Abridge 1st Amendment and infringe, 2nd Amendment, what does it mean? (1 Viewer)

[Sampson Simpson]

yep they do doesn't mean that you get to reinterpret them to mean something else
also the constitution isn't a social contract. It is a document of governance.

it tells the government what it can and can't do.
it is pretty clear in what it states as well.

No it isn't, why do people make that stupid comment. nothing is explicitly defined. Words do not just have one meaning, particularly how words are strong together have different interpretations. Most of the practice of law deals with arguing over the meaning of the laws, the contract, etc. That's why legal documents are often so wordy, everything has to be thought out to be clear your intent, and even then people challenge it.

Most amendments are very short, and not clear. What is meant by well regulated militia? What about arm? "what about shall not be infringed" The constitution is not clearly stated in that regard

 

[ludin]

No it isn't, why do people make that stupid comment. nothing is explicitly defined. Words do not just have one meaning, particularly how words are strong together have different interpretations.

i wonder the same myself why people like you get into this tit for tat stuff when you know you are wrong about it.
actually it is. the constitution is very clear on a number of issues. actually the meanings of words deal with the context in which they are written so there goes that argument out the window.
only if you want to be dishonest.

Most of the practice of law deals with arguing over the meaning of the laws, the contract, etc. That's why legal documents are often so wordy, everything has to be thought out to be clear your intent, and even then people challenge it.

that is because most people have thrown commonsense out the window. If the constitution states that something is a right then it is a right. no matter if you like that right or not.

Most amendments are very short, and not clear. What is meant by well regulated militia? What about arm? "what about shall not be infringed" The constitution is not clearly stated in that regard

Actually it is unless you want to be dishonest.

the 2nd amendment was a direct result and the check point against a standing army. The 2nd amendment was also put in place so that people have the ability to defend themselves and protect themselves.
why are you hacking it apart instead of quoting the whole thing?

because that would require an honest debate.
sorry i have a right to arm myself. you have a right to not arm yourself.
you don't have a right to disarm me.

 

[Hypothetical]

simple judicial activism and special pleading.

what do you do in any conflict of laws? Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary, not the unorganized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Totally have to disagree.

the Bill of Rights is not there to limit the PEOPLE, it limits the federal government. it is saying that SINCE we believe a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the government shall not infringe on the citizenry's right to bear arms.

the bearing of arms by the citizenry is not dependent on being in a militia, it is merely the reasoning for such a right.


otherwise, why did they allow all citizens to have weapons back then and throughout the ages? regardless of whether they were in the militia? they sure as hell didn't enforce it as a dependent clause or even think of doing so.

 

[danielpalos]

yep they do doesn't mean that you get to reinterpret them to mean something else
also the constitution isn't a social contract. It is a document of governance.

it tells the government what it can and can't do.
it is pretty clear in what it states as well.

the first clause must mean something. the right wing cannot appeal to ignorance of it.

what do you do in any conflict of laws? Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary, not the unorganized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[danielpalos]

Totally have to disagree.

the Bill of Rights is not there to limit the PEOPLE,

this is the question:

what do you do in any conflict of laws? Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary, not the unorganized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Hypothetical]

this is the question:

what do you do in any conflict of laws? Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary, not the unorganized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

It deems a well regulated militia necessary, but that has no bearing in saying that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no conflict... and it was never used throughout the history of the US, in practice, as if there was a conflict.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

i wonder the same myself why people like you get into this tit for tat stuff when you know you are wrong about it.
actually it is. the constitution is very clear on a number of issues. actually the meanings of words deal with the context in which they are written so there goes that argument out the window.
only if you want to be dishonest.

You do nothing to refute any of my arguments, you just repeat the same incorrect thing with nothing to back it up, and a

that is because most people have thrown commonsense out the window. If the constitution states that something is a right then it is a right. no matter if you like that right or not.

