Michael Moore's Latest Idea on Repealing and Replacing the 2nd Amendment

Today I came across this sadly bemusing article regarding Leftist film maker Michael Moore's latest idea.  Of course he misses the entire purpose of why our founders insisted that citizens must have the right to keep and bear arms, and it has nothing to do with sport or hunting.  I suppose it would have been more astonishing if he had understood that fact.  

What is truly sad is that there will be quite a few people that will look at his misguided ideas and think this newly proposed constitutional amendment of his is a really good idea. 

Never mind that most of his ideas will do nothing to change the number of deaths by gun violence, but in many cases will actually exacerbate the problem.  Indeed, many of the cities with the worst gun violence in the nation also have the strictest gun control laws.  I give you Chicago as an excellent case in point, as it leads the nation in gun deaths yet again this year.

Evidently these good folks are still of the mind that evil can be controlled via legislation.  Many of these well-meaning folks are the same ones that insist that we should not judge all Muslims by the terrorist acts committed by a small percentage of those that they claim have perverted Islam.  As far as that argument goes, they are absolutely correct.  One would simply ask that this same courtesy be given to lawful gun owners to not be judged by the actions of the few psychopaths that use guns to commit evil acts.  I won't hold my breath on this.

Regardless, here is the article from The Blaze by Dave Urbanski:

Michael Moore proposes change to Constitution that ‘repeals the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment’

In the wake of the deadly Las Vegas mass shooting Sunday night, Moore proposed a 28th amendment to the United States Constitution that “repeals the ancient and outdated 2nd Amendment.”

He began his lengthy Facebook post with the following preamble:

“A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed.”

Moore — noting the Second Amendment was “written before bullets and revolvers were even invented” — said his proposed amendment “guarantees States can have State militias (a.k.a. State National Guards which are made up of citizen-soldiers who are called upon in times of natural disasters or other State emergencies), allows individuals to use guns for sport and gathering food, and guarantees everyone the right to be free of, and protected from, gun violence (i.e., the public’s safety comes ahead of an individual’s right to own and fire a gun).” 

Continue reading...

 At the end of the day, we have a God given right, and I would argue a duty, to protect innocent lives from evil as best we are able.  By disarming law abiding Americans in contradiction to our Bill of Rights and indeed by natural law's right to self preservation, Michael Moore and those that support his wrong-headed idea are creating far more problems than they ever hoped to solve.

As I am already a "life member" of the NRA, I think I will head off to their web site and make a donation in honor of Michael Moore simply to try and curb what little I can of the damage his foolish notion does with regards to his influencing the uninformed and ignorant in our country.

The Progressives Continuing Mission to Eradicate the 2nd Amendment

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.  

Thus says the 2nd Amendment of The United States Constitution.  This crucial, self-evident right of the people was one that our Forefathers enshrined within the Bill of Rights.  James Madison thought that the Bill of Rights was largely unnecessary since the Constitution itself clearly defined the specific powers and duties of the federal government.  Any other powers not specifically enumerated within it were assumed to belong to the people or the States, as was then clarified by the 10^th amendment.

Fast forward to the 21^st century and I find myself very glad that our forefathers did indeed stipulate the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) for the American People.  Even so, there are many people today, particularly on the left of the political spectrum, that assume the 2^nd amendment was never intended to be an individual right.  After all, it talks about a “well-regulated militia”, so in their minds this must be a governmental right.  Such people are either ignorant of history and context, or are deliberately dissembling.

First of all, would it make any sense for the Bill of Rights to enumerate all of the individual rights of Americans that the federal government was obliged to protect in the other nine amendments but insist on another governmental right in the second amendment?  If that was the intent of that amendment, why wouldn’t the framers have placed that within the main body of the Constitution? 

No.  All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights were absolutely intended to be rights reserved to individual American citizens and not to the federal government.  This was finally confirmed yet again in the 2008 Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller and again in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. 

Nevertheless, today’s leftist politicians have become a little more circumspect in how they violate their oath of office to defend the constitution when they seek to ban private gun ownership.  In other words, they have tried to incrementally infringe on this individual right.  The have lied to the American People. 

