Yesterday, on his Facebook page, Michael Moore posted his prescription for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I won't waste your time by reposting all of it here, as most of it is little more than mindless virtue signaling but, basically, it would ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. You'd be forced to go through federal training to use whatever weapons were left over, ownership would be tied to the CDC and healthcare laws, and you couldn't keep your guns in your home. They'd have to be stored at a government facility.
It is, like most of Moore's work, a moronic diatribe based on lies, half-truths, and political doublespeak.
Moore, however, is not the only person advocating such a scheme. Lots of celebs, media personalities, and writers (like the allegedly conservative Bret Stephens) have made similar arguments. They're all wasting their time, of course. It isn't going to happen. Why not?
To undo the 2nd Amendment, Congress would have to go through the Amendment process. That means that either: both houses would have to propose an Amendment with a 2/3 vote, or 2/3 of the nation's state legislatures would have to call for a constitutional convention.
Then, the proposed amendment would have to be ratified. To do this, either: 3/4 of the state legislatures would have to approve the amendment, or 3/4 of states would have to approve the amendment by holding ratifying conventions.
There is, literally, no way any of that is going to happen. The states aren't going to go for it because the electoral map looks like this...
....So, you can kiss the 2/3 of the legislatures and 3/4 ratification conventions goodbye.
As for Congress, we currently live in a political climate where an ObamaCare repeal can't get 60 votes in the Senate - despite the fact that most of the country despises ObamaCare and Republicans have voted to repeal it dozens of times in the past. If anyone thinks we're going to get 2/3 of both houses to agree on an amendment that would all but eliminate a fundemental right for every American, they're absolutely out of their mind.
More importantly, such an amendment would be focusing on the wrong problem. Over the course of the last few days, you may have seen this graphic:
Support Canada Free Press
It essentially deals a death blow to the idea that law abiding citizens purchasing guns automatically equates to a rise in gun homicides. The fact is that the rate of murder with firearms is propped up by four or five crime ridden cities. Democrat-run dystopias like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, and Los Angeles skew the numbers - badly. Plus, the overwhelming majority of the guns used in those crimes are already illegal or illegally owned, so there's no reason to believe the people carrying them would abide by a ban.
The only people who give a hoot about the 2nd Amendment are people who are already abiding by the laws that currently exist. If you're going to murder the clerk at a 7-11, are you really thinking "thank goodness the founders gave me the right to bear arms?" Of course not. Statistically, you're probably carrying a cheap Saturday night special and, even if you wanted to purchase a gun legally, you'd have no chance of passing the background checks that already exist.
As for the horrific mass shootings we've witnessed, yes, some of them have been carried out with legally obtained firearms. That's awful. If someone has a suggestion on how to tighten the net so that crazies can't get ahold of firearms, I'm all ears. I'm also open to bans on things like bump stocks which have no practical value and exist only to turn legal weapons into the kinds of firearms that have already been banned for decades. Targeted solutions are absolutely welcome, and we need to renew our focus on mental health.
But those seeking to revoke rights and ban all - or even most - guns should remember: Guns are an easy scapegoat but they're just a tool. Even if you could eliminate them - which you absolutely can't - another tool will take their place. The Tsarnaev brothers didn't need guns. McVeigh didn't need guns. The truck driver in Nice didn't need guns. The 9/11 hijackers didn't need guns.
As I argued the other day, something in this country has fundamentally changed. Guns used to be all over the place. Kids brought them to school on the bus. Yet, we didn't have incidents like those we've been witnessing lately. People like place blame on guns, because it's easy. Finding and facing the cause of these attack is much harder, and requires an uncomfortable level of introspection.
We desperately need to focus on that question that matters. WHY is this happening? Since there will always be another available weapon, the implement doesn't really matter. The WHY is the thing. Identify that, and you implement real, lasting, change.
