Michael Moore is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment:
“Who will say on this network or any other network in the next few days, ‘It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment’?” Michael Moore asked MSNBC host Chris Hayes today.
Whatever else you may think about Mr. Moore, at least he recognizes that in order to pass even ‘common sense’ measures that involve punishing gun owners who haven’t done anything wrong, changing the Second Amendment is a necessary first step.
And an effort to repeal it would give people in every state an opportunity to re-introduce the most essential, and most ignored, idea about guns back into the conversation: That the right to keep and bear arms is about being able to fight your own government.
In fact, if conservatives are looking for a way to stop the introduction of new bills, all they would have to say is:
We will start considering these bills when the Second Amendment has been changed to keep the bills from conflicting with the plain language of our constitution. So get to work on that, and get back to us when you’re done.
In other words:
We may be open to limiting the right to keep and bear arms, if that can be done in a way that preserves its purpose and its benefits. What we are not open to is pretending that the Constitution doesn’t say what it so clearly does say.
If there are limits that should be placed on the right to keep and bear arms — and limits that should not be placed on it — let’s take the time and care necessary to figure out exactly what they are, so we can limit ourselves to enacting statutes that are consistent with the Constitution.
And as we do that, let’s keep in mind that while amending a constitution is generally a lot more trouble than just pushing a bill through a legislature (or extracting an opinion from a court) with a bare majority vote, it’s meant to be more trouble, so that short-sighted, momentary passion can be restrained by measured, thoughtful, forward-looking consideration; and so that we will, when feelings are in danger of overwhelming reason, be firmly reminded that governments are formed in order to protect rights, and that constitutions are written precisely to place out of the reach of government those ‘solutions’ that would undermine that purpose.
So let’s get that conversation going, shall we?
Or in still other words:
We all want the same ends, but only one side of this debate seems to recognize one of the earliest lessons that we teach to even our youngest children: The ends do not justify the means.
What Republicans are willing to say that?
