ThrottleJockey
member
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.
Debate - repeal of the 2a?
- Thread starter gimlet1/21
- Start date
- Status
6_gunner
Member
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?
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?
Did anyone in this thread besides me actually listen to the debate?
gimlet1/21
Member
I listened
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,273
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.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Evidently, only Gimlet1/21.
So - how did the debate go?
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked