TexasCHLforum.com

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."

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.

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.

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.

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..

snatchel wrote: 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.

I'm guessing that you mean that you will abide by it, even if it is changed by using the amendment process to change it. But what if, instead of changing it, politicians simply bypass it and pass laws that do not pass constitutional muster? You took an oath to defend the Constitution.......from both foreign and domestic enemies. I'm not suggesting that you should do anything illegal, but when the law conflicts with the Constitution, which will you follow? Don't feel like you have to answer that here, but it IS something that you have to answer for yourself.

The 2nd Amendment is a civil rights issue. Yesterday, Patriot Post published an open letter from Ken Blackwell to Colin Powell in response to Powell's gibberish interview on Meet the Press in which Powell waxed on about "republican racism," blah blah blah. Blackwell responded with all the evidence of democrat racism. In any case, here is what Blackwell said about Martin Luther King, Jr.:

And when he wrote his famous Letter from the Birmingham Jail, he cited St. Thomas Aquinas to make his case that an unjust law was no law at all.

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/16265

I want to repeat that: "an unjust law is no law at all." When we adhere to the Constitution in all things, justice is preserved. When we say that we are under the rule of law, not of men, we mean that we are a constitutional republic whose laws must adhere to the Constitution, and hence justice is preserved. When we come under the rule of men, we are governed at their whim for they no longer feel bound by the limitations that the Constitution places upon government. Since it is impossible for a law which adheres closely to the Founders' intent to be unjust, it follows that unconstitutional laws must be unjust. And as Martin Luther King Jr. leaning on St. Thomas Aquinas tells us, unjust laws are no kind of law.

I want to think of myself as a law-abiding citizen, but by the strictest interpretation of the term, Martin Luther King Jr. was not, and neither were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or John Adams—ALL of whom were deliberately civilly disobedient, even to the point of violence against authority in the case of the last four so named. That is not bad company to be found in.

Again, snatchel I'm not saying you need to publicly proclaim your intent, and you certainly don't have anything to prove in defense of the nation. You've given enough, and certainly more than I have, I'm just saying that, given the current political climate and the absolute insanity on the part of ignorant democrats (bordering on treason with highly-placed elected democrats), and given that this administration still has FOUR MORE YEARS to try and grind us down and force through their fascist vision of America, intelligent and thinking patriots need to answer that question for themselves: "will I obey an unjust law?" Everything else flows from that.

What the Founders did was illegal.

Until they won.

bdickens wrote:What the Founders did was illegal.

Until they won.

There it is.

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....

bdickens wrote:What the Founders did was illegal.

Until they won.

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Sir John Harington

I don't have the transcript in front of me, but the implication within some of Obama's remarks yesterday is that the current excercise of the Second Amendment is basically interfering with the free excercise of the other Bill of Rights. He is setting it up in a very crafty way. If I can find those remarks soon I will post them.

Redneck_Buddha wrote:I don't have the transcript in front of me, but the implication within some of Obama's remarks yesterday is that the current excercise of the Second Amendment is basically interfering with the free excercise of the other Bill of Rights. He is setting it up in a very crafty way. If I can find those remarks soon I will post them.

I think some very crafty rednecks can tell him what he can do with those remarks.

Redneck_Buddha wrote:I don't have the transcript in front of me, but the implication within some of Obama's remarks yesterday is that the current excercise of the Second Amendment is basically interfering with the free excercise of the other Bill of Rights. He is setting it up in a very crafty way. If I can find those remarks soon I will post them.

He was using a rhetorical trick, construing language as to provide positive rights that do not exist from the wording of other amendments. While we pass laws to promote public safety, if the police fail to stop criminal actions it's not the government violating rights, it's the criminals who are. The BOR outlines negative (natural, freedom-from) rights. Policies of the welfare state further social desires, but don't protect rights.

snatchel wrote: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....

Snatchel, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. The founders, in their wisdom, included the means of altering the document within its words. AND, they made it deliberately difficult to do, so that the Constitution would be less likely to be buffeted by the winds of passing fancy. In other words, any change made to it could ONLY be made after ensuring a long and protracted public debate, and then a 2/3 majority in Congress, AND THEN ratification by 3/4 of all of the state legislatures. This ensures that states with large populations don't have the power to ram constitutional amendments down the throats of states with smaller populations. Rhode Island's and Vermont's vote to ratify or not ratify a new amendment has exactly as much weight as does California's or New York's. For this reason, it would be almost impossible to amend the Constitution to delete the 2nd Amendment.

