Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Article V: Convention of the States -- (Pro gun effort in Virginia)

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Article V: Convention of the States -- (Pro gun effort in Virginia)

    I was pleasantly surprised to see that Del. Scott Lingamfelter is leading the effort to get Virginia to call for an Art. V convention to amend the U.S. Constitution for the next Session of the General Assembly:

    Virginia Files Application for Convention of States
    Virginia was the first state to call the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Once again, the historic state is standing up to defend the rights of the American people. With several states soon to follow, Virginia recently claimed the title of first to pre-file an application to call a Convention of States.

    Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-31) is leading the effort in Virginia, along with Del. Jim LeMunyon (R-67) who has been deeply involved in the process. After meeting with COS Leader, Michael Farris, Del. Lingamfelter agreed to push the application through as the prime sponsor during Virginia’s 2014 legislative session.
    This should be of interest to all freedom-loving Virginians. It would be helpful to have an amended Constitution that absolutely defends your right, as a citizen, to keep and bear arms for your defense against evil, as well as put a stake through the heart of Socialism.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Yes, it would be nice.

    But the odds are stacked such that that might be the least possible outcome of such a move.

    Never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to also goes for ConCons.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    As much as I like the idea, I think now is a bad time. There's to much corruption.

    Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Yes, it would be nice.

    But the odds are stacked such that that might be the least possible outcome of such a move.

    Never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to also goes for ConCons.

    stay safe.
    I think it was Chief Justice Warren Burger who remarked that there is no way to muzzle a constitutional convention.

    Look what happened with the last one. A convention was called on the pretext to tune up the Articles of Confederation, but some of the agitators for it intended all along to create a strong central government. Once it started, it promptly morphed into a convention to write a new scheme of government. Some delegates left at the beginning, saying they had only the authority to tune up the Articles of Confederation. This historical fact says it all--the delegates went there on a lie. Individual delegates were either in on the lie, or didn't object when it was revealed. Only a few went home in protest.

    Then, after wrangling and dickering like the selfish men they were, they sent us a constitution with no bill of rights. Then during the ratification period some who were also on their side said to ratify first and then get the bill of rights. The only reason we've got the Bill of Rights is because men like Patrick Henry and George Mason knew exactly what was up and worked hard gathering support that threatened to derail ratification.*

    The pro-ratification crowd advanced some ludicrous arguments (lied) to lull people into accepting the constitution.

    Only eight or ten short years after ratification, the scumbags who styled themselve Federalists--the pro-ratification crowd--passed the Sedition Act, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Men went to jail. That's how some of the holy Framers behaved with a Bill of Rights to slow them down. Imagine what they would have done without a Bill of Rights. This is the same crowd that during ratification advanced the argument that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the federal government only had the powers granted, and since there was no power to restrict (insert specific right here.) Same crowd that later passed the Sedition Act.

    You can bet every last dollar and the whole family farm that if this latest concon business starts to look like it might go somewhere, then every force of evil in the country will mobilize to ensure it turns out to their advantage. I'm talking about the hushed conversations in back rooms, and dens off to the side of the elegant parties--bankers, major government contractors, that sort of thing.

    Oh. And, look who will be the VA governor if it happens in the next four years. Yeah, right. Like he won't steer things the wrong way.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-26-2013 at 09:31 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Ya gotta pass it before you can read it? lol

    Also, why should I be held to a document that I had no vote or representation in producing?

  6. #6
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Ya gotta pass it before you can read it? lol

    Also, why should I be held to a document that I had no vote or representation in producing?
    Yet another completely inane comment.

    So... by extension of your conceptual construct, you are not bound by any law enacted for which you had no vote or representation in producing? Seriously?
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Yes, it would be nice.

    But the odds are stacked such that that might be the least possible outcome of such a move.

    Never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to also goes for ConCons.

    stay safe.
    +1

    Do NOT wish to have a Constitutional Convention at this time. Also do not believe the GA would vote in favor of it either.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    +1

    Do NOT wish to have a Constitutional Convention at this time. Also do not believe the GA would vote in favor of it either.
    It's just posturing by Ligamfelter, whom I like....but he needs to realize that there are going to be real issues to deal with this year and it it isn't time to play to the audience.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I think it was Chief Justice Warren Burger who remarked that there is no way to muzzle a constitutional convention.

    Look what happened with the last one. A convention was called on the pretext to tune up the Articles of Confederation, but some of the agitators for it intended all along to create a strong central government. Once it started, it promptly morphed into a convention to write a new scheme of government. Some delegates left at the beginning, saying they had only the authority to tune up the Articles of Confederation. This historical fact says it all--the delegates went there on a lie. Individual delegates were either in on the lie, or didn't object when it was revealed. Only a few went home in protest.

