Gavin Newsom
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (AP Photo/Ashley Landis, Pool)

How do you know that, not so deep down, California Governor Gavin Newsom is hoping that President Silver Alert doesn’t make it to election day and he’s the one who’s called upon to take up the Democrats’ banner in the fight against the Trumpublicans? Today, he announced that he’s proposing a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because the Second Amendment apparently guarantees Americans too much freedom for them to handle.

“Our ability to make a more perfect union is literally written into the Constitution,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “So today, I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to do just that. The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

What would the oleaginous pol’s proposed amendment do exactly? Four things, primarily.

The 28th Amendment will permanently enshrine four broadly supported gun safety principles into the U.S. Constitution:

      • Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21;
      • Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime;
      • Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases; and
      • Barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time – weapons of war our nation’s founders never foresaw.

Governor Newsom, who a sycophantic Senator Aisha Wahab calls a “man of action,” may know something about politics, but he clearly has much to learn about basic math. It takes a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of the states — 33 — to propose a constitutional amendment. And then three-fourths of them — 38 states — have to vote to ratify the amendment.

By design, that’s not an easy task. Just ask proponents of the moribund Equal Rights Amendment how big a hill that is to climb.

Don’t look now, Governor, but 27 states have enacted permitless concealed carry laws. A couple of others are likely candidates to join that club in the near future. How many of those states do you think will sign on to your gun control constitutional amendment that will “affirm Congress, states, and local governments can enact additional common-sense gun safety regulations that save lives?”

This stunt is little more than a grandstanding media-grab in order to deflect attention from the doom spiral of his state’s two largest cities while trying to demonstrate for national Dems that he has the chops should Memory Care Joe go down for good. If nothing else, it should be mildly entertaining to watch this thing die of terminal neglect and a chronic lack of support.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

157 COMMENTS

    • does he really think we want the rest of the country to be like California?…this guy is delusional….

  2. Cool.
    Now hiw about the 29th Amendment, where any Public Officeholder that has taken a sworn oath to uphold the U S Constitution and then seeks to ignore it or usurp the intent of itt is summarily removed from office and tried for treason.
    Can’t imagine many pols on either side of the fence would serve a full term.

    • That’ll happen right AFTER Congress passes “term limits” and a balanced budget amendment…

      • “That’ll happen right AFTER Congress passes “term limits”…”

        The national legislature already has “term limits”. The same people who make long careers of their elected positions, don’t vote themselves into office; their constituents do that. Why would anyone think that those constituents would vote for the opposition candidate, after “their guy” is forced from office due to further term limits?

        Might be useful to look at US history after Republicans passed a term limit for the office of President.

        • The national legislature already has “term limits

          Big difference between being limited by law to the number of times you can hold a particular office and simply failing to be reelected… At least one prevents the uninformed masses from continually sending an ineffective idiot back to DC just because they voted for that person in the last election, or the candidate is of a particular political party… Hell who knows it might actually force some people to become “informed” voters… That probably scares the hell out of politicians more than anything else…

    • Yes……..but this would be about the only way they can realistically ignore Bruen so points for their taking the time and actually understanding the current legal battlefield. I would be more interested in who worked on that idea and what else they are working on.

      • They’re ignoring that ruling now, and deliberately trying to tie up the courts with their appeals. Time is here for the Supreme Court to issue a new ruling with some sanctions for noncompliance against these rogue states. This unlawful nonsense by the ( primarily ) blue states must be stopped.

        • Ultimately that is what we are pressing for, also SAFE act related oral arguments soon for federal district court level.

  4. “Isn’t that speashull”… Someone PLEASE inform “Hairgell” that (1) he has no authority to “propose” an amendment to the US Constitution (although he could offer a suggestion)… (B) everything he “proposes is in DIRECT conflict with the 2A AND would require repealing the 2A before it could be implemented… But hey Hairgell thanks for playing…

    • The issue is as an amendment (wild assumption that it passes but suspend rational disbelief for a second) it would then be constitutional and any disagreements it would have would have to work through the court system to a supreme court that may look different compared to the current crop of lawsuits that are working their way up and will be available within the next 3 years. Not saying it’s a winning move on their part but it is a longer term strategic play.

        • LOL 3 day? I have the better part of 3 weeks just to get a pistol added to my permit (mostly the county clerk being buried in work) and that is before the 10 day waiting period they want to add this session.

    • Yeah. “THEY” could somehow manufacture enough “votes” to “repeal” that pesky Secind rticle of Ammendment but that would never chnge our God-given right to arms and self defense. They think the first Cingress somehow figured out two things: first, that a “right to arms” would be a cool thing to “grant” us, and second, that “they” actually had the power/authority to DO such granting. As if any of them were themselves “godlets” and thus held such power to “grant” this right.

      The Gabbling Nuisance proves himself irrelevant one more time. The ONLY way he’ll get “elected” is if “they” manage to perfect the vote “counting” systems to comoletely a cow could get elected. And sometimes I find myself thinking a cow would be a far better representative than those I have now.

  5. Leftist Insurrectionists have taken over the language that most people use. And ALL the networks.
    To help them on their Holy Quest to dominate our country, I will now start referring to any device that is used to terminate a human fetus as A GUN!
    Fixed it for all y’all.

  6. Three years of second-class adult citizenship from 18-21 is long enough to accomplish one of two things. Either illuminating the fact that you have been reduced to a second class citizen when you realize you are held responsible as an adult but you don’t have all the same rights as a “real adult” or two it’ll make the otherwise uninclined sissies double down on the forfeiting of their right to adequate self defense to the ever-so efficient and judicious nanny state. Either way, good luck with all that.

