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

[TurtleDude]

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

Sorry Haymarket. there are several definitions of infringe and the one that is most consistent with the Bill of rights and the concept of a limited government is not one that requires a complete ban to violate the amendment. Infringe circa 1790 could mean to prevent, hinder, retard, delay, obstruct, encroach, or hamper the exercise of a right.

Only those who want to argue that the democratic party schemes are not unconstitutional adopt such a statist and stilted definition which is contradictory to their reading of the commerce clause as being so expansive as to apply to transactions involving citizens of the same state

 

[Federalist]

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

Why would you engage in the intellectual fraud of attempting to disect a word of a much longer definition and only dishonestly give us a very small part of it while ignoring the vast majority of it?

Why indeed!!!!!

I don't ignore any part of it. All parts of the definition are examples of infringement: break; violate; transgress; neglect to fulfill or obey. Any one of them is an infringement.

Learn how to read a definition, and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[haymarket]

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

I don't ignore any part of it. All parts of the definition are examples of infringement: break; violate; transgress; neglect to fulfill or obey. Any one of them is an infringement.

Learn how to read a definition, and stop embarrassing yourself.

NO. All parts of the same number explain the definition for that number. Multiple and different definitions are separated by number.
#1 is one definition. Consider it as a whole definition. Were any part of it meant to be considered only in part - it would have its own number and stand by itself.
#2 is another definition. Consider it as a whole definition. Were any part of it meant to be considered only in part - it would have its own number and stand by itself.
#3 is still yet another definition. Consider it as a whole definition. Were any part of it meant to be considered only in part - it would have its own number and stand by itself.

To do otherwise is to --- what was the word you like to use? --- oh yes - CHERRYPICK out one single word from many and ignore the rest.

 

[Federalist]

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

NO. All parts of the same number explain the definition for that number. Multiple and different definitions are separated by number.
#1 is one definition. Consider it as a whole definition.
#2 is another definition. Consider it as a whole definition.
#3 is still yet another definition. Consider it as a whole definition.

To do otherwise is to --- what was the word you like to use? --- oh yes - CHERRYPICK out one single word from many and ignore the rest.

Yup, and all of the phrases in definition #2 are infringements. All of them. To break is to infringe. To violate is to infringe. To transgress is to infringe. To neglect to fulfill or obey is to infringe.

Perhaps you could visit your local library and ask a librarian to help you understand how to read a dictionary.

 

[Federalist]

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

The word used in the Websters was HINDER. You looked up the wrong word - and I strongly suspect after looking up variations and shopping for the one that best suited your own ideological purposes.

Shame shame shame on that sort of intellectual dishonesty.

here it is again for you and you should know it well because I have reproduced it scores of times

You looked up the wrong word yourself. The 2nd amendment does not contain the word "infringe". It contains the word "infringed":

infringed

INFRING'ED, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses.

So I guess if something is broken, violated, or transgressed it can be said to have been infringed.

 

[ChrisL]

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

You have seen the link damn well scores of times and you know if it you had the courage to admit it. You want the link. Here is your damn link that you have seen scores of times in thread after thread after thread since you and I first crossed swords over this term.

Home :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

maybe that is too small for you and you have only seen it thirty or forty times - here it is again

http://1828.mshaffer.com/

Hmm. Sounds like I hit a nerve. :lamo

 

[haymarket]

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

Yup, and all of the phrases in definition #2 are infringements. All of them.

There is no ALL OF THEM. #2 is one definition. That is why they are separated by numbers.

 

[haymarket]

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

Hmm. Sounds like I hit a nerve. :lamo

Yes - you did. Sophomoric baiting pisses me off.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Here it is

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.]

Definition #1 states quite clearly that the right is INFRINGED when it is violated by contravening it so that it is non fulfilled.
Definition #2 states quite clearly that the right is INFRINGED when the right is broken, violated or transgressed so as to cause it to be neglected to be fulfilled.
Definition #3 states quiteclearly that the right is INFRINGED when it is destroyed or hindered. And we already know that HINDER meant to prevent, stop or stay.

It is obvious that if a right is being fulfilled, it is being exercised and no state of it being INFRINGED can exist as it is being exercised.

You accuse me of cherry picking. I just took all three definitions each in their entirety and examined each of them as a whole and not isolating just a word or two.

You are the one cherry picking isolated synonyms and then attempting to use them without the rest of the numbered definition provided.

You are cherry picking through the internet to find definitions that meet your needs.

Clearly the founders meant to prevent the federal government from putting limits on the rights of the people. Here are just some of their writings related to the Second Amendment and how the right of the people to bear arms was considered one of the most important rights, so as to protect other rights that the government may wish to take away. It really doesn't take a genius.