“Nobody wants to take your guns away,” they decry.  “We simply want to enact ‘common sense’ gun laws that any reasonable person should be able to agree with.  After all, nobody needs an ‘assault weapon’ or a ten round magazine – let alone a thirty round magazine,” so the paraphrase goes from politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer, to President Obama himself.

Yes, what the left cannot eradicate carte blanche by doing an end run around congress or by illegal executive orders, they try to do piecemeal with innocuous sounding ‘reasonable bills’ presented in congress.  Here are just a few of the current federal and state attempts to erode our vital 2^nd amendment right:

House Resolution (H.R.) 1454 – This bill would give President Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) the authority to ban nearly all common rifle ammunition.  This was tried recently with a proposed ban on all “green tip” 5.56 mm ammunition which is used in perhaps the most ubiquitous of rifles in the United States: the AR-15.  Luckily the outcry from the public was so great, that the BATFE backed down on this ban for the time being.

Operation Chokepoint – This is the Obama Administration’s new set of shadowy banking regulations that is currently responsible for shutting down gun shops nationwide by making it impossible for them to secure ordinary loans and lines of credit.

United Nations Gun Ban Treaty – Despite the fact that the U.S. Senate has failed to ratify this pernicious treaty, the Obama administration is still on mission to implement many of the anti-gun tenets of it.

H.R. 1217 – This new proposal in Congress would implement Obama’s national gun registration scheme.  (It is a lot easier to confiscate all of the legally owned weapons if you know who owns them, after all!)

S. 407 – This new bill in Congress would ban the manufacture and sale of standard capacity magazines.

H.R. 224 – This new proposal would empower President Obama’s anti-gun Surgeon General to publish propaganda that frames our Second Amendment freedom as a public health problem.

H.R. 307 – This new Congressional bill would force us to pay for a national gun “buy-back” scheme through our tax dollars.

H.R. 225 – This proposal would give unelected anti-gun bureaucrats at the Consumer Product Safety Commission the authority to regulate and ban our firearms as they thought reasonable.

Multi-state legislation 1 – Several proposals are pending in multiple states that would require gun owners to keep their firearms locked away, unloaded, and disabled, thereby rendering them useless for self-defense.

Multi-state legislation 2 – Various proposals are also pending in many states that would increase taxes, sometimes severely, on all firearm and ammunition purchases.

Multi-state legislation 3 – Many states are trying to pass Obama’s national gun registration scheme that failed to pass congress two years ago on state levels.

Multi-state legislation 4 – Finally, multiple states have put forth legislative proposals to repeal “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws that effectively strip a gun owner of the right to use a firearm in most self-defense situations.

The purpose of the second amendment was not to secure Americans with the ability to go hunting or trap-shooting.  Our founding fathers knew that the only way to protect our young nation against enemies both foreign and domestic was to provide that “We The People” were able to ensure our own safety, and thus hold government accountable as it exercises its Constitutional duties – and only it’s Constitutional duties.  It is ironic and quite worrisome that many of our elected officials today are seeking to infringe upon or even eradicate the one amendment from the Bill of Rights that guarantees that we will still retain all of our other rights.  After all, an unarmed citizenry becomes completely reliant upon the beneficence of government in their granting of our other rights.

Those members of congress and elected officials who would seek to enact legislation or enforce regulations that are contrary to the 2^nd amendment are indeed in default of their oath of office to support and defend the United States Constitution.  Every last one of them that so brazenly ignores the dictates of the Constitution, especially when it comes to violating any of the enumerated amendments in the Bill of Rights is a disgrace to the public and the nation and should no longer be allowed to serve in such a capacity accordingly. 

If only the American public was not ignorant of civics, history, and the long-term ramifications of not holding these officials accountable.  It is incumbent upon us to pay attention to our elected officials with what they say and do, regardless of their political party.  When they do violate their oath of office by violating our Constitution, we need to all work as a community to ensure they are removed, or at least not re-elected to office.  It requires diligence, but the guardianship of our American liberties certainly deserves no less!

