What was the meaning of the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment?

[Uncensored2008]

It's your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is wrong.

Because I use the actual definition of words, rather than bullshit from leftist hate sites?

The Amendment means exactly what it says. The ONLY way you Khmer Rouge members can alter that meaning is to radically redefine the English language - to modify what the meaning of "is" is.

It boils down to a prohibition against disarming the populace and nothing more.

It boils down to "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You aren't going to be allowed to jeopardize public safety because of your psychological predispositions.

Don't our words, which often speak against Dear Leader, "jeopardize public order?"

So will you not be back shortly to put "common sense restrictions on speech?"

Obviously not knowing what each of us has in our houses endangers our rulers, so "common sense restrictions" on the right to be secure in our papers and person will also follow.

The problem you have comrade, is you lack the ability to enforce your assault on civil liberty.

You will declare the law abiding to be criminals, but do you think many will comply with your edicts?

So what, you're paranoid and it's up to you to deal with it. We aren't going to make laws to cater to your problems and once the NRA influence in Congress is diminished, we're going to have lawmakers coming to their senses and passing laws saying the people don't need armor piercing bullets and these high capacity magazines.

We're paranoid, except that you actually are seeking to revoke 2nd amendment rights....

Comrade, how many shots does it take to kill someone? Can anyone really think that you will stop at restricting the number of shots in a rifle? You're a leftist, ergo stupid. But anyone with even half a brain would know that a bolt action .30-06 is infinitely more deadly than a .22 with a 20 round magazine. So how long until your thugs demand that "no one needs a rifle with the power of a .30/30" or the rest of it? Weeks? Maybe months?

We've seen you thugs work this, over and over.

What infringement are you constitutionally permitted? None. What will the people allow? None.

The days of hiding behind the 2nd Amendment are nearing an end. The people in this country want an end to the constant violence based on laws you clowns have put on the books. We've had enough of your nonsense.

You believe that with the reelection of Barack Obama, the Bill of Rights is rendered null and void.

Good luck with that, comrade.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Online Etymology Dictionary

infringe (v.)
mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from Latin infringere "to damage, break off

 

[Uncensored2008]

Please provide a quote to this effect.

He can't, he's lying.

Reagan supported restrictions on the import of fully automatic AK47 knockoffs from China.

Please cite the ruling and quote the text to this effect.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[PaulS1950]

Here is the Miller case, judgement and reviews:

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

Frank Layton and Jack Miller were charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which regulated and taxed the transfer of certain types of firearms, and required the registration of such arms. The Miller court held the following:

1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.

2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."

As noted in the Summary section, Miller has often been mis-cited. Note that in the entire text of Miller, neither the words "state militia" nor "National Guard" are to be found.

the Miller court defined the Militia as the following:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Attempting to interpret the above paragraph, a law journal article writes,
while far from clear, this passage is not inhospitable to the view that it is a private individual right to keep and bear arms which is protected. For only if there existed such a "body of citizens" in possession of "arms supplied by themselves," could they, should the need arise, be "enrolled for military discipline" to act "in concert for the common defense." (Barnett R., and Kates D., Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment, Emory Law Journal [1996].)

Commenting on the significance of the phrase "enrolled for military discipline," law professor Nelson Lund, in another law journal article explains:
This phrase does not conflict with the preceding sentence in the passage from Miller, for "enrollment" in the militia does not imply or depend on actual military service or training. Under the first Militia Act, for example, those subject to militia duty were enrolled by the local commanding officer, and then notified of that enrollment by a non-commissioned officer. § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (1792). Whether the members carried out their duties or not, they were still "enrolled." Under the statute in effect at the time Miller was decided (as in the statute in force today), enrollment was accomplished by the operation of law alone, and most members of the militia were probably not even aware that they belonged to such a body. National Defense Act, ch. 134, § 57, 39 Stat. 166, 197 (1916); 10 U.S.C. § 311(a) (1994). Thus, neither the Miller opinion nor any of the various militia statutes can be used to shore up the insupportable notion that the Second Amendment protects only a right to serve in the National Guard. (Lund, Nelson, The Past and Future of the Individual's Right to Arms, [Footnote 54], Georgia Law Review [1996].)