What the Founding Father Said About Guns

 

[Federalist]

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

There is no ALL OF THEM. #2 is one definition. That is why they are separated by numbers.

You're behind the times. You've been arguing about the wrong word this whole time. The 2nd amendment doesn't use the word "infringe". It uses the word "infringed".

Here's the correct definition, for your reference:

infringed

INFRING'ED, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses.

As you can see, if something has been broken, violated, or transgressed, it can be said to have been infringed.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Yes - you did. Sophomoric baiting pisses me off.

I don't think asking for a link is baiting.

 

[haymarket]

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

You are cherry picking through the internet to find definitions that meet your needs.

I found the oldest and most authoritative I could find. If you know of an older American dictionary from that period please do present it.

 

[haymarket]

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

I don't think asking for a link is baiting.

Then we differ. When you have seen a link published here scores of times over the last months and feign ignorance of it - yes, I consider that baiting.

 

[haymarket]

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

You're behind the times. You've been arguing about the wrong word this whole time. The 2nd amendment doesn't use the word "infringe". It uses the word "infringed".

Here's the correct definition, for your reference:



As you can see, if something has been broken, violated, or transgressed, it can be said to have been infringed.

I have been using all those as part of the more complete word INFRINGE.

 

[Federalist]

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

I found the oldest and most authoritative I could find.

And then you looked up the wrong word. It's not "infringe"; it's "infringed".

infringed

INFRING'ED, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses.

So as you can see, if something has been broken, violated, or transgressed, it can be said to have been infringed.

Say goodbye to your inane contention that only if something has been completely destroyed has it been infringed.

 

[ChrisL]

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

I found the oldest and most authoritative I could find. If you know of an older American dictionary from that period please do present it.

Why don't you address the rest of my post and the link I posted with the founders' own words?

 

[haymarket]

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

And then you looked up the wrong word. It's not "infringe"; it's "infringed".



So as you can see, if something has been broken, violated, or transgressed, it can be said to have been infringed.

Say goodbye to your inane contention that only if something has been completely destroyed has it been infringed.

And if your right has been broken, you do not have it to exercise.
And if your right has been violated, you did not have it to exercise - thus the violation.
And if it has been transgressed, you no longer have it to exercise.

There is no difference in those terms and the ones in INFRINGE. No difference at all.

I am happy to use the term you just used.

 

[Federalist]

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

I have been using all those as part of the more complete word INFRINGE.

When you pointed out my use of the word "hindered" rather than "hinder", I realized that we've been discussing the wrong word this whole time. The word "infringe" appears nowhere in the 2nd amendment. The word that is actually is used is "infringed".

 

[haymarket]

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

Why don't you address the rest of my post and the link I posted with the founders' own words?

The personal musings of a individual means little to me.

 

[haymarket]

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

When you pointed out my use of the word "hindered" rather than "hinder", I realized that we've been discussing the wrong word this whole time. The word "infringe" appears nowhere in the 2nd amendment. The word that is actually is used is "infringed".

No problem if that is the way you want to play it. I already explained to you that the meaning does not change. All those same words are used in INFRINGE also with a more complete and detailed explanation.

And they all lead to the same definitive end of the right not being fulfilled.

So you will be my ally the next time anybody uses the term INFRINGEMENT. I expect you to step up on that one also.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

The personal musings of a individual means little to me.

what official government pronouncement has actually stated your definition is correct?

 

[ChrisL]

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

The personal musings of a individual means little to me.

They aren't just "individuals." The link contains the founding fathers own words regarding how important they felt the second amendment, not only for personal defense but for defense against our own government as well as any foreign invaders.

They felt SO strongly about it that a lot of them were actually against an organized military, because they felt that would give the federal government too much power.

 

[Federalist]

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

And if your right has been violated, you did not have it to exercise - thus the violation.
And if it has been transgressed, you no longer have it to exercise.

So you agree that, according to the definition, if something has been violated or transgressed it has been infringed.

It's about time.

 

[Master PO]

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?

no ....that is not what is was saying.

So i will state it again, the constitution is written for the federal government, and the (bill of rights) applied also only to the federal government,..... As stated in the 1833 ussc decision.

However after the civil war the ussc ruled it applied to the states also.

Before the civil war... States own constitutions , is what was the law of each state.

Those that want to make the argument that a state can ban firearms, is wrong since every state recognizes....... The federal BOR, today.

If our nation was living under the------> original intention of the founders, states could ban firearms, if it is not listed in their state constitution, currently their are 11 states without firearms in their state constitutions.

 

[haymarket]

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

what official government pronouncement has actually stated your definition is correct?

Why should one? They are NOT authorities on dictionary definitions.