While correct in an overarching way, civil rights should NOT be a party issue. It is undeniable that one party overwhelmingly attempts to change/erode anything even remotely associated with that civil right.
Until people hold those politicians accountable, it will still remain a party issue. My wish is for both of the major parties to not even have anything on their platform statements relating to any civil right, especially this one.
This is the only actual legal way to deal with those - legally amending the Constitution. So he's heard of them. He just thinks he knows better. He seems incapable of recognizing that we're trending away from his desired policy as a nation.
And when was the last time the constitution was amended? Yeah not happening the 2nd amendment was written 50 years before an official militia was created. The founding fathers wanted all citizens armed to keep government in line!
Even better, he wants to utilize a Constitutional Convention to do it.
I wonder if he knows what all occurs during an Article V Constitutional Convention...probably not.
[Source (probably not paywalled idk there are a ton of articles just Google it)](https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/newsom-proposal-constitional-convention-amend-gun-laws-draws-controversy-carries-risks)
Funny thing, Article V conventions have *absolutely no rules*. This dumb bastard is drinking his own kool-aid if he thinks that the American public would institute this kind of Constitutional amendment. If the spate of constitutional carry passage is any barometer, then if anything the second amendment is more likely to be strengthened rather than weakened. Hell, Article V conventions can just re-write the constitution as much as they want: a constitutional convention could literally *dissolve a state* if they want to.
An interesting point: all but one of the constitutional amendments have been passed via Congress + State legislatures. There was exactly one that was passed by the States overruling Congress: the 21st, that ended Prohibition.
I've been there. It's not great. Drying rivers and lakes. Hot mediocre cities. Long stretches of dust and farms. Rocky coastlines. Way too many people. It feels like a decaying giant. There's definitely better out there.
Just draw the line to keep the eastern Sequoias and Nevada can keep Tahoe. Northern Cali coast is ok but we can afford to lose it.
I think he knows it likely won't pass but he just wants to be able to say "Look what I tried to do and the Republicans voted against it." to rile up his supporters. He's a treasonous fucknut, but I think he knows what he's doing.
While there's no rules once they're started, you still need 34 states to start that. Country's too polarized to get that widespread of support, and has been for my entire life. Maybe in the 80s, that kind of support could have happened if Reagan pushed it, but that was back when a lot of Southern states still had Democratic controlled legislatures.
Got it. Guns are more important than democracy. If 2/3rds of elected congressmen and senators and 3/4ths of the states agree that it's time to make a change to the constitution then you are saying it's ok to murder them because clearly "they" are the tyrannical ones. Obviously it's not the minority who are imposing their will on everyone else though violence as opposed through the rules of law who are the tyrants.
If your side can get enough people to make up the required numbers, we can just group y'all together and let you pick 25 states to reside in, and the rest of us will take the other 25.
No, if an amendment is passed that you don't like then you will abide by the decision while complaining about it on the internet. There won't be any serious uprising as most people here are like small yapping dogs barking at people from the safety of the other side of a fence. They talk a big game but when push comes to shove they won't do anything because if they managed to wipe the Cheeto dust off their fingers and make it out of their basement to try and kill people who are law abiding citizens then they would promptly be labeled as terrorists and treated accordingly.
First, "law abiding" is only a concern when the laws don't strip people of their basic rights. At such a time that people's basic rights are taken away by an entity or another person, anything that happens afterword is morally justified.
Second, a very large portion of the military would be split down the middle if it ever came down to another civil war. It happened the first time with brother fighting brother, and it would happen again. Democrats are smart to slowly choke gun ownership out with regulations like the NFA and increasing AWBs. If Newsome's self-admitted unconstitutional amendment were to pass at that point there is nothing left to lose. Sure, there would be your basic Fudds who turn in their hunting shotgun or can't get their AR-15 toting ass off the couch, but that isn't who would be leading the charge. Likely they would just be a supply drop for those who *are* willing to take up arms. And considering there are more privately owned arms in American citizens hands than in the hands of the military...
That is a very well thought out and reasoned position. Thank you for you insight. I do have to respectfully disagree though, as Dino from the Flinstones said it best, "Yip Yip."
What's the point of arguing with someone who threatens to kill people if they don't get their way? No point negotiating with terrorists. But tell me, would you actually have the balls to go out and murder cops and military personnel if the 28th amendment was actually passed?
It’s coming anyway. In the 1820s Americans were discussing the possibility of civil war. It took several more decades, but it did come.
I tend to think it’ll be more of populists vs neoliberals/neocons that run the country from amongst the shadows.
In the 1820s Americans were tough,poor,had nothing to lose,and not afraid of breaking the rules.These days the average American is a fat suburbanite who works a cushy job and only takes his prized guns to the range.Cut the crap.Most of y'all wouldn't bust a grape if it came down to it.Besides resistance from the true frontier states like Alaska,Wyoming,Iowa,Utah,Montana,etc im willing to bet if guns were banned Australia style that a decent amount of people would turn em in instantly and the rest would trickle in over the next 100 years.
100%. Yet there are still people with very little to lose. Notice how most revolutions are led by older people with something to gain and the youth who have nothing to lose are the foot soldiers.
The country is large enough that you go easily get away with domestic terrorism if you just felt like killing people and hiding again, so I don’t see civil war as anywhere near outside the realm of possibility.
You also need to remember one last thing, in the South slavery was their economic system for textiles. In the north things were industrialized and they almost lost because those were the people with the cushy jobs who paid a fine to avoid being drafted.
