The British Called -- They Want Their Guns Back

[PRGGodfather]

This is for all of the anti-gunners and gun-owning apologists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE

Compromise to your doom. Make no apologies. There will be no middle ground. Understand the meaning of inalienable.

[Cagemonkey]

Good find. Very informative. I wish more people would heed the warning. With this new cult of personality we now have as president, anything is possible.

[citizensoldier16]

Seems like this needs to be aired on all major media channels...but it won't be. Spread the word, pass on the link.

[randyman_ar]

A glimpse at our future, perhaps?

[ddemis]

Our founding fathers defeated the world superpower (England) to give all of us rights that few have ever known, freedom that others only wish for. Stand up or lose them forever.

[lalakai]

yep, already bookmarked it and passed it along to others. great find, thanks

[Gramps]

I like that last statement, "FREEDOM IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THE GUTS TO STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR IT"!

[alvincullumyork]

What is the British equivalent of the NRA?

[ZDL]

That was a sad video.

[mattjmcd]

Thanks.

I passed it on to 2Aforum.com. Hope nobody minds...

[Mines13]

Taking away the mans rights and then justfying punnishing the same man for defending his home, in that order? Absolutely disgusting.

[Spade]

thanks for bringing attention to this

[kgreen]

:mad:It is infuriating to watch that video. Gentleman, I am doing all in my power, in my small realm of influence, to keep my God given rights of self defense and the means to do it! I pray that we all have the fortitude to prevent government from taking these rights from us. We cannot allow the further erosion of our Constitution by any government. I fear for my children and any future they may still have here if we fail now.

All the sacrifice and the blood spilt on our behalf will have been for naught if we fail. I fear that there may be too few true patriots left to make a difference. Someone please tell I'm wrong.

Sorry for the rant but I feel I am pissing on a forest fire!

[Gutshot John]

We have a written Constitution with written guarantees of the rkba. To fundamentally alter this, antis need to amend the Constitution. They can pick at it from the edges, but they can't achieve english-style confiscation without outright repeal of the 2a.

England has never had a written Constitution, their "constitution" is based on common-law precedent. There has never been a precedent in English jurisprudence that I'm aware of that offers guarantees similar to the 2a.

What happened there is bad, and the lessons of increased crime following confiscation is a powerful lesson for all of us, but it won't happen the same way here.

In England all they needed to do was insure the silence of a minority. In the US antis would need the vocal assent of a large majority to repeal the 2a. A 51/49 or even 60/40 split is not enough.

[Honu]

:mad:It is infuriating to watch that video. Gentleman, I am doing all in my power, in my small realm of influence, to keep my God given rights of self defense and the means to do it! I pray that we all have the fortitude to prevent government from taking these rights from us. We cannot allow the further erosion of our Constitution by any government. I fear for my children and any future they may still have here if we fail now.

All the sacrifice and the blood spilt on our behalf will have been for naught if we fail. I fear that there may be too few true patriots left to make a difference. Someone please tell I'm wrong.

Sorry for the rant but I feel I am pissing on a forest fire!

I feel like you but I am only spitting :(

its sad for sure to watch

[crob1]

We have a written Constitution with written guarantees of the rkba. To fundamentally alter this, antis need to amend the Constitution. They can pick at it from the edges, but they can't achieve english-style confiscation without outright repeal of the 2a.

England has never had a written Constitution, their "constitution" is based on common-law precedent. There has never been a precedent in English jurisprudence that I'm aware of that offers guarantees similar to the 2a.

What happened there is bad, and the lessons of increased crime following confiscation is a powerful lesson for all of us, but it won't happen the same way here.

In England all they needed to do was insure the silence of a minority. In the US antis would need the vocal assent of a large majority to repeal the 2a. A 51/49 or even 60/40 split is not enough.

I have recently been told that in order to amend the Constitution, there needs to be a Constitution Convention. I've also been told that 34 states are needed to accomplish that, and that 32 states are on board. I have no way of knowing if it's true or not. I doubt that kind of information is widly available.

I will try to do some research to verify. Can anyone here shed any light?

[Gutshot John]

I have recently been told that in order to amend the Constitution, there needs to be a Constitution Convention. I've also been told that 34 states are needed to accomplish that, and that 32 states are on board. I have no way of knowing if it's true or not. I doubt that kind of information is widly available.

I will try to do some research to verify. Can anyone here shed any light?

