• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Debate on the REPEAL of the 2nd Amendment

packingungal

packingungal

Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,896
Likes
288
Location
Central FL
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
http://secondamendmentmarch.com/

URGENT! Anti-gun Chicago talk show host Milt Rosenberg will be hosting a radio debate on the REPEAL of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution on superstation WGN Radio.

WGN has a huge market and can be heard on air in many states and around the world streaming live on the internet....this is not just an Illinois issue. (Note that if you cannot click on the link directly, copy and paste the entire link into your browser's address bar.)
http://www.wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_google_maps&Itemid=123

The following is taken from an urgent email just issued by the Illinois State Rifle Association. This is a TRIAL BALLOON people. Don't forget where Obama came from....Chicago. If you care at all about freedom then you recognize that an on air debate about abolishing the 2nd Amendment is the shot across the bow. Read and respond:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Defending our Constitution will be Bob Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute.

The debater who will be attacking our Constitution has not been named as of yet.

HERE IS WHAT YOU MUST DO TO DEFEND YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:

1. Mark your calendar to listen to WGN Radio, AM 720, on Thursday, March 26, 2009 beginning at 9 PM. If you cannot receive WGN in your area, you can listen to the program live on the Internet at www.wgnradio.com

2. No matter where you live, please be sure to call the radio station's call in line at (312) 591-7200 and ask to speak your opinion on what has been said. It would be best if you voice support for the 2nd Amendment and Mr. Levy's statements rather than personally attacking whoever the anti gunner is.

3. Please pass this alert on to all your gun-owning, freedom-loving friends, your gun club, and anyone else you know who would be interested in calling in to the radio show to defend our Constitution.

4. Please post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards or blogs to which you subscribe.

It is important that you call the radio station and continue to call until you get through to speak. The more pro-gun callers we get, the better. Don't let the anti gunners use this forum as a vehicle for trampling on our Constitution!

Let's do what we can to generate a nation-wide response to this latest attack on our rights!
 
Don't think they will "filter" out pro-gun people? They don't want to hear from us.
I don't want to toss cold water on this, I may even try to call in, but do not want a few hundred pro gun people calling in and taking over their BS, they want the bashers, the brown shirts.
 
Last edited:
"URGENT?" I'm not so sure...

Let's see, the repeal of any part of the Constitution, including the repeal of a previously passed amendment, requires--you guessed it--an amendment to the Constitution. There are two ways you can do that: The first is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. The second is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. Regardless of which route is taken, the amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of states.

Now, I understand the dangers of complacency, but overall, I'm not feeling very threatened by some schlock-jock hosting a debate on repealing any amendment, even if it is on the superstation that is WGN.
 
ScottS said:
"URGENT?" I'm not so sure...

Let's see, the repeal of any part of the Constitution, including the repeal of a previously passed amendment, requires--you guessed it--an amendment to the Constitution. There are two ways you can do that: The first is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. The second is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. Regardless of which route is taken, the amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of states.

Now, I understand the dangers of complacency, but overall, I'm not feeling very threatened by some schlock-jock hosting a debate on repealing any amendment, even if it is on the superstation that is WGN.
Click to expand...


You do realize that the anti-Constitutionalists are just 2 states away from successfully calling a Constitutional Convention?

Forgive me, but it is apathetic attitudes like yours and the defeatist attitude of Kicker96fs that has allowed the free reign of anti-gunners to systematically and progressively violate your 2A rights. Ever hear of the term "mission creep?"
 
Well, considering that the 2nd amendment only re-affirms that we have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms...they would also have to replace it with something taking away our Right. Not that they would be against that if they were to try to repeal the 2nd amendment.
 
MassBites said:
You do realize that the anti-Constitutionalists are just 2 states away from successfully calling a Constitutional Convention?

Forgive me, but it is apathetic attitudes like yours and the defeatist attitude of Kicker96fs that has allowed the free reign of anti-gunners to systematically and progressively violate your 2A rights. Ever hear of the term "mission creep?"
Click to expand...

While I agree with your post here and I agree that the battle for public opinion is vital to the preservation of our freedoms, I'm just curious; what data are you using to support the claim that the anti's are 2 states shy of a majority needed to call a convention? If you're using the number of states to vote for Obama, I think we may be a bit safer then that as a vote for Obama doesn't necessarily translate into an anti-gun vote.
 
As the bumper sticker goes: "The day we lose the 2nd ammendment is the day the second revolution begins"

Personally, I think its going to be far sooner than that the way things are going.

They can "debate" all they want, but they had better find another country to live in if they think they are going to act on their decision with even the slightest amount of success.
 
Finalygotabeltfed said:
As the bumper sticker goes: "The day we lose the 2nd ammendment is the day the second revolution begins"

Personally, I think its going to be far sooner than that the way things are going.

