Bruen is tearing them a new one so they move the goal post.

Send kommiefornia into the sea by using low yield nukes along the San Andreas and San Bernadino fault lines to facilitate the removal…

If only such actions were not going to cause radiation fallout -- low yield or not.

The charges would have to be buried way, way down to contain the radiation.

Or, just use a larger number of MOABs ...

 

Even though I hate Newsome, I am not going to shut the door without seeing the language of the amendment he is approving because it is possible there could be something I could agree with and I would rather work to find more of a middle ground than complain as he gets what he wants.

Newsome is a joke but at least he is actually going about it the proper way. Amending the constitution is the right way for them to achieve this goal, not dishonest interpretations by politicians and judges.

Even though I hate Newsome, I am not going to shut the door without seeing the language of the amendment he is approving because it is possible there could be something I could agree with and I would rather work to find more of a middle ground than complain as he gets what he wants.

Newsome is a joke but at least he is actually going about it the proper way. Amending the constitution is the right way for them to achieve this goal, not dishonest interpretations by politicians and judges.

Even though I hate Newsome, I am not going to shut the door without seeing the language of the amendment he is approving because it is possible there could be something I could agree with and I would rather work to find more of a middle ground than complain as he gets what he wants.

I disagree.  instead of offering an amendment to the Second Amendment to repeal or add specificity to it, he's wanting to create another new amendment that conflicts with the 2A.

He's taking the same path as those who supported prohibition.  The feds didn't have the power to ban alcohol at the congressional level, so they created an amendment that did that for them.  it was such an awful use of the constitution they wound up repealing it.

The constitution is a framework that defines the structure and underlying rules to set up our system of government, and the Bill of Rights protects our liberties from government infringement.  The Constitution is NOT a solution for imposing one group's set of laws on the nation apart from the representative legislative process.

Imagine if every proposed law that was shot down a dozen times were to be proposed as a Constitutional Amendment to bypass the lawmakers.  The reason the process to change the document is so difficult is precisely because it should only be changed when there is a fundamental flaw in it or a (real, not imagined) right that was not well defined previously -- such as allowing former slaves and women the right to vote.

So, i don't agree with you that this is the "proper way" to go about it.  His state has more mass shootings than any other, and their gang violence is well known in certain cities.  Now he wants to tell the nation how to run things?

His gun control doesn't work, yet he thinks more of it is better?

His proposal will fall on many deaf ears I believe.  But for you to think this is a good thing is bothersome.  The dems have used the filibuster, mail-in-ballots, social media censorship, mainstream media collusion, and presidential impeachments to obtain power, attack their opposition, and push their agendas.  Let's not add trying to change the Constitution whenever it gets in their way to the mix.

Do you honestly believe that he proposed this for the good of the 2a right?  I get that you want to read it first, but to give him some possible doubt that it's not all bad is not good.  Then add in the timing of the Buren ruling and this new amendment.  That's like saying if Jeffrey Dhamer who likes to eat people has a new cook book and you want to see what it's about before you cast judgement.  Compared to if Martha Stewart had a new cook book that one blindly buys.

I don't have any hopes that I would agree with everything he puts into the texts but as a matter of principle, I have to wait and see the text otherwise I am failing to be objective. I have my biases against him to be sure but if I refuse to engage in honest discourse and consideration of the opposition's points then I am part of the problem. Unlike other political attempts to use judges or politicians to "reinterpret" the 2nd amendment I can at least give credit to Newsome for trying to make changes the proper way by amending the constitution though I may disagree with the amendment. No amendment will make everyone happy but by participating maybe we can sway it more in favor of us.

Ther is a black man who befriended dozens (hundreds?) of KKK members over the years and got them to leave the KKK and change their ways and minds. Do you think he would have succeeded if he simply saw their robes and refused to interract with them?

I don't have any hopes that I would agree with everything he puts into the texts but as a matter of principle, I have to wait and see the text otherwise I am failing to be objective. I have my biases against him to be sure but if I refuse to engage in honest discourse and consideration of the opposition's points then I am part of the problem. Unlike other political attempts to use judges or politicians to "reinterpret" the 2nd amendment I can at least give credit to Newsome for trying to make changes the proper way by amending the constitution though I may disagree with the amendment. No amendment will make everyone happy but by participating maybe we can sway it more in favor of us.

Ther is a black man who befriended dozens (hundreds?) of KKK members over the years and got them to leave the KKK and change their ways and minds. Do you think he would have succeeded if he simply saw their robes and refused to interract with them?

I don't have any hopes that I would agree with everything he puts into the texts but as a matter of principle, I have to wait and see the text otherwise I am failing to be objective. I have my biases against him to be sure but if I refuse to engage in honest discourse and consideration of the opposition's points then I am part of the problem. Unlike other political attempts to use judges or politicians to "reinterpret" the 2nd amendment I can at least give credit to Newsome for trying to make changes the proper way by amending the constitution though I may disagree with the amendment. No amendment will make everyone happy but by participating maybe we can sway it more in favor of us.

Ther is a black man who befriended dozens (hundreds?) of KKK members over the years and got them to leave the KKK and change their ways and minds. Do you think he would have succeeded if he simply saw their robes and refused to interract with them?