  7. “Because the Second Amendment apparently guarantees Americans too much freedom for them to handle.”

    Cries of ‘Too much freedom’ seems to be a battle cry amongst the leftist fascists for some reason…

    • Xi Jinping has something bigger for Governor Hairgell. And he will take it and enjoy it.

      • Well that’s not what I heard about the “Big Thing” and a certain race.
        Kinda like, Why dont you ever see a black chinese baby?
        They let to much light in when they are making it.

  9. “So today, I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to do just that. The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

    First, you can’t “enshrine” mob-rule in the constitution as its unconstitutional.

    Second, if you had been all for “leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition” you would not be trying to remove it and California would be the most gun-owning state in the nation and criminals would be going to jail.

    Third, “measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support” are not what you think they are. You too need to learn what context means and you need to learn that left-wing biased polls and surveys with loaded or incomplete or not explained or general broad questions don’t mean its ‘overwhelmingly’

    Still seeking relevance now that your unconstitutional laws are under attack and its beginning to dawn on you that “Hey, these laws are going to be rendered unconstitutional.” Political grand standing.

  10. It will leave the 2nd Amendment unchanged. Just overridden.
    It’s all common sense, right?

  12. If fate shared my sense of irony this man would be killed from a negligent discharge of a firearm by one of the members of his security team.

    • Only if that person on his security team was an illegal immigrant, prior felon and marijuana user who was using a pistol not on the CA approved list, and the shell casing was not microstamped.

        • No. Cosmic justice, if it exists, is long delayed.

          Spontaneous combustion upon exposure to direct sunlight seems like it could actually happen, tho.

  13. The Governor will work with grassroots supporters, elected and civic leaders, and broad and diverse coalitions across the nation to fight for the passage of similar resolutions in other state legislatures to ensure the convening of a constitutional convention limited to this subject. 33 other states, in addition to California, would need to take action to convene such a convention.

    • Highlight the “problem” then propose radical alternative “solutions” to get around it and call it legal after the fact? Worked for a lot of Covid stuff up here in NY that we are still untangling in court.

  14. This is how government works, isn’t it?
    Can’t repeal what they don’t like so they tack on a bunch of caveats and qualifiers until they get as close as they can to their end game.

    Part of me wants to see a Constitution filled with idiotic contradictions like “shall not be infringed” followed by a bunch of infringements and get it on record that 18-20 year olds are apparently dangerous idiots but they need to vote because, you know, reasons.

    Why not just go full clown at this point? We’re already arguing with kiddy diddlers that they shouldn’t be diddling kiddies and half the country is apparently on their side.

    • Shire-man,

      Your comment is spot-on.

      The fact that the “transgender” notion was even up for debate–much less codified aggressively for protections into both private and public policy and into law–makes it crystal clear that emotion (rather than facts and reason) often (if not always) rules the day.

      This proposed U.S. Constitutional amendment is not immune to emotion ruling the day.

  15. I believe that there is a significant chance that this proposed United States Constitutional amendment will pass. Dismiss this possibility at your peril.

      • O me of little faith,

        Note Shire-man’s comment above and my reply to his comment.

        Huge swaths of people have actively supported transgender policy which includes knowingly inserting biological boys into biological girls’
        1) sports–causing significant physical, emotional, and financial injuries to girls
        2) locker rooms–causing significant emotional injuries (and rape?) to girls

        When huge swaths of our population knowingly subject their daughters to significant physical, emotional, and financial injuries in order to support an obvious lie (that males can allegedly [falsely of course] be females and vice versa), anything can happen.

        If you want to discount my comment above:

        1) Look for the story of the boy playing girls volleyball whose spike hit a girl on the other team so hard that it imparted a concussion to her brain.

        2) Look for the story of the boy who used the girls bathroom and proceeded to rape a girl in that bathroom.

        3) Look for the stories of boys beating out girls in girls high school sports and eliminating girls from university scholarships.

        4) Look for basic psychology explaining how emotionally painful and harmful it is when we force girls to disrobe unwillingly in front of boys in the girls locker room.

        • It’s not huge swaths of people. It is a militant minority of “woke” people who are in positions of governmental power.

        • You missed the girl who was arrested and charged with assault AND a hate crime for knocking the shit out of a “biological” male who was taking pictures of girls in various stages of undress in a girl’s locker room without their permission… Hmmmmmmmm, just one of the girls doin girl stuff? Of a fuckin pervert taking pictures to Pin on the internet?

        • O me of little faith –

          “militant minority of “woke” people who are in positions of governmental power.”

          And *corporate* power. Glad to say the corporate folks are looking a little bit easier to hold to account.

        • O me of little faith,

          There are some places in our nation which actively reject transgender nonsense in their private and public policy and laws.

          And there are plenty of locales where my statement is true. Note that private businesses, school districts, and entire states have codified (e.g. fully embraced) transgender nonsense. If a majority of patrons and voters did not support those businesses, school districts, and states codifying transgender policy/law, the patrons and voters in those places would stop patronizing those businesses and vote out the school boards and state legislatures. Patrons and voters have NOT done that. Thus they implicitly support transgender policy/law.

        • There’s more than enough support to be concerning, but it isn’t anything like they make it out to be. They create an illusion of overwhelming support so the low IQ drones will follow along.