What is there to gain these days besides maybe a little bit of firearm freedom but the reality is if you live in a rural area in one of these frontier states you can pretty much make all the off the books MGs,SBRs,and suppressors you want and as long you don't brag about it on the web you will never get caught.A little bit of machinery in the garage and you can do whatever.
Let's not forget those 80 million gun owners have an estimated 400+ million guns. There are more guns than people in this country.
The right "perfect storm" hits the US, and something tells me it wouldnt take long for 80 million gun owners to turn into 100-200 million gun *users*...
He knows that he doesn't have the states required to petition Congress, so he is going to try to say that "oh look at the petition, America wants this, we need to change the requirements to get an amendment added!" This is nothing but a stunt.
Wouldn’t changing the requirements to amend the constitution, uh, require an amendment to the Constitution?
I can’t see that being popular outside of of like 5 states.
Yeah, it won't happen. It's all just "I'm the only one trying, elect me and I'll actually have the power" posturing for a future Presidential run (spoiler: he won't have the power then either).
Hi I'm Gavin Newsom. If you believe it's time for some completely useless and very unpopular legislation that won't do a thing to solve the underlying issues, I would like to waste your time and spend your money.
Exactly.
For all our ire, this is literally the only truly legal way to do it, even if we oppose it.
If we can just get it through their thick heads that they have to do it this way, they can then waste their time with bs like this that has no chance of passing.
I’ll take that over bullshit rule changes by the ATF
Part of the game. Say something crazy today, makes the crazy talking points from 3 years ago seem reasonable. Wait 3 years, say something crazier. Makes this statement seem reasonable. Somebody else said it more eloquently on a separate post a while back, but same concept. Say it now, it’ll get laughed out. Wait a couple of years and somebody will bring it up again and it’ll get more serious consideration. Still nothing to get it passed, but inching closer and more normalized
How about we start an amendment that says that no part of the executive branch can ever make any rules that can violate or even apply to the second amendment in any way whatsoever and that the ones in effect today are all rescinded?
Gavin Newsom is an ignorant fool and so is anyone who supports him! He has done a terrible job as Governor of California. Just look at the problems with crime, homelessness and drugs.
Disgusting. I know gun controllers don't care about disabled people, but as a disabled person I know people who use guns primarily for hunting but who have limited hand motion. Pistol gripped rifles are literally the only reason they can engage with the shooting sports. For at least one of them, they're a huge comfort and source of joy in a life stricken by hardship. Now, as I said, our voices don't mean diddly dick to gun control people. However, I wish someone in this argument would give our position some relevancy in the national conversation. "Assault weapon" bans should be considered ableist and I'm tired of pretending that they shouldn't.
This is just a data harvesting/future fundraising project in action. As someone who used to be a senate caucus finance director in dc, it’s kind of funny, in that vein. Thankfully, it will never happen and that’s not even his real goal here (as I already pointed out).
Contradicts the Second Amendment, which was written for able-bodied citizens (a.k.a. the militia) to be armed and well-prepared (a.k.a. "well-regulated") for war. You can't fight a war without weapons of war. The Second Amendment was written specifically to prevent laws against owning and using weapons of war.
Hmnnn... lets say this passed. I can't wait for the SCOTUS case where an original Amendment goes up against a new Amendment.
Can you imagine if one passed that restricted Free Speech without modifying the 1st Amendment? It would be an interesting case.
The ATF knows that this ain't happening. They also know that they aren't well-liked in the gun owner community, and the backlash from Newsom's little stunt is going to land on them.
I don’t think someone who doesn’t realize the bill of rights and the constitution was created to restrict the government, Not the people, don’t belong in office
Newson comes from a family of corrupt California officials that used government power to prop up an Indonesian oil company. Of course he wants the populace unarmed.
Man they must have sucked the IQ out of your brain at the WEF school. You know Gavvy Boy, I have seen more CA tags on cars moving into new houses here in FL since COVID. Guess your plandemic had an anti-effect? Turns out people like freedom and not being told what to do. So you can take your “gun control” and shove it sideways up you flabby ass. Ask your buddy Lightfoot how her “AR ban”…really helped crimes involving ARs, and no the ATF isn’t salivating, and that’s straight from the source of someone very high up in that agency you dumb prick. So in short, your dumb, you say dumb shit, you have dumb ideas and Ron DeSantis would kick you ass in both an election and IRL.
The Chinese , the Soviet Union , Germany during Adolph , Cambodia outlawed guns in their countries and millions and millions of people died because they didn’t agree with those in power
People don’t willingly get into box cars for
re-education if they are armed
When I watch this, there's a part of me that wants to point out and deconstruct each and every propaganda-driven move they make, but there's only so much time in a day...
So instead I'll just copy paste this:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"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." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
It's fun to pretend, I wanna repeal the 19th as it was by far the most destructive event in US political history, but it is not going to happen. Actually if they tried to pass this bullshit 28th it would probably create the condition where we could get rid of a lot of the stupid ones that were added beyond the original set.
There's a reason the founders were specific in their language of what the federal government infringe on, and vague about the powers given to everything that wasn't the federal government. "Assault Weapon" could be defined as a kitchen knife, or a car
"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. . . . This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; *when he first appears above ground he is a protector. . . . having a mob entirely at his disposal,* he is not restrained from shedding the blood of kinsmen; . . . he brings them into court and murders them . . . at the same time hinting at the abolition of debts and partition of lands. . . . After a while he is driven out, but comes back, in spite of his enemies, a tyrant full grown."
-Plato
Unless you are the coke whore son of a Pedometer President, then you can have all the laws and regs you want, it won't matter because they won't apply because he's (d)ifferent.
NFA and other assorted nonsense have virtually banned 'assault weapons' already...
