- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
We do now have limited government. We always have had limited government. There is no issue here to complain about.
what we have is a massive expansion beyond the limits intended by those who created the constitution and those expansions were not done properly-ie by amendments but rather by dishonest interpretations
And what you just wrote proves that I am correct. There indeed can be what some consider as incremental encroachments that insist constitute the right has been INFRINGED but that has not been the agreement of many many courts and justices over our long history. Thus, the idea that some have pushed here that the meaning of INFRINGED is something as small as HINDER is ridiculous and not supported by reality.
Not at all. Infringement originally meant to break, damage, or violate.
infringe (v.) mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from L. infringere "to damage, break off, break, bruise," from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + frangere "to break" (see fraction). Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760. Related: Infringed; infringing.
Online Etymology Dictionary
Or in other words, to change. There is little doubt that the 2nd has been changed over the years since its conception.
And you seemed to be doing well until you had to goof it all up with your OR IN OTHER WORDS. The words from the definitions agree with 1828 Webster's as I have reproduced many times in several threads now.
For the right to be INFRINGED it must be BROKEN or DESTROYED. One cannot enjoy a right while having it INFRINGED at the same time as they are mutually exclusive and cannot happen at the same time with the same right.
"violate" and "damage" do not mean destroyed, so your assumption is not well-founded.
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.]
The definition I provided clearly indicated that INFRINGED involved negating or breaking or destroying or contravening the right to keep and bear arms.
Websters 1828 dictionary
I think I'm more inclined to going with an etymology source than a dictionary from after the document in question was written. Being that the word infringe can mean to violate or damage, an easy comparison, in human action terms, might be the rape of a woman. When a woman is raped, it violates her, and damages her. It changes the way she perceives herself, as she was prior to her being violated. Violation and damage are not equal to destruction.
You are confusing apples with cinderblocks. That will only cause you to chip your teeth on the hard grey pie filling.
Your words fit your example of a rape of a woman. It does not fit with the Second Amendment nor the meaning of the term INFRINGED at the time.
Words have meanings, as I believe I recall you saying several times on this very forum. The word infringe did not mean merely "destroy" at the time of the founding of the country. As for the rape comparison, it is perfectly legitimate as a comparison. When something is damaged or violated, it does not imply destruction, whether we are talking about guns or people.
5th amendment. Due Process.I understand why some cling to false notions of how an Amendment should or shouldn't be modified.
But that horse bolted from the barn long ago. No where in the Second Amendment does it mention a prohibition on ownership due to mental defect or major crime conviction. Yet the mentally ill and felons are barred from ownership.
No one questions this.In the oft quoted Heller decision what the ardent 2nd A leave off once past the right to bear is an individual one is, and I quote Justice Scalia- "Like most rights, the 2nd amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." he goes on to say the opinion of an individual right doesn't nullify the bar to ownership for the mentally ill and convicted felons.
You'll have to quote the text and tell us what exactly you think he's saying.Nor the 1939 Miller case on restrictions on commercial sale of firearms.
Like all others. No one questions this.So the Second Amendment has been restricted without going through the process of amendment...
Words have meanings, as I believe I recall you saying several times on this very forum. The word infringe did not mean merely "destroy" at the time of the founding of the country. As for the rape comparison, it is perfectly legitimate as a comparison. When something is damaged or violated, it does not imply destruction, whether we are talking about guns or people.
there was no federal infringement on the RKBA until 1934. BTW Haymarket, I don't believe the second amendment was properly applied to states until the 14th amendments incorporation
so for almost 100 years any state regulation would not have been prohibited by the second amendment
so your 225 year bit is a bit specious
You can believe anything you want to believe about federalization. It matter not to me because it does not negate the fact of my argument. Regardless if count from day one of the nation or from the adoption of the 14th amendment, there have been innumerable incremental encroachments on the right that have never been thrown out by the court as violations. that is simply reality and fact. So my analysis still stands no matter how you want to look it or what you personally believe about federalization.
when was the first FEDERAL ENCROACHMENT
I have no idea.
well you talked about 225 years of infringements and I noted until the 14th amendment the second amendment was not at issue due to state infringements
1934 was the first federal crapping upon the second amendment
and guess who did it? the arch crapper himself, the odious FDR
5th amendment. Due Process.
No one questions this.
You'll have to quote the text and tell us what exactly you think he's saying.
Like all others. No one questions this.
The REAL quetsions:
Do you know on what basis other rights are limited?
Do you know the circumstances necessary for a restriction on a constitutionally-protected fundamenta right to not violate the constitution?
well you talked about 225 years of infringements and I noted until the 14th amendment the second amendment was not at issue due to state infringements
Again - it matters not since those things what you and others consider as incremental encroachments and thus caused the Second Amendment to be INFRINGED have been upheld as legal.
My argument is thus validated regardless if it was 225 years ago, 160 years ago or 80 years ago. there have been many incremental encroachments upheld in law and the right was never found to be INFRINGED by any of them. Thus my acceptance of the Websters 1828 dictionary definition of INFRINGED as used at the era of the adoption is valid and the view that INFRINGED means HINDER is not because incremental encroachments are not found to be a violations and not cause the right to be INFRINGED.
Thank you for helping to prove that.
Ya know Hay? We are all aware that you know how to spell infringed. We are also aware that you prefer to apply your own definition of it, rather than the ones which were etymologically correct at the time the 2nd was penned. There's really no need to keep capitalizing it, as we generally know how to read, and how to pick up subtle hints.
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?