The Siege of Minas Tirith or How to Turn Fudds Into Gun Rights Supporters

Previous Post
Next Post
Fudds Hunting Second Amendment Gun Rights

By See-Dubya

“Well I like my guns, and I do a little hunting, but I don’t see why anyone needs a…(fill in the blank with “bump stock”, “AR-pattern rifle”, “30-round magazine”, “composite stock”, or even a “telescopic sight”, as appropriate.)

This is the call of the North American Fudd, aka the Tongue-Clucking Zumbo. When the call of the Fudd is heard on the internet, it’s immediately and inevitably followed by retaliatory scorching as gun rights advocates point out — accurately — that the Second Amendment wasn’t about hunting and doesn’t guarantee the right to bear only walnut-stocked, blued-steel arms.

But that’s the internet. A place where most people are nasty to each other. What about in real life? When Fudds show up and preen at Thanksgiving, your family reunion, your deer camp, or your office picnic, what do you do?

It’s not polite or particularly prudent to tell Uncle Phineas from Connecticut, or your boss’s wife, to “suck-start a KelTec, you wretched America-hating quisling.” More important, it also alienates a potential ally from defending the RKBA.


Is there a more productive way to engage with Fudds in social situations? There has to be, and I’d like to suggest one conversational tack you could take when confronted by a rampant, raging Fuddus Domesticus…or even an exotic Fuddus Europeanus or other more arcane species.

First, a confession: my own tastes in guns are quite Fuddish. My dad is old school and taught me to shoot single action revolvers and lever-action rifles…although he acknowledged the authority of Jack O’Connor and the scoped .270 for hunting out West.

His quail hunting shotgun was over/under. He never saw a need for more capacity or complexity than that. When I showed him the first gun I bought with my own money—a Colt Trooper— I can’t help but think he was a little unimpressed by all of that newfangled double-action business.

Since then I’ve branched out somewhat. The scar on my thumb from a couple of bad GLOCK experiences has almost faded, and I now own a polymer-framed pistol I shoot well enough to defend the house with. It’s fine, just not much emotional investment in it. I still seek out nicely crafted functional art in steel and walnut, even if I can never quite afford it and have to compromise.

But here’s one thing that separates me from the Fudds: I know that’s just me. You do you.

My friend down the road with a magazine-fed AK pattern shotgun and a suppressed SBR? No skin off my nose. A fellow delivering pizzas for minimum wage in Detroit wants to keep a .25 Lorcin under his seat to dampen the drawers of a would-be carjacker? Great, stay safe. The prepper in Montana wants to stockpile a case of .50 BMG ammo in his underground bunker in case he doesn’t make the first cut of the Rapture? Knock yourself out. Lock it up when you’re done, and mind your backstop with that stuff is all I ask.

And here’s the other key thing that separates me from the Fudds: I know these guys are all keeping my tiny boring arsenal safe, because they’re living out at the perimeters of the never-ending debate over gun rights while I’m living in the cozy, well-defended center.

My guns are (mostly) the ones liberals swear they don’t want to take away. For now, they’re too busy trying to take my neighbor’s AR, or making sure a mother in the inner city can’t acquire the means to defend her family to bother with any case-hardened traditionalists like me. For now.

You might try to explain this by describing the Overton Window, and how the notion of socially acceptable gun ownership has changed over time based on extreme positions, but people tend to look at me funny when I say that. It kind of marks you as a political proselytizer. Or a Glenn Beck listener.

It’s a useful idea, but people will tune you out as a blowhard when you bring it up, especially since it implies that peoples’ strongly-held beliefs are actually malleable and not really their own.

Instead, the analogy I’ve used to describe all of this to my Fuddly friends is that of a medieval city with concentric defensive walls. Or, if they’re a nerdier sort of Fudd, I tell them to think about Minas Tirith in the Tolkien books.

The patrimony of the city, the most revered and important parts, are in its innermost ring. If you can’t picture it, here’s a scene from The Fellowship of the Ring where Gandalf approaching Minas Tirith and rides around it up to the city’s inner ring.


Pretty stout, huh? To despoil the interior, an enemy would have to besiege those outer rings one by one, at considerable expense and incurring considerable casualties. In the Tolkien tales, that’s exactly what happens as the outlying rings are besieged and breached and the forces of Mordor begin to take the city, layer by layer. However, the delay in doing so allows the defenders to regroup and defend each level and also to hold out for relief.

In this framework for discussing the siege on gun rights, the battle lines go back and forth. Certain issues are at the periphery and others are more central. Suppressors are contested territory. Back in 2017, it looked like the Hearing Protection Act had gathered enough momentum to reclaim a lot of territory that had been in enemy hands since the National Firearms Act of 1934…until the Congressional baseball shooting and the post-Parkland political backlash a few years ago.

National reciprocity also stalled while the politicians held their fingers in the wind. On the other hand, the private ownership of AR pattern rifles—a constant target of politicians, the media and the gun control industry—has been reinforced by the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.

The funny thing is, when you talk to anti-gunners, many of them say (and I think many of them are sincere and jus as many aren’t) that they only want to take a few of the rings. They say they only want a sensible conquest of a small part of our hard-won rights.

This, of course, is madness because whatever the orcs on the front lines think, the powers actually fund these mealymouthed siege operations have no intention of stopping at the outermost rings. Or of stopping at all. It’s a ruse. They simply cannot be appeased.

Surrendering one position won’t make them give up. It will only embolden them to use their newly-won position to try harder. In other words, next time, maybe those calls to ban all semi-automatic firearms will get a more receptive hearing.

In the perpetual siege on American gun rights — unlike the battle for Middle Earth — there is no relief coming from other lands. So my message to the Fudds is this: Fight Them Over There. A united front from the gun-owning public, especially on those peripheral issues that don’t affect you directly, is the best possible safeguard for your beloved hunting guns, your heirlooms, and those old-fashioned shooting irons.

– – –

I think this is a nice rhetorical strategy I’ve sketched out, but make no mistake–it’s rhetorical, and it’s not completely true. As I mentioned at the beginning, the Second Amendment isn’t really about hunting rifles and Grandpa’s old Ithaca. Those are protected by the RKBA too, but they’re not really at the center of it.

The Bill of Rights is about deterring and protecting us from tyranny, and the Second Amendment is about ensuring the means to do that. It’s about keeping us free, not keeping us fed. And I know, deep down, that today better tools are available for deterring tyranny than my grandma’s old Ruger Super Bearcat.

But the Fudds don’t think about it that way. They put the Bearcat and the Winchester carbine and the Fox double-barrel shotgun in that innermost ring of Minas Tirith, hoping the orcs will get to them last after they’ve confiscated all of the ugly black rifles and the SBR’s and the tactical Tupperware pistols and the chainsaw bayonets.

Now, politically, they have a point. Fudd guns really are less controversial, and they’re widely perceived as being less threatening. They actually would be the last ones outlawed under an incremental, frog-boiling gun control regime.

The Fudds’ folly, however, is in not joining the battles at the perimeters of gun rights. Instead, they think they can appease and distract their enemies by throwing open every gate of the city and abandoning every fortification (and just about every ally) except that very last one, and making their stand there.

If they do so, that’s where the enemy will gather in strength, undeterred and unwearied. The siege will soon be laid at the last and only gate…the gate guarding the things they value most. That battle will be over pretty quickly.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Contest winner right there. And I submitted an article. Absolute best explanation I’ve heard on why every inch of ground is worth the effort.

    • it took the viet minh 55 days to take dien bien phu….one outpost at a time…but everyone knew what their ultimate goal was…..khe sahn had a different outcome…..

      • .”khe sahn had a different outcome…..”

        Then we abandoned the position, and ultimately the entire program.

    • “Suck-start a Kel-Tec”

      I’m taking this. Once you throw a diss like that out there its pretty much public domain at that point.

  2. If you want to win over hunters you can start by stop calling them Fudds. Would you like to be called gamer boy? You probably don’t care because I am certain you are one. How else did you get into guns?

    • What part of the article suggested it productive to call someone any specific name to their face? It’s a widely understood term, appropriate in an article to describe gun owners of a certain mindset, and has no bearing on the specific language used when interacting with a Fudd.

      • Yeah, as you call hunters Fudd. It doesn’t matter whether you call them that to their faces. Of you wouldn’t. All these keyboard commandos would never speak that way to anyone’s face. Why don’t you have enough respect for people not refer to them by names you wouldn’t in person?

        I have news for you. It is not a widely understood name. Ask any hunter you meet. I have told people about this site and how they often refer to hunters as Fudds. No one has ever heard the term before. I don’t think I have heard outside of this site but then I don’t read all the gun blogs. And of course they are offended by it. Is that difficult to understand?

        • Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I’m not calling hunters Fudds. Many Fudds are hunters, but they’re the kind of hunter who thinks the 2nd Amendment only protects hunting weapons. I’m a hunter– not a Fudd. I mostly prefer traditional firearms to modern tactical weapons–but not a Fudd. A Fudd is someone who thinks only traditional and old-school firearms should be allowed.

          In any case, the name, like the old Warner Brothers character, is kind of goofy and endearing and not meant to be a mortal insult.

        • If a person has never heard the term before, why the hell would they object to it, or be offended by the term being applied to them? Refers to hunters? I’m a hunter! Guess I’m a fudd. So what?

        • Yea, I liked the cartoon Elmer Fudd, too, but why not call them by another insulting name? Elmer was a cute bumbling guy like Barney Fife and Hoss Cartwright. Or, maybe hunters are supposed to be cute bumbling guys. Hmmm maybe we could use cartoon names like that for other sports. Road Runner, Rocky the flying squirrel, Mr. McGoo, Boris Badenov. Or my favorite Dudley DoRight. I agree, the article was very good. A winner.

      • You would prefer dumbass or numbnuts? In my view FUDD is a semifriendly poke in the ribs . As “Hey knucklehead you left the cap off your gas tank again”.

        If the oldfart/young dumbass gets his panties in a wad over being called a FUDD then he are one and is part of the problem. He just self-identified for your attention.

        • OK, whatever you say. I suppose you call people that to their face, right? No you don’t. Why don’t you talk to people on the internet the way you would to them in person? it’s called being polite. Believe me, you are not winning hunters over by calling them Fudds.

    • Not all hunters are fudds, and most fudds aren’t really hunters, just like most people who drive around in lifted trucks and wear Mossy Tree camo aren’t really “outdoorsy” types. It’s all about politics and presenting an image. Most of the vocal and powerful fudds are “outdoor writers” and other privileged people who take their Mercedes SUV for a trip through a California or Upstate NY national park and then spend the entire weekend in the lodge, or OFWGs who inherited their grandpa’s duck gun but have only ever taken it to the skeet range once since he got it (and that skeet range has since closed).

      Using fudd as a derisive term dates back a long, long time. Fudds are the guys who wouldn’t allow regular bows for deer hunting for many decades, despite proven efficacy. Fudds are the guys who still won’t allow semi-automatic rifles for big game in Pennsylvania, despite the sporting appearance and function of many semi-autos for over 100 years now.

    • Nobody calls hunters Fudds. A Fudd is very specific type of gun owner that doesn’t care if other people’s guns get banned. There are plenty of AR-15 owning Fudds who think nobody needs a machine gun, or a bump stock, or anything else more controversial than their “modern sporting rifle.” The 2A protects all bearable arms and everyone who recognizes and supports this is not a Fudd.

    • “black guns”…with a lot of plastic aren’t all that appealing to traditionalists…you know,..the guys who actually know how to hunt and kill something…….

