|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TX: Lawmakers consider endorsement of convention on states
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Texas legislators who support a convention of states to rewrite the U.S. Constitution are at odds over whether to jail delegates who “go rogue” and impose unwanted changes at the longshot gathering.
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott wants to bypass Congress and limit Washington’s power via a federal balanced budget amendment and term limits. But some top conservatives fear a “runaway convention” at which representatives from liberal areas could target things such as the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(5/4/2017)
|
Just imagine Bloomberg going 'all in' on this one and contributing $45 Billion to getting rid of all anti-tyranny protections in the Constitution.
Now imagine a $20 Billion matching contribution from Soros, and then imagine federal agencies and state governments hiring lobbyists with unlimited budgets.
Matt Bracken paints a frightening picture on how it might go in his third novel, Foreign Enemies And Traitors. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(5/4/2017)
|
| Why go through al that trouble to destroy the Bill of Rights? Just elect one more President like Obama and or Hillary and they will appoint 2-3 liberal judges top the SCOTUS to wipe out our rights in one swipe. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
