Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the right to keep and bear arms.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid for all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States at any time after the date of its submission for ratification:
1. Any right to keep and bear arms, whether under the Second Amendment to this Constitution, or under some pre-existing doctrine of natural law or common law or otherwise, or under Constitution or laws of any State, is repealed.
2. The privilege to keep and bear arms throughout the United States shall be under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.’
I am a citizen, a 58-year-old father to seven, and yet, I am at risk of imprisonment just for having a single capsule of ammunition, much less a gun.
In Brazil, I am required to register a gun I possess and the government is the only one who can decide whether I can keep it—only after paying the $2,000 in registration fees.
This is where you Americans are headed if you do not hold on to your Second Amendment rights.
In 2005, a referendum election was held and 65 percent of the voters voted “No” to ban firearm and ammunition merchandizing and grant to the government full power to tax and control personal defense firearms and ammunition.
This vote has been disregarded by the Supreme Court, that uphold government right to regulate all aspects of gun possession. Today, a Brazilian can not have even a sword, like those samuri, for example, nor a simple pellet gun or a copy of a pellet pistol that vaguelly or accuratelly represents a real gun. Children cannot even play “guns.”
Typical of liberal elites, only the criminals and Labor Party members and supporters may bear arms. In the “Favelas,” Brazilian shack like cities inside or bounded to real cities, there are true Armies of Perpetrators that have military-style guns, like .50 machine guns, rifles, grenade launchers, AK’s, AR15s and all the rest. But a father, a law abiding citizen cannot have a single short-hand gun to keep his familly safe. He is treated like a criminal. This week, six banks have had their´s ATMs blown up–yes, blowned up with explosives–just in the city of São Paulo.
Sadly, the direct result of this loss of freedom is the sharp increase in crime, such as the current level of 50,000 violent deaths every year.
Please understand that I cannot identify myself because in my country, men like me are the target of law enforcement, not the criminals. Even now, I am concerned that by coming out of the shadows, I have made myself a target to the police and the criminals. As a regular of Guns & Patriots, I felt compelled to speak up and add my voice.
Please do not ignore my warning. Once your gun rights are gone, there is no way to get them back.
Fortunately, Mike Barkley, the author of the first quote, is about as much of a whackadoodle as you could ever hope to meet, and as logically inconsistent as a two-year-old wanting everyone else’s toys but refusing to "share" his own. Unfortunately, he is running for Congressional office in Kalifornistan – a state where being a certifiable nutcase is not a disqualifying factor for public office.
Personally, I cannot get past how he wants to "outlaw the imposition of any requirement for registering to vote other than the unsupported declaration under penalty of perjury that the person registering is eligible to vote / ban the increasing state-level insistence on government-issued photo IDs for voting and limits on student voting" while simultaneously requiring American citizens to register their firearms and all related transfers, and how he wants to "recognize the right of women to terminate pregnancies at will and to receive funding for it as for any other medical procedure" while simultaneously abolishing those women’s right to self defense by governmental fiat and extortionistic taxation.
As with so many other anti-rights cultists before him, Mike Barkley wants the government to force you to support the rights he agrees with, and he wants the government to forcibly oppress rights he does not agree with. Right tolerant man, he is.
Thankfully for us, we know where the petty-authoritarian pipe dreams of people like Barkley end up – once-Great Britain with its violent crime rates four times higher than ours, Australia’s violent crime rates decreasing slower than ours or holding steady, and Brazil making caring fathers almost too afraid to take the necessary steps to keep their families and friends safe, and would be a criminal if his government ever found out.
Are those the kinds of worlds we want to create for our children? Is that the kind of legacy we want to create? Do you want to be responsible for disarming law-abiding citizens in the face of criminal threats that will continue to be armed no matter the laws in place (in other words, aiding and abetting criminals)? I can honestly answer, "No," to each of those questions – Barkley cannot.
There is some good news in all of this… Barkley, being a relative nobody, has a steep road to climb to the House of Representatives. Likewise, his proposed Second-Amendment-repealing Amendment would have to be passed by both the House and the Senate by a 2/3s majority, and then be ratified by 3/4s of the state legislatures – the last time this happened was 1992, with the time before that being 1971. However, in the past decade, Congress has averaged somewhere around 140 proposed Amendments a year, with not a single one being ratified, and a scant few ever making it out of committee – Barkley’s would unquestionably be nothing more than background noise.
And, finally, our rights are not subject to or created by an Amendment, poll, study, or anything else – our rights existed before the Constitution, and would continue to exist even if an Amendment was added "abolishing" those rights. I wonder if Barkley understands that concept, or if he is one of those folks who would have supported pre-Civil-War slavery, since the Constitution did not say otherwise…
(Note: In no way do I consider Mike Barkley anything even approximating a viable threat to our rights; however, I do believe it is important to keep tabs on what the enemies of those rights are up to. If nothing else, Barkley provides a beautiful counterpoint to anti-rights cultists claiming that no one is trying to undermine the Second Amendment.)