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court, giving the defendants a chance to provide evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun could contribute to "the efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (The Court was apparently unaware of the use of short-barreled shotguns in trench warfare during World War I. [http://nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=17] )

Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.


Now, tell me again that the "assault" weapons ban does not violate the second amendment...

 

[emilynghiem]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"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."[/QUOThE]

It's supposed to mean not depriving individuals of life liberty or property (later changed to pursuit of happiness) "without due process". So only if you have committed some crime or abuse, and through due process are held to the law, then you can lose your rights under laws to the same degree that you violated these. But citizens who have not committed crimes, nor have any intentions to, should not be assumed to be criminal and deprived of rights as a pre-emptive measure; especially to the point of empowering federal govt to make such decisions, including determining if people have a mental medical issue that merits taking their guns away -- any regulation on that level could be decided and determined by district or state, where people have direct voting power, but not by federal govt and certainly not by the top executive by order without any checks and balances by the people.

We all know people have always abused force/coercion, whether by bullying or weaponry or both, to oppress the democratic process to go "their way." Collective authority, whether by church/state/corporations, always runs a risk of being abused this way. So the Bill of Rights was written as a condition on ratifying the Constitution, to establish rights of individual people and states the federal government could not trump, but where federal powers are limited to only the areas outlined in the Constitution.

Instead of infringing on anyone's rights and freedoms by abuse of collective power; following "due process" means establishing first that a person violated rights/freedoms/laws, and then acting accordingly to address, especially before depriving them of rights or freedoms ACCORDING to the laws already agreed upon.

The problem being compounded here is (a) not everyone has agreed on the laws being imposed by federal govt, that some groups are claiming are constitutional under the contracts and process of govt while others are rejecting these saying they are not constitutional to begin with; and then (b) trying to further impose or enforce such contested laws by use of taxation, mandates, threat of force or penalty/punishment, and now threat of restricting or removing the access to armed defense, makes the problem even worse!!!

There is nothing wrong with passing laws or rulings using democratic/due process.

But there is something conflicting with law to do so under
(a) political duress where majority rule of one party monopolizes the process to exclude and discriminate against the consent/interests of dissenting members of the public or other parties (b) using positions of govt authority to then change or alter the laws or interpretations which then no longer reflect the consent of the entire public which the govt is supposed to be representing and including equally under the 1st and 14th amendments.
(See also Code of Ethics for Govt Service Public Law 96-303 where government especially federal officials are not supposed to put party interests above Constitutional laws; thus all issues contested by political or religious parties should be decided by consensus to avoid favoring any one group over another personally instead of representing all views equally.)

Problems voiced by one group in opposition to another are not solved by excluding a whole class of people in order to overrule dissenters; that level of political bias enforced by party politics is hardly different from religious discrimination against individuals by imposing beliefs abusing govt authority to do so under penalty of law. So we have both 1st, 14th, 10th amendment violations going on in addition to the issue at hand where believers in freedom to bear arms are threatened with abridging their political beliefs in the Constitution which are equally protected under the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

If Obama cannot resolve this issue Constitutionally, he proves he has no business meddling in law enforcement and government, where the job requires representing the interests of all people equally, regardless of party or religious affiliation; if he cannot do the job to represent and protect the interests of all people, he needs to step down or step aside and let others enforce the Constitution who at least have a clue what the laws mean, regardless which opinions you agree with personally or not. You cannot let your personal political or religious beliefs color or bias your decisions as govt or else you are violating the terms and spirit of the Contract.

 

[Dubya]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"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."

It's supposed to mean not depriving individuals of life liberty or property (later changed to pursuit of happiness) "without due process". So only if you have committed some crime or abuse, and through due process are held to the law, then you can lose your rights under laws to the same degree that you violated these. But citizens who have not committed crimes, nor have any intentions to, should not be assumed to be criminal and deprived of rights as a pre-emptive measure; especially to the point of empowering federal govt to make such decisions, including determining if people have a mental medical issue that merits taking their guns away -- any regulation on that level could be decided and determined by district or state, where people have direct voting power, but not by federal govt and certainly not by the top executive by order without any checks and balances by the people.

