[Garth Tater]

"...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."

Nathan, that particular flaw I pointed out in your plan A was not the chance that it could go rogue and cause us to lose some very valuable parts of the Constitution. It was that by the same logic of yours that if 13 State legislatures could prevent anything bad from coming out of your Convention of States then a different set of 13 legislatures could prevent anything good from coming out as well.

My quote here: "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."

That is the flaw in your plan A, not that the COS could go rogue. The logic is yours. If 13 can stop anything bad from coming out then a different 13 can stop anything good and therefore there is no upside to your COS. I hate to use a man's own reasoning against him, but it is what it is.

Thirteen states that are not controlled by legislatures that support our traditional form of government and would not support anything positive coming out of your convention:

1. California
2. New York
3. Maryland
4. New Jersery
5. Rhode Island
6. Connecticut
7. Delaware
8. Massachusetts
9. Hawaii
10. Washington
11. Illinois
12. Minnesota
13. New Mexico

Would you like me to name a few more, because I easily could.

Most of the rest of your post must have been meant for someone else. There was no need to tell me again how a revolt by men armed with rifles could never win against the US Military. I largely agree with you - but that has never been my point as to why the 2nd Amendment is so valuable to us that it should never be placed in play in the back room wheeling and dealing that would take place at your COS.

To briefly summarize my reasoning as to why the 2nd is so valuable to us and why a civil war will not come about:

1. As long as we have our guns and they know that we are willing to use them then the damage we would cause (yes, even in losing) would be catastrophic and they don't want that to happen to what they think will soon be their  country  possession.

2. The 2nd Amendment is not of great importance because it is what stops them from taking our guns. They have a long history of not giving a damn about laws. They do what they can get away with. They always have and they always will. The importance of the 2nd Amendment is that it gives us a common rallying point. It is so firmly woven into our mythos that every freeborn American male knows that we defend it to the death. It is the line in the sand that brings blood if crossed. Without it every man would have to decide for himself at what point he takes up arms - and that would give them leverage points to use in pulling us apart. With the 2nd Amendment we all stand together on the same ground.

And that is why I don't support your COS. The 2nd Amendment is just too valuable to us to ever be put at risk.

[nathanbedford]

We see a remarkable 180° about-face in your positions during the course of these exchanges.

In #16 you state:

Two questions:

1.) What are the margins in those Republican controlled legislatures?

2.) How much would it cost to buy sufficient Republican votes to have the 2nd Amendment legislated out of existence?

When it comes to politicians, especially establishment Republican politicians, everything has a price. I consider my liberty and the 2nd Amendment, which goes a long way towards protecting that liberty, too valuable to put up for sale - someone might just decide to meet the price.

A reasonable man would infer from this and many other statements you have made that you feared that merely entering into a convention of states creates a grave risk of repealing the Second Amendment. It is now clear that you have abandoned that position when you state in your latest reply:

Nathan, that particular flaw I pointed out in your plan A was not the chance that it could go rogue and cause us to lose some very valuable parts of the Constitution.

You reaffirm that again in the same reply:

That is the flaw in your plan A, not that the COS could go rogue.

Since plan A is a convention of states, it is now clear that your position is that there is no danger to the Second Amendment arising out of An Article V convention to amend the Constitution.

What are the inescapable inferences from this about-face?

It is now clear that your position now is that there is no downside to an Article V proceeding. But we should not try because the same arithmetic tells us that there is no upside. This is not something that I have been blithely unaware of, indeed, I have long been posting on the reciprocal problem of rejection by 13. Here is just one reply along those lines published here on August 3, 2014:

One thing is crystal clear, Washington other cannot or will not reform itself. Article V is concededly a thin even a desperate hope but it at least it offers the promise, however remote, of reform because it is conducted outside of Washington.

The numbers are admittedly daunting, 34 states needed to propose amendments, a recalcitrant Congress to accede to the application and actually "call" a convention, and the legislatures or the conventions of 38 states agreeing to ratify the amendments. Indeed, except for Nebraska both the House and Senate of these 38 states must approve if Congress elects ratification to be conducted by the legislatures rather than state conventions.

So the bad news is also the good news. Even though Republicans control far more legislative houses than do Democrats, they do not have enough to make 34 and certainly not enough to ratify with 38. So the prospect of reform in view of these numbers is daunting.

But the good news is that the Democrats are even less able to persuade the legislatures to ratify any amendment they might propose -putting aside the likelihood that they would not be able to propose anything in a convention because the authorizing legislation from the states would not permit it. In any event, there is really no practical danger of a "runaway" convention producing an unpalatable result much less a result that would be ratified by 75 of 99 legislative bodies the great majority of whom are controlled by Republicans.

My view is that the danger of doing nothing clearly outweighs the remote danger of a "runaway convention" or the fanciful idea that Republican legislators in the in 75 legislative bodies would ratify such an amendment. I note the resistance on the right seems to be coming from gun rights groups, especially including the NRA, Phyllis Schaffly and the John Birch Society. I believe that the Second Amendment groups are exaggerating the danger beyond all proportion to reality.

If we do nothing we will continue on the path we are on which in my view is a path to destruction. In this sense the bad news, again, is also the good news. I believe it will require some sort of "Black Swan" event such as financial crisis, a war, or some utterly unforeseen situation which stirs the country to take action. We are losing our liberty and we are losing our solvency and we are doing so at an accelerating rate. The risks of doing nothing are unacceptable and events might well bring the people to see that.

So here we are, you advocate that we should not strive for the good even though that striving carries no downside but we should instead wait for the apocalypse even though that approach carries no upside. How do we know there is no upside to your previously bellicose assurances of the ability of trained men to fight with small arms? Because you now state in a remarkable about-face:

There was no need to tell me again how a revolt by men armed with rifles could never win against the US Military. I largely agree with you

So in my proposal there is no downside and in your proposal there is no upside - completely the reverse of what you unaccountably contend in your last reply.

More confusingly, after these abrupt about-faces you revert to your original position that somehow to pursue and Article V strategy is somehow to risk the Second Amendment:

And that is why I don't support your COS. The 2nd Amendment is just too valuable to us to ever be put at risk.

It seems that the NRA propaganda is just too thick a shell to crack.