Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The video is just some guy ranting about how Texas doesn't like people with different opinions than theirs. Isn't that something that conservatives accuse liberals of being "bigoted" over? I guess freedom of expression will "Never happen in Texas!!"
I was just asking. In Oregon, open carry without a permit is legal anywhere except in federal buildings, court houses or schools. What do Texans do if they need to shoot something? Are your gun laws a relic of the Civil War or something?
The history of the right to keep and bear arms in Texas is a constitutional epic. More nineteenth century records concerning the infringement and recognition of this right exist with regard to Texas than any other single state.[276] From Santa Anna's attempts to disarm the "Texians" in 1835 to the restoration of majority rule and the limitation of the legislative power to regulate how arms are worn in 1876, the fate of the right to arms has been bound up with the dramatic political developments of the republic and state.
While never referring to the intent of the framers, the Texas courts have construed the constitutional guarantee as allowing a general prohibition on bearing all arms other than long-barreled rifles and shotguns. By contrast, without mentioning the guarantee, the judiciary has carved out exceptions for self-protection and carrying large sums of money which are inconsistent with the sweeping (p.687)terms of the prohibition. The courts have also held that a pistol which works is not a defective product, even though it is designed to be worn, thus inviting violation of the statute which prohibits the off premises carrying of a pistol on one's person.[277]
The need for legislative reform of the current version of the 1871 Reconstruction Act seems clear. The convention which framed the bill of rights of 1876 and the people who adopted it intended to limit the legislature to enacting regulations on how arms are worn, and not to prohibit the wearing of arms. That intent remains binding today since the guarantee has not been amended and since the clear terms of the guarantee are inconsistent with a general prohibition of the bearing of firearms. Moreover, an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right is deemed fundamental and must be interpreted broadly in favor of the individual.[278]
Unlike states which allow arms to be carried openly and provide for permits for concealed carriage, the Texas prohibition recognizes a right to bear arms for self-defense only on the part of travellers.[279] This exception encourages general disregard for the law. Persons against whom the law is enforced typically claim to be travelers.[280] (p.688)Selective enforcement against persons based on race or age is encouraged by the unrealistic prohibition.[281]
Had the defendant in the recent Masters case been practicing with his sai at a karate demonstration instead of carrying them on the street,[282] he would still have been in violation of the statute. Members of the Army of Texas and other reenactment groups are in technical violation of the statute when they wear bowie knives, swords, tomahawks, and replica antique pistols. Every person who participates in one of Texas' famous gun collector's shows necessarily "carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club."[283]
Current bills to ban possession of certain conventional rifles, pistols, and shotguns fail to take account of the right to "keep" arms and penumbral rights. Proponents must explain why some constitutionally protected arms are more equal (or rather unequal) than others.
As Texas law evolves in the post-sesquicentennial era, it remains to be seen whether its citizens will retain those fundamental rights envisioned by its founders. The right to bear arms has been characterized by different Texas courts as an "absolute" right[284] and as "licentiousness cloaked under the name of natural or personal liberty...."[285] Rights vary in popularity from time to time. If the controversial right to keep and bear arms is to be preserved, it will probably be in part through a rediscovery of the intent of the framers of the Texas Bill of Rights.
I agree with you, of course that all Muslims are not violent radicals, but I have honestly not seen one single Muslim "group" that ever issued some kind of "statement" totally condemning the actions of those who are. What individuals think, there is no way to know.
And yes, every "religious group" has a history of some kind of atrocities. But Christianity pales in comparison to what is going on today with Muslims. The Spanish Inquisition is usually the reference used to refer to Christian "sins", but if one really reads the history of it, it is generally exaggerated as to its relative comparison to other "religions". And when looking back at history, that is the only way to truly look at it from a modern point of view. The point being, it has to be stacked up as in the sense of what is occurring today, not what happened in the 16th Century.
Actually, as it is, the bloodiest and most brutal terrorism in history -- in terms of sheer numbers -- have a consistent record in the old Soviet Union and communist China, under the "god" of Karl Marx. Regardless though, today, the bloodiest group in the world are muslims who will holler out "Allah is great", then cut off someone's head with a butcher knife... or burn them alive...
I know I would feel a little different if I could see the slightest bit of evidence that any of the "mainstream" groups truly came out and outright denounced and condemned these homicidal maniacs...