Sorry, still no argument. You refuse to address anything. Are you seriously that stupid that you think repeating the same thing over and over makes it true? Define what arms mean? Why can't I have a rocket launcher or a grenade? What is infringed? Isn't it infringed when you can't bring a gun on a plane or courtroom or other places? Words have different meanings and interpretations. Any contract dispute argues the meaning of words, so don't tell me words have one and only one clear meaning, they do not

Actually it is unless you want to be dishonest.

the 2nd amendment was a direct result and the check point against a standing army. The 2nd amendment was also put in place so that people have the ability to defend themselves and protect themselves.
why are you hacking it apart instead of quoting the whole thing?

because that would require an honest debate.
sorry i have a right to arm myself. you have a right to not arm yourself.
you don't have a right to disarm me.

Again, WTF does this have to do with anything I said? I don't care what he second amendment was there for, what it says and how its interpreted is all that matters. AGain, you know nothing about law apparently

Sorry, you haven't debated a single thing, you have not supported a single argument you made, you haven't refuted anything I've said. YOu have no idea what debate is, I provided my reasoning, you just repeat the same incorrect point and say I'm wrong. It's laughable you think you have debated anything

 

[ludin]

You do nothing to refute any of my arguments, you just repeat the same incorrect thing with nothing to back it up.

You the one making the argument. It is up for you to support your argument which you didn't.
You simply stated you opinion. Actually I did refute your argument.
It was quite easy to do.

Sorry, still no argument. You refuse to address anything. Are you seriously that stupid that you think repeating the same thing over and over makes it true? Define what arms mean? Why can't I have a rocket launcher or a grenade? What is infringed? Isn't it infringed when you can't bring a gun on a plane or courtroom or other places? Words have different meanings and interpretations. Any contract dispute argues the meaning of words, so don't tell me words have one and only one clear meaning, they do not

Sorry you don't get to declare what is an argument and what is not.
No it's true because it is true.

Actually you can have those things if you are willing to pay for them. Hey are completely legal to own.
You have no clue what you are talking about. That is the problem with people with you thinking.
You seriously need to educate yourself on this subject before engaging in a debate about it.
Again they do if you want to be honest. If you want to be dishonest then they blue can be green even
If it is blue.

Arms = weapons. That was pretty simple.
Also it isn't infringed the phrase is shall not be infringed.

Which means that it can't be limited.
Since the word infringed means to limit or undermine giving the context in which it is used.

It is why we have this thing called a dictionary.

Again, WTF does this have to do with anything I said? I don't care what he second amendment was there for, what it says and how its interpreted is all that matters. AGain, you know nothing about law apparently

Sorry, you haven't debated a single thing, you have not supported a single argument you made, you haven't refuted anything I've said. YOu have no idea what debate is, I provided my reasoning, you just repeat the same incorrect point and say I'm wrong. It's laughable you think you have debated anything

Actually I have. You simply can't counter it because as usual you want to be dishonest.
No you provided you opinion.

Now you are projecting.

The fact is the constitution is clear. The framers designed it as such.
The entire purpose of the judicial system is to uphold and protect yet
More and more courts think they have the power to change the constitution through interpretation.
They don't there is only one process to change the constitution.

 

[ludin]

the first clause must mean something. the right wing cannot appeal to ignorance of it.

what do you do in any conflict of laws? Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are declared necessary, not the unorganized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The first clause is typical of old English writing.
It is an introduction to the topic. It is not the qualifier of the second part.
Nor is the second half of the amendment dependent on the first.

There is no and clause in there you made that up.
The right doesn't belong to the militia. The right belongs to the people.
The limitation is on government.

 

[OscarLevant]

The 1st Amendment says that free speech shall not be abridged and yet the SCOTUS says that there are certain things you can not say, like yelling fire in a crowded theater due to a safety issue. The 2nd Amendment as now interpreted by SCOTUS says that owning arms is an individual right and it shall not be infringed. Yet, even Scalia said that reasonable guns laws would pass constitutional muster. The law outlawing automatic weapons seems to be one of those lwas that have passed. So what does abridged and infringed actually mean in these two amendments to the constitution? Does the public safety override the words abridged and infringed?

