An Article V convention cannot submit amendments for ratification without a yes vote from 34 states present.
So, if NY demanded repeal of the second amendment (to use your example), 33 other states would have to concur (and then 38 state legislatures would have to ratify).
Not possible.
Well, my point was I don’t want it even allowed to be a consideration. Scope and Context focused on the objective, otherwise everything outside that scope and context becomes a potential tool of distraction, misdirection or obstruction.
That’s how the leftists operate.
At the Constitutional Convention I think it was Franklin who said, "For God's sake, be careful who are those men."
My opposition to this convention is simple: where will you find 34 states where you can control "those men?" Let me take my state of OH. Kasich, DeWine, Taft (to some degree), Portman, Boehner et al absolutely control the state. Whether a vote of the legislature or a committee, they would never permit the repeal of the 17th. They MIGHT oppose a repeal of the 2nd, but would support a pro illegal alien measure or a climate change measure and would NOT keep such silly stuff from being introduced.
What about a convention? Who do you suppose structures HOW the convention is assembled/elected/structured?
No one has yet convinced me that even a few states---let alone 34---would structure the "state" response in a way beneficial to us.
Since nobody obeys our Constitution now, by what stroke of magic do you think all these other procedural steps would be followed; or the “new” constitution obeyed?
Article V was intended to be utilized by honest, honorable, pro-constitution people. I doubt whether 50% of those salivating for an Article V convention meet that criteria.
Just keep cool, elect Trump & Cruz, and let 16 years of following the REAL Constitution get us back on the track that worked well for two centuries.