TexasCHLforum.com

Hmm.

Interesting how you linked the original intent of the founding fathers as, "the law." I suppose since they were the ones who wrote it, it is the ultimate authority on what is just or unjust. It's only natural for my train of thought to lead me to your thesis,"an unjust law is no law." Slick. And I like it.

And... I guess I can't really find fault in the argument. Do I agree with it? To be determined, and I appreciate you granting me a minute to think before responding. It would be unwise for me to immediately agree, especially considering the significance of what you are saying.

So this leads me to my next question. Are you implying (i'm not trying to put words in your mouth.. so feel free to check me. I think we are past that in our relationship) that any original amendment in the Constitution should not be amended on the premise that they are founded by the original forefathers?

Or maybe you are just suggesting that amending the 2A alone would be unjust->no law. Maybe it's late and i'm confusing everything. Can you explain it a bit more for me? Either way, I agree that the 2A should remain as it is.... but you threw a monkey wrench into what I thought was a pretty well thought out rant....

I don't know if they screwed up by not limiting the Constitution.

Why shouldn't they have left the limits to be decided by courts later on? Isn't that the point of the Judicial system? To decide what is/is not Constitutional? Particularly in regard to the Supreme Court. Perhaps they knew that while the document itself would never "change," times would.. and the people elected by Americans to represent their values would have discretion in deciding what changes needed to be made.
(take this train of thought back to my statement that one man should not wield the power to limit any amendment)

This is why I said earlier that I would abide by the Constitution, even in things that I don't necessarily agree with. (or leave)

As far as the previous stuff you mentioned... I have homework to do. I'll get back to you on that..

Right....

Explain this though: The Constitution of the United States has 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.

So, after hearing Obama's speech today, I had a discussion with a peer. This person agrees 100% with everything Obama said. Yes to background, yes to Assault Weapons Ban, yes to High-Cap Mag bans.... the words.

Fine. Let's break this down. The 2nd Amendment says that I have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this shall not be infringed.

The 1st Amendment guarantees my right to speech, press, religion, etc. It doesn't exclude Catholics, Protestants, Jews, prevent me from bashing Obama in public, or regulate our media. Why is my 2nd Amendment being restricted?

Obama calls the restrictions he brought forth today common sense, the elitist pig. Common sense, as if I, a gun owner, have none. As if my ownership of high-capacity magazines is completely unfounded, ignorant, and useless. Excuse me, Mr. Obama, for not having sense enough to decide what I should or should not have. I did not know that you were qualified to make these decisions for me, but according to your speech you are.

Common sense would dictate that Westboro Baptist Church be burned to the ground. Common sense would dictate that these jerks should not be allowed to picket military funerals, or the funerals of the victims of Sandy Hook. The forefathers did not account for this, probably because they did not want some future president to be the person who establishes the definition of common sense. Westobor Baptists continue to do what they do, and we all hate it. But, they are protected by the 1st Amendment.

Common sense would dictate that the press actually verify facts before disseminating it throughout the United States. Common sense would dictate that the media keeps certain confidential information--such as the names & addresses of legal gun owners in New York-- out of the papers.

Do I need to go into Speech?

But Obama says that common sense dictates that assault rifles and high-cap magazines are dangerous and unnecessary.

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."