"infringed" Means Exactly What?
For years us gun people have claimed that the 2A recognizes an "individual" right to own firearms. Luckily for us, but by only one vote, the highest court in America agreed with us. That was a major win for gun rights enthusiasts, even though the usual suspects here claim that it was once again a loss for gun rights. Strangely, if the SCOTUS HAD ruled against gun rights and ruled that the 2A DID NOT recognize individual rights of firearm ownership, the usual suspects here would STILL have claimed another loss for gun rights. (Although in that case they would have been correct.) But my point here is that no matter what incremental progress we make in regards to taking our gun rights back, (CCW, Castle Doctrine, Pre-Emption, Etc) the usual suspects here will NEVER admit that people like me, who are trying to avoid civil war by working within the system, are making any progress.
But even at that, now that the individual rights recognized by the 2A has to a degree been settled, many here claim that the 2A grants an totally unrestricted, unlimited absence of any and all gun control laws. Even to the point of there being no prohibition against known violent criminals legally buying and carrying firearms. The usual suspects here base their claim, not only on the 2A, but on the word in the 2A of their gun rights not being "infringed."
My question to the C., Asses here who take this position is "Have you ever bothered to actually research what that word "infringed" means?" I have. Even if you check all the available sources back to the 16th century, you will find that the word does not mean "totally uncontrolled gun rights." So, if you cannot provide evidence that the word "infringed" DOES commonly mean "totally without control" then how can you claim you have gun rights without any controls whatever?
But even at that, now that the individual rights recognized by the 2A has to a degree been settled, many here claim that the 2A grants an totally unrestricted, unlimited absence of any and all gun control laws. Even to the point of there being no prohibition against known violent criminals legally buying and carrying firearms. The usual suspects here base their claim, not only on the 2A, but on the word in the 2A of their gun rights not being "infringed."
My question to the C., Asses here who take this position is "Have you ever bothered to actually research what that word "infringed" means?" I have. Even if you check all the available sources back to the 16th century, you will find that the word does not mean "totally uncontrolled gun rights." So, if you cannot provide evidence that the word "infringed" DOES commonly mean "totally without control" then how can you claim you have gun rights without any controls whatever?
0
-
tr:
Infringe means to encroach or to trespass upon.
A right to keep arms is infringed if a State or Municipality passes a law preventing people from purchasing a certain type of firearm. Examples of this infringement are the prohibition of ARs in California and auto-loading pistols in Chicago.
A right to bear arms is infringed if a State or Municipality passes a law restricting people from carrying a firearm unless permitted by that State or Municipality. Any state with a CCW permitting process is encroaching upon and thus infringing the right to bear arms.
(The Heller decision, BTW, allows for all of the above to continue.)
The 2nd Amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be 'denied'. It specifically states 'infringed'. This means that Government cannot encroach upon the freedom of the people to purchase and carry firearms.
It is as simple as that.
CCW permitting reflects an encroachment.
Any type ban reflects an encroachment.
Being forced to petition a government created and maintained database for the permission to purchase reflects an encroachment.
It is what it is. If you do not like it, change it. Do not advocate ignoring it because other parts of our government are failing.0 -
infringe
verb (used with object) 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
-verb (used without object) 2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.
transgress
-verb (used without object) 1. to violate a law, command, moral code, etc.; offend; sin.
-verb (used with object) 2. to pass over or go beyond (a limit, boundary, etc.): to transgress bounds of prudence.
3. to go beyond the limits imposed by (a law, command, etc.); violate; infringe: to transgress the will of God.
As for the rest of your tripe TR, I am tired of talking in circles with you.
Either you are mentally challenged, or you live to stir the pot with utter nonsense.
To this end, I am sick of it, and refuse to participate in your BS any further.0 -
you continually make the mistake of bringing in the point about the violent offenders who have been released back into the public legally acquireing firearms. when it is fact that in areas where most people are allowed to carry have the least violent crime. what dont you understand about violent criminals being cowards and when these cowards are confronted by a person with equal or superior firepower on their side the criminals cease being criminals. they either become a corpse or are to chicken snit to continue when they know theres a good probability of next time the "victem" will be armed again. just let the issue rest and quit trying to stirr up trouble. 0 -
SSD.....thread.
These are getting lamer and lamer.
You should think about quitting while your behind.
Ever hear of a dictionary?
Here, I'll save you the trouble/expense.
infringed.
1. to commit a breach or infraction of;
2. to encroach or trespass;
ANY breach or infraction of......
"Shall not be infringed" is plain enough for me.0 -
What damn dictionary are you using?? 0 -
Have you ever bothered to actually research what that word "infringed" means?" I have. Even if you check all the available sources back to the 16th century, you will find that the word does not mean "totally uncontrolled gun rights."
You got that wrong. I will not delve into definitons, because a few that responded before me have already laid sufficient waste to your argument, and did so rather efficiently.
