2nd Amendment thread

Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
3,646
Reaction score
15,091
Location
South Dakota
"
he is a complete fucking moron. 27 states have Constitutional Carry now, but he thinks 3/4 will vote against the express warnings of the founding fathers and the "shall not be infringed" phrase? This is a bullshit propaganda publicity stunt, and the only thing to come of it is that he is a traitor who refuses to follow his own oath to the Constitution.
 

mat200

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
13,955
Reaction score
23,264
"
he is a complete fucking moron. 27 states have Constitutional Carry now, but he thinks 3/4 will vote against the express warnings of the founding fathers and the "shall not be infringed" phrase? This is a bullshit propaganda publicity stunt, and the only thing to come of it is that he is a traitor who refuses to follow his own oath to the Constitution.
100% .. Newsom betrayed his oath of office .. too bad the recall failed .. sheep in People's Republik of Kalifornia
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
1,675
Reaction score
5,520
Location
Florida, USA
It would be worded to REPLACE the Second Amendment and render 2A null in much the same way Prohibition was repealed and the amendment forbidding alcohol was repealed.
I guess I am dense. Alcohol use, to the best of my knowledge, was never a specified right by the Constitution.

If the 28th amendment is written to replace the 2A then I would think that it would fail at the the Supreme Court because 2/3 of the states did not agree?
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
3,646
Reaction score
15,091
Location
South Dakota
I guess I am dense. Alcohol use, to the best of my knowledge, was never a specified right by the Constitution.

If the 28th amendment is written to replace the 2A then I would think that it would fail at the the Supreme Court because 2/3 of the states did not agree?
It would never go to the Supreme Court because it would NEVER be ratified into law by 3/4 of the states.

He's playing a bigger game-- probably aiming at the Electoral College. He knows this BS amendment will never happen, but he will use that and portray it as an unfair "failure" of the Constitution where many low-population states can block this kind of idiocy that urban areas want. They can convince urban idiot mouth-breathers that "it's the guns". His bigger game is to work towards the removal of states rights and make Federal laws and bureaucracies the ultimate authority (just like State laws and buraucracies like CARB in Commiefornia). He wants totalitarianism.
 
Last edited:

rolibr24

Getting comfortable
Joined
Dec 3, 2021
Messages
655
Reaction score
3,019
Location
USA
It would never go to the Supreme Court because it would NEVER be ratified into law by 3/4 of the states.

He's playing a bigger game-- probably at the Electoral College. He knows it will never happen, but he will use that and portray it as an unfair "failure" of the Constitution where many low-population states can block this kind of idiocy that urban areas want. They can convince urban idiot mouth-breathers that "it's the guns". His bigger game is to work towards the removal of states rights and make Federal laws and bureaucracies the ultimate authority (just like State laws and buraucracies like CARB in Commiefornia). He wants totalitarianism.
Thats the goal of every single demoncrat
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Messages
839
Reaction score
2,280
It would never go to the Supreme Court because it would NEVER be ratified into law by 3/4 of the states.

He's playing a bigger game-- probably aiming at the Electoral College. He knows this BS amendment will never happen, but he will use that and portray it as an unfair "failure" of the Constitution where many low-population states can block this kind of idiocy that urban areas want. They can convince urban idiot mouth-breathers that "it's the guns". His bigger game is to work towards the removal of states rights and make Federal laws and bureaucracies the ultimate authority (just like State laws and buraucracies like CARB in Commiefornia). He wants totalitarianism.
Eliminating the Electoral College would still require a constitutional amendment, so it would get no more traction than an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment. There is simply no way that 38 states will approve an amendment that effectively makes a minority of states the arbiter of all federal elections.

The only leeway is that the Constitution does allow states to choose how they allocate their electors, i.e. winner-take-all or proportional allocation. Several blue states have taken a stand against the "tyranny" of the Electoral College by passing the ridiculous National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which says that they'll give all their electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote (regardless of the popular vote in their own state) once sufficient states join the Compact. Sounds great, right? No more pesky Electoral College! One person, one vote for President! Democracy wins!

What none of them point out is the the Compact isn't worth the paper it's written on. All it will take is for the shoe to be on the other foot, i.e. a Democrat squeaks by with more electoral votes than popular votes, and every blue state will repeal it so quickly that everyone's head will spin. It's pure political show.

Newsom is preparing for a presidential run in case Biden is incapable of serving a second term. No one is going to amend the Constitution, and Newsom knows it. He's just pandering to the gun control lobby for future votes.
 

tigerwillow1

Known around here
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
3,849
Reaction score
8,519
Location
USA, Oregon
All it will take is for the shoe to be on the other foot, i.e. a Democrat squeaks by with more electoral votes than popular votes, and every blue state will repeal it so quickly that everyone's head will spin. It's pure political show.
This would be yet another screwup by the stupid dems who can only see short term greed and not care about the long term consequences. I believe such a previous act is the reason the supreme court is majority conservative. Not that political leaning should have any effect on court decisions because they are driven solely by the constitution ;)
 

garycrist

Known around here
Joined
Sep 25, 2021
Messages
2,324
Reaction score
6,856
Location
Texas
I have had the pleasure of metal detecting several Civil War sites all legally. We even dug
where the 2nd Maine was camped on Hospital Hill, suffering from Small Pox. The location was
Stonemans Switch in Virginia. I do not remember any explosive Gardners found there.

Look for "diggin in Virginia" videos. You might see me digging a $3000 cobalt blue master ink,
with 2 miniature 12 panel ink bottles This hut site was extremely clean with little litter in the fire pit.
While cleaning the floor we noticed a burn pit in the center of the excavation. We dug it and found
some burned stuff but underneath was an old disintegrating metal frame with a glass image of
some gal left behind! The glass turned black in just a few minutes.

 
Top