We all know people have always abused force/coercion, whether by bullying or weaponry or both, to oppress the democratic process to go "their way." Collective authority, whether by church/state/corporations, always runs a risk of being abused this way. So the Bill of Rights was written as a condition on ratifying the Constitution, to establish rights of individual people and states the federal government could not trump, but where federal powers are limited to only the areas outlined in the Constitution.

Instead of infringing on anyone's rights and freedoms by abuse of collective power; following "due process" means establishing first that a person violated rights/freedoms/laws, and then acting accordingly to address, especially before depriving them of rights or freedoms ACCORDING to the laws already agreed upon.

The problem being compounded here is (a) not everyone has agreed on the laws being imposed by federal govt, that some groups are claiming are constitutional under the contracts and process of govt while others are rejecting these saying they are not constitutional to begin with; and then (b) trying to further impose or enforce such contested laws by use of taxation, mandates, threat of force or penalty/punishment, and now threat of restricting or removing the access to armed defense, makes the problem even worse!!!

There is nothing wrong with passing laws or rulings using democratic/due process.

But there is something conflicting with law to do so under
(a) political duress where majority rule of one party monopolizes the process to exclude and discriminate against the consent/interests of dissenting members of the public or other parties (b) using positions of govt authority to then change or alter the laws or interpretations which then no longer reflect the consent of the entire public which the govt is supposed to be representing and including equally under the 1st and 14th amendments.
(See also Code of Ethics for Govt Service Public Law 96-303 where government especially federal officials are not supposed to put party interests above Constitutional laws; thus all issues contested by political or religious parties should be decided by consensus to avoid favoring any one group over another personally instead of representing all views equally.)

Problems voiced by one group in opposition to another are not solved by excluding a whole class of people in order to overrule dissenters; that level of political bias enforced by party politics is hardly different from religious discrimination against individuals by imposing beliefs abusing govt authority to do so under penalty of law. So we have both 1st, 14th, 10th amendment violations going on in addition to the issue at hand where believers in freedom to bear arms are threatened with abridging their political beliefs in the Constitution which are equally protected under the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

If Obama cannot resolve this issue Constitutionally, he proves he has no business meddling in law enforcement and government, where the job requires representing the interests of all people equally, regardless of party or religious affiliation; if he cannot do the job to represent and protect the interests of all people, he needs to step down or step aside and let others enforce the Constitution who at least have a clue what the laws mean, regardless which opinions you agree with personally or not. You cannot let your personal political or religious beliefs color or bias your decisions as govt or else you are violating the terms and spirit of the Contract.

I picked the word infringed for a very good reason and have explained it. The meaning of infringed in those days isn't the same as today. It had a stronger meaning closer to "to destroy" and not a transgression. The right you right-wingers talk about was really the right of the people not to be disarmed. It doesn't mean a weapon can't be removed for public safety.

 

[Charles_Main]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"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."

If you don't know what it means, you are beyond help.

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[Charles_Main]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"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."

It's supposed to mean not depriving individuals of life liberty or property (later changed to pursuit of happiness) "without due process". So only if you have committed some crime or abuse, and through due process are held to the law, then you can lose your rights under laws to the same degree that you violated these. But citizens who have not committed crimes, nor have any intentions to, should not be assumed to be criminal and deprived of rights as a pre-emptive measure; especially to the point of empowering federal govt to make such decisions, including determining if people have a mental medical issue that merits taking their guns away -- any regulation on that level could be decided and determined by district or state, where people have direct voting power, but not by federal govt and certainly not by the top executive by order without any checks and balances by the people.

We all know people have always abused force/coercion, whether by bullying or weaponry or both, to oppress the democratic process to go "their way." Collective authority, whether by church/state/corporations, always runs a risk of being abused this way. So the Bill of Rights was written as a condition on ratifying the Constitution, to establish rights of individual people and states the federal government could not trump, but where federal powers are limited to only the areas outlined in the Constitution.

