• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

28th Amendment???

Buck Ewer said:
No need for an amendment.
Gun control has never been a constitutional issue.
It is a public health and safety issue.
Click to expand...

true, those who push such laws have mental health issues and those laws are designed to create safe working conditions for criminals
 
So you believe in such an amendment or are you just asking? You do realize the weapons you seek to ban killed fewer people than hammers last year right (and every year)? Also the "military patterened firearms or components" could also be construed to mean the Model 1911 Hand Gun, Berretta 92, various HK's, Remington 700, and a variety of others used by our military many of which are not "AR/AK" types at all.

I would, personally, like to see the effort made so the left anti gun nuts can waste their resources on this while pro gun advocates elect people to office that will work to restore legitimate gun rights to people. I would imagine this kind of amendment if some how passed (doubtful) would probably lead to a shooting war within the United States. Sad.


BretJ said:
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....
Click to expand...
 
FAIL; Its not the national divide that would prevent its the national acceptance of the right to keep and bear arms and its overwhelmingly supported not divided.


haymarket said:
The political reality is that NO proposed constitutional amendement having to do with firearms - either pro or con - would pass today given the nation divide on the topic.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
You do realize the weapons you seek to ban killed fewer people than hammers last year right (and every year)?
Click to expand...

Yea but hammers weren't designed to kill people so that's not a problem.
 
CalGun said:
FAIL; Its not the national divide that would prevent its the national acceptance of the right to keep and bear arms and its overwhelmingly supported not divided.
Click to expand...

Well then, by all means do present your data to support that claim. We recently saw many reliable national polls indicate that some 90% of Americans support bakkgroundchecks for all firearms purchases. And that drives the gun lobby and their sycophants crazy.

I see no support to repeal the Second Amendment nor do I see support to kowtow to the gun lobby either. One can indeed support the Second Amendment - as I do - and still oppose efforts from the gun lobby like their attack against the law to have background checks.

So this is not quite the picture you paint.

Yes, there is a divide on this and to pretend there is not is to play ostrich on the beach. The last time I looked, the NRA was only less than 2% of the American people. 98% are not in it.
 
haymarket said:
The political reality is that NO proposed constitutional amendement having to do with firearms - either pro or con - would pass today given the nation divide on the topic.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but the same sanctimonious mindset that allowed the 18th Amendment to pass is still alive and well.
 
CalGun said:
So you believe in such an amendment or are you just asking? You do realize the weapons you seek to ban killed fewer people than hammers last year right (and every year)? Also the "military patterened firearms or components" could also be construed to mean the Model 1911 Hand Gun, Berretta 92, various HK's, Remington 700, and a variety of others used by our military many of which are not "AR/AK" types at all.

I would, personally, like to see the effort made so the left anti gun nuts can waste their resources on this while pro gun advocates elect people to office that will work to restore legitimate gun rights to people. I would imagine this kind of amendment if some how passed (doubtful) would probably lead to a shooting war within the United States. Sad.
Click to expand...

I took the exact text of 18th Amendment (Prohibition) and reworded the terms alcohol and beverage. It was intended to show that Prohibitionists and the majority of gun-control activists are joined at the hip in their rationalization and thought processes.
 
Tucker Case said:
You can't ratify a constitutional amendment that way. :shrug:
Click to expand...
True, but what I think he is speaking to is the end around and court cheating that went on from the mid 1900s till today. Lots of laws beyond the purview of government and in fact in many cases expressly prohibited were challenged by making a law anyway, and then court shopping to have an ideologically compliant court uphold said violation. It's a disgusting practice but a very real problem.
 
LaMidRighter said:
True, but what I think he is speaking to is the end around and court cheating that went on from the mid 1900s till today. Lots of laws beyond the purview of government and in fact in many cases expressly prohibited were challenged by making a law anyway, and then court shopping to have an ideologically compliant court uphold said violation. It's a disgusting practice but a very real problem.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, there is no constitutional right to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. Thus, if such a federal law passed, it wouldn't be explicitly unconstitutional. And since it falls within the purview of enumerated powers to regulate inter-state and international commerce, it would be quite constitutional to ban such things (so long as intrastate commerce is unaffected).
 
LaMidRighter said:
True, but what I think he is speaking to is the end around and court cheating that went on from the mid 1900s till today. Lots of laws beyond the purview of government and in fact in many cases expressly prohibited were challenged by making a law anyway, and then court shopping to have an ideologically compliant court uphold said violation. It's a disgusting practice but a very real problem.
Click to expand...

Yep hit the nail on the head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom