Debate - repeal of the 2a?


PDA






gimlet1/21
March 26, 2009, 05:21 PM
Yesterday I received an e-mail from the 2nd ammendment march site; Tonight March 26th there is a debate coming out of chicago concerning a repeal of our 2a rights. As everyone knows this is where Obama is from we have been asked to call in and support the pro-gun debater. WGN radio AM 720 nation wide/ WGNradio.com 9:00pm 3/26/09

http://www.wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_google_maps&Itemid=123

or cut and paste into address bar. Also anyone interested in 2a rights should be aware of 2ndammendmentmarch.com this is a planned march onwashington w/ Ted Nugget to support our rights!!!

If you enjoyed reading about "Debate - repeal of the 2a?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DHJenkins
March 26, 2009, 05:33 PM
Nothing concerning the debate at the end of that link.

Who exactly is debating? Are they prominant figures or is this yet another radio ploy to get listeners by "sparking controversy"?

Hungry Seagull
March 26, 2009, 05:36 PM
Aint happening.

Sparking something? Sure. Must not have too much in way of NEWS these days up there. Every time the wind dies down up yonder, the stink rises.

SpecialKalltheway
March 26, 2009, 05:42 PM
I am all for repealing the 2nd amendment actually. I just want it replaced/modified with another amendment that states the Felons and those with violent misdemeanors do not have the right to bear arms. I think that would be a great win for us. First it just solidifies most state laws that are already on the books and secondly we can say "see we defined it! If I'm not a felon or have a violent misdemeanor then you have no right to restrict my guns."

jad0110
March 26, 2009, 05:46 PM
I am all for repealing the 2nd amendment actually. I just want it replaced/modified with another amendment that states the Felons and those with violent misdemeanors do not have the right to bear arms.

Not a good idea. You assume if the 2nd amendment were modified or replaced with another that it would come out good for us. IMO, it is more likely to come out 600 pages long, and only politicians, the elite and the government could own guns.

Plus, I am a bit of an extemist when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Once one is released from prison, your rights should be FULLY restored. If the person is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, then why are we setting them free in the first place?

DHJenkins
March 26, 2009, 05:47 PM
What if they're on probation or parole?

Just because they're not confined doesn't mean they've paid their debt.

PTK
March 26, 2009, 05:49 PM
I fully support a repeal of the entire Bill of Rights. Pesky things get in the way of proper governmental fixing of all our problems, right? ;)

mljdeckard
March 26, 2009, 05:49 PM
Because the system doesn't have the capacity to keep people incarcerated for their actual sentences, forget how long we THINK they should stay in jail. The Constitution allows for the removal of rights with the DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

I don't want ANYTHING in The Constitution modified.

cbrgator
March 26, 2009, 05:50 PM
only politicians, the elite and the government could own guns
Aren't those really the same people?

FW
March 26, 2009, 05:52 PM
I am all for repealing the 2nd amendment actually. I just want it replaced/modified with another amendment that states the Felons and those with violent misdemeanors do not have the right to bear arms.

With all due respect, this is an extremely stupid idea, repealing the 2nd Amendment and replacing it with something MORE restrictive. You will gain nothing and lose a lot from attempting to appease the anti crowd.

catspa
March 26, 2009, 05:55 PM
For anti-s that don't recognize the validity of the 2A as it stands, they're not going to respect it any more after this kind of revision.

Parker

gimlet1/21
March 26, 2009, 07:02 PM
this is the full page with a link. Bob Levy chairman of CATO Institute is defending. Hosted by Milt Rosenberg? I don't know these people, yet I trust the site. Check it out

http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/

Kind of Blued
March 26, 2009, 07:06 PM
I'm ok with amending it. Just add "...so don't even try or we'll put you in prison" to the end of it. :)

DutchmanDick
March 26, 2009, 09:20 PM
I think it should be changed to "Every law-abiding American citizen has the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms for any lawful purpose, including (but not limited to) hunting, defense, and recreational shooting. Said arms shall not be restricted as to type, nor shall restrictions be placed on quantities of arms that can be purchased or type or amount of ammunition that may be posessed."

