Friday July 1, 2016
Jump to content
That's not just empty oratory. Congress does not use (or abuse) the amendment process because anything it proposed would have to be ratified by both chambers of 38 state legislatures before it would become the law of the land. Do you know what the odds are of that happening? Well, my calculator doesn't have enough negative decimal places either, but I'll tell you this... when the government wants to infringe on our rights by granting itself more power, a wider scope, and broader jurisdiction, it's a whole lot easier to allow one of the federal regulatory agencies to do it, like the IRS or the EPA, and then sit back and watch as a politicized Supreme Court rubber stamps the infringement.
That's not the procedure that the Founders envisioned... that's not the process proscribed in Article V. Just as is the requirement for Congress, any proposal from a Convention of States would still have to be approved by 38 state houses before a single word is changed in the Constitution... and all that it takes to kill any "crazy" ideas is for just 13 of those chambers, either a state house or a state senate, to do nothing. They wouldn't even have to vote against it. All they'd have to do is adjourn for the day and go home... case closed.
Are we fools, someone above arrogantly asked? Am I one of them? If so, I'm proud to be counted among the "fools" who share the vision of the Framers of the Constitution. They included Article V for a reason... to provide the states with the authority to propose remedies to errors discovered in the process of self-governance, and to do so independent of and without interference from Congress, because they KNEW that the day would come when the federal government would grow to a point that it would attempt to put itself beyond the reach of the people in the states, and at that point, it would either fail or refuse to respond to the wants and needs of the states.
But, don't take my word for it... I respectfully recommend to all readers - except, of course, those who are more afraid of their fellow American citizens than they are of the federal government, and those who think that they know more than the brave souls who founded this, the most perfect form of self-governance in all of history - to visit the website of the Convention of States Project. http:ConventionOfStates.com
We seem to have swerved off topic here...well, off the REAL topic. I think the question as to whether or not More Gun Control was "The Answer" was rhetorical. My assumption is that anyone familiar with, let's say Chicago, for example, just knows empirically that gun control does not solve gun violence. Chicago undeniably has the strictest gun control laws in the country, while, nonetheless, enjoying the highest gun violence rate in the nation.
The real point was the need to clarify the Second Amendment, so as to take away once and for all this red herring diversion that gun-grabbers drag out every chance they get. Once the government is deprived of "More Gun Control" as its knee-jerk, go-to reaction to gun violence, it will be forced to come up with a new response... and maybe... just maybe that response will be a relevant one. In the instance of the Orlando shooting, a responsible government would immediately focus on the shooter and the source of his hate, rather than attempt to misdirect everyone's attention instead to the tool that he used to express that hate.
Now back to the issue, to that of an Amendments Convention itself... for those who have expressed fear and distrust of the process, all I can point to is Congress. They meet up there in DC day in, day out, and they have exactly the same power and authority that the Constitution grants specially elected delegates to an Article V Convention of States. Although the country is in terrible shape, it's not because Congress has abused the amendment process... conversely, I would submit that if they HAD used the amendment process instead of allowing our Constitution to be re-written incrementally by the judicial activism of 9 unelected Justices of the Supreme Court, we'd be a whole lot better off.
To Mike DeVirgilio - Hey Mike... pay attention... nobody has proposed that MORE GUNS would be the solution to Chicago, although it might be a proposition worthy of further consideration. The only reason Chicago was brought up was to demonstrate the stupidity of those who tout GUN CONTROL as the answer to everything evil. Chicago's pretty damned evil, and they have about as much gun control as can be crammed into an American city. How about you address the crisis of logic here, rather than try to drag everyone off again on another one of your shuffle-footed "too complex for us knuckle-draggers to understand" tangents.
To Mike DeVirgilio - Once again, Mike, you've swerved off topic and dived head first into the Left's favorite political wedge issue... Gun Control. Let me try this one more time... it's NOT about your buddy Obama and his knee-jerk "G-G-G-GUN CONTROL" reaction to every and any available gun tragedy. It's about a president acting presidential and doing something about the real cause of the incident, Radical Islamic Terrorism, whether it fits with his politically motivated, Lie-Of-The-Day denial meme or not.
We're not stupid, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that we are... Obama is using a bogus gun control tirade as a diversion from the real issue, his failed policy to "degrade and destroy ISIL"... ferkrisakes, the man can't even SPELL it correctly, let alone address the issue!
So... if you want to discuss the real issue, I'll be more than happy to engage. Obama's gun-grabbing proclivities are not even vaguely debatable, and are, therefore, not the topic of this discussion.
Tom... I'm no lawyer, nor am I a munitions / firearms expert, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn once, and the next morning at breakfast I actually met a lawyer and a firearms expert, so I know they exist! :)
Now, it seems perfectly plausible to me that, should such an amendments convention be called, the committee charged with the clarification and resolution of all Second Amendment conflicts would either be composed of delegates who are themselves lawyers and firearms experts, or barring that, they would certainly be advised by them, and between the bunch of them they should be able to come up with some pretty concise language that clearly defines the difference between the vast number of weapons that are suitable for civilian possession and those relatively few categories that are reserved strictly for military purposes.
And as always, thanks for your relevant comments.
@Charles Eby - Of course, no politician has ever said that that they want to take all our guns away! What sane politician would ever say such an insane thing, and then think that he/she/it would ever get re-elected?
Any one who has lived on this earth long enough to vote at least once and who still thinks that a politician -- make that ANY politician -- comes right out and says what he means, then it's voters like that who are the problem with this country!
As a follow-on to the flawed Wikipedia statistics offered by the Editor above, I've been advised of the following by a friend who apparently has been barred, without notification, from posting to this forum:
"Please ask the Editor if he has researched the number of U.S. shootings and gun deaths after taking the Democrat-run, Black and Hispanic gang-controlled, crime ridden ghettoes of Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, Detroit, Ferguson, St Louis, East LA, Watts, Omaha and Kansas City out of the picture? Maybe he's not aware, but the statistics for the rest of America was around 1%, last time I looked. Also, Kennesaw, Georgia, actually requires that every citizen be armed. Guess what? Their gun crime rate is ZERO! Oh, and he might also check out Switzerland!"
Excellent points, all… but even better, since the point the Editor was trying make is that more gun control equals less shooting deaths, and since those cities, like France, have imposed 100% gun control, I'd like to see him post THOSE gun death statistics.
I'll be waiting right here.
To Ted Paulk - The surviving witnesses of that attack, and the family members of the victims, are probably being called "paranoid" right now, too, by others who, like you, weren't there and are equally insensitive to their trauma.
To Mike DeVirgilio - The point here is not that Obama wants to take away our guns, although Ray Charles could see that he does. The real point is that the proper response from a true leader who was concerned for the safety and security of an entire nation, rather than a fringe group of activist partisans, would have been to focus on what generated the hate in the shooter instead of what tool he used to express that hate.
Face it... Obama doesn't care about anything but the partisan political position of his party. The concerns of We, the People, regardless of our political affiliation, are nowhere on his list.
OK... so France doesn't have a Second Amendment... its citizens do not have the right to own firearms. Well, there's a downside to that. I couldn't find this fact in Wikipedia, so it may not be "true," but in addition to the statistic that the Editor cited, France also has a government that does not fear its citizens, and therefore feels free to ignore the will of the majority, resulting in a country with no borders and no immigration control, a country without a national currency, and a government that defers entirely to unelected bureaucrats of the European Union.
Last login: Saturday, June 18, 2016