Wouldn't you agree?
If they speak up they would be considered apostates and become targets themselves.
I agree with you, of course that all Muslims are not violent radicals, but I have honestly not seen one single Muslim "group" that ever issued some kind of "statement" totally condemning the actions of those who are. What individuals think, there is no way to know.
And yes, every "religious group" has a history of some kind of atrocities. But Christianity pales in comparison to what is going on today with Muslims. The Spanish Inquisition is usually the reference used to refer to Christian "sins", but if one really reads the history of it, it is generally exaggerated as to its relative comparison to other "religions". And when looking back at history, that is the only way to truly look at it from a modern point of view. The point being, it has to be stacked up as in the sense of what is occurring today, not what happened in the 16th Century.
Actually, as it is, the bloodiest and most brutal terrorism in history -- in terms of sheer numbers -- have a consistent record in the old Soviet Union and communist China, under the "god" of Karl Marx. Regardless though, today, the bloodiest group in the world are muslims who will holler out "Allah is great", then cut off someone's head with a butcher knife... or burn them alive...
I know I would feel a little different if I could see the slightest bit of evidence that any of the "mainstream" groups truly came out and outright denounced and condemned these homicidal maniacs...
Wouldn't you agree?
Nope. All I have to do is have discussions with my Muslim friends to be clear that they are indeed nonviolent radicals. You come from the generation that habitually generalizes an entire group of people based on the images you see in the media, so I can understand why you would require some highly publicized official statement in which members of a group must denounce the actions of other members who are nothing like them to begin with.
No need to go back to the 16th century for Christian sins. Look no further than the Aryan Nation. A radical hate group who aligns themselves with the Christian faith.
Anonymous guy ranting on the Internet about Sharia Law in Texas?
The primary application of Sharia is family law. While not enforceable in the U.S., what's to prevent both parties from agreeing to allow their differences to be resolved by this law?
Ultra Orthadox Jews have been resolving family matters in accordance with their laws, all along.
States are increasingly considering/ enacting legislation to prevent another country's laws from being considered in cases of divorce and child custody. This will likey not prevent some people from agreeing to submit to Sharia Law.
As an aside, The Catholic Church does not recognize civil law as it relates to marriage outside the church or divorce.
I have no problem with anyone submitting to ANY religious doctrine, as long as that submission doesn't require or allow them to break local, state or federal law.
Sharia law, which influences the legal systems of all Muslim countries, doesn't have ONE interpretation. There are various schools and styles of Sharia law, and some are easily incorporated into most western style legal systems, while others are definitely NOT easily adapted or incorporated into western style legal systems.
From an excellent article on this topic:
Quote:
The Hanbali school, Islam's most orthodox which spawned the Wahhabi and Salafi branches, is embraced in Saudi Arabia and by the Taliban. The Hanafi school, known for being the most liberal and the most focused on reason and analogy, is dominant among Sunnis in Central Asia, Egypt, Pakistan, India, China, Turkey, the Balkans, and the Caucasus. The Maliki school is dominant in North Africa and the Shafi'i school in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, and Yemen. Shia Muslims follow the Ja'fari school, most notably in Shia-dominant Iran.
Punishments for "sexual immorality, wine drinking, etc" include: flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution.
"Honor killings" are a world wide problem under Sharia law. The UN estimates that thousands of women are killed annually under Sharia's "family honor" laws. Other practices include female genital cutting, child and adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules.
Many Muslim countries have what is known as a "dual legal system" in which families or individuals can choose to either abide by secular laws, or sharia laws or a combination of both.
Many Muslins "say" they don't believe this. But it's in their "religious" material. How do you ever know for sure who believes what? Seems they are just picking and choosing what they want to accept. Some few are trying to reform...
The video is just some guy ranting about how Texas doesn't like people with different opinions than theirs. Isn't that something that conservatives accuse liberals of being "bigoted" over? I guess freedom of expression will "Never happen in Texas!!"
I can't imagine why you would assume that some guy ranting online is some sort of "spokesperson" for the entire state, or even the majority of the state, of Texas.
And by the way, even if he sounds like an idiot (for instance, HEY IDIOT - Dearborn is in Michigan, not Minnesota!), he's enjoying his freedom of expression in Texas.
That's how we roll.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
