National Constitutional Convention

[flagtag]

JERICHO!!!!

Without the Nuclear Explosions....

Damn they need to bring that show back. Damn Commiewood.

It is currently on CW on Sunday nights @ 6:00 pm Central time. Hopefully, they (CW) will pick it up.

 

[SavageEagle]

It is currently on CW on Sunday nights @ 6:00 pm Central time. Hopefully, they (CW) will pick it up.

Yea, I saw that. Too bad I done did see ebery episold and me wanty MORE!

 

[flagtag]

Yea, I saw that. Too bad I done did see ebery episold and me wanty MORE!

Me too! (X = fingers crossed!)

But, back to the topic. You are right about the JERICHO reference in regard to the Constitutional Convention. I was thinking the same thing when I heard that there might be a push for a new national Con Con.
Just a few short hours to wipe out the Second Amendment. That is a scene I won't forget!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry bill of rights misread the "you" in your post.
But as you can see from flagtag's post even if we do get a Con-Con and say they redo the entire Constiution and it passes via the voting of only govenor who somehow make a deal at the Con-Con. Do you really think that the American people will take it?

Yes some will go along with it and that I expect since we have many sheep. But others will not. Lets just look at the 80 million gun owners we have. Say only 50% actually do the actions their little fingers do all day. Case in point flagtag's post about that s/he will do anything to protect his/her country. (read: civil war and taking up arms). I suspect SavageEagle would do the same and there are many others on this board. So the outcome of a Con-Con with a complete re-write of the Constitution will not be a new consitution but civil war.

Here is some food for thought that I got from another forum.

The reason that so many Americans remain armed and vigilant is that it's our heritage. The Founders of our nation, over 230 years ago, even warned American posterity to remain ever-vigilant against those who would undermine our liberties — meaning our central government. The Founders launched and miraculously won a Revolution against their government,, and they strongly recommended to future generations that we should be prepared to revolt against our central government, as well, should the need arise.

That's why the Second Amendment to the Constitution says in no uncertain terms that "Congress shall make no law" to prevent American citizens from owning and bearing arms. The Founders believed that every man, woman and child in America should be armed and know how to properly use firearms in defense of our Liberty — not against foreign invaders, necessarily, but against our own government.

So, we are historically a nation of Revolutionaries. And we are supposed to remain armed and vigilant, ever-prepared for that government jackboot kicking down our front doors in the middle of the night. As a European, you should have a strong education in socialist/fascist dictators crushing the life out of whole nations — usually beginning with gun controls designed to disarm the public.

I've said this before and I'll say it here: There is no way in hell that America can become a dictatorship as long as 80 million Americans privately own 280 million firearms and have the guts to use them. If even a tenth of the legal gun owners in America chose to organize and stage a revolution, they could form an armed rebellion of 8 million, far larger than any military force or coalition of forces united behind a common cause.

So, in answer to the question are things REALLY as bad as they seem [in America], the answer is this: As long as private American citizens are still armed and still prepared to defend our families, homes and country, even against our own government, then our American heritage is alive and well.
Being armed and prepared to fight is our right as Americans — When we lose the right to keep and bear arms, and when we meekly allow the government to confiscate our 280 million legal firearms, only then can you be certain that things are really bad in America.

Until that time comes, however, we're still free, we're still legal, and we're still armed. So America is actually in very good shape, indeed.

A significant correction here: The American Revolution was not fought by a sovereign people against "an unwelcome foreign Empire"... It was fought against our own government. We were colonists of the British Empire; we paid taxes to King George III; our commerce, our industry and our local governments were controlled by a British central government.

And here's a point that they don't emphasize in American History classes anymore: The great majority of the American Colonists did not participate in the Revolution. In fact, most American Colonists disapproved of the Revolution. At the time, there were something like 13 million people living in the colonies, unevenly spread up and down the Atlantic seaboard, and the Patriots (those who actually launched and fought the Revolution) numbered only in the tens of thousands.

So, this wasn't about the citizenry taking up arms. It was about a handful of colonists with the guts to challenge the British army and navy. The Patriots were outnumbered, outgunned, under-supplied, and didn't even have the support of the majority of colonists. I dare say, if France had not been there to lend a hand, there is no way the Patriots could have won that war.

I bolded the 2 key points with the 2nd one probaly more imporant.
Duirng our last reolution only a SMALL fraction of the populaction actually revolted and we still won. Can it happen this time? Not sure, but I would venture to say yes. There are still too many 'common people' in the USA that beleive in 2A both in and out of the military. A civil war would only bring this out. You would have a civil war from the general population and another one within the mil as it (mil in general) determines what to do (take orders from new con-con or fight to remove an enemy that is trying to re-write it's constitution).