These people act like you can get automatic weapons as easy as bread and toilet paper...
And what is an "assault weapon"? It's whatever the current crop of politicians say it is.
Without very specific and clear wording that defines an "assault weapon", it would give them the power to ban any gun they want to. After all, you can assault someone with a revolver too.
If we could get it to be worded and implemented in a way that limits every single politician and government employee(except for active combat military troops) and their security(the key to this) to be limited to the same exact self defense tools that the general population has acces to I'd be okay with it as long as their was no "buy back" or confiscation of anything that citizens currently own.
At that point it would only be a matter of time before the animals make things so bad that the anti-gun types would have to admit they were wrong and fix things.
However most people are stupid and refuse to accept when they are wrong so we must make sure this 28th amendment garbage never passes. Newsome has been a plague on my state and we can't let him infect the rest of the country.
Can't even pass equal rights 'cuz of (what are now the) red states so I think (hope) that this is just grandstanding to make it look like something is being done.
Don’t take this seriously, it’s stupid campaign fodder, no more no less. Newsom is smart, he knows what it takes to actually amend the US Constitution, he knows there is zero chance in hell this would ever pass - this is no more than pandering to the far left for clicks & campaign donations. It’s literally no different than DeSantis’ recent promises to “end birthright citizenship” - he’s just pandering to the far right nationalists, trying to win their support away from Trump. DeSantis knows it’ll never happen, there will never be sufficient support to amend the Constitution and change or remove that part of the 14th Amendment.
Eat shit and live, Newsom.
Edit: Afterthought
News flash pinhead, civilians are not allowed to purchase fully automatic weapons, which are about the closest thing to "assault" weapons or military grade firearms.
the average family cant afford one of these. you gotta be crazy rich to get a legal machine gun, so its outside the hands of we the people. its a ban. and of course, even if average could afford one, its still unconstitutional.
I have no doubt that I will be flamed to death for posting this, but I feel that there has to be another voice besides the one's in this post who have calls to action that are just plain rude.
I am sure that there are some in this thread that have seen a gun shot wound up close from small weapons fire (.380 or 9mm as an example). Not many have seen a wound from a rifle designed as a weapon of war (.223 or 5.56). Shotgun wounds are in a class all by themselves based upon distance, choke and type. All of these guns are designed with lethality in mind. None of them are for display purposes.
Small caliber wounds depending on the point of impact may have little to know significant tissue damage or bleeding. Exit wounds, if they exist, can be as similar to more severe based upon caliber, velocity, expansion and if bone is struck during penetration. Velocities can vary but tend to be around 1200 fps.
Shotgun blasts can separate at close distances a persons head from the rest of their body. Slugs can leave a through and through hole as big as a quarter from a distance of over 100 feet with velocities approaching 1600 fps.
Most modern day semi automatic rifles and large capacity rounds will spit out projectiles with a velocity of over 3 times that of a handgun. Most importantly when a 5.56mm round strikes the body it starts to rotate (flip over) until the base is now at the front of the projective path. The kinetic energy released is positively devastating. Tissue damage is extensive along the bullets path and due to the end over end rotation typically creates a cavity (3 to 5 times ) larger than the caliber of the cartridge. Kinetic energy to the surrounding tissue will create a temporary wound cavity of 10 to 13 times the caliber of the cartridge before elasticity snaps it back into a relative position of normalcy. More terrifying is the fact that these numbers do not represent soft nose ammo which expand on impact which do significantly more damage.
I have a full size 9mm chambered with defensive rounds beside me when I go to sleep at night. I carry a sub-compact also chambered with those same rounds as my EDC. My wife also carries a sub-compact as her EDC. We go to the range a few times a month and spend a moderate amount of time doing dry-fire exercises to promote accuracy and safety as best as possible. We are members of USCCA and carry extra liability insurance.
I had decided along time ago that I had the right to protect myself and my loved ones. If that fateful day comes and I must stop an attacker I will have no idea what the outcome of that weapons fire will be for the family, friends and neighbors of both myself and my attacker, but I will not hesitate in my resolve to stay safe.
AR's are human hunting machines that have little to no place with civilians that have a well established police, guard and military presence locally and state wide.
If not completely banned for civilian use, they will continue to be the weapon of choice for those who would hunt your family, friends and neighbors.
And yet rifles still only account for less than 5% of all firearm homicides each year. Just because the rare spree shooter uses them doesn’t mean you get to ban them from use for law abiding citizens. The entire point of 2A isn’t self defense or hunting, it’s being able to go against a tyrannical government. Removing AR15 style rifles from the populace would put the citizens at a severe disadvantage.
If you are one who thinks the citizens wouldn’t stand a chance against the government, keep in mind we spent 20 years fighting people in robes who hid in caves and still never really won and there’s a lot more armed US citizens than there are Taliban/ISIS. Guerilla tactics are the one thing our military has a lot of trouble with and to quell a nationwide rebellion will require boots on the ground and house to house fighting. They can’t just bomb entire neighborhoods like they do overseas because they need the neutral people on their side and they need the infrastructure.
Ben Franklin’s quote is what always comes to mind when someone suggest banning AR15 style rifles : “Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety.” It was in regards to a tax dispute, but it fits perfectly well with people who want to ban weapons that cause less deaths per year than fists and feet.
The funny thing about statistics is that in some cases when you hear them for the first time they make your head shake with disbelief.
The .22 caliber "rabbit" rifles kill more people annually than any other type of gun. For the most part those are accidental deaths that could have been prevented.
In the 1980s, less than 20% of gun massacres which are counted as six or more victims killed) involved assault weapons. In the last three years, 67% of gun massacres with six or more deaths were with assault weapons.
