I think it would actually fly in this day and age.....it makes sense if you don't think about it....
No it's required for any expansion of the power of the federal government.Only for really fundamental issues should one alter the Constitution. This proposal doesn't pass that test by a long shot.
Anyone see a problem with this idea?
Proposed 28th Amendment:
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of AR, AK, military patterned firearms or components within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for sporting, defensive or otherwise lawful purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
This Amendment will be further clarified by the criteria set forth in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 - Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act hereby referred to as the Pelosi Act.
I think it would actually fly in this day and age.....it makes sense if you don't think about it....
No need for an amendment.
Gun control has never been a constitutional issue.
It is a public health and safety issue.
Only for really fundamental issues should one alter the Constitution. This proposal doesn't pass that test by a long shot.
Anyone see a problem with this idea?
Proposed 28th Amendment:
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of AR, AK, military patterned firearms or components within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for sporting, defensive or otherwise lawful purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
This Amendment will be further clarified by the criteria set forth in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 - Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act hereby referred to as the Pelosi Act.
I think it would actually fly in this day and age.....it makes sense if you don't think about it....
But just like prohibition such an amendment couldn't stand up over time. It would be over-reach and unnecessary. An all or nothing amendment wouldn't pass anyway.But see? It did pass exactly as worded...kind of. It was called the 18th Amendment. And the very same mentality that called for its passage seems to be flourishing in liberal and progressive communes. That is the scary part.
But just like prohibition such an amendment couldn't stand up over time. It would be over-reach and unnecessary. An all or nothing amendment wouldn't pass anyway.
Common sense regulation is all that is needed . Just as it is with alcohol.
Gun control has never been a constitutional issue.
Show me your right to drink alcohol?Thousands of "common sense" regulations are already in place. What additional firearms regulations are required that could not be applied to alcohol with greater effect?
To some, "common sense" regulations means taking everyones firearms. By force if needed.Thousands of "common sense" regulations are already in place. What additional firearms regulations are required that could not be applied to alcohol with greater effect?
The AR is a lot of bluster amongst the least informed. It's a .223 round, basically a hot .22 round which is a bit fatter and longer, the fact that many treat it as some kind of super weapon always makes me laugh.You mean OTHER than it completely contradicts the stated intent of the 2nd Amendment? Well...sure...there are still lots wrong with this. Primarily the FACT that it is mindless foolish garbage that will actually ACCOMPLISH nothing. The NYCP Commissioner made a pretty clear and bold statement that only 3 of the 1300 shootings in New York City involved rifles of ANY KIND. Add that to the fact that there is ZERO difference between the potential damage caused by an AR/AK style weapon vs a standard hunting rifle and you can begin to see just how stupid people are that support these kinds of actions.
Yep.The AR is a lot of bluster amongst the least informed. It's a .223 round, basically a hot .22 round which is a bit fatter and longer, the fact that many treat it as some kind of super weapon always makes me laugh.
My dad's Weatherby .257Mag hunting rifle has exponentially more power than that and will shred protective vests with ease. I myself have been looking into either the .338 Lapua round or something in the +.400 range and those rifles are beasts at distance, deadly accurate as well.
Same dimensions, same rifling, same barrel, same round. Accessories a bit different.
Well my health and safety are greatly improved by me having a gun to ensure the health and safety of me and my family.No need for an amendment.
Gun control has never been a constitutional issue.
It is a public health and safety issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?