|
In June 2023, a proposal for a 28th Amendment was put forth by Governor Gavin Newsom out of California [source 1]. Before getting into that, let me just do a brief overview of the important documents that pertain to our freedoms and rights and the process in which one of those documents can be amended. We have the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. They are two different documents but are often confused [source 2]. The Declaration of Independence is a list of grievances against the crown in England. This document was created in 1776 for the purpose of separation from British rule. The United States Constitution is a legal document that contains laws and principles to establish a system for governance. This document was created in 1787 and first ratified in 1791 with the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights [source 3]. Currently there are 27 Amendments to the United States Constitution [source 4]. Throughout our history, there has only been one amendment repealed, which was the 18th amendment (Prohibition of Liquor) through the use of the 21st amendment (Repeal of Prohibition). Side note. As it stands, the only amendment repealed was one that limited freedoms and rights (the 18th Amendment). Regardless of your stance or opinion on alcohol, the 18th Amendment removed the freedom and right from people to make their own decision on alcohol. You do not have to agree with a particular freedom or right, but you should agree with the ability for people to make their own choices on how they want to use their freedoms and rights as long as their use of them does not deprive others of their freedoms and rights. It is also important to understand that the government can’t simply remove or repeal an Amendment on their own. What I mean by this is, they can’t just say, you know what, the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) doesn’t exist anymore. We’re removing it from the constitution. The only way to repeal an amendment is with the ratification of a new amendment that would specifically alter, limit, or repeal a previous amendment. For example, the 21st Amendment had to be ratified in order to repeal the 18th amendment. The only way to repeal an amendment is through the ratification of a new amendment [source 5]. In order to ratify a new amendment, it must be Constitutional. Meaning, the proposal of a new Amendment (stand-alone or repeal) must be done one of two ways.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). The proposal and ratification process can be lengthy and detailed. This is a good thing because it helps keep or slow a power-hungry government or leaders from gaining power overnight. Welcome to June 2023, the current event moment. As mentioned in the video intro, Governor Gavin Newsom has invoked Article 5 of the United States Constitution (the process to alter the Constitution) by releasing a promotional video [source 6] proposing the idea of a 28th Amendment, which targets the Second Amendment. He will have you believe the addition of a 28th Amendment protects freedoms and rights, but it specifically places limitation or bans on certain aspects protected by the Second Amendment. By definition, if you are seeking to limit or reduce individual freedoms and rights you are not protecting individual freedoms and rights and therefor are infringing on them. So, he is either ignorant on his own proposal or he is lying and deceiving people using verbiage that alters his true intentions. Either way, his actions are problematic and designed to take away from the American people. I have said in previous videos and articles that governments and leaders us a common “this is for your safety” tactic or justification to coerce people into surrendering their freedoms and rights. Governor Gavin Newsom is deploying the same strategy with the 28th Amendment “Campaign for Democracy” video. From the second this video starts; he is using fear and emotions to push his idea. He highlights tragedies and introduces some pro-Second Amendment villains as a way to subtlety demonize the gun and people who support certain types of guns while at the same time introducing himself as the hero. Keep in mind, Governor Gavin Newsom is a politician, and a very good one at that. Not good in the sense he uses facts and logic to do what’s best for the people he supposedly represents, but good in the sense that he uses fear and emotions to do what’s best for him. Usually, good politicians work to the benefit of themselves, which is what makes them good, they can play the game and stay in the spotlight longer. They say and do things in preparation for their next move within the political environment. Due to his recent Campaign for Democracy tour in several states [source 7] some people are speculating he might throw his name in the hat for a Presidential run in 2024. If those speculations are correct, his video introducing his idea for the 28th Amendment, in political terms, would be a very good move for him. Not only would this give him a controversial topic to run on, but he would also be leading the charge on it. If this is correct and he does run for president, this whole 28th Amendment proposal is for political gain. Again, he is doing something for himself, not the American people, no matter how virtuous he makes this sound, this is for selfish reasons. Also, keep in mind, if him running for President is the case, he wants to limit the rights and freedoms of people to better himself. That is just my opinion. Maybe he is just testing the waters with this video or maybe he has no intention on running for President, maybe this is just his way to be known for something more than just being the Governor of California. Whatever his motivation is, in my opinion it is not about saving lives. The 28th Amendment is seeking to add 4 new additions to the law.
