in

Michael Moore Writes 28th Amendment to Take Away Gun Rights

It's been a long time since we've spoken about him. By this, I'm talking about the self-aggrandizing and unimportant independent filmmaker and attention-w***e extraordinaire, Michael Moore, who is unable to understand why he continues to claim he's an extremely respected influential, far-left minded influencer. Maybe he is.

Whatever the case, Moore's back with a radical leftist notion that is among Moore's “best” efforts in a long time.

The left is continuing to collapse in the wake of numerous mass shootings as well as two Second Amendment rights decisions by the Supreme Court, so Moore has set out to create his own version of an 28th Amendment — there are currently 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — that if approved by Congress will eliminate the Second Amendment and the rights it guarantees and implement an enormous federal ban on legally purchased guns owned by lawful gun owners.

Nothing totalitarian police will say about any of this. Nothing at all.

Moore's proposal for the 28th Amendment, which he hilariously signed, “The above constitutional amendment was written by Michael Moore of Michigan and presented to the 117th United States Congress on July 11, 2022,” is a reference to something from Vladimir Putin's Russia (or the “WWII guy” Democrats like to compare with Donald Trump), from beginning to the end. Let's look at a few passages from the document:

XXVIII AMENDMENT

Section 1.

The inalienable rights of a sovereign people to be protected from gun violence and fear of it should not be violated, and will be protected by Congress as well as the States. This Amendment is a repeal and replacement for that of the Second Amendment.

SECTION 2.

Congress is expected to establish a mandatory system for registration of firearms and licensing to serve the following specific purposes: (a) licensed hunters of game; (b) licensed ranges for shooting with a target as well as (c) for those who have a specific requirement for personal security.

Anyone who wants to purchase a firearm must undergo an extensive vetting process that includes an extensive background check, including the written and secure approval of spouses, family members, or ex-spouses, partners, friends, former partners, and even neighbors. A mental health test is also required. There is a waiting time of one month for the background check in full.

3.

If you meet the conditions for the restricted gun owners group and clear the background checks, you must attend a firearms safety course and pass a test annually.

Coupla questions, Mikey. (Most Mikes and Michaels loathe “Mikey.” Long story But trust me here.)

“The right of people to be kept safe from gun violence.” Who is it? Since self-defense has been rendered unlawful by your illogical amendment proposal, are you proposing that over 300 million Americans should be reliant on the police — exactly the ones your equally silly allies are trying to “defund”?

Additionally, hunters and recreational firearms enthusiasts need to be approved not just from family members and even ex-family members as well as co-workers and their neighbors too? Did you read the U.S. Constitution and/or any of its amendments? I strongly doubt it.

But there's more. A couple of “highlights”:

Section 5.

Congress will determine and regularly make changes to the restricted list of firearms approved to be used by civilians, including firearms that have not yet been invented. These firearms were currently restricted:

* All semi- and auto-automatic firearms and devices that allow a single-shot gun to fire semi-automatically or automatically;

* Any weapon that is able to hold more than six rounds at a time, or any magazine that has over six rounds.

* All guns made of plastic or any other equipment and machinery, or a 3D printer that could create a weapon that could end a human life.

Section 6.

Congress will regulate the use of ammunition, the capacities of ammunition locking of gun barrels, storage for guns body armor, gun sights and the distribution and sale of these items. None of the weapons that solely aim at the deliberate destruction of human life are legal. Congress could impose further restrictions because this amendment doesn't give anyone American an “right” to own any weapon.

Maybe it's just me but I like it when gun-grabbers refer to ammunition in the form of “bullets.” “Rounds” or “shells” are fine, however “bullets” always sound a little more Barney Fife in my mind.

However, Moore's clairvoyance in regard to “any type (of weapon) with the sole purpose is the deliberate destruction of human life is classified as illegal,” is ominously hilarious such as this one: “Congress may create future restrictions because this amendment doesn't give anyone in the United States of American the right to possess weapons of any kind.”

It's a bit nebulous, isn't it? It is, of course intentional due to the fact that it would allow the federal government to have the legal power to alter the rules as needed.

Then, Section 8:

People who already own one of these prohibited firearms and who don't belong to the legal categories of owners of firearms that are restricted, will be given a month from the date of ratification of this Amendment to surrender their guns to be destroyed by local police. The local authorities might set up a program to buy back guns to aid in this endeavor.

Best of luck, Michael.

Although it's nearly impossible to figure out the total number of legally owned guns in America, according to the American Gun Facts in the year that was released, there were more than 80 millions private American owners legally owning more than 393 million guns.

Additionally, estimates of legally owned AR-15-type guns (AKA: “assault rifles,” “weapons of war,” “really scary-looking guns only owned by white supremacists and other lunatics,” etc.) can range from 5 million, but can go up to 20 million.

Yes, Michael, good luck with that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Recall Effort for George Gascon Collects More than 715K signatures

Greg Abbott Uses Analogy to Explain Biden’s Illegal Immigrant Problem