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

[haymarket]

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

No, hinder does not necessarily mean to stop.

1806 Webster which preceded and laid the foundation for the magnum opus 1828

http://www.premierathome.com/library/Reference/Webster's 1806 Dictionary.txt

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

Of course, you knew that since it had been introduced here when you denied that such a thing existed.

your post 706

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

It is bad enough when one invents your own quotations like you have done in this discussion with your post 695. That offense is compounded when you then lie about the source of the phony quotation and try to pass it off as real as you did in your post 700. Then you take something which others have presented in evidence with the proper source references and make blatantly fase statements that such things do not exist.

One cannot respect a person using such tactics as honest debate was thoroughly destroyed by the implementation of such intellectual fraud.

 

[haymarket]

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

Their "musings" are directly related to the intent behind the second amendment. :shrug:

The opinions of individuals - while interesting historical anecdotes - are no substitute for the exact language of the US Constitution. 55 people wrote that document and it was ratified by many many more in the States. To take the musings of an individual or a few individuals and attempt to use that for ones own purposes in place of the actual language is simply not acceptable.

 

[haymarket]

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

Your understanding of a simple definition has been shown to be completely nonexistent repeatedly in thread after thread. Why don't you take the chance given to you and focus on another argument?

One of the key words in the Second Amendment is the word INFRINGED. One must understand what that word meant in that era of history to properly be able to state what the Second Amendment does and does not do.

 

[Federalist]

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

One of the key words in the Second Amendment is the word INFRINGED. One must understand what that word meant in that era of history to properly be able to state what the Second Amendment does and does not do.

It meant (and continues to mean) broken, violated, or transgressed. Pretty much what people think it means.

 

[haymarket]

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

It meant (and continues to mean) broken, violated, or transgressed. Pretty much what people think it means.

If your right has been broken, you do not have it to exercise.

If your right has been violated, you were not allowed to exercise it.

If your right has been transgressed, it has been passed over and violated which brings us right back to the first term where you were not allowed to exercise it.

That negates the exercise of the right. Thus, if you have the right to exercise, it is not broken... it is not transgressed.... it is not violated and it is being respected.

 

[Federalist]

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

If your right has been violated, you were not allowed to exercise it.

This is not a true statement.

A right may be violated in small ways. For example, one's right to speech may be violated by a law forbidding the utterance of the word "God". That would be a violation of one's right to speech, despite the fact that, in general, one may otherwise speak freely.

For the billionth time, your contention that violation is synonymous with complete destruction is bogus. There are degrees of violation, up to and including complete destruction.

 

[haymarket]

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

This is not a true statement.

A right may be violated in small ways. For example, one's right to speech may be violated by a law forbidding the utterance of the word "God". That would be a violation of one's right to speech, despite the fact that, in general, one may otherwise speak freely.

For the billionth time, your contention that violation is synonymous with complete destruction is bogus. There are degrees of violation, up to and including complete destruction.

And the Courts have upheld these small ways that you and others feel are incremental encroachments and what you feel is thus causing the right to be INFRINGED. Obviously, the Court does not agree with your definition but agrees with the implications of mine.

Again, we can argue about definitions. We can argue what word is the key word. We can argue about dictionaries. But in the end the reality is that my position has been accepted by the duly elected representatives of the people and the American judicial system.

My position is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. The government is barred from creating an environment where that right can no longer be carried our or exercised and that is what INFRIGED means. The details of public policy involving firearms are to be decided by the duly elected representatives of the American people and - if challenged - passed on for a constitutional test by the judiciary.

The position of the gun lobby and their sycophants is that even small incremental encorachments, regulations and restrictions or what you describe here as "small ways" constitute the right to be INFRINGED. No court has ever agreed with that and that is the extreme interpretation that has no basis in reality.

 

[wellwisher]

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

Here is a good parallel. Computers control everything in modern times from identities to nuclear weapons. So we need to regulate computers because hackers can do harm. If one hacker causes a problem everyone must give up computers. This is for the children.

This is irrational, since the best approach would be to go after the hackers and not lump innocent people in with the hackers so you can control them. Computers are inanimate and need a person to hack.

How about sex and AIDS. Sex has resulted in more death than guns by civilians. If we wish to save lives, we need to regulate the sex of everyone and not just those who cause the problems. I am trying to be consistent with the liberal logic to show how irrational it is.