Instead of infringing on anyone's rights and freedoms by abuse of collective power; following "due process" means establishing first that a person violated rights/freedoms/laws, and then acting accordingly to address, especially before depriving them of rights or freedoms ACCORDING to the laws already agreed upon.

The problem being compounded here is (a) not everyone has agreed on the laws being imposed by federal govt, that some groups are claiming are constitutional under the contracts and process of govt while others are rejecting these saying they are not constitutional to begin with; and then (b) trying to further impose or enforce such contested laws by use of taxation, mandates, threat of force or penalty/punishment, and now threat of restricting or removing the access to armed defense, makes the problem even worse!!!

There is nothing wrong with passing laws or rulings using democratic/due process.

But there is something conflicting with law to do so under
(a) political duress where majority rule of one party monopolizes the process to exclude and discriminate against the consent/interests of dissenting members of the public or other parties (b) using positions of govt authority to then change or alter the laws or interpretations which then no longer reflect the consent of the entire public which the govt is supposed to be representing and including equally under the 1st and 14th amendments.
(See also Code of Ethics for Govt Service Public Law 96-303 where government especially federal officials are not supposed to put party interests above Constitutional laws; thus all issues contested by political or religious parties should be decided by consensus to avoid favoring any one group over another personally instead of representing all views equally.)

Problems voiced by one group in opposition to another are not solved by excluding a whole class of people in order to overrule dissenters; that level of political bias enforced by party politics is hardly different from religious discrimination against individuals by imposing beliefs abusing govt authority to do so under penalty of law. So we have both 1st, 14th, 10th amendment violations going on in addition to the issue at hand where believers in freedom to bear arms are threatened with abridging their political beliefs in the Constitution which are equally protected under the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

If Obama cannot resolve this issue Constitutionally, he proves he has no business meddling in law enforcement and government, where the job requires representing the interests of all people equally, regardless of party or religious affiliation; if he cannot do the job to represent and protect the interests of all people, he needs to step down or step aside and let others enforce the Constitution who at least have a clue what the laws mean, regardless which opinions you agree with personally or not. You cannot let your personal political or religious beliefs color or bias your decisions as govt or else you are violating the terms and spirit of the Contract.

I picked the word infringed for a very good reason and have explained it. The meaning of infringed in those days isn't the same as today. It had a stronger meaning closer to "to destroy" and not a transgression. The right you right-wingers talk about was really the right of the people not to be disarmed. It doesn't mean a weapon can't be removed for public safety.

Link to your special revised meaning of the word?

lol It meant the same thing then as today, it shall not be impeded, or removed. Period.

 

[Dubya]

It's supposed to mean not depriving individuals of life liberty or property (later changed to pursuit of happiness) "without due process". So only if you have committed some crime or abuse, and through due process are held to the law, then you can lose your rights under laws to the same degree that you violated these. But citizens who have not committed crimes, nor have any intentions to, should not be assumed to be criminal and deprived of rights as a pre-emptive measure; especially to the point of empowering federal govt to make such decisions, including determining if people have a mental medical issue that merits taking their guns away -- any regulation on that level could be decided and determined by district or state, where people have direct voting power, but not by federal govt and certainly not by the top executive by order without any checks and balances by the people.

We all know people have always abused force/coercion, whether by bullying or weaponry or both, to oppress the democratic process to go "their way." Collective authority, whether by church/state/corporations, always runs a risk of being abused this way. So the Bill of Rights was written as a condition on ratifying the Constitution, to establish rights of individual people and states the federal government could not trump, but where federal powers are limited to only the areas outlined in the Constitution.

Instead of infringing on anyone's rights and freedoms by abuse of collective power; following "due process" means establishing first that a person violated rights/freedoms/laws, and then acting accordingly to address, especially before depriving them of rights or freedoms ACCORDING to the laws already agreed upon.

