“Repealing the Second Amendment would deprive no one of their guns, but it would empower the Congress and state legislatures to do something effectively to end the slaughter. Some jurisdictions will act with decision to limit magazines and increase background checks, and others will not. But let’s get rid of this antiquated and blood-drenched amendment. Let us not wait for the most determined advocate of gun rights to decide that too many have died.” – Michael Leroy Oberg in Rescind the 2nd Amendment [at democratandchronicle.com]
Click here to start your own thread at the Free Fire Zone forum
At least he’s honest in his argument and doesn’t pretend to believe in the 2nd while undermining it’s support.
while we are at it, let’s get rid of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments. Too many reporters are hiding sources and too many criminals are getting away literally with murder. We should be able to execute all of them immediately without trial or counsel.
This is the point exactly, isn’t it? If we once allow the repeal of any one or even any part of the first 10 amendments we have implicitly agreed that they are not natural and inalienable rights, but rights “allowed” by the government. At that point where does the alteration of the Bill of Rights end? And who monitors those alterations, SCOTUS? What if a liberal/progressive administration is able to pack that court? If we need any new amendments to the constitution at this point in history it should be very simply, “Congress shall make no law altering or amending in any way any of the first ten amendments to this Constitution of the United States of America.”
Spoken like a true Nazi. Liberty and freedom aren’t for everyone. Not all are strong enough mentally and emotionally to handle it.
Darn those pesky amendments, protecting individual rights and all.
I love the double speak of repealing the 2nd would deprive no one of their guns but allow local goveremts to make laws to deprive people of their guns.
For the party that touts itself as being so smart there are no shortage of pure idiots calling themselves democrats.
+1
Lived in DC and Chicago most of my adult life. I recall quite vividly what it is like to have a government bar you from owning a firearm.
Heh, nice one buddy. “Empower” is the buzziest of commie buzz words. Newsflash, we don’t need to “empower” Congress or any governing body. They’ve already greatly exceeded their intended scope, howzabout we work on curbing their machinations rather than opening the door for more. What a maroon.
the comments on the article page are really interesting . . . .
They don’t appear to be there anymore. I wonder why???
Well it would be “better” for him to not have the 1st ammendment, i respect his opinion to say what he wants. Too bad he won’t respect my own.
Lets rescind the antiquated 1st Amendment first, so worms like him can be silenced.
What a fool. He needs to remember that tyrants arise because the *majority* votes them into power… that is when the bloodshed begins against the minority group.
Any power that lies with the people creates a stronger society and a perfect check against rampant power and abuse by the government.
There is no mechanism to rescind a constitutional amendment. Rather, we would have to pass a new constitutional amendment stating that the 2nd Amendment is null and void. So if this guy thinks he can get two thirds of both houses of Congress and 38 states to go for this, he is welcome to try.
And even that might not be sufficient, since the right to armed self defense is a pre-existing natural right, not granted by the 2nd Amendment, but only protected from infringement. A reasonable reading of the Constitution and the contemporaneous documents reveals that the right to keep and bear arms would continue to exist, even without the 2nd Amendment.
A+
@ Haiku Guy
In the short term I agree; but over the present and future years with the revisionist liberal education of our youth, and progressive Democrats conducting unrelenting psychological warfare to brainwash and reprogram the mindset of an often culpable “general public” to fall into lockstep with the “progressive elitist” agenda, I’m worried.
I also agree with the 2A being a “protection” of an already existing natural right from the tyrany of an over reaching government.
Let’s get rid of the right of other people so I can feel safe and cozey, just like the British and Australians, then there won’t be any more crimes committed with guns! Oh wait… That no work…
Yes, repealing the 2A would have no effect on the rights of gun owners, just like in the UK.
Oh, wait….
Consider the publisher: Gannet, the same people who, a few months ago, printed interactive maps to the homes of handgun permit holders in NY state. Then they hired armed guards to protect their own property after receiving a little backlash.
“Intellectuals”; I look at what these elitists statists propose and all I see is an unending litany of tyranny, dictatorship and mass death.
History will look back at the current crop of these facilitators of enslavement and will see them as nothing but monsters.
“Some ideas are so stupid it takes an intellectual to believe them.”
– George Orwell
Brilliant.
Well it hurts my feelings when people call me names. So lets get rid if the first amendment while we’re in housekeeping mode.
The premise behind “…blood-drenched amendment…” is the only reason he’s able to even say such stupid shit. If he wants to throw away his rights, go for it, just don’t try to include others who don’t.
There are dozens and dozens of other countries out there that don’t have second ammendment protections. I encourage this fella to go live in one of them. My vote is Syria, Iran, or Pakistan. I also highly encourage him to continue to excersise his right to free speech as soon as he moves there.
We have some messed up limits on our free speech in the US. FCC, a government organization put into effect by congress who consistently denote what is or isn’t acceptable to say or show. There have been a touch or two of blasphemy laws, and a bit of a kerfuffle over things labeled “pornographic” or lewd. Which of course used to include anything homosexual, whether or not it had sex in it.
Point is the U.S. government has been trampling on our rights for a very, very long time. BUT, I concede is no where near as bad as the craziness in Syria, Iran, or pakistan.
Do any of those books behind him espouse the dangers of an as*hole with a mouth and a brain made of fecal matter?
If I had any kids taking a class from Mr. Oberg, I would demand a refund. Talk about someone who doesn’t know anything about history.
Warning, Warning, dumbfu*k alert Will Robinson!!!
Repealing the 2nd would result in bloodshed, this fool known nothing.
Is his nickname “Jon Snow”?