 

[Trip]

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

And the Courts have upheld these small ways that you and others feel are incremental encroachments and what you feel is thus causing the right to be INFRINGED. Obviously, the Court does not agree with your definition but agrees with the implications of mine

Again, we can argue about definitions. We can argue what word is the key word. We can argue about dictionaries. But in the end the reality is that my position has been accepted by the duly elected representatives of the people and the American judicial system.

My position is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. The government is barred from creating an environment where that right can no longer be carried our or exercised and that is what INFRIGED means. The details of public policy involving firearms are to be decided by the duly elected representatives of the American people and - if challenged - passed on for a constitutional test by the judiciary.

Your position on the meaning of infringe has never been argued by any court in the entire history of this country, and indeed were any court to do so, it would be considered that the Justices were bat****-crazy, and should be impeached. When I walked into this subject and saw that people were actually arguing over the meaning of infringed, I vowed to not get involved, but to stick to the intelligent portions of the discussion. Unfortunately I was drawn in.

The position of the gun lobby and their sycophants is that even small incremental encorachments, regulations and restrictions or what you describe here as "small ways" constitute the right to be INFRINGED. No court has ever agreed with that and that is the extreme interpretation that has no basis in reality.

Every court has found ways to incrementally undermine the entirety of the Constitution, which is why people now not only pick up guns to defend their right to keep and bear arms, but also to defend their entire broader freedoms guaranteed them under the Constitution.

This argument is the most ignorant thing i have ever seen come down the pike. No definition, not even the 1828 Websters definition, not even when subject to torturous abuse, indicates that infringe must be the entire denial or stoppage of a thing.

I am done with this discussion.

 

[haymarket]

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

I am done with this discussion.

As Gabriel Heatter used to say on the radio - "there is good news tonight".

 

[captainawesome]

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

I believe that the right to bear arms applies to the individual.

I believe arms does not simply mean guns.

Modern arms are so destructive that it would be suicidal to believe all individuals should be able to own any weaponry they wish, and carry it with them anywhere at anytime.

What types of arms should be prohibited at what places and at what times and from what people are constantly up for discussion and is not a static prohibition, but a fluid prohibition.

Certainly I don't think that anyone should be able to build and own a nuke or dirty bomb.

I think since we have such stupid laws that label non violent people as felons that the law forbidding felons from owning guns is incorrect.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

This is not a true statement.

A right may be violated in small ways. For example, one's right to speech may be violated by a law forbidding the utterance of the word "God". That would be a violation of one's right to speech, despite the fact that, in general, one may otherwise speak freely.

For the billionth time, your contention that violation is synonymous with complete destruction is bogus. There are degrees of violation, up to and including complete destruction.

Our interpretation is consistent with every document generated contemporaneously with the second amendment. Haymarket's extremely narrow interpretation (which contradicts his incredibly expansive FDR version of the CC) is contrary to every underlying premise upon which the founders based our nation.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

I believe that the right to bear arms applies to the individual.

I believe arms does not simply mean guns.

Modern arms are so destructive that it would be suicidal to believe all individuals should be able to own any weaponry they wish, and carry it with them anywhere at anytime.

What types of arms should be prohibited at what places and at what times and from what people are constantly up for discussion and is not a static prohibition, but a fluid prohibition.

Certainly I don't think that anyone should be able to build and own a nuke or dirty bomb.

I think since we have such stupid laws that label non violent people as felons that the law forbidding felons from owning guns is incorrect.

I think everyone who honestly understands the second amendment would agree that all civilians of age and who have not had their rights deprived through due process of law should be able to own the common weapons of civilian police officers

 

[Federalist]

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

Our interpretation is consistent with every document generated contemporaneously with the second amendment. Haymarket's extremely narrow interpretation (which contradicts his incredibly expansive FDR version of the CC) is contrary to every underlying premise upon which the founders based our nation.

Authoritarians interpret the constitution in whatever manner best facilitates their schemes to subjugate their fellow man.

 

[captainawesome]

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

I think everyone who honestly understands the second amendment would agree that all civilians of age and who have not had their rights deprived through due process of law should be able to own the common weapons of civilian police officers

I would disagree with the part about those whose rights are deprived through due process part. I think, for example a woman who has a felony for writing bad checks and did her sentence should be able to own a pistol for protection. I think many would agree with me.

 

[Federalist]

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

I would disagree with the part about those whose rights are deprived through due process part. I think, for example a woman who has a felony for writing bad checks and did her sentence should be able to own a pistol for protection. I think many would agree with me.