Tr, if you'll permit me, I'd like to give you a little advice.
If you're able, try looking at the 2nd Amendment through the eyes of a patriot, and you will see clearly what the Founders intended.
If you insist on always looking at it through 'Wayne goggles', your view will always be distorted.0 -
CCW? Castle Doctrine?
Tr, Do you call that progress?
CCW - Begging 'daddy' for permission to exercise a right that is yours to begin with.
Castle Doctrine - Now we have a law that tells us we can use whatever force we deem necessary to defend ourselves at any given time or place.0 -
Sorta depressing ..my `followers' keep getting ahead of me and body slamming ignorance into the dirt at every opportunity.
Course ..Trflux cannot EVER understand that to be an American REQUIRES one to be an `Individual' ..something Trflux only recognizes in squares of toilet paper.
He will NEVER understand that every man out there...not `just the Canary Ass `club' ..that is versed in the Constitution BECOMES an `Individual' ..at least, if he believes in and would live by it.
They follow NOBODY ..least of all some internet `guru' on a monitor.
Trflux is caught in an endless loop ..a loop generated and fueled by fear.
"Criminals buying guns from honest Citizens"...
He prefers the present system; Honest Citizens thwarted , hampered, hamstrung;
Mostly unable to carry a weapon to defend themselves;
Criminals buying guns off the streets for 40 bucks (according to the news last night)..mostly stolen from Citizens...and carrying at will.
He prefers the carnage of the present system to what his fevered imagination believes will happen in a free society ...from his own private hell of fear and loathing of his fellow citizens....
For those that advocate gun control suffer from a lack of trust concerning their fellow man.
That, TRFlux, is straight from the lips of your God;
Read it in the latest edition of that REAL toilet paper rag you deify ..the NRAs OWN publication ..the Rifleman.
(Standing Guard, Rifleman, October, 2008)
Read it and WEEP....if you are intelligent enough to understand even THAT.
The NRA HAS, DOES, AND CONTINUES TO ADVOCATE AND SUPPORT GUN CONTROL...therefore...by their OWN words ..they do not trust their fellow Citizens.
Why, therefore...should we trust THEM ?
They hammered the UN, obama, biden...using those words. They are entirely too STUPID to understand that they are condemned...by their own words.
They have shot themselves in the heart.
TrFlux;
Perhaps you ought to stop making an utter fool out of yourself, trying to beard strong, fierce men with your endless drivel of NRA propaganda. Nobody buys it any more...nobody with an I.Q. over 70, anyway.0 -
[;)][:D] 0 -
quote:'Wayne goggles',[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] 0 -
Number 1, I could not have said it any better. However, we all know TR, he won't let anything get in the way of his worship of his heroes. He still thinks the NRA helps and won't be disabused of the notion. HE also falsely believes we wish for 'the bad guys" to have unfettered access to firearms, where we would just rather have them in fetters so we wouldn't be forced to listen to his musings about "common sense restrictions". 0 -
quote:Originally posted by MT357
quote:'Wayne goggles',[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
Best enjoyed whilst sipping LaPerri?r.0 -
How can gun control NOT be infringement?
Did our fore fathers put "shall not infringe" in the 2A because they wanted laws against the right to bear arms? HELL NO!!!
I'm just glad I was born with comprehension skills...and here I thought most were.
Maybe I shouldn't assume something as simple as competence to be abundant. Rather a scarce rarity I suppose.
My apology tr....0 -
Don't bash the fox too hard fellows.
He is our Gerry Adams, in my opinion, and I respect him for that. You can't help but admire his tenacity, if for nothing else than to keep us riled. He fuels our angst sometimes, and that is a good thing. Maybe even intentional. [}:)]Misguided as he may sometimes be, he still requires our threat of force to back his peaceful efforts.0 -
codenamepaul:
IMO, tr fox believes in his cause and is honest and sincere. I believe that he is good for his word and that he works to advance gun rights in the manner that he thinks is best. It is people like tr fox, when they do internalize the difference between infringe and deny, that will be strong allies in the effort to re-instate the 2nd Amendment. An honest man is never a lost cause.
Anyone who puts in the time and puts up with the barbs that are thrown his way is worth saving.0 -
I agree Don, I think TR is an honorable man. Like I said. He is the Gerry Adams of our cause. All causes need one. 0 -
Well there are 4 justices on the SC that have the same beliefs that tr does.[:(] 0 -
I think trfox's head is in the right place, but it has already been demonstrated that laws affect only law-abiding citizens. Some other method should be devised to restrict criminals, perhaps a restructuring of the justice system. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
I agree Don, I think TR is an honorable man. Like I said. He is the Gerry Adams of our cause. All causes need one.
Paul:
Your analogy went over my head, my apologies.
