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

[Wry Catcher]

What does the word infringed mean?

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.

Link: Search => [word] => Infringe :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com
1828 Dictionary, first published in the US.

So, to be taken literally, anyone - a drunk, drug addict, child abuser, wife abuser, felon, pyschotic paranoid schizophrenic, child, etc. etc. cannot have their right to own, possess, carry or control any arm or firearm, anywhere - loaded or not infringed.

Does anyone believe the founders believed this to be so?

That's your interpretation, but it isn't what the Founders meant.

I'm not sure anyone knows what the individual Founder's meant. They were individuals and each was successful and wealthy. Don't ever dismiss self interest as motivation; few movements in human history were framed solely (or even obliquely) by altruistic reasons.

They wanted to preserve the liberty they fought for, but they didn't want a standing army that someone within could use to take away that liberty. They saw that happen in Europe, country after country. They saw the populace disarmed, country after country. So they wrote those two themes into the Constitution. They forbade the populace from being disarmed and choose a well regulated militia to defend the US instead of a standing army, that they really couldn't afford anyway, but didn't want it to happen. That way they could get the states to train their individual militias, who would rally together if attacked.



Infringe means to invalidate, annul, or to take away the legal force or effectiveness of.

The definition I offered is taken from the first dictionary published in the United States. Do you have a source/link for the one you propose?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

False, it meant outfitted with regulation arms. It had nothing at all to do with training. Which is why you'll be unable to produce any documentation for training of citizen militias at times of peace.

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.

Utter bullshit.

You are attempting to recreate reality to support your attack on civil liberties.

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!

ROFL

{The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press. } - Thomas Jefferson

{The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. } - James Madison (Federalist Papers)

{[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . .} - George Mason

{Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. } - Alexander Hamilton

{A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle. } - Noah Webster


To point out that you are full of shit would be redundant.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.)

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

The Fairness Doctrine ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

 

[Koios]

Cast member of this show ...

 

[martybegan]

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.

What is had was a bearing on the thoughts of the writers of the consitution. If they wanted the people to have the right to every weapon of war, they would have said it, or included artillery (which was the only heavy weapon of the time) in the amendment.

They specicially said "arms" which at the time were a reference to the common arms of the infantryman, a musket or rifle for enlisted, and pistols for officers (swords too)

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Ban - ABC News

 

[Spoonman]

funny how our inalienable rights are no longer son inalienable. and people are ok with that?

 

[Ravi]

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.

What is had was a bearing on the thoughts of the writers of the consitution. If they wanted the people to have the right to every weapon of war, they would have said it, or included artillery (which was the only heavy weapon of the time) in the amendment.

They specicially said "arms" which at the time were a reference to the common arms of the infantryman, a musket or rifle for enlisted, and pistols for officers (swords too)

The word artillery is from the French, meaning to arm.

The definition of arms is:

arms
n 1: weapons considered collectively [syn: weaponry, implements
of war, weapons system, munition]
2: (heraldry) the official symbols of a family, state, etc.
[syn: coat of arms, blazon, blazonry]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

But none of that answers the question of whether or not anyone could legally own a cannon at the time. I have a feeling that if someone "dragged" their cannon to the militia it would be welcomed and used.

 

[martybegan]

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.

What is had was a bearing on the thoughts of the writers of the consitution. If they wanted the people to have the right to every weapon of war, they would have said it, or included artillery (which was the only heavy weapon of the time) in the amendment.

They specicially said "arms" which at the time were a reference to the common arms of the infantryman, a musket or rifle for enlisted, and pistols for officers (swords too)

The word artillery is from the French, meaning to arm.

The definition of arms is:

arms
n 1: weapons considered collectively [syn: weaponry, implements
of war, weapons system, munition]
2: (heraldry) the official symbols of a family, state, etc.
[syn: coat of arms, blazon, blazonry]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

But none of that answers the question of whether or not anyone could legally own a cannon at the time. I have a feeling that if someone "dragged" their cannon to the militia it would be welcomed and used.

I doubt the people in the milita would want to be near the thing. Cannons of that age were notoriously prone to blowing up the users nearly as often as the enemy.