Abridged means to shorten (a book or text), but in law it means to curtail or suppress ( rights/priviledges) so 1A probably takes the latter meaning.

whereas infringe means to undermine, encroach, trample on, etc In Copyright Law infringe means to steal the artistic work of another, but that's encroachment on another's work, hence the term.

The only thing 2A guarantees is the right to own a firearm, it doesn't' say you have the right to own any particular quantity, type, caliber, etc.


To have used the term "infringe" on speech would have been confusing. Do they mean steal? No. So, for speech abridge makes a lot more sense, because speech can be suppressed, held back, curtailed. But a right to own something, that right can be infringed and that term makes more sense for 2A. Noting this really gives us the understanding how deliberate the Constitution framers were with their word choices.

 

[OscarLevant]

The US Military is the strongest military in the world. Every one of its members is sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States, against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

So I will say it again. A well regulated Militia IS NO LONGER necessary to the security of THIS free State.

So, to interpret 2A correctly, noting the fact you just described, 2A is therefore moot, as it can no longer apply.

But, Scalia decided he didnt want to give up his hunting rifle, and modified is strict constructionist stance on that particular ruling.

 

[DickBanks]

So, to interpret 2A correctly, noting the fact you just described, 2A is therefore moot, as it can no longer apply.

But, Scalia decided he didnt want to give up his hunting rifle, and modified is strict constructionist stance on that particular ruling.

I read it differently. To me the first clause is a statement, not an "if-then." So as long as the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land, it remains relevant. Not sure how anyone can dispute people's right to own and carry AR-15s as long as it exists.

The blood of 20 first-graders SCREAMS for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. We HAVE to take action. God is watching.

 

[Hypothetical]

Abridged means to shorten (a book or text), but in law it means to curtail or suppress ( rights/priviledges) so 1A probably takes the latter meaning.

whereas infringe means to undermine, encroach, trample on, etc In Copyright Law infringe means to steal the artistic work of another, but that's encroachment on another's work, hence the term.

The only thing 2A guarantees is the right to own a firearm, it doesn't' say you have the right to own any particular quantity, type, caliber, etc.


To have used the term "infringe" on speech would have been confusing. Do they mean steal? No. So, for speech abridge makes a lot more sense, because speech can be suppressed, held back, curtailed. But a right to own something, that right can be infringed and that term makes more sense for 2A. Noting this really gives us the understanding how deliberate the Constitution framers were with their word choices.

Definition of infringe in English:



infringe
VERBinfringing, infringed, infringes
[WITH OBJECT]
1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)

‘making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright’
More example sentencesSynonyms
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

‘such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties’
no object ‘I wouldn't infringe on his privacy’


the dictionary states infringe as meaning 'act so as to limit' which would include the act of banning certain types.

if you all want the 2nd amendment changed, then work to repeal or further amend it, not play around with the verbage.

 

[danielpalos]

It deems a well regulated militia necessary, but that has no bearing in saying that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no conflict... and it was never used throughout the history of the US, in practice, as if there was a conflict.

You are confusing two separate issues. Our Second Amendment is Only about the End, not the Means.

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions and available in our federal Constitution via Due Process.

 

[Hypothetical]

You are confusing two separate issues. Our Second Amendment is Only about the End, not the Means.

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions and available in our federal Constitution via Due Process.

If you are saying what I think you are saying, I have to disagree with this as well. The constitution and it's amendments are not there to be litigated. They are Plainly stated and are there to protect against government overreach and corruption to usurp individual rights and thus are immutable without a large majority of the country deciding to appeal or amend them. That is their purpose.

 

[OscarLevant]

Definition of infringe in English:



infringe
VERBinfringing, infringed, infringes
[WITH OBJECT]
1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)

‘making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright’
More example sentencesSynonyms
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

‘such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties’
no object ‘I wouldn't infringe on his privacy’


the dictionary states infringe as meaning 'act so as to limit' which would include the act of banning certain types.

if you all want the 2nd amendment changed, then work to repeal or further amend it, not play around with the verbage.

