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

[haymarket]

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

You've proven it only to yourself. Big deal.

as opposed to what actually? :roll::doh

 

[Catawba]

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

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.

Changing arguments now? I'm betting people prefer user fees for those sellers/buyers than they do a tax increase to pay for them.

 

[haymarket]

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

You were speaking of a contrived hypothetical discovery, as if those hypothetics in any way back up your premise about the meaning of "infringed", when no court bases its argument on such a false definition. I didn't miss your point; you had none.

apparently the term HYPOTHETICAL has confused and stymied you.

The source for my reference is the source you yourself provided, the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary (How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]).

that is the source for your "deny in any portion"?

That dictionary does not just indicate of "infringe" solely the meaning of "to destroy", but also indicates "or hinder";

quite correct - and hinder meant to stay or stop.

it does not just indicate "broken", but also indicates "violated" or "transgressed".

yes - violated and transgressed to cause non fulfillment of the right. 2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law. If one has a legal firearm then reality clearly says the right is being used and exercised - the opposite of not being fulfilled.

There is no totality requisite to qualify as infringed, although something violated in total is indeed infringed. This is where you're quite mistaken, and very possibly willfully so.

Only if you use the modern definition of INFRINGED and not the old Webster's.

 

[Trip]

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

Changing arguments now? I'm betting people prefer user fees for those sellers/buyers than they do a tax increase to pay for them.

This is a strawman argument of your own making.

Nowhere did ttwtt indicate any choice between a tax increase, or use fees. It seems he was objecting to the additional cost overall.

 

[Catawba]

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

This is a strawman argument of your own making.

Nowhere did ttwtt indicate any choice between a tax increase, or use fees. It seems he was objecting to the additional cost overall.

What other way is there to pay for the background checks other than user fees or tax increase?

 

[Trip]

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

apparently the term HYPOTHETICAL has confused and stymied you.

I'm not confused in the least about your own hypothetic. What I was objecting to is the corrupt underlying premise that they supported you because of lack of any coherent statement signed by all, which is so asinine it is a waste of everyone's time to read, and yours to write.

quite correct - and hinder meant to stay or stop.

No, hinder does not anywhere there mean to stay or stop.

yes - violated and transgressed to cause non fulfillment of the right. 2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law. If one has a legal firearm then reality clearly says the right is being used and exercised - the opposite of not being fulfilled.

If a contract is violated in any portion, or non fulfilled, it is violated in total.

If one has a legal firearm, the right certainly is being exercised in some portion, but if one is prohibited in any fashion from keeping or bearing a firearm, then the right is infringed upon.

Only if you use the modern definition of INFRINGED and not the old Webster's.

No, there is no conspicuous difference between "infringed" between modern dictionaries and the 1828 dictionary. In fact there is no variance between contemporary definitions and the etymology of "infringe" going back to the mid 15th Century.

mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from Latin 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.

Infringe comes from the root "frangen", which means in "fraction" or "in part", or a portion.

There is no totality necessitated by "infringe", and in fact it inherently involves the meaning of "transgressed in any portion."

You LOSE.

 

[Harshaw]

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

No, there is no conspicuous difference between "infringed" between modern dictionaries and the 1828 dictionary. In fact there is no variance between contemporary definitions and the etymology of "infringe" going back to the mid 15th Century.

mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from Latin 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.

Infringe comes from the root "frangen", which means in "fraction" or "in part", or a portion.

There is no totality necessitated by "infringe", and in fact it inherently involves the meaning of "transgressed in any portion."

You LOSE.

Don't you get that the "fringes" of something actually means the totality of it?

(Because you're new, I'll tell you I agree with you and am being sarcastic.)

 

[Trip]

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

Don't you get that the "fringes" of something actually means the totality of it?

(Because you're new, I'll tell you I agree with you and am being sarcastic.)

The fringes of something does not involve any sort of totality of it, not anywhere.

And because I am gnarled wolf, I will tell you I am anything but new, have little use for sarcasm, and that you revel in your own ignorance.

 

[Harshaw]

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

The fringes of something does not involve any sort of totality of it, not anywhere.

And because I am gnarled wolf, I will tell you I am anything but new, have little use for sarcasm, and that you revel in your own ignorance.

OK, then you missed my point completely. I figured saying that I agreed with you would help, but I guess not. Carry on.

 

[haymarket]

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

I'm not confused in the least about your own hypothetic. What I was objecting to is the corrupt underlying premise that they supported you because of lack of any coherent statement signed by all, which is so asinine it is a waste of everyone's time to read, and yours to write.

