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"
texas court makes new law out of thin air, negates a right of the people
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
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"
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so you agree that 'likely to alarm' justifies disorderly conduct? or does it just depend upon who is exercising that right?
Oh, the I'm pro choice not pro abortion excuse, huh?
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.
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
rebel
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
rebel
what historical documentation do you have that supports your idea of that 'requirement'???
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
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?
Your parents had to pay you to do something despite supporting your sorry ass with room/board? That's pitiful.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
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.
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.
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
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.
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.