If he was truly concerned about saving lives or reducing crime where a gun or any other weapon for that matter is used, these new laws would specifically target lawless, violent criminals for their actions, not law-abiding citizens for no actions. Keep in mind, a gun is an object, just like a bat, hammer, knife, car, etc. For that object to do harm a person must interact with it. Instead of blaming the actions of the person who used it, they blame the object. So, in all reality, he and other ant-gun politicians and anti-gun groups do not have as big of a problem with the actions of violent criminals as they do with the object (gun). They make it sound as though if the object (gun) was not there, the violent, lawless criminal would have never done violent, lawless criminal things. They also act as though a new law will magically prevent criminals from doing criminal things. If that was the case, then all the existing gun laws would prevent crimes involving guns, all drug laws would prevent crimes involving drugs, and all murder laws would prevent crimes involving murders. If it’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s criminals will not break a new law… We do not have an object (gun) problem, we have people problem. Something has shifted in our society that is influencing people to do horrible things to each other with or without the use of objects (bats, hammers, knives, cars, etc.). If people like Governor Gavin Newsom truly wanted to fix the problem, they would address the real issue (people) not an object (gun). Therefore, if he wants to ignore the real issue, what is his true motivation to go after the object (gun)? With an estimated 400 million guns in the United States, if guns were in fact the problem, we’d know about it because everyone would be dead, some twice. Raising the Minimum Age to Purchase a Gun to 21 Increase the minimum age requirement to purchase a gun to 21. For a handgun, that is already the minimum age, but for a rifle or shotgun it is 18. I do not agree with this. In fact, I do not agree with the already excising minimum age requirement to purchase a handgun. In most states the age of majority, the age at which an individual has legal control of their person, actions, and decisions is 18. If at this age they are considered an adult and can vote or enter into military service, they should not have an additional limitation to exercise their Second Amendment Right. Especially now that there are many people and groups that are pushing for individuals under the age of majority to make life altering decisions without parent or garden consent or to even vote. It would seem to me that if a minor is adult enough to do some things, then they are adult enough to do other things when they reach the age of majority, including exercising their Second Amendment Right. Universal Background Checks Background checks are already in place and used when an individual purchases a firearm from an FFL (Federal Firearms Licensees) at a gun store or gun show. In most cases they are not needed for private transactions, but that is something they want to change and track. Universal background checks are nothing more than a way to create a gun registry. Which might sound like a good idea, but a registry makes confiscation easier and is the path that leads to deprivation of rights. History has proven this. Leaders with evil intentions stripped people of their means of protection before stripping them of their freedoms and rights. It’s not hyperbole, weaker people are easier to control. The Second Amendment protects the rest. Meaning, if the Second Amendment is repealed or modified, the people lose the means to effectively protect their individual freedoms and rights. It’s a domino effect. When one falls, they all eventually fall as a result of the first. A Reasonable Waiting Period for Gun Purchases A reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases. Notice, he does not say what this time period might be. It could be an hour; it could be 3 months. I do not agree with this, or the current waiting periods used in some places already, including California. This is a right, not a privilege therefore you should not have to wait before exercising your right. It is your right to use it when you want, not the governments right to tell you when you can use it. Due to the failed policies founded on flawed ideologies of some leaders throughout the United States, along with soft on crime District Attorneys and lower numbers within law enforcement, criminals are become even more embolden. Because of this, a large amount of people have decided to take responsibility for their wellbeing by exercising their Second Amendment Right. Over the last few years gun purchases and new gun owners (first time buyers) have increased. Women and minorities responsible for a large percentage of those numbers [source 8] and [source 9]. If an individual is worried enough to become a new gun owner, that means they feel there is a possibility of a large threat present, and they immediately want a more effective means of protection. Since bad things can happen to good people within the blink of an eye, they should not be forced to undergo a “reasonable” and arbitrary waiting period due to the failures of government. It should be noted these new gun owner numbers include people who never wanted or “liked” guns, but now they understand the benefit of being able to protect themselves or others more effectively. I personally know several people who were “never gunners” and encouraged the big government principle of stricter gun laws but are now gun owners who see the dangers and misconceptions (often lies) of gun laws. Taking an anti-gun stance, especially for “virtuous” reasons is your right, but you do not have a right to limit or reduce my right because of your “virtue” or “fear” or willful ignorance. My theory is I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. The safety of an individual and means to self-defense is not something that can wait a “reasonable” amount to time. Banning the Civilian Purchase of Assault Weapons Bans civilians from buying “assault rifles”. This is a generic term used by anti-gun people and anti-gun groups based solely on how a rifle looks and the attachments it might have. Usually when you hear an individual use the term “assault rifle” that is a pretty good indication they have no idea what they’re talking about, and the next few sentences will be regurgitated BS they’ve heard other idiots say. An “assault