Disarming Americans is Not the Answer

Emotions are running high throughout our troubled land right now, and understandably so, in light of the horrific massacre of twenty innocent young children and seven adults at the hands of a mentally deranged gunman last Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  I have had decidedly very un-Christian thoughts regarding the evil done at the hands of this killer myself.  That said, there are many people that are letting emotion overcome their sense of reason.  That can only serve to exacerbate an already terrible problem.

Already there are well-meaning, if not well-informed, people that are petitioning for greater gun control from our White House, as if that would have prevented this problem.  And of course, there are the opportunistic and cynical politicians that are abiding by Rahm Emanuel’s dictate to “let no good crisis go to waste”. 

I even saw a blog listing various Facebook posts from some despicable people calling for the murder of the NRA president and its members as their proposed solution to this gruesome problem.  Evidently those geniuses are unaware of the fact that the National Rifle Association has always adamantly supported that felons and the mentally ill not have access or ownership of firearms and have worked with law enforcement accordingly. 

There have also been a slew of people calling for the repeal of the second amendment.  I cannot help but shake my head in sadness and some disgust that these likely well-meaning people would want to disarm themselves thereby making even greater evils a possibility on down the road.

The second amendment states, “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.” 

Now there is a very good reason why our founders placed this amendment as the second one to our Constitution.  The people, that means individual Americans, have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of and by necessity to “secure a free State” and the Supreme Court clearly ruled that this is an individual right in supporting that understanding. 

Many gun-control advocates have argued that the second amendment is a now-archaic right and was written so that the federal government could arm citizens for the national defense via militias and was not ever intended as an individual right.  After all, we have a standing army now, so there is no need for private citizens to be armed, right?  This is nonsensical because if such had been the intention of the framers of the constitution, they would have said as much in the body of the constitution where the rights, duties, obligations, and restrictions on the federal government were listed.  The fact that the right to bear arms is listed in the Bill of Rights along with the other rights guaranteed to The People, clearly indicates that this was always intended to be an individual right, and so it absolutely must be. 

  

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."  - Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

  

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” -- George Washington

  

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

 

Disarming law-abiding citizens via more stringent gun-control legislation is hardly the answer to curbing such massacres.  As long as there are people in our society that are bent on doing evil of their own free will, or because of mental illness, they will find a way to do so.  Indeed, last week in China (a land where private ownership of firearms is illegal) a deranged man with a knife stabbed 22 children. 

Even with this horrible crime in Connecticut last week, the very tough gun control laws already enacted and the “gun-free zone” signs on the elementary school did not dissuade this person bent on committing evil.

Putting aside any emotional aversion one might have towards firearms, think how different an outcome there might have been in Sandy Hook Elementary and how many kids could have been saved if only the Principal or one of the teachers had been carrying a firearm.  Creating gun free zones like schools, or the theater in Aurora, Colorado where the evil  person killed twelve people earlier this year, only ensures that the perpetrators’ victims will be unarmed and easier targets accordingly.

Indeed, overshadowed by this horrific slaughter last week was the sad, but not nearly as tragic killing of two people at the Clackamas Towne Center mall in suburban Portland, Oregon that previous Tuesday.  The person that was responsible for those killings was well-armed with an AR-15 and had a bullet proof vest on at the time.  How come this man who had thirty round magazines was unable to kill more than two people in a very crowded mall of Christmas shoppers?  It is because one of the patrons at the mall, Nick Meli, was legally carrying a concealed fire arm.  When the shooting started, he drew his weapon and the evil perpetrator saw him.

“He was working on his rifle,” said Meli.  ”He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.”  The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.  “As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.  Meli took cover inside a nearby store.  He never pulled the trigger.  He stands by that decision.  “I’m not beating myself up cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli.  “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

The gunman knew that there was a citizen that was armed and wasn’t going to be an easy victim.  All of a sudden, his plans for massacre were curtailed.  He now had to worry about being killed himself before fully implementing his plan.  Nick Meli saved untold lives in that mall last week simply by drawing his weapon and not even firing a shot.  How come this profound lesson is not being reported in the media? 

