Gov. Newsom proposes 28th Amendment to the US Constitution designed to reduce gun violence

[Muse]

Governor Newsom Proposes 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution | California Governor

Principles of proposed 28th Amendment broadly supported by the American public and gun owners SACRAMENTO – Today Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to…

www.gov.ca.gov

The bullet points:

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.

The NRA issues statement:

"Newsom's latest publicity stunt once again show that his unhinged contempt for the right to self-defense slaughter-at-will has no bounds"

Also this bald-faced lie:

"California is a beacon for violence because of Newsom's embrace of policies that champion the criminal and penalize the law-abiding."

People, the NRA is as bad as Trump and is the enemy!

 

[akugami]

Already the NRA nutjobs are saying that Gov. Newsom is trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment. Except that he isn't. No right listed under the 2nd is being repealed. What is being done is to institute common sense restrictions to make gun ownership safe for everyone. And everyone includes the gun owner, as well as everyday people who just want to get on with their lives in a safe manner.

 

[rommelrommel]

This has a 0.0% chance of going anywhere.

 

[ivwshane]

I’m actually against this. Why? Because it basically enshrines the 2nd as a personal right vs a states right. I’d rather have the 2nd reinterpreted back to how it was originally interpreted before 2008. That original reinterpretation is also more likely to happen than another constitutional amendment.

 

[MrSquished]

Republican gun nuts and all the people that vote for Republican gun nuts over and over again, and the NRA, are all fucking evil

 

[sandorski]

Republican gun nuts and all the people that vote for Republican gun nuts over and over again, and the NRA, are all fucking evil

Remember when they got caught with Putin's hand up their ass?

 

[Moonbeam]

• Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21;

But no problem with joining the army and killing at that age? Perhaps the enlistment age should be raised too.

• Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime;

This should have been the law from the time data bases became possible. But who decides from data who is truly dangerous and who is not. There is no greater tyranny than having to be forced to live under other people's ideas of what dangerous is owing to projection and paranoia. A school on the Peninsula does not allow umbrellas to be taken to school because of one person at that school. Probably the Jews were truly dangerous in Hitler's eyes.

• Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases;

This is very inconvenient for people who have to travel to sun shops having none close at hand but perhaps tolerable if it saves lives from spur of the moment rage or suicidal intentions.

• 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.

Again if we have the psychologically unhinged paranoids and fear mongers deciding what constitutes unnecessary than no thanks. People buying guns for self defense what the latest and best as they can afford because one person's personal fears should not override someone else's own estimation of what they call risk.

If limits are going to be placed on guns then something must change the equation that only criminals will own such guns. The only way I think anybody would have the slightest chance of selling this idea to self defenders would be the death penalty for anyone caught with an illegal gun which seems rather radical and extreme for our system to apply.

Any rational person not radicalized on the left by the fear of guns will know that when it comes to self defense and the defense of loved ones the intention is to use whatever means one can to kill anyone first if their intention is clearly to kill you or yours. No sane person would allow a sick person to take the life of themselves or their family members if that could be prevented.

Liberals are quite happy, it seems, to transfer that kind of responsibility to some stranger with a badge. Do as you wish but please don't think for me what level of weapon parity I should be limited to when in a self defense situation the ideal is to adequately meet the threat. We already outlaw military class weapons.

Gun violence will decrease in proportion to which children are raised in a way that provides insight into the origin and management of self hate.

We live in a time when psychological self understanding is in the Dark Ages. The elites in our country are profoundly ignorant.

 

[Muse]

This has a 0.0% chance of going anywhere.

Well, if you mean it won't stand a chance of actually happening, I can't argue, but getting the ideas out there where they are thought of and considered is a win, so that's something. I'd also say that it's not impossible. Plus, what's going to happen in the next few year we don't know but AFAIK the situation has been worsening... consistently. A tectonic shift in national attitudes concerning gun control is not out of the question. I've been paying pretty close attention for quite a few years. I'm about as anti-gun as anybody. My ideas used to be "left field" but in the last year or two I'm seeing a lot of people who's ideas/positions with regard to gun control are similar to mine, which haven't changed. I am the NRA's worst nightmare.

 

[soulcougher73]

Drop the assault weapons ban and this might go somewhere. I mean im in favor of a ban, but being practical here.

 

[nakedfrog]

We couldn't even pass the Equal Rights amendment...

 

[Indus]

I think while it doesn't have a prayer now.. Gen Z replacing boomers is going to shift the conversation within 10 years.

 

[Muse]

Drop the assault weapons ban and this might go somewhere. I mean im in favor of a ban, but being practical here.