  17. “serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time” – So, if a particular firearm can be shown to serve another purpose, it doesn’t meet the definition?

    • Bingo, Serpent_Vision. I can use ANY small arm to put food on the table. Likewise, I can use ANY small arm to teach children gun safety. I can use ANY small arm for target practice and competition. So, no firearm meets that silly definition, unless maybe it’s full automagic. I mean, really, it’s hard to justify suppressive fire against a herd of deer, right?

      • my cousin may truly get cash in their additional time on their pc. their dearest companion had been doing this 4 some place around a year and at this point cleared the commitment. in their littler than normal house and acquired an uncommon vehicle.

        that’s our strength here====)>> https://easyway450.blogspot.com/

  19. Let them spin their wheels and burn money doing this. Its got 0% chance of getting passed and will only wake up sleeping pro 2A people.

  20. What a coincidence…newsob has the same love affair with Gun Control as the third reich and the kkk military wing of the democRat Party.

  21. California, whew.
    I like people in California.
    To bad they are going to have to move.

    • They are moving. Like locusts. Destroying everything in their path. Run from CA. You’ll just bankrupt and exhaust yourself and have to watch them take over.

      Running is an admission of loss.

  22. Well, have at it Gov, but just be aware, folks are beginning to realize that 2 + 2 ≠ 5.

  23. there are now 41 states
    that are pro gun enough
    to have some form of legalized permitless open or concealed carry
    this here 28th amendment as written
    aint goin nowhere
    not in our lifetimes anyway
    theres even a handful of blue states
    that wont go for it

  25. I hacked hiz computer and found out hiz reel plan. Hiz Narcissistic Excellence Himself is running on an All Merikan Indian platform:
    Pocohontas fer VP and
    Chief Chet Fourbrains fer Prezident!

  26. Pennsylvania Update : Dems want Pa. Like California

    Bills 1018 ‘ Red Flag ‘ and 714 UBC pass to State Senate Judiciary committee. RINOS in charge.

    pennsylvaniafirearmsassociation.org/latest-news/senate-gun-control-update/

  28. “…overwhelmingly support – while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

    ratifying this “28th” Amendment would leave the 2nd Amendment Unchanged?? How is that even possible if he is drafting the 28th Amendment to change the 2nd Amendment??!!

    Listed below are the 4 changes that would significantly alter the meaning “shall not be infringed” and the basic tenants and meaning of the 2nd amendment, i.e. permanently changed

    The 28th Amendment will permanently enshrine four broadly supported gun safety principles into the U.S. Constitution:

    1. Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21;
    2. Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime;
    3. Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases; and
    4. Barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time – weapons of war our nation’s founders never foresaw.

    Yes, words can and do sometimes change meaning over time…however none of the words in the 2nd Amendment have had a change in definition. Though the well-regulated common usage is not as common as it was in the 18 & 19th Centuries; the definition is still the same.

    It seems that the US public schools have done a huge disservice to education and that many misunderstood or fail to their entire third grade Grammar, vocabulary lessons and Civics courses, it is possible that many didn’t attend school in America when they were about 8 or 9 – but this material is repeated multiple grades as one would expect with more thorough detailed material up through graduation in the 12th grade.

    For those who did not have the opportunity to attend a US Education school here is a quick summary:
    Regarding the 2nd Amendment specifically here is the entirety of the US Education System core curriculum education for the 3rd Grade.

    In every mention within the US Constitution and every ratified Amendment, the usage of the “people” refers to individuals, yet recently somehow the 2nd Amendment is the only usage of “the people” that it’s no longer an “individual” but suddenly and without any historical, legal, constitutional or dictionary changes it was just deemed to mean the “collective.” This was pushed as a narrative by the hoplophobic and anti-civil liberties citizen groups in addition to the sudden attempt to change the grammar usage in the US and point to the “prefatory clause” as being the reason why.

    What’s even more odd is that before the 20th Century, it was always treated as an individual right. The attempts to create a new definition of a collective right and not individual right, occurred in the early 20th century with the leftist political movement “progressivism” [which was comprised of all the anti-American leftist political ideologies with different spellings Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Fascists, Democrat National Party, etc]

    **Starting with the Bill of Rights Preamble:**
    **Congress of the United States**
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    **THE** Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, ***in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added*****:** And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    **RESOLVED** by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

    **ARTICLES** in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

    ***The preamble of the Bill of Rights, identified that the first 10 ratified Amendments were to protect individual civil liberties from government power.*** See the 1st and 4th Amendment for usage context of “The people”, being individual not collective.

    The 2nd Amendment as a stand alone ratified Amendment makes every single federal gun control law unconstitutional, not even a single one is constitutional, and recently the unelected black robed SCOTUS justices have started to retore this fact and honor their oaths to the US Constitution when they recently restore the 2nd with the NYSR&PA v Bruen, DC v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago decisions. Now to make i clear that they have still violated their oaths by letting any portion of these unconstitutional laws remain in effect, but they have started to address the Supreme Court’s previous bad and unconstitutional incorrect opinions to no longer stand.

    Under the US Constitutionally and the 2nd & 10th Amendments both legally, and ethically…every single “arms” law in the US is unconstitutional, that would also include knife, guns, cannons, warships, etc…

    But just like the federal government, it’s filled with oath violators who don’t care about the civil liberties or the Supreme Laws of the Land, whether they be the elected, unelected or just tour typical armed Government working “AGW’s” bureaucrats.

