Hollywood has-been Michael Moore plays constitutional scholar
Among the more radical left-wingers in Hollywood is producer Michael Moore – and that is quite an achievement. His career reached its peak a generation ago when his film documentaries – such as “Bowling for Columbine” and “Roger and Me” — gained a modicum of box office appeal. It gained him guest spots on mostly left-leaning media for a while – but his appearances are much rarer today.
Most of his other dozen or so productions remain obscure – only viewed by a small number of cult-like followers. His consistently anti-American pronouncements appear to have worn thin with the general public.
In recent days, Moore has pierced through the far edge of the media veil. Like many hyperventilating left-wing celebrities, Moore has promised to leave America if Republicans gain control of Washington. Of course, they usually renege on that promise. Alec Baldwin had promised to leave America in at least two election cycles, but he was still around to shoot his latest movie – and the cinematographer.
Moore, however, says he really … really … really means it. We will have to wait and see.
In his more recent grab at the spotlight, Moore is playing constitutional scholar by proposing a constitutional amendment – the 28th, to be exact. It would nullify the Second Amendment that the nation’s Founders added to the Constitution. In fact, Moore’s amendment would be the first to cancel any of the inalienable rights articulated in the Bill of Rights.
In his presentation of his Amendment, Moore sees himself as a compatriot of the Founders. That is a bit like comparing a first grader to Albert Einstein. In his publication of his Amendment, Moore features images of the Founders at work in the 18th Century. He even closes off with a faux official sounding proclamation: (The above constitutional amendment was written by Michael Moore of Michigan and presented to the 117th United States Congress on July 11, 2022).
While the Founders established the most important Bill of Rights in world history in very few profound words, Moore drafts something more like a legislative bill in eight sections. In Section 1, he writes:
“The inalienable right of a free people to be kept safe from gun violence and the fear thereof must not be infringed and shall be protected by the Congress and the States. This Amendment thus repeals and replaces the Second Amendment.”
Gun owners who would be protected in Moore’s version are “(a) licensed hunters of game; (b) licensed ranges for the sport of target shooting; and (c) for the few who can demonstrate a special need for personal protection.”
But only if gun license applicants:
“… undergo a strict vetting process with a thorough background check, including the written and confidential approval of family members, spouses and ex-spouses and/or partners and ex-partners, co-workers and neighbors. A mental health check will also be required. There will be a waiting period of one month to complete the full background check.”
If you were lucky enough to pass the tests of Hercules, there is another hurdle. In section 3, Moore writes:
“Those who meet all the requirements for the restricted gun owners’ groups and successfully pass the background check must take a firearms safety class and pass a written test on an annual basis.”
Moore’s nonsensical Amendment raises gun “ownership” to the age of 25. That presumably means you cannot buy a gun until that age, but what about operating a gun. Can a teenager go hunting with his dad, or do a little skeet shooting? Can you get an exemption if you are into gun sports or an Olympic athlete?
He would also have all firearm licenses reviewed (renewed?) every year. He would ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons (virtually every gun in America) – and he includes guns not yet invented. I am not sure in all American history there has been a ban on speculation – a ban on the nonexistent.
He would limit ammo capacity to six rounds and ban “all devices which can enable a single-shot gun to fire automatically or semi-automatically.” That means reloading after every bullet. So, why a limit of six-round magazines if you can only load one bullet at a time? Moore is not a deep thinker.
Moore would regulate the type of ammunition, storage, gun sights, locks, and body armor. Police would be subject to similar training and vetting – and “shall be continuously monitored.” The police shall also be dismissed for racist or violent behavior. Isn’t that already the case?
Moore goes on (and on) to say that: Congress may create future restrictions because “this amendment specifically does not grant any American the ‘right’ to own any weapon.”
To underscore the elimination of a constitutional right to own a firearm, Moore’s Amendment states:
“Persons already owning any of the above banned firearms, and who do not fall into the legal groups of restricted firearms owners, will have one month from the ratification of this Amendment to turn in their firearms for destruction by local law enforcement. These local authorities may organize a gun buy-back program to assist in this effort.”
There are many facets to the gun debate in America – differing points-of-view. What Moore is raising is so far out of the parameters of intelligent debate that one is inclined to think that he is looking to restart his dead career as a comedian. He well establishes that he is NOT a constitutional scholar – not even a competent arm-chair type.
What Moore has shown to the world with his latest embarrassment in the realm of public policy is that he is a left-wing extremist — and a showman with little intellectual ability beyond the politics of irrational tantrums.
Less of Moore would be more beneficial to the public comity.
So, there ‘tis.