[nathanbedford]

1. Please see my post #52 which is responsive to your objections.

2. In fact the left is already fashioning an amendment to rewrite the First Amendment and you are in that fight whether you like it or not. If the left could rewrite the first and second amendments in 30 seconds, would they not already have done so?

3. I have not slightest fear that the left will prevail in rewriting the first or second amendments because of the arithmetic I outlined in my post #27. 4. There are other impediments to rewriting the first and second amendments which include the restrictions placed upon delegates to the convention by the states.

The idea of a runaway "con con" is utterly remote. It represents a danger relatively inconsequential compared to de facto constitutional amendments we are suffering every day.

[LS]

Holy cow. I know you are smarter than this. The original Articles delegates had "restrictions" placed upon them "by the states." Seriously? So the new one would somehow actually ENFORCE those rules? The idea of a runaway is anything BUT remote. I defy you to point to ANY such national gathering in any nation where it limits on the delegates worked. Russia? French assembly in 1789? It just doesn't happen.

Not in a million years. And don't give me this crap about what "fight" I'm in. This is a quick suicide bullet. You're free to go out that way, but I'm not going with you. Whether or not we're suffering doesn't mean you go introduce yourself to Dr. Kevorkian.

[RKBA Democrat]

I agree that the problem with a concon being a runaway is not going to happen. Because I don’t see the concon happening at all, and for much the same reason you’ve discussed why it won’t be a runaway convention: you need 3/4 of the states to ratify. Which means that 1/4 plus one can scuttle anythIng that comes out. Here are 15 states that would be likely to do exactly that;

HI, CT, MA, NY, CA, RI, VT, WA, OR, MN, NJ, ME, NM, DE, MD.