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

[Ernie S.]

I haven't moved the goal posts.

The Constitution said arms and they didn't think more powerful weapons in the future would be an issue, because they were reasonable men and figured the people in the future would also be reasonable.

Since their intent was just to prevent the populace from being disarmed, it's the people who misinterpret that intent who are the problem. Unless you are going to allow the people to have all arms, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere. The Constitution didn't mention guns.

Their intent was for the militia to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic. If the US Military was limited to muzzle loaders. we'd be communicating in German right now.
I can't afford a nuke, nor can all but a hand full of private people in this country, all of whom wouldn't dream of using one as an offensive weapon any more than my possession of a 30 round magazine makes me dream of shooting up a school room. We already restrict felons and crazies. Enforce THOSE laws, but keep your gun grabbing hands off my legal weapons. My autos included
No. the Constitution didn't mention guns. They didn't mention radio either, but no one got all up in Air America's face that radio allowed them too much freedom of speech.

Then you admit society does have a right to decide whether a citizen can have a particular arm. I believe society has that right, too, but I don't expect them to do it the way I would want it done.

Let me point out that I have supported limiting magazine size, but I haven't said I wanted a weapon banned, so "your gun grabbing hands" statement is made out of pure ignorance. Not knowing what you are talking about seems to be a rather common with you people. If you don't know something, why don't you just keep your fucking mouth shut?

Again with the "you people" You don't know jack shit about me, so please don't include me in any class of people you imagine yourself to be superior to. OK, dipshit?

I didn't say society should limit what weapon a person could own. I implied economics would. I really want a Ma Deuce. I have a sand bank on my property where I could safely blast away to my heart's content. What is stopping me is the 12 grand the weapon would cost is more than I can justify spending. I'm thinking I can get an M 60 for half of that, or a Thompson for about 2 grand. I'm leaning toward the later. That shit will really piss you off though 20, 39, 50 and 100 round magazines are available.

 

[Si modo]

Dumbwa still hasn't read any Jefferson or Hamilton. It's impossible to help the intellectually lazy.

 

[Dubya]

Their intent was for the militia to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic. If the US Military was limited to muzzle loaders. we'd be communicating in German right now.
I can't afford a nuke, nor can all but a hand full of private people in this country, all of whom wouldn't dream of using one as an offensive weapon any more than my possession of a 30 round magazine makes me dream of shooting up a school room. We already restrict felons and crazies. Enforce THOSE laws, but keep your gun grabbing hands off my legal weapons. My autos included
No. the Constitution didn't mention guns. They didn't mention radio either, but no one got all up in Air America's face that radio allowed them too much freedom of speech.

Then you admit society does have a right to decide whether a citizen can have a particular arm. I believe society has that right, too, but I don't expect them to do it the way I would want it done.

Let me point out that I have supported limiting magazine size, but I haven't said I wanted a weapon banned, so "your gun grabbing hands" statement is made out of pure ignorance. Not knowing what you are talking about seems to be a rather common with you people. If you don't know something, why don't you just keep your fucking mouth shut?

Limiting magazine sizes is just a feel good thing that opens the door to more restrictive measures. And limitng the magazine size below the common sized DESIGNED for a given gun is just a way of banning a gun without banning it.

Furthermore, one part of the law says you can keep your 10 round mag, but it is only legal to LOAD 7 rounds! So a law abiding citizen is supposed to voluntarily limit thier ability, while a criminal can care less.

Its the outright lying and end run bans that the grabbers try that piss me off so much.

Then you get into semantics about the amendment, hoping some progressive court agrees with you, thus allowing 1-9 people to overule the desires of the many.

I guess progressives are just fans of oligarchy.

Things get screwed up when you have state legislators making laws. Now, if I want to go hunting in Maine, I have to pass through all these states with their own versions of gun laws.

Since most of the people in the New York Senate were Republican and only a few Democrats, my guess is they were moderates. I haven't seen the details on the magazines, but I'm inclined to believe the law would allow the magazine to be restricted by modification.

 

[Dubya]

If we cannot understand the meaning of the Constitution any longer, perhaps we don't deserve to have it anymore.

Look around at all the people who don't understand it!

 

[Ernie S.]

That's how you people think and that's why normal people have no value in your opinions.

You people??? What people are you talking about?
And son, WE ARE the normal people. We know that felons and crazies shouldn't have guns and we know the meaning of the word "infringed"
You see normal people are capable of applying logic to apparent contradictions unlike "you people".