The problem being compounded here is (a) not everyone has agreed on the laws being imposed by federal govt, that some groups are claiming are constitutional under the contracts and process of govt while others are rejecting these saying they are not constitutional to begin with; and then (b) trying to further impose or enforce such contested laws by use of taxation, mandates, threat of force or penalty/punishment, and now threat of restricting or removing the access to armed defense, makes the problem even worse!!!

There is nothing wrong with passing laws or rulings using democratic/due process.

But there is something conflicting with law to do so under
(a) political duress where majority rule of one party monopolizes the process to exclude and discriminate against the consent/interests of dissenting members of the public or other parties (b) using positions of govt authority to then change or alter the laws or interpretations which then no longer reflect the consent of the entire public which the govt is supposed to be representing and including equally under the 1st and 14th amendments.
(See also Code of Ethics for Govt Service Public Law 96-303 where government especially federal officials are not supposed to put party interests above Constitutional laws; thus all issues contested by political or religious parties should be decided by consensus to avoid favoring any one group over another personally instead of representing all views equally.)

Problems voiced by one group in opposition to another are not solved by excluding a whole class of people in order to overrule dissenters; that level of political bias enforced by party politics is hardly different from religious discrimination against individuals by imposing beliefs abusing govt authority to do so under penalty of law. So we have both 1st, 14th, 10th amendment violations going on in addition to the issue at hand where believers in freedom to bear arms are threatened with abridging their political beliefs in the Constitution which are equally protected under the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

If Obama cannot resolve this issue Constitutionally, he proves he has no business meddling in law enforcement and government, where the job requires representing the interests of all people equally, regardless of party or religious affiliation; if he cannot do the job to represent and protect the interests of all people, he needs to step down or step aside and let others enforce the Constitution who at least have a clue what the laws mean, regardless which opinions you agree with personally or not. You cannot let your personal political or religious beliefs color or bias your decisions as govt or else you are violating the terms and spirit of the Contract.

I picked the word infringed for a very good reason and have explained it. The meaning of infringed in those days isn't the same as today. It had a stronger meaning closer to "to destroy" and not a transgression. The right you right-wingers talk about was really the right of the people not to be disarmed. It doesn't mean a weapon can't be removed for public safety.

Link to your special revised meaning of the word?

lol It meant the same thing then as today, it shall not be impeded, or removed. Period.

It's been linked and posted. It's called a dictionary that has the obsolete definition.

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The meaning of the 2nd Amendment was to not disarm the populace. That's also supported by what the Founders said. That's why the thread was started, because some people don't know the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment and it's because of confusion involving the word infringed. Get the picture?

 

[candycorn]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"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."

Its the reason that the only way to mold society is through taxes. We tax the hell out of cigarettes and therefore youth smoking is down, smoking in general is down, and we have a healthier society as a result.

We should do that with guns and ammo--impose a "mayhem tax" to correct the societal ills that that they alone create.

It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights to acquire as many guns as they want while ensuring that the destruction they cause will be some what insured against.

Meanwhile, the municipalities should also levy taxes for these armed guards to partrol the schools, every church (Sunday school), mosque, temple, etc...armed escorts of school buses, and, finally, all day care centers. When the constituents ask why, simply point make a gun with your thumb and finger and say, "This is the price of freedom".

 

[Dubya]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"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."

Its the reason that the only way to mold society is through taxes. We tax the hell out of cigarettes and therefore youth smoking is down, smoking in general is down, and we have a healthier society as a result.

We should do that with guns and ammo--impose a "mayhem tax" to correct the societal ills that that they alone create.

It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights to acquire as many guns as they want while ensuring that the destruction they cause will be some what insured against.

Meanwhile, the municipalities should also levy taxes for these armed guards to partrol the schools, every church (Sunday school), mosque, temple, etc...armed escorts of school buses, and, finally, all day care centers. When the constituents ask why, simply point make a gun with your thumb and finger and say, "This is the price of freedom".

I believe the value of the human life is worth more than any amount of revenue. I prefer my suggestions that will inconvenience a gun owner an hour or so a year, but it will eventually pay off in peace of mind as guns are removed from criminals.

