Texas Pro-Gun Crusaders Take Extreme Open Carry Approach

[Kosh]

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

Isn't it funny how using ones constitutional rights, to the left, all depends on which group, and which rights, as to whether or not they support it.

Parades take place on the street. You can watch them or not. You do not pay for them or pay to attend them. If I'm at a Chili's and a bunch of people walk in with weapons, I won't feel comfortable; I'm unaware of their qualifications to use force, their training with the weapons, their ability to think clearly during a fire fight, etc... If they have a uniform, you can at least assume there is a minimum threshold of training involved. So I pay my tab, leave a tip, and get out of there as soon as possible.

By the same token, if I'm in a Chili's and a bunch of homosexuals walk in and begin kissing one another, I won't feel comfortable with that either. I'd likely pay my tab, leave a tip and exit the restaurant.

It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment right of self expression or the 2nd amendment right to pack heat. It has to do with my comfort level in this case. I suspect that the majority would share my viewpoints and restaurants and other businesses have every right to enforce these rules.

Oh my the far left Obama drone talking points and propaganda just flies out the door without question or hesitation.

 

[KNB]

Far right talking points Obama drones programmed Bush Obama far left talking points.

Go to college.

 

[Freewill]

Freewill--Of course the historic definition was never between a man and a man until recently. So if there is nothing, as you say, in the constitution that prohibits or limits gays from marrying then there is no right even if you want to say there is. Further if it is not in the COTUS then those types of matters are to be left to the individual states. So if you want gay marriage to be a right then quit tying your wagon to the black civil rights movement and let the people decide through a constitutional amendment. But my guess is that you don't want that because in almost, if not all, instances when the people were allowed to choose, it didn't go well for gay marriage.

BTW, note I didn't say anything insulting towards gay marriage. Marriage is between two people, period. The benefits that derive from marriage can be had by other means. But mostly the benefit of protecting a woman who marries from her husband just dumping her is not really required in gay marriag

You've missed the effect of the Ninth and now the Tenth Amendment;

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

Those unenumerated rights I mentioned are Federal rights. You're talking about powers that are not delegated to the Federal government which fall to the States. You must know that the Federal Government at times is expected to protect peoples rights, even the unenumerated ones, from infringement by the States.

Don't try to push your knowledge of the Constitution beyond its limits.

None of what you just posted changes anything. YOU said that gay marriage did not appear in the COTUS. If it does not it does not. I think you are trying to play both sides. As I said, have a constitutional convention formed, put it to a vote by the people and let the chips fall where they may. If the polls that I see quoted are true then I don't see where gay marriage would fail. Doesn't that seem the fairest of ways to solve the issue?

 

[Freewill]

Isn't it funny how using ones constitutional rights, to the left, all depends on which group, and which rights, as to whether or not they support it.

It is interesting considering they say that gay marriage is a constitutional right when in fact marriage of any sort is not mentioned. The left just uses the constitution when it fits their agenda, but then again so do those on the right.

You may need to brush off your copy of the Constitution and check out the ninth amendment. Or here I'll save you a few minutes;

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --The Ninth Amendment

If you know that even hetereosexual marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution then you probably know that many fundamental rights were not specifically enumerated. Such as;

The Right to a Jury of Your Peers
The Right to Vote
The Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
The Right to Privacy
and as you say, The Right to Marriage

So of course there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits or limits the right of Gays to marry.

BTW all are now or at least implied:

The Right to a Jury of Your Peers: 6th Amendment
The Right to Vote 14 and 15th Amendment
The Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty5th, 6th, and 14th
The Right to Privacy 14th Implied in the 4, 5 and 1st
and as you say, The Right to Marriage No amendment, not implied, Is not the same as being born of color.

Of course you know that the BOR is part of the COTUS.

So get a amendment and shut up all those who defend traditional marriage.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

Isn't it funny how using ones constitutional rights, to the left, all depends on which group, and which rights, as to whether or not they support it.

Parades take place on the street. You can watch them or not. You do not pay for them or pay to attend them. If I'm at a Chili's and a bunch of people walk in with weapons, I won't feel comfortable; I'm unaware of their qualifications to use force, their training with the weapons, their ability to think clearly during a fire fight, etc... If they have a uniform, you can at least assume there is a minimum threshold of training involved. So I pay my tab, leave a tip, and get out of there as soon as possible.

By the same token, if I'm in a Chili's and a bunch of homosexuals walk in and begin kissing one another, I won't feel comfortable with that either. I'd likely pay my tab, leave a tip and exit the restaurant.

It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment right of self expression or the 2nd amendment right to pack heat. It has to do with my comfort level in this case. I suspect that the majority would share my viewpoints and restaurants and other businesses have every right to enforce these rules.

OMFG.... a dim light of reason shines within you after all.
Who knew?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Far right talking points Obama drones programmed Bush Obama far left talking points.

Go to college.

Oh look... more petulance.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It may be that certain people react as they do because they don't know that carrying a rifle in the open is legal - in which there's a further layer of ignorance upon that fear.

Depend on who does it.

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

And those who do are just like those in your face guys carrying AR15s. They do a disservice to the very cause they say they are supporting.

Right on target here.

Just like flag burners.

You lose support when you do it.

Might be legal, but it's stupid.

 

[Andylusion]

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

Isn't it funny how using ones constitutional rights, to the left, all depends on which group, and which rights, as to whether or not they support it.

Parades take place on the street. You can watch them or not. You do not pay for them or pay to attend them. If I'm at a Chili's and a bunch of people walk in with weapons, I won't feel comfortable; I'm unaware of their qualifications to use force, their training with the weapons, their ability to think clearly during a fire fight, etc... If they have a uniform, you can at least assume there is a minimum threshold of training involved. So I pay my tab, leave a tip, and get out of there as soon as possible.

By the same token, if I'm in a Chili's and a bunch of homosexuals walk in and begin kissing one another, I won't feel comfortable with that either. I'd likely pay my tab, leave a tip and exit the restaurant.

It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment right of self expression or the 2nd amendment right to pack heat. It has to do with my comfort level in this case. I suspect that the majority would share my viewpoints and restaurants and other businesses have every right to enforce these rules.

First off, have you been caught up in the crowds that surround these gay pride parades, and what they do?

I don't "want" to go to the parade, but when my job was down town.... are suggesting I just don't go to work, and get fired?

Well when these people come around me.... it has to do with my comfort level.

If comfort level is the key, then I have just as much right to drive down town, and demand those people leave the streets, as you do to choose to go into a restaurant where people are armed.

Why is my comfort level irrelevant, but yours is?

Second....

You are conflating two different things.

I have no problem with a business owner saying he doesn't want weapons in his business (I think he's an idiot making his store a "criminal safe zone", but that's his choice).

I believe in something we've tried to eliminate in our society called "Private property". Business to me, is private property. I do not believe that the government has any right to tell any business what can, or can not be down on their private property.

At all. Which makes me an extreme minority even among right-wing people.... and... I don't care.

Nevertheless, as it relates to this topic, If the owner of the business or store, doesn't want fire arms on the property, I think that should be his right.

Now grasp this.... you don't own the property. It's not yours. So if you are uncomfortable.... too bad. Sucks to be you. If the owner of the property is fine with it, and that makes you nervous... oh well.

I don't have to do to the Gay Parade, and you don't have to go to that store.... right? Are are some people 'more equal than others', and my comfort is irrelevant, but yours matters?

You can't have it both ways.

Now unfortunately, the tyrannical leftists have gained control over property laws, and come up with a million rationalizations to deny people's property rights.

Ok... then if we on the right gain the right to have conceal, or open carry of our weapons, then that over rides the property rights of the business owner.

Now it doesn't matter if you, or the business owner, doesn't want the weapons there. This is how that works. You use the Federal government to over ride people's rights, and we use that power to over ride yours.

You should have thought about that, before you started rationalizing the destruction of rights to begin with.

 

[candycorn]

Isn't it funny how using ones constitutional rights, to the left, all depends on which group, and which rights, as to whether or not they support it.

Parades take place on the street. You can watch them or not. You do not pay for them or pay to attend them. If I'm at a Chili's and a bunch of people walk in with weapons, I won't feel comfortable; I'm unaware of their qualifications to use force, their training with the weapons, their ability to think clearly during a fire fight, etc... If they have a uniform, you can at least assume there is a minimum threshold of training involved. So I pay my tab, leave a tip, and get out of there as soon as possible.

By the same token, if I'm in a Chili's and a bunch of homosexuals walk in and begin kissing one another, I won't feel comfortable with that either. I'd likely pay my tab, leave a tip and exit the restaurant.

It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment right of self expression or the 2nd amendment right to pack heat. It has to do with my comfort level in this case. I suspect that the majority would share my viewpoints and restaurants and other businesses have every right to enforce these rules.

First off, have you been caught up in the crowds that surround these gay pride parades, and what they do?

Been to one; had a friend marching; wave hi. No problem.

I don't "want" to go to the parade, but when my job was down town.... are suggesting I just don't go to work, and get fired?

Yeah, that is what I'm suggesting. Or maybe just go do your job and go home. My office used to be about 3 blocks from an NFL stadium. Saturdays and Sundays were distracting--all season. Somehow we managed to get by for something like 4 seasons--32 games.

Well when these people come around me.... it has to do with my comfort level.

In that case you need to explain your homophobia to your employer and see if she/he is sympathetic. You may be surprised.

