A Great Defence is a Good Offence

[runco]

I read a lot message boards about guns, and related topics.  However, I have not seen this one before as it came to me this morning drinking coffee:  Should the gun community go on serious offence? 

 

No, not that idea!  But this idea:  Executive Orders are granted from a vauge interpretation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution.  Should a grass roots movement begin to create a new amendment specifically defining in detail what, when and where executive orders can and should be issued?  Also, maybe all EOs should have a time limit until congress can confirm through legistative process the content of a EO?  I can see in a war type setting EOs could be very efficient and necessary tool, but in peace times, ALL EO should be confirmed through congress.

 

I am not from Chicago, but from what little I know about Chicago type politics, I think fighting fire with fire is in order in this epic battle.  Obtaining an amendment is a tremendous mountain to climb, but if serious traction could be obtained, this could work and protect us all in the future from all executuvive abuses that could arise, not just with our guns.  I think other essentrics other than gun nuts would jump on this band wagon, i.e. pro amendment 1 people, and others.  

 

What do you think?  If several are interested, then why don't we start contacting our legislators, but I don't want to be a lone wolf.  So I will throw it out there.

[Guest bkelm18]

Commencing a Constitutional Convention can be a very dangerous thing to do. Once it starts, anything is possible. In this day and age, the 2nd Amendment would be a big shiny target. I'd be much more comfortable working within the confines of the current constitution than risk what could be destroyed in a Convention.

Edited January 19, 2013 by bkelm18

[Guest PapaB]

Commencing a Constitutional Convention can be a very dangerous thing to do. Once it starts, anything is possible. In this day and age, the 2nd Amendment would be a big shiny target. I'd be much more comfortable working within the confines of the current constitution than risk what could be destroyed in a Convention.

 

You're right about the dangers of a Constitutional Convention but Runco was only talking about an amendment, which doesn't require holding a Constitutional Convention. Unfortunately it does require Congress to act and there's no way Harry R would let that through the Senate. I think term limits for Congress would be the better fight.