      • I agree about black stocks. But nice Fudd guns are expensive. They’re not practical for new hunters or new gun owners, which means over the long term, legalized Fuddery could become a problem when trying to grow the RKBA movement if people can’t afford “nice” guns for self defense. As for hunting, I’d like to bring my own kid into hunting with a walnut-stocked rifle like I had and so would she, but that’s out of reach right now and I think I’ll have to compromise on a composite stock.

  3. Fact: Laying down and accepting a ban is the end of gun rights. I say it to alot of FUDDS: how long until the powers at be classify your Winchester Model 70 (chambered in 30-06 because 6.5 Creedmoor is for people who get out of the shower to take a piss) as a “sniper weapon”? They’ll use the argument “Well, you don’t need to be able to shoot a deer at 1000 yards.”

    • Oh ya!?!?!… well… 6.5 CM’s BC is so awesome and its over all cartridge length is so similar to .308, that 6.5 CM owners don’t need to step out of the shower to poop!!! OH!! BURN!!!

    • I don’t think I’m a FUDD. I am a hunter, a gun collector and a shooter. I don’t believe there is a 1 in 1000 hunter that would even attempt a shot at a deer at 1000 yards. Probably not 1 in 100,000. I know I wouldn’t. The vast majority of hunters wouldn’t even take the 500 yard shot. Every deer I’ve ever shot has been under 200 yards, and I live in the west. I know nothing of the 6.5 CM. I highly doubt it will shoot in a hunting situation better than my 300 Win Mag or my 300 WSM. I wouldn’t even think of shooting at a deer where I wasn’t 100% sure of a one shot shot kill. I shoot the same rifle, a 300 WSM for both deer and elk. I load my deer rounds down from standard 300 WSM velocity and my Elk rounds at standard 300 WSM. I use the same bullet, the Barnes 268 TSX for both. I may be wrong, but I haven’t yet seen any military sniper round in 6.5 CM.

      • “I don’t think I’m a FUDD. I am a hunter, a gun collector and a shooter.”

        A FUDD is any gun owner who thinks no other gun is needed or necessary for people to have and use. Or someone who owns a gun, but thinks, “If you don’t do anything wrong, you don’t need to worry.” Or, “I don’t care about the rest of you, so long as I am left alone to do what I want, or like.”

        FUDD is not a matter of caliber, but of thinking it is OK for government to interfere with everyone else.

        • Don’t believe I said or even hinted about the government going against any weapon or caliber. They absolutely should keep their paws of any of our weapons. I wrote about my feelings on the 6.5 CM. All I see on this site is 6.5, 6.5, 6.5. That has nothing to do with government regulating our firearms and calibers. The 6.5 should not be regulated, but I guarantee you, if the shit hits the fan, I won’t have any problems finding all the .308 I need. Can’t say the same about the 6.5.

          • You noted you did not think you are a FUDD. I merely clarified the meaning of the term, nothing more, or less.

            • Sam, I’m guessing, but I don’t know for sure, that a FUDD is one who believes in firearms ownership, but only up to a point. That certainly ain’t me. If I’m wrong, please let me know.

              • “Sam, I’m guessing, but I don’t know for sure, that a FUDD is one who believes in firearms ownership, but only up to a point.”

                Yep. That, or indifferent.

                A person who owns only one gun, or only one category of gun is not by default a FUDD. A person who uses a gun for a singular purpose, is not by default a FUDD. FUDD is an attitude toward guns that sees the second amendment as protecting only a single type or category of gun.

              • That’s what I figured. So now I know for sure I’m not a FUDD. I’m pretty sure I own or have owned just about all kinds of guns except NFA. Had two chances, one was a 1927 mint 45 Thompson. A guy was walking around our local gun show with a 4 sale sign on it. I talked to him, he only wanted 18 grand for it. This was about 10 years ago. Didn’t NEED it, but really wanted it. Shot them many times before while on the dept. I retired from. Problem was, I couldn’t convince my wife of why I NEEDED it. The other was much more simple. A friend who lived in AZ had an M-16 A4. Kalifornia had just outlawed my HK 91. If I wanted to keep it, I had to register it. I refused. The friend in AZ agreed to let me bring it to him for safe keeping. When he saw it, he asked if I was willing to trade. He said he had this M-16 he would trade straight across. I just laughed, saying Kalifornia outlawed my HK 91, how did he think I could have the M-16. I ended up trading him for other guns including a Rem 700 BDL in 300 Win Mag and a Colt Gold Cup. In hind sight, I wish I would have traded for the M-16, had him hold it for me and then done the paper work after I retired and left Kalifornia. Oh well, live and learn,

        • well,..they’re not going to leave us alone…and a lot of them would like to ban hunting…so we may as well fight them tooth and nail right from the get-go…AR-15’s are a good place to draw the line….

        • @Marty: What do you mean “I won’t have any problems finding all the .308 I need”? Are you referring to finding it in a store or finding other people’s ammo while scavenging houses / finding it on around dead bodies? The former definitely isn’t true. The latter might be. However, if your plan hinges on acquiring your ammo after the SHTF event happens you’re probably doing it wrong.

          • Stereodude, both. 308/7.62X51 is one of the most availble ammo around. I pick up free brass from the ground left by other shooters just because it’s cheap and available. I’ve never even seen a single 6.5 case just lying around. Even my local hardware store sells .308 and 30-06, along with the grocery store. I can still obtain 7.62X51 military surplus ammo. Good luck finding the same in 6.5 CM.

        • Marty: So there was plenty of low cost .308/7.62x51mm ammo at all those places during ammogeddon a few years ago? No, I didn’t think so. How about any?

          So you really think in an actual SHTF scenario you’re going to find .308/7.62x51mm ammo readily stocked on shelves in stores (ignoring price)? It wasn’t with no supply side interruption and no SHTF event. I’m not saying you’re going to find 6.5CM still on the shelves in the same scenario, but using this as the basis of choosing one cartridge over another seems fundamentally flawed. I mostly chose the cartridges I have firearms in based on the price of the ammo when I was buying the gun and the prospect of continued availability. They happen to be common cartridges but I’m under no illusions that I’m going to find it on store shelves should that time come. Those cartridges will be the first to disappear from the shelves since guns shooting those cartridges are far more common and everyone will trying to get ammo for them.

