Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-02-2010, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
36,852 posts, read 18,847,047 times
Reputation: 14732

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by harrymiafl View Post
Hmm,I made 1 error,which I corrected later & u think that u r in a position to snob my english...
America would be a paradise if u had more immigrants like me...speaking my english...
Still no clarification from the aged hippie...Combat or...cleaners..?

Anyway,it is sad to see so many pro-gun people stumble on the block of private property...

If a "no-gun "sign is legit,then a... "no...coloured " sign should be legit too...
Wrongamundo.

Protected classes are the result of something that people are, not a function of their ownership of property. They are not protected because of choices they have made.

An individual who is black, pregnant, female, handicapped, etc. cannot simply leave it at home.

 
Old 05-02-2010, 12:22 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,389,566 times
Reputation: 11334
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere View Post
I already posted that. "Keep and bear arms" does not mean a guaranteed right to wander around openly carrying a rifle. It is a privilege that can be revoked; it's written in to the law you quoted.

"Bear arms" is being used in a military sense, not in a "walk around" sense.
Utter nonsense. For over a century that's precisely how it's been interpreted in TX by the courts. And it clearly says "right" not privilege.

Let me repeat this quote: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State"

I do believe that means precisely what it says and is not strictly a military reference given "in lawful defense of himself" and "every citizen."

I haven't seen anyone able tp put such a spin on pretty clear language before.
 
Old 05-02-2010, 12:23 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,389,566 times
Reputation: 11334
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Wrongamundo.

Protected classes are the result of something that people are, not a function of their ownership of property. They are not protected because of choices they have made.

An individual who is black, pregnant, female, handicapped, etc. cannot simply leave it at home.
One right's the same as another. Protected classes are pure discrimination.
 
Old 05-02-2010, 12:24 PM
 
Location: between Ath,GR & Mia,FL...
2,574 posts, read 2,476,385 times
Reputation: 327
It is not a CHOICE,it is a RIGHT,guarranteed by the Constitution...

We cannot leave our rights on the entry of a private property.
 
Old 05-02-2010, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,007 posts, read 15,369,240 times
Reputation: 2463
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Utter nonsense. For over a century that's precisely how it's been interpreted in TX by the courts. And it clearly says "right" not privilege.

Let me repeat this quote: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State"

I do believe that means precisely what it says and is not strictly a military reference given "in lawful defense of himself" and "every citizen."

I haven't seen anyone able tp put such a spin on pretty clear language before.

No, it hasn't been interpreted that way. If it was, then the state of Texas couldn't restrict you from carrying a handgun in the open, which they do.

Go look up anything that analyzes the language in gun amendments, it's used in a military sense.
 
Old 05-02-2010, 12:25 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,934,774 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
One right's the same as another. Protected classes are pure discrimination.
Against whom, since everyone belongs to at least one of those protected classes?
 
Old 05-02-2010, 12:37 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,389,566 times
Reputation: 11334
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere View Post
No, it hasn't been interpreted that way. If it was, then the state of Texas couldn't restrict you from carrying a handgun in the open, which they do.

Go look up anything that analyzes the language in gun amendments, it's used in a military sense.
You're flat out wrong. When Texas banned the carry of handguns, they did not ban the open carry of a long gun (shotgun or rifle) precisely because of that provision in the TX Constitution.

You're wrong about the gun amendments in state Constitutions being solely military. TX uses similar wording as Vermont.

Vermont's Constitution says:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."


Here's what Vermont's supreme court said on the subject of gun rights:

STATE v. ROSENTHAL.

"(Supreme Court of Vermont. Rutland. May 30, 1903.)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS--ORDINANCES--CARRYING WEAPONS--VALIDITY.
1. Const. c. 1, art. 16, declares that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. V. S. 4922, prohibits any person from carrying a dangerous weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent of injuring another. Section 4923 prohibits a person, while a member of and in attendance on a school, from having in his possession any dangerous weapon. Held, that a city ordinance prohibiting a person from carrying within the city any brass knuckles, pistol, slung shot, or weapon of similar character, or any weapon concealed on his person, without permission of the mayor or chief of police, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol under any circumstances without such consent, is repugnant to the Constitution, and to that extent void."


Alaska's Constitution says this: "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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."

New Hampshire: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."

You can see more states' provisions here: Second Amendment Foundation Online

Overwhelmingly, they are very clear there is an individual right.
 
Old 05-02-2010, 12:38 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,389,566 times
Reputation: 11334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Against whom, since everyone belongs to at least one of those protected classes?
Which protected class do non-homosexual White males belong to?

The whole notion of "protected classes" goes against the whole notion of equality.
 
Old 05-02-2010, 12:39 PM
 
220 posts, read 222,325 times
Reputation: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrymiafl View Post
This is an interesting thread because it is about a problem that has to be solved...

Gun carry,open or concealed,is a civil right.
No proprietor,no business owner,nobody can violate that right.

In the same way that no business can prohibit blondes,Jews,blacks,homosexuals,disabled etc to enter,work or be served on its premises.
Tobacco use is not a right.Smokers can be banned...

I don't know the exact legal framework but we have to carry this issue to the Supreme Court,to ballots ,to Congressional & State Legislature politics.

Nobody should be able to deny us the right to lawfully carry a gun,openly or concealed...
Im sorry, i just have to laugh at the stupidity of this post.
 
Old 05-02-2010, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
36,852 posts, read 18,847,047 times
Reputation: 14732
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Which protected class do non-homosexual White males belong to?

The whole notion of "protected classes" goes against the whole notion of equality.
In that case, let the majority always rule.

How many people do you think will vote for people to carry sidearms everywhere they go?
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top