From Days of Our Trailers, via the Illinois State Rifle Association:
ANTI-GUN RADIO DEBATE – MARCH 26THThat "9 PM," presumably, is Central time, so it's 10 PM Eastern/7 PM Pacific. As mentioned in the notice, this is not just a Chicago concern, or even just an Illinois concern, as WGN has a huge listening range and audience.
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 WGN Radio, AM 720, on Thursday March 26th.
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.
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 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 antigunner is.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry clearly agree, judging from the fact that they're doing their own part in getting the word out.
As OFCC says, this is a trial balloon. It's not so much that I'm worried about the repeal of the Second Amendment happening any time soon--the idea, I think, is to discredit it, in support of the strategy of rendering it meaningless.
Don't let that happen.
Stumble it!
8 comments:
Well, it's not as if anyone in Washington pays attention to the Constitution anyway...either that or they seem to have forgotten exactly what, for example, a bill of attainder is...
The thing that no one remembers when they talk about repealing the Second Amendment is that the Bill of Rights was created after debate, because all the rights delineated are inherently ours by birth anyway.
So, even if the Second Amendment was repealed, we still have the fundamental right to arm ourselves for self-defense. Unfortunately, most of the people in government today that took an Oath to support and defend the Consitution don't understand that, or the historical framework in which it was created.
Agreed on all counts.
Thanks for the heads-up on that debate. I hope I can at least read about it tomorrow.
I have a lot of questions myself about the 2nd Amendment. It always strikes me as weird the way pro-gun folks cite it, as if it brooks all argument. It's the same way fundamental bible people quote their verses.
What occurs to me is that, through more than two centuries of debate now, the more or less 50% who have always said it pertains only to 18th century militia members, is right.
Also, it doesn't seem to be in the same category as the other "rights." Freedom of speech and freedom to practice the religion of your choice are rights. A gun is a thing, as you guys keep telling me, it's a tool like any other. Do we speak of my right to own a flashlight or my right to have a ball point pen? No we don't, which shows, I think, the original intent of that amendment has been distorted for your purposes.
You can't overthrow a tyrannical government or even stymie its forces much if the only weapon you have is a ball-point pen...
"I think, the original intent of that amendment has been distorted for your purposes."
Distorted?! What the hell do you think "the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed" means?
Yes, a gun is a thing, a tool, but as the amendment states, we (I.E. "The People") have RIGHT to keep and bear them. The founders weren't referring to the "arms" attached to our bodies Mike.
Also Mike, it is an individual right not dependent on militia service. Heller cleared that up. Deal with it.
Do we speak of my right to own a flashlight or my right to have a ball point pen?
No, but if the government wanted to prohibit you from owning and using various mediums of free speech wouldn't you assert your
1st Amendment right to own and use said mediums?
MikeB,
Since I can't be sure my comments on your site wouldn't be moderated out of existence, I'll respond here.
What occurs to me is that, through more than two centuries of debate now, the more or less 50% who have always said it pertains only to 18th century militia members, is right
Who says those 50% are right? Certainly not the Supreme Court in the Heller Decision. Certainly not the Supreme Court in the Miller Decision.
Have you actually bothered to read those decisions or just depend on the VPC to tell you what to think?
Even as far back as the drafting of the Constitution people recognized that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. How else to explain the fact that many states included that explicitly in their state constitutions?
How else to explain the writing of the Founding Fathers that explicitly state it is individual right?
Show any shred of evidence that the only militia view is correct.
This is one of the more asinine and idiotic arguments you've made...and you've made quite a few idiotic arguments.
A gun is a thing, as you guys keep telling me, it's a tool like any other. Do we speak of my right to own a flashlight or my right to have a ball point pen?
Let's try it with freedom of religion.
"Bob, you are a Christian and can worship as you like, you just can't have any things that go along with that right...no Bibles, no communion cups, no CHURCH buildings. Those are things and they aren't covered by your right to worship."
How asinine.
Second, read up on property rights. Again, as with the right to keep and bear arms, property rights PRECEDED the Constitution.
America didn't suddenly get the right to own property, to use their property as they chose on the day the Constitution was ratified.
The Bill of Rights LIMITS what the government can do to infringe on our RIGHTS. It LIMITS the government power.
Let me introduce you to 2 other rights documented in the Bill of Rights
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
Note that in Amendment 10...the powers DELEGATED to the US government are expressed in the Constitution; anything else WE, as PEOPLE and States, have.
Sheesh MikeB, at least at one point you made a little bit of sense.
(Kurt, my apologies for the mini rant on your blog, hope you don't mind)
(Kurt, my apologies for the mini rant on your blog, hope you don't mind)
Nothing to apologize for. Hell--I appreciate you guys having the patience to debate with him. I've decided not to bother.
Post a Comment