          • Stereodude, the point being is because of the inexpensive availability of the 308. I have been able to squire thousands of rounds of brass for little to no cost to me. Other ammo for weapons I own, not so much. 270, 300 Win Mag and 300WSM would be in the same category as the 6.5 CM (If I owned one). Compared to the 308, expensive since they’re generally not to be found on the ground. And since I don’t do anything but hunt with them, the few hundred rounds of each that I have squired, is more than adaquit. I can’t imagine how much money I would have had to put out to aquire 1000’s and 1000’s of 6.5.

        • Marty: You sure seem to have morphed your argument quite a bit. You stated unambiguously, “The 6.5 should not be regulated, but I guarantee you, if the shit hits the fan, I won’t have any problems finding all the .308 I need. Can’t say the same about the 6.5.”

          Now you’re just claiming the .308/7.62×51 is better for SHTF scenarios because the ammo is cheaper allowing you buy more ammo now making you better prepared. If that was your point maybe you should have led with that instead of making flagrantly misleading statements.

          • Stereodude, nothing misleading at all. I stated I was tired about all the 6.5 stuff. I never, ever, said I wanted it outlawed. Have no clue where in the hell you got that. I don’t want any firearm or ammo outlawed. Well, maybe tracer ammo being used in rural areas during fire season, and the same with exploding targets. The availability came much later. Yes, the 6.5 CM is a decent long range cartridge from what I’ve read. I simply have no need for a long range round, and if I did, I have it in my 300 mags. My guess, and since I have no experience with the 6.5, it’s only a guess, but my 300 Win Mag, or my 300 WSM would put the 6.5 to shame. You have obviously pulled something out of thin air of what I wrote. Yea, I love the 7.62X51 in my M1A, and to be sure I loved my 308 custom built Remington BDL bull barrel sniper rifle when on the PD sniper team. These rifles were made by the Remington Custom shop as a custom order by a man who provided equipment to the police department when the department wouldn’t or couldn’t provide it.Until he got us these rifles, we used whatever we could get from our property room when the cases were finished in court. And yes, it was a fairly large city and our targets were seldom more than 100 yards away. In those cases, I doubt your 6.5’s were any better than our .308’s.

        • Marty: Your reading comprehension needs a lot of work. I quoted your own words directly and didn’t read anything into them. Simple copy and paste. You said (this is a direct quote of your own words): “…but I guarantee you, if the shit hits the fan, I won’t have any problems finding all the .308 I need…” That statement is completely false and a completely baseless reason to buy into one cartridge over another because it’s not true. It’s wholly misleading. .308 is not going to be readily available if SHTF. No ammo is going to be readily available unless the SHTF scenario happens to be some sort of biological or viral agent that kills say 99+% of the population in like 24 hours.

          I’m not trying to talk anyone into 6.5CM. I haven’t hardly said anything about 6.5CM. I’m not arguing that it’s better than anything else. I take exception to your argument that .308 is better because of ammo supply when/if SHTF. When called on it, you’ve simply defected to arguing about ammo prices now for stocking up, which is disingenuous at best since you’re basically comparing 6.5CM match grade ammo pricing to mil-surplus 7.62×51. Hardly comparable rounds

          • Stereodude, first please tell me where I said any gun or ammo should be outlawed? Second, it’s just common sense, where a common caliber is against a newer caliber, the common caliber is going to be is going to be more available. In your scenario, when the world comes crashing down and 99% of the people are killed, It obviously will make no difference. But if it is say, a financial crisis where the banks shut down, no food, no fuel, rioting etc., The common caliber will make all the difference. How many rounds of 6.5 CM do you currently have. How much 6.5 CM brass do you have. Let’s just say, you desperately need something, anything, and since the folks still alive are now bartering to get what they need. I have 1000’s upon 1000’s of 308 brass. There are 1000’s upon 1000’s of folks who have a .308 who are more likely to need my brass. How many folks are out there who will need your brass? Sorry, but you make zero sense.

        • Marty: Where did I ever claim you wanted to ban anything? You’re asking me to prove a claim I didn’t make.

          I’ve challenged you on a specific point of your .308/7.62×51 is better for SHTF than 6.5CM argument. I never said that your conclusion was wrong. I’ve never said that 6.5CM was a better SHTF round than .308/7.62×51. I never said 6.5CM would be available during SHTF. I’ve repeatedly stated that no ammo is going to be readily available in the scenario you describe (which was your claim about .308 ammo). The most common calibers will be the first to vanish from store shelves. Ammogeddon proved this. The most common caliber, .22LR, was the hardest to find during ammogeddon and the last one to return to sane’ish price levels.

          If you want to have ample ammo during the scenario you describe, you’d better already own it before the scenario occurs. Bartering for ammo once things have settled down a bit isn’t what I consider readily available. Something you can buy in a store with money during the scenario is readily available.

          How much 6.5CM I have isn’t relevant to the discussion. 6.5CM isn’t my primary cartridge. I believe I have an adequate supply of ammo in several more common cartridges for the sort of scenario you describe as well as for bartering in the aftermath. Further, I don’t have brass. I have rounds that can be chambered and fired, not empty brass. But, good luck with your brass collection. I don’t see brass as being very valuable in the short term after a SHTF scenario. I certainly don’t see most people having the ability or the other components & tools to reload or roll their own ammo. Heck, I’d bet even ready to fire 6.5CM ammo will be more valuable in bartering than your .308 brass.

          • Stereodude, then you and I are on the same page. I also believe I have enough ammo in multi calibers. The reason I have shells that aren’t loaded, i because I shoot a lot, and no I don’t immediately come home and reload them. I usually wait for bad weather days and spend those days in my reloading room, well, reloading.

