TexasCHLforum.com

snatchel wrote:Right....

Explain this though: The Constitution of the United States is supposed to have been the law of the land since 1789 (or 1788, I'm rusty).

Contradicting Constitution = Illegal. Why is this complicated?

It's easy to get something done legally--assuming that House, Senate, and Exec all agree that whatever you are submitting is legal and necessary. Constitutional Amendment.

I'm vehemently against any work to amend the 2nd Amendment. On the same token, I am an American, and will abide by the Constitution which I have defended. ....

..... or leave.

There, I fixed it for you.

Here is an exercise. Go through the various components of the US Federal Government and tell me how many of them have any foundation in the Constitution. Let's pick on the Department of Energy. The politicians used the Commerce clause to install it after the 1970's oil embargo and resulting fuel shortages. It was opened with the goal of making us energy independent. Have you seen a recent scorecard on the success of that? We are closer today to that goal but nothing that the DOE did helped. The important point is that it has no Constitutional basis other than the Commerce clause. The Department of Education doesn't even have that. Bureau of Labor? The list goes on and on.

So they created their own bureaucratic world with only the most tentative relationship to the Constitution and we all scratch our heads wondering how they don't see that document as the basis for our government the way that we do. We wonder why it seems that they are from an alternate reality but the sad truth is that they are.

I do believe that the Framers did one major screw up. Term limits should have been a part of the original document. It is going to take a major crisis to get those added now. I believe that term limits are the single biggest obstacle to getting back to a government that is based on the Constitution.

snatchel wrote: I guess what I want to know is why Obama, or anyone who supports these policies, can be so presumptuous? The Constitution definitely does not. The Constitution simply says I have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed.

If Obama, or anyone else whats to limit my 2nd Amendment, they need to do it the right way. Go through Congress. Recommend an amendment to the Constitution. We did it with slavery, abortion, and a number of other matters, and it was done right. It had bipartisan support, went through the right channels, and was approved fairly. Shouldn't the 2nd Amendment be treated the same way? How can something guaranteed to me so long ago be stripped away by the actions of one man? It would be no different than Obama going on the TV today and saying, "Let's take some common sense regulation to the 1st Amendment. I'm not trying to take away your freedom of religion, but Westboro Baptist Church has to go--lest our Children hear their hateful message and be led astray by ignorance."

The answer is simple. The Constitution and BOR are outdated and have no relationship to the new Global governance model. Those documents are an impediment to the destruction of all Nationalism and the transfer of power to the UN which has zero accountability to anyone except the Elite establishment whos run it. The full embrace of all of the UN policies from the Kyoto Treaty (which the US never signed) to the Small Arms treaty (which has never even been brought up for formal consideration outside of the White House) makes the Global governance direction clear.

If you go through Congress and compile a list of its members who have made public statements about the Constitution being arcane or that it stands in the way of "just getting things done", I think you will be appalled. It is the law of the land for many of us. It isn't for many of the Elites - and that includes both parties. They try to force us into an "us vs them" situation when the truth is that either choice often gets to the same end result.