- Governor Newsom – Office of Governor Official Letter
- National Review – How the Nazis Used Gun Control
- Politico – Gavin Newsom wants 28th Amendment for guns in U.S. Constitution
- Los Angeles Times – Newsom signs bill protecting transgender youths and families fleeing red-state policies
“He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
Where to start on this lovely 28th Amendment proposal that the socialist governor of California created?
Well, my first thoughts are that this is another attempt to pull heartstrings for safety over our Constitutional rights and call anyone who disagrees with it heartless, uncaring people who would rather see dead children than fix a mass shooting problem. Saying all of that from a state that has created these laws already, yet still has had more mass shootings than any other state. As a former California resident, I know these laws because I had to follow them.
I for one will choose my liberty over temporary security as Benjamin Franklin stated in the quote above. This does not make me heartless as I see it from the idea that I want my children and grandchildren to enjoy the same freedoms from possibly a tyrannical government in the future, with the right to defend themselves per the 2nd amendment. As the Declaration of Independence says, “It is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” and that can’t happen if the 2nd amendment is not upheld and protected.
Now let’s look at the parts of the proposal that Newsom wants.
- Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21.
In the video that Newsom posted, he makes the statement that if we don’t allow a person to buy a beer until they are 21, then why do we allow them to buy a gun? So I take this statement a couple of ways.
- When then should a person get the start using their Constitutional rights? I mean, we send 18 – 20-year-olds to war. We force them to sign-up for the Selective Service. We allow them to vote. They must pay taxes and if they don’t they go to jail and can’t pretend to be a child anymore. Yet, by this proposal, this same person would not be able to have full rights as an adult. If this proposal passes, I would then believe we should not allow 18 – 20-year-olds to vote, force them to sign-up for the Selective Service, or in any fashion treat them as an adult.
- Then we must also look into the transgender issue, and yes there is a transgender issue here too. If a person between 19 and 20 can’t have the freedom to purchase a gun because they are not old enough to buy a beer, then how can a 15-year-old be able to obtain puberty blockers, know what gender they are, or undergo life-changing and irreversible sex change surgery? That is where I have to laugh at the left wings thinking. An 18-year-old isn’t old enough to drink a beer, which is a privilege and not a right because they are not mature enough, yet a child as young as a 3-year-old can pick their gender. “ABC News promotes claims that it is ‘genocidal’ not to transition your 3-year-old – Washington Examiner”
- Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime.
The simplest way to question this part of the proposal is to ask California why they still have gun violence in that state. California doesn’t just require the Federal background check that every state in the Union must follow, they also have their own state background check. Yet, go to parts of LA, San Diego, Sacramento, or Fresno in the middle of the night and you may find yourself being held up with a gun in your face. How could that be? Criminals don’t follow the law and they get them by stealing them or on the black market where the background check is asking if the dealer is a cop and a few Benjamin’s
- Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases; and
This is another one where I can point to item number 2. California already has one of the longest waiting periods in the nation, 10 days or until a clean background check comes in. But when you look at the typical mass shooter, a waiting period just forces them to think out their plan in much better detail. Just take the last mass shooter that was in Tennessee, she planned the attack out to the point she had a few options to pick from. And of course, she went with the easiest target, the softest target to make her deadly statement. She didn’t go after a place where there could be an armed person, but a school.
Yet, in a state much like California, a New Jersey woman (Carol Browne) needed a gun to help protect herself from an ex-boyfriend. She did everything these states tell a person like her to do to protect themselves from a violent ex-boyfriend. She got the paper-thin restraining order, and installed a security camera system and alarm system. But those items only helped arrest him after he stabbed her to death while she waited 30 days for the New Jersey gun permit. Had she been able to purchase the gun quickly and after the federal background check that takes minutes, she could very well be alive today. (“Woman Killed While Waiting for Gun Permit for Protection – Fox 17“)
- 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.
This last part of the proposal is one that scares so many people that have no experience with guns. They see this scare gun with the plastic molding to look like some big bad gun, but in reality, they are nothing more than the same kill used for hunting. I personally have an AR-15 (no, AR does not stand for assault rifle, but Armalite and was first made in the 1950s.), I also have other non-AR-15 rifles that hold the very same firing mechanism I use for hunting and target shooting. Neither of them is used n the military as most military rifles have a burst setting that is illegal to have outside of the military.
Taking the term assault weapon, what exactly is an assault weapon? Per Dictionary.com it means:
1. make a physical attack on.
2. carry out a military attack or raid on (an enemy position).
3. attack or bombard (someone or the senses) with something undesirable or unpleasant.
1. a physical attack.
2. an act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done.
3. a military attack or raid on an enemy position.
4. a strong verbal attack.
By that definition, the ex-boyfriend that killed Carol Browne used an assault knife. And while you are thinking I am crazy to say such a thing, the British have already started to use that type of languish to start banning knives. But why on earth would such a thing be needed? Because since they have banned or almost completely banned guns in the UK, knife crimes have increased by 9% in the past year and 34% in the last decade. Per the link below, that is around 45,000 crimes. Yeah, gun control works until the criminal starts using other means to steal, kill, and destroy your world. (“Machetes and zombie knives could be banned in England and Wales – The Guardian“)
But let’s take the part of that statement Newsom used, “weapons of war our nation’s founders never foresaw.” Get real, the time that the Founding Fathers were alive had already seen many changes in warfare. Anyone that does a little research on the weapons of that time will find rounds that were brutal but protected by the 2nd amendment. Chain-shot for example, is a round that was two musket balls chained together and when shot spread open and could slice body parts off. The founders’ very well know weapons would get approval over the course of time. But just looking at the way the Consitution and the Federalist Paper show, they were protecting people to own firearms to protect the nation from the outside and inside. They had just ended a war with their mother country and most still felt that they were British at the time of the war, hence, the enemy from within. That enemy at that time also attempted to limit the sale of firearms and ammo to stop the possible war to come.
Am I afraid of this proposal of passing the very difficult process to become the 28th Amendment? No, not right now at all. Just to get the number of states to approve the passage or to ratify the finished product would have to turn 12 states away from their current pro-gun laws. Currently, 26 states have changed their laws in favor of open and concealed carry to full Constitutional carry. That means, in those states, people who can legally own a gun can carry one at any time within those states with some restrictions.