Back in 2007, a lone shooter entered the “gun-free” Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City and opened fire.  He killed five people and managed to injure many others.  The only reason why there weren’t more deaths or injuries is because an off-duty police officer was eating dinner at one of the mall restaurants with his family.  When he heard the shooting, he quickly secured his family, drew his firearm and managed to pin down the assailant until other police arrived.  Had an armed person not been there to stop this evil man, dozens more people could easily have been killed – all in a gun free “safe” area.

In 1997, a sixteen year old boy bludgeoned his mother to death and then drove to Pearl High School which he attended.  He shot and killed his girlfriend that had broken up with him and one other person.  The assistant principal, Joel Myrick, went to his vehicle, retrieved his legally owned .45 pistol, and subdued the evil shooter until police arrived.  Again, an armed citizen prevented the likely killing of many more innocent people accordingly.

Perhaps it is time we start talking about real solutions to these too-common mass killings.  Outlawing firearms in violation of the second amendment is not the answer.  Indeed that will only inflame an already horrible problem and ensure that future people will more likely be victims without the ability to defend themselves.  I know the pain and outrage that many Americans are feeling because of this horrific evil.  I share that with them.  We need to work to decrease the likelihood of these problems and not react in knee-jerk fashion to disarm those citizens that are law-abiding so that they are unable to adequately defend themselves and their loved ones. 

Benjamin Franklin understood it quite well: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Representative Ted Poe on the Recent SCOTUS Ruling and the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd District of Texas Congressman Ted Poe, once again, gets it.  Here are his remarks published in The Daily Caller on June 29th. 

I was at a town hall meeting back in Texas recently and a local man came up to me afterwards to talk about his concerns over where our country was headed, something to do with a fiery inferno and a hand basket. As he was talking to me, I noticed his t-shirt: "I love my Bible," with a picture of the Book; and "I love my guns," with a picture of two Colt 45s. Naturally they were in the right order; after all he was the local preacher.


The most important right we have as Americans is the freedom of speech, and that includes the freedom of religion. It is first because without it, none of the rest would be possible. The right to bear arms is second because without it, we could not protect the first.


Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling simply stated the obvious as it is written in the Bill of Rights: "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."


I am sure the halls of academia were all up in arms about our right to bear arms. The media immediately began to spread the shocking news - the Supreme Court upheld the law. Oh, the hysteria. Murder rates will surely double upon the mere announcement. Never mind the fact that more gun control does not lower murder rates, it actually increases them.
Look at Washington, D.C. But, let's don't let the facts get in the way of a political agenda. I wonder how the media and anti-gun protesters would have felt about the First Amendment being ignored for political purposes?


Those who claim there is no individual in the Second Amendment ignore the most basic feature of American rights: rights in this nation belong to the people - not the government. The Supreme Court ruled accurately and restored the rights of all Americans based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which commands that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."


To truly understand the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment, we need to understand the men who wrote the Constitution and what they said when it was ratified. The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a strong federal government would trample on individual freedom and individual rights because that's what happened to the colonists; and that's what governments historically do to their people, trample on individual rights.


So after the ratification of the Constitution, the Framers knew that a declaration of rights had to be added to protect basic individual rights, rights that are inalienable, created by our creator and not created by government.


The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the federal government from disarming the public like the British Army did to American citizens. The right of the free people to defend freedom and protect themselves was so important that it was placed second in the Bill of Rights.


Thomas Jefferson knew the importance of an armed citizenry. He said, "No free man shall ever be debarred from the use of arms."


Samuel Adams wrote: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their arms."


And of course James Madison, who helped write the Bill of Rights, once wrote that the Americans had "the advantage of being armed," and that other nations governments were "afraid to trust the people with such arms."


Leave it to a Texas preacher's t-shirt to keep it all in perspective:
without the Second, you can't protect the First. And that's just the way it is.