The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Constitutional Convention, Ohio, the 2A....?

44capnball · January 30, 2009, 10:13 PM

First of all I am going to preface this with a request. I'm looking for constitutional scholarship here, not sarcasm. Please answer my questions honestly.

So, just answer the questions please, yes or no, with any *relevant* comments.

I read recently that Ohio introduced in the form of H.J.R. 8, a request to initiate a national Constitutional Convention.

Question: True, or not? If not, please provide links.

I also read that 34 states are needed to bring about such a convention, and Ohio was the 33rd. As I understand it, some of these requests date back to the 70's but are still hanging around.

Question: True, or not? If true, what does that mean?

Question: is it or isn't it true that a con con pushed over a certain issue, like balanced budget, would open up the opportunity to change other parts of the constitution?

Next, I found out about some group pushing for an Article V Convention. Looks to me like they avoid some topics of discussion, as I see from their forum. Check out http://www.foavc.org/. Basically they really just want the convention. Not sure why, unless their position re: excessive corruption is the true one.

Question: what do you all think of this? Wouldn't it be kind of a pandora's box to open a Con Con now, with the anti gunners hot for a new strategy to get rid of gun ownership? The Heller decision has forced them looking elsewhere, and a Con Con would be a pretty appealing chance.

To keep this from appearing drive-by I'm going to now tell you what I think.

I think there is something to this. Any other time, I have a feeling that calls for a con con would just go ignored, but we're in a crisis time. It's the crisis times when things like this get done. Enough states, and whaddya know...

I also think that a Con Con would be kind of hard to control. I mean, who chooses the delegates? What if they undo whole tracts of the Bill of Rights? What if the delegates turn out to be a bunch of failed-utopian, elitist anti-gun loons? If the failed-utopian loudmouths (wrongly) already consider gun owners to be the "cast of Deliverance", how likely is it they'll give any of y'all a voice at such a convention?

Personally I find it hard to believe that anyone calling for a Con Con would be ignorant of the dangers. I watched a couple videos by some guy from foavc.org. First impression was, there's something a little "off" about it.

To update this post, I did a little more reading, and sure enough, I see a couple of the people in that organization calling themselves "progressives".

Hmm, I sense gun control can't be far behind.

January 30, 2009, 10:13 PM	#1
44capnball Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2007 Posts: 257	Constitutional Convention, Ohio, the 2A....? First of all I am going to preface this with a request. I'm looking for constitutional scholarship here, not sarcasm. Please answer my questions honestly. So, just answer the questions please, yes or no, with any relevant comments. I read recently that Ohio introduced in the form of H.J.R. 8, a request to initiate a national Constitutional Convention. Question: True, or not? If not, please provide links. I also read that 34 states are needed to bring about such a convention, and Ohio was the 33rd. As I understand it, some of these requests date back to the 70's but are still hanging around. Question: True, or not? If true, what does that mean? Question: is it or isn't it true that a con con pushed over a certain issue, like balanced budget, would open up the opportunity to change other parts of the constitution? Next, I found out about some group pushing for an Article V Convention. Looks to me like they avoid some topics of discussion, as I see from their forum. Check out http://www.foavc.org/. Basically they really just want the convention. Not sure why, unless their position re: excessive corruption is the true one. Question: what do you all think of this? Wouldn't it be kind of a pandora's box to open a Con Con now, with the anti gunners hot for a new strategy to get rid of gun ownership? The Heller decision has forced them looking elsewhere, and a Con Con would be a pretty appealing chance. To keep this from appearing drive-by I'm going to now tell you what I think. I think there is something to this. Any other time, I have a feeling that calls for a con con would just go ignored, but we're in a crisis time. It's the crisis times when things like this get done. Enough states, and whaddya know... I also think that a Con Con would be kind of hard to control. I mean, who chooses the delegates? What if they undo whole tracts of the Bill of Rights? What if the delegates turn out to be a bunch of failed-utopian, elitist anti-gun loons? If the failed-utopian loudmouths (wrongly) already consider gun owners to be the "cast of Deliverance", how likely is it they'll give any of y'all a voice at such a convention? Personally I find it hard to believe that anyone calling for a Con Con would be ignorant of the dangers. I watched a couple videos by some guy from foavc.org. First impression was, there's something a little "off" about it. To update this post, I did a little more reading, and sure enough, I see a couple of the people in that organization calling themselves "progressives". Hmm, I sense gun control can't be far behind. __________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." -George Orwell Last edited by 44capnball; January 30, 2009 at 10:45 PM.