Thank for this redundant post, I said exactly the same thing insofar as the definition of infringe, using a different dictionary.

I don't think the OP had your second point as the subject of this thread. Though it was in another thread I started, where I agreed with JPS that the only way to regulate guns at the state level is to repeal 2A, or at the very minimum, update to reflect modern times.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Definition of infringe in English:



infringe
VERBinfringing, infringed, infringes
[WITH OBJECT]
1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)

‘making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright’
More example sentencesSynonyms
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

‘such widespread surveillance could infringe personal liberties’
no object ‘I wouldn't infringe on his privacy’


the dictionary states infringe as meaning 'act so as to limit' which would include the act of banning certain types.

if you all want the 2nd amendment changed, then work to repeal or further amend it, not play around with the verbage.

Yet, there is "act so as to limit" that occurs like examples I stated, so apparently the courts don't see that as infringing. Also, arms is not defined, so allowing people to own a standard rifle but not a military grade weapon (grenades and rocket launchers are already not allowed) does nto infringe their right to have arms (rifles, shotguns, handguns)

 

[OscarLevant]

Yet, there is "act so as to limit" that occurs like examples I stated, so apparently the courts don't see that as infringing. Also, arms is not defined, so allowing people to own a standard rifle but not a military grade weapon (grenades and rocket launchers are already not allowed) does nto infringe their right to have arms (rifles, shotguns, handguns)

I believe that is correct; 2A applies to the singular right to own a firearm, nothing more, it does not assure the right to any specific quantity, type, caliber, etc., such things are for states to regulate. Therefore, if a state's regulation dictates that no individual may own more than one .22 rifle, his or her 2A right has been upheld.

 

[OscarLevant]

I read it differently. To me the first clause is a statement, not an "if-then." So as long as the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land, it remains relevant. Not sure how anyone can dispute people's right to own and carry AR-15s as long as it exists.

According to your logic, anyone can own a nuclear weapon as long as it exists. 2A doesn't say you can't, eh?

Nuts to that.

A state and/or the fed gov has every right to regulate, which could include disallowing the ownership of AR-15s.

2A says "the right.......shall not be infringed". When you diagram the sentence, that is what it says, nothing more.

If you are going to argue "right to bear arms" as if it means an individual can own as many as he or she wants, note that it doesn't say that because of the fact that "arms" is merely a grammatical agreement with the other part of the sentence "the people".

In short, 2A gaurantees only the right to a firearm, nothing about quantity, type, caliber, etc. Such things are left to further regulation.

But, if you want to go to original construct, it was designed to apply to what was going on at the time, state militias, muskets, and conscription of all males into the state militia but as civilians, not "soldiers", and 2A was to protect the militia, and if you really want to get down to brass tacks, Madison put it in their so that Georgia and Virginia, who were afraid that the north were going to "take away their slaves" would ratify it because 2A protected state militias, which, in the south, was more about slave patrols than anything else. (there's still an ongoing debate about this premise, so I'm open to changing that position if someone can show me actual historical writings that will settle the issue, once and for all. I've read opinions of learned people on both sides of the debate and as of late, the above appears to me to be the more compelling argument)

Given that there is no longer a state militia composed of civilians (the national guard is composed of military personnel, not civilians, so 2A is not needed for them to "bear arms" ), it's therefore a moot amendment.

But, given that quite a few judges love to hunt, and couldn't imagine taking away people's guns, they have breathed life into 2A to apply to modern times and interpreted as a modern individual right. The didn't have to, there was nothing in 2A that dictated that interpretation given historical construct, but they did, and it's done deal, until it is repealed, if ever.

 

[DickBanks]

According to your logic, anyone can own a nuclear weapon as long as it exists. 2A doesn't say you can't, eh?

Nuts to that.

A state and/or the fed gov has every right to regulate, which could include disallowing the ownership of AR-15s.

2A says "the right.......shall not be infringed". When you diagram the sentence, that is what it says, nothing more.