Or something along those lines...:D

Lone_Gunman
March 26, 2009, 09:49 PM
I fully support a repeal of the entire Bill of Rights. Pesky things get in the way of proper governmental fixing of all our problems, right?

As our last president said, the Constitution is just a GD piece of paper.

Jeff White
March 26, 2009, 10:10 PM
I'm listening now....

SpecialKalltheway
March 26, 2009, 11:32 PM
I love how most pro 2A's will bash on the anti's for being emotional and irrational, but when it comes to suggesting to fine tune the 2A the pro 2A's get all emotional and stop thinking.

I did not say lets change it with 600 pages long or to add anything that denies the rights of law abiding gun owners. The antis seek to pass unconstitutional laws because they know they cannot get rid of the 2A. If we worked with them to change it to restrict the right to people who have not committed felonies and/or violent crimes(something that is done already) then we would have a victory b/c it would say that the right is not for individuals that have done these things once again applying the word individuals to the 2A

catfish101
March 26, 2009, 11:33 PM
I think that once a person has done his time then all his rights, including 2a, should be reinstated.

SpecialKalltheway
March 26, 2009, 11:36 PM
I am fine with the idea that people should get a second chance. we can throw that in the wording that felons and violent criminals that show that they are worthy to have their record expunged get their rights back.

catfish101
March 26, 2009, 11:41 PM
I am fine with the idea that people should get a second chance. we can throw that in the wording that felons and violent criminals that show that they are worthy to have their record expunged get their rights back.

Exactly. The felon part of the law is useless anyway. If a person wants to get a firearm they will. No law will stop that.

All it does is stop some decent people from protecting themselves.

Alchymist
March 26, 2009, 11:44 PM
Leave the amendment alone - its worked for how many years? As to convicts - IF the crime was committed with a gun, no more 2A rights. If it were any other crime, give him his 2nd A rights back. JMHO, as always.

PT1911
March 26, 2009, 11:46 PM
alright.. so, I am not at all for the idea of changing the 2a, but I consider myself open minded, so if there was some new language to make no doubts about it (not sure how it is unclear now, but just for the sake of those who say it is unclear) then I see no problem with that.... BUT, I dont care how much time someone spent in prison, whose ass they kissed or whatever else they did to PAY THEIR DUES, the moment you decide to do something severe enough to have your rights taken, you should live with that decision. I can concede that perhaps certain crimes (sissy crimes) could be revised, but that is just about as far as I am willing to compromise... if you robbed, raped, murdered, assaulted, battered, ... you did so with all your freedoms and rights intact, then taxpayers paid for your meals, utilities, work out equipment, television (with cable) and everything else... so you can add robbery to your initial charge. They should lose their rights for the duration of their lives, which, in many cases should be quite brief.

catfish101
March 26, 2009, 11:56 PM
Leave the amendment alone - its worked for how many years? As to convicts - IF the crime was committed with a gun, no more 2A rights. If it were any other crime, give him his 2nd A rights back. JMHO, as always.

I follow you but what about a guy that is coming off of a 15 year sentence for killing a guy that was raping his wife when he got home. Why shouldn't he have the right to have a firearm now for doing what anybody on this forum would do. Laws were different back then. Allot of people went to jail for this very thing.

SpecialKalltheway
March 27, 2009, 12:01 AM
anti's don't go after the 2A b/c they know they will get shot down. If we are truly the majority as long as we can convince those afraid of an amendment b/c they irrationally think that it will be a loss of our right that the support to amend the constitution will only be for one that doesn't take away our rights, then we could clarify the 2A for all those that for some reason think it's hazy.

ThrottleJockey
March 27, 2009, 12:05 AM
It is what it is, and as long as I draw breath, it will stay EXACTLY what it is. I hope the rest of you really feel the same. There is really nothing to debate here, because I think any of us would probably die to defend it just the way it is. If I am wrong, please let me know and I will immediately label you a poser, troll, phony, fair weather patriot.......Do these words spark any emotion amongst you? "FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND"

ThrottleJockey
March 27, 2009, 12:08 AM
Whether or not we are the majority is beside the point, I don't think we are. The point is that WE have guns and they don't, that's what scares them. The simple fact that their belief makes them weak.