The real point is that nowhere in any writing of the time were cannon explicitly thought of to be weapons people kept in thier home to be brought on milita duty. Look at how much scrounging for cannons the continentals had to do to even arm themselves. The victory at Ticonderoga and its importance show how needing of those weapons they were.

The fact that each man had an implement capable of being used against a likewise armed foe made them capable of aquiring said cannons.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The word artillery is from the French, meaning to arm.

The definition of arms is:

arms
n 1: weapons considered collectively [syn: weaponry, implements
of war, weapons system, munition]
2: (heraldry) the official symbols of a family, state, etc.
[syn: coat of arms, blazon, blazonry]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

But none of that answers the question of whether or not anyone could legally own a cannon at the time. I have a feeling that if someone "dragged" their cannon to the militia it would be welcomed and used.

Anyone could legally own a cannon, and many did.

Mounting ordinance on barricade battlements and spires was common in frontier settlements. Boonesborough is a good example.

 

[Ravi]

The word artillery is from the French, meaning to arm.

The definition of arms is:

arms
n 1: weapons considered collectively [syn: weaponry, implements
of war, weapons system, munition]
2: (heraldry) the official symbols of a family, state, etc.
[syn: coat of arms, blazon, blazonry]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

But none of that answers the question of whether or not anyone could legally own a cannon at the time. I have a feeling that if someone "dragged" their cannon to the militia it would be welcomed and used.

Anyone could legally own a cannon, and many did.

Mounting ordinance on barricade battlements and spires was common in frontier settlements. Boonesborough is a good example.

So then Marty was wrong.

 

[martybegan]

The word artillery is from the French, meaning to arm.

The definition of arms is:

arms
n 1: weapons considered collectively [syn: weaponry, implements
of war, weapons system, munition]
2: (heraldry) the official symbols of a family, state, etc.
[syn: coat of arms, blazon, blazonry]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

But none of that answers the question of whether or not anyone could legally own a cannon at the time. I have a feeling that if someone "dragged" their cannon to the militia it would be welcomed and used.

Anyone could legally own a cannon, and many did.

Mounting ordinance on barricade battlements and spires was common in frontier settlements. Boonesborough is a good example.

So then Marty was wrong.

Were they privately owned, or made by the community and communally owned?

I still dont consider a cannon an "arm"

 

[Dubya]

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.

Link: Search => [word] => Infringe :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com
1828 Dictionary, first published in the US.

So, to be taken literally, anyone - a drunk, drug addict, child abuser, wife abuser, felon, pyschotic paranoid schizophrenic, child, etc. etc. cannot have their right to own, possess, carry or control any arm or firearm, anywhere - loaded or not infringed.

Does anyone believe the founders believed this to be so?

That's your interpretation, but it isn't what the Founders meant.

I'm not sure anyone knows what the individual Founder's meant. They were individuals and each was successful and wealthy. Don't ever dismiss self interest as motivation; few movements in human history were framed solely (or even obliquely) by altruistic reasons.

They wanted to preserve the liberty they fought for, but they didn't want a standing army that someone within could use to take away that liberty. They saw that happen in Europe, country after country. They saw the populace disarmed, country after country. So they wrote those two themes into the Constitution. They forbade the populace from being disarmed and choose a well regulated militia to defend the US instead of a standing army, that they really couldn't afford anyway, but didn't want it to happen. That way they could get the states to train their individual militias, who would rally together if attacked.



Infringe means to invalidate, annul, or to take away the legal force or effectiveness of.

The definition I offered is taken from the first dictionary published in the United States. Do you have a source/link for the one you propose?

I don't have a problem with that definition or the choose of source. The word infringed is English and isn't limited by the first American dictionary. A contemporary dictionary in the UK is dependable and probably the best source for a definition in you want to match the date. Even a good modern dictionary of today can convey the meaning of 1789, if it's comprehensive enough.

The reason I picked that single word was I think much of the difference in interpreting the 2nd Amendment hinges on how someone interprets that word.