Nobody said they did. I clearly said that IF they were found to be in agreement with me they would not effect at all on the far right gun crowd. You seem to miss that point in your desire to attack me and apply labels.

No, hinder does not anywhere there mean to stay or stop.

Here is the definition of HINDER from the 1806 dictionary from Webster
http://www.premierathome.com/library/Reference/Webster's 1806 Dictionary.txt

Hinder, v.t. to prevent, stop, stay; a. backward

here is what you said to me

You LOSE.

I guess now its my turn to say YOU LOSE.

If a contract is violated in any portion, or non fulfilled, it is violated in total.

Except we are talking about the Second Amendment and not contract law. Again, YOU LOSE.

No, there is no conspicuous difference between "infringed" between modern dictionaries and the 1828 dictionary. In fact there is no variance between contemporary definitions and the etymology of "infringe" going back to the mid 15th Century.

Mid 15th century? There was no United States of America let alone an American dictionary in the mid 15 century. You are talking 300 years plus before the Second Amendment was written and are obviously NOT talking about the American use of language. As such, it is ridiculous to even suggest such a thing as evidence.

again - YOU LOSE.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

What other way is there to pay for the background checks other than user fees or tax increase?

make people like you who are so enamored with them pay for them

 

[TurtleDude]

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

Nobody said they did. I clearly said that IF they were found to be in agreement with me they would not effect at all on the far right gun crowd. You seem to miss that point in your desire to attack me and apply labels.



Here is the definition of HINDER from the 1806 dictionary from Webster
http://www.premierathome.com/library/Reference/Webster's 1806 Dictionary.txt

Hinder, v.t. to prevent, stop, stay; a. backward

here is what you said to me



I guess now its my turn to say YOU LOSE.



Except we are talking about the Second Amendment and not contract law. Again, YOU LOSE.



Mid 15th century? There was no United States of America let alone an American dictionary in the mid 15 century. You are talking 300 years plus before the Second Amendment was written and are obviously NOT talking about the American use of language. As such, it is ridiculous to even suggest such a thing as evidence.

again - YOU LOSE.

what does he lose? his understanding of what infringe means is consistent with most American's views on the definition.

 

[Federalist]

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

what does he lose? his understanding of what infringe means is consistent with most American's views on the definition.

Come on TD, can't you see? Haymarket's right, and every other person in the world is wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Still arguing over infringe huh? Too funny. :lamo

 

[TurtleDude]

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

Still arguing over infringe huh? Too funny. :lamo

THERE IS NO argument, Just one voice of dissent that proffers opinions that no one else accepts

 

[ChrisL]

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

THERE IS NO argument, Just one voice of dissent that proffers opinions that no one else accepts

That's all he has left. He has to change the meaning of the word so that the amendment means what he wishes it meant. It's so transparent.

 

[Federalist]

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

That's all he has left. He has to change the meaning of the word so that the amendment means what he wishes it meant. It's so transparent.

Twisting language is a typical authoritarian technique. They find it double-plus good.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Twisting language is a typical authoritarian technique. They find it double-plus good.

We've ALL posted things to back up our assertions that infringe means to hinder or limit a right. Can't teach an old dog new tricks I guess. :mrgreen:

 

[Catawba]

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

make people like you who are so enamored with them pay for them

It makes more sense to the majority of people to make those who profit from the sale of guns pay for them.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

It makes more sense to the majority of people to make those who profit from the sale of guns pay for them.

no it doesn't. the far wrong wants to impose these stupid checks that don't even apply to criminals trying to sell guns. So the far wrong should pay for them

 

[Catawba]

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

no it doesn't. the far wrong wants to impose these stupid checks that don't even apply to criminals trying to sell guns. So the far wrong should pay for them

85% of gun owners disagree with you on background checks, that's how far right your opinion is!

 

[TurtleDude]

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

85% of gun owners disagree with you on background checks, that's how far right your opinion is!

YOu again argue quantity over quality and appeal to mediocrity and ignorance


If people were told the truth

that those checks cannot be enforced, will not apply to criminals and will require complete registration to work, I suspect your numbers would change

 

[Catawba]

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

YOu again argue quantity over quality and appeal to mediocrity and ignorance


If people were told the truth

that those checks cannot be enforced, will not apply to criminals and will require complete registration to work, I suspect your numbers would change

Do you think you are smarter than 85% of gun owners who support background checks for all gun buyers?

 

[Trip]

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

Twisting language is a typical authoritarian technique. They find it double-plus good.

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words."
Samuel Adams

 

[haymarket]

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

what does he lose? his understanding of what infringe means is consistent with most American's views on the definition.

Definitions are NOT put up for popular vote - particularly definitions that decide what a word meant over two centuries ago.