Michael Moore’s latest blockbuster isn’t a movie. It’s a proposal for a constitutional amendment. But much like his movies, it’s unrealistic and nothing more than a publicity stunt for his brand of authoritarian leftism.
In a recent post on his website, Moore suggested a 28th Amendment that would repeal the Second Amendment. The new addition would strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms.
“The inalienable right of a free people to be kept safe from gun violence and the fear thereof must not be infringed and shall be protected by the Congress and the States,” Moore suggests in Section 1.
“This Amendment thus repeals and replaces the Second Amendment.”
Under the proposal, Congress would create “a mandatory system of firearm registration and licensing for the following limited purposes: (a) licensed hunters of game; (b) licensed ranges for the sport of target shooting; and (c) for the few who can demonstrate a special need for personal protection.”
Those who want to carry a firearm would be subject to a background check, “written and confidential approval” from friends and family, co-workers and neighbors, a mental health check and a waiting period.
Individuals who pass the authoritarian requirements would then be forced to take a firearms safety class and pass a written test annually. Individuals would also need to be at least 25 years old and have their license renewed annually.
As if that wasn’t enough, the proposal demands that “all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and all devices which can enable a single-shot gun to fire automatically or semi-automatically” be banned. Guns that could hold “more than six bullets or rounds at a time” would also be banned.
My version of a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment:
The proposal is a reminder of the profound insight the Founders had. They knew there would come a day when the rights of a free people to protect themselves from the government would be attacked.
Of course, Moore’s proposal is nothing but a publicity stunt, but the premise is far too dangerous to ignore. Moore isn’t the only nut job living in the United States who wants to severely restrict, if not abolish, the Second Amendment.
His suggestions embody the naivety and treacherousness of the modern anti-gun movement. Moore has decided the only type of protection afforded to select Americans should be shotguns and maybe a revolver.
But here’s the thing, the debate is not which gun you should use to defend your God-given right to life and security. The rightful claim is that there should be no debate at all.
The language of the Second Amendment is clear, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The United States was founded on the idea that this was to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
George Washington asserted in 1775 that “when we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.”
In an 1813 letter to James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson reiterated the idea that there is a “necessity of obliging every citizen to be a souldier.”
“This was the case with the Greeks & Romans and must be that of every free state.”
To be a citizen of the United States meant you were prepared to be a soldier and defend the sacred liberties enshrined in the Constitution. You were not promised protection by partisan politicians down the road.
The Crown’s authoritative control over military forces made Americans wary of a professional standing army, and thus the citizen-soldier ethos was born out of a healthy distrust for government and an overwhelming devotion to the liberties that are guaranteed only when man is free to defend them.
Americans wanted an army primarily composed of volunteers with a few professionals, a mechanism that ensured the army was loyal to the people rather than the government. The need for a standing army was null, as Americans felt so strongly about the survival of the nation that they’d be willing to defend it at all costs.
This brings us back to the current debate surrounding the Second Amendment.
The idea that the Founders, who just finished liberating a country, only meant for the standing army to have weapons is profoundly disturbed. This would leave the public defenseless against the whims of elites.