You obviously don't know what the 1789 meaning of infringed meant. It meant you couldn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it didn't mean you couldn't tell the populace they couldn't have a particular arm. Infringe back in those days meant to invalidate. It wasn't a transgression against a person. It has it's Latin root in "to destroy." The meaning of the word has changed throughout time.

You're a bunch of people who have been spoon fed a bunch of lies.

I know the meaning of the word. I also don't see any qualifier that would allow the right to keep and bear any specific class of arms to be invalidated. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is pretty fucking clear. It needs no PHD linguist to decipher any hidden meanings of the words used. It sure as shit does not need a liberal asshole to redefine words to fit his agenda.

 

[Dubya]

Their intent was for the militia to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic. If the US Military was limited to muzzle loaders. we'd be communicating in German right now.
I can't afford a nuke, nor can all but a hand full of private people in this country, all of whom wouldn't dream of using one as an offensive weapon any more than my possession of a 30 round magazine makes me dream of shooting up a school room. We already restrict felons and crazies. Enforce THOSE laws, but keep your gun grabbing hands off my legal weapons. My autos included
No. the Constitution didn't mention guns. They didn't mention radio either, but no one got all up in Air America's face that radio allowed them too much freedom of speech.

Then you admit society does have a right to decide whether a citizen can have a particular arm. I believe society has that right, too, but I don't expect them to do it the way I would want it done.

Let me point out that I have supported limiting magazine size, but I haven't said I wanted a weapon banned, so "your gun grabbing hands" statement is made out of pure ignorance. Not knowing what you are talking about seems to be a rather common with you people. If you don't know something, why don't you just keep your fucking mouth shut?

Again with the "you people" You don't know jack shit about me, so please don't include me in any class of people you imagine yourself to be superior to. OK, dipshit?

I didn't say society should limit what weapon a person could own. I implied economics would. I really want a Ma Deuce. I have a sand bank on my property where I could safely blast away to my heart's content. What is stopping me is the 12 grand the weapon would cost is more than I can justify spending. I'm thinking I can get an M 60 for half of that, or a Thompson for about 2 grand. I'm leaning toward the later. That shit will really piss you off though 20, 39, 50 and 100 round magazines are available.

You're the one who started the dumbshit of knowing someone. My brother has two Thompsons.

 

[martybegan]

Then you admit society does have a right to decide whether a citizen can have a particular arm. I believe society has that right, too, but I don't expect them to do it the way I would want it done.

Let me point out that I have supported limiting magazine size, but I haven't said I wanted a weapon banned, so "your gun grabbing hands" statement is made out of pure ignorance. Not knowing what you are talking about seems to be a rather common with you people. If you don't know something, why don't you just keep your fucking mouth shut?

Limiting magazine sizes is just a feel good thing that opens the door to more restrictive measures. And limitng the magazine size below the common sized DESIGNED for a given gun is just a way of banning a gun without banning it.

Furthermore, one part of the law says you can keep your 10 round mag, but it is only legal to LOAD 7 rounds! So a law abiding citizen is supposed to voluntarily limit thier ability, while a criminal can care less.

Its the outright lying and end run bans that the grabbers try that piss me off so much.

Then you get into semantics about the amendment, hoping some progressive court agrees with you, thus allowing 1-9 people to overule the desires of the many.

I guess progressives are just fans of oligarchy.

Things get screwed up when you have state legislators making laws. Now, if I want to go hunting in Maine, I have to pass through all these states with their own versions of gun laws.

Since most of the people in the New York Senate were Republican and only a few Democrats, my guess is they were moderates. I haven't seen the details on the magazines, but I'm inclined to believe the law would allow the magazine to be restricted by modification.

NYn is overwhelming Democratic due to New York City. upstate is more red, but not by much.

Please get informed before making statements like that....

 

[Dubya]

Dumbwa still hasn't read any Jefferson or Hamilton. It's impossible to help the intellectually lazy.

I had the highest grade in my high school American History class and you probably didn't even take the course in high school. I'm 61 and have studied history since then and before, but then I'm interested in a lot more things than history. I'm sure in my lifetime, I've seen over 10 book reviews by historians on those Founders and many other Founders.

You didn't even know the history of the Republican Party. I doubt if there is anything you can say about major historical events that I don't know.

 

[saveliberty]

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?

Dubya, YOU IGNORANT ASS, infringe means to break. As in breaking a trust that we all have the right to protect ourselves with arms. If you are defending yourself against a criminal, its probably a gun. If its against a government, probably a Stinger would come in pretty handy.

Your IGNORANCE abounds without limit. What an ASS.

<testing, 1,2,3 testing>

It means break in the sense of to destroy. You are talking about a right of the people to keep and bear arms. When you people that right, that means the people can't keep and bear arms. It doesn't mean someone had their gun taken from them. When you arrest someone, are you suppose to allow them to keep their gun, because the Constitution told you to? You people don't even know what the 2nd Amendment means and which of you have tried to find what the Founders were talking about when they wrote it?

You want to live in some fantasy world that your rights are being violated and society doesn't care if you wise up or not. Your type has proven themselves to be lunatics.

Duyba, you DRUNKEN MORON, the SCOTUS is firmly in my camp on most guns., if not all.

Sleep it off and try again...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not taken away without good reason.

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

They've been doing that all along.

Every bit of 1st amendment jurisprudence should be applied to the right to arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Any precondition to the exercise of a right not inherent to same is an infrngement of that right.

 

[Dubya]

You people??? What people are you talking about?
And son, WE ARE the normal people. We know that felons and crazies shouldn't have guns and we know the meaning of the word "infringed"
You see normal people are capable of applying logic to apparent contradictions unlike "you people".

You obviously don't know what the 1789 meaning of infringed meant. It meant you couldn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it didn't mean you couldn't tell the populace they couldn't have a particular arm. Infringe back in those days meant to invalidate. It wasn't a transgression against a person. It has it's Latin root in "to destroy." The meaning of the word has changed throughout time.

You're a bunch of people who have been spoon fed a bunch of lies.

I know the meaning of the word. I also don't see any qualifier that would allow the right to keep and bear any specific class of arms to be invalidated. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is pretty fucking clear. It needs no PHD linguist to decipher any hidden meanings of the words used. It sure as shit does not need a liberal asshole to redefine words to fit his agenda.

Looking something up in a dictionary to find an obsolete meaning is asking too much. The Constitution is the way you choose to see it, right? Who cares what the Founders intended, right?

You know the meaning of the word now, so fuck the fact that the meaning has changed. If you want to spend your life thinking they took away your constitutional rights, then go ahead. More misery to ya! They already took away your constitutional right to a switchblade, didn't they. The scoundrels!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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."

The Framers were referring to laws designed to restrict or preempt the exercising of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment where such laws are excessive or unwarranted.

As with all rights, these rights are not absolute, there are appropriate regulations and restrictions that can be placed on gun ownership. But these measures must be at least rationally based, go to a legitimate governmental interest, and be predicated on documented evidence in support of any regulation or restriction.

 

[Dubya]

Limiting magazine sizes is just a feel good thing that opens the door to more restrictive measures. And limitng the magazine size below the common sized DESIGNED for a given gun is just a way of banning a gun without banning it.

Furthermore, one part of the law says you can keep your 10 round mag, but it is only legal to LOAD 7 rounds! So a law abiding citizen is supposed to voluntarily limit thier ability, while a criminal can care less.

Its the outright lying and end run bans that the grabbers try that piss me off so much.

Then you get into semantics about the amendment, hoping some progressive court agrees with you, thus allowing 1-9 people to overule the desires of the many.

I guess progressives are just fans of oligarchy.

Things get screwed up when you have state legislators making laws. Now, if I want to go hunting in Maine, I have to pass through all these states with their own versions of gun laws.

Since most of the people in the New York Senate were Republican and only a few Democrats, my guess is they were moderates. I haven't seen the details on the magazines, but I'm inclined to believe the law would allow the magazine to be restricted by modification.

NYn is overwhelming Democratic due to New York City. upstate is more red, but not by much.

Please get informed before making statements like that....

The New York Senate only had a few Democrats, according to an article about the bill being passed. Let's find out by using wiki!

New York State Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York State Assembly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Republicans only have a slight edge in the Senate, but the article said the bill passed the Senate by the Republicans and only a few Democrats.

 

[Ernie S.]

Then you admit society does have a right to decide whether a citizen can have a particular arm. I believe society has that right, too, but I don't expect them to do it the way I would want it done.

Let me point out that I have supported limiting magazine size, but I haven't said I wanted a weapon banned, so "your gun grabbing hands" statement is made out of pure ignorance. Not knowing what you are talking about seems to be a rather common with you people. If you don't know something, why don't you just keep your fucking mouth shut?

