Just recently, this Liberal proposed an amendment to repeal the 2A. Wait until you read it

Michael Moore isn’t making a movie. This is a proposal to amend the Constitution. It’s a marketing stunt to promote his authoritarian leftism, but it is just like Moore’s movies.

In a recent post on his website, Moore suggested a 28th Amendment that would repeal the Second Amendment. This new amendment would take away Americans’ right to bear and keep arms.

“This Amendment thus repeals and replaces the Second Amendment.” Moore suggested in Section 1. This Amendment repeals and replaces Section 2.

Individuals who meet the requirements will be required to pass an annual written exam and take a firearms safety course. Individuals would also need to be at least 25 years old and have their license renewed annually.

As if this wasn’t enough, it demands that all automatic and semi-automatic guns and any device that can allow a single shot gun to fire either automatically or semi-automatically be prohibited. Also, guns that can hold more than six rounds or bullets at once would be prohibited.

My version of a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment:

THE 28th AMENDMENThttps://t.co/0SRexdqO9b

— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) July 10, 2022

Moore also proposed any individual owning any of the aforementioned firearms would have one month upon the ratification of the amendment to turn over their guns to authorities. (RELATED: Gov. Phil Murphy’s Latest 2A Crackdown Creates Database For All Ammo Sold In New Jersey)

The proposal is a reminder of the profound insight the Founders had. The founders knew that there would come an era when people would lose their rights to self-defense from government.

Although Moore’s suggestion is a PR stunt, the idea is too serious to ignore. Moore isn’t the only one who would like to seriously restrict the Second Amendment, or even abolish it. His suggestions reflect the foolishness and treachery of today’s anti-gun movement. Moore has decided the only type of protection afforded to select Americans should be shotguns and maybe a revolver.

But here’s the truth: the question isn’t which gun should you use to protect your God-given rights to security and life. There should not be any debate.

The language of the Second Amendment is clear, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The United States was founded on the idea that this was to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

George Washington asserted in 1775 that “when we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.”

In an 1813 letter to James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson reiterated the idea that there is a “necessity of obliging every citizen to be a souldier.”

“This was the case with the Greeks & Romans and must be that of every free state.”

To be a citizen of the United States meant you were prepared to be a soldier and defend the sacred liberties enshrined in the Constitution. The promise of protection from partisan politicians was not made to you.

The Crown’s authority over military forces made Americans suspicious of a professional-standing army. This led to a citizen-soldier mindset. It was born from a healthy distrust of government and a devotion to the freedoms that can only be guaranteed when man is free and able to defend them. Americans desired an army that was mainly made up of volunteers and a handful of professionals. This would ensure the army was loyal towards the people, not the government. Americans were so concerned about their nation’s survival that they would do anything to protect it, there was no need for an army. This brings us to the Second Amendment debate. The idea that the Founding Fathers only wanted the army with weapons, after liberating a nation, is deeply disturbing. The public would be left defenseless against elite whims.