Radio debate on the REPEAL of the 2nd Amendment

[M1A2_Tanker]

I got this in an email. Just spreading the word. Please pass it along. It is on Tomorrow night.

http://www.wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6336&Itemid=160


www.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!

[A-Bear680]

A classic example of gun-grabber delusions of adequacy.
:D

Check out state Amicus briefs in DC v Heller and see what you think.
;)

[Gutshot John]

Check out state Amicus briefs in DC v Heller and see what you think.
;)

Heller would be made moot if there is a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

[Palmguy]

Heller would be made moot if there is a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

I could be mistaken but I believe what he was saying is that there were 26 states that were signatories to Texas' amicus brief on Heller's behalf; and as such the outlook for success in repealing the 2A doesn't look too bright.

[A-Bear680]

I could be mistaken but I believe what he was saying is that there were 26 states that were signatories to Texas' amicus brief on Heller's behalf; and as such the outlook for success in repealing the 2A doesn't look too bright.

Bingo.


Twenty-some , anyway , IIRC.
And a pathetic 6 or so lined up behind DC. Plus the C/W of P.R.

What matters is a that it was a metric sh!t load against a pitiful few.
There's a lot more to Heller than just the ruling.

[Honu]

I just say sure but lets just go down the list so first thing we get rid of is #1
that should shut you up then :)

and that alone should keep the 2nd alive as nobody can talk about it or have the right to have a grievance or get together etc.. :)

[Leonidas]

The 2nd Amendment is a redundancy. Removing it has no bearing on your right to bear arms as it does not give you the right anyhow.

[A-Bear680]

Still , it does come in handy in court from time to time.

Tony Scalia and his friends used it like a big hammer last year.

;)

[Ghostface03]

Thomas from WV. Haha, I got on to ask my question last call.
I keep hearing gun control, gun control, blah blah blah. Any intellectual with common sense would know that guns are not the underlying issue when talking about these crimes. How about the person responsible? Why did they do it? Education, poverty, just plain crazy? If ending violent crime was the true obejective, IMHO guns shouldn't even be the main focus. But it is easy to target guns and law abiding gun owners. Makes it seem like they are actually doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.
Anyway my radio question was nowhere near as focused because I got nervous and choked.
:o:o:o:o

[boltcatch]

Thomas from WV. Haha, I got on to ask my question last call.
I keep hearing gun control, gun control, blah blah blah. Any intellectual with common sense would know that guns are not the underlying issue when talking about these crimes. How about the person responsible? Why did they do it? Education, poverty, just plain crazy? If ending violent crime was the true obejective, IMHO guns shouldn't even be the main focus. But it is easy to target guns and law abiding gun owners. Makes it seem like they are actually doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.
Anyway my radio question was nowhere near as focused because I got nervous and choked.
:o:o:o:o

You're missing the point entirely. It isn't that guns aren't the underlying issue with the crime, it's that neither the guns nor the crime are the underlying issue behind the gun control. Nor is it simply just a convenient scapegoat, though it does often serve as one.

It's all about government monopoly on the use of force.

You see, while the post-modern progressive types often don't even believe in the notions of truth or "being right", they do believe that they're entitled to govern because they "care" the most, or because their policies are the most "fair". They're so hung up on the "fairness" of how you choose to get from point A to point B, that they lose sight of where their point B is entirely. (this is why the ideologies with the loftiest sounding goals often create the most horrible governments). Obviously, anyone who disagrees with their policies - how to get to point B - only does so because they are stupid, evil, or both.

It's not that these people think they're right - but that they think they have some sort of special monopoly on righteousness.

They're sure they're the only ones who should weild power (and force), and they're sure they're the only ones who should govern, so obviously only the government should be allowed to use force. This covers everything from a lowly bat to a firearm; just look at the poor saps over in the UK.

It helps to understand their thought process.

[HwyKnight]

I sent this to Mr. Levy of the Cato institute just after the broadcast. Let me know what you think. Moderator: If you think this is worthy, move it to it's own thread!

Mr. Levy

I listened with great interest to the 2A discussion you were involved in on WGN radio the other evening. I tried to e-mail a question in, but you ran out of time.

Here is my question/statement:

Lets assume for a moment that the 2nd amendment is NOT an individual right. The Dick Act created the National Guard, and prohibits the states from having their own militias. The National Guard can be Federalized without the consent of the Governor, or State Legislature. This effectively makes the National Guard, Federal troops, and would put all arms under the control of the Federal Government. Do you mean to suggest that the Founding Fathers intended for ONLY the Federal Government should have arms? This would contradict everything that the Founders believed. This further suggests that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual and not a collective/militia right.