If one considers the American war for independence to be ancient history, then yeah sure.
And you feel it necessary to point this out because...?
If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.
Would this be acceptable or not?
You do realize that it happened BEFORE the Constitution was written and adopted?
And you do also realize it happened before the Second Amendment was written?
So again, do you have recent examples of the militia being called up?
And for those examples could you please include the list of items that each member was ordered to bring with them? Otherwise, your claim that people needs these weapons for possible militia call up is just engaging in fiction.
because it is an important part of the discussion here.
And now my turn ...... and you feel you have to ask these pointless questions to me because.......?
Yes, I know when the Battles of Lexington and Concord occurred.
No.
Hm, so the American people have needed to form themselves into militias before, but you somehow conclude that they never will have to ever do so again.
Are you sure you're a history teacher?
And it's important because...?
Because I'm trying to understand why it is you spend so much time arguing that citizens don't need to carry the same firearms as civilian police officers, yet continue to claim that you're not interested in the subject.
All one has to do is to then know the meaning of the word INFRINGED as it was used in the era of history at the time of the adoption of the Amendment to know that the Second Amendment is not at all what the gun lobby paints it to be.
Thank you for admitting you have no examples of this being done with the USA under the Constitution.
And yes, we are still under the Constitution and not the Articles of Confederation as was the case in the time period you pointed out.
Consider yourself educated on this issue by a history teacher.
Could you please quote where I stated I was not interested in "the subject" (what ever that term may mean)?
Fine by me at least its a start.
This is the definition of infringed in the 1780's. I'm not sure why you repeatedly insist otherwise, except that it fits your own agenda.
From a complete dictionary of the English language, by Thomas Sheridan:
View attachment 67140882
infringe
INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj'. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See Break.]
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]
And thank you for not attempting to deny the possibility that the people may need to form themselves into a militia in the future.
Exactly. The right must be destroyed or broken or violate or hindered to the extent that it is destroyed or broken. Just asI have been insisting all along and just like the 1828 Websters agrees with that has been posted here many times.
and here it is again.... please note that the hinder part is LITTLE USED and thus not nearly as important as the other more definitive descriptions.
My apologies for misunderstanding. So you ARE interested in the subject?
Broken and destroyed are similar, but not the same thing. Infringment doesn't mean something is destroyed. it means its integrity is altered.
Right, so what's in there then?
"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."
So you've got to have a high-fibre diet to keep your militia regular, and, of course, your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Therefore, the founding fathers gave carte blanc to every paranoid-schizophrenic to own and carry anti-personnel mines and SAW's. Now we get to Turtle's point, that that's a wee bit unreasonable, considering we humans have gotten quite efficient at projecting lead. So, therefore, despite the wording, infringement must occur, and Turtle likes to draw his arbitrary line at what police can use. Of course, some want the line arbitrary line in other places, hence all the arguing. But, going by what is there, there is no limitations at all.
In this case it means that you no longer can exercise the right.
Exactly. The right must be destroyed or broken or violate or hindered to the extent that it is destroyed or broken. Just asI have been insisting all along and just like the 1828 Websters agrees with that has been posted here many times.
"Shall not be infringed" implies that the 2nd was not to be altered, broken, destroyed, or otherwise touched. Of course it doesn't keep power-hungry politicians from doing whatever the hell they want, but they've already violated our rights. The problem is, too many people are too ignorant, or don't care (such as yourself) enough to fight to preserve it intact.
Where the **** did you get that from?
The text in the pic reads "To violate, to break laws or contracts, to destroy, to hinder"
So if the founders had written "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be violated/broken/destroyed/hindered" Other than being grammatically unsound, it would have the same meaning, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Again, what is this reference to "the subject"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?