We had an assault weapons ban before, IIRC for 10 years. Problem is it expired. It's nothing new, but this time it should NOT expire.

 

[Muse]

I think while it doesn't have a prayer now.. Gen Z replacing boomers is going to shift the conversation within 10 years.

If I'd had to grow up having to worry that an AR armed maniac might slaughter 1/2 the people in my classroom at any moment I would be all for banning AR's entirely. Uh, I didn't, but I am.

 

[Captante]

If I'd had to grow up having to worry that an AR armed maniac might kill 1/2 the people in my classroom at any moment I would be all for banning AR's entirely. Uh, I didn't, but I am.

Either that or all-for an AR-15 plus body-armor for every student! /s

This mass-shooting crap wasn't a "thing" at all when we were kids. (or at least extremely rare!)

 

[hal2kilo]

Either that or all-for an AR-15 plus body-armor for every student! /s

This mass-shooting crap wasn't a "thing" at all when we were kids. (or at least extremely rare!)

First inkling of anything like that in my youth was the Texas tower massacre.

Essay: America’s first modern mass shooting never really ended

The 1966 University of Texas Tower shooting remains clouded by myths, including the myth of the “good guy with a gun.” It left too many Americans with only evil to blame — and not our leaders, our policies and ourselves.

www.texastribune.org

 

[akugami]

Either that or all-for an AR-15 plus body-armor for every student! /s

This mass-shooting crap wasn't a "thing" at all when we were kids. (or at least extremely rare!)

Everyone is ignoring that if 3rd graders were taught emergency medical care, we wouldn't have so many dead 3rd graders. Guns are not the problem. 3rd graders not knowing basic emergency medical care is. Also, dodging bullets build character.

 

[MrSquished]

• Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21;

But no problem with joining the army and killing at that age? Perhaps the enlistment age should be raised too.

• Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime;

This should have been the law from the time data bases became possible. But who decides from data who is truly dangerous and who is not. There is no greater tyranny than having to be forced to live under other people's ideas of what dangerous is owing to projection and paranoia. A school on the Peninsula does not allow umbrellas to be taken to school because of one person at that school. Probably the Jews were truly dangerous in Hitler's eyes.

• Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases;

This is very inconvenient for people who have to travel to sun shops having none close at hand but perhaps tolerable if it saves lives from spur of the moment rage or suicidal intentions.

• 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.

Again if we have the psychologically unhinged paranoids and fear mongers deciding what constitutes unnecessary than no thanks. People buying guns for self defense what the latest and best as they can afford because one person's personal fears should not override someone else's own estimation of what they call risk.

If limits are going to be placed on guns then something must change the equation that only criminals will own such guns. The only way I think anybody would have the slightest chance of selling this idea to self defenders would be the death penalty for anyone caught with an illegal gun which seems rather radical and extreme for our system to apply.

Any rational person not radicalized on the left by the fear of guns will know that when it comes to self defense and the defense of loved ones the intention is to use whatever means one can to kill anyone first if their intention is clearly to kill you or yours. No sane person would allow a sick person to take the life of themselves or their family members if that could be prevented.

Liberals are quite happy, it seems, to transfer that kind of responsibility to some stranger with a badge. Do as you wish but please don't think for me what level of weapon parity I should be limited to when in a self defense situation the ideal is to adequately meet the threat. We already outlaw military class weapons.

Gun violence will decrease in proportion to which children are raised in a way that provides insight into the origin and management of self hate.

We live in a time when psychological self understanding is in the Dark Ages. The elites in our country are profoundly ignorant.

Do you want to keep assault rifles so Democrats have a chance to arm themselves like the right wing has? We are gonna need them?

 

[Moonbeam]

First inkling of anything like that in my youth was the Texas tower massacre.

Essay: America’s first modern mass shooting never really ended

The 1966 University of Texas Tower shooting remains clouded by myths, including the myth of the “good guy with a gun.” It left too many Americans with only evil to blame — and not our leaders, our policies and ourselves.

www.texastribune.org

In a competitive society full of loser kids, it is inevitable, given proper media attention and the public love of wallowing in outrage, for there to arise among those many nobodies the desire to become world famous in the records of such mass killings by achieving the highest number of dead. Don’t forget to thank yourself for your prurient interest in partaking of such outrage. For those who have been unable to acquire positive attention your contempt becomes a validating source to strive for. It’s our sickness that kills our children.

 

[Moonbeam]

Do you want to keep assault rifles so Democrats have a chance to arm themselves like the right wing has? We are gonna need them?

