Replies

So far you’ve suggested that States will convene to limit their rights, move control of their rights to the federal government and expand the Commerce Clause to restrict gun rights. In light of the fact that conservatives control 66 of 99 state legislative chambers I think you will have a very difficult time convincing anyone that your views are realistic.

I've suggested no such thing and you're disingenuously misstating my position.

My points about what could happen were hypothetical and to illustrate the sloppiness of the "states rights" subject as a stated topic for the convention.

You may think it's unrealistic that the left in each of the 50 states as well as the other entrenched powers will try to corrupt this process, but I think your're wrong. As someone once said,

"... there is reality and facts which are stubborn things."

I gave you plenty of opportunity to put forward examples where as you said the mission topic could be used to limit states rights and move control of states rights to the federal government.

Your remarks and examples are unrealistic. You will have difficulty convincing anyone that more than 34 states will convene to restrict their own rights, move control of their rights to the federal government and possibly propose an amendment to expand the power of the Commerce Clause to encroach on gun rights.

> “You may think it’s unrealistic that the left in each of the 50 states as well as the other entrenched powers will ***try*** to corrupt this process, but I think your’re wrong.”

The left can ***try*** anything. There’s no argument that the left can ***try*** to corrupt anything. That’s not what we’re talking about here otherwise it’s fear mongering leading to dreaming up neverending nightmares of monsters in the attic. That’s not useful to these discussions.

You posit that the left will ***try*** to do whatever, and then you attack people for something which they did not do and which is not an argument. Of course the left can ***try*** anything. To say that the left can try to corrupt anything is a tautology. There’s no sensible argument against a tautology so don’t accuse people of doing that. I have no argument that the left will ***try*** to corrupt anything, I just don’t believe that your points and example could ever be ***accomplished*** by the left.

Put some reality into your assertions and describe not what the left will ***try*** to do but how they can reasonably be expected to ***accomplish*** what they try to do. You mentioned they will use the Convention of States to expand the reach of the Commerce Clause to effect gun rights under the mission of ‘States Rights and Control of States Rights’. Put forth a concise lawyerly procedure of specifically how they would do such a thing? How would they persuade at least 34 state legislatures to do such a thing?