[theBuckwheat]

If the federal government breaks the Constitution to a sufficient extent that people who love liberty are obligated to do what next exactly? Please walk me through the trajectory of events.

Let me interject, and correct me if I am wrong, that very quickly we come to a fork in the big road. We either comply or we resist. There is a third option: we redefine the federal government. Of the three options, compliance leads us to tyranny and that was the road that leads to democide. Resistance leads to direct confrontation with government and becomes a contest of power, and this ignores that a struggle with government is mainly a political struggle. Armed confrontation with government cannot end well until the political issues are resolved. Both of the conventional options lead to bloodshed.

The only peaceful option is to redefine the federal government. That is a conversation we are obligated to have. But notice how many people on FR even mention a Constitutional Convention. I haven’t seen any other postings besides my own recently. And yet logic demands that we discuss it!

I cannot understand why people who are so quick to confront government and assume the risks that are tangible in such an engagement, think a Convention entails more risk! Look at how many states have opted out of ObamaCare. Look at how many states have Republican governors and legislatures.

Even a Republic governor will be obligated to put down an armed rebellion against his own State Police. There can only be one sovereign and his oath of office obligates him to enforce the law.

But a convention allows changing the law that he must enforce.

But more to your reply: if the present government breaks the chains of the Constitution, how can we repair it so that government is properly restrained? And if a Convention is held, the votes will be by state, and a supermajority of the state legislatures will have to ratify the working draft.

And some States may take that opportunity to leave the Union. Alaska is one, maybe Hawaii and California. In the case of Kali, it is welcome to have its own secular Utopia.

In my opinion, RKBA is just one of the tyrannies of the present federal government. At the moment the main tyranny is that it has put my entire country in debt-serfdom. It taxes my income no matter where I make it. It inflates the money it forces me to use. It publishes more regulations (each having the weight of law) each week than a man can read in a year. It has become tyrannous and arbitrary in how it enforces its laws. It gives a man whose company has stolen over a billion dollars a pass, but it has thrown a person in jail for the horrible crime of importing lobsters using styrofoam instead of cardboard boxes. It is using “environmental” laws to force me to use dangerous light bulbs and impose the type of toilet I can have. In the future, I will be forced to buy a car that is dangerous to drive because it weighs so little due to mileage requirements. And so on.

The molon labe crowd has too narrow a vision of tyranny. The present assault on RKBA is just one front on a far bigger tyranny. We will lose that war if we don’t wake up.

[no-to-illegals]

Do you really trust those who hold power to run a CC that will be lead to liberty and justice for the people? Dangerous .... leave our Constitution alone. If those in power want to repeal our rights let it be out in the open and not behind a ruse of a CC. I do not doubt for one moment those who hold power would attempt to pass off a removal of more rights via a CC would come out and tell us it is what the people want, when their words would be LIES.

[Las Vegas Ron]

There is a third option: we redefine the federal government. Of the three options, compliance leads us to tyranny and that was the road that leads to democide.

Who is alive today that has the Divine acumen the Framers did? I would posit no one.

I wouldn't trust any man alive today to rewrite an already perfect document.

Can you imagine the "compromise" that would occur in a re write?

Again, the Constitution is all but ignored now, why would a new one be any different?

We need to enforce what we have, not re write it.

I agree with the points you bring up regarding where we are as a Nation, just disagree with your approach to fix it.

[philman_36]

The down side of a CC, at this point, is that we might very well end up with something worse than what we currently have!
Liberals would write our new Constitution and dictate what our new form of government would be! Is that what you want?

Our current form of government and the original Constitution is fine. Where things have gone wrong is that corrupt men seek to exert unlawful control over those they are supposed to serve simply out of a perverse desire for power.
Restore what once was with a few newer things left in and things would be vastly improved. Simply removing the powers and authorities the government has taken outside of the Constitution would be an alternate solution.

Unfortunately Congress won't do that by themselves.

JMHO

[Dan(9698)]

But notice how many people on FR even mention a Constitutional Convention.

How do you propose delegates to a convention would be chosen?

If it is by election, the same bums as are in the Senate will be there.

They would then throw out all the protections we have in there.

It would be worse after they screwed it up.

It would not even have to have any super-majority of the states as it is now.