            I thought at the beginning of this, you said something to the fact I wanted the 6.5 and it’s ammo outlawed. Thought it was kind of ignorant.If that is not the case, I apologize.

  4. So I agree the fudds need to support all gun rights and hold the line, but I guess how to convince them? I mean you can give them the analogy, but I don’t know if they will buy into it. Some fudds really say stuff like “I was in the army, and I can tell you, you don’t need a weapon of war like the AR.”

    Even concealed carry folk don’t all seem to agree in Constitutional carry or support open carry, as either a practical option for carry or as a form of protest or gun normalization. I don’t know, convincing a fudd to at least support the rest is like trying to get a Glock fanboy or 1911 vet, or 9mm vs .40 person to agree with you.

    • Open Carry (in urban and suburban environments) is a great example. I think it’s usually ostentatious and tactically questionable, but we all have seen those arguments elsewhere so in the meantime you know what? You do you. If you want to open carry, legally and respectfully, please do and I will defend your right to do so. Open carriers at the vanguard of gun rights can push the Overton window on what’s acceptable, and meanwhile concealed carriers like me look reasonable, normal, and routine. Let’s have that legal and cultural battle on your territory–open carry–and not on my territory–concealed carry.

      And also–there might come a time of social breakdown or unrest when I need to open carry. Even if I don’t pack a Peacemaker on my hip while I’m mowing the lawn, I’d like to have the right to do so on the books with no ambiguity when the day comes that I do need it.

    • Whenever some freedom hating asswipe uses the word “need”, just tell him the first ten Amendments to the Constitution are not called the Bill of Needs.

  5. Isn’t that exactly what happened in England? Outlaw a few types over time until they are all (more or less) illegal.

    • Yep. And now you have to apply for permission to buy a blunted butter knife while answering why you couldn’t just use your finger.

    • Not quite. We basically lost handguns, excepting very long barrelled ones that count as carbines. We lost semi auto centreline rifles too. Pump and semi auto shotguns, SxS and overunders, plus semi auto small bore rifles and bolt action rifles are OK though, although the licencing system is pretty rigorous too. I’ve owned an AR15 here, but it was a straight-pull. So in summary, guns aren’t banned here, but it’s a lot more restrictive.

  6. Many years ago, I got into a dispute with a Canadian on a long range rifle shooters’ mailing list.

    I said I had a Savage 10FP sniper rifle. He course blathered about how “nobody needs a sniper rifle’. I merely asked him to describe the fundamental difference between his 1,000 yard “full bore” rifle and a sniper rifle. He of course never could.

    Of course this is the same guy who babbled about how good the Canadian gun laws were… until he got into a dispute with the Canadian gun control authorities and (as claimed by him) a couple of Canadian cops started publicly posting his private emails. I replied with the famous Niemoller quote… which left him utterly baffled.

    The fundamental truth is that the anti-gun cultists ONLY want corrupted military and police and their paid bodyguards to be armed.

    Anybody who denies this is lying to himself… or is too stupid to own a gun… or a spork.

  7. Similar core argument:

    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    Though, I have to admit, I don’t think I’d speak out if they came for the socialists.
    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
    Because I was too busy screaming ‘it’s about time! I think you missed one over there.'”

  8. “Though, I have to admit, I don’t think I’d speak out if they came for the socialists.
    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
    Because I was too busy screaming ‘it’s about time! I think you missed one over there.’””

    The socialists inevitably come for EACH OTHER.

    Ask Nikolai Bukharin and Leon Trotsky…

  9. Maybe we should tell Fudds that we don’t understand how they could kill a tree when a plastic stock will last longer, take more abuse, is lighter, and cheaper.

  10. Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. You see, anti-gunners want them all. They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete. They have an excuse for banning every firearm. Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as “sniper rifles” because they are “too accurate”. Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity. Handguns are suspect because they are “easily concealable”. The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don’t care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…
    Even the NRA bears some responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms. The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons ban in 1991, and other infringements on the Second Amendment. Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…

    • Is it impolite to note that gun owners seem to approximate the schisms also found in fundamentalist religions? “My way, or no way”?

  11. The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user”. Firearms ARE “equalizers” and are used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal”.
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”.
    State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’t need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to consider what I need or want?”
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, citing “officer safety”, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. Let’s not forget that police have immunity from prosecution for their actions and other protections not afforded to ordinary citizens. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms. Let’s not forget the millions murdered under communism by their governments AFTER their firearms were confiscated.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    • Isn’t “the problem” really one of simplicity? People in general do not put the sanctity of the second amendment at the top of their lists of priorities, goals, political interest, personal situations. Ask a random sample of people if they would trade repeal and removal of all gun regulation, in place of unlimited access to all the benefits of modern medicine. Choose only one, and there is no second bite at the apple later.

      • Sam i can say i would not trade gun rights even for star treck level modern medicine. F that. Freedom comes first IMHO. and that includes if i was at deaths door. i guess part of that is i dont trust mainstream doctors especially when i have seen doctors saying that a chest infection is asthma and have had to deal with doctors saying that my back problems are only muscular yet i see the chiro and get adjusted and i am right again for a while, and it is not muscles they manipulate. i finally got one to send me for an MRI once but was never able to get back to the specalist to get the results because work did not want to let me have the day off work to do so (was a govt job too and the worst employer i have ever had). well a couple years later i was in a small country town and broke and my back went out in a big way and ended up in hospital for a week and having to use a walking frame that you put all your weight on via the elbows. directed them to get the MRI results from the Brisbane hospital and they were freaking out over the results. BTW the MRI’s were done on my upper back which was barely giving me a problem at the time they were done (my lower back at the time was giving me the most grief). nope i have good reason not to trust mainstream medicine.

        • Toni, you know what you need? …. Medicare. Unbeknownst to many, quality, affordable health care is considered to be a fundamental human right in the USA as well as in Austrailia, has been for a long time. If you lived in California you could have access to some of the best doctors in the world for free. I know, I know sounds to good to be true, but it is. Australia has better overall health and patient outcomes than the U.S.. I truly am sorry that you’ve suffered chronic pain your whole life, but that is an argument for more modern and socialized medicine, not less.