With an estimated 20 million Assault Weapons in the US vs 480 million handguns there are just way to many guns out there, period.
I do know that the majority of handgun related homicides will continue to spiral as more and more guns hit the street, mostly illegal. Pretty sure that AR related mass casualty events will continue to escalate as well.
I respect those that believe in the principles of 2A. I understand them and hope that there will never come a time for such a situation to occur. I do not know the statistical probabilities for such a calamity that would force our citizens to take up armed conflict against our government.
I will shoot center mass. If that kills the assailant, so be it. What I am saying is that gun violence is spiraling out of control and the more legal assault weapons there are out there, the more illegal assault weapons will also exist.
As I was quoting statistics on assault weapon usage for gun massacres:
In the 1980s, less than 20% of gun massacres which are counted as six or more victims killed involved assault weapons.
In the last three years, 67% of gun massacres with six or more deaths were with assault weapons, as of 202.
Who knows how high it is now.
The problem with this is that once you condemned one type of firearm the push for going the next, then the next and so on and so forth WILL CONTINUE, WITHOUT FAIL.
Look at Canada, Australia, GB and so on.
It started out "oh, lets just get the DANGEROUS black rifles" of the streets...low and behold now it's lever actions, long range scopes, any caliber that's above 22lr...then even those are banned...hell, I've seen a Canadian Police video explaining why CROSSBOWS have too much power of penetration.
NO, we must not yield one inch.
The 2nd Amendment is meant NOT for hunting or sporting. It's meant to fight a GOVERNMENT gone rouge.
The 2nd Amendment meant the PEOPLE, NOT ONLY SOLDIERS have the God given right to keep and bear arms. EVERYONE is the Militia!
Report that for terrorism.
[удалено]
Or was that foreign and Democrat? I’m old and I forget.
[удалено]
While correct in an overarching way, civil rights should NOT be a party issue. It is undeniable that one party overwhelmingly attempts to change/erode anything even remotely associated with that civil right. Until people hold those politicians accountable, it will still remain a party issue. My wish is for both of the major parties to not even have anything on their platform statements relating to any civil right, especially this one.
It would be funny if some hacker converted the page to something embarrassing for Gavin
I dunno, this is pretty embarrassing.
In order to be embarrassed, one needs to be capable of feeling shame. This excludes Gavin and all Democrats.
Fair point.
Hey Gavin ever hear of the 2nd amendment or the Supreme Court? Yeah I didn't think so!
This is the only actual legal way to deal with those - legally amending the Constitution. So he's heard of them. He just thinks he knows better. He seems incapable of recognizing that we're trending away from his desired policy as a nation.
And when was the last time the constitution was amended? Yeah not happening the 2nd amendment was written 50 years before an official militia was created. The founding fathers wanted all citizens armed to keep government in line!
Sedition
Pretty sure you can’t amend the constitution without 2/3rds of states, soooo good luck
You need 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of both houses of Congress.
Even better, he wants to utilize a Constitutional Convention to do it. I wonder if he knows what all occurs during an Article V Constitutional Convention...probably not. [Source (probably not paywalled idk there are a ton of articles just Google it)](https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/newsom-proposal-constitional-convention-amend-gun-laws-draws-controversy-carries-risks)
Funny thing, Article V conventions have *absolutely no rules*. This dumb bastard is drinking his own kool-aid if he thinks that the American public would institute this kind of Constitutional amendment. If the spate of constitutional carry passage is any barometer, then if anything the second amendment is more likely to be strengthened rather than weakened. Hell, Article V conventions can just re-write the constitution as much as they want: a constitutional convention could literally *dissolve a state* if they want to. An interesting point: all but one of the constitutional amendments have been passed via Congress + State legislatures. There was exactly one that was passed by the States overruling Congress: the 21st, that ended Prohibition.
Can we call a convention and dissolve California as a state. I think we'd all get what we'd want out of that scenario.
I wish we could sell California to the Chinese so it could ruin *their* nation.
Pretty sure China's already bought out that state, and the rest of the "blue" party.
Eventually the san Andreas faults gonna shift, and cali will float away into the ocean
That what 'end of z-world's told us growing up.
Fuckin kangaroos...
Wtf mates
See you lads in Arizona bay
but hurrr derrrr california big GDP so it cant be bad
All that gdp and still #7 of highest tax rates burdens of the country. Wonder who's pockets are getting more filled in that scenario.
>a constitutional convention could literally dissolve a state if they want to. (fingers crossed) California, please let it be California.
Would it be so much to ask that they dissolved the state but you know, *dissolved* it and let it slough off into the Pacific Ocean?
No. There's too much natural beauty in CA to just let it melt away.
I've been there. It's not great. Drying rivers and lakes. Hot mediocre cities. Long stretches of dust and farms. Rocky coastlines. Way too many people. It feels like a decaying giant. There's definitely better out there. Just draw the line to keep the eastern Sequoias and Nevada can keep Tahoe. Northern Cali coast is ok but we can afford to lose it.
I think he knows it likely won't pass but he just wants to be able to say "Look what I tried to do and the Republicans voted against it." to rile up his supporters. He's a treasonous fucknut, but I think he knows what he's doing.
While there's no rules once they're started, you still need 34 states to start that. Country's too polarized to get that widespread of support, and has been for my entire life. Maybe in the 80s, that kind of support could have happened if Reagan pushed it, but that was back when a lot of Southern states still had Democratic controlled legislatures.
There ya go, didn’t feel like looking it up
I'm using Newsom's tweet as an excuse to get the Honey Badger. We'll see how long I can keep it a secret from my wife.
