Comments by "Reformed Sauron" (@ReformedSauron) on "Gavin Newsoms 28th Amendment Proposal is DOA: Here's Why" video.

  1. Great way to flip the argument on its head with them.
    4
  2. Technically speaking the second Amendment already bans the gun part of the ATF.
    3
  3. ​ @andrewespinoza2896  repealing the seventeenth Amendment is at least possible and is awesome. I find calling to repeal the 19th Amendment both cringe and absolutely impossible as it would affect half the people voting on the people who would be voting on the amendment.
    2
  4. ​ @ryanvenjoyer  the language of such an amendment should be that everything in a bill must be directly associated to the subject of the amendment including any additions they wish to put in.
    2
  5. The current Article 5 push has restricted its subject matter for proposed amendments to budget limits term limits and federal overreach limits. They're not going to consider any kind of amendments such as gay marriage or guns. So they have to come up with their own and I guarantee they're not going to get to the 19 States the current push has risen to. They make get 10 and that's it.
    2
  6. 34 states to call one and bypass Congress. 38 states to ratify any proposal that comes out of it and they are allowed to make as many proposals as they want, and to reformulate and try again if they fail on one. With such a high bar, once triggered there is virtually no possibility of a runaway convention. Once ratified by the States Congress can whine about it because it is now the law of the land.
    2
  7. Not on the national level. A Convention of States as possible and currently there is a push to have one and it is at 19 States out of 34 so far. All of the resolutions involved at this convention will be strictly about overreach of the federal government term limits and budget limits. In order to get as many states on board they are not suggesting anything to do with the second Amendment or amendments about morality one way or another. All amendments being proposed must be things that are widely agreed on by both sides. There's a chance we might actually see that convention at some point in the next decade, and perhaps sooner. I suppose you could say that the one good thing about the Joe Biden presidency is the fact that more and more states are getting more keen on the fact of holding such a convention which of course bypasses Congress. Congress can only formally call it but they have to call it. It is Congress "shall" not congress "may". Kind of why Congress doesn't even want to talk about the current push push-- they don't want attention drawn to a quickly growing movement. The people organizing this convention or not very blackpilled either they are the type of people who come to a defeat and then get over it at a later date. Persistence.
    2
  8. You have that right in the second Amendment. To suggest otherwise by putting in a new Amendment means that the second Amendment is not there for that purpose which is not the case.
    1
  9. Judges don't make amendments.
    1
  10. ​ @williamabbott9437  all martial law eventually ends as it becomes economically and socially untenable over the course of years. When it ends it is no longer enforceable and will not be recognized as legal. That time of martial law as far from now anyway, thank God. They may just get a taste of what the second amendment means if they try it.
    1
  11. The only thing they could do is amend the second amendment, or outright erase it. He'll never get 38 States. They probably won't even get more than 10. And that's if a convention is even called for the purposes of this amendment. Congress could unanimously vote on it and it would be stopped dead cold at the state level fast.
    1
  12. There is a current Article 5 course that is up to 19 States and is working on the 20th. The convention resolutions are limited to discussing Amendment proposals that deal with budget restrictions, term limits and Federal overreach. Subjects such as guns gay marriage and abortion will not be part of it. The state resolutions have a clause which allows them to pull out if a vote is held on any of that. About the closest we've gotten to an article 5 Convention so far that was serious about reform. I suppose we can blame the left for that-- it wouldn't even be considered if the past decade or two hadn't happened at their behest. Most of the proposals being proposed at convention or things that citizens on both sides of the aisle largely agree on.
    1
  13. I think if they gave it texts it would be even more damning. You know exactly what they put in. It wouldn't be straight-up obvious, but it would be easy to decipher.
    1
  14. 19 states are officially on board so far with legal resolutions. They have been persistent. If a State bridge exit eventually they come around again in the state eventually accepts it. Really they only need about 15 more. The resolutions have limited the convention to Amendment proposals dealing with term limits budget limits and limiting Federal overreach overreach. The resolutions also have a pull out method should have booked be held on an amendment that does not have to do with those 3 topics. Should anything to do with the second Amendment be presented, the convention would essentially be dissolved. Convention of States has already disavowed this 28th. The convention also only has the power to propose amendments-- after that each state legislature votes on it. A runaway convention is essentially impossible as it requires the high bar of 38 States to ratify. It's not happening for Newsom.
    1
  15. I think you're wrong, but I don't think there's much more you can broaden it with than "shall not be infringed".
    1
  16. It is probably one of the few things that would trigger one yes.
    1
  17. Governor's don't get a say on the voting on such amendments. Only the state legislature. Governors don't even have the power to veto them. All Whitmer would be able to do is sit there helpless and whine about it, or cheer depending on what the proposal is.
    1