Repeal the 2nd Amendment, Analyst Advises - Page 3

Repeal the 2nd Amendment, Analyst Advises

This is a discussion on Repeal the 2nd Amendment, Analyst Advises within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; This is a great thread I hope I do not cross the line. 1. I think it is great that some anti's are finally admitting ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 45 of 45

Thread: Repeal the 2nd Amendment, Analyst Advises

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array Timmy Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    759
    This is a great thread I hope I do not cross the line.

    1. I think it is great that some anti's are finally admitting that the 2nd means what it says. Now if we can get the courts to enforce the 2nd across the board (which I doubt will happen) we will be in great shape.

    2. I don't believe that the anti's could get the 2nd repealed.

    3. I don't believe there would be widespread armed rebellion if the 2nd amendment was repealed. Name one time we have had armed rebellion over anything where the rebellious won! The people of a number of southern states were as upset as they could be over segregation, busing, and blacks getting rights. As soon as the National Guard came to town the people hollered and screamed and some threw bottles but it changed nothing.

    4. "From My Cold Dead Hands" is a great saying and makes me stick out my chest and say "yea", I wonder how many people in New Orleans were killed by the cops and had their guns taken from their "cold dead hands". I can think of two people in my lifetime that the government took their guns from their cold dead hands. Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, and David Kurish in Waco.

    5. Don't you think their were any people in Australia or England that use to say "From My Cold Dead Hands"?

    6. I think the US economy could survive the banning of guns pretty easily. The gun and related industries are such a small part of that economy. I bet the gun section at BassPro Shop is less than 25% of net profit and they would have to restructure a little but I bet they would not go bust.

    7. I love the sentiment but we or most of us went down to the government and said please may I may I jump thru your hoops to have a permit to bear arms like the 2nd Amendment guarantees me. I don't carry where there is a 30.06 sign and my hands are not cold and dead.

    8. If tomorrow Texas outlawed Semi Automatic Handguns and I was supposed to take my Kimber to the Police station and turn it in, I probably would not do it, but if they knocked on my door with or without a search warrant to search my house for guns I would not shoot a cop or a National Guardsman. They would just keep coming and there are more of them than us.

    I don't know how to wrap this up, I hope I did not cross the line with post if so let me know.
    Timmy Jimmy

    If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.

    "Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."


  2. #32
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackeagle View Post
    You recall incorrectly.

    It requires 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of State legislatures (or state conventions called specifically for ratifying an amendment, which was only done for the 21st Amendment).

    Blackeagle.... Thanks for pointing that out! I stand corrected.

    It's been a while since I was in history class.


    Oh, and TimmyJimmy.... You make some VERY GOOD points!

    Makes one think a bit about that. Definitely not crossing the line!
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  3. #33
    Senior Member Array palmgopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    tennessee
    Posts
    722
    how is this for an answer timmy. number one the federal government really has a hard time telling the individual states what they have to do along some lines. i cant imagine the federal government telling the states the have to ban all weapons. that is where the civil war would start. the government sticking its nose into the states business. they MIGHT let the states ban weapons if they want which would start a migration of sorts. a lot of folks here are either police or former military. lets face it there will be at least one state SOMEWHERE that will say that is wrong and we refuse to go along with it. just an opinion there =o) i mean lets remember that each state has rights to run the way they want.

  4. #34
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy View Post
    Name one time we have had armed rebellion over anything where the rebellious won!

    Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, and David Kurish in Waco.

    I would not shoot a cop or a National Guardsman.
    1776-1789
    Texas independence from Mexico

    I thought Randy survived to win a lawsuit over the feds.

    If the 2A is repealed, I fully expect a few patriots to form pockets of resistance. Only the foolish LEO or Guardsman will take the call to action. As gutless as most of America has become, I doubt they could stand more than a few patriotic shootouts before they demanded a return to sanity.
    Last edited by paramedic70002; July 13th, 2007 at 09:13 AM. Reason: Add info
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array MNBurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,019
    If that is so, then the author of the piece Nathan Burchfiel needs to have his first amendment rights taken away but only him!

    It would never pass so they can pound sand!!!
    MNBurl

    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Array Freedom Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    887

    Repealing the 2nd does NOT take away the right

    Just wanted to clarify something here, and I read all the replies and did not see this mentioned. Understand folks, the 2nd amendment does not GIVE us any rights, it merely "guarantees" federal support for a right that was pre-existing (God given). However, this truth is not very helpful in our current fight; the statist thugs that are our enemies do not believe in God (for the most part) and believe that rights come from governments. This is why they think that repealing the 2nd would work.