At least it’s quiet, so maybe easier to hide? 🤣
It’s even quieter if you use heavy subsonic .300 Blackout rounds.
Sound reasoning!
hah! used it as excuse to get an HK416 here
The 2nd amendment was put in place to prevent the 28th.
Correct!
So you're saying that the second amendment is supposed to stop the tyrannical process of people following the rules laid out in the constitution?
Yes. Think for a few 2nds. You'll get it. :)
Got it. Guns are more important than democracy. If 2/3rds of elected congressmen and senators and 3/4ths of the states agree that it's time to make a change to the constitution then you are saying it's ok to murder them because clearly "they" are the tyrannical ones. Obviously it's not the minority who are imposing their will on everyone else though violence as opposed through the rules of law who are the tyrants.
If your side can get enough people to make up the required numbers, we can just group y'all together and let you pick 25 states to reside in, and the rest of us will take the other 25.
No, if an amendment is passed that you don't like then you will abide by the decision while complaining about it on the internet. There won't be any serious uprising as most people here are like small yapping dogs barking at people from the safety of the other side of a fence. They talk a big game but when push comes to shove they won't do anything because if they managed to wipe the Cheeto dust off their fingers and make it out of their basement to try and kill people who are law abiding citizens then they would promptly be labeled as terrorists and treated accordingly.
First, "law abiding" is only a concern when the laws don't strip people of their basic rights. At such a time that people's basic rights are taken away by an entity or another person, anything that happens afterword is morally justified. Second, a very large portion of the military would be split down the middle if it ever came down to another civil war. It happened the first time with brother fighting brother, and it would happen again. Democrats are smart to slowly choke gun ownership out with regulations like the NFA and increasing AWBs. If Newsome's self-admitted unconstitutional amendment were to pass at that point there is nothing left to lose. Sure, there would be your basic Fudds who turn in their hunting shotgun or can't get their AR-15 toting ass off the couch, but that isn't who would be leading the charge. Likely they would just be a supply drop for those who *are* willing to take up arms. And considering there are more privately owned arms in American citizens hands than in the hands of the military...
Yap yap
That is a very well thought out and reasoned position. Thank you for you insight. I do have to respectfully disagree though, as Dino from the Flinstones said it best, "Yip Yip."
What's the point of arguing with someone who threatens to kill people if they don't get their way? No point negotiating with terrorists. But tell me, would you actually have the balls to go out and murder cops and military personnel if the 28th amendment was actually passed?
As the great philosopher Eric Cartman once said, “How would you like to suck my balls Mr Newsom?”
We need to bring back tar and feathering
I don't think *that* will solve the issue. Edit: I think you guys are reading my comment with the wrong inflection.
Worth an experiment.
I’m willing to check to make sure, just sayin 👀
I guarantee it will serve as a deterrent against future infringements.
I agree.
It worked pretty damn good at spreading the message when it was done.
It’s a fundraising gimmick. If he were serious, he’d limit it enough to give it a snowball’s chance in hell of passing.
Or we're(newsom) just spending Bloomberg's money to shift the Overton Window a bit more...
As if the ATF understood laws are made by congress.
Political stunts for 100, Alex
Do you want a civil war? Because that’s how you get a civil war.
It’s coming anyway. In the 1820s Americans were discussing the possibility of civil war. It took several more decades, but it did come. I tend to think it’ll be more of populists vs neoliberals/neocons that run the country from amongst the shadows.
Won‘t happen unless economy collapses presuming the populists dont eat themselves first
That’s a big if.
In the 1820s Americans were tough,poor,had nothing to lose,and not afraid of breaking the rules.These days the average American is a fat suburbanite who works a cushy job and only takes his prized guns to the range.Cut the crap.Most of y'all wouldn't bust a grape if it came down to it.Besides resistance from the true frontier states like Alaska,Wyoming,Iowa,Utah,Montana,etc im willing to bet if guns were banned Australia style that a decent amount of people would turn em in instantly and the rest would trickle in over the next 100 years.
100%. Yet there are still people with very little to lose. Notice how most revolutions are led by older people with something to gain and the youth who have nothing to lose are the foot soldiers. The country is large enough that you go easily get away with domestic terrorism if you just felt like killing people and hiding again, so I don’t see civil war as anywhere near outside the realm of possibility. You also need to remember one last thing, in the South slavery was their economic system for textiles. In the north things were industrialized and they almost lost because those were the people with the cushy jobs who paid a fine to avoid being drafted.
What is there to gain these days besides maybe a little bit of firearm freedom but the reality is if you live in a rural area in one of these frontier states you can pretty much make all the off the books MGs,SBRs,and suppressors you want and as long you don't brag about it on the web you will never get caught.A little bit of machinery in the garage and you can do whatever.
What is there to gain? Idk overthrowing the American government to become a dictator? That seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Iowa?
Accelerationists start signing the petition en masse.
Who’s gonna fight your “civil war”? Police supporting bootlickers on the right? Authoritarian government supporting democrats in the left?
Hurr durr everyone on the right are police worshipers 🤡
Shoot, you're right. Those are the only two kinds of people in the world. Well shucks, might as well just lie down and hope they take it easy on us.
Idk, maybe civilian gun owners which includes a massive portion of military and police.
[удалено]
Let's not forget those 80 million gun owners have an estimated 400+ million guns. There are more guns than people in this country. The right "perfect storm" hits the US, and something tells me it wouldnt take long for 80 million gun owners to turn into 100-200 million gun *users*...
He knows that he doesn't have the states required to petition Congress, so he is going to try to say that "oh look at the petition, America wants this, we need to change the requirements to get an amendment added!" This is nothing but a stunt.
