Michael Moore Makes a Fool of Himself with ‘Replacement’ for the Second Amendment

There’s a good way to tell when has-been liberal celebrities feel the need to boost their bank accounts. They seek attention and opportunities by jumping up to loudly comment on whatever the progressive cause of the moment is. That behavior sums up documentary filmmaker Michael Moore’s entire career. Gun control is one of Moore’s stock shticks. Attempting to cash in on the fear narratives being pushed by the establishment media following recent mass shootings, Moore on Sunday posted a proposal to replace the Second Amendment with a 28th Amendment that would virtually end the American right to bear arms. Ultimately, what the proposal did was expose Moore’s profound ignorance of how the Constitution actually works. This is not a new idea for Moore. According to The Hill, he was hyping the same concept back in 2017. Now, however, he took the time to write it up in detail. The filmmaker posted the not-so-modest proposal on his Substack. The article says the amendment was “presented to the 117th United States Congress” on Monday, though it does not state how it was presented. The text of Moore’s 28th Amendment plainly states in Section 1 its intent to exploit emotions to destroy our liberty: “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. This Amendment thus repeals and replaces the Second Amendment.” Of course, the idea of an “inalienable right” to be kept safe from guns is absurd. In a total of eight sections, Moore describes a tyrannical combination of fever dream and wish list about disarming law-abiding citizens. Section 2 sets the tone: “Congress shall 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. “All who seek a firearm will undergo a strict vetting process with a thorough background check, including the written and confidential approval of family members, spouses and ex-spouses and/or partners and ex-partners, co-workers and neighbors. A mental health check will also be required. There will be a waiting period of one month to complete the full background check.” Other outrageous demands include a minimum age of 25 for gun ownership, a ban on magazines for more than six bullets and the outlawing of the creation of the kinds of home-built firearms Democrats stigmatize with the name “ghost guns.” These restrictions would apply not only to current guns but to all firearm inventions in the future as well. The whole proposal is a collection of terrible, impractical ideas. The most fundamental issue, however, is that Congress has no authority to remove our rights as Moore describes. Congress did not give them to us in the first place. The Heritage Foundation describes the idea of so-called negative rights this way: “The fact is, the U.S. Constitution protects our God-given rights from government. The government does not (as the phrase above implies) grant those rights to us as citizens. This is perhaps the most widely misunderstood aspect of our system of government.” Progressives hate the Constitution and its Bill of Rights because they see the negative rights enshrined in the charter of our government as an impediment to their lust for unaccountable power. Democrats distort the rule of law not only by ignoring the rights explicitly mentioned in these documents but also by working mightily to add rights where there is none, as seen in their abortion extremism. Fortunately, as demonstrated by recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the concealed carry of guns as a right, we still have a system capable of following the Constitution. The momentum is not on the gun grabbers’ side in America. This is not Canada. For Moore to write up such an authoritarian statement as his 28th Amendment proposal shows either he is ignorant of what our founding documents mean, or he assumes his audience is. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Related Articles

Support His Glory

His Glory Newsletter

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.