What was the meaning of the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment?

[konradv]

Not taken away without good reason.

just wait until they start applying that logic to speech and assembly

They've already been doing that.

Fairness Doctrine
Free speech zones (dog runs.)

How about state secrets? Are you saying Wikileaks falls into the same category? There are many ways speech and assembly are "infringed". You can't have a public rally without a permit, for example. That's why it's a collective right like the second. It's the right of "the people", i.e. no outright ban on political speech, but the individual "person" does not have the right to say whatever they want. Slander and libel laws should tell you that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think the important part is "the people", i.e. an outright ban on guns is unconstitutional, but that does not mean an individual "person" can't be checked out/licensed to eliminate criminals and the insane.

Any infringement is unconstitutional.

An armed populace is the bane of any would be tyrant, thus the left's obsession with revoking the second.

 

[Dubya]

I see, so you think they meant just 'Firearms' and not the other heavier weapons the militias had?

They didn't care if someone had a cannon and a riverboat might have one. They just didn't want the populace disarmed. That doesn't mean you can't take a gun or knife away from the village idiot.

at the time cannons and cannonballs, as well as extra powder and ammunition were kept in local armories. I think even in colonial times they didnt want two neighbors blasting away at each other with smoothbore 12 pounders.

They also didnt want the people "effectively disarmed," meaning given inadequate weapons for the task at hand. If they wanted to limit it to certain arms, why didnt they say "shall be weapons XYZ" instead of not be infringed?

There were citizens who had cannon back then, but they are expensive and people didn't waste money for toys.

The Founders talked about two themes. They didn't want a standing army, so they let the states train their own militias. They didn't want the populace disarmed, because saw that done in Europe when someone took over a country. The Founders discuss that and it's written in the minutes of the meeting composing the language for the 2nd Amendment. They used the word infringed to mean the right for the people to keep and bear arms couldn't be invalidated. It doesn't mean you can't put a restriction on certain kinds of weapons.

 

[martybegan]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think the important part is "the people", i.e. an outright ban on guns is unconstitutional, but that does not mean an individual "person" can't be checked out/licensed to eliminate criminals and the insane.

We already do that. Instead we have states regulating the size of a metal box with springs in it, and defining an illegal weapon by its grip or ability to accept a bayonet.

 

[martybegan]

They didn't care if someone had a cannon and a riverboat might have one. They just didn't want the populace disarmed. That doesn't mean you can't take a gun or knife away from the village idiot.

at the time cannons and cannonballs, as well as extra powder and ammunition were kept in local armories. I think even in colonial times they didnt want two neighbors blasting away at each other with smoothbore 12 pounders.

They also didnt want the people "effectively disarmed," meaning given inadequate weapons for the task at hand. If they wanted to limit it to certain arms, why didnt they say "shall be weapons XYZ" instead of not be infringed?

There were citizens who had cannon back then, but they are expensive and people didn't waste money for toys.

The Founders talked about two themes. They didn't want a standing army, so they let the states train their own militias. They didn't want the populace disarmed, because saw that done in Europe when someone took over a country. The Founders discuss that and it's written in the minutes of the meeting composing the language for the 2nd Amendment. They used the word infringed to mean the right for the people to keep and bear arms couldn't be invalidated. It doesn't mean you can't put a restriction on certain kinds of weapons.

but you can effectively disarm them by limiting them to weapons that do not meet the intent of the amendment.

New York's new law is basically that.

 

[Dubya]

I think the important part is "the people", i.e. an outright ban on guns is unconstitutional, but that does not mean an individual "person" can't be checked out/licensed to eliminate criminals and the insane.

Any infringement is unconstitutional.

An armed populace is the bane of any would be tyrant, thus the left's obsession with revoking the second.

Any invalidation of the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. A restriction of certain guns or knives is not an invalidation of the people's right. You aren't allowed to have a switchblade knife in most states that I know of. That is not a violation of the Constitution.

You are using a modern concept of a word to interpret what was written in 1789 and you haven't looked at what the Founders were discussing, even though it's been posted. You're wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How about state secrets? Are you saying Wikileaks falls into the same category?