    **Now on to the 2nd Amendment & American English Grammar:**
    The 2nd Amendment is split into to 2 English grammar clauses, the prefatory clause and the operative clause.

    Sadly many people have forgotten or never learned there 3rd grade English lessons; prefatory clauses were a well known rudiment of English, one of the founding fathers Daniel Webster [lawyer, educator, lexicographer, statesmen and orator] and the “father” of US school grammar, and whose greatest accomplishment and is primarily remembered for his American Dictionary and Grammar school books and whose works defined much of the American culture. His publication “Rudiments of English Grammar” (1790) and America’s first legendary Spelling Book (1783) would be used to teach over 5 generations of Americans; that’s over 100 years.

    **Prefatory clause** (recently I’ve seen a few people call this an “*explanatory clause*” to support their hoplophobic agenda): in Noah Webster’s “Rudiments of English Grammar”, he defines the nominative case or word joined with a participle stands independently of the sentence. This is called the case absolute, it is but 1 stated reason not the only reason, he furnished many examples.

    “*A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,”

    **Explanatory clause**: a non-essential phrase or clause(s) explain, add information which might be important to the reader, but does not define or restrict. [So even the hoplophobic attempts to change grammar with a new name, and it is still defined as unable to restrict the operative clause]

    **Operative clause**: in law requires anything to be done or not to be done. They state the solutions.

    “*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*”
    **Now on to the10th Amendment**

    The hoplophobic and anti-civil liberties groups then try to state that States and local municipalities have “infringement” authority, which fails based on the reading of the 10th Amendment

    “*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, ****nor prohibited by it to the States****, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*”

    As the text of the US Constitution Article IV, paragraph 2 “Supremacy Clause” and the 10th Amendment with the text of the 2nd Amendment specifically enumerated all arms are “the right of the people” to keep and bear without infringement. The 2nd explicitly prohibited the states from enacting any gun control laws, with the “***the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.***” making every single state law also unconstitutional with incorporation via the 10th Amendment [some people have tried to claim it was incorporated via the 14th Amendment, that is unfortunately another legalese “lawfare” tactic to change meanings to get what they want unconstitutionally, even SCOTUS has multiple bad opinions masquerading as law on the 14th Amendment]

    **Now on to the well-regulated definition:**
    And then you have the last and weakest argument of the hoplophobic “well-regulated” bs, in another blatantly legalese “lawfare” living document theory it attributes that the federal and states’ governments have the right to “regulate” using the current 20th Century usage and societal normalizations that it suddenly now also means to be regulated by the Government, however going back back to the grammar and dictionary of the 1700’s and 1800’s even the term was used to mean “properly function” in a state of readiness to be available, none of which had anything to do with government permissions or control.

    I would add is that not only did the word “regulate” have a different common usage from today’s typical context, but it was never used by, or regarding the government in any legal context until nearly a full century later after the US Constitution, the 2nd & 10th Amendments were all ratified when the first government “regulations” were created with the then new trade regulatory commission. Before then, there was no such thing as a government regulation.

    • “Prepare for massive gun violence if this even comes close to passing.”

      Why, and by whom? To what end?

      If a constitutional amendment repeals the Second Amendment, where is the justification for law abiding gun owners to take up arms and revolt?

      The Constitution, and the amendment process, are “law”, the “rule of law”. Neither is a commandment from a king/despot/dictator; they are the overwhelming “will of the people” (with the opportunity to repeal an amendment that repeals the Second Amendment); it is how the national compact is designed to work.

      • No revolt can be justified unless the revolt is successful…ever. However, a successful revolt will always be justified and expostfacto, legal.

        • “No revolt can be justified unless the revolt is successfu…”

          For an armed revolt to be launched, there must be justification sufficient to animate the revolting ones. Since federal law prohibits revolution, what justification would there be for law-abiding persons to participate? The conundrum is that if revolt is illegal, “legal” gun owners would have to admit to no longer being “law-abiding”, but become law violators. Revolt against the law to save the law? Burn the village to save the village?

        • None Sam, A revolt is alway…ALWAYS…going to be illegal. If you wait to find a legal justification for revolt you’ll never find it. When the Founding Pops revolted against England, they did it illegally. When the south revolted against the north, they did it illegally. In one case, it was a successful revolt, in the other it was not.

          If you revolt, you always have crossed line from law abiding to criminal.

          Now…if the revolt is successful, in most cases, you will not suffer prosecution for the laws as written by the former government in most cases will be considered invalid. In some cases, even if the revolt is unsuccessful, that would be the case. Most southerners were not arrested and imprisoned for insurrection. Though they could have been.

      • He’s doing nothing more than bloviating political hyperbole. Considering he wants to run for President. There is 0 change of getting such an Amendment passed. The last time an attempt to add a Constitutional Amendment was the ERA Equal Rights Amendment. Which was originally proposed in 1923 by the Democrats. It wasn’t ratified by Congress until 1972. It failed ratification from the states and was dead ended after 10 years.The 15 states that did not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment before the 1982 deadline were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

        • “He’s doing nothing more than bloviating political hyperbole. ”

          Can’t argue that point, however, when a Dim wants to use the amendment process, as described in the Constitution, gotta respect that.

        • “he wants to run for president”…what record is he going to run on?…his accomplishments in California?

        • @24and7
          “You Sound like a traitor to me…”

          Not sure if you are responding to Sam I Am, or another commenter…..

          First, to be a traitor, there has to be a war (Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ).

          Second, using the Constitutional process for amendments cannot be construed as treason, or even betrayal.