Again with the "you people" You don't know jack shit about me, so please don't include me in any class of people you imagine yourself to be superior to. OK, dipshit?

I didn't say society should limit what weapon a person could own. I implied economics would. I really want a Ma Deuce. I have a sand bank on my property where I could safely blast away to my heart's content. What is stopping me is the 12 grand the weapon would cost is more than I can justify spending. I'm thinking I can get an M 60 for half of that, or a Thompson for about 2 grand. I'm leaning toward the later. That shit will really piss you off though 20, 39, 50 and 100 round magazines are available.

You're the one who started the dumbshit of knowing someone. My brother has two Thompsons.

Good for your brother. You must really hate the 50 and 100 round drums.

It's a bitch to keep all the players straight. Most that would limit magazine capacity also want to ban what they call assault weapons. While I find allowing weapons only available with magazine capacities you view as excessive a bit disingenuous, I apologize for calling you a gun grabber. Asshole and dipshit still stand, however.

 

[Dubya]

Dubya, YOU IGNORANT ASS, infringe means to break. As in breaking a trust that we all have the right to protect ourselves with arms. If you are defending yourself against a criminal, its probably a gun. If its against a government, probably a Stinger would come in pretty handy.

Your IGNORANCE abounds without limit. What an ASS.

<testing, 1,2,3 testing>

It means break in the sense of to destroy. You are talking about a right of the people to keep and bear arms. When you people that right, that means the people can't keep and bear arms. It doesn't mean someone had their gun taken from them. When you arrest someone, are you suppose to allow them to keep their gun, because the Constitution told you to? You people don't even know what the 2nd Amendment means and which of you have tried to find what the Founders were talking about when they wrote it?

You want to live in some fantasy world that your rights are being violated and society doesn't care if you wise up or not. Your type has proven themselves to be lunatics.

Duyba, you DRUNKEN MORON, the SCOTUS is firmly in my camp on most guns., if not all.

Sleep it off and try again...

SCOTUS doesn't allow a prohibition against handguns, but it has ruled that particular weapons can be banned. Legally, they could ban assault weapons or semi-automatics and the court wouldn't stop them.

You're the one who sounds like you have been drinking already.

 

[Ernie S.]

Dumbwa still hasn't read any Jefferson or Hamilton. It's impossible to help the intellectually lazy.

I had the highest grade in my high school American History class and you probably didn't even take the course in high school. I'm 61 and have studied history since then and before, but then I'm interested in a lot more things than history. I'm sure in my lifetime, I've seen over 10 book reviews by historians on those Founders and many other Founders.

You didn't even know the history of the Republican Party. I doubt if there is anything you can say about major historical events that I don't know.

Should we all bow to you now, Master?


Fuck you you arrogant asshole!

 

[akelch]

Another perspective from Penn and Teller.

 

[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."

The Framers were referring to laws designed to restrict or preempt the exercising of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment where such laws are excessive or unwarranted.

As with all rights, these rights are not absolute, there are appropriate regulations and restrictions that can be placed on gun ownership. But these measures must be at least rationally based, go to a legitimate governmental interest, and be predicated on documented evidence in support of any regulation or restriction.

The Founders just wanted to preserve liberty and believed the best way to do it was to prevent the populace from being disarmed. That's why they ratified a prohibition against doing that.

 

[Ernie S.]

You obviously don't know what the 1789 meaning of infringed meant. It meant you couldn't remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it didn't mean you couldn't tell the populace they couldn't have a particular arm. Infringe back in those days meant to invalidate. It wasn't a transgression against a person. It has it's Latin root in "to destroy." The meaning of the word has changed throughout time.

You're a bunch of people who have been spoon fed a bunch of lies.

I know the meaning of the word. I also don't see any qualifier that would allow the right to keep and bear any specific class of arms to be invalidated. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is pretty fucking clear. It needs no PHD linguist to decipher any hidden meanings of the words used. It sure as shit does not need a liberal asshole to redefine words to fit his agenda.

Looking something up in a dictionary to find an obsolete meaning is asking too much. The Constitution is the way you choose to see it, right? Who cares what the Founders intended, right?

You know the meaning of the word now, so fuck the fact that the meaning has changed. If you want to spend your life thinking they took away your constitutional rights, then go ahead. More misery to ya! They already took away your constitutional right to a switchblade, didn't they. The scoundrels!

The founders intended that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so they said exactly that. No more, no less. What part of that is so difficult for you to grasp?