No. I see no answer in violence. I want a total social revolution, one that addresses the psychological ignorance that perpetuates the the cultural denial of the reality of universal self hate. To kill another person is only able to be done via the justification they deserve to die because they did something to challenge one’s self worth.

Republicans live in an altered reality and liberals want token changes. Nobody wants to know the depth of their illness and how to heal. We are all ideological but the only thing we can actually change is ourselves. There is only one thing standing in the of personal freedom and it is me, my assumptions that the answers are out there.

 

[woolfe9998]

Gun violence will decrease in proportion to which children are raised in a way that provides insight into the origin and management of self hate.

We live in a time when psychological self understanding is in the Dark Ages. The elites in our country are profoundly ignorant.

I could respond to several of your individual points, but I'm going to address this last one for now.

Do you think that "self-hate" is less of an issue in say Europe or Australia than it is here? If so, then why?

Because from where I sit, it seems that the restrictive guns laws in those countries, resulting in gun ownership that is about 1/10th per capita of what we have here might have something to do with much lower murder rates in those countries. Ya think?

But hey, if you think these are more enlightened cultures where people don't hate themselves, and that is why they don't have these daily mass shootings, then feel free to convince me.

 

[Moonbeam]

I could respond to several of your individual points, but I'm going to address this last one for now.

Do you think that "self-hate" is less of an issue in say Europe or Australia than it is here? If so, then why?

Because from where I sit, it seems that the restrictive guns laws in those countries, resulting in gun ownership that is about 1/10th per capita of what we have here might have something to do with much lower murder rates in those countries. Ya think?

But hey, if you think these are more enlightened cultures where people don't hate themselves, and that is why they don't have these daily mass shootings, then feel free to convince me.

First of all let’s look at it properly. You and Iare walking down the street and I am concealed carrying. We come upon a group of school children and one of then starts shooting at other kids. I draw my gun and seeing no alternative way to stop more shots being fired take aim. Are you going to jump into the line of fire and demand I surrender my gun?

What you seek is an authoritarian state that protects you from the fears created by your own projections. What you see and fear is a world full of malice, a word of people who hate you as much as you unknowingly hate yourself.

I don’t want to live in a society full of cowards who would rob me of my right of rational defense because others also full of self hate see you as the cause of their own misery. Because you fear what you feel you distrust everyone else.

Since you are basically insane, your insanity makes perfect sense. The fear of the truth of what we feel, projected onto others, is so near universal, not just typical of you, that it is no wonder we back ourselves unconsciously into a fascist state.

There is only the ideological insanity of viewpoint that separates the leftest gun grabber from rightist taking away the right to vote, distrust of the self projected onto others.

The world you see is the world created by the terror of feeling what we feel.

 

[woolfe9998]

First of all let’s look at it properly. You and Iare walking down the street and I am concealed carrying. We come upon a group of school children and one of then starts shooting at other kids. I draw my gun and seeing no alternative way to stop more shots being fired take aim. Are you going to jump into the line of fire and demand I surrender my gun?

What you seek is an authoritarian state that protects you from the fears created by your own projections. What you see and fear is a world full of malice, a word of people who hate you as much as you unknowingly hate yourself.

I don’t want to live in a society full of cowards who would rob me of my right of rational defense because others also full of self hate see you as the cause of their own misery. Because you fear what you feel you distrust everyone else.

Since you are basically insane, your insanity makes perfect sense. The fear of the truth of what we feel, projected onto others, is so near universal, not just typical of you, that it is no wonder we back ourselves unconsciously into a fascist state.

There is only the ideological insanity of viewpoint that separates the leftest gun grabber from rightist taking away the right to vote, distrust of the self projected onto others.

The world you see is the world created by the terror of feeling what we feel.

Yeah, you purposefully did not even attempt to answer my question. You instead fell back on generic pro-gun arguments with some added psychobabble.

You want to know why I asked you that question? Because I want to know what, given that you seem to oppose even relatively minor restrictions, is your solution to the high rates of gun violence and murder we have here compared to other countries. You posed a so-called solution which is having a more enlightened culture where there isn't so much self-hate. But you can't answer why other countries with vastly more restrictive gun laws have much lower murder rates, can you? Because there is no evidence that this self-hate you talk about so much is any less there than here. You didn''t answer my question because you couldn't answer my question without undermining your pro-gun position, because answering me would force you to admit that there is ample empirical evidence that gun restrictions do save lives.

I think most people would agree that a high murder rate and daily mass shootings are a problem? Or not? Do you agree with that? If you do, it might be a good idea to pose an actual alternative solution other than gun restrictions. So far you have not done so. All I hear is you worrying over self-defense and having no concern about all the people who are unlawfully killed by guns.