They can "debate" all they want, but they had better find another country to live in if they think they are going to act on their decision with even the slightest amount of success.
Click to expand...

Success will be based on what percentage of the military would be willing to take on American citizens on American soil.
 
Bob P said:
what data are you using to support the claim that the anti's are 2 states shy of a majority needed to call a convention? If you're using the number of states to vote for Obama, I think we may be a bit safer then that as a vote for Obama doesn't necessarily translate into an anti-gun vote.
Click to expand...

Or a vote for a Constitutional Convention.

Mr Bites, could you cite your source that "anti-Constitutionalists are just 2 states away from successfully calling a Constitutional Convention" (BTW, what is an "anti-Constitutionalist?"; that this Constitutional Convention would have a super-majority needed to repeal the 2A; and that 3/4 of the state legislatures stand ready to ratify this new amendment?

Yes, I've heard of Mission Creep. I've also heard of the NWO, and even of tin-foil.

TinFoilHatArea.jpg
 
The chances of this happening are improbable, so I'm not too worried.

One part of me, though, wishes they would try to do it.... though, if only for the reason it might light a fire under a bunch of people's asses. Then we could basically dragon punch the crap out of these people once and for all, and after the dust settles the antis would become extremely marginalized politically. Gun Control is already approaching political minefield state, but I want it to be political minefield plus "punji pit with stakes dipped in buffalo turds with a claymore that goes off afterwards for good measure" type of political suicide.

The bottom line is people need to get pissed off in the existing generations. A few generations from now, political correctness and socialism may be too great to overcome.

-Mike
 
Mike, I whole heatedly agree. When you wake the sleeping dragon all hell can break loose. I'd love to see them try, but if they do, a part of me thinks they may actually 'win' something in the end.

Keep 'gun control' brainstorming in some darkened dank room under Nancy Pelosi's or Weasel Holder's office. Oh wait, that actually describes their offices.

Either way, the 2A is in place and working. Ask anyone who has had to defend themselves with use of deadly force (not in MA).
 
Finalygotabeltfed said:
As the bumper sticker goes: "The day we lose the 2nd ammendment is the day the second revolution begins"

Personally, I think its going to be far sooner than that the way things are going.

They can "debate" all they want, but they had better find another country to live in if they think they are going to act on their decision with even the slightest amount of success.
Click to expand...

I think it is even more broad than that.

If I recall correctly there were two states ( I believe it was Montana and Arizona) that had resolutions passed in their legislatures that basically said that if the Federal Government abrogates the Constitution - then the contract that was made when the state joined the union - is OVER. This was done right around the time that the Heller verdict was being waited on.

I think that if a Constitutional Convention is called ( and there are other reasons some states want to do so - than just the 2nd amendment) - then we are potentially in for a world of hurt. I have also heard the rumors that there are 32 states that have agreed to call one. I also think that if the Constitution was to get changed too drastically from what it is now - you would potentially find states seceding from the Union.

In the end the way this country is going - it is looking more and more like secession or outright refusal to follow federal mandates is something that may well happen. The feds are going way too far overboard with all the stunts they have been pulling lately.
 
If nothing else, you have to admire the honesty of anti-gun folks actually discussing the repeal of the 2nd. I'd rather have a discussion about the fundamental issue (RKBA) than try to thwart, one-by-one, the death of a thousand cuts that would, if successful, circumvent the 2nd amendment without an actual repeal.
 
Timber said:
It would actually be the fourth revolution. The last two over whiskey and states rights didn't end too well, IIRC.
Click to expand...

True - but the US then was still an up and coming nation, now it is huge. Rome had it's revolutions and uprisings over the years and a lot of them failed, until they didn't.

With what is going on in our government and high finance now I think you have to admit we are entering a new era. The bloom is off the rose and it would be mighty hard to make the argument that there are not severe systemic problems with the way this country is being managed. This puts us into a different era of history than when the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War took place.

Any sort of uprising now would be more akin to the historical atmosphere that we had during our original revolution or the French revolution: People are just sick and tired of getting massively screwed. And the results could go either way - a freer society and more liberty, or a descent into hell and dictatorship (like the French had).

Either way - something MUST happen, if we just sit back and take this and act like the massive screwjob that we are currently going thru is ok - then we will deserve all the abuse we will get down the road.
 
calsdad said:
True - but the US then was still an up and coming nation, now it is huge. Rome had it's revolutions and uprisings over the years and a lot of them failed, until they didn't.

With what is going on in our government and high finance now I think you have to admit we are entering a new era. The bloom is off the rose and it would be mighty hard to make the argument that there are not severe systemic problems with the way this country is being managed. This puts us into a different era of history than when the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War took place.

Any sort of uprising now would be more akin to the historical atmosphere that we had during our original revolution or the French revolution: People are just sick and tired of getting massively screwed. And the results could go either way - a freer society and more liberty, or a descent into hell and dictatorship (like the French had).

