[Garth Tater]

"The problem is that if such a government can be deterred it is likely also to be amenable to the Democratic process."

Yes, especially a democratic process like a COS. A lot more deals and trade-offs can be made (and hidden) in a wide ranging rewrite of the Constitution than can be worked in an attempt to change the 2nd Amendment through the existing process.

Right now the 2nd is protected by the requirement for super-majorities in the Senate and among the States and as long as it comes up as a single issue I think the 2nd Amendment will remain as it is and right where it belongs - but if back room dealing ever begins on a whole slew of issues at once the 2nd could possibly get traded away. I, personally, believe it is too valuable to put at risk that way.

I do admire your hopeful attitude Nathan, but I don't think we have any chance of winning as long as we are playing on their turf. And it is their turf. They own our political system now and the best we can do is play for a stalemate until their magic money machine runs out of time. Thankfully, there is a timer on that machine due to the wonder of compound interest and if that clock runs out while we still have our freedom then they lose and we win. That's the game I'm playing and the reason I don't support a Convention of States.


"If the government is not amenable to the Democratic will and/or constitutional norms, middle-aged, potbellied men with small arms will do nothing but pitch the country into a dystopian hell because of the reasons which I cited in the reply that I linked in my last reply."

That threat of dystopian hell is exactly why our guns will remain in our hands and will continue as a check on the actions of our oppressors. They have no desire to own and rule over a dystopian hell - but that is what they will get if they cross the line. Our reactions to every new attempt to whittle back our gun rights are noted and analyzed and they move us along the path to their new world only at a speed that does not provoke outright rebellion.

And, on a personal note, who are you calling pot-bellied, old man? :)

I may have put on a few pounds, but my combat trained and experienced sons and nephews all seem to be in good shape. They each swore to protect the Constitution and they have the tools and skills to do so. You don't want to be on the wrong side of them if the shooting ever does start.


"When our founders acknowledged in the Constitution the "gift" to bear and keep arms, both the government and the people, like my ancestor, were armed with flintlocks."

And cannons and warships. I may not have a cannon today, but if need be I could have one in about two weeks. But really, who would want a cannon in a modern war? That would just turn you into a target. The combination of knowledge and precise violence is much more effective. If bad times come and I have my choice of a battalion of artillery or the wife of the local gestapo's commander strapped into my chair, I know which one I'll choose.


"Today, the only chance for the insurrectionists against the world superpower is to wage a guerrilla war or to engage in terrorism. Even so, after much blood of innocents having unnecessarily been shed, they will lose."

That military might is wielded by the likes of my sons and nephews and I know what they would do with it. And while active military patriots are doing their duties us old, pot-bellied has-beens will be doing ours. Guerrilla warfare and terrorism? Sure. And more. And worse. I'm a nice enough guy, but if war comes and freedom is on the line I won't hold back.


"...I owe it to my children, and to your children if you have any, to spare them that needless pain and the futility."

And your willingness to forgo that pain in futile resistance is what our would-be masters are hoping for. If you won't engage in a losing battle what will you do should your COS gambit fail? Submit? Do you have a plan B?

Hell, even your plan A is flawed. Do you think they won't scuttle any convention that looks like it might actual solve some of our problems? They have more than enough traitors-within that can be called up to make sure of that. They've been playing this game for a long time and know all the tricks.

Ain't it great to live in such interesting tines?

[nathanbedford]

Recently I've been asking on these threads, can you name any institution apart from the military that you trust? Before writing this reply, I googled institutions that can be trusted and came up with this Gallup poll which shows on virtually every institution graded with very low marks by the public, usually around 30% "great deal/quite a lot" trust in a given institution except for the military which perennially earns 74% of public trust.

In this context I respond to your question, "Do you have a plan B? "

I respond to your follow-up assertion, "Hell, even your plan A is flawed."

I respond by saying that you presented a false binary choice. First the choice is false because the odds of the convention running away are virtually nil because of the arithmetic, of which you have been fully apprised to the effect that only 13 legislatures of different states out of 99 is sufficient to stop any proposed amendment.

The arithmetic is compelling and cannot be dismissed as you try to do by the bland assertion that thousands of legislators and/or delegates to one or two conventions will be bribed. The notion is unrealistic because it is not clear to the George Soros of this world whom they should suborn. Second, venal approaches to honest legislators and delegates would be made public and the whole scheme would be blown. Third, it is unlikely that we cannot find 13 patriotic legislature majorities, not 100% just majorities, to do the right thing.

The choice is false because there are other options. Although you and I are no doubt in agreement that our institutions are disintegrating, we still have some trust in the military. . My plan A, is to exhaust every rational and reasonable alternative to civil war and that certainly includes Article V because it is by any realistic measurement safe without the imagined downside bruited about by devotees of the NRA.

My plan B is to win over the military.

Yes, it is great to be in these interesting times and after three quarters of a century I hope to see a little bit more of them.

I challenge you to accept both plans and abandon this nonsense that by bringing terrorism into the heart of America the Republic will emerge from the battle unscathed, victorious, a representative democracy and not a shattered remnant more reminiscent of The Walking Dead than the kind of decent society all conservatives, you and I, yearn for.

The world that emerges from this guerrilla war marked by indiscriminate terrorism, even if your patriotic and well-meaning sons and nephews are victorious (remember they need rough men ready to do violence as allies who would have their own human lust for power) would be a world in which few would want to live, a place of warlords, barbarous, without the rule of law, without decency, in short, a world that is nasty and brutish.

There is no need to fail to do what might be done because we are locked in despair. As and when we are cast into a fight or submit to tyranny scenario, good men will know what to do. Good men will also do everything they can to avoid that eventuality.