Proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to take effect. Congress may set a time limit for state action. The official count is kept by Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives. Legislatures must return specific materials to show proof of ratification. ( this would require 38 states to approve )
Step 5. Announcement. When the requisite number of states ratify a proposed amendment, the archivist of the United States proclaims it as a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Actual certification is published immediately in the Federal Register and eventually in the United States Statutes-at-Large.
( the important point )
State legislatures often call upon Congress to propose constitutional amendments. While these calls may bring some political pressure to bear, Congress is under no constitutional obligation to respond. The U.S. Constitution does not contain a provision requiring Congress to submit a proposed amendment upon request by some requisite number of states.
the assholes proposal is going nowhere, fast. With 27 states as Constitutional Carry, its very doubtful the asshole can get the another 11 states to even consider this idea.
Step 1. Passage by Congress. Proposed amendment language must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses. ( never going to happen )
Step 2. Notification of the states. The national archivist sends notification and materials to the governor of each state.
Step 3. Ratification by three-fourths of the states. Ratification of the amendment language adopted by Congress is an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. A state legislature cannot change the language. If it does, its ratification is invalid. A governor’s signature on the ratification bill or resolution is not necessary.
Step 4. Tracking state actions. Proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to take effect. Congress may set a time limit for state action. The official count is kept by Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives. Legislatures must return specific materials to show proof of ratification. ( this would require 38 states to approve )
Step 5. Announcement. When the requisite number of states ratify a proposed amendment, the archivist of the United States proclaims it as a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Actual certification is published immediately in the Federal Register and eventually in the United States Statutes-at-Large.
( the important point )
State legislatures often call upon Congress to propose constitutional amendments. While these calls may bring some political pressure to bear, Congress is under no constitutional obligation to respond. The U.S. Constitution does not contain a provision requiring Congress to submit a proposed amendment upon request by some requisite number of states.
the assholes proposal is going nowhere, fast. With 27 states as Constitutional Carry, its very doubtful the asshole can get the another 11 states to even consider this idea.
Understand what you are saying. Apparently it does need to be correct due to the corruption of the current words.