Thursday, October 12, 2017

The Second Amendment, mangled beyond recognition


I daresay many of my readers have seen Michael Moore's suggested changes to the Second Amendment to the United States constitution.

PROPOSED 28th AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION

“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.”

. . .

  • As over 90% of gun violence is committed by men, in order for a man to purchase a gun, he must first get a waiver from his current wife, plus his most recent ex-wife, or any woman with whom he is currently in a relationship (if he’s gay, he must get the waiver from his male spouse/partner). This law has greatly reduced most spousal/domestic gun murders in Canada.
  • All automatic and semi-automatic guns are banned.
  • No gun or clip can hold more than 6 bullets.
  • To activate a gun for it to be used, the trigger must recognize the fingerprint of its registered owner. This will eliminate most crimes committed with a gun as 80% of these crimes are done with a stolen gun.
  • One’s guns must be stored at a licensed gun club or government-regulated gun storage facility. Believing that having a gun in your home provides you with protection is an American myth. People who die from a home invasion make up a sad but minuscule .04% of all gun murders in the US. And over a third of them are killed by their own gun that the criminal has either stolen or wrestled from them.
  • To own and operate a gun one must obtain a license (like one does to operate a car). To get a license you have to complete a gun training and safety course and pass a thorough background check.
  • As nearly half of all gun deaths are suicides, mental health care must become a top national health priority and must be properly funded. And by making it more difficult to purchase a gun - and requiring its storage outside the home - easy access during a suicidal moment is denied.

There's (unfortunately) more at the link.

Needless to say, such an "amendment" would be no amendment at all, but rather a complete negation of the Second Amendment and all it stands for.

Daniel Greenberg summarizes why people like Mr. Moore want to accomplish that.

The left will lecture on the failure of drug prohibition, but is sure that gun prohibition would work. Why? Because they usually have some personal experience buying drugs, but little experience buying guns. And so they’re sure that a ban that they would ridicule in any other area will somehow work with guns.

. . .

Gun control isn’t a policy. It’s a moral panic. Like prohibition, it’s a xenophobic reaction to a different culture that shares the same country with them. Guns have come to embody a rural conservative culture in the minds of urban leftists the way that alcohol once embodied foreign immigrants to prohibition activists and the way that drugs represented urban decadence to rural America.

It’s why the “common sense solution” talk quickly gives way to broad denunciations of a “national gun culture”, of “white privilege”, of rural folk “clinging to their bibles and guns”, of American militarism and toxic masculinity, and of all the things for which guns are merely a symbol to the leftists who hate them.

A cultural critique is very different than a common sense solution. It isn’t guns that the left wants to ban. It’s people. It was never really about banning guns. It was always about the culture war.

Again, more at the link.

We'll just have to make sure that Mr. Moore, and others of his ilk, don't succeed - whether or not they manage to get legislation, or even a constitutional amendment, through Congress.  There are words on paper, and then there's the reality on the ground.  Mr. Moore is most unlikely to change that.

Peter

16 comments:

McChuck said...

The unabridged right of free citizens to keep and bear arms and ancillary equipment when and wheresoever they may choose shall not be infringed by any legislative, administrative, or judicial act by any government official or functionary at any level of government. The sole exceptions to this absolute right may be inside clearly labeled areas of prisons and jails, and inside court rooms in active use, where the administrators may require free citizens to surrender their arms upon entry, to be promptly returned upon exit. The penalty for violations of this right shall be death by firing squad.

Rob said...

It's about control...

Anonymous said...

Well..... The Republicans just introduced a bill to confiscate and destroy any "device" that can fire faster than a muzzle loader. If you are not willing to kill and die for your "rights", then you don't have any. PS. And when Trump won't sign it the "deep state" will JFK his A** and tell Mike "Your turn now. Sign here Mr. President"

HMS Defiant said...

The same sort of nitwits that voted for the 18th amendment demand the right to overturn the 2nd amendment and they can point, with some limited justification, to the 21st amendment which overturned Prohibition.

If we have another constitutional convention we can also propose ditching the 16th and 19th amendment. I mean, it's a 'living' document ain't it?

Progressives and liberals and democrats are unbelievably stupid and naive.

Anonymous said...

I try to keep and open mind when I read opinion pieces by Liberals. People who complain when others tell them how to act, then themselves telling others how they would do it. Opinions vary, no matter how stupid they are.

I wonder if Moore has thought about how every other Right we have would be upheld without the ability to defend and fight for it. Freedom of Speech for example - if a despot were to shut down the 'Free Press', how would the citizens be able to effectively demonstrate that won't be done ? It can't - the ability to stand up to the government without arms would be suicide.

