[nathanbedford]

Typically when articles such as this are published, the thread is populated with gainsayers who oppose Article V many of whom are prompted as noted in the article by considerations advanced by the John Birch society and the late Phyllis Schlafly.

The article fails to mention, however, that a principal source of objections to a convention of the states emanates from the National Rifle Association that professes fears for the Second Amendment. The arithmetic of a Convention of the States in which 13 separate legislative bodies out of 99 can absolutely stop a runaway amendment, makes the objection downright silly in a practical world.

I rather suspect that the NRA is acting not to protect the Second Amendment in this case but to increase their own funding, a matter which is likely to come under increasing scrutiny in the wake of the charges by Oliver North.

Whatever the motivations of the leadership of the NRA, there is no reason why its members or anyone who respects the Second Amendment should play their useful idiot.

[fruser1]

The prob with that argument is that every state already restricts gun rights in some way and has a police force much better armed (and more rights) than the public. Not infringed would mean no regulations on it exist yet every state has them.

“Reasonable restrictions” would likely substitute “shall not be infringed” and many compromisers would likely be willing to sacrifice that for some other issue.