NAGR opposes Constitutional Convention

[Matt Collins]

​

 

[William Tell]

Good, I'm glad to hear that.

 

[TaftFan]

Using the phrase "constitutional convention" instead of "convention of states" is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Matt Collins]

Using the phrase "constitutional convention" instead of "convention of states" is intellectually dishonest.

How so?

 

[aclove]

I've noticed the volume of communication from NAGR has increased, while the volume from C4L seems to have tapered off. Can Collins comment on that?

 

[muzzled dogg]

Wish I had seen this earlier

 

[Jeremy]

I've noticed the volume of communication from NAGR has increased, while the volume from C4L seems to have tapered off. Can Collins comment on that?

Maybe C4L is moving staff to their PAC. Just a guess.

 

[William Tell]

Maybe C4L is moving staff to their PAC. Just a guess.

They probably don't have as many funds as NAGR.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Using the phrase "constitutional convention" instead of "convention of states" is intellectually dishonest.

How so?

I believe that using the term "convention of states" is the intellectually dishonest propaganda.

The Constitution only allows for the petition, by the states, of a convention for proposing amendments, Congress controls or "calls" the convention. A Constitutional Convention is the convention for proposing amendments.

 

[William Tell]

Just got this email from NAGR:

Dear ****,

Did you get a chance to read Dudley's recent email?

The dangerous threat to the Second Amendment that he's been warning you about has made its way to Texas!

That's right.

Right now snake-oil salesmen are trying to peddle their goods to Republican members of the Texas Legislature by pushing the dangerous Article V Constitutional Convention or "Con-Con" plan.

Please read Dudley's email below about why a Constitutional Convention would be so dangerous to our Constitutional Rights.


And then click here to contact your State lawmakers and urge them to oppose HJR78, HJR77, HB1109, HB1110, or any other legislation calling for an Constitutional Convention.

http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx
Please take action immediately because I'm worried that Texas lawmakers will hand billionaire-backed gun-grabbers the tools they need to gut the Second Amendment right out of the Constitution.

-Kate

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

How so?

I believe that using the term "convention of states" is the intellectually dishonest propaganda.

The Constitution only allows for the petition, by the states, of a convention for proposing amendments, Congress controls or "calls" the convention. A Constitutional Convention is the convention for proposing amendments.

I would like to correct a few aspects of your information about Article V Clyde.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Firstly it is an application that states make not a petition.

"or, on the application of the legislatures"

If congress is not performing lawfully with regard to calling a convention, this language provides the states can hold conventions of their own for proposing, and by implication, ratification of amendment.

"as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof,"

Congress controlling the mode of ratification is made optional with the word "may".

"as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress"

I do agree it is intellectually dishonest to term Article V a constitutional convention.

I cannot view the video with limited bandwidth on this phone, so am disappointed in the lack of text comments with specific objections the NAGR actually has to an Article V convention.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

I've just realized NAGR is Dudley Brown who is actually not very accountable to common sense matters controlling gun rights issues.

In 2011, I mailed certified mail to him and a doctor/senator (Broun) who he was working with at the time regarding mental health care.

Common sense dictates that people kill people not guns. Therefore quality mental health care by implication is intrinsically related to dismissing the issue of mass shootings that gun controllers rely on for justification of increased gun control.

There was no response to facts included with the letter which pointed out that the US district, 9th circuit court violated the Administrative Offices regulations by secretly revising local court rules depriving 4 citizens, 3 grandmothers and myself, of justice. The revision probably effects the entire 9th circuit meaning that pro se rules vital to citizens obtaining justice, rules in place since the 1880's, which provides that a new magistrate and judge be assigned to a pro se civil rights case which has been dismissed then refiled with new co plaintiffs.

Our local paper colluded within this scenario with the district court and the county of Santa Barbara to prevent any publicity of the case enabling citizens to aid In obtaining justice.

http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

The paper was purchased for approximately twice it's value about for years prior by Wendy McCaw. Within two weeks of delivering a copy of the lawsuit to a reporter at the paper she was fired. Within 6 weeks 17 other reporters and editors were fired or resigned. Proof of alum octagons is at the link above. The other local paper also refused to run the story.

All this info went to Dudley Brown and there was no response. The mores of the church prohibit any substantial recognition of the human unconscious mind.

Extreme violence and other extreme acts threatening life originate in the unconscious mind. The proposed treatment the lawsuit was about was direct to the unconscious mind.

Secret government abuses the unconscious mind to maintain secrecy. What is unconscious is better than secret.

Accordingly, logically, the NAGR, the church, the newspaper and the US district court all act to protect secret government. Logically the NAGR would not support Article V for those reasons.

Consistent with that is the lack of text comment in this thread about specific objections to Articke V NAGR holds.

The secret government is the extension of the infiltration and takeover of the federal government marked by the act if 1871.

Accordingly, if citizens cannot simply unify behind a demand to see the purpose of free speech manifest, so vital aspects controlling our futures can be shared and understood, consider our rights and freedoms as temporary.