How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

this is an interesting argument you use. You claim the court is the only source of authority and the rulings of the court preclude discussion of the issue the fact is-no court has ever ruled that your interpretation of infringe was right either

Every Court that has ever upheld a restriction on firearms supports my position that such legislation are matters for the legislature and are Constitutional by the obvious fact that they ruled in favor of them as I have said they should.

Every Court that has every upheld a regulation on firearms supports my position that such legislation are matters for the legislature and are Constitutional by the obvious fact that they ruled in favor of them as I have said they should.

No court has even taken the INFRINGED means any incremental encroachment that limits or controls any firearms for any citizen is what the Second means.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

tell us why one should interpret "INFRINGE" as narrowly as you do while expanding the power delegated to the federal government as massively as you do in order to justify gun laws unless you are a believer in the government having far more powers than the founders intended?

IT APPEARS TO ME that you use contradictory interpretations in order to limit our rights as much as possible

I am simply using the authoritative sources for the meaning of words from the era that gave us the Second Amendment. I am taking what they say the word means - not what I believe or may want to believe.

It is as if you want me to explain why I eat soup with a spoon while eating a steak with knife and fork and eat sushi with chopsticks? Because each are different things. Just like the parts of your question are different things and the other things are NOT parts of the Second Amendment.

I would further point out to you that my positions on both the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause are consistent with the law as it has been ruled upon by the US Supreme Court and current American jurisprudence. It is your position which is NOT.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Every Court that has ever upheld a restriction on firearms supports my position that such legislation are matters for the legislature and are Constitutional by the obvious fact that they ruled in favor of them as I have said they should.

Every Court that has every upheld a regulation on firearms supports my position that such legislation are matters for the legislature and are Constitutional by the obvious fact that they ruled in favor of them as I have said they should.

No court has even taken the INFRINGED means any incremental encroachment that limits or controls any firearms for any citizen is what the Second means.

lets try to argue a position without pretending that a court ruling precludes all debate on the issue

I have already explained to you that FDR's court interpreted the cc as expansive as possible in order to placate FDR and future courts ratified that crappy precedent

ARGUE WHY WHAT THE COURT DID WAS PROPER and tell us why your interpretations are designed to LIMIT our rights AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE and EMPOWER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as much as you can

BBL

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

It is as if you want me to explain why I eat soup with a spoon while eating a steak with knife and fork and eat sushi with chopsticks? Because each are different things. Just like the parts of your question are different things and the other things are NOT parts of the Second Amendment.

that answers nothing

why do you want to limit the rights of the people as much as possible?

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

that answers nothing

why do you want to limit the rights of the people as much as possible?

It was the perfect answer in that your question involving different things that have nothing to do with each other. You committed yet another in a long string of fallacies - this one the Fallacy of False Equivalency.

this will help you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

It is the Founders who limited the right in question. I was not alive in 1787.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

No "hinder" does not involve any absolute prevention of a thing.

I provided for you the 1806 definition of the word HINDER that you have chosen to fixate upon. It clearly stated that HINDER meant to stop or stay.
You have offered nothing to support your view on the term and its meaning.

And there is nothing whatsoever to support your contention about "infringe", not even in your referenced dictionary definition.

I provided you two different dictionaries - 1806 and the definitive and authoritative 1828 Webster s. You provided nothing.
I provided the exact definitions from both. You provided nothing.
I took each part of each definition and demonstrated what it meant to the right being discussed. You provided nothing.

I can speak with at least a little authority on this matter, as I have a degree in English literature and have published writings on the matter of contextual meaning of phrasings in American history.

If you are offering yourself as an Authority on the terms involved or an Authority on definitions, I would be more than happy to examine your credentials and we all can determine if you qualify. Without that important step, all you are doing is making an Appeal to Authority with yourself in the chair as the arbiter of these matters and that is ridiculous.

If you had been referencing something such as the "regulate" regarding the Interstate Commerce clause, or the reference to "considered as" in the 1790 Naturalization Act, you would have a point that there is significant difference in the connotation of words, but not at all in this regard.

Neither has anything to do with the Second Amendment or the meaning of the term INFRINGED as it existed in that era of American history.

The positive mandate of the 2nd Amendment that the right to both KEEP and bear arms "shall not be infringed" involves no physical dictate on history, nor reality, and actual fact such that it would prohibit the real infringement of the right from occurring.

That is your opinion and yet again - you offer nothing to support it.

Similarly the "right to LIFE, liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" is no guarantee that murder will not occur. And the ability to take another's life does not disprove it as an unalienable right.

First, you are invoking a 'right' that is not listed in the Constitution. Second, you are committing the fallacy of False Equivalency in your comparison as it has nothing at all to do with the specific language of the Second Amendment.

In fact none of the courts that have supported the actual infringement of the right have ever used your "logic" about the meaning of "infringed". And it is just those legislatures and courts that our founders sought to protect us from by the positive mandate that the right "shall not be infringed" in any way!