        • HD, can you give us the names of some of these doctors who give their services away for free in Australia or CA? How about the name of the pharmaceutical company which delivers all medications for free? Just checking, because the way I was raised was to understand that *nothing* is free, and I have a difficult time believing that someone who lived through and paid for medical school, what, lets his wife support him and the children with her job as a grocery checkout while he works for free. I think that is bullshit. Show me.
          Oh, and unless I’m mistaken, Toni is writing from home in Australia, which would REALLY throw your baseless assertions into the crapper.

          • oh i well know the services are not free even when the direct customer does not have to pay which where i live it is only the “locals” (being aboriginals) that dont have to pay. it is paid for via our taxes which are exorbitant. what i was trying to say is that most doctors here are not worth the piece of paper that their “medical degree” is written on. it may as well be a degree in cleaning toilets. what is lacking here is freedom of choice in types of services available being other types of doctors than your mainstream govt approved drug pushers. i would far rather pay for a doctor i knew was going to get to the root of the problem than one that is just interested in pushing drugs because of symptoms.

            • Toni, I have a sister who lives in a socialized medicine country. For years, while my parents were still alive, she would come to the US for medical care, as her medical care, like yours, sucked. I suspect our parents felt sorry for her and helped her pay for the doctors, as she hasn’t been back since our parents passed away. Don’t fall for the lies about how good medical care in Kalifornia is. I lived there most of my life. If you don’t mind waiting in the emergency room for 4+ hours due to the mass of illegal aliens going there for routine medicine, go for it. I’ve read what Australians have to put up with. Kinda like what a lot of Kalifornians have to do. I know nothing about what your situation is, but you seem like the kind of person we would welcome here in the US. I know a very famous horse trainer who immigrated here to the US and has done very, very well in the US. He did it, and so can you. Come here legally and it will change your life.

              • thanks Marty and yes i would love to move to the US for all the reasons i have given. even so if i did i would probably move to one of the more sparsely populated areas as i dont like crowds much. i love wide open spaces and independence/self reliance. just need to find a way to do it legally which when you dont have a lot of $$$ is easier said than done.

              • “just need to find a way to do it legally”

                From what I see on TV, as person can come through Mexico, and apply for asylum; fleeing from the terror of poor medical care that results in psychological damage because it makes you feel like a criminal in your own country. Or, because if you speak out publicly you will be targeted for retaliation by the central government that will jail you for free speech.

              • yeah that is a valid one as now they have passed a law that says if you write too many letters to politicians or try to set up appointments with them to discuss issues you have a problem with with them then they can throw you in a mental institution with no recourse. oppositional defiance disorder or some such

              • Marty i live in Australia, and yes what i said is right, it was passed just in the last week

              • Toni, I completely understand. But if you did manage to make the move, I’d recommend to keep your search to the West. Much better weather that you would be used to. Maybe Texas or Arizona. Texas is generally hot and humid, Arizona hot and dry. I grew up in SO. Kalifornia where the weather was pretty much perfect. It was the politics which sent me fleeing to Utah. Got tired of our votes getting canceled out by all the socialists. Didn’t use to be that way, many decades ago it was fairly conservative. Now it’s one of the most expensive states in the country to live in. Also one of the most anti gun states, and continues to get worse every year.

                Good luck to your future.

              • thanks Marty, and yes Texas, Arizona and Utah were the sort of places i was mostly looking towards. Wyoming i would love except how damn cold it gets

              • I hear the winters in Idaho keep the riff raff out. Four seasons, mountains, fishing, low taxes.

              • Toni, yea even Utah might be good for you, however Southern Utah would be best. Hot summers, cool winters. However, where we are in the Central Utah Mountains, not so much. Every winter it gets below zero, for long periods of time. We have experienced lows at 36 below zero, probably not for one used to the heat of Australia. But Southern Utah has very rural property available, yet close to St. George for Costco and Walmarts. And, not to far from Nevada (Mesquite) for descent prices on booze. Most of Utah is very conservative and very pro gun. If you want to stay away from the libs, don’t go near Salt Lake City!

        • Understand your complaint about medicine these days. However, for most people lifetime medical care is important, especially after 60. But use your imagination, here. Feel free to counter any other generally attractive activity for people, and propose that win-lose proposition. For instance, $1000/day for life, or repeal of every gun regulation. Or, exemption from all taxes everywhere in the US.

          What I am saying is the SWAG derived 100 million gun owners are not solidly pro-2A; definitely not 2A absolutists. We keep ignoring that.

        • Toni, every time I’ve had an MRI, the results were sent to my doctor who then called me with the results and what he recommended for treatment. That’s the difference between real medicine and socialized medicine.

        • HD shove your Medicare up your ass. we have it and it is absolute shite. we pay through the nose in taxes for it whether we use it or not and the service is reprehensible. plenty of people have died waiting for procedures. add to that the “I AM GOD AND YOU MUST BOW DOWN BEFORE ME” attitude of most doctors here and you have a recipe for disaster. as for the results getting sent to your regular GP by the specialist, nope they want you to go back to the specialist to get the results and pay through the nose for the specialist. that costs several hundred dollars even if you are on a health care card and you go to one of the free clinics. not only that in my experience mainstream doctors dont get to the root of the problem and fix that. they also dont listen to their patients

        • @ Sam I Am
          yes i quite agree. most people dont see how important gun rights are. not till it is way too late. my dad did not see it back when i was a teen but i did. he seems to be starting to see it now that he is getting too old to be able to do much about it.

          • “he seems to be starting to see it now that he is getting too old to be able to do much about it.”

            Vote early, and often. Write letters/emails. Call politicians. There is a lot that can be done at age.