IF this were to happen, I would disobey the Constitution, because the Constitution did not create the right, it enshrined it. The right was deemed to preexist the founding of the nation. It is God-given, or natural, if you prefer that term. And it isn't just an American right. It is a HUMAN right. But I want to stress that this outcome will never happen........UNLESS it was first amended to alter the requirements for amendment. There are 50 states, and it would take 38 of those states to get rid of the 2nd. Given that 49 of the states have some kind of concealed carry law, of which only 8 are "may issue" and the rest are "shall issue" states, the likelihood that 38 of those 49 states (plus Illinois) would overturn the 2nd is extremely slim. Also, Prohibition was ratified, and just 14 years later it was reversed; so even if the 2nd were overturned, it could just as easily be restored a dozen years later. In any case, the point of the 2nd Amendment is not that it grants us the right to keep and bear arms, but it ensures that the preexisting right continues to be protected. So even if the Constitution was first amended to make amendment easier, I would still insist on my right to keep and bear arms. I would just have to not get caught, and hold on until wisdom prevailed and the amendment to facilitate the amendment process was reversed and the 2nd was restored.

But since that isn't likely to ever be an issue, the REAL problem is unconstitutional laws, which are unjust. And if they are unjust laws, then they are no law at all and I will not obey them. I am an adult, and I'll accept the price of non-compliance, but I WILL NOT comply—any more than Martin Luther King Jr was willing to comply with Jim Crow laws. Government exists to serve ME, not the other way around. Government exists to protect and promote the free exercise of MY rights, not the other way around. People who argue for abridging or removing the 2nd Amendment remind of that twisted logic from the Vietnam war when zealous command staff told reporters that they "had to destroy the village to save it."

I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist. The free exercise of the right has ALREADY been severely compromised. I am not willing to compromise any further. It is time for gun-banners to start compromising by giving up their fascistic insistence on contravening my rights. Here's my compromise counter offer to fascists: stop trying to crush my rights, and I promise not to tar and feather you on sight.

Does that explain it better?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

snatchel wrote: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....

Snatchel, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. The founders, in their wisdom, included the means of altering the document within its words. AND, they made it deliberately difficult to do, so that the Constitution would be less likely to be buffeted by the winds of passing fancy. In other words, any change made to it could ONLY be made after ensuring a long and protracted public debate, and then a 2/3 majority in Congress, AND THEN ratification by 3/4 of all of the state legislatures. This ensures that states with large populations don't have the power to ram constitutional amendments down the throats of states with smaller populations. Rhode Island's and Vermont's vote to ratify or not ratify a new amendment has exactly as much weight as does California's or New York's. For this reason, it would be almost impossible to amend the Constitution to delete the 2nd Amendment.

IF this were to happen, I would disobey the Constitution, because the Constitution did not create the right, it enshrined it. The right was deemed to preexist the founding of the nation. It is God-given, or natural, if you prefer that term. And it isn't just an American right. It is a HUMAN right. But I want to stress that this outcome will never happen........UNLESS it was first amended to alter the requirements for amendment. There are 50 states, and it would take 38 of those states to get rid of the 2nd. Given that 49 of the states have some kind of concealed carry law, of which only 8 are "may issue" and the rest are "shall issue" states, the likelihood that 38 of those 49 states (plus Illinois) would overturn the 2nd is extremely slim. Also, Prohibition was ratified, and just 14 years later it was reversed; so even if the 2nd were overturned, it could just as easily be restored a dozen years later. In any case, the point of the 2nd Amendment is not that it grants us the right to keep and bear arms, but it ensures that the preexisting right continues to be protected. So even if the Constitution was first amended to make amendment easier, I would still insist on my right to keep and bear arms. I would just have to not get caught, and hold on until wisdom prevailed and the amendment to facilitate the amendment process was reversed and the 2nd was restored.

But since that isn't likely to ever be an issue, the REAL problem is unconstitutional laws, which are unjust. And if they are unjust laws, then they are no law at all and I will not obey them. I am an adult, and I'll accept the price of non-compliance, but I WILL NOT comply—any more than Martin Luther King Jr was willing to comply with Jim Crow laws. Government exists to serve ME, not the other way around. Government exists to protect and promote the free exercise of MY rights, not the other way around. People who argue for abridging or removing the 2nd Amendment remind of that twisted logic from the Vietnam war when zealous command staff told reporters that they "had to destroy the village to save it."

I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist. The free exercise of the right has ALREADY been severely compromised. I am not willing to compromise any further. It is time for gun-banners to start compromising by giving up their fascistic insistence on contravening my rights. Here's my compromise counter offer to fascists: stop trying to crush my rights, and I promise not to tar and feather you on sight.

Does that explain it better?

TAM,

Some day I'm going to have to make the drive to Grapevine to buy you a cup of coffee, beer, or some other beverage of your choice and sit and chat for a while. I couldn't agree more with what you've written here.