My point in this is that a Con-Con will lead us to a civil war one way or the other and that is pehaps why Jefferson kept it the way it is. He kept saying that the tree of liberty must be feed and this is a sure way to ensure that it is.

No apology needed, but thank you. You make good points. In your quoted post (which I think I saw here as well) there are at least a couple of points that need addressed:
1) The 2A does not include the language "Congress shall make no law..." I have made the point that it is not nearly so specific as is the 1A, in that while the 1A specifies that Congress may make no law abridging freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, or petition for redress of grievance, it does not prohibit the several (sovereign) states from doing so-we had to wait for the 14A for that to happen. The 2A is much more general, forbidding anyone and everyone from infringing upon the right to be armed whether to feed oneself and family or to defend against criminals-both in and out of government, whether at individual, city, state, or federal level.
2) In your bolded phrase #1, the stipulation is made that 80 million Americans must have the guts to use those 280 million firearms. While I know that many here, myself included, would be unhappy with the reality of, but would be willing to do that if the need arose, I do not necessarily have confidence that the majority of those 80M would do likewise. Still, however, you quoted a good point in that if only 10% of them did so, that's still 8 million, which is an enormous force.
3) I don't know that we can muster 10%. Even 5% would still be four million, however that 4M will likely need some kind of leadership. We do not train as the militias of our Founders' day did-and to do so would draw the attention of our "protectors", the alphabet agencies-who curiously only seem to truly protect government interests, not those of the people. Unfortunately for us but fortunately for them, our Founders did not have these alphabet agencies which have governmental fiat to declare us enemy combatants and then to listen in on phone calls, monitor our movements, and activate cell phones to act as "roving bugs" on even our non-electronic conversations. They did not have the controls upon which guns they were allowed to own, upon which ammunition was permissible, or upon how many and who was allowed to meet for a militia muster.

I have said before that our Founders would turn from us in shame if they saw what we and those who followed them and preceded us have allowed the government to implement. They revolted over "gun control" and a tax on tea. We debate amongst ourselves as to which "gun control" is OK and whether or not a "fair tax" would be better than a progressive tax, when "none of the above!" and "neither!" are the true answers. We've allowed government to treat us as one does a small child: "Do you want to wear the red shirt or the blue one?", the child is asked, and though s/he would prefer "neither!", that option is not offered, and the child doesn't have the experience to debate or to reason intelligently to negotiate it.

"When you sit down to negotiate on what you already have, you lose." is an old saying. Unfortunately, our predecessors did this... and our elected elitists know better than to do so, as evidenced by the fact that when we allow the exercise of a right to be restricted, we don't get it back.

Finally, the point was made that had France not intervened, our Founders would not have won and we would still be subjects of the Queen. I don't think we can count on them to do so now, so we will have to rely upon ourselves. Fortunately, I think we have enough people armed and stocked in America to do what we must, so long as we don't allow those caches to be confiscated or the rights to them to be overwritten by a government bent on nothing more than protecting itself and it's own quest for more and more power.

Blessings,
B

 

[flagtag]

I have received a response from my email to my State Representative, Bill Black, today. (by snail mail - dated 12/16/08)

"I am not aware of any call for a United States constitutional Convention by the United States Congress in Washington, D.C. I can find no record of any such legislation. The only proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment that is still floating around is the NRA Amendment, but most people believe that the time limit for that Amendment's consideration has expired.
I asked the NRA lobbyist if he was aware of any call for a United States Constitutional Amendment and he said he was not.
No such legislation has been presented to the Illinois General Assembly for our consideration.
If you have any questions, please call me."


I don't know who else to ask about this.

 

[jedi]

flagtag, IL is NOT one of the states that has ever passes a call for Con-Con so I am not surprised that your rep does not have any idea about it. Which makes me wonder since Indiana did call for the con-con back in 1979 do any of our current reps or senators know anything about this?

SE care to call them and ask?
=)

 

[flagtag]

flagtag, IL is NOT one of the states that has ever passes a call for Con-Con so I am not surprised that your rep does not have any idea about it. Which makes me wonder since Indiana did call for the con-con back in 1979 do any of our current reps or senators know anything about this?

SE care to call them and ask?
=)

IL DID put a question on the November ballot asking us to vote for a Constitutional Convention - BUT it was for IL ONLY, not a national Con Con.

