WGN radio debate: REPEAL the 2nd Amendment

[Big Dog]

WGN Radio - Listen Online!

Official site of the Second Amendment March

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.)
WGN Radio - Around the World

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 WGN Radio - HOME

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!

[Defender]

I didn't know that Milt rosenberg was anti gun. I do know that I have listened to him when I was in the Chicago area and that he has many interesting guests on his show. Even if he is "anti-gun", at least he is having a debate on the subject and not just having the anti-gun side on. Also, if he is in favor of ending the 2nd Amendment, he is going about it in the way it should be done through the Constitutional process. Why all the alarm?

[ByAnyMeans]

I will listen to the show and attempt to call in and get put on the air. Thank you for the info.

[Big Dog]

I didn't know that Milt rosenberg was anti gun. I do know that I have listened to him when I was in the Chicago area and that he has many interesting guests on his show. Even if he is "anti-gun", at least he is having a debate on the subject and not just having the anti-gun side on. Also, if he is in favor of ending the 2nd Amendment, he is going about it in the way it should be done through the Constitutional process. Why all the alarm?

WOW ........... It's alarming because the 2nd Amendment should never be up for negotiation (or even the scenario as I take your implying and he's propagating) no matter how PC the process he employs. Not to mention this is a pro-gun forum! Our gun laws are the way there are because some people, like yourself, allow the opening for discussion which then gain traction. The only thing that can come out of such a discussion at best would be neutral, I'd see no gain in the Chicago atmosphere. It's strictly a chit stirrer!

Let's look at an analogy of sorts and talk about how Ray Schoenke, President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association opened his arms to BO's election and vigorously helped BO win the election. He now finds himself having to write the administration to re-think their views which he THOUGHT were safe and his own.

February 26, 2009
Mr. Eric Holder
United States Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Holder:

Congratulations on your appointment and confirmation as Attorney General of the United States. I am writing to address your recent comments about the renewal of the federal assault weapons, which I read in The Hill today. This raises grave concerns for me and other law-abiding gun owners. I strongly urge you to reconsider this effort.

For the past four years, I have served as President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). We are a gun rights organization with a commitment to protecting our environment, preserving open spaces and keeping our communities safe. Then-candidate Obama shared many of our views and we endorsed his candidacy last April. I was honored to serve as a surrogate for the campaign. Last fall, I spent a great deal of time talking to gun owners, many of whom were union members, on behalf of the Obama-Biden ticket through over 40 appearances in Ohio, Minnesota, Florida and Colorado. I also did a radio ad, which was broadcast nationally, and was featured in the campaign's direct mail. Barack Obama's election was critically important for the future of our nation and to the million of gun owners, like me, who voted for him.

That is the reason I want to address the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which passed in 1994 in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and expired on September 13, 2004. It is my understanding that the Obama administration continues to state its intention to reinstate that ban. I would strongly encourage you to negate that effort. The assault weapons ban is an issue of great import to America's law-abiding hunters and shooters, who I represent through my role as President of AHSA. But, this issue shouldn't be based on politics, it's about policy.

Most importantly, as studies have shown, the law had no measurable effect on crime reduction and created an easily avoidable template for gun manufacturers to work around. Instead, the law demonized lawful gun owners and became a lightning rod for a decade long public debate over gun crime that merely served to divert time and resources from our already over-burdened law enforcement agencies. Frankly, it has been an unnecessary distraction. Gun owners support efforts to keep our communities safe. We just want those policies directed at the root cause of crime and violence and not just symbolism, which is how the Washington Post accurately described the ban back in 1994.

Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban's enactment, the studies analyzing its effect showed there was no statistical significant evidence that it reduced gun crimes. In fact, two studies prepared for the United States government confirm that fact: The Department Of Justice-funded study issued in July of 2004 titled "Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003" and the Center for Disease Control's Task Force on Community Preventive Services report "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws" issued in October of 2003.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban's major thrust, which was based on a political compromise between competing bills in the U.S. Senate, was to ban the manufacture and sale of certain gun models that had two or more of the following features, considered by most to be merely cosmetic: pistol grip, folding/collapsible stock, flash suppressor/muzzle brake, large-capacity detachable magazine, bayonet mounting point, and a grenade launcher mounting point. However, manufacturers just put these features on guns in variable combinations instead of using an "all-in-one" approach, meaning that post-ban guns sold were effectively duplicates of pre-ban guns with a mix and match of the isolated features. The new law became a "charade."

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban also prohibited the production of large capacity ammunition feeding devices (clips) that carried more than 10 rounds. However, large pre-ban clips were always available, albeit with a higher price point, from dealers, on the internet, at gun shows, or from international sources (especially from former Warsaw Pact countries that had large quantities of AK-47 magazines of various capacities that could fit a variety of both pre-ban and post-ban AK-47 variants). Again, the law was meaningless.

In addition, law abiding sport shooters, collectors, self-defense advocates and hunters who bought semi-automatic replicas of military ordinance felt they had become targets of over-reaching law enforcement agencies because of the demonization of their lawfully owned guns or what they thought was a lawful hobby. This caused a chilling of support for law enforcement by an untold number of citizens who would never imagine themselves as law-breakers, which is exactly the opposite response you would hope to get from legislation intended to fight crime.

Finally, since the ban was first enacted back in 1994, there has been a major development in the interpretation of the Second Amendment, which must also be considered. The decision in Heller v. District of Columbia established the principle that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court decision must guide your thinking as you proceed.

We share your commitment to reducing crime and gun violence. We believe, as law-abiding gun owners, the way to do that is not by banning guns, but by making sure that criminals, terrorists and people who can harm themselves and others do not get guns. Law-abiding gun-owners will overwhelmingly support your efforts along those lines. Again, I applaud your long-standing service to our country and defense of the Constitution. I do however ask you work to ensure that any law enforcement legislation the administration proposes aimed at reducing gun crime in our communities will actually lower gun crime. Policy considerations should dictate this decision.

Sincerely,
Ray Schoenke, President
American Hunters and Shooters Association


Give an inch, they take a mile!

[ChamberedRound]

Give an inch, they take a mile!

Yup, that about sums it up.

[son of the revolution]

Anyone listen in or get on the air ?? I got on for about 5 minutes around 11:35 PM EST

[son of the revolution]

Nobody caught the show last night ????

[jizmo3]

how come these "prominent" tv and radio show hosts never go for repealling the 1st amendment as well as the second?

[TaePo]

Let's see, the B.O.R. are inherent rights enumerated by the Constitution and not given to the people by it nor is the Government the grantor of those rights; so by definition, how can one use the government to repeal that which is not granted by the government?

Logic = Fail.

The general population needs to understand that. The government has no claim to the B.o.R as they do not grant, possess or control it by definition. They can either help to protect it or subrogate the people. In the latter case all bets would be off, and legally so.

That is why our sworn oaths are to the Constitution and not the government itself or to any of its leaders.

[Big Dog]

Nobody caught the show last night ????

Listened to the whole thing, all in all it was a + for gun ownership. Typical false stats from the anti and solid performance by the pro.