Posted on 06/08/2023 6:46:47 AM PDT by PROCON
Propose all he wants. There’s no way 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states will ratify it.
Good luck Gavin in getting that Article V process going. You’re a lunatic an most of the country knows it. Titling at windmills he is.
“Assault weapons” will mean anything that they want.
bttt
“There’s no way Biden can beat Trump with an economy this good...”
I would agree with you if the old rules and laws were still in effect. I see no evidence to support this assumption these days.
So, should I go ahead and reserve a front-row seat in the courts for this? I would assume the ink won’t be dry before the challenge is filed.
I would rather have:
A Balanced Budget Amendment with Term Limits.
I hope everyone realizes that this man wants to be president. If you think biden is bad for the country, just wait!
This is why the left is using law enforcement as its private mafia to harass and stop Donald J. Trump.
I’m pretty sure you cannot amend the first ten (10) amendments-the Bill of Rights. You’ll need a Constitutional Convention for that.
That's a dangerous thing if implemented improperly. The Dems would just keep raising tax rates to cover their insatiable spending behavior. There is only so much blood to squeeze from a turnip. The better approach is to clearly define GDP and limit revenue collection to 18% of GDP AND limit spending to 95% of revenue collection. It would still take years to reduce the debt back to zero. The financial bloodletting needs to be reined in.
The 2nd Amendment does not “establishes a right to bear firearms for personal self-defense” - it does no such thing. It states that “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.”
The term “well regulated” in the time in which it was written meant well-trained, skilled, firearms and other in well maintained ready to use condition. It did not and never has meant “reglated” as in some regulation local or otherwise.
Since all of the People- as then defined as able bodied males (and females) were to consist of the “Militia” of each of the United... States— then all of the People should not have their keeping and bearing (in public or otherwise) of Arms infringed by the “government” so described in Constitution, Amended in the 2nd of the first Amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. These Bills of Rights were limitations on the government- not on the People. What the government cannot do- ever.
Fox News is full of crap, and the description of the 2nd Amendment to be Amended by the 28th is ridiculous, and no way Constitutional.
Many here have said this is “going about it the right way”.Apparently with little to no understanding of any potential “right” way.
Really—”do away with the 2nd Amendment” part of the original 10 Bill of Rights that are NOT Rights of the Government but Rights of the People as so described limiting what government may NOT do to the People? No Amendment of the Original Bill of Rights (which were adopted as permanent required for approval by the Constitutional Congress of the US Constitution so conceived.) has ever occurred nor will unless at the forced end of military conquering this country. Which was the point, in the first place.
The question this moron is cleverly trying to run around is: Can the Bill of Rights be modified or updated? Answer:The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.
Newsom- as a governor, part of government and not the People, does not have a “Right” to create abolishment of an Amendment. The very wording of the 2nd Amendment itself provides the People to not have government infringe their Right. He has the legal state given OK to to try to organize political creation at “a” State’s level to go through laborious hoops to change it maybe, but he does not have a “right”. Words mean things- Newsome does not have rights in this case and many others- and not through fakea@@ ballot initiatives or high tech jiggery pokery. So,as governor he has the legal position to do that within his jurisdictional role in the State of Californication, and can run his mouth as yet another idiot demonrat, challenging poopy pants the wonder criminal. Grandstanding fruitcake that he is nationally this is a dead Marxist initiative. Part of the original 20 tasks of world Communist goals.
Why not any other of the Bill of Rights— don’t think it’s not on their agenda.
As of today: Newsom along with Pence have both eliminated whatever % they could fake and squeeze out of their “public”— immediately. Dead as disco— on arrival- both of them.
It also proscribes exactly the kind of infringement this proposed amendment represents.
Newsom, the next presidential candidate from the ass party.
Mark my words.
5.56mm
🙂
I live in CA also...
Do I believe that Newsom avoided being recalled because Democrats committed some election fraud?
No...
Too many CA voters are willing to vote for Newsom rather for some GOP candidate like Elder...
Larry Elder pointed out that Newsom did a horrible job as a governor...But, people did not care...
Newsom aired TV ads linking Elder to President Trump...I think those ads were effective...Many CA voters refused to vote for somebody who is like President Trump...They rather vote for some Democrat like Gavin Newsom...
I do not like to say this...CA is a very liberal state...I wish that was not the case...
Sorry, Elder is horrible. He said Biden won fair and square. IMHO, Kevin Kiley is/was 100% better.
Good luck with that.
Every leftist POS eventually does that.
nope!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.