Jay Dee said...

My latest admonition is, "That's nice. How will President Trump enforce this?"

Anonymous said...

Regarding the first item, "This law has greatly reduced most spousal/domestic gun murders in Canada." is an outright falsehood. First, there been very few spousal/domestic gun murders in Canada, pre or post Bill C17, and Stats Can doesn't even track that statistic. Second, the RCMP statistics were manipulated so that if a firearm was anywhere in the home, even in a locked case in the closet, it was counted as involved in the domestic abuse. After the law was passed firearms in the home weren't counted, et voila, instant results.

What does happen is that vengeful ex-wives have the opportunity to stick it to their ex-husband by saying to the police "My ex is really angry/really depressed and he has guns." A couple of my divorced buddies found themselves on the wrong side of that argument in the divorce negotiations; "concede this point or I'll tell the cops and you won't have guns to hunt with."

Al_in_Ottawa

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal10a-eng.htm


Anonymous said...

Sorry guys I despair at the USA. I live in country with strict gun laws we have minimal deaths and a very low murder rate of a significant proportion less the the US. When we have a terrorist incident only 6 people died not 59 because all they could get hold of was knives. It's a complete falsehood that you safer with 3 guns per every woman child and man.
We live in the 21st century not the 17th ! We appreciate America is a young country but it is time it grew up.

Anonymous said...

Part 1

One of the contentious points swings on the definition and meaning of the word "Militia". Over time, the meaning of words changes. For example "Gay". At one time gay meant happy or joyful, then a homosexual and now it means pathetic or weak ("That's so gay"). We must look at what the people AT THAT TIME understood the meaning and definition of Militia. It meant any able bodied man capable of wielding arms and liable for the defence of his land was a militiaman. He was expected to own and be skilled in those arms suitable to hs social status. Minimum was a spear, shield and a dagger.

In the UK (and don't forget the first Americans were British that had emigrated there and had the same definitions of Militia as the British) the Militia (from the Latin Miles which means a soldier) dates back to Anglo Saxon times. The Anglo Saxons were a tribal society and the local “Kings” operated via Earls and Dukes acting as local agents in their territories. They in turn were under the direction of, and owed loyalty to, the Bretwalda or High King.

The land was divided up into administrative districts called “Hundreds” overseen by an Ealdorman – the Earls man – and each hundred consisted of 100 families that had two types of military obligation to the Ealdorman and ultimately their King. Every Hundred had to maintain a Fyrd which meant that they must provide an agreed number of professional warriors – so many mounted knights, so many men at arms, so many spearmen etc. To ensure that they were up to scratch, the Ealdorman held regular Wapentakes – an examination of weapons to ensure that the classes of soldiers were equipped properly. The Fyrd would be called upon to protect their district and if the king wanted them to serve outside their district, it was negotiated. The first 21 days they did not get paid but after that, they were paid by the king for a maximum period in service of 3 months. After that, they could again negotiate to stay or return home. It was to have fatal consequences in 1066 when William, Duke of Normandy invaded late in October. The local Fyrd had served throughout the summer and had returned to their homes after their three month service to gather in the harvest. Consequently Harold Godwinson had to rely on his Housecarls (his personal bodyguard) to fight at Hastings, including the Fyrd local to Sussex. Thus the fragmented bodies of men throughout the country were defeated in detail by William.

The other component was the general levy which was every able bodied man under age 60 in the Hundred – this was a last ditch, desperate defence and although they were likely to own their own weapons and armour (Anglo Saxon Society was a warrior society) they were not considered to be “professional” warriors in the way that the Fyrd was regarded.

William essentially left the political organisation intact – it worked, he needed to maintain order and his imposed Norman overlords operated the taxation, militias and other civil organisations without too much change for their benefit. The Saxons were used to the system and to paying taxes, being called up as warriors and allowing life to carry on as usual was a useful way to transition the country to their new overlords.

You in the USA have checks and balances – here was the English checks and balances on the power of the Kings and Barons. It was true that the King awarded lands and titles to his mercenaries as a reward BUT if he was unjust or wielded too much power, the barons would intervene as they did with King John and forced him to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede, laying out the limits of his authority.

Hence the barons had private armies and retainers under their control and they were tied to the land or district, to defend the land or district and for hire (if needed). Their reciprocal obligations to the King and their tenants ensured that they had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Phil b

Anonymous said...

Part 2

With increasing urbanisation, the old Hundreds system was weakened but the system of private armies raised and contracted to the King remained.