6_gunner
March 27, 2009, 12:10 AM
An amendment to the Constitution requires the approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures. The repeal of the Second Amendment has no chance of occurring at this point. I doubt that the antis could drum up a majority, let alone a 3/4 majority.

I don't know why the antis even care. The Second Amendment has been ignored for a century. Why bother changing it if nobody follows it, anyway?

Jeff White
March 27, 2009, 12:19 AM
Did anyone in this thread besides me actually listen to the debate?

gimlet1/21
March 27, 2009, 09:51 AM
I was proud that every call supported the pro veiw. As far as the Mexican border problem goes its their own fault for have such restrictive gun laws south of the border.

Redneck with a 40
March 27, 2009, 10:08 AM
Good luck with that, it takes 3/5ths of Congress and 2/3 rds of the states to repeal an amendment. Of course, the Constitution is no roadblock to Obama, he's been doing a very good job of circumventing it, over the last 60 days.

onebigelf
March 27, 2009, 10:14 AM
2A recognizes a right, it doesn't grant one. Can't repeal that.

John

rbernie
March 27, 2009, 10:15 AM
Did anyone in this thread besides me actually listen to the debate?Evidently, only Gimlet1/21.

So - how did the debate go?

4Freedom
March 27, 2009, 10:32 AM
Lets pray they dont repeal, add or manipulate our constitution anymore than they do with already. Its just a matter of time before we are arrested for not putting pictures of our leader on our fireplaces. Many countries repeal, amend manipulate their laws and doctrines which and what is the result? Chaos and dictatorship. We have a system that has proven successful for hundreds of years and all the losers want to impose their failing autocratic tricks to destroy a society where people have more freedom than any other in history.

CoRoMo
March 27, 2009, 10:46 AM
Anyone want to detail the debate for me?

Anyone have a link to a synopsis of said debate?


Okay then...
With regards to the debate's topic of the 2A and a repeal, I am a huge fan of reform. Especially reforming government back to a more highly restricted roll. Of all the areas where we could begin to reform, the 2A is not at all one of the top 100 or top 1,000 items that need reformation.

IF anyone were to attempt to reform the 2A in any way, I'd be against it, unless they simply added the following, to the existing text.

...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regulated, restricted, taxed, limited, inhibited, or in anyway discouraged.

Jeff White
March 27, 2009, 12:05 PM
CoRoMo,
The debate was very civil and both Levy and Heminger (sp??) conducted themselves like gentlemen. It was the kind of discourse that we strive to have here at THR.

The anti position was that all of the new DC restrictions were legal under Heller and that Heller was a flawed decision because all of the writings of the founding fathers proved that they only intended to provide for the militia in the second amendment.

Milt Rosenberg, the host of the show took offense with the Illinois State rifle Association for calling him an antigunner in their email. I had never heard his show before, but from the way he introduced the topic, the questions he asked and the tone he used, he didn't strike me as being an anti.

I don't know how anyone could have listened to it and thought the antis won. I was a little disappointed in that neither Levy or Rosenberg asked Heminger if the new DC restricts weren't the same as the poll taxes and literacy tests that used to be used to keep minorities from execising their right to vote.

CoRoMo
March 27, 2009, 12:22 PM
Thanks. It doesn't sound like it was "concerning a repeal of our 2a rights" then. Just a debate of Heller & RKBA in general?

I'd disagree with the notion that all of the writings, of the founders, pointed away from an individual right. I've found their writings to be just the opposite, but I have by no means read them all.

If Rosenberg was offended by the ISRA's labeling, I can't imagine he would take this occasion to sound anti, rather, he'd rein in his true colors to come across even handed. Again, I'm speculating because I've never heard his show, much less last night's debate. Most often, even the most rabid antis make every effort to sound logical and middle-of-the road, as opposed to emotionally erratic.

Many times, either side of an issue will think they won simply because they were able to rattle off their talking points on the air, regardless of how it was received. Good to hear that our side was given a respectable chance to voice the truth.

Wish I could have heard it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Debate - repeal of the 2a?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!