Our state representatives do talk to U.S. representatives sometimes, so I had hoped he had heard something from one of ours. Also, if he were to ask the question of someone on the federal level, he might get a response more quickly. At least I was hoping so.

 

[Windwalker]

When We, the people, the citizens and voters in our Country won't get together and vote out or prosecute politicians who violate their oath to protect the Constitution of the United States then who is at fault, the politician violating his oath or the citizens who allow this to continue to happen and do nothing to stop it?

 

[Bill of Rights]

When We, the people, the citizens and voters in our Country won't get together and vote out or prosecute politicians who violate their oath to protect the Constitution of the United States then who is at fault, the politician violating his oath or the citizens who allow this to continue to happen and do nothing to stop it?

Yes. Both.

 

[flagtag]

Yes. Both.

I agree.

 

[jedi]

It's only THE PEOPLE's fault. The politician by his/her very is in the biz of POWER, absolute POWER. They (politicians) may not start that way, most do start in an honest, I can change the world type of way, but in the end POWER corrupts them all.

 

[flagtag]

It's only THE PEOPLE's fault. The politician by his/her very is in the biz of POWER, absolute POWER. They (politicians) may not start that way, most do start in an honest, I can change the world type of way, but in the end POWER corrupts them all.

We all have free will. If a politician goes over to "the dark side" it's from choice, not force. And of course, the people are at fault for voting him/her back into office. So, both.

 

[jedi]

The dark side is TOO POWERFUL in this case and every politician sooner or later will fall to it especially the longer they are in office. All political office should have term limits so that fresh ideas and the POWER can not corrupt them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The dark side is TOO POWERFUL in this case and every politician sooner or later will fall to it especially the longer they are in office. All political office should have term limits so that fresh ideas and the POWER can not corrupt them.

Disagree. The same argument is what they use about us having too much power when they allow us to have guns (sarcasm intended)

I will not cut a politician from office solely because some arbitrary time limit has expired. If that person is still doing good for his/her constituents, State Sen. Johnny Nugent, for example, I don't want to see him/her forced to leave when s/he can and will still do some good. Conversely, however, I'd like to see us able to choose "on the fly" who is representing us. That is, if a gun bill is coming in to the state Legislature, I want to be able to choose that Sen. Nugent will be representing my interests despite the location in which I live, and if another issue approaches a vote at the legislature on which Sen. Nugent does not represent my views, I want to be able to give my proxy to another in his stead.

Doing this on the national level would remove any of Dick Lugar's or Evan Bayh's power and make their votes insignificant, since our proxies would go to someone who would vote as we would, were we there.



Blessings,
B

 

[Bill of Rights]

One further point just came to mind: If we term-limit politicians, would that not make them "lame-duck" at some point, leaving us nothing to hold over their heads? If they knew that they could not be re-elected, they would have nothing to fear from the voters and would, in their last terms, feel "bulletproof" to pass whatever underhanded nastiness they could. It happens with presidents, it happens when Congress-critters decide to retire, and I don't think we want to empower people like that any more than we already do.

The answer is to elect good people from the start. Sadly, few of those who actually want the job fit that basic qualification.

Blessings,
B

 

[Windwalker]

Wlith 2 term limits if you feel the elected critter might feel this way, don't elect him/her for the 2nd term.

 

[dburkhead]

Wlith 2 term limits if you feel the elected critter might feel this way, don't elect him/her for the 2nd term.

Coming in late (been away for a few days).

Imagine yourself in a poker game. What you've proposed is limiting oneself, or one's representatives, to straight five card draw with nothing wild while the others at the table are playing with 3's, 8's, and one-eyed jacks as wild. You're at a severe handicap.

A lot of what's done in Washington, things like committee appointments and the like, is based on seniority. There's a reason that Lunatic Pelosi is Speaker of the House rather than some more sane member of the Democratic Party (yes, they do exist).

By self-imposing term limits either on oneself (a politician deciding not to run after X terms, should one do so), or on one's representatives (you've had x terms so we'll vote for someone else), one is imposing a severe disadvantage and handing the advantage to those not so limited.

That's leaving aside the question of who one is to vote for in imposing that term limit. Suppose Nancy Pelosi moved to Indiana and ran for Senate against Lugar. As much as I dislike Lugar, I'd rather see him take the seat yet again than Pelosi.

Term limits imposed across the board would at least leave a level playing field. Until then, no matter what you think the rules should be, one needs to play to win with the rules as they are.