When you go into British stately homes and see the many suits of armour and pikestaffs, swords and other weaponry in their armouries, these were the equipment owned by the Nobility that, if called upon, would equip his retainers, tenants etc. if needed. Private army, remember?

With the weakening of the Nobility and the more settled periods from the 13th Century onwards, the Militia coalesced onto the towns – they had a large population without ties to the local “Lord of the Manor” – and they patriotically formed companies. Due to the local and individualistic nature of the Lords and the town Militias, they could and did select their own weapons, uniforms etc. (which if you are into Militaria, makes a fascinating subject for a collector. The red coat uniform was a result of red dye being the cheapest – not to hide blood. The Rifles wore forest green and the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers wore green too).

Point is, the Militias were NOT state “owned” and could elect to NOT fight if they so wished.

The pamphlets published from time to time of the “Kings Regulations” were aimed at providing a common training syllabus for the Militias so that in the event of war, they could be incorporated into the army and manoeuvre and drilled in a way that fitted the tactics and control of the Generals. The Generals could not care less about how they were dressed or what they looked like – they needed them to be interchangeable units. Hence a “Well Regulated Militia” means “well trained in the tactics and weapons of war” – regulated meaning “conforming to the kings regulations”.

The Haldane reforms in 1907 essentially nationalised the Militias – from that time onwards, they were equipped, paid and trained at government expense and reorganised into a modern army. Up till then, there was no Regimental Depot for regular regiments. You joined the army and were assigned to a regiment and received your training in the regiment. The system for replacements for casualties or soldiers leaving after serving their time was poor – if the regiment took heavy casualties, they would be given raw recruits as replacements and, now they were numerically up to strength, expected to operate with the same efficiency as a trained regiment.

However, the Territorial Units could and did have depots and they formed bases for training and as an organisation for the collection and initial training of recruits and a source of replacements to their regiment. Drawn from the local district, they had a common identity and pride in “their” regiment. Service in the TAVR was looked upon very favourably.

So Haldane got a well trained, volunteer force that was cheap to pay (you only got paid on drill nights, during weekend training and the two week annual camp), much larger than the regular army and under regular army conditions of service and discipline.

So, if I was commissioned to rewrite the 2nd Amendment it would read something along the lines of:

Citizens, trained in the use of, and possessing, suitable military weapons and equipment, being necessary to safeguard their freedoms, the right of those citizens to own, possess and use those weapons shall not be infringed.

I find it somewhat ironic that the second amemdment has over 20,000 different laws modifying this right.

Phil B

Tom Rogneby said...

Whatever. That fat bastard won't get any traction on any of this. And I'd really like to see something like this enforced.

Anonymous said...

The Constitution is just fine, as written. The original meanings and intents are well documented. Btw, thanks Phil for the history lesson on militias.

The problem isn't the document, it's the treasonous actions of people from all branches of govt that ignore the document, and the shameful lack of response from the citizenry. If they won't follow the document now, how will changing the words make them behave?

Also, don't clamor for constitutional conventions or rewriting amendments. It is opening Pandora's box. You won't like the results: even less rights for us, and more power for them.

RocketmanKarl

MrGarabaldi said...

Hey Peter;

You know how messed up things are now WITH the bill of rights in the U.S. Constitution...Imagine how bad it would be if the first 10 amendments were NOT included in the U.S Constitution. James Madison was on to something. The Big government statist would have had a field-day, think Europe writ large.

Joseph Bridges said...

All that blither-blather issuing from Mickey Moore-ON, The Fat, Fraudulent Faker From Flint, purporting to be some kind of "28th Amendment", or some such, is simply his latest risible attempt to somehow make his lying, iggerunt fantasy-statements even moderately relevant to yet another issue he knows absolutely zero about...

He's been desperately trying - and totally-failing, repeatedly - to insert himself into the "public eye" on one aspect or another concerning firearms ownership and/or use in America for roughly three-to-four decades or more, most-generally by repeatedly spouting rabidly-antigun lies and senseless half(or less)-truths.

He's deeply and richly deserving of being totally-ignored...too bad he won't just go away; we'd really, REALLY like to "miss" him...

C. S. P. Schofield said...

I believe I've posted this before, but it bears repeating; a counterproposal...

The occasional lynching or defenestration of and officious government stooge being necessary for the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed, nor subject to registration, licensing, or tax.

deborah harvey said...

bill number HR3999
obviously premade and at the ready and to be fast tracked. submitted by republicans[!]
will be used to gut the second amendment and is therefore unConstitutional.
write to your congressmen.