 

[Charles_Main]

I picked the word infringed for a very good reason and have explained it. The meaning of infringed in those days isn't the same as today. It had a stronger meaning closer to "to destroy" and not a transgression. The right you right-wingers talk about was really the right of the people not to be disarmed. It doesn't mean a weapon can't be removed for public safety.

Link to your special revised meaning of the word?

lol It meant the same thing then as today, it shall not be impeded, or removed. Period.

It's been linked and posted. It's called a dictionary that has the obsolete definition.

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The meaning of the 2nd Amendment was to not disarm the populace. That's also supported by what the Founders said. That's why the thread was started, because some people don't know the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment and it's because of confusion involving the word infringed. Get the picture?

The only Confusion about the Definition of the word is coming from a left wing fucking wack job.

 

[Charles_Main]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"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."

Its the reason that the only way to mold society is through taxes. We tax the hell out of cigarettes and therefore youth smoking is down, smoking in general is down, and we have a healthier society as a result.

We should do that with guns and ammo--impose a "mayhem tax" to correct the societal ills that that they alone create.

It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights to acquire as many guns as they want while ensuring that the destruction they cause will be some what insured against.

Meanwhile, the municipalities should also levy taxes for these armed guards to partrol the schools, every church (Sunday school), mosque, temple, etc...armed escorts of school buses, and, finally, all day care centers. When the constituents ask why, simply point make a gun with your thumb and finger and say, "This is the price of freedom".

The fact that anyone thinks it is our Federal Governments job to "mold our society" by any means, is very disturbing to me.

 

[Dubya]

Link to your special revised meaning of the word?

lol It meant the same thing then as today, it shall not be impeded, or removed. Period.

It's been linked and posted. It's called a dictionary that has the obsolete definition.

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The meaning of the 2nd Amendment was to not disarm the populace. That's also supported by what the Founders said. That's why the thread was started, because some people don't know the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment and it's because of confusion involving the word infringed. Get the picture?

The only Confusion about the Definition of the word is coming from a left wing fucking wack job.

Figure it out, you are the dumb ones. You are the idiots allowing military weapons on our streets and then justifying your need for these weapons by the violence they cause. You are the idiots who oppose any law to make our world a better place. You won't learn the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, because you don't want to learn. You're anarchists, you're against government and the people of America. You aren't a patriot.

 

[Dubya]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"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."

Its the reason that the only way to mold society is through taxes. We tax the hell out of cigarettes and therefore youth smoking is down, smoking in general is down, and we have a healthier society as a result.

We should do that with guns and ammo--impose a "mayhem tax" to correct the societal ills that that they alone create.

It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights to acquire as many guns as they want while ensuring that the destruction they cause will be some what insured against.

Meanwhile, the municipalities should also levy taxes for these armed guards to partrol the schools, every church (Sunday school), mosque, temple, etc...armed escorts of school buses, and, finally, all day care centers. When the constituents ask why, simply point make a gun with your thumb and finger and say, "This is the price of freedom".

The fact that anyone thinks it is our Federal Governments job to "mold our society" by any means, is very disturbing to me.

You have never read the part of the Constitution giving authority to provide for the general welfare, have you? It's beyond your intellectual capacity to believe that people have governments to solve society's problems. Like I said, you're an anarchist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its the reason that the only way to mold society is through taxes. We tax the hell out of cigarettes and therefore youth smoking is down, smoking in general is down, and we have a healthier society as a result.

We should do that with guns and ammo--impose a "mayhem tax" to correct the societal ills that that they alone create.

It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights to acquire as many guns as they want while ensuring that the destruction they cause will be some what insured against.

Meanwhile, the municipalities should also levy taxes for these armed guards to partrol the schools, every church (Sunday school), mosque, temple, etc...armed escorts of school buses, and, finally, all day care centers. When the constituents ask why, simply point make a gun with your thumb and finger and say, "This is the price of freedom".

The fact that anyone thinks it is our Federal Governments job to "mold our society" by any means, is very disturbing to me.

You have never read the part of the Constitution giving authority to provide for the general welfare, have you? It's beyond your intellectual capacity to believe that people have governments to solve society's problems. Like I said, you're an anarchist.