rifle” and “weapon of war” is specific verbiage designed to illicit an emotional response. The majority of anti-gun people and groups argue on emotions instead of debate on facts. It is very hard to prove or disprove what a person feels, which is why they use emotional verbiage and talking points to further their agenda because they are never wrong…they are also never right too. Facts are just that, facts and can be statistically proven or disproven. Emotional people will not use facts and often when facts are provided, they fall back on emotions. It is obvious when this happens because they will be the loudest person in the room saying the most ridiculous things. When all else fails, they just resort to labelling or name calling. This of course happens on most topics, not just guns. Anyway, our Founding Fathers used “weapons of war” to defend themselves (and others) from a tyrannical government. Given the technological advancements made throughout history, it is ignorant to assume the Founding Fathers did not anticipate future advancements in firearms. Therefore, the Second Amendment protects the freedoms and rights for people to own, poses, and use all weapons, regardless of the title given to them or time period they exist. There is a reason the Second Amendment does not set limitations on the types of weapons. Matter of fact, the only limitation within the Second Amendment is to government. Shall not be infringed. People like using the term “common sense gun control” or “common sense gun laws”. “Common sense gun control” was typically a term used by anti-gun politicians and anti-gun groups. They have since stated using the term “common sense gun laws” because gun control implies controlling guns and the anti-gun politicians and anti-gun groups were getting called out over it, especially when they would say, “no one is coming for your guns” right after saying, “common sense gun control”. They didn’t change their position; they just changed the words, which is something that happens a lot. Although the words are slightly different now, the action is still the same. Limitation of freedoms and rights either through gun control or gun laws. Making good people helpless does not make bad people harmless My ConclusionTowards the end of his video he states, “to protect our communities and to protect our freedoms, support the 28th”. Supporting the 28th 100% limits freedoms and rights, he even said that by using words like “ban”. That’s what this whole thing is about. Again, you cannot protect freedoms and rights by limiting freedoms and rights. That’s like saying, “support driving safe by driving your car off a cliff” Remember, this new amendment idea is coming from a guy that not too long-ago limited peoples freedoms and rights in the name of safety, but conveniently, it was safe enough for him and his friends to do the very things he deprived others of. He is part of the “rules for thee, not for me” crowd. Not to mention, he has the luxury of an armed security detail who if necessary will use an “assault rifle” or “weapon of war” in defense of Governor Gavin Newsom. Kind of ironic that again, it is not safe enough for you to own such a weapon, but it is safe enough for him to be surrounded by people who have those weapons…”rules for thee, not for me”… Now I’m sure someone would argue, “he is the Governor, and he is very important and deserves to be safe”. Sure, I get it, but is his safety more important to the average citizen then their own safety? The average citizen does not have a security detail. They are their own security. So, if an “assault rifle” or “weapon of war” is good enough for Governor Gavin Newsome’s security detail to use for his security, they are also good enough for the average citizen to use for their security. At the end of the day, the reason of use is the same, protection. If Governor Gavin Newsom feels so strongly against the use of certain firearms, he should lead by example and prevent his security detail from using them to potentially save his life should a situation arise. Actually, if he really wants to lead by example and show the average person how much he believes in his new laws and how much safer they will make everyone, especially since California is already implementing so many of those laws, he should immediately dismantle his protection detail and move like the peasants do. Pay attention to the people demanding that you give up your freedoms and rights. They are usually the same people who are in positions that allow for or come with a protective detail, or they have enough money they can pay for security. Their position or their wealth has made them out of touch with reality. I’m not against people having security by any means. If someone has that luxury or can afforded to purchase it, good for them. No hard feelings. That being said, do not deprive me of my right to self-protection while you are enjoying the benefit of someone else protecting you. That is the elitist mentality that Governor Gavin Newsom has displayed on many occasions including now with his 28th Amendment proposal. He does not view The People as equals, he views them as subjects, which is why he want to take your freedoms and rights while making sure his are not affected. If Governor Gavin Newsom does run for president and he is elected, he will be afforded the luxury of Secret Service protection for the rest of his life. Meaning, although he does not think you have the right to purchase an “assault rifle” or “weapon of war” with your own money, money from your own pocket in the form of taxation would help pay for his protection detail armed with “assault rifles” or “weapons of war”. Again,” rules for thee, not for me”. It should be noted that another anti-gun individual who believes there should be limitations of freedoms and rights imposed on people to exercise their Second Amendment Right is the same person who signed (in 2013) the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, which reinstated lifetime Secret Service protection [source 10]. This individual is former President Barack Obama. At least anti-gun politicians are consistent in making sure they are continually surrounded by guns for their protection…  Video Version of This ArticleThank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
Sources
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
ArticlesOur goal is to provided accurate, informative content on current events, guns, training, and other topics. Categories
All
Archives
August 2024
|
RSS Feed