I have always considered Gerry Adams to be the polite face of evil, a characterization I would not apply to tr fox.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Well there are 4 justices on the SC that have the same beliefs that tr does.[:(]
I would suggest that there are five justices that hold these beliefs and four that would totally vacate the 2nd if given half a chance.0 -
I agree. The four in question do not recognize the validity of the Bill of Rights at all, unless it is according to their "interpretation." 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
I agree Don, I think TR is an honorable man. Like I said. He is the Gerry Adams of our cause. All causes need one.
Paul:
Your analogy went over my head, my apologies.
I have always considered Gerry Adams to be the polite face of evil, a characterization I would not apply to tr fox.
No, but then I don't necessarily subscribe to your characterization of Gerry Adams. I would not characterize the IRA as evil. Please forgive my rudimentary understanding of that particular situation, -and please- make no bones about enlightening me about it either (I am far from close minded-especially when I am uneducated)
But then-conditions dictating-tr certainly could be the polite face of evil. Evil is, after all, a matter of perspective sometimes no?0 -
Surprisingly, I read some kind words for the ol' foxmeister. On that note I will add that there are three or four types of people in this world. One type will tell you what he is going to do long before he does it. But even then he may not do it.
Another type will NOT tell you what he is going to do before he does it. But when the time comes he will do what needs to be done.
I rest my case. Judge me as you see fit.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I rest my case. Judge me as you see fit.
It is not my place to judge, tr. My sole goal is to inform and to encourage in the hopes that as many as possible, including you, will someday see the truth.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I rest my case. Judge me as you see fit.
It is not my place to judge, tr. My sole goal is to inform and to encourage in the hopes that as many as possible, including you, will someday see the truth.[:)]
A one and only "truth" is rarely agreed upon by everyone.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I rest my case. Judge me as you see fit.
It is not my place to judge, tr. My sole goal is to inform and to encourage in the hopes that as many as possible, including you, will someday see the truth.[:)]
A one and only "truth" is rarely agreed upon by everyone.
True, but that does not change the fact that it is the truth, regardless of universal agreement, now does it.0 -
Let me ask all you C. Asses another question. When and if you go to a shooting war with your government (and by extension, against some of your fellow citizens) what will you have your "enemy" do with their firearms if and when you take prisoners?
Will you let your prisoners keep their firearms? Will you give your "enemies" their firearms back if those "enemies" promise to be good?
Because if you take and keep their firearms you will be VIOLATING THEIR CONSTITUTION RIGHTS. A violation that is the very reason you went to war with them in the first place.
So, C. Asses, how will you deal with any prisoners you might capture and what will you do with THEIR firearms?
I expect some contorted, confused responses from you asses.0 -
You asked the right question; The answer is obvious.
Those taking up weapons against the Constitution of the United States of America have forfeited their Citizenship Rights.
They will have their weapons taken...and they will be expelled from this Country that they turned their backs on.
I would go further; I would disarm you, TrFox ..for your undying support of the Beast.
You could not be trusted with the duties and responsibilities of a Citizen;
You have amply demonstrated that you do not wish the burden of that responsibility.
You are a danger to the continuing existence of the Republic. Unarmed, you present no threat to others...or yourself.
I would not attempt to censure the things you say ..for the people need to hear the evil that free speech is capable of.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
You are a danger to the continuing existence of the Republic. Unarmed, you present no threat to others...or yourself.
I would not attempt to censure the things you say ..for the people need to hear the evil that free speech is capable of.
Here is where we part differences HB.
I belive armed or not, that espousing and supporting anti-constitutional ideals/organizations are more of a threat than an armed retort. People who espouse gun control, like the NRA and it's quislings, have furthered their cause not by arms, but by the pen and people's laziness.
If there is to ever be unrest HB, anyone supporting or espousing ideas to destroy the constitution OUGHT to be tried for treason and sent to the gallows. I support disarming NO-ONE, barring jailtime and death sentence.
To answer Tr, I would disarm those guilty of crimes, and only as long as they were jailed. If/when returned to society at large, they get back ALL rights.0 -
The problem today with `free speech ` is that the socialists/fascists own it all. Either big government or big business control the sources.
I admit that is a problem; But disallowing speech places us in the same position as our enemies. I believe that the force of the Founders words...if taught widely..is plenty enough safeguard against the forces of darkness.
We ALWAYS will have the weak, the cowards, and the Quislings among us; Better to allow them to speak freely about their insane ideas then force them to bottle it up till it explodes .
Disarming them, while on the face appears to contradict the Constitution....does no such thing.
Allowing an enemy to remain armed in our own country does not make good sense.
Our enemy is attempting to disarm us for supporting the Constitution..withdrawing from them that Right seems fitting. While we actually cannot 'withdraw that Right'...only God can do that...but we damn sure can give them a choice..disarm or leave the country.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
54 comments