Still waiting for that citation.
I figure you havenbt yet responded to my request fior same because you know you've been caught in a lie and have no desire to prove it further.

 

[Dubya]

Online Etymology Dictionary

infringe (v.)
mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from Latin infringere "to damage, break off

Actually the Latin is to destroy and the Medievel Latin is to break, like you dropped a cup and it shattered. It was a strong word in 1789 and it's a weak word now.

I took Latin in high school for two years and they did away with it in my Junior year. Latin was fundamental for an education for well over a thousand years, because many of the words in languages are derived from Latin.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"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."

Its the reason that the only way to mold society is through taxes. We tax the hell out of cigarettes and therefore youth smoking is down, smoking in general is down, and we have a healthier society as a result.

We should do that with guns and ammo--impose a "mayhem tax" to correct the societal ills that that they alone create.

It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights to acquire as many guns as they want while ensuring that the destruction they cause will be some what insured against.

Meanwhile, the municipalities should also levy taxes for these armed guards to partrol the schools, every church (Sunday school), mosque, temple, etc...armed escorts of school buses, and, finally, all day care centers. When the constituents ask why, simply point make a gun with your thumb and finger and say, "This is the price of freedom".

I believe the value of the human life is worth more than any amount of revenue. I prefer my suggestions that will inconvenience a gun owner an hour or so a year, but it will eventually pay off in peace of mind as guns are removed from criminals.

Life in prison for a gun crime would do the same thing and only inconvenience the actual criminals

 

[Dubya]

Its the reason that the only way to mold society is through taxes. We tax the hell out of cigarettes and therefore youth smoking is down, smoking in general is down, and we have a healthier society as a result.

We should do that with guns and ammo--impose a "mayhem tax" to correct the societal ills that that they alone create.

It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights to acquire as many guns as they want while ensuring that the destruction they cause will be some what insured against.

Meanwhile, the municipalities should also levy taxes for these armed guards to partrol the schools, every church (Sunday school), mosque, temple, etc...armed escorts of school buses, and, finally, all day care centers. When the constituents ask why, simply point make a gun with your thumb and finger and say, "This is the price of freedom".

I believe the value of the human life is worth more than any amount of revenue. I prefer my suggestions that will inconvenience a gun owner an hour or so a year, but it will eventually pay off in peace of mind as guns are removed from criminals.

Life in prison for a gun crime would do the same thing and only inconvenience the actual criminals

Do right-winger ever demonstrate having good reasoning skills? In the old days they did, but when you look around at the idiots who call themselves right-wing on the internet, they think their fantasy world trumps facts. Consider this table:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 3 - Crime in the United States 2009

That is an expanded homicide table which includes homicide of any kind, but it parallels homicide by gun. There were 15,760 total homicides in 2009. When the offender is evaluated by gender there are 4,172 unknows and when evaluated by race there are 4,339 unknowns. That data makes sense, because it is easier to determine gender than race. Those numbers come out to 26.5% and 27.5% respectively. That means law enforcement doesn't even have a clue who committed those murders. Now, let's look at the data:

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

In 2009, there were 9,199 homicide by total firearms. You will notice that the numbers of all homicide has been declining during the years of the data listed. If we use the smaller of the unknown numbers where the offenders gender wasn't even known, that comes out to 2438 homicides by total firearms in 2009. If a data base of ballistics tests for all guns existed, the criminal would have left a clue in the body of the victim. Common sense also says that people aren't going to want to shoot someone with a gun with a ballistics test on record. There are criminals like suicide bombers, but they are few and most criminals won't do a crime, if they believe they can't get away with it.

If we had a system of universal background checks and universal renewable registration of all firearms, which included ballistics testing, people could have nearly any gun they wanted. Society could decide certain weapons pose more danger to society and make them Title II weapons, like they already have with some. People could work out a system and behave like reasonable people to make laws that would aid law enforcement and still get what they wanted. People wouldn't be living like they are now in a climate of fear and buying guns to protect themselves.