            • Sam he has been doing all that since before i got to my teens. he was active in the australian league of rights (and still is) but here it does not matter the volume of letters the politicians get they dont listen. as for voting our voting system is so bloody rigged it is a joke. i have seen minor parties/independents get majority of the primary vote by a wide margin and lose because of how it is rigged. as for the major parties they might sound like they are different however as soon as they get into power they are putting laws in they campaigned against. like GST for example. john howard (liberal) campaigned against it while Labor campaigned for it, yet once he got in one of the things he did was introduce GST which is destroying businesses here

              • politics itself is the same all over the world. it used to be different but there is others behind the scenes pulling the strings now. those are the ones we need to target and remove from society. liberty everywhere hangs in the balance due to these people that have international influence. out of all countries the US stands the best chance of stopping that influence in their own country by the very fact of their founding documents and the means they have available

              • Sam, the first one we need to target is the POS soros. He needs to be tarred and feathered and sent packing. Any other “billionaire” who is in soros’ ilk, the same. I’m sick and tired of these folks trying to buy our elections. We won this time, even fighting against their money, only because folks were scared to death of what socialist obummer tried to do to our country. Now that we have it back, folks can’t take a breath and sit on their ass. Now is the time to increase the fight for freedom. Like any war, we will lose a few battles, but we have to continue to fight hard to keep what we have. The Supreme Court is probably the most important fight in the immediate future, but we can’t stop there.

              • “The Supreme Court is probably the most important fight in the immediate future, but we can’t stop there.”

                The SC is a tricky old rascal.

              • Yup, there are no guarantees in life. They appear conservative today, tomorrow who knows. I truly believe obummers intelligence services blackmailed Roberts. We’ll see how he votes as Trump takes down the corrupt DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA etc. It’s finally starting to happen and I love it. Trumps Supreme Court nominees have come from the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. I trust them both.

              • “Trumps Supreme Court nominees have come from the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. I trust them both.”

                Kavanaugh wrote that infringements (gun control regulations) on constitutional rights that are bathed in tradition and history are constitutionally permissible. In other words, if the central government gets away with infringing on constitutional rights long enough, such infringement is allowed under the constitution.

                Comfortable, now?

              • Those are ‘your’ in other words. If I’m not mistaken, he wrote in favor of the citizens in the DC Heller ruling which went to the Supreme Court. In that ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision, the citizens had the right to possess guns for self defense and hunting. IMO, the court would have gone even further had we had another true conservative on the court. But with Kennedy, had they taken it even further, it would have been a 5-4 ruling against the 2A. Again IMO, the Heritage Foundation in a premier defender of 2A rights. If you disagree, please give me specific instances where that is not the case.

              • “Those are ‘your’ in other words. ”

                Actually, Kavanaugh did write that gun restrictions of long standing are permissible under the constitution.


                Kavanaugh, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 2006, dissented from a 2011 decision in which a three-judge panel upheld the District of Columbia’s ban on so-called assault weapons and its requirement that all guns be registered. Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority’s use of “intermediate scrutiny,” saying an analysis “based on text, history, and tradition” is more consistent with the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents.”

                Rather than apply strict scrutiny to violations of the constitution, Kavanaugh wrote, ““In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned “(NOTE the word “traditionally)

                “* “Heller(2)” Heller v. District of Columbia, regarding semi-auto rifle ban, Kavanaugh wrote that Heller(1) was significant, but not much of a change, and that Heller(1) preserved the status quo of gun regulation in the US. “Heller(1) established that traditional and common gun laws in the United States remain constitutionally permissible….the D.C. handgun ban…went far beyond the traditional line of gun regulation.”….”Gun bans and gun regulations that are longstanding – or, put anotherway, sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition – are consistent with the Second amendment individual right.” (NOTE…:”Heller preserved the status quo of gun regulation in the US” is a paraphrase of Kavanaugh, but still accurate)

                In short, Kavanaugh upholds the idea that traditional gun regulation is permissible (in his own words).

              • I disagree. When he talked about traditional laws regarding semi auto handguns, this tradition goes back over 100 years. Laws against the semi auto rifle, including the AR 15, goes back how many years? When was the first AR 15 ban, 1994? And then that ban expired in 2004. I don’t believe that shows any tradition at all. Time will tell, I certainly hope he will be a friend of the 2A. But like what happened with Roberts, anything can happen.

              • “I disagree.”

                Disagree with what? That Kavanaugh deferred to tradition and history vs. “intermediate scrutiny”? Or you disagree with Kavanagh’s innovative level of constitutional review, “tradition and history”? Here, again, in his own words, ” “In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned.” How can anyone not understand that Kavanaugh looks to tradition and history, rather than looking to the clear language of the constitution? If you look to justifications outside the constitution (tradition and history are not written as qualifiers in the constitution), then you accept government infringement is permissible, DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES (caps used here be cause I don’t know how to underline of bold the text). Kavanaugh is saying that it wasn’t necessary to even consult the constitution because “tradition and history” are sufficient guides. This concept is not originalist or textualist. This is no different from Ginsburg proclaiming we must look to international law to inform us as to the meaning of the US constitution.

              • No, I do agree with you on that. There is nothing I have ever seen in the Constitution about tradition. But wasn’t he just saying what the Supreme Court already ruled on when they said traditionally, handguns…. The Supreme Court ruled on tradition, right?

              • Kavanaugh said “tradition and history” as guides are within the bounds of decisions already handed down. Ergo, there is no need to get to the constitutionality of handgun bans. That means that since no prior SC ruling permitted handgun bans, there is no reason to ask if such bans are permitted. This is miles away from requiring the courts to overlay the constitution itself on constitutional questions. Look at it this way, the proposition is “if the SC has not permitted such intrusion in the past (regardless of the reason, such as previous refusal of the SC to reach “merits” of the constitutional issue) then such a ban is not constitutional. Not because the SC declared so, but because the SC declared nothing.