  7. #37
    Member Array BushidoMarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Kawasaki, Japan
    Posts
    233

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy View Post
    3. I don't believe there would be widespread armed rebellion if the 2nd amendment was repealed. Name one time we have had armed rebellion over anything where the rebellious won!
    Uhmmm...I don't know..maybe...the American Revolutionary War perhaps??


    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy View Post
    4. "From My Cold Dead Hands" is a great saying and makes me stick out my chest and say "yea", I wonder how many people in New Orleans were killed by the cops and had their guns taken from their "cold dead hands". I can think of two people in my lifetime that the government took their guns from their cold dead hands. Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge,...
    Randy Weaver survived the government's assault on his basic human rights at Ruby Ridge. It was his wife Vicki who had her recently acquired 'cheap-easily-concealed-assault-infant' pried "...from her cold, dead hands..."
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
    - Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC

  8. #38
    Senior Member Array TonyW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    791
    Basically I see the article as saying that the anti's need to be intellectually honest and admit what everyone really knows. The 2nd Ammendment guarantees (thanks Doc) the right to own firearms to protect you and yours. If we as a nation feel that is no longer something that should be guaranteed then they should work to pass another ammendement repealing the 2nd. I don't think that will ever happen and it would be a sad day if it did. But at least, like others have pointed out, he is acknowledging the 2A says what it says. The reason the anti's have always used the tactics they have is because it's the only way they will make any headway on their plans. Emotional response to tragedies and lies are their only tools.

    TJ does make some good points. I would hope that there would be enough people willing to fight to protect our rights. It may take a lot but it is worth it. IMO, all of our rights are slowly being erroded due to indifference (on the part of the people) and the natural tendancy for governments to hoard more power as time goes on.

    Some specific comments on what TJ said, in no particular order:

    6. I think the US economy could survive the banning of guns pretty easily. The gun and related industries are such a small part of that economy. I bet the gun section at BassPro Shop is less than 25% of net profit and they would have to restructure a little but I bet they would not go bust.
    I think this would have a larger impact than you might realize. If not in the national economy than in things like animal conservation. Gun owners contribute a lot of money though things like taxes on guns, ammo, etc to help our natural resources.

    5. Don't you think their were any people in Australia or England that use to say "From My Cold Dead Hands"?
    People in England and Australia don't have a 2nd Ammendment like we do. They do have a tradition of gun ownership, which is where we got it from, but it's not the same as having a stated, God given right like we do.

    7. I love the sentiment but we or most of us went down to the government and said please may I may I jump thru your hoops to have a permit to bear arms like the 2nd Amendment guarantees me. I don't carry where there is a 30.06 sign and my hands are not cold and dead.
    Following laws or regulations that are put in place, or at least are justified to us as put in place, to prevent criminals or those deemed mentally unstable from carrying a gun is a bit different than allowing the government to take a way a right. While I disliked having to apply for something that I feel is a right I can at least see some need to do it.
    <a target="_top" href="http://www.cybernations.net/default.asp?Referrer=TonyW"><img src="http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd188/18932471/imgad2-1.png" border="0"></a>

  9. #39
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So how would you describe a person who is not crazy or evil that wants to relieve our society of its freedoms? The few people I have met that wanted us to give up our rights "for the greater good" always seemed to focus on rights they never chose to exercise themselves. Of course when I pointed out the security benefits of them giving up some their rights "for the greater good" they call me a fascist!
    Careful where the finger is pointed... There are a surprising amount of people here who think they should have the right to say what others do in their own homes even if it does not directly affect others.

    Many people on shooting boards support laws against the private use of pot and other recreational drugs, even though they do not use them. I have never even touched pot, putting me in the minority of 30 somethings (perhaps I should run for President) but I think it wrong, althoguh Constitutional, that the government regulates private behaviour by individuals in their homes when it does not directly affect others.

    You will also find a fare, not a majority though anymore in the USA, share of people who believe homosexual acts between consenting adults in private can be legislated against.

    Plenty support the rights given away by the Patriot Act, often with the hollow statemen that if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about (the motto of oppressors everywhere).

    Not all of the people in the above three categories are called evil or crazy by the majority of society, yet they are willing to give away rights that they do not use.

