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

[CFM]

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

Wouldn't that mean someone you claim has the fundamental right to eat can take your food, even if you oppose them doing so, and there's nothing you can do about?

[CFM]

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

Your parents had to pay you to do something despite supporting your sorry ass with room/board? That's pitiful.

[SmarterthanYou]

Wouldn't that mean someone you claim has the fundamental right to eat can take your food, even if you oppose them doing so, and there's nothing you can do about?

i see you haven't bothered to learn about property rights yet.

[Truth Detector]

.....and the Founding Fathers did set a requirement in the Second Amendment,

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

You laughable pompous dumbass; you said the founders set a requirement. What requirement you willful dunce?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[CFM]

i see you haven't bothered to learn about property rights yet.

In other words, you don't think rights are absolute just privileges, unlike you claimed previously?

If, as you've claimed, someone has a fundamental, absolute right to eat and you deny them what you have because you claim property rights, your claims of eating being fundamental are invalid. Either that, or your simply don't have a clue and are acting like a 2 year old that thinks he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants.

[archives]

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

The Supreme Court. In over two hundred years the SCOTUS could never define what the Founding Fathers meant with the prefatory clause, hadn't you ever noticed that none of those Courts ever confirmed what you think the Second Amendment means?

Then along comes the Roberts Court in the Heller Case, I should say Scalia's Court since it was all him. The supposed great proponent of "orginalism" convinced the Court that since prior Courts couldn't explain the prefatory clause that they had the right to just skip over it, so much for attempting to determine what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they authored the Amendment

[Flash]

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

This case is not about a constitutional right but a Texas law which allows carrying long guns in public. The court changed the meaning of the law without justification. The law already regulated the act.

[Truth Detector]

This case is not about a constitutional right but a Texas law which allows carrying long guns in public. The court changed the meaning of the law without justification. The law already regulated the act.

Arsecheese is too busy patting himself on the back to comprehend any topics.

[Truth Detector]

The Supreme Court. In over two hundred years the SCOTUS could never define what the Founding Fathers meant with the prefatory clause, hadn't you ever noticed that none of those Courts ever confirmed what you think the Second Amendment means?

REALLY? It is very clear unless you are a pompous lying leftist dumbass. The founders understood that in order to protect the nation from potential tyranny, the citizens would remain armed and that right could not be abridged.

What grade did you make it to? Fifth?

Then along comes the Roberts Court in the Heller Case, I should say Scalia's Court since it was all him. The supposed great proponent of "orginalism" convinced the Court that since prior Courts couldn't explain the prefatory clause that they had the right to just skip over it, so much for attempting to determine what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they authored the Amendment

LIE and LAME. Again, no one needs to skip over anything. The intent is clear. The founders were very smart. They understood what tyranny means.

Just as they understood that having a bunch of low IQ leftists voting for dishonest politicians who promised them free stuff for their votes was dangerous to the Republic.

[archives]

Your parents had to pay you to do something despite supporting your sorry ass with room/board? That's pitiful.

Almost, but not quite as corny as "your relatives in the zoo," keep trying, you can still top that one

[Into the Night]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=6,44

open carry of long guns has been legal in TX for decades and while many cities have not liked it, they've had to deal with it. On occasion we'd end up with some idiot cop or another writing a disorderly conduct ticket, which usually gets thrown out because the language of the statute is too vague and doesn't describe activity that's disorderly. It simply states 'a manner calculated to alarm'..............and the US Supreme Court set precedent decades ago that the mere exercise of a right cannot be converted in to a crime...........well the TX criminal court of appeals just took that right away with the above ruling by redefining 'calculated to alarm' in to 'likely to alarm'.

Since this obviously violates the Texas State Constitution Section 23, this ruling can be ignored. No court in Texas has the authority to change the Constitution of Texas.

[archives]

REALLY? It is very clear unless you are a pompous lying leftist dumbass. The founders understood that in order to protect the nation from potential tyranny, the citizens would remain armed and that right could not be abridged.

What grade did you make it to? Fifth?



LIE and LAME. Again, no one needs to skip over anything. The intent is clear. The founders were very smart. They understood what tyranny means.

Just as they understood that having a bunch of low IQ leftists voting for dishonest politicians who promised them free stuff for their votes was dangerous to the Republic.

Amazing how many times "truthie" can be wrong so quickly in one thread

Show us where any SCOTUS, even the Roberts Court, said "the founders understood that in order to protect the nation from potential tyranny, the citizens would remain armed and that right could not be abridged.' Even Scalia with his bogus orginalism bullshit never confirmed or even wasted his time on that interpretation of the Amendment

And the rest of your post is the usual personal crapola, just you attempting to hide the fact you got nothing to bring to the exchange, it's obvious before you even had to resort to employing it

(time for a corny copy and past picture now)

[Into the Night]

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

No, they can't. You just don't get inherent rights at all, do you?

[Into the Night]

There are no limitations to the Second Amendment. There have been limitations wrongly placed on the Second Amendment.

If the Founding Fathers had wanted limits on the Second Amendment, they would have placed them there.

AND the 2nd amendment is binding upon the States, including Texas.

[Into the Night]

Not at all, you are implying some Constitutional right is being taking away from you and that that is illegal, but in reality it is anything but illegal, as I said, any of those rights can, and are, regulated

No. You can't take away these rights and call it 'regulation'.