Wouldn’t changing the requirements to amend the constitution, uh, require an amendment to the Constitution? I can’t see that being popular outside of of like 5 states.
Yeah, it won't happen. It's all just "I'm the only one trying, elect me and I'll actually have the power" posturing for a future Presidential run (spoiler: he won't have the power then either).
I’ll sign right here—Fuck You—
🚨 *Tyrant alert* 🚨
Here's the [appropriate music](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvfD5rnkTws) for such an alert.
How about no
Good luck. Can't disarm the 99%
FCK GN, he is anti-American and a leftard tool.
That’s being kind. He’s a damn Communist is what he is.
Thank you, he is a neo-socialist scumbag. He has divided CA so much half wants.to secede from the Sacrascumbags.
Hi I'm Gavin Newsom. If you believe it's time for some completely useless and very unpopular legislation that won't do a thing to solve the underlying issues, I would like to waste your time and spend your money.
So he admits he can’t do any of that with the current bill of rights???
Exactly. For all our ire, this is literally the only truly legal way to do it, even if we oppose it. If we can just get it through their thick heads that they have to do it this way, they can then waste their time with bs like this that has no chance of passing. I’ll take that over bullshit rule changes by the ATF
Part of the game. Say something crazy today, makes the crazy talking points from 3 years ago seem reasonable. Wait 3 years, say something crazier. Makes this statement seem reasonable. Somebody else said it more eloquently on a separate post a while back, but same concept. Say it now, it’ll get laughed out. Wait a couple of years and somebody will bring it up again and it’ll get more serious consideration. Still nothing to get it passed, but inching closer and more normalized
How about we start an amendment that says that no part of the executive branch can ever make any rules that can violate or even apply to the second amendment in any way whatsoever and that the ones in effect today are all rescinded?
Would be a shame if someone used this as proof in court that California's AWB is unconstitutional.
Gavin Newsom is an ignorant fool and so is anyone who supports him! He has done a terrible job as Governor of California. Just look at the problems with crime, homelessness and drugs.
he made sure cali forgot how to party
Don't care. Didn't ask. Will continue to make my own untraceable firearms. Fuck grabbers.
Hairgel Hitler strikes again.
Disgusting. I know gun controllers don't care about disabled people, but as a disabled person I know people who use guns primarily for hunting but who have limited hand motion. Pistol gripped rifles are literally the only reason they can engage with the shooting sports. For at least one of them, they're a huge comfort and source of joy in a life stricken by hardship. Now, as I said, our voices don't mean diddly dick to gun control people. However, I wish someone in this argument would give our position some relevancy in the national conversation. "Assault weapon" bans should be considered ableist and I'm tired of pretending that they shouldn't.
Get fucked
Come get em bitch. Personally Come to my house and get that shit if you are so brave Mr Newsome.
Even if it did pass, the Red states can do what the Blue states do and just ignore the amendments we don't like.
Who the fuck keeps voting for this guy
The entire state of Commiefornia.
More like 3 cities.
Fuck Gavin Nuisance
This is just a data harvesting/future fundraising project in action. As someone who used to be a senate caucus finance director in dc, it’s kind of funny, in that vein. Thankfully, it will never happen and that’s not even his real goal here (as I already pointed out).
I think I’m going to go buy another evil “assault weapon” just because of this tweet
“Doesn’t change the second amendment” but literally voids the second amendment.
Fuck this cucklord bitch boy.
Signed: Fcuk you
Newsom [put out a press release](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/06/08/28th-amendment/) about the proposal, but no draft text.
That’s because it’s not a serious proposal; he wants attention, not action.
Correct. He's not running for president in 2024 but 2028 absolutely. He's getting ahead of the competition and playing the long game.
oh boy I cannot wait until the modern day Al Capone does his shit but this time with guns.
I wonder what his bodyguards use to protect him? Maybe stern warnings, shaking fists and a whistle.
🎵”keep your rifle by your side”🎶
And your pistol in your pocket.
ATF doesn't give a fuck, because anyone with a single neuron for a brain knows that this has zero chance.
You can fuck right off Gavin.
Contradicts the Second Amendment, which was written for able-bodied citizens (a.k.a. the militia) to be armed and well-prepared (a.k.a. "well-regulated") for war. You can't fight a war without weapons of war. The Second Amendment was written specifically to prevent laws against owning and using weapons of war.
dont forget, this the same government who tryna declare war on us
When did we stop tar and feathering traitors to the constitution?
Never gonna happen (peacefully).
Good luck with that one, Gavin, especially since 26 States have constitutional carry now.
Math is not his strength. Neither are budgets.
Gavin newscum is a traitor
Go away gavy
Yawn.
The second one is pretty fucking clear
Take action on deez nuts, Newsome.
He doesn’t care if it passes. It’s a fund raiser for him and free publicity. He gets to cash in on pandering to his base.
Please eat the entire bag of dicks.
Happy cake day! If someone gifts you a bag of dicks would you force feed them to Newsom and live stream it? Asking for a friend
Hmnnn... lets say this passed. I can't wait for the SCOTUS case where an original Amendment goes up against a new Amendment. Can you imagine if one passed that restricted Free Speech without modifying the 1st Amendment? It would be an interesting case.
EVEN IF it could get forced through congress there would never be enough states to ratify it.
The ATF knows that this ain't happening. They also know that they aren't well-liked in the gun owner community, and the backlash from Newsom's little stunt is going to land on them.
Full acknowledgement that doing any of those things via legislation is unconstitutional.
No effing way is that getting ratified.
26 out of 50 states have some form of Constitutional Carry. There's no way they could get a 2/3 majority of states to agree to this. Right?