    Giving up firearms is no different. Many people who oppose the concept of private arms ownership are not evil or crazy. One can call Hitler or Stalin evil or crazy because enough of society agrees such individuals fall outside the norm. Calling Sarah Brady or McCarthy evil or crazy can actually hurt our side because the majority in the middle do not see it that way. When it comes to morality or sanity all we can judge by is the norms held within our society.

    Never forget that the fight we have around the 2A has NOTHING to do with winning over the hardcore anti-2A crowd. They will not convert in significant numbers any more than those strongly pro will convert. There will always be a couple on either side who cahnge and are held up as examples but they are the very small minority. The fight is for the middle. That large mass of Americans who consider themselves moderate on most issues. They are not Consittutional scholars, very few can name the members of the SCOTUS, and almost certainly are not versed in the facts of the issues but THEY control this nation. They are the ones who sway elections one way or the other and aside from shoring up the bases they are the ones the parties look to to win in November.

    To win over the middle we need to look at how decisions are made. Issues and logic aside, if you have two groups with opposing views which are you more likely to listen to and side with from an EMOTIONAL standpoint, the side that resorts to name calling and screaming or the side that calmly tries to lay out its points and behaves with what is considerred dignity? 75% of the public tends to allow emotion to affect their decision process. 50% of the public tends to let emotion have greater impact on the decision process than logic. That is just how people decide and we are not going to change it. We do need to acknowledge it and work with it to win.

    As I have always said the Pro-2A side has solid logic behind them. On logic alone we easily dominate the debate. What we have done though for decades is to completely write off the emotional side of the debate. It is left completely to the Michael Moores and McCarthys to exploit. In the few cases where we have embraced the emotional aspect of the arguement we have succeeded, Texas shall issue in the wake of Luby's is the perfect example.

    When we resort to name calling, referring people like McCarthy and Brady who are actually respected members of society in large circles, as "crazy" or "evil" we paint those in the middle into a corner. Force an ultimatem onto someone and you will usually not like the side they choose. If the middle sides with us they are "agreeing" with the insults we are hurling at our adversary. We are seen as the unbalanced side that has resorted to name calling and are not as likely to win people based on that emotional factor (there are more than one). It is much easier for those in the middle to side with us if we simlpy refer to our adversaries as misinformed, misguided, or simply wrong rather than making what is seen as a personal attack against them. When we make it "personal" we are seen as becomeing somewhat unbalanced.

    The opposition has its fair share of individuals who we consider unbalanced. The good news is the more outrageous they sound the more the middle considers them unbalnaced as well. We need to capitalize on this, not lower ourselves to the same level. It is possible to fight the emotional battle without resorting to the shrill hysteria of name calling that is unattractive to the middle.

    The problem is that the very name calling that the middle finds dissuading is unifying for many in the base of both sides. We all loved when Heston held up the rifle and made his "Cold Dead Hands" speech. We all can admit deep down that we enjoy when attacks are made against teh likes of Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer and others. At the same time, just as when attacks about senility agaisnt Heston are used as evidence of the other sides imbalance for the middle our own shrill statements are taken by the opposition and broadcast to the middle.

    It is easy to love the SAF or GOA and knock holes in the NRA. The NRA is seen as weak by many on the side of the 2A who are hard core because they do not take the "all or nothing" "burn your boats on the shore" approach to the fight. The NRA though is trying desperately to make itself and its side appealing to the middle in order to win and maintain their support for the 2A. THis is all related to the name calling but at this point really is deserving of a thread all its own...

  10. #40
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    We have BEEN reasonable, honest, and dignified.

    It is lies and hysteria which have brought us every anti gun law since the Sullivan Act.

    While we were being "dignified and logical", the Anti gunners ate our lunch in 1934, 1968, and the Clinton Ban and Brady act.

    The average "guy on the street" answers polls when he is asked the right leading questions, and is completely ignorant of facts. Getting the so called "fence sitters" to actually VOTE to limit their own rights is a whole different thing.

    We won't win the manipulated masses by tweedy scholars quoting personal letters from the eighteenth century. We will win them over by reminding them of their own fear, and reminding them of the incompetence of government to save their butts in a crisis.

    9-11, and Katrina helped our cause, tremendously, and when Al Qaeda strikes again, I think more unarmed citizens will overthrow their conditioning.

    The Anti gunners are VERY few and rely upon aging senators and congressmen, Dinosaur media, and George Soros money.

    We are millions strong, and even if most gun owners meekly submit, most of us will remain armed, and we will retaliate at the polls WHEN the politicians overstep again. They will; they can't help themselves.