I never said that I was quoting any Court who ruled on the right using the Webster's definitions from 1806 and 1828. What I said is that the incrementalists who believe that small encroachments are wrong because no Court has ever ruled that the Amendment is free from restrictions or regulations. Thus my view - that the Second Amendment bars the government from creating an environment where the right to keep and bear arms cannot be destroyed, contravened or result in a failure to be fulfilled is indeed alive and well as the practical result of countless laws and rulings where gun control measures are found to be perfectly legal and constitutional. Such matters are as I have always stated they are - the details of public policy to be decided by the duly elected representatives of the American people

And every judge and every Court and every legislator who ever supported or voted for such measures is consistent with my view as that is their practical result.

Implying that such a test might be valid is nothing but supremely jejune, sophomoric reasoning.

Actually I have just shown that not only is is valid, but it is also the law of the land.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

It was the perfect answer in that your question involving different things that have nothing to do with each other. You committed yet another in a long string of fallacies - this one the Fallacy of False Equivalency.

this will help you

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

It is the Founders who limited the right in question. I was not alive in 1787.

that is an interesting non-answer

you have constantly advocated the most restrictive possible definition of infringe in order to support almost every restriction that the democratic party wishes to impose on gun owners while at the same time also supporting the incredibly expansive and specious expansion of the federal power as authored by FDR. the only possible explanation is that you are supporting massive governmental intrusion into our rights

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

that is an interesting non-answer

you have constantly advocated the most restrictive possible definition of infringe in order to support almost every restriction that the democratic party wishes to impose on gun owners while at the same time also supporting the incredibly expansive and specious expansion of the federal power as authored by FDR. the only possible explanation is that you are supporting massive governmental intrusion into our rights

Neither I nor anyone else can massively intrude on rights that you do not have.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Neither I nor anyone else can massively intrude on rights that you do not have.

Once again, haymarket is claiming that every right we have is enumerated in the constitution, and any right not specifically mentioned doesn't exist. Watch this:

Haymarket, do you have a right to acquire as many pencils as you wish? Please explain why or why not.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

At that time??? The 1994 background check requirement has been law for 19 years! We've had a conservative court for years. Yet the 1994 background check law still stands.

That law actually relaxed the 1968 law that required a 5 day waiting period, and made no cost "instant" NICS BG checks be done only by FFL dealers, the rest of gun sales were unaffected, unless the seller had reason to know that the sale was to an "illegal" buyer. So far, all plans to make that system "universal" have involved fees of about $35 since the FFL dealer is then simply conscripted as a gov't paperwork agent for facilitating "private" sales. Imagine the added cost if all used car sales were mandated to go through "licensed" car dealers.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

There is nothing in that definition that involves, much less necessitates, an entire denial of something for it to be infringed.

In fact there is nothing in that definition that is all that different from the current meanings.

Yes, under contract law, when that contract is "infringed" upon, it is invalidated in toto, but that does not indicate, nor imply,that the infringement must be total to the contract.

That 1828 definition does not just indicate "to destroy", but also indicates "or hinder"; it does not just indicate "broken", but also indicates "violated" or "transgressed".

Your assertion of a difference is entirely inaccurate, and if there is any difference at all, it is a distinction without significance. NO.

Yeah. Haymarket has been trying to convince everyone that, back then, "infringe" meant "completely destroyed". We've tried to explain to him that this is not the case, but he just ignores all evidence and hangs onto his mistaken notion.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Once again, haymarket is claiming that every right we have is enumerated in the constitution, and any right not specifically mentioned doesn't exist. Watch this:

Haymarket, do you have a right to acquire as many pencils as you wish? Please explain why or why not.

this has already been dealt with

Red herring is an English-language idiom that commonly refers to a logical fallacy that misleads or detracts from the actual issue.
[edit]Logical fallacy

As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman, which is premised on a distortion of the other party's position,[2] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant diversionary tactic.[3]
The expression is mainly used to assert that the argument provided by an individual is not relevant to the issue being discussed. For example, "I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." Here the second sentence, though used to support the first, does not address the topic of the first sentence, instead switching the focus to the quite different topic of lecturer salaries.

Invoking the fallacy of the Red herring yesterday is still a red herring today.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Yeah. Haymarket has been trying to convince everyone that, back then, "infringe" meant "completely destroyed". We've tried to explain to him that this is not the case, but he just ignores all evidence and hangs onto his mistaken notion.

'Evidence' that you are impotent to present.

 

[Anti-Party]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

So you don't accept the fact that the U.S. consitution trumps state constitutions?

Read "The Unwritten Constitution". I'm not saying it's correct, but it explains the opposite perspective.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

this has already been dealt with

Odd, I must have missed your answer. So what was it? Do you have a right to acquire as many pencils as you wish? What was your explanation?

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

'Evidence' that you are impotent to present.

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.]

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Once again, haymarket is claiming that every right we have is enumerated in the constitution, and any right not specifically mentioned doesn't exist. Watch this:

Haymarket, do you have a right to acquire as many pencils as you wish? Please explain why or why not.

Most of his argument centers around his definition of shall not be infringed. This was a very unfortunate word choice, as future amendments used shall not be abridged or denied, giving less wiggle room for later "infringement".