For the most part, yes. Except in cases where it leaks actual military information.

There are many ways speech and assembly are "infringed". You can't have a public rally without a permit, for example.

Which violates the right of assembly.

That's why it's a collective right like the second. It's the right of "the people", i.e. no outright ban on political speech, but the individual "person" does not have the right to say whatever they want. Slander and libel laws should tell you that.

Slander and libel arise from tort, there must be harm in order for either to accrue. An individual person DOES have the right to say whatever they want. Congress may pass no law infringing this. If the speech results in tort, the individual must face the consequences of their action. Just as the right to weapons is absolute, but if the use of weapons results in tort, the person can and will be subject to liability. The right is absolute, but the USE of these rights is subject to consequence, civil and criminal.

 

[konradv]

I think the important part is "the people", i.e. an outright ban on guns is unconstitutional, but that does not mean an individual "person" can't be checked out/licensed to eliminate criminals and the insane.

Any infringement is unconstitutional.

An armed populace is the bane of any would be tyrant, thus the left's obsession with revoking the second.

So you're saying felons should be allowed to walk into any gun store and buy what they want? Do you figure "they're going to get them anyway, so let's make a buck"? The infringement that's prohibited is the right of "the people" to possess weapons. It says nothing about allowing every "person" that right. The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.

 

[Ravi]

It comes down to what you consider an "arm." In the language of the time an arm was a rifle for infantrymen, and sword/pistol combo for officers. As for the others they were specialty weapons.

Grenades were originally handled by "grenadiers" who were at first branches of the "sappers" or today's engineers. Not considered an arm.

A .50 cal machine gun is a crew serviced weapon, originally assinged to the artillery. Again, not considered an "arm"

RPG: Artillery/explosive. not an arm

SAM's, you guessed it artillery. Not an arm.

I see, so you think they meant just 'Firearms' and not the other heavier weapons the militias had?

When a person showed up for milita duty, they didnt come dragging a cannon with them. they came with a rifle or musket (shotgun if thats all they had), a bayonet, and if they had it a pistol. The more well off showed up with thier horses for cavalry purposes.

And I am incorrect about the navy thing in a previous post. There were letters of marque to allow for privateers, but you needed permission from the government for that, and that was accepted. anyone in an armed ship without one could be considered a pirate.

Was it illegal to own a cannon then? I was unable to find anything stating such.

 

[westwall]

this is settled constitutional law folks.


There is NOT ONE scotus member who says gun laws are unconstitutional.

 

[Dubya]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

infringed past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
Verb

Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

ob·so·lete (bs-lt, bs-lt)
adj.
1. No longer in use: an obsolete word.

Source: obsolete - definition of obsolete by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[konradv]

How about state secrets? Are you saying Wikileaks falls into the same category?

For the most part, yes. Except in cases where it leaks actual military information.

There are many ways speech and assembly are "infringed". You can't have a public rally without a permit, for example.

Which violates the right of assembly.

That's why it's a collective right like the second. It's the right of "the people", i.e. no outright ban on political speech, but the individual "person" does not have the right to say whatever they want. Slander and libel laws should tell you that.

Slander and libel arise from tort, there must be harm in order for either to accrue. An individual person DOES have the right to say whatever they want. Congress may pass no law infringing this. If the speech results in tort, the individual must face the consequences of their action. Just as the right to weapons is absolute, but if the use of weapons results in tort, the person can and will be subject to liability. The right is absolute, but the USE of these rights is subject to consequence, civil and criminal.

Remedies after the fact do no good if one's life or reputation are destroyed. I'm afraid you don't get the reason for the laws. Once the damage is done, a tort doesn't often to a thing to remedy it. Nicole Brown Simpson's father sued. Did that bring her back to life?

 

[martybegan]

I see, so you think they meant just 'Firearms' and not the other heavier weapons the militias had?

When a person showed up for milita duty, they didnt come dragging a cannon with them. they came with a rifle or musket (shotgun if thats all they had), a bayonet, and if they had it a pistol. The more well off showed up with thier horses for cavalry purposes.