If comfort level is the key, then I have just as much right to drive down town, and demand those people leave the streets, as you do to choose to go into a restaurant where people are armed.

Actually, no you do not.

Why is my comfort level irrelevant, but yours is?

Both are equally relevant. When did I say yours was irrelevant?

Second....

You are conflating two different things.

Actually, no I'm not.

I have no problem with a business owner saying he doesn't want weapons in his business (I think he's an idiot making his store a "criminal safe zone", but that's his choice).

I believe in something we've tried to eliminate in our society called "Private property". Business to me, is private property. I do not believe that the government has any right to tell any business what can, or can not be down on their private property.

At all. Which makes me an extreme minority even among right-wing people.... and... I don't care.

Nevertheless, as it relates to this topic, If the owner of the business or store, doesn't want fire arms on the property, I think that should be his right.

Now grasp this.... you don't own the property. It's not yours. So if you are uncomfortable.... too bad. Sucks to be you. If the owner of the property is fine with it, and that makes you nervous... oh well.

Yeah...that is why I said I pay my tab, leave a tip, and leave the business if I'm uncomfortable. I doubt I'd be back very soon. Maybe so/maybe no.

Boy, I be you thought you had me...but gee, another swing and miss.

I don't have to do to the Gay Parade, and you don't have to go to that store.... right? Are are some people 'more equal than others', and my comfort is irrelevant, but yours matters?

Again, I never said your comfort is irrelevant.

I went to the store, a bunch of wanna-be heroes come in with their guns and cause a disturbance or a bunch of homosexuals come in creating a disturbance, or a bunch of evangelicals come in praying and causes a disturbance or a family comes in with 10 kids and they are causing a disturbance....I would likely call it a night early. Earlier for the gun crazed lunatics since in the other 3 scenarios, it's not a matter of life and death. Where you have guns, you eventually have violence so I'd rather not be around.

You can't have it both ways.

Never wanted it both ways.

Now unfortunately, the tyrannical leftists have gained control over property laws, and come up with a million rationalizations to deny people's property rights.

Apparently not, there are a bunch of idiots in Texas carrying guns into the local Denny's
for some reason. Personally, I think they are there to pick a fight and intimidate people. If they had gained control, they wouldn't be doing that, would they dummy?

Ok... then if we on the right gain the right to have conceal, or open carry of our weapons, then that over rides the property rights of the business owner.

Not sure...I guess it varies by municipality.

Now it doesn't matter if you, or the business owner, doesn't want the weapons there. This is how that works. You use the Federal government to over ride people's rights, and we use that power to over ride yours.

No, I just pay my bill and leave. Whether the owner wants the gun guys, homo guys, evangelical guys or family with 10 kids guys there is his business. I doubt I'd be back in any scenario.

You should have thought about that, before you started rationalizing the destruction of rights to begin with.

In no such way did I ever talk about someone's rights. I just have a right to not be around them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is interesting considering they say that gay marriage is a constitutional right when in fact marriage of any sort is not mentioned. The left just uses the constitution when it fits their agenda, but then again so do those on the right.

You may need to brush off your copy of the Constitution and check out the ninth amendment. Or here I'll save you a few minutes;

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --The Ninth Amendment

If you know that even hetereosexual marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution then you probably know that many fundamental rights were not specifically enumerated. Such as;

The Right to a Jury of Your Peers
The Right to Vote
The Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
The Right to Privacy
and as you say, The Right to Marriage

So of course there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits or limits the right of Gays to marry.

Of course the historic definition was never between a man and a man until recently. So if there is nothing, as you say, in the constitution that prohibits or limits gays from marrying then there is no right even if you want to say there is. Further if it is not in the COTUS then those types of matters are to be left to the individual states. So if you want gay marriage to be a right then quit tying your wagon to the black civil rights movement and let the people decide through a constitutional amendment. But my guess is that you don't want that because in almost, if not all, instances when the people were allowed to choose, it didn't go well for gay marriage.

BTW, note I didn't say anything insulting towards gay marriage. Marriage is between two people, period. The benefits that derive from marriage can be had by other means. But mostly the benefit of protecting a woman who marries from her husband just dumping her is not really required in gay marriage.

Nonsense.

There is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law for all couples that are eligible to enter into the marriage contract, whether same- or opposite sex. To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law that they're eligible to participate is violates the Constitution, consequently it is indeed a civil rights issue.

Moreover, there is no need for an 'amendment' to resolve the issue, as the case law is clear, settled, and accepted: the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires the states to allow all persons to access the laws of every state from which the people might benefit, including same-sex couples' access to marriage law.

Last, citizens' civil liberties are paramount, and immune from government overreach by the states.

The states have no authority whatsoever to restrict, preempt, or in any way deny American citizens their Constitutional rights in violation of applicable case law; one does not forfeit his inalienable rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil liberties determined by 'majority rule.'