I totally agree with you.

And welcome to Debate Politics.

 

[captainawesome]

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

I totally agree with you.

And welcome to Debate Politics.

Thanks.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

I would disagree with the part about those whose rights are deprived through due process part. I think, for example a woman who has a felony for writing bad checks and did her sentence should be able to own a pistol for protection. I think many would agree with me.

not a big deal to me. the main issue is that if cops can use it, we should be able to own it

 

[captainawesome]

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

not a big deal to me. the main issue is that if cops can use it, we should be able to own it

So the right of an individual to have their right to own a gun not infringed is not important. You just want to own the guns the police have. ok that's an interesting interpretation. of that amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

So the right of an individual to have their right to own a gun not infringed is not important. You just want to own the guns the police have. ok that's an interesting interpretation. of that amendment.

actually I believe everyone should have the right to own the standard current infantry weapon and anything that is below that weapon in terms of firepower.

I have no problem with changing the law to allow non violent felons to have their rights restored

the argument is that we can start at police weapons and then argue about bazookas and mortars

Democrats want to take away our right to own even common police weapons

 

[haymarket]

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

Our interpretation is consistent with every document generated contemporaneously with the second amendment. Haymarket's extremely narrow interpretation (which contradicts his incredibly expansive FDR version of the CC) is contrary to every underlying premise upon which the founders based our nation.

My view contradicts none of my other positions on issues. Again, committing the Fallacy of False Equivalency, you are badly confusing two different things that are separate and different from each other. It further ignores the reality that two very different parts of the Constitution deal with each of those topics.

this will help you avoid making this error in the future

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/logicalfallacy_files/False_Equivalence.html

 

[TurtleDude]

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

My view contradicts none of my other positions on issues. Again, committing the Fallacy of False Equivalency, you are badly confusing two different things that are separate and different from each other. It further ignores the reality that two very different parts of the Constitution deal with each of those topics.

this will help you avoid making this error in the future

Logical Fallacies

LOL, an interesting way of justifying interpreting different parts in order to deny the people as much of their rights as possible while supporting as much government power as one can.

That thing you cited has no relevance to constitutional scholarship or the fact that interpretation of the DOCUMENT should be consistent.

 

[ChrisL]

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

The opinions of individuals - while interesting historical anecdotes - are no substitute for the exact language of the US Constitution. 55 people wrote that document and it was ratified by many many more in the States. To take the musings of an individual or a few individuals and attempt to use that for ones own purposes in place of the actual language is simply not acceptable.

Well it's certainly no less acceptable than someone who only applies cherry picked definitions to a specific term. Also, those opinions are what helped to form the Constitution. It is obviously when you read their opinions that they wanted a very limited federal government, and they wanted people to be armed to protect themselves from a monarchy-type of situation, like they had faced.

 

[haymarket]

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

LOL, an interesting way of justifying interpreting different parts in order to deny the people as much of their rights as possible while supporting as much government power as one can.

That thing you cited has no relevance to constitutional scholarship or the fact that interpretation of the DOCUMENT should be consistent.

Nonsense. I believe in limited government.

What "thing you cited" are you talking about?

 

[haymarket]

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

Well it's certainly no less acceptable than someone who only applies cherry picked definitions to a specific term. Also, those opinions are what helped to form the Constitution. It is obviously when you read their opinions that they wanted a very limited federal government, and they wanted people to be armed to protect themselves from a monarchy-type of situation, like they had faced.

this will help you understand a term that you have invoked but have used it improperly and wrongly.



I did not cherry pick anything. I attempted to find the oldest American definition possible for the word INFRINGED that I could locate from the most respected and authoritative source. That turned out to be the 1828 Webster's. I challenged anybody - including you - to come up with an even older and more respected authoritative source and somebody found the 1806 muchch sorter work that Webster had developed in preparing for his 1828 magnum opus. So I have used that also. I then reported the definitions in full without editing or abridging.

That is the complete opposite of cherry picking.

You value the opinion of the individuals you mentioned. I have no problem with that. However, there were 55 individuals who came together to write the Constitution. Not only do we NOT have the extensive musings of most of them, even the actual records of the Convention itself are woefully incomplete. As such, it would be a serious error of basic scholarship - not to mention cherry picking itself - to simply isolate the opinions of a very small number and attempt to wrongly extrapolate those to the entire body of 55 who produced the document.