Either way - something MUST happen, if we just sit back and take this and act like the massive screwjob that we are currently going thru is ok - then we will deserve all the abuse we will get down the road.
Click to expand...

Just a point, both Roman revolutions/civil wars resulted in harsher, more tyrannical forms of government. The American Revolution is notable in being one of the few that didn't.
 
Bob P said:
Just a point, both Roman revolutions/civil wars resulted in harsher, more tyrannical forms of government. The American Revolution is notable in being one of the few that didn't.
Click to expand...

I realize that. That's why I used the French Revolution example also. They ended up with a shitstorm of violence from that.

The problem is - we are inevitably moving towards a more tyrannical government anyway. In fact depending on your political views - we may already be there now.

The other thing you have to remember is: government can only get so tyrannical before it just kills itself. Russia and a few others in recent history have demonstrated this. We can always move back towards liberty if people truly want it. In the end - it's not the government but the people who support the govt. that are the problem.
 
I actually think a Constitutional Convention wouldn't be all that bad.

That would virtually eliminate the Federal's "right" (notice I used quotations, meaning it is NOT a right) to force any state to stay part of the Union (like happened in 1861). That would allow certain states to leave the union, while others stayed.

Now, for those of you that live in MA, that's going to SUCK, but for those of us that live in adjoining, but not Socialist states, we'll welcome it. I just wonder what we'll name the new country. Maybe Free America, while the rest of you live in the USSA.
 
Nickle said:
I actually think a Constitutional Convention wouldn't be all that bad.

That would virtually eliminate the Federal's "right" (notice I used quotations, meaning it is NOT a right) to force any state to stay part of the Union (like happened in 1861). That would allow certain states to leave the union, while others stayed.

Now, for those of you that live in MA, that's going to SUCK, but for those of us that live in adjoining, but not Socialist states, we'll welcome it. I just wonder what we'll name the new country. Maybe Free America, while the rest of you live in the USSA.
Click to expand...

Very true. Once you open that gate - there is no telling what might rush thru.

Since I see MA as being just about a lost cause - I welcome the secessionist leanings of our more liberty minded brethren from across the border(s). At least there will be somewhere to go. If we are really lucky we will get a Virginia/West Virginia or Maine/MA thing going on and western MA will secede from eastern MA.
 
Nickle said:
Western MA has considered becoming part of VT for a while, from what I hear. There's even a natural border, the Connecticut River.
Click to expand...

That is one I had not heard about.

If something like this was to ever come to pass - I would be in the thick of it. Living right near the Rte 3/Rte 495 interchange I have to believe I would be living on contested ground.

I would hope the line would be somewhere down around Rte 128 - but realistically I think it would get pushed back to somewhere along Rte 495. Although the northern suburbs of MA are known to be one of the more conservative areas (based on their voting records) in MA.

This could get interesting. I know which way my vote would go - secede from MA.
 
Bob P said:
While I agree with your post here and I agree that the battle for public opinion is vital to the preservation of our freedoms, I'm just curious; what data are you using to support the claim that the anti's are 2 states shy of a majority needed to call a convention? If you're using the number of states to vote for Obama, I think we may be a bit safer then that as a vote for Obama doesn't necessarily translate into an anti-gun vote.
Click to expand...


Here you go:

http://www.americanpolicy.org/sledgehammer/twostates.htm
 
ScottS said:
Or a vote for a Constitutional Convention.

Mr Bites, could you cite your source that "anti-Constitutionalists are just 2 states away from successfully calling a Constitutional Convention" (BTW, what is an "anti-Constitutionalist?"; that this Constitutional Convention would have a super-majority needed to repeal the 2A; and that 3/4 of the state legislatures stand ready to ratify this new amendment?

Yes, I've heard of Mission Creep. I've also heard of the NWO, and even of tin-foil.

TinFoilHatArea.jpg
Click to expand...

Jesus! Is that the best you can do? Post a silly pic depicting a tin-foil hat area?

Here's a novel idea. Do some honest research. It may actually broaden your horizons and help you to see the "real" world and what's happening right under your nose.

Who knows, maybe you and I could have an intelligent conversation. Until then, keep posting pics of tin hats and tell me all about the black helicopters. I've heard it all before but it never ceases to amuse me.
 

Similar threads

Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
367
clampett
clampett
The First Amendment Is Getting In The Way Of Government Removing Posts It Doesn't Agree With
Replies
20
Views
415
Uzi2
U
For those who question the strength of M2A1 vs M2A2 ammo cans, here's an interesting article on the subject.
Replies
12
Views
377
Uzi2
U
Samuel Whittemore - The inventor of FAFO
Replies
7
Views
371
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Yesterday Was The 10 Year Anniversary Of The Bundy Family Cattle Ranch Standoff Against The BLM
Replies
4
Views
242
Matt_SERE
Matt_SERE
Back
Top Bottom