          The founders understood what the amendment process portended (the entire Constitution can be repealed via amendment). They wrote the provision anyway.

  30. Weapons of war…weapons of war…Gavin, do you realize even the weapons available during the time of the founding of USA…were useful as weapons of war?

    If the people are the Militia, how can they defend their lives, homes, state, nation , freedom…if the weapons they own are not capable of defense even in warfare?

    If anything we have too much arms control! People need access to more armaments not less! Similar to a modern military! To defend the homeland

    • MADDMAXX June 8, 2023 At 13:43
      Your comment is awaiting moderation
      A club, pitchfork, an axe, a hatchet, various spears, knives and swords, even stones and in many cases the bare hands were/are “weapons” of war… Most certainly the brain is a weapon of war, deprivation of basic needs like food and clean drinking water have been used as weapons of war… If you can imagine it, it can AND will be used as a weapon to visit defeat upon an adversary…

      How the FUCK does THIS get moderated?? WHAT word TRIGGERED this one…

    • It’s “Hairgel” Newsom. A person so vain and narcissistic his idea of a romantic evening is to stare at himself in the mirror all night.

        • For some reason, your comment reminded me of that old fashioned Brylecreem from way back when. That came in those black and red tubes. Maybe Hair Gel Newsome should also moonlight as a car salesman, too, seeing how he is such a snake in the grass. He could be “Slick Willy, 2.0″…

        • MADDMAXX June 9, 2023 At 01:21
          Your comment is awaiting moderation
          MADDMAXX June 9, 2023 At 01:19
          Your comment is awaiting moderation
          Brylkreem “a little dab’ll do ya”… Newsance must use a whole tube at a time…

          Edit: Misspelled intentionally to avoid “moderation…

          Nope, didn’t work Guess the Kommie fuks don’t like my punctuation… Twice in 24 hours? Gets pretty old TTAG, epecially with nothing OBVIOUSLY wrong…

  32. There’s a silver lining to most storm clouds.

    Gavin Newsome has just become unelectable to the office of President of the United States. I’m pleased that he has sacrificed his political goals by being honest. Few politicians will go so far.

        • Including the millions of deceased persons who voted for Bribem and the ballots that were run through the counters over and over again from the bins that were pulled out after the building was cleared in Atlanta…

        • essentially true…although “hate” might be too strong a word…”uncomfortable” rings closer to the truth…but that was before we got a good look at biden…

  33. The real points that jump off the page is the language he uses. If you look thru the Constitution and the Amendments, nowhere are there terms such as ‘common sense’ or ‘reasonable’. Those terms are far to general when discussing our Constitutional rights.

  34. Finally.

    The gun control mob have been pushed into the corner of doing things properly: amending the Constitution.

    Kinda suprised, though, that Newsome didn’t include the words from the failed ERA amendment.

  35. So, the leftist loons want to raise the age of owning a gun to 21 while at the same time lowering the age of voting to 16, 15, 14…? Liberalism is a mental disorder. Evil Big Gov centralized power grab from the individual citizenry.

  36. @Jethro:
    I usually agree with you. In our case, we have a very small fixed income, are retired, disabled, and cannot afford the burgeoning taxes in Failed2AffordItVille. So what that it’s beautiful, living here SUCKS!
    I cannot fix it, and we are choosing from the food/gas/medicine list.
    Time to move to NE Texas.

    • That’s a different situation, 05. Financial stress is a legit reason for a move. That is why I moved from WV to CA 4 decades ago. I did well in my move. At least financially.

      I hope that your move works out for you.

  37. @Jefhro: “Running is an admission of loss”
    Gee, when 97% of entertainment and “news” is rigged, the voting machines AND the mail-in ballots are rigged, I get on the radio and claim loudly that My Position has been OVERRUN!!! Time to Di Di.
    05B

  38. Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21

    That means an “Adult” starts at 21, that would be for voting and the draft as well or we defining some adults different than others?
    Maybe LGBT’s should be different too because they are obviously confused.
    Maybe the race that commits the most crimes should be 25 or 30?

  39. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t “Universal Background Checks” also include gun registration? Hmm, that is something that Democrats (and yes, idiot Republicans) have been drooling about (their ultimate wish list) for years. What I really found hilarious, is that during the ANTIFA riots, the stupid leftists there in the “land of fruit & nuts” realized that when they wanted a gun now (after purchasing one), they had to wait to take it home! It was funny as hell when one woman protested, “…but I need it now”! I always thought a good campaign slogan for Newsome would read: Gavin Newsome: Bringing the Misery of California To The Rest of The Country. And then again, why bring up another amendment that could possibly fail, when a future-president like him could simply enact an Executive Order eliminating the Second Amendment altogether? No need to force states into compliance, someone like Newsome (or God forbid, Hillary Clinton or Gretchen Whitmer) can strike a pen instead?

    • when a future-president like him could simply enact an Executive Order eliminating the Second Amendment altogether?

      You were doing okay up that point… NO Executive Order can nullify ANY amendment to the Constitution… Executive Orders are merely guidelines that lack the weight of law and can be rescinded by any subsequent POTUS… So, you have been corrected because on that part you were mistaken…

      • I do not believe an EO should (or could) nullify a Constitutional Amendment, either. But lately, the last few years, presidents have been treating EO’s like they are laws and rules to be followed, without question, without debate, if they cannot get their way via Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead of EO’s being “guidelines”, they appear (?) to be morphing into pseudo “laws” written not by a President, but a wanna-be-dictator/king. And I would not put it past someone like Newsom, or a Gretchen Whitmer to try just that, and then demand such an EO be followed. Especially where guns and their hatred for the Second Amendment is concerned.

