Long post. Edit it yourself. I don't have time to go back and read it..
In the post under, Lex starts the conversation
on gun control, which, like the conversation on race, has been going on most of
his adult life, by asking Lefty Libs to propose a “new 2nd Amendment.” Lex was pretty sure the Lefties wouldn’t take
the bait because it would expose their ultimate goal of banning all guns all of
the time.
Well one Lefty gave it a shot. No it wasn’t the Left’s new policy expert on
all things, Hank Kimble’s younger brother - Jimmy. Michael Moore gave it shot here. This what Moore came up with:
“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.”
It’s clear that tried to use the language of the current 2nd
Amendment to form the base for his new 2nd Amendment. Moore start using the exact same language for
the current 2nd Amendment, but probably has no idea what the term “A
well regulated militia” means. Note that
the framers chose “A well regulated militia” rather than “The well regulated militia.”
That means that there can be many militias.
The “well regulated” part is left to stand alone. It does not a say “a government well
regulated militia...” The common
understanding is that that omission means the militia is expected to regulate itself.
The term “militia” has a meaning outside the common notion of
rednecks running through the woods shooting guns on weekend.
It more often refers to the entire population of able-bodied people not
under government control confined to a local area. Militias
are historically temporary and used almost exclusively for defense.
None of this probably makes one wit of difference to Moore. That’s the problem. Moore starts out by apparently conflating the
National Guard with a militia. The
National Guard is not local but National hence the name "National" Guard. It is not self-regulated but rather regulated by state and federal authorities. So it is well under government control.
All this means is the opening of Moore’s proposed amendment
is superfluous. Given the meaning and
utility of the word “militia” Moore should have chosen to keep it. So let’s update Moore’s work.
“A well regulated State National Guard
militia, 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.”
The next part is not all that much different
from the original. In addition to “being
necessary to the security” part, Moore adds being “helpful to the safety” to his
proposed amendment.
Fine what does “safety” mean? Will the militia
be called out to provide “safety” guards at the local schools? Will they be
directing traffic at road construction?
Safety is BS word.
Moore uses fudge the word "helpful" as opposed to the
original “necessary.” What is “helpful”? Just about anything and everything. So substituting the word “necessary” with the
word “helpful” is obviously an attempt to grow the federal government. No doubt Moore sees Black Thugs Matter, the
New (same as the old) Black Panthers, AntiFa etc. as “helpful.” The Tea Party, NRA, Catholic Church etc. not so
much. Better to keep the thng that are "necessary" rather than open it up to all things "helpful."
Moore also omits the word “free” altogether when
referring to a state. Omitting the word “free” is totally understandable. Freedom is an anathema to the Michael Moores of this
world and restricting it is the whole purpose for the re-write of the 2nd
Amendment in the first place.
So let’s update Moore’s work with a more
rational amendment:
“A well regulated State National Guard
militia, being helpful necessary to the safety and security of a free
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 adds “in times of need” which is again totally
superfluous. Why would you call out the
militia if you didn’t need it? Let’s
update Moore’s work.
“A well regulated State National Guard
militia, being helpful necessary to the safety and security of a free
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 then goes on to consider “the strictly
regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of
non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting…”
Finally, Mike you got to the meat of the subject.
First “strictly regulated.” Mike there are already in excess of 20,000
laws on the books regarding guns. I’m
sure the next 5 or 6 laws congress passes will have as much effect on gun
ownership as the first 20,000. Gun ownership is already “strictly regulated.”
Next “a limited number.” Okay fine. 1,000 is more limited than a
1,001. And 10,000 is more limited than
10,001. As long as “limited” is considered
one more than the most ardent collector, I’m good with limited. But it is just stupid.
Next non-automatic. Automatic weapons are already all but banned –
idiot.
Next for sport and hunting. What else is there? Collecting.
Collectors have to be the least likely bunch to ever fire their weapons. They are interested in historic weapons for
the most part. We’ve been down this road before. Trying to limit weapons by the way they look
and what they are used for. A shotgun in
close quarters will be a far more deadly weapon than a sporting rifle. So when the next loon uses a shotgun the next step will be the banning of
shotguns. AS noted, we’ve been down this
road before. It’s a dead end. So let’s up date:
“A well regulated State National Guard
militia, being helpful necessary to the safety and security of a free
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.”
The last bit of Moore’s proposal is pure gobooldygook. The “primary right of all people to be free
from gun violence”? YGBSM. Let’s just pass a law making it illegal to
kill or otherwise harm someone with a gun or anything else for that matter? Oh!
Right. It’s already illegal, and
that’s not even part of the 20,000 plus gun laws. It’s just illegal to kill and otherwise harm people
without cause.
So let’s update one more time:
“A well regulated State National Guard
militia, being helpful necessary to the safety and security of a free
State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated the 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.”
Okay, there’s something I can live with. Just few changes and we’re in complete
agreement Mike. And only 27 words. Good work, Mike.
1 comment:
Mike Moore shows typical mental gymnastics and thought conflictions by stating hunting and sporting rifles would be allowed. When the bad guys use cargo vans and cars to run down innocent people on a sidewalk should we ban all cargo vans? Cars? Mopeds? Well then does cargo need defined? Define hunting and sporting rifles that would not kill a person. Mike is invoking a nonsensical solution to a problem that cannot be executed with any common sense. Mike should go back to the drawing board and start over. Unless his real intent is to continue getting free lunches on the liberal rubber chicken and adoration circiut.
Post a Comment