I'm from an older generation than most of the people posting on this site. When I entered high school in a public school, students who signed up for college prep were told to take Latin. Learning Latin is a tradtion in education that precedes the Founders and that's how they were education too. They taught Latin and Greek to teach the meaning of words, because many of our words have their origins in Latin and Greek.

The origin of word infringe is from Latin and at the time it was used in the 2nd Amendment, it does have a mean of to break, but the connotation and denotation of it's use is in the sense of to destroy, like the original Latin.

Consider a cup! Infringe doesn't mean you broke your cup by chipping a little piece from the rim, it means you dropped it and it shattered. The Founders used the words shall not to convey almost a Biblical command of prohibition.

The concern that prompted the 2nd Amendment was to preserve liberty. They needed security from an outside threat, but feared having a standing army, because it posed an internal threat. They also knew that a militia had to be well regulated to be effective, meaning it needed a command structure and training. People of a certain age would be required to serve in this militia, but some had religious reasons not to do it personally, or even contribute funds. The Founders believed in religous freedom and wanted to include it in the 2nd Amendment, but when they couldn't come to an agreement, they just dropped it, so the states could work it out. As a safeguard against a militia becoming a threat, in effect a standing army, they forbad disarming the populace.

 

[Dubya]

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

False, it meant outfitted with regulation arms. It had nothing at all to do with training. Which is why you'll be unable to produce any documentation for training of citizen militias at times of peace.

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.

Utter bullshit.

You are attempting to recreate reality to support your attack on civil liberties.

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!

ROFL

{The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press. } - Thomas Jefferson

{The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. } - James Madison (Federalist Papers)

{[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . .} - George Mason

{Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. } - Alexander Hamilton

{A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle. } - Noah Webster


To point out that you are full of shit would be redundant.

You are totally full of shit! You don't bother to read what was said during those times. Things aren't just the way you want them to be and that's why you can't accept what is.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Not taken away without good reason.

I would think that "good" reason is rather an understatement.

 

[Ravi]

Anyone could legally own a cannon, and many did.

Mounting ordinance on barricade battlements and spires was common in frontier settlements. Boonesborough is a good example.

So then Marty was wrong.

Were they privately owned, or made by the community and communally owned?

I still dont consider a cannon an "arm"

Where do you suppose the colonials got the cannons from since there wasn't a government to own the cannons? From private owners, and in fact weren't their privately owned ships outfitted with cannon that joined the revolution?

 

[Dubya]

So then Marty was wrong.

Were they privately owned, or made by the community and communally owned?

I still dont consider a cannon an "arm"

Where do you suppose the colonials got the cannons from since there wasn't a government to own the cannons? From private owners, and in fact weren't their privately owned ships outfitted with cannon that joined the revolution?

I don't know why someone is trying to make the point about cannon not being in private hands. Citizens could own cannon at that time. They could be found on ships and riverboats. The important source of cannon in the Revolutionary War came with the capture of Fort Ticonderoga by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold. Henry Knox, who later became Secretary of War under President Washington managed to move those cannon in terrible weather all the way to Boston and that's how the city was captured.

The Constitution said arms and the arms of those days weren't that powerful. Between that time and nuclear arms, there were challenges to particular weapons. They made a sword that could fit in a cane. Robbers were using it to lure people into a false sense of security and then all of a sudden, the victim faced a thin, very sharp blade. It happen often in cities and they banned it. Some areas also banned derringers, when they became a menace.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The Constitution said arms and the arms of those days weren't that powerful.

A .69 caliber hole hurts less than .22 caliber hole.

Brilliant.

 

[Dubya]

The Constitution said arms and the arms of those days weren't that powerful.

A .69 caliber hole hurts less than .22 caliber hole.

Brilliant.

Did they have FIM-92 Stinger missiles back in those days that could take down airliners? Stinger missiles are a type of arm, do you think people should be allowed to have them?

 

[OODA_Loop]

The Constitution said arms and the arms of those days weren't that powerful.

A .69 caliber hole hurts less than .22 caliber hole.

Brilliant.

Did they have FIM-92 Stinger missiles back in those days that could take down airliners? Stinger missiles are a type of arm, do you think people should be allowed to have them?

Stinger missle is an explosive. Not in common usage.