And I am incorrect about the navy thing in a previous post. There were letters of marque to allow for privateers, but you needed permission from the government for that, and that was accepted. anyone in an armed ship without one could be considered a pirate.

Was it illegal to own a cannon then? I was unable to find anything stating such.

The individual owning of a cannon was well beyond the means of an average citizen. Think of the cost of a tank and see how many could afford to keep one.

Firearms, on the other hand were well within the reach of your average property owner.

 

[Dubya]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think the important part is "the people", i.e. an outright ban on guns is unconstitutional, but that does not mean an individual "person" can't be checked out/licensed to eliminate criminals and the insane.

They didn't want the populace disarmed, but if someone was a danger to themselves or others, that didn't mean you couldn't disarm that person for public safety. The Founders talk about countries in Europe, where they disarmed the people and took over the country.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Any invalidation of the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.

Invalidation and infringement are not synonyms, or even close to.

A restriction of certain guns or knives is not an invalidation of the people's right. You aren't allowed to have a switchblade knife in most states that I know of. That is not a violation of the Constitution.

It actually IS a violation of the constitution, it simply hasn't been challenged. It's also stupid, I can flick open virtually any folding knife with one hand. As with anti-gun laws, this merely creates an advantage for those who are skilled with weapons.

You are using a modern concept of a word to interpret what was written in 1789 and you haven't looked at what the Founders were discussing, even though it's been posted. You're wrong.

You mean like "regulated?" In 1779, it simply meant "armed."

 

[kwc57]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Read it, learn it, live it.

Regulating the Militia - National Review Online

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you're saying felons should be allowed to walk into any gun store and buy what they want?

Nope, nor should a felon be allowed to vote.

Felonious acts forfeit rights. The right to life is absolute, yet I support executing convicted rapists. These statements are not in conflict.

Do you figure "they're going to get them anyway, so let's make a buck"? The infringement that's prohibited is the right of "the people" to possess weapons. It says nothing about allowing every "person" that right. The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.

Rights accrue to the law abiding citizenry.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Remedies after the fact do no good if one's life or reputation are destroyed. I'm afraid you don't get the reason for the laws. Once the damage is done, a tort doesn't often to a thing to remedy it. Nicole Brown Simpson's father sued. Did that bring her back to life?

Ah, so if guns had only been outlawed, OJ would never have cut Nicole's head off with a knife.

 

[Ravi]

When a person showed up for milita duty, they didnt come dragging a cannon with them. they came with a rifle or musket (shotgun if thats all they had), a bayonet, and if they had it a pistol. The more well off showed up with thier horses for cavalry purposes.

And I am incorrect about the navy thing in a previous post. There were letters of marque to allow for privateers, but you needed permission from the government for that, and that was accepted. anyone in an armed ship without one could be considered a pirate.

Was it illegal to own a cannon then? I was unable to find anything stating such.

The individual owning of a cannon was well beyond the means of an average citizen. Think of the cost of a tank and see how many could afford to keep one.

Firearms, on the other hand were well within the reach of your average property owner.

Affordability has no bearing on legality. Unless you are trying to claim that we can't own nukes simply because we can't afford them.

 

[Dubya]

Any invalidation of the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.

Invalidation and infringement are not synonyms, or even close to.

A restriction of certain guns or knives is not an invalidation of the people's right. You aren't allowed to have a switchblade knife in most states that I know of. That is not a violation of the Constitution.

It actually IS a violation of the constitution, it simply hasn't been challenged. It's also stupid, I can flick open virtually any folding knife with one hand. As with anti-gun laws, this merely creates an advantage for those who are skilled with weapons.

You are using a modern concept of a word to interpret what was written in 1789 and you haven't looked at what the Founders were discussing, even though it's been posted. You're wrong.

You mean like "regulated?" In 1779, it simply meant "armed."

Regualted means they wanted the states to train their militia, because they had experience with untrained militia.

Listen and listen closely! Infringe does not mean transgress in 1789. It means nullify, to make or declare void or invalid, to annul, to invalidate.

You are using modern definitions for a word written 224 years ago. The meaning of words change and you need to know their meaning. Their reasoning for including that in the 2nd Amendment is discussed in the minutes of the meeting. Read it!