I'll answer your other points when you bother to answer my question.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Governor Newsom Proposes 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution | California Governor

Principles of proposed 28th Amendment broadly supported by the American public and gun owners SACRAMENTO – Today Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to…

www.gov.ca.gov

The bullet points:

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.

The NRA issues statement:

"Newsom's latest publicity stunt once again show that his unhinged contempt for the right to self-defense slaughter-at-will has no bounds"

Also this bald-faced lie:

"California is a beacon for violence because of Newsom's embrace of policies that champion the criminal and penalize the law-abiding."

People, the NRA is as bad as Trump and is the enemy!

Raising the age to purchase firearms to 21 is pure stupidity, as being under 21 is not the cause of the problem, or the reason gun violence is an issue in this country. If such an amendment did pass, it means 18 to 21 year old's can join the military, can fight using more deadly firearms, die defending this country, yet they wouldn't be old enough to purchase a firearm, or as current law has it, they can't even have a drink to calm their nerves. Such an age restriction is not the answer to the gun problem we have in this country. If it was caused due to being 18 to 21, why do we not have mass shootings in every city across the nation constantly, as no city is short of 18 to 21 year old people? If it was tied to that age group, why do we have 21+ year old's, 30+ year old's, 40+ year old's..... all the way thru the elderly resulting in gun deaths? Why are the most gun deaths in the age group of 25 to 34 years old's?

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, you purposefully did not even attempt to answer my question. You instead fell back on generic pro-gun arguments with some added psychobabble.

You want to know why I asked you that question? Because I want to know what, given that you seem to oppose even relatively minor restrictions, is your solution to the high rates of gun violence and murder we have here compared to other countries. You posed a so-called solution which is having a more enlightened culture where there isn't so much self-hate. But you can't answer why other countries with vastly more restrictive gun laws have much lower murder rates, can you? Because there is no evidence that this self-hate you talk about so much is any less there than here. You didn''t answer my question because you couldn't answer my question without undermining your pro-gun position, because answering me would force you to admit that there is ample empirical evidence that gun restrictions do save lives.

I think most people would agree that a high murder rate and daily mass shootings are a problem? Or not? Do you agree with that? If you do, it might be a good idea to pose an actual alternative solution other than gun restrictions. So far you have not done so. All I hear is you worrying over self-defense and having no concern about all the people who are unlawfully killed by guns.

I'll answer your other points when you bother to answer my question.

The reason there are more mass shootings in America is because more mentally ill people have availability to guns than in countries where fewer guns put fewer people at risk so fewer people feel a need for counter measures. So, as I described above, would you take a gun I could use were it the only way I could prevent somebody from throwing children off a cliff?

Look at it this way. You can stop gin violence by eliminating all guns. You can stop all gun violence by preventing the mental illness that creates it. You have no idea and are actually motivated never to see how to fix the source of violence so you focus on guns instead. But that is just another bag the cat long ago escaped. Guns are everywhere in the US and are constitutionally legal. Enlightened government would solve the former and fascism the latter. I know which will be preferred and why.

 

[NWRMidnight]

The reason there are more mass shootings in America is because more mentally ill people have availability to guns than in countries where fewer guns put fewer people at risk so fewer people feel a need for counter measures. So, as I described above, would you take a gun I could use were it the only way I could prevent somebody from throwing children off a cliff?

Look at it this way. You can stop gin violence by eliminating all guns. You can stop all gun violence by preventing the mental illness that creates it. You have no idea and are actually motivated never to see how to fix the source of violence so you focus on guns instead. But that is just another bag the cat long ago escaped. Guns are everywhere in the US and are constitutionally legal. Enlightened government would solve the former and fascism the latter. I know which will be preferred and why.

quick question, do more cars on the road cause more or less car accidents? How many of them are caused by the mentally ill? Will the number of cars accidents stop if we "fix" the mentally ill issue? Nope. They will continue to increase as long as the number of cars on the road continue to increase. The same thing holds true with guns. Yes, we have a mental care issue in this country, but fixing that problem, which does need to happen, will not fix the gun violence/death problem. As long as we have the number of guns in the United States increasing, the gun violence/death problem will continue to get worse. The only way the gun violence/death problems can be fixed is by reducing the number of guns in the United states. That fact won't change if you eliminate every mentally ill person in the country. Raising the minimum age to 21 to purchase a gun won't fix the problem either, it will just increase gun deaths in the 25 to 34 age group, which ALREADY has the most gun deaths.