If you are going to argue "right to bear arms" as if it means an individual can own as many as he or she wants, note that it doesn't say that because of the fact that "arms" is merely a grammatical agreement with the other part of the sentence "the people".

In short, 2A gaurantees only the right to a firearm, nothing about quantity, type, caliber, etc. Such things are left to further regulation.

But, if you want to go to original construct, it was designed to apply to what was going on at the time, state militias, muskets, and conscription of all males into the state militia but as civilians, not "soldiers", and 2A was to protect the militia, and if you really want to get down to brass tacks, Madison put it in their so that Georgia and Virginia, who were afraid that the north were going to "take away their slaves" would ratify it because 2A protected state militias, which, in the south, was more about slave patrols than anything else. (there's still an ongoing debate about this premise, so I'm open to changing that position if someone can show me actual historical writings that will settle the issue, once and for all. I've read opinions of learned people on both sides of the debate and as of late, the above appears to me to be the more compelling argument)

Given that there is no longer a state militia composed of civilians (the national guard is composed of military personnel, not civilians, so 2A is not needed for them to "bear arms" ), it's therefore a moot amendment.

But, given that quite a few judges love to hunt, and couldn't imagine taking away people's guns, they have breathed life into 2A to apply to modern times and interpreted as a modern individual right. The didn't have to, there was nothing in 2A that dictated that interpretation given historical construct, but they did, and it's done deal, until it is repealed, if ever.

An atomic weapon could never be construed to be a "militia weapon." Do you know how to "fire" one? I'm pretty sure I don't, and I'm schooled in Physics.

An AR-15 on the other hand, is today's "militia musket." Totally protected by the 2nd Amendment. If you pass a law preventing me from owning one, then I'm pretty sure you just "infringed my right."

Obviously we disagree, but you are in good company--the Supreme Court also has infringed the right in past decisions. I don't agree with them either.

The Second Amendment is the rock that the NRA stands upon. It needs to be yanked out from under them. Repeal the 2nd, or arm to the teeth. Those are the two choices.

 

[independentusa]

An atomic weapon could never be construed to be a "militia weapon." Do you know how to "fire" one? I'm pretty sure I don't, and I'm schooled in Physics.

An AR-15 on the other hand, is today's "militia musket." Totally protected by the 2nd Amendment. If you pass a law preventing me from owning one, then I'm pretty sure you just "infringed my right."

Obviously we disagree, but you are in good company--the Supreme Court also has infringed the right in past decisions. I don't agree with them either.

The Second Amendment is the rock that the NRA stands upon. It needs to be yanked out from under them. Repeal the 2nd, or arm to the teeth. Those are the two choices.

The problem with your post is you fail to include the "well regulated militia". So if you are part of a well regulated militia you could have an AR-15. Otherwise you can only have the weapons you can protect yourself and your home with and that would not include an AR-15. Hand guns, rifles and shotguns yes, but not the weapons used by a well regulated militia.

 

[danielpalos]

If you are saying what I think you are saying, I have to disagree with this as well. The constitution and it's amendments are not there to be litigated. They are Plainly stated and are there to protect against government overreach and corruption to usurp individual rights and thus are immutable without a large majority of the country deciding to appeal or amend them. That is their purpose.

Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe that is correct; 2A applies to the singular right to own a firearm, nothing more, it does not assure the right to any specific quantity, type, caliber, etc., such things are for states to regulate. Therefore, if a state's regulation dictates that no individual may own more than one .22 rifle, his or her 2A right has been upheld.

No, it doesn't. It proclaims what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

 

[DickBanks]

The problem with your post is you fail to include the "well regulated militia". So if you are part of a well regulated militia you could have an AR-15. Otherwise you can only have the weapons you can protect yourself and your home with and that would not include an AR-15. Hand guns, rifles and shotguns yes, but not the weapons used by a well regulated militia.

The amendment doesn't say "IF you are part of a well regulated militia."

 

[danielpalos]

The amendment doesn't say "IF you are part of a well regulated militia."

only well regulated militia are declared Necessary, not the whole and entire, unorganized militia of the People.