Replies

As I understand your argument, you fear the extremely unlikely event that 87 legislatures out of 99 will acquiesce in amending the Constitution to permit "reasonable regulations" of gun ownership or possession. But you also say:

every state already restricts gun rights in some way

So you are afraid that what is now happening in "every state" will now simply be explicitly authorized by the Constitution. What difference does it make to your right to own or bear a weapon that the damage is done one way as opposed to the other?

A basic impetus for convention of the states is to stop the unconstitutional incursions into our liberties done every day by the Congress, the courts, the deep state. You acknowledge that is also obstructing our right to own and bear arms. Are we to forfeit all chances of stopping this unconstitutional path to tyranny and obstruction of all our fundamental rights to favor the illusory fears concerning guns?

Always enjoy your posts General NBF.

If I understand the “enforce the constitution we have” argument, which seems to me to be the strongest against an article V convention, I do wonder why the words produced by the new convention, however limited or however worded, will have the desired effect and will not be twisted to whatever purpose the left sees fit.

The difference it makes is that constitutional challenges to gun restrictions today can pass muster, whereas under a changed constitution it would not.

Existing intrusions to liberty can be handled the same way, like some recent EPA wins.

To claim that threats to guns are illusory is wildly out of touch with reality and is itself illusory.

If the other tyrannies get bad enough they at least can be fought with guns.

In spite of some recent gun victories, I think there are just too many RINOs out there to trust w/Article V.

Bottom line with me is not a problem w the existing constitution but how it’s being abused. Hence the solution in my mind is to defeat the abuse, not rewrite the constitution.