In George Orwell’s magnum opus, 1984, The Party said:

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

These phrases were so transparently wrong that anyone would believe them was the point.  They demonstrated the level of brainwashing the citizens of Oceania had been subject to.

It’s in that spirit of dishonesty that Gavin Newsom launched his initiative to ratify the 28th Amendment.


Here is the text in full:

NEW: I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation’s gun violence crisis.

The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction.

The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms — while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:

1) Raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21

2) Universal background checks

3) A reasonable waiting period for gun purchases

4) Banning the civilian purchase of assault weapons

Gun safety freedoms that restrict gun rights.  Thats orwellian.

This would be the second time the Constitution was used to restrict the rights of the people and expand the power pf the government over them.  The last was the 18th Amendment, which imposed prohibition.

That was an utter disaster that created America’s greatest crime wave and set in motion a long history of gun control.

Had it not been for the Roaring 20s, brought on by prohibition, the NFA might never had been passed.

Newsom want to impose prohibition on “assault weapons,” a nebulous and meaninglessness term.  Just image the crime wave that will cause.

And, of course, he makes the ludicrous claim that these restrictions don’t impose on the Second Amendment.  Clearly his interpretation of the Second Amendment is not one of personal gun rights.

The good news is more than half the states in America are now Constitutional carry and it takes 2/3-rds of states to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.  The likelihood a Constitutional carry state will pass this is virtually zero.

He must know this has no chance of passing.

This is just the ultimate display of anti-guj virtue signaling.

Fuck him.


Spread the love

By J. Kb

11 thoughts on “Newsom’s 28th Amendment”
  1. Part of polishing up his credentials for a run at president, on a guess. Maybe for 24, if Biden’s controllers think he’s done. Or maybe aiming at 28 already, but with a chance of being Veep 2 starting in 24.

    1. He and Bob Iger are both running. This and their fights with DeSantis are intended to get the Democrat base excited about them.

  2. Interesting how democrats can’t come up with any new ideas… same shiite, different dictatorship.. yawn.. they are all excited because the “anointed one” did that interview and went on and on and on about “gun violence “… right, fuk em… every single one

    1. Well, leftists are children.
      Do you really expect a five year old to come up with something new? Why expect democrats to do so?
      Seriously, the people who rehash the same old tripe get away with it because they never have to suffer the consequences of their actions. They can say 10 day waiting periods will save lives (which is an absolutely unsubstantiated claim) but will never have to defend that assertion. A compliant media, and a legion of equally childlike intellects will blindly agree.
      Take any issue. How would a five year old solve it? Translate it to an adult level vocabulary, and it will be what the dems propose as the solution.

  3. “… it takes 2/3-rds of states to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.”
    Only if you go by the literal text of the outdated Constitution, as interpreted by the totally-illegitimate-this-week Supreme Court.
    One the Court has been packed or abolished, it will only take the States containing 2/3 of the population to ratify an amendment.
    Or POTUS could sign an agreement with any foreign prince or potentate and it would immediately have the force of law, superseding the Constitution, without the need for any pesky input from the Senate, because that’s how it works now. It’s an absolute monarchy, provided the monarch rules as the Praetorian Guard demands.

      1. Treaties do indeed require Senate approval.
        But the trendy thing, these past many years, is to flip that and claim that if a treaty hasn’t been rejected by the Senate (perhaps because it was never submitted), that’s close enough.
        Or to call it something other than a treaty – an executive agreement or whatever – but claim that, despite not being a treaty, it nonetheless has the force of law, or at least the executive branch may be directed to regard it as law.
        And as for the Court… I don’t know whether the recent propaganda campaign is aimed at abolishing the Court entirely or just eliminating certain Justices (by whatever means) so they can be replaced, but it’s amazing how many people will go along with whatever the authority figures tell them. And it’s not like we the people have much say in such matters.

  4. Well, Gav ain’t the sharpest bulb on the tree. 😉

    I feel like a rabbit would see through his BS. OTOH, as noted, too many people (and rabbits) are clueless.

    1. Agreed. And thank you, this gives me something to ponder.
      It strikes me that by blaming the gun, the Left is denying agency – the ability to think, choose and act. That’s a horrible, abusive thing to try to convince any fellow sentient of.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.