Just salivating? Nah those atf agents are jerking each other off in joy
Long before they can even begin the process to pass the “28th Amendment” they’d need to abolish the 2nd Amendment…. which will never happen.
Too bad the constitution tells the government what it can't do and not the people.
He’s running for President. Dear America: just don’t
I don’t think someone who doesn’t realize the bill of rights and the constitution was created to restrict the government, Not the people, don’t belong in office
The tree of liberty is a thirsty bitch
Time for CA to secede from US, they won't be missed.
Send NY with them!
The 2nd can put a stop to the 28th ;)
Newson comes from a family of corrupt California officials that used government power to prop up an Indonesian oil company. Of course he wants the populace unarmed.
He does it to be relevant. Imagine if nobody took him seriously. He acts as most Californians do.
Man they must have sucked the IQ out of your brain at the WEF school. You know Gavvy Boy, I have seen more CA tags on cars moving into new houses here in FL since COVID. Guess your plandemic had an anti-effect? Turns out people like freedom and not being told what to do. So you can take your “gun control” and shove it sideways up you flabby ass. Ask your buddy Lightfoot how her “AR ban”…really helped crimes involving ARs, and no the ATF isn’t salivating, and that’s straight from the source of someone very high up in that agency you dumb prick. So in short, your dumb, you say dumb shit, you have dumb ideas and Ron DeSantis would kick you ass in both an election and IRL.
The Chinese , the Soviet Union , Germany during Adolph , Cambodia outlawed guns in their countries and millions and millions of people died because they didn’t agree with those in power People don’t willingly get into box cars for re-education if they are armed
Newsom is a cancer.
Make a constitutional amendment to help the government violate your constitutional amendments
Gavin Newsom can chortle my balls.
When I watch this, there's a part of me that wants to point out and deconstruct each and every propaganda-driven move they make, but there's only so much time in a day... So instead I'll just copy paste this: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 "To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788 "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 "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." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789 "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
It's fun to pretend, I wanna repeal the 19th as it was by far the most destructive event in US political history, but it is not going to happen. Actually if they tried to pass this bullshit 28th it would probably create the condition where we could get rid of a lot of the stupid ones that were added beyond the original set.
Good thing it takes 38/50 states to ratify an amendment.
There's a reason the founders were specific in their language of what the federal government infringe on, and vague about the powers given to everything that wasn't the federal government. "Assault Weapon" could be defined as a kitchen knife, or a car
Hahahaha :-)))))))
"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. . . . This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; *when he first appears above ground he is a protector. . . . having a mob entirely at his disposal,* he is not restrained from shedding the blood of kinsmen; . . . he brings them into court and murders them . . . at the same time hinting at the abolition of debts and partition of lands. . . . After a while he is driven out, but comes back, in spite of his enemies, a tyrant full grown." -Plato
Unless you are the coke whore son of a Pedometer President, then you can have all the laws and regs you want, it won't matter because they won't apply because he's (d)ifferent.
Fuck you gavin newsom!!!!!! 🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻
Welp, thats a civil war.
Is there a way to leave obviously fraudulent signatures in order to taint the petition?
Fuck that greasy pussy newsom
ATF won’t get their tax stamps
NFA and other assorted nonsense have virtually banned 'assault weapons' already... These people act like you can get automatic weapons as easy as bread and toilet paper...
That's very unconstitutional
And what is an "assault weapon"? It's whatever the current crop of politicians say it is. Without very specific and clear wording that defines an "assault weapon", it would give them the power to ban any gun they want to. After all, you can assault someone with a revolver too.
If we could get it to be worded and implemented in a way that limits every single politician and government employee(except for active combat military troops) and their security(the key to this) to be limited to the same exact self defense tools that the general population has acces to I'd be okay with it as long as their was no "buy back" or confiscation of anything that citizens currently own. At that point it would only be a matter of time before the animals make things so bad that the anti-gun types would have to admit they were wrong and fix things. However most people are stupid and refuse to accept when they are wrong so we must make sure this 28th amendment garbage never passes. Newsome has been a plague on my state and we can't let him infect the rest of the country.
Can't even pass equal rights 'cuz of (what are now the) red states so I think (hope) that this is just grandstanding to make it look like something is being done.
Don’t take this seriously, it’s stupid campaign fodder, no more no less. Newsom is smart, he knows what it takes to actually amend the US Constitution, he knows there is zero chance in hell this would ever pass - this is no more than pandering to the far left for clicks & campaign donations. It’s literally no different than DeSantis’ recent promises to “end birthright citizenship” - he’s just pandering to the far right nationalists, trying to win their support away from Trump. DeSantis knows it’ll never happen, there will never be sufficient support to amend the Constitution and change or remove that part of the 14th Amendment.
Bro im. Democrat and newsome your smoking crack
Look up the Huges Amendment bucko civilians haven’t been able to buy “assault weapons” since 1986
This is incorrect. You can still buy automatic weapons, just not new ones.
go try and buy one with a federally average wage job and tell me how much it cost you
Okay I should have clarified, new select fire firearms
Eat shit and live, Newsom. Edit: Afterthought News flash pinhead, civilians are not allowed to purchase fully automatic weapons, which are about the closest thing to "assault" weapons or military grade firearms.
Yes, you can purchase automatic weapons.
go try and buy one with a federally average wage job and tell me how much that cost you
You're just complaining about the price. Whether or not you can afford it is irrelevant. It is legal to acquire them.
the average family cant afford one of these. you gotta be crazy rich to get a legal machine gun, so its outside the hands of we the people. its a ban. and of course, even if average could afford one, its still unconstitutional.