        • Why do you think Bribem has not tried to do a ban on ARs/AKs by EO… They are not worth the paper they’re printed on outside of Government agencies… They can post all the EOs their little hearts desire but they mean nothing to the real world…

        • True, no more than those restraining orders are worth anything, either. I surmise that even if Newsome could somehow ban (or get an amendment passed) eliminating the Second Amendment, he would have a hard time enforcing it.

        • Restraining orders are beneficial when the restrained shows up and catches a bullet.
          CYA insurance.

        • Possum, I had to take a restraining order out on someone in another life time. It was not worth the time filling out the reams of forms, as the perpetrator violated the restraining order anyway. At least in these parts, you can carry concealed without a permit. You are right: It is merely a legal, CYA in the end, nothing more. For the whole thing was a joke, and the perp treated it as such, and why not? When the perp was found guilty, he never went to jail. Even though they were supposed to show up to serve, as the state troopers never bothered to arrest him at the time he was found guilty. The entire, legal justice system is exactly that: One big clown show, and I always did find clowns creepy as hell.

    • Shadow we’ve already got gunm registration.
      Everytime we buy a gunm from an FFL dealer.
      And more great news, I’ve noticed more and more businesses are not accepting cash. Credit cards only.
      We R Fcked.

  40. Gav knows it has zero chance, he’s playing the political long game for the ignorant / stupid people.

  41. Tell that COMMIE to STAY in KALIFORNIA and continue to RUIN that STATE! . . . the VOTERS don’t KNOW any better. and take HIS “28th Amendment” and STICK it – SIDEWAYS.

    • F that. Newscum is going to run all them infringement voters to our states because they cant afford to live in cali anymore.

  42. Snoball’s chance in hell that this passes.

    26 states have some form of permitless carry. There is no appetite for more gun control with the majority of the country.

    His last wish has another problem. Someone should ask Governor hairdo to define an assault weapon. If we permit banning “assault weapons” – EVERYTHING will be considered an assault weapon.

    • How very true! My mag flashlight has served me well in the past as a great form of self-defense in a pinch. Will that be on the list of banned “assault weapons”, as well? What about the lady in town, who nearly cut off a man’s hands with a sword she had hiding under her bed, when he broke into her house (drunk as a skunk) in the middle of the night? I surmise with Newsome, the banned list is endless.

    • “26 states have some form of permitless carry.”

      Might be irrelevant; talking national politics now. What matters is if the anti-gun cabal can work both national and state, simultaneously.

      The amendment process is snakier than it appears. Plenty of room for delay, and mischief. Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.
      (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution)

      It seems that there is no timeline for informing the states to begin the ratification process (delay). Additionally, the Congress through its proposed amendment process, tells the states how ratification is accomplished (legislature or convention); room for mischief.

      Legend has it that the income tax amendment wasn’t actually legally ratified; the secretary of state in Il-noise wanted the amendment, and though rejected by the state legislature, the secretary of state “certified” that the legislature had, indeed, voted to ratify the amendment.

      It would be fun to watch two proposed amendments fail ratification, in one lifetime.

  44. It’s Not About Guns…………..
    There is no “Common Sense” to any of the “Gun Safety” solutions these people keep presenting.
    Their promotions are exclusively about disarming Law Abiding Citizens, taking away the ability to defend one’s self, and do absolutely NOTHING about Crime and CRIMINALS.
    How exactly does that save ANY Lives Gavin?

    • Three words that mean stand by for the fukking… Common sense and comprehensive…

  45. Long explanation short as to why Newsoms 28th Amendment will do nothing to the second amendment:

    Any amendment after the first 10 can not change, infringe, remove, or alter the first 10. These first 10 are the further clarification of the “unalienable Rights” outlined in the Declaration with …

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    unalienable rights are inherent, they do not belong to government or law. They belong to the individual, collectively ‘the people’, these are rights that, no matter what happens, may never be taken away from an individual.

    For close to 100 years there have been entities who have come up with all sorts of legal theories and schemes and attempts trying to do away with the second amendment or others of the first 10. They always run into the thing that the first 10 are first order and unalienable rights meaning they can not be removed or infringed by government even if enough states vote to remove it and that’s because those first 10 are not the ‘property’ of government for them to do with as they please, they are specifically areas where the government may not tread to infringe and they belong to the individual. The founders, almost 200 years of legal precedent, and the declaration define in many different ways that unalienable rights can not be simply done away with by government and the first 10 are unalienable rights.

    (yes, lots of questions, I know, but I’m trying to be brief and the bottom line is still the first 10 are unalienable rights and can not be done away with by government because they do not belong to them period. So let Newsom have his fantasy, its political grand standing and would do nothing even if it did happen which its not anyway.)

    • To add: It is also unconstitutional to bring to vote or allow to exist for consideration in such a ‘convened collection of 2/3 states’ an amendment that in any way or manner infringes or curtails or restricts or removes or invalidates, or will attempt to do so, any portion of any of the first 10 in part or in whole.

      • “It is also unconstitutional to bring to vote or allow to exist for consideration in such a ‘convened collection of 2/3 states’ an amendment that in any way or manner infringes or curtails or restricts or removes or invalidates, or will attempt to do so, any portion of any of the first 10 in part or in whole.”