Could be 🙂
If 2A is nullified then there is nothing left to protect 1A. If 1A falls, then the country will fall into anarchy.
I disagree. What would follow is a highly organized, tightly controlled Police State with a huge criminal class that can openly pray upon the innocent, e.g. England.
Or Mexico. Maybe you’re right.
You are confused about the definition of anarchy. Anarchy does not mean chaos. Plus, chaos would not be the result, it would be a totalitarian state.
Repealing the Second Amendment would deprive no one of their guns”
“Some jurisdictions will act with decision to limit magazines and increase background checks, and others will not. ”
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright. And some like Chiraq, Philadelphia, NY, SF, etc will simply ban civilian firearm ownership outright. Period. Unless you’re a liberal elite or a celebrity, of course. Your foolproof plan would, by definition, deprive lots of people of their guns. You know that, which makes you a liar.
Some folks here have commented that “at least he’s honest” because he admits to wanting the RKBA repealed. Those folks are looking past how truly manipulative this individual (term applied loosely) really is.
What he said:
“Repealing the Second Amendment would deprive no one of their guns, but it would empower the Congress and state legislatures to do something effectively to end the slaughter. Some jurisdictions will act with decision to limit magazines and increase background checks, and others will not. But let’s get rid of this antiquated and blood-drenched amendment.”
What he is implying:
Repeal the second amendment and no one will lose their guns but gun violence will simultaneously and magically disappear! Overnight, gun violence will be replaced with rainbows and lollipops! Americans can have all the guns they want AND defeat gun violence! The only REAL problem is our pesky rights! Hurray!
You can stuff that background with all the family photos that you own Mr. Oberg. No one thinks you’re anything other than a fascist drone who advocates for civilian disarmament. Be careful what you write Sir. There will be consequences for those like yourself should you ever get your way.
I never realized just how murderous an amendment could be. Let’s get rid of them all, just to be safe.
I’ve been wondering lately if these anti-consitution types are using George Orwell’s 1984 as their model for society.
it’s funny how they cry about the NRA opposing “solutions” to their “problem” of mass shootings. Truth is the NRA and most of the “armed intelligenstia” oppose their solutions, and the bed wetters don’t have the stomach for actual solutions that will really work.
And the absolute truth is that their “problem” is reducing itself with no help from them.
The number of mass shooting incidents and the number of mass shooting deaths reached their peak somewhere in the ’80s (if I remember correctly) and have been going steadily down for 20 years. The general murder rate has also been going down for a long time.
The problem they’re talking about has been manufactured by a mass-media machine that thrives on sensationalism and by people like Mr. Oberg who need a gun violence problem to feed their prohibitionist agenda. They can’t accept the reality that the problem is diminishing without their special kind of help — and right alongside an explosion in gun ownership — so they slog onward, obsessively retelling their favorite gun violence fables.
A+
Something like deprive people of their guns. No matter how he tries to dance around it, the bare fact is the 2nd Amendment has exactly one operative clause. It does nothing whatsoever except protect the people’s right to keep and bear arms. The only possible purpose of repealing it would be to infringe or abrogate that right, plain and simple.
Oberg is right — repealing the Second Amendment wouldn’t take people’s guns away. The federal government and all the anti-gun states would do it. (Later, after the Second Amendment is gone.)
The anti-gun states seem to be making some progress toward their goal, even with the 2A
The American Revolution was pretty “blood drenched” , so too the Civil War. Where those a mistake?
Even if we agree that the 2nd is “blood drenched” (and I don’t), I still want it. Historically there is much more blood shed when the people are not armed. Familiar with the phrase “Live Free or Die”?
Putz.
He begins with the “thirty thousand killed with guns every year” statistic and to his credit, he admits it includes homicides, suicides, and accidents. He doesn’t explain the majority are suicides and the vast majority of the homicides are between criminals who 1) probably would get guns no matter what and 2) are at much higher risk of violent death to begin with.
Even so, it’s another classic case of fetishism, focusing on the item involved rather than the acts or circumstances that lead to the deaths. People can think of plenty of other ways to kill and maim that don’t involve guns and if you take the gun out of gun crime, you still have crime. Take the crime out and all you have is an inanimate object.
And to be perfectly honest, an adult wishing to off himself (or herself) should hardly be considered a crime anyway. I was raised to believe that I probably ought not if I want to return to the Kingdom of God and so on and so on, but I was also raised to let people lead their own lives, and just worry about my own.
Besides, I traded that Heaven/Hell reservation I had for one in Valhalla years ago.
my god what an idiot, this guy is such an idiot he makes my hair hurt…but at least there’s a silver lining: “Let us not wait for the most determined advocate of gun rights to decide that too many have died.” don’t hold your breath, pal.
If only this guy new that the only thing allowing him to use the 1st, is the 2nd.
The UBC was a failure and you expect the 2a to be removed from the BOR? I wish all our opponents were as dumb as this one.
Well it worked for Chicago…
Jackasses like Oberg make me even more glad that we have a Second Amendment and a little sad that we have the First. If the Second Amendment is “blood-stained,” the First Amendment stinks with stupid.
My kid had a pet hamster. Shave that thing and this would be the photo you’d get.
[OBSCENE GESTURE]
If you can get your second ammendment rights suspended for using a gun irresponsibly, this a$$hat should get his first ammendment rights suspended for writing that.
Once he ends the “slaughter” caused by guns, which slaughter will he seek to end next? The “slaughter” caused by free speech or any other right that he deems dangerous? The Founding Fathers were just a bunch of right wing extremists to short sighted jackasses like him.
Comments are closed.