texas court makes new law out of thin air, negates a right of the people

[CFM]

my bad and my apologies. I missed that it was you posting and thought it was archives.

Accepted.

[SmarterthanYou]

Why is it you people can't recognize the fact that Constitutional rights can be regulated, that no right, none, are absolute, ever one can be, and are, regulated, simple fact. Carrying long guns in public can be legally regulated

because it goes against the constitution, a power that the courts usurped because people like you are afraid of freedom. rights are absolute, otherwise they are just privileges

[SmarterthanYou]

The second amendment doesn't guarantee rights to all arms. It also doesn't give you the right to interrupt people's peaceful lives, just so you can flaunt your arms. Carrying a long gun doesn't fit the situation anyway. I'd love to see someone try, and do certain tasks lugging something like that along.

there's something that you are apparently choosing to ignore and that is that to make something illegal, you must have a law making it illegal, otherwise it's legal.

[archives]

Bullshit to both, Big N.

Wrong again, shocking, but you can bail yourself out, show me where I ever defended abortion, I can wait

[CFM]

Wrong again, shocking, but you can bail yourself out, show me where I ever defended abortion, I can wait

Lying again, boy. It's what you do.

[archives]

if the state, or even the court, were using an actual gun law to do this, you MIGHT have a point. However, that is not what is happening here. The court is using a vague definition in a disorderly conduct statute to make people afraid to exercise a right in order to avoid the citation that they redefined.

Not in what you posted, they issued a straightforward opinion, even discussed your notion of a "vague definition," and reacting to a known gang leader displaying a gun in public doesn't quite seem like trying to "make people afraid to exercise a right"

[archives]

Lying again, boy. It's what you do.

See you couldn't, again shocking

Next

[SmarterthanYou]

Not in what you posted, they issued a straightforward opinion, even discussed your notion of a "vague definition," and reacting to a known gang leader displaying a gun in public doesn't quite seem like trying to "make people afraid to exercise a right"

so you agree that 'likely to alarm' justifies disorderly conduct? or does it just depend upon who is exercising that right?

[CFM]

See you couldn't, again shocking

Next

Oh, the I'm pro choice not pro abortion excuse, huh?

[Truth Detector]

...and the Founding Fathers did set a requirement in the Second Amendment, I guess they didn't teach the prefatory clause where you went to school

They did? Please point it out for me:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I can't seem to find anything that "limits" this right. Once again arsecheese is talking out of his ass.

[archives]

because it goes against the constitution, a power that the courts usurped because people like you are afraid of freedom. rights are absolute, otherwise they are just privileges

Rights are not absolute, fact, every Constitutional right can, and is regulated, another fact, and freedom itself is not absolute, even though the term used on the right reflects a total misunderstanding of what the concept means

[Truth Detector]

Rights are not absolute, fact, every Constitutional right can, and is regulated, another fact, and freedom itself is not absolute, even though the term used on the right reflects a total misunderstanding of what the concept means

Where do you come up with such bullshit?

[SmarterthanYou]

Rights are not absolute, fact, every Constitutional right can, and is regulated, another fact, and freedom itself is not absolute, even though the term used on the right reflects a total misunderstanding of what the concept means

where in the constitution does it say that rights are not absolute? where, EXACTLY, does it say that all rights can be regulated? feel free to copy and paste that part of the constitution that says such a thing.

[SmarterthanYou]

Every Amendment has limitations, and the Founding Fathers did set a requirement in the Second Amendment, I guess they didn't teach the prefatory clause where you went to school

what historical documentation do you have that supports your idea of that 'requirement'???

[archives]

They did? Please point it out for me:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I can't seem to find anything that "limits" this right. Once again arsecheese is talking out of his ass.

And another one checks in, it is called the prefatory clause, "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," and just cause you probably didn't pay attention in middle school, the reason for a prefatory clause announces the purpose of the following operative clause

To relate in terms you can even understand, when your parent told you would get paid if you completed a household chore it didn't mean you were automatically going to get paid