    Then, after wrangling and dickering like the selfish men they were, they sent us a constitution with no bill of rights. Then during the ratification period some who were also on their side said to ratify first and then get the bill of rights. The only reason we've got the Bill of Rights is because men like Patrick Henry and George Mason knew exactly what was up and worked hard gathering support that threatened to derail ratification.*

    The pro-ratification crowd advanced some ludicrous arguments (lied) to lull people into accepting the constitution.

    Only eight or ten short years after ratification, the scumbags who styled themselve Federalists--the pro-ratification crowd--passed the Sedition Act, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Men went to jail. That's how some of the holy Framers behaved with a Bill of Rights to slow them down. Imagine what they would have done without a Bill of Rights. This is the same crowd that during ratification advanced the argument that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the federal government only had the powers granted, and since there was no power to restrict (insert specific right here.) Same crowd that later passed the Sedition Act.

    You can bet every last dollar and the whole family farm that if this latest concon business starts to look like it might go somewhere, then every force of evil in the country will mobilize to ensure it turns out to their advantage. I'm talking about the hushed conversations in back rooms, and dens off to the side of the elegant parties--bankers, major government contractors, that sort of thing.

    Oh. And, look who will be the VA governor if it happens in the next four years. Yeah, right. Like he won't steer things the wrong way.
    You are far too optimistic Citizen, we the people will be held liable for the debts of a private bank, we the people will lose the article III figleaf limitation on the federal judiciary and we will lose the figleaf of state sovreignty that remains.... One democracy under our dear leader, with economic slavery and kritocracy for all.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  10. #10
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    +1

    Do NOT wish to have a Constitutional Convention at this time. Also do not believe the GA would vote in favor of it either.
    Well, I'm not so sure. I was stunned to read this:

    State Legislators discuss Convention of States at Mount Vernon Assembly - December 8, 2013 by Garrett Humbertson
    Approval ratings for Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court are all at record lows, reflecting the public’s dissatisfaction with a runaway federal government. Many are concerned about Washington D.C.’s culture of corruption, entitlement programs on the path to bankruptcy, and a complicated tax code and bureaucracy which stifle both economic growth and liberty.

    With this in mind, nearly one hundred state legislators from 32 different states gathered at George Washington’s home in Mount Vernon, Virginia, on Saturday. They met to discuss the possibility of a Convention of the States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution, as described in Article V of the United States Constitution.

    ...

    Many more state legislators had expressed interest in attending the Mount Vernon Assembly, but the room was at capacity. Other legislators not in attendance have expressed their doubts about an Article V Amendments Convention becoming a reality, although Virginia and South Carolina recently became the first states to pre-file an application for such a convention.
    This was last Saturday. I wonder if any of our GA legislator attended? I wonder if this could actually happen. An alternative way to rebel against the Marxist tyranny of DC.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Well, I'm not so sure. I was stunned to read this:

    State Legislators discuss Convention of States at Mount Vernon Assembly - December 8, 2013 by Garrett Humbertson

    This was last Saturday. I wonder if any of our GA legislator attended? I wonder if this could actually happen. An alternative way to rebel against the Marxist tyranny of DC.
    Are they so foolish as not to know that opening a Constitutional Convention is worse than a can of worms? Those worms have fangs and could destroy all that we hold dear and good.

    Nothing is sacred or off-limits in a Constitutional Convention....nothing!
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Are they so foolish as not to know that opening a Constitutional Convention is worse than a can of worms? Those worms have fangs and could destroy all that we hold dear and good.

    Nothing is sacred or off-limits in a Constitutional Convention....nothing!
    I used to think that way, and I remain skeptical, and yet there are those who apparently believe otherwise.

    Here are some other articles:

    Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States

    And this by Virginia's Michael Farris:

    Reflections on the Mt. Vernon Assembly
    We are beginning to reach critical mass in our efforts to use Article V of the Constitution to rein in the power of the federal government. The Mount Vernon Assembly is one of the major steps in that effort.

    While the work of this group of legislators cannot be binding until actually adopted by a Convention of States, it will be critical to have this work done in advance and to have a majority of the states endorse it in advance. This will ensure the Convention itself can avoid prolonged disputes on the rules and can get right to work on the substance of drafting amendments that limit the power of Washington, D.C.

    But there is another, somewhat unfortunate piece of evidence that shows this project is reaching critical mass. Conservative critics of this idea have recently increased both the loudness and shrillness of their long-standing claims that this approach is a dangerous threat to our country through a runaway "Con-Con."

    Here is why their arguments are doomed to fail: 1. They are based on faulty history. The original Constitution was not adopted as the result of a runaway convention. Their entire argument is premised on this fallacy. 2. They have to convince state legislators that we can't trust state legislators.

