Assault on Our Rights

Governor Newsom has proposed a new amendment, not to abolish the 2nd, but to HEAVILY restrict it.

www.foxnews.com...

Some might read this and think "oh that might not be a bad idea", but in reality this is their back door into demolishing our 2nd amendment rights all together.

He wants "universal background checks"; those are already a thing.

He wants to raise the legal age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21; that is already a thing most places anymore.

He wants to institute a waiting period; if someone is going to kill, waiting 3-5 days will not affect them in the slightest

And of course, his big ticket ban "assault weapons"; that would be nice if he could give us a definition on assault weapons first and foremost.


This is an all out assault on the 2nd amendment and as I said, he states that this will not "change" the 2nd amendment, adding in "Newsom's proposed amendment would also affirm that Congress, states and local governments can enact additional gun control measures." leaves that back door wide open for them to create whatever laws they want in the future to take anything and everything from us.

a reply to: PorkChop96
This is great.
It shows his distaste for individual rights and constitutional rights at the same time.
I hope he shouts this to everyone.

a reply to: PorkChop96

The states would never approve it. It's part of his POTUS campain........virtue signalling to the Marxist Democrat Base of voters.

"Shall not means shall not." - 2A

"Cowardice." - 1A

a reply to: TonyS
It’s a good thing.
When someone tells you exactly who they are, believe them.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Gavin newsome. Nancy Pelosi's nephew?

a reply to: BeNotAfraid

the 2a is a restriction on the federal government, this was intended to give the states the right to enact the laws the citizens want to live by without interference from the federal government. Any state, is well within its right to pass laws regarding "gun control"

this however does not encompass the current state of political backdoors dealings and does not address the fact these laws are being passed, at the state level, without a popular vote.

a reply to: datguy

There are also some states trying to pass legislation to clear them from any federal gun laws. I believe Missouri is one of them

a reply to: PorkChop96

seems they got shut down by the US Justice dept.
US judge strikes down missouri gun law

Im kinda mixed on this one, it heavily penalized local officials for participating in federal investigations. This isn't a good way to tackle crime in a state with one of the highest gun death rates.

But at the same time, i hope someone is challenging the ruling to preserve states rights but i doubt that will happen

a reply to: datguy

I would definitely say Missouri is not one of the sates with the highest gun death rates. Not by a long shot

originally posted by: PorkChop96
he states that this will not "change" the 2nd amendment,

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.

I do commend him for trying to subvert our rights the correct way. A constitutional amendment is the right way to enact change like this. But unless they take over the SCOTUS, this won't go anywhere.

Shall not be infringed, just seems so.....absolute.

From my cold dead hands Gavin, come get some.

Kansas City and St. Louis are among the cities with the highest incidents of violent crime. Outside of those two areas however, Missouri is one of the lowest. Amazing what happens in democrat run sh!tholes.

And as for the topic at hand, F Gavin and all who can't understand "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: TonyS
It’s a good thing.
When someone tells you exactly who they are, believe them.

Are you kidding? Have you not noticed that Democrats routinely, near compulsivly tell you the exact opposite of who they are.

Newsome says he's not anti-2nd amendment means he IS anti-second amendment.
He says he only wants to regulate? He really wants to confiscate and outlaw ownership.

a reply to: TonyS

A defenseless citizenship is easier to overtake than a well armed one.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: datguy

I would definitely say Missouri is not one of the sates with the highest gun death rates. Not by a long shot

I guess i should have been clearer, it wasn't me that said it.
CDC.gov
Everytownresearch.org


a reply to: Moon68
a reply to: TonyS

Your missing the point
Passing state legislature does not infringe on the 2a
the 2a is specifically restrictive of federal government, NOT states rights

a reply to: Moon68

And if KC could excise certain areas it wouldn't be that bad although the state of the economy is taking a toll.

a reply to: datguy

No. The Bill of Rights is a right secured to the people so 9th and 10th do not override the Bill of Rights.

a reply to: datguy

I understand you were not saying it, and too be fair I don't know how much I trust the CDC for anything anymore, let alone gun deaths. According to the chart, their are 8 states that rank higher than MO.

But federal trumps state rights, if they pass federal laws the state has to follow. Hence why Missouri was tryhingt o get away from having to be under fed rule.

Either way, passing more gun laws is not going to have the affect they think/want it to. All they are going to accomplish is disarming the law abiding citizens and keep the guns in the hands of the criminals we have ours to defend ourselves from. All of those unnecessary deaths will be on their hands, but they don't care.

originally posted by: PorkChop96

All of those unnecessary deaths will be on their hands, but they don't care.

nuff said!