TexasCHLforum.com

The gun community should seize the momentum of yesterday's Supreme Court decision and demand that concealed carry reciprocity also be expanded across all 50 states, and that businesses and employers nationwide should be required to accommodate legal carriers along with same-sex couples. On the state level, the 30.06 signs should be taken down while the same-sex marriages are being conducted.

http://constitutionalrightspac.com/arti ... eciprocity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ah, until the SCOTUS recognizes the fact carrying firearms are constitutional right everywhere it is public and of course on your property. Companies can still deny you carrying on their permises.

Beiruty wrote:Ah, until the SCOTUS recognizes the fact carrying firearms are constitutional right everywhere it is public and of course on your property. Companies can still deny you carrying on their permises.

Even if you're gay and NEVER EVER owned a confederate battle flag?

Just laughing (so I'm not crying). Ya can't make this stuff up.

Here's another article along the same lines. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... led-carry/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PBratton wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Ah, until the SCOTUS recognizes the fact carrying firearms are constitutional right everywhere it is public and of course on your property. Companies can still deny you carrying on their permises.

Even if you're gay and NEVER EVER owned a confederate battle flag?

Ah, Liberals would give you a heart attack if try to have a logical discussion about the constitution and constitutional rights.
1) First, they claim any constitutional right can be regulated, controlled by the state or federal government.
2) SCOTUS declare marriage is a constitutional right and they cannot let the states regulate it to be between man and women.
3) 2ndA has the 4 words "Shall not be infringed" and for the liberal those means nothing even when SCOTUS said 2nA is a personal constitutional right.

Today, a neighbor lady was congratulating everyone of her friends (on facebook) about gay marriage and sharing LGBT victory photo "Love wins". I responded, "Yeah, Polygamy is next, Love wins!"
She replied, "What a silly comment?"
I said," Nope it is not a silly comment, it is the ramification of the SCOTUS ruling, better consult a lawyer."

Beiruty wrote:


Today, a neighbor lady was congratulating everyone of her friends (on facebook) about gay marriage and sharing LGBT victory photo "Love wins". I responded, "Yeah, Polygamy is next, Love wins!"
She replied, "What a silly comment?"
I said," Nope it is not a silly comment, it is the ramification of the SCOTUS ruling, better consult a lawyer."

Hmm, one's a big enough chore for me, don't see me stepping into that voluntarily...

Beiruty wrote: Today, a neighbor lady was congratulating everyone of her friends (on facebook) about gay marriage and sharing LGBT victory photo "Love wins". I responded, "Yeah, Polygamy is next, Love wins!"
She replied, "What a silly comment?"
I said," Nope it is not a silly comment, it is the ramification of the SCOTUS ruling, better consult a lawyer."

I heard NAMBLA also wants their place in the sun now, too?

Beiruty wrote:
Ah, Liberals would give you a heart attack if try to have a logical discussion about the constitution and constitutional rights.
1) First, they claim any constitutional right can be regulated, controlled by the state or federal government.
2) SCOTUS declare marriage is a constitutional right and they cannot let the states regulate it to be between man and women.
3) 2ndA has the 4 words "Shall not be infringed" and for the liberal those means nothing even when SCOTUS said 2nA is a personal constitutional right.

Today, a neighbor lady was congratulating everyone of her friends (on facebook) about gay marriage and sharing LGBT victory photo "Love wins". I responded, "Yeah, Polygamy is next, Love wins!"
She replied, "What a silly comment?"
I said," Nope it is not a silly comment, it is the ramification of the SCOTUS ruling, better consult a lawyer."

It's a constitutional right "until" it no longer supports their agenda. I have to agree with you Beiruty, where is the line in the sand? Where does it end? I think this ruling just opens up the box.

PBratton wrote:Hmm, one's a big enough chore for me, don't see me stepping into that voluntarily...

Amen to that.

Washington DC will never uphold or enforce the Constitution. Ever.

The 3 branches of Government no longer represent "We the People" of the Several States and I really don't care what any Branch of the Federal Government says or does. Nor do I care about preserving this disgusting Union. Washington continues to push us, dismantle our identity and create turmoil at every turn by divisive actions that pit Americans against Americans. At some point the States are going to have to push back and when that happens we will have a chance of restoring our own Destinies State by State.

State Power is the last chance we have of fixing anything within our State towards Constitutional "normalcy". I believe Gregg Abbot is the right Governor at this time for Texas to say enough.

And now Washington DC is awash with an array of colorful lights. Who Cares? Abolish Washington and lets all get on down the road...

The only way I can understand the complete non-adherence to the Constitution is that progressives believe it is not a relevant document, as written, and has no authority. It is malleable and should be made to fit today's level of social, political, and global advancement and enlightenment. The process for redefining and rewriting it is by new methods and not according to the prior established procedures of amendments. The original intent is no longer valid and was written by those who only understood the time in history in which they lived. We have progressed....

Gay marriage IS in the Constitution...It's right next to the Sodomy Clause and the Abortion Clause in the 14th Amendment. I'm surprised it's taken 150 years for SCOTUS to recognize.

And in the 2nd Amendment SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, means SHALL BE INFRINGED, because that was what the founders meant, regardless of what they wrote. Thankfully we have enough wise Latinas and white males to interpret it for us serfs.

Texas_Blaze wrote:The only way I can understand the complete non-adherence to the Constitution is that progressives believe it is not a relevant document, as written, and has no authority. It is malleable and should be made to fit today's level of social, political, and global advancement and enlightenment. The process for redefining and rewriting it is by new methods and not according to the prior established procedures of amendments. The original intent is no longer valid and was written by those who only understood the time in history in which they lived. We have progressed....

That is exactly the way they think.