                Now, there is nothing inconsistent with previous SC rulings in what Kavanaugh wrote. SC has a long record of trying to settle disputes without getting to whether there is a constitutional issue at hand. We look at matters as, “government is doing this, and it violates the constitution.” SC looks at matters and no matter the gravity of the constitutional question, looks to process, ‘standing’ (even if the government is clearly unconstitutional, if you cannot prove immediate damage to you, there is no standing to have the case before the court), regulation, procedure, etc. It is simply amazing how many hard questions the SC has dodged by looking for some other reason to decide a matter.

                We are foolish if we think SC is going to cert a bunch of second amendment questions, and essentially rule that gun control laws are unconstitutional on their face.

              • Sam, I hope you are wrong about the Supreme Court. It has been forever since we have had a strong conservative majority in the Supreme Court. As such, I believe the slim majority, when we had it, toned down the rulings. I think both DC and Chicago were both toned way down, otherwise we probably wouldn’t have won them. With the possibility of having a strong conservative majority, especially after one more possible Trump appointee in the near future, I think we will see very strong pro 2A rulings. I truly believe that, but as we know, we never can be 100%

              • When it comes to SC justices, all of them are guilty of abandoning the core principles of the constitution; even Scalia. He concurred with a ruling that not participating in interstate commerce is an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce.

                As to 2A cases, the history of the SC is not brilliant on the matter. There will be no stomach for upending all the gun control laws across the nation. There will be no stomach for “shall not be infringed, period; full stop”. Thomas declared that all “gun cases” should be subject to “strict scrutiny”; Kavanaugh declared that even “intermediate scrutiny” is too burdensome if history and tradition can be cited.

                The absolute best we can anticipate is no further erosion of civil liberties.

              • Sam, that is totally untrue. Here it depends on where you live. If you live in a good conservative state, it’s way different. Yea some states go from red to blue, but some states probably never will. A good example is Wyoming. Yea, the weather there sucks, but that is exactly why it will probably never change, not many want to move there. The governor of my state of Utah wants to become more anti gun, but our legislature is still very conservative and most likely will never give him the anti gun laws he wants, and I think he is in his last term. All but one of the sheriffs in Utah are conservative. All of them signed a letter to obummer they would refuse to enforce any additional firearms restriction bills he would try and push thru.
                There are still some good states here, folks just have to find them.

              • In any country where politicians and political leaders are duly elected by vote of the populace, politicians will turn on a dime and give eight cents change if it looks to ensure remaining in office. Survival is the prime directive.

              • Exactly why we need to fight for term limits. Since we know these politicians will never vote for term limits, that’s exactly why we need to fight and push for an Article 5.

              • “Since we know these politicians will never vote for term limits, that’s exactly why we need to fight and push for an Article 5.”

                Academically, an Article 5 convention would be interesting to watch. But then we would have to deal with the realities. Number one being that the convention can only propose amendments. Second, there is no process for determining which proposals will be voted on to attain proposed amendment status. Third, those amendments are then sent to the existing Congress (the same Congress the convention is trying to contravene) for determination of whether ratification is to be accomplished by state legislatures, or state ratifying conventions. Fourth, congress is given no time limit to make that determination. Fifth, there is no requirement that Congress release all proposed amendments en banc, rather than strung out over time. Sixth, and most important, there is no constitutional means for scrapping the current constitution by sending proposed amendments directly to “the States” (which, under Article 5, are not permitted to determine the method of ratification of proposed amendments.

                My guess is the founders knew that from time to time pressure would build up in the nation for more direct action than is accommodated in the constitution. The Article 5 convention is merely a pressure relief valve, from which nothing is really expected to emerge.

              • So Sam, how many Convention of the States have you actually been involved in? You seem to know exactly what will happen. Are you more Knowledgeable the Constitutional Attorney Mark Levin? I’ve heard a lot of so called experts talking about how an Article 5 can be taken over by the libs, but haven’t heard of any of their expertise in the matter. Pleas tell me where your expertise evolves from?

              • “Pleas tell me where your expertise evolves from?”

                Just open the constitution to Article 5. Read it for yourself. Then tell me where all the “experts” (and I am a fan of The Great One) come up with all the postulating they publish. Oh here, let me help:

                “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.Article 5:”

                What powers are detailed for convention processes? What is germane, and what is not? Where is the authority for “the convention” to determine such? If “the convention” can determine which amendments will be put forward to the States, is that by simple majority vote, or something else? Where is the mechanism for moving the proposed amendments from the convention to the States? Must the amendments be first sent to Congress for administrative purposes? Where is the time limit for Congress to determine and announce the method to be used by the States for consideration and potential ratification of the amendments proposed by the convention? Where is the directive regarding whether the amendments are submitted en banc or individually? Where is the authority for the convention to send proposed amendments directly to the States wherein one or more amendment(s) are designed to abolish the existing constitution? Where is the authority for the convention to write a new constitution from scratch?

                The issue I have seen none of the “experts” address is the refusal of the entrenched politicians (Congress) to ever make a decision on declaring the means for State ratification of amendments from the Article 5 convention. The political power to force that would mean that three-fourths of the States already have agreed ratification of one or more amendment is assured.

                Overall, the “constitutional convention” is a mechanism for delay and dispersal. So much time will be taken up in agreeing upon the rules of the convention, the debates, the timing of the ratification methodology announcement, that “the people” will lose interest. Which, as stated, I think is the rational behind the “convention of the states” provision.

              • As the Constitution in Article 5 states, With 3/4 of the states ratifying, it is out of the hands of Congress, at least that is how I interpret it. If some one tries to change the purposes of the Convention, the states simply cancels. More distinctly, If the idea is to change the 2A to specifically say the citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self defense and to prevent tyranny, leaving out anything about the militia and 3/4 of the states sign in agreement, it becomes law, congress has no say. If somehow, the writing of the amendment gets changed by one state but the other states disagree with the one state, if they don’t have 3/4 of the states to override the one state, it doesn’t get passed. No harm no foul. The one state has no way to eliminate the 2A. Now, how is this a bad thing.