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Most of his argument centers around his definition of shall not be infringed. This was a very unfortunate word choice, as future amendments used shall not be abridged or denied, giving less wiggle room for later "infringement".

"Infringe" means "violate". Violate means "to injure", "to hurt", "to break", "to transgress", "to do violence to", "to treat with irreverence", "to profane".

Simply hurting the right to keep and bear arms is a violation or infringement.

I don't know where haymarket comes up with his cockamamie idea that only complete destruction of the right to bear arms would be an infringement, but he certainly doesn't appear to get it from the dictionary.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

"Infringe" means "violate". Violate means "to injure", "to hurt", "to break", "to transgress", "to do violence to", "to treat with irreverence", "to profane".

Simply hurting the right to keep and bear arms is a violation or infringement.

I don't know where haymarket comes up with his cockamamie idea that only complete destruction of the right to bear arms would be an infringement, but he certainly doesn't appear to get it from the dictionary.

There is ample SCOTUS precedent to back his assertion. Consider what other individual Constitutional right may be rented back to you by the state; a state CHL requirement - issued only after taking a class ($100), passing a test and paying an application fee ($140) would be dismissed as unreasonable for the right to go to church, or to have an attorney present during police questioning, yet is readily accepted for just the and bear paortion of the 2A. It is, by far, the weakest amendment of our bill of rights, even while being quite important - possibly the basis for this nation's very formation and existance. Other than property taxation, to keep your "private" land, you have no other right that is contingent upon paying a state rental fee specifically for that right.

 

[Trip]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

There is ample SCOTUS precedent to back his assertion. Consider what other individual Constitutional right may be rented back to you by the state; a state CHL requirement - issued only after taking a class ($100), passing a test and paying an application fee ($140) would be dismissed as unreasonable for the right to go to church, or to have an attorney present during police questioning, yet is readily accepted for just the and bear paortion of the 2A. It is, by far, the weakest amendment of our bill of rights, even while being quite important - possibly the basis for this nation's very formation and existance. Other than property taxation, to keep your "private" land, you have no other right that is contingent upon paying a state rental fee specifically for that right.

None of the Supreme Court's rationale in precent ever involves the argument that "infringe" means to totally deny a thing, so none of it could possibly "back his assertion".

Generally speaking the Supreme Court precedent involves a recognition of compelling government interest of some sort, be it state or federal. Nowhere does the court examine at face value the powerful positive mandate that the right to both keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

What the court has allowed, is not a reflection of what the Constitution indicates, as the courts have a notorious history of manipulating the constitution beyond its intents to expand government authority.



There is nothing weak at all about the 2nd Amendment, as the positive mandate of "shall not be infringed" is offered without any possible caveat or diminishing adjective whatsoever.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Neither I nor anyone else can massively intrude on rights that you do not have.

AH SO YOU claim that American citizens to not have the right to keep and bear arms. Thanks, I knew you believed that, I was just waiting for you to finally admit it

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

None of the Supreme Court's rationale in precent ever involves the argument that "infringe" means to totally deny a thing, so none of it could possibly "back his assertion".

Generally speaking the Supreme Court precedent involves a recognition of compelling government interest of some sort, be it state or federal. Nowhere does the court examine at face value the powerful positive mandate that the right to both keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

What the court has allowed, is not a reflection of what the Constitution indicates, as the courts have a notorious history of manipulating the constitution beyond its intents to expand government authority.



There is nothing weak at all about the 2nd Amendment, as the positive mandate of "shall not be infringed" is offered without any possible caveat or diminishing adjective whatsoever.

The DC v Heller decsion specifcally (intentionally?) left out the and bear portion of the 2A in its most recent majority decision. It does seem that McDonald v Chicago used both keep and bear in its decision but the case only applied to prevention of handgun sales based on the impossibility of obtaining a non-existant Chicago handgun registration in advance.

Both of these recent SCOTUS decisions gets us beyond much of the earlier militia related nonsense, and affirms the 2A as an individual right, yet much fuss was made over a sawed off shotgun, in earlier decisions - simply based on its not being a "militia type" weapon. Yet no challenge to banning automatic and select fire weapons (commonly used by the military) has been made to date either.

In District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, the Supreme Court holds in part:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The inclusion of "to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes" in that decision seems to imply that state CHL/CCW permits are OK as "tradition" seems to dictate a state's right of imposing 2A rights rental fees for bearing that arm outside of the home. We have yet to see a SCOTUS case for appealing the arrest and conviction of "unlawfully" carrying a handgun, with the only exception, to its being lawful carrying, as having been the failure to secure (rent?) permission from the state in advance (carrying w/o CHL).

 

[Fisher]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Heller also reiterated that sensible restriction is constitutional. So the issue is no longer militia but what is "sensible".

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Heller also reiterated that sensible restriction is constitutional. So the issue is no longer militia but what is "sensible".

Heller was written by Scalia who has admitted that lots of New Deal laws violated the tenth amendment but he has conceded that they have been around so long that he would not move to overturn them since society has now become used to and reliant on BAD legal holdings

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

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.]

We cannot see that definition too many times. Glad to see it supporting my position.