Michael Moore would like to amend the Constitution
Filmmaker and activist, Michael Moore, posted an article on his Substack page on the 10th of July 2022 that calls for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution whose purpose would be to protect “the inalienable right of a free people to be kept safe from gun violence and the fear thereof” by repealing the Second Amendment and directing Congress to enact laws requiring the banning of all self-loading firearms and of such weapons made at home, a round capacity limit of six, registration of all guns, and licensing for hunters, sport shooters, and the few who can convince the government that their lives are in particular danger. The minimum age for lawful ownership would be twenty-five, and owners would have to pass an intrusive background check that would include interviews with neighbors, co-workers, and current and former romantic partners. Under this proposed amendment, “no weapons of any kind whose sole intention is the premeditated elimination of human life are considered legal,” and there would be no “‘right’” to own guns.
I put “right” in double quotation marks there because Moore added the first set himself. It would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court would possess sufficient grammatical knowledge to rule that since gun rights are real, not imaginary, this amendment does nothing to curtail them, but excellence in composition is sadly nowhere required as a qualification for lawmakers, and Moore’s intent is clear.
As is his wild optimism if he has any serious expectation that what he proposes will pass any time soon. He seems to think that we can be transformed into Japan in terms of our gun laws, and I recommend that he read what I had to say on that subject following the assassination of former prime minister, Shinzo Abe. It is worth repeating that the killer in that case constructed his own firearm, something that Moore’s amendment would make illegal, for all the good the law did in this case. With our much more extensive experience in firearms handling and operation, Americans with access to a machine shop, a hardware store, a 3-D printer or metal sintering machine, or any of whatever other dual-use technologies exist would find the making of guns to be an easy process, especially since the necessary technical information is available on-line, and Moore did not—so far, at least—propose altering the First Amendment. Nor did he suggest ways to seal off the country from data exchanges.
When he calls for weapons “whose sole intention is the premeditated elimination of human life” to be banned, I get the impression that the free flow of ideas is not the only concept whose implications he has not thought through. Even if I refrain from questioning his notion of a firearm’s sole intention, I must point out that the language of his proposal would ban all guns if we were to adopt the belief held by gun control advocates that guns are designed for only one purpose: to kill. The reality is that lethal force is at times justified, and unless Moore is pushing pacifism, he would have to agree. He did offer a chance for people “who can demonstrate a special need for personal protection,” including, perhaps, Donald Trump, who was seen by the City of New York as being worthy of concealed carry at one point. It would be strange for a progressive like Moore to be on the side of the rich and politically connected, so he may mean someone who applies for a pistol permit when her boyfriend threatens to kill her—he might have been able to ask Carol Bowne about this, had the State of New Jersey approved her application in time to prevent her murder.
And this is really a key point. The function of the Second Amendment is to guarantee American citizens the opportunity to become proficient with personal weapons—though Moore leaves out of his proposed amendment anything not related to firearms and not getting shot by them. (He wants to regulate body armor, as well.) Gun control advocates imply a belief that in a time of need, all that is necessary is for good people to be granted permission to obtain a gun that will show up when required and that they will be able to use with sufficient skill, even while having had no practice. The martial arts are not like quantum physics, but they are also not akin to pouring liquid from a cup while trying to read the manufacturer’s mark on the underside. And Hollywood is rarely a good source for weapons handling of any kind.
I am sorry to say that Moore, the supposed progressive, includes in his proposal an implied permission for cops to be armed. His wording, “police who are trained and vetted to use firearms shall be subject to comprehensive and continuous monitoring and shall be dismissed if found to exhibit any racist or violent behavior,” acknowledges the problematic nature of contemporary law-enforcement agencies, but does not call for them to be entirely or even mostly disarmed. He should bear in mind that the people who would set the standards for acceptable behavior would be the ones to be defended by legal arms. This might possibly be clearer to him if I were to draw an analogous scenario in which the executives of General Motors had the sole authority to set labor standards in their plants.
But I have to wonder just where Moore’s head may be these days. He was never known for careful reporting, but he used to be on the side of the people against the powerful. And there was a time when he was not concerned with conforming to Democratic Party orthodoxy. If, however, his goal is, as Section 1 of his amendment suggests, to keep a free people “safe from gun violence and the fear thereof,” I have to say that disarming the populace while doing nothing to restrain the rise of fascism in America or to curtail our longstanding corporatism is no way to go about achieving that end. I do realize that he personally advocates for many genuinely progressive programs, but he should consider how unlikely those would be to get enacted without a citizenry that can say no to a government tempted to go mad with power.