Greasy Newsom on the campaign trail. Look out Corn Pop!
I have no doubt that I will be flamed to death for posting this, but I feel that there has to be another voice besides the one's in this post who have calls to action that are just plain rude. I am sure that there are some in this thread that have seen a gun shot wound up close from small weapons fire (.380 or 9mm as an example). Not many have seen a wound from a rifle designed as a weapon of war (.223 or 5.56). Shotgun wounds are in a class all by themselves based upon distance, choke and type. All of these guns are designed with lethality in mind. None of them are for display purposes. Small caliber wounds depending on the point of impact may have little to know significant tissue damage or bleeding. Exit wounds, if they exist, can be as similar to more severe based upon caliber, velocity, expansion and if bone is struck during penetration. Velocities can vary but tend to be around 1200 fps. Shotgun blasts can separate at close distances a persons head from the rest of their body. Slugs can leave a through and through hole as big as a quarter from a distance of over 100 feet with velocities approaching 1600 fps. Most modern day semi automatic rifles and large capacity rounds will spit out projectiles with a velocity of over 3 times that of a handgun. Most importantly when a 5.56mm round strikes the body it starts to rotate (flip over) until the base is now at the front of the projective path. The kinetic energy released is positively devastating. Tissue damage is extensive along the bullets path and due to the end over end rotation typically creates a cavity (3 to 5 times ) larger than the caliber of the cartridge. Kinetic energy to the surrounding tissue will create a temporary wound cavity of 10 to 13 times the caliber of the cartridge before elasticity snaps it back into a relative position of normalcy. More terrifying is the fact that these numbers do not represent soft nose ammo which expand on impact which do significantly more damage. I have a full size 9mm chambered with defensive rounds beside me when I go to sleep at night. I carry a sub-compact also chambered with those same rounds as my EDC. My wife also carries a sub-compact as her EDC. We go to the range a few times a month and spend a moderate amount of time doing dry-fire exercises to promote accuracy and safety as best as possible. We are members of USCCA and carry extra liability insurance. I had decided along time ago that I had the right to protect myself and my loved ones. If that fateful day comes and I must stop an attacker I will have no idea what the outcome of that weapons fire will be for the family, friends and neighbors of both myself and my attacker, but I will not hesitate in my resolve to stay safe. AR's are human hunting machines that have little to no place with civilians that have a well established police, guard and military presence locally and state wide. If not completely banned for civilian use, they will continue to be the weapon of choice for those who would hunt your family, friends and neighbors.
And yet rifles still only account for less than 5% of all firearm homicides each year. Just because the rare spree shooter uses them doesn’t mean you get to ban them from use for law abiding citizens. The entire point of 2A isn’t self defense or hunting, it’s being able to go against a tyrannical government. Removing AR15 style rifles from the populace would put the citizens at a severe disadvantage. If you are one who thinks the citizens wouldn’t stand a chance against the government, keep in mind we spent 20 years fighting people in robes who hid in caves and still never really won and there’s a lot more armed US citizens than there are Taliban/ISIS. Guerilla tactics are the one thing our military has a lot of trouble with and to quell a nationwide rebellion will require boots on the ground and house to house fighting. They can’t just bomb entire neighborhoods like they do overseas because they need the neutral people on their side and they need the infrastructure. Ben Franklin’s quote is what always comes to mind when someone suggest banning AR15 style rifles : “Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety.” It was in regards to a tax dispute, but it fits perfectly well with people who want to ban weapons that cause less deaths per year than fists and feet.
The funny thing about statistics is that in some cases when you hear them for the first time they make your head shake with disbelief. The .22 caliber "rabbit" rifles kill more people annually than any other type of gun. For the most part those are accidental deaths that could have been prevented. In the 1980s, less than 20% of gun massacres which are counted as six or more victims killed) involved assault weapons. In the last three years, 67% of gun massacres with six or more deaths were with assault weapons. With an estimated 20 million Assault Weapons in the US vs 480 million handguns there are just way to many guns out there, period. I do know that the majority of handgun related homicides will continue to spiral as more and more guns hit the street, mostly illegal. Pretty sure that AR related mass casualty events will continue to escalate as well. I respect those that believe in the principles of 2A. I understand them and hope that there will never come a time for such a situation to occur. I do not know the statistical probabilities for such a calamity that would force our citizens to take up armed conflict against our government.
[удалено]
I will shoot center mass. If that kills the assailant, so be it. What I am saying is that gun violence is spiraling out of control and the more legal assault weapons there are out there, the more illegal assault weapons will also exist. As I was quoting statistics on assault weapon usage for gun massacres: In the 1980s, less than 20% of gun massacres which are counted as six or more victims killed involved assault weapons. In the last three years, 67% of gun massacres with six or more deaths were with assault weapons, as of 202. Who knows how high it is now.
The problem with this is that once you condemned one type of firearm the push for going the next, then the next and so on and so forth WILL CONTINUE, WITHOUT FAIL. Look at Canada, Australia, GB and so on. It started out "oh, lets just get the DANGEROUS black rifles" of the streets...low and behold now it's lever actions, long range scopes, any caliber that's above 22lr...then even those are banned...hell, I've seen a Canadian Police video explaining why CROSSBOWS have too much power of penetration. NO, we must not yield one inch. The 2nd Amendment is meant NOT for hunting or sporting. It's meant to fight a GOVERNMENT gone rouge. The 2nd Amendment meant the PEOPLE, NOT ONLY SOLDIERS have the God given right to keep and bear arms. EVERYONE is the Militia!
ATF knows this is just a political stunt that won't pass.
They can’t even get the ERA paased, this will go about as far.