Actually it's in the Constitution. Go to www.usconstitution.net it's chock-full of good info.

Essentially there are two ways to amend the Constitution, one of which has never been used:

1. Congress (not the President, who has NOTHING to do with the amendment process) can recommend by 2/3 vote that an amendment be sent to state legislatures for ratification. It then takes ratification by 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.

2. 2/3 of the states can call a Constitutional Convention and offer a proposed amendment. It then takes 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify. This process has never been used.

[crob1]

That's a great source. Thanks.

I meant that I wonder if "they" are persuing a Constitution Convention and if so, what's on the agenda. Inquiring minds want to know.

Bottom line is, we have to make sure it doesn't happen here like it did in G.B.!!

[Gutshot John]

I meant that I wonder if "they" are persuing a Constitution Convention and if so, what's on the agenda. Inquiring minds want to know.

Honestly the antis wouldn't go that route as it's incredibly difficult to call a Convention. To even start the process you have to get 2/3 of the states to agree that it even should be called. It's so difficult it's never once happened since the ratification of the Constitution. From an rkba perspective there are 36 "shall-issue" CCW states, I doubt very much they could pull this off. You'd have better luck calling a Constitutional Convention to strengthen the 2a, not weaken it.

The only feasible way would be for 2/3 of the U.S. Congress to propose an amendment to be sent to the states. Given the 36 states mentioned above, it's somewhere between slim and none that such a proposal would get 3/4 of the necessary legislatures to ratify repeal.

They may try to pick at it from the edges, but they can't get rid of the 2a.

[MeanRider]

I would like to think that education can save us but look at who we are electing on every level. Our future Liberty will probably depend on whether we are willing to fight and die for it.

[Linus_1]

We must all say no when this comes.

We must then be prepared to make certain our no stands and our right is not infringed.

Gentleman, 32 states have already voted to call for a convention.

They only need two more.

[Gutshot John]

Gentleman, 32 states have already voted to call for a convention.


Huh? Source please.

[crob1]

I hope I'm not the source because I'm an idiot. That was just something that someone told me. Like I said, I have no way of knowing if it's accurate or not.

Wow, I found something. Please consider the source. I have nothing good or bad to say about info-wars.com. I actually don't know much about them, but here you go.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=6507

The story does quote World Net Daily though:

“A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which ‘today’s corrupt politicians and judges’ could formally change the U.S. Constitution’s “problematic” provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society,’” writes Bob Unruh for WorldNetDaily.

Holy crap:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86092

Excerpts:

"If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, 'There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda,'" Baldwin wrote.

"Since WND's earlier report, two columnists for the news site have renewed statements opposing such a convention. Judge Roy Moore wrote that James Madison himself, "the acknowledged 'Father of the Constitution,'" once warned, "Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second. …"

Moore wrote: "A new convention raises all sorts of frightening possibilities. Would valuable rights like the right to keep and bear arms or the right to worship God be kept intact? … What would stop powerful special-interest groups from influencing the outcome?"

[Gutshot John]

Excerpts:

"If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, 'There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda,'" Baldwin wrote.



As you said, the source needs to be considered. But no a Constitutional Convention could NOT declare the Constitution to be null and void.

Theoretically it (but on a cold day in Hell) PROPOSE repealing the Constitution...but then 3/4 of the state legislatures would have to agree (when pigs fly) to that repeal. But even still, it isn't that simple and there are so many checks as to make it impossible. The author is spinning yarns.

1. Any constitutional convention would be called to change a particular part of the document. It could not repeal it wholesale. Even then, any decision made needs to be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures to agree.

2. That said you can't just repeal the Constitution by 3/4 vote, you actually have to put something in its place by 3/4 vote. A government by definition must be "constituted" to be legitimately sovereign. Even dictatorships are constituted.

3. A Constitutional Convention would not be made of current politicians. Each state would vote for a formal set of delegates to send to the convention.

4. Yes Madison feared such a Convention, which is why HIS Constitution makes it so incredibly difficult to achieve and why it has never once been used since ratification in 1787. He was a pretty smart guy and studied the rise and fall of governments all of his intellectual life these lessons guided its creation. He was my favorite founding father.

5. Lastly there is a way to limit and muzzle the actions of a Constitutional convention, it's called the vote. The details of the proposal would be made public before any legislative vote and most will be submitted to referendum...just as they did before ratification in 1787 and every subsequent amendment.

In short, the author is in fantasy-land.