        Now, that is interesting. Do you have a citation/source? Cannot find the statement in the Constitution (I’m getting old, and kinda spotty in researching). To make it worse, pro-gun organizations trying to arrange a Convention of States are talking about all sorts of amendments designed to control government.

  46. First off, getting 2/3rds of the states or of both the house and senate to agree on anything at present would be nearly impossible. Then, if that hurdle was overcome, getting 38 states to ratify the Amendment would likely not happen. So, at present, I’m not to worried about Governor Hairgel on this one.
    What I will say is what scares me is the usual crap about public safety, the greater good/common good, or the whine about “It’s for the Children.” Usually followed by some mad/wild BS benefiting a handful of corporate interests, politicians and professional grifters/race baiters. Ever wonder how government programs or attempts to eliminate or “FIX” problems work? Look at the “War on Drugs” or the “War on Poverty.”
    More dope is circulating than ever and more people are poor than ever. Does anyone think disarmament of the law abiding or the rest of the crap will do a damn thing to stop potential criminals from arming themselves? If you do I have some property to sell about 15 miles south of Orange Beach Alabama. It’s dry ground at low tide.

    • “Does anyone think disarmament of the law abiding or the rest of the crap will do a damn thing to stop potential criminals from arming themselves?”

      Disarming criminals is never the intent; too hard, too dangerous. Gun control people aren’t concerned a bit about inner cities. Besides, people living in crime-ridden locations can either move out, or simply endure what they deserve for being poor people in the inner cities.

      Disarming normal looking people carrying firearms is the superficial target. Those normal looking people carrying firearms are likely to “snap” and start shooting up places where the nice people congregate.

  47. “Big difference between being limited by law to the number of times you can hold a particular office and simply failing to be reelected… At least one prevents the uninformed masses from continually sending an ineffective idiot back to DC…”

    The new idiots; same as the old idiots. Faces change, but the policies and corruption don’t. The opposition candidates are not invisible. They have always been known to the people who put the original idiots in office. There is no “awakening” simply because the voting public suddenly realized they should vote for the opposition (idiots).

  48. @Shadow
    “For some reason, your comment reminded me of that old fashioned Brylecreem from way back when.”

    “Brylcreem — A Little Dab’ll Do Ya! Brylcreem — You’ll look so debonair. Brylcreem — The gals’ll all pursue ya; they’ll love to run their fingers through your hair!”.

    For us guys with flattops, there was ‘Pomade:.

  49. Just watched “Armed Scholar” on U-Tube. Seems Newsome is looking to organize an Article 5 Constitutional Convention, rather than a standard legislative move.
    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv-MCFa0KCw)

    Newsome is proposing to limit a Constitutional Convention to a single subject (his gun control proposal).

    Oh, joy! This would be even better entertainment. It’s a great time to be alive.

    • Replied to this way earlier and got moderated (7/8 hours ago) don’t know why all I said was Newsances “PROPOSAL” is actually a “constitutional” amendment… Article V says a States Constitutional Convention can ONLY consider ONE amendment at a time… It requires attendance by 34 states and must be ratified by 38 states (good luck with THAT Hairgel)… Don’t know what’s wrong with that but someone apparently didn’t like it…

      • @MAXX:

        I stupidly used the word “Bavaria” to get into Verbal Debtor’s Prison.
        WHO KNEW?
        My court date isn’t til November. See you then (I hope).
        05B

      • “Article V says a States Constitutional Convention can ONLY consider ONE amendment at a time…”

        Hhhhmmmm.

        From Article 5:(entire)
        “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. “

        Just can’t seem to find words restricting a COS to a single amendment. What am I missing?

        • Sam, I believe that you’re correct. Here’s an example: the Convention for States Action.

          Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.” — https://conventionofstates.com/

          COS says that they have numerous states signed on to their cause — 19 as of March 2022, with 7 more passing a resolution in one house and 16 considering such a resolution this year.

          “The application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states” in Article V would take the form of “a resolution called an “application” calling for an Article V convention. The applications must request a convention for the same subject matter. The applications are delivered to Congress” per the COS FAQ — https://conventionofstates.com/how-do-the-state-legislatures-call-a-convention-of-states

          Even though it’s not specifically mentioned in Article V, COS has an explanation of the “single subject” limitation — https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/899/attachments/original/1423177477/Kelly__Single_Subject_Convention.pdf?1423177477

          Now watch this comment get lost in moderation due to the links.

          But amendments (plural) can be proposed during the Convention.

        • You’re missing my lengthy and well-written post discussing the amendment process. It went to hell — moderation hell. It did not pass “Go.” It did not collect $200.

          Edit: I can still see it, just above this post. It’s still in hell.

          Here’s a shorty: “The application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states” in Article V would take the form of “a resolution called an “application” calling for an Article V convention. The applications must request a convention for the same subject matter. The applications are delivered to Congress” per the COS FAQ — https://conventionofstates.com/how-do-the-state-legislatures-call-a-convention-of-states

          And yes, more than one amendment can be proposed and, if approved, forwarded to the states.

  50. “A revolt is alway…ALWAYS…going to be illegal.”

    My point, exactly. “Law-abiding” gun owners become law violators, and cannot justify their revolt as being conducted by “law-abiding gun owners”. In the words of a movie character, they become what they hate; no longer law-abiding, no longer righteous gun owners.

    To throw off a tyrannical regime, one must first abandon law, and count oneself among, and part of, the criminal population; not a special case, but a common criminal.

    Not encouraging anything, just holding up a mirror. Talk is cheap; count the cost of revolt.

  52. @Man with no name
    “The applications must request a convention for the same subject matter. ”

    That is why I am asking for a link to the source of that. Article 5 says nothing about applications for amendments being restricted to a single issue/subject. The direct source of such a restriction isn’t in Article 5; is it elsewhere?

    • Sam, my long article finally made it out of moderation.

      It appears that “text and history” establish the single-subject issue as well as .40 cal’s contention that “It is also unconstitutional to bring to vote or allow to exist for consideration in such a ‘convened collection of 2/3 states’ an amendment that in any way or manner infringes or curtails or restricts or removes or invalidates, or will attempt to do so, any portion of any of the first 10 in part or in whole.”

      Is “history” part of Article V? — https://i2i.org/who-says-history-is-relevant-to-article-v-well-the-u-s-supreme-court-for-one/

      To expand, here’s an in-depth analysis (which is linked in the “history” article just above): FOUNDING-ERA CONVENTIONS AND THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION’S “CONVENTION FOR PROPOSING AMENDMENTS” — https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Conventions-FLR.pdf

      • Thanx for the links; very interesting reading.

        Two observations….

        The various State (not “state” as is now) conventions were not using the same criteria and procedures to call and instruct. That would seem to not support the idea that there is singular “text, history, and tradition to support a singular concept of calling for, and conducting a “Convention of the States”. This may actually mean there is no accepted way to call a convention.

        The difference between a “national”, and a “federal” activity is so blurred in the mind of the people, that they are indistinguishable. Some agreed upon “agent” must determine which is which; not one or several opinions in a law review. All sorts of mischief is possible.

        Following Article 5, we get to the first step that permits Congress to muck up the whole thing: certifying that a required number of States (or states) have made application. More opportunity for mischief. And then Congress gets to choose the method States (or states) will use to ratify any proposed amendments. And here even more fun is possible: the text of Article 5 states, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” ….What does “proposed” mean, and who says so?

        This could be its own Master’s thesis, so to cut to the chase…..

        The Constitution itself does not speak clearly about how a Convention of the States will be called, and functioned, nor any limits as to scope, or form of proposed amendments. Details have not been established as legal precedent. All we have are opinions on “text, history, and tradition”.

        As a final paragraph, the COS sponsored by Marc Levine believes that merely getting amendments before Congress, and into the ratification scheme, will discipline the same government that needs disciplining in the first place. Instead, even amendments ratified as a result of a COS will be subject to the same political machine that served as catalyst for a COS.

        • Sam, if we limited action to the exact words of the Constitution, there would be no need for “interpretation” of the various articles and amendments by a Supreme Court. As you point out, it’s not specific in numerous areas.

          Even the Second Amendment is not the full and final say on bearing arms … is it?

        • Even the Second Amendment is not the full and final say on bearing arms … is it?

          It SHOULD be, unfortunately it is not… Not because it is not as SPECIFIC as it needs to be, but rather because too many individuals have been put in a position where their “ideological” interpretation has been the “authority” over the years…

      • @NoName:
        Well, I finally figured out at least what verbiage GUARANTEES non publishment, not just monsterbation Hell…
        I began my post with:
        “I recently misplaced my job”…
        100% Failure Rate there.
        I’m gonna work backwards from there.

  53. @Man with no name

    Agree. The manner in which a Convention Of States conducts business during a convention is left entirely to the members of the convention. Indeed, the members can restrict the scope of the amendments. However, Article 5 does not set forth processes/procedures for how the actual convention goes about scoping and proposing amendments.

  54. SWOREN OATH PROTECT THE USA CONSITUTION ,
    THAT LEAVES tttRUMP AND GOONIES OUT .
    THEY TALK BS ANYWAY , TURDS JUST POUR OUT THIER MOUTH … BLAAAA

    • Funny thing, I swore the same oath, I support Trump, AND I would even defend YOU and your moronic cadre of Trump haters if the need arose… We’re ALL Americans and in reality, TRUMP is probably more of an AMERICAN than YOU…

  55. @Man with no name
    “Even the Second Amendment is not the full and final say on bearing arms … is it?”

    Of course not; lawyers are involved, seeking not what words mean, but what they could mean. (Alice Through The Looking Glass)

    “Oh what tangled webs we weave,
    When first we practice to deceive.”

  56. @MADDMAXX
    “…because too many individuals have been put in a position where their “ideological” interpretation has been the “authority” over the years…”

    Which is why I appointed me, myself, and I as Guardian of the Galaxy. It is getting time to start throwing people off the island planet.

      • “No need to wait, FAR past time to start filtering the gene pool…”

        I can see two problems: I am lazy, and doing the work is daunting; I prefer to see those exiled oriting Earth in perpetuity (which would also require work).

        • You could find volunteers to do the work (hmmmm also work), OR you could find a volunteer to find your volunteers (ehhhhh that’s also work) Oh well, maybe THEY will freely volunteer to leave Planet earth on their own… Not likely, but there’s always that infinitesimal possibility…

  57. @MADDMAXX
    “…maybe THEY will freely volunteer to leave Planet earth on their own…”

    Think you are onto something.

    Yeah, I like that option.

  58. All this drivel and spew about the first honest gun grabber position? Cope already. The only way the Second Amendment changes is by changing the Constitution. That’s the only honest gun control position. And we should agree. And welcome them to it. 3/4ths of the states couldn’t agree on what day it is.

Comments are closed.