    We'll be here 10 years from now. Will Sarah Brady? Kennedy? George Soros?

    --Travis--

  11. #41
    Member Array phaed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fort Huachuca, AZ
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom Doc View Post
    Just wanted to clarify something here, and I read all the replies and did not see this mentioned. Understand folks, the 2nd amendment does not GIVE us any rights, it merely "guarantees" federal support for a right that was pre-existing (God given). However, this truth is not very helpful in our current fight; the statist thugs that are our enemies do not believe in God (for the most part) and believe that rights come from governments. This is why they think that repealing the 2nd would work.
    i agree with your general point. but, i have to point out a side flaw in your logic. i do not believe in a god or gods; i am an atheist. i believe i have inalienable rights as a living, intelligent being. no god is required. don't try to associate a lack of religion with the unethical behavior of your "statist thugs."
    War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill

  12. #42
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by phaed View Post
    i agree with your general point. but, i have to point out a side flaw in your logic. i do not believe in a god or gods; i am an atheist. i believe i have inalienable rights as a living, intelligent being. no god is required. don't try to associate a lack of religion with the unethical behavior of your "statist thugs."
    I am in the same boat. I am an athiest although I begrudge no person the right to believe in the mythological diety of their choice. Our Founding Fathers were pretty "enlightenned" fellows and were for the most part Diests, the closest thing to an athiest that wouldn't get stoned a couple hundred years ago. The referalls to "Their Creator" as opposed to simply saying "God" is a good hint to this as well as teh Treaty of Tripoli that was ratified by many of the original FFs and signed by John Adams.

    No god needed for me to acknowledge the rights stated in the BoR.

  13. #43
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    We have BEEN reasonable, honest, and dignified.

    It is lies and hysteria which have brought us every anti gun law since the Sullivan Act.

    While we were being "dignified and logical", the Anti gunners ate our lunch in 1934, 1968, and the Clinton Ban and Brady act.
    All driven by the emotion of fear. Gangland killings in the prohibition wars, rampage shootings and the like have driven most anti-gun legislation just like our side has finally woken up and used the examples of Katrina to push legislation banninth e gov't confiscation of firearms.

    Using emotion though does not mean apeearing to lose one's reason and resorting to name calling and hyperbole. The antis have been immensely succesful owning the emotional side of the debate IN SPITE of their insults and name calling. They have been successfull because our side rarely if ever did employ emotional arguments. The other football team can be lousy but they will stil win if you don't show up. There is a whole game we haven't show up for until recently. Fight the emotional fight but don't do it by appearing unhinged via name calling and the like.

    The left uses Fear to push anti legislation. Fear of being a victim of a criminal with a gun, fear of "militia" types who go on to blow up federal buildings, fear of "vigilante justice" carried out by gun owners, fear of guns used in domestic violence situations.

    We need to use the fear of what happens to people who do not have guns ready to defend themselves.

  14. #44
    Member Array jmiked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SE AZ Border County
    Posts
    218
    I am a Born Again Agnostic so have no real bone in this discussion other than the following.

    Any concerted attempt to Repeal the 2nd for whatever the reason, in my minds constitutes the Reset Switch.

    At that point it will be time to try this again.
    William Wallace
    Do not stand between Me and Mine!!

  15. #45
    Member Array phaed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fort Huachuca, AZ
    Posts
    453
    thomas jefferson was a fan of the idea of a "reset switch". he said the constitution should be ripped up every so often, and re-written. i think he really believed that in a literal sense.

    however, i think the root point he was getting at was bureaucracy builds over time, and that laws are better if they have sunsets. if laws are important enough to retain, people will vote them back in.

    he was also a big fan of rebellion when the government got out of control, stating that the bloodier they were, the better. i think there's a lot of truth in this as well. if a citizenry goes to the trouble of rebelling, it's best to get it all out at once and get it over with.
    War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Looking for info to repeal ban
    By Damien in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 16th, 2010, 01:05 PM
  2. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 05:35 PM
  3. Va's CC restaurant ban repeal
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2010, 03:33 PM
  4. Congress To Vote On DC Gun Ban Repeal
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 11th, 2008, 02:23 PM

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment should be repealed

,

conceiled carry should be repealed

,

has anyone tried to repeal the 2nd amendment

,

how to hide firearms if 2nd amendment is repealed

,

repeal second 2nd 2d amendment

,

repeal the second 2nd 2d amendment

Click on a term to search for related topics.