    You see, state legislators control the Article V process from beginning to end. The "Con-Con" argument requires state legislators to believe that we should be afraid of state legislators who might abuse their power.

    But what's the alternative? These fear-based arguments leave us in the utterly precarious position of trusting Washington, D.C., to right itself.
    As I said, I remain skeptical. But he makes a persuasive point.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Are they so foolish as not to know that opening a Constitutional Convention is worse than a can of worms? Those worms have fangs and could destroy all that we hold dear and good.

    Nothing is sacred or off-limits in a Constitutional Convention....nothing!
    Foolish? Oh, come on. Give me a break.

    I'll bet many who might attend are planning on personal advantage.

    This is all really pretty simple. You create a power center by confering on it the power coerce everybody. Suddenly all the wolves, vultures, and schemers start showing up because of that ability to coerce, either using it personally, or deriving financial advantage from it.

    I'm betting a number recognize the same thing Julius Caesar did--the republic is so dysfunctional that a big change might be possible. That or maybe a few power-hungry misanthropes are floating a trial ballon.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Are they so foolish as not to know that opening a Constitutional Convention is worse than a can of worms? Those worms have fangs and could destroy all that we hold dear and good.

    Nothing is sacred or off-limits in a Constitutional Convention....nothing!
    Phyllis Schlafly, who years ago warned about the possible consequences of a runaway convention, remains persuasive on this topic. This is a new warning:

    New Threat of Constitutional Convention - December 6, 2013
    This Saturday is not just about pausing to remember the stealth bombing of Pearl Harbor and the brave individuals whose lives were lost. This December 7th is also about wielding off an attack on the very thing those Americans were defending — the United States Constitution.

    ...
    ...
    ...

    We agree that the United States Constitution is in jeopardy, but the substance of that sacred document is not the problem. The problem is the elected officials that refuse to honor, defend, and uphold the principles and laws set forth by it.

    The idea of a Constitutional Convention is not only a bad one, but it is a distraction from the real task at hand — winning elections. We do not need new amendments to the Constitution. Our Founders gave their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish this land of liberty. We need Americans to do the same and return to the original, founding principles of our great country.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    I used to think that way, and I remain skeptical, and yet there are those who apparently believe otherwise.

    Here are some other articles:

    Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States

    And this by Virginia's Michael Farris:

    Reflections on the Mt. Vernon Assembly


    As I said, I remain skeptical. But he makes a persuasive point.
    Not so sure he makes a convincing argument or simple avoids the truth that their efforts stand as a singularly successful result. Do I think we have men of such wisdom, foresight and integrity in sufficient numbers today? I do not.

    What other country has managed to restructure, reinvent itself, to the degree desirable?

    IMHO - A Constitutional Convention would be a disaster......and that is my most positive thought on the subject
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Art. V Convention Resolution moves to House Floor!

    Resolution calling for convention of the states moves to House floor
    Goal is a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution
    Lawmakers and lobbyists proposing amendments to the United States Constitution celebrated a first small victory Friday when a House committee passed a resolution that would petition Congress to call for a convention of the states.

    “I hope that years from now people will come back and say that on the 31st of January of 2014, people spoke very loudly that we are going to return the fundamental balance to our federal system,” said Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William. He is the sponsor of House Joint Resolution 9, the key measure among four proposals with similar objectives that advanced in the Rules Committee Friday.
    Senator Saslaw does not approve:
    But Senate Democratic leader Richard L. Saslaw, D-Fairfax, has signaled that Lingamfelter’s resolution would be a nonstarter in the state Senate.
    Neither does the John Birch society:
    The John Birch Society opposes amending the Constitution because the nation’s present problems are due to “rampant usurpation of powers,” not a defective Constitution, spokesman Bill Hahn said.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Resolution calling for convention of the states moves to House floor
    Goal is a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution


    Senator Saslaw does not approve:


    Neither does the John Birch society:
    I think it is quite risky.

    ....but if Saslaw is against it, maybe I will be for it.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699
    I'm still against it. Enforce the laws you have now, and repeal the stupid ones. It's that simple. No other law, war, anything should be passed either, if your solution to the debt problem is, raising the cap. That's a whole other thread though.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134
    They're completely ignoring what we have now, what makes anyone think that they'll stop ignoring it if we change it?

    Roscoe
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

  20. #20
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Why a Con-Con?

    My question would be why the need for a Con-Con? Why not just propose amending the Constitution? Editing one or more of the Amendments? Seems a little less drastic and not nearly as dangerous.

    I noticed they met at the newly completed George Washington Presidential Library......
    Last edited by Neplusultra; 02-05-2014 at 04:33 AM.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I think they should keep what we have but rewrite it crayon so the Judges and LEO's can understand it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •