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

[tjvh]

My definition of asshole are people satisfied with the status quo.

My brother collects guns and was way before the ban on assault weapons. I think you could make laws limiting magazine size for the general public, but allow people to have wavers, just like with a machine gun. I was with my brother when he bought a lot of his weapons and accessories.

There is a way to work out a sensible solution that would allow the law abiding citizen to enjoy access to weapons that the criminals couldn't obtain, without stealing them. They shouldn't be easily available at a gun show that a crack whore who can pass a background check can purchase for them.

The problem with finding sensible solutions is that criminals and crazies are not sensible.
Lanza was known to be pretty damned strange, to the point where his mother should have made it impossible for him to get to her weapons.
Everyone in Columbine knew that Harris and Klebold were fruitcakes, but no one did anything to stop them but propose reactionary legislation to make themselves feel better.
10 people are murdered every week in Chicago. I'd bet 9 of ten killers were forbidden by law to possess a firearm and that less than 1 in 100 was allowed to carry a weapon in public.
Do we need more laws for criminals and crazies to disregard? NO! We need to enforce the laws we have without limiting the ability of the rest of us to defend ourselves from them.

You are the people who make sure those guns are available.

You gun nuts keep acting like the we are going to ask the criminals. Why are you people even worried about the solutions on a federal level, because you don't want to be part of the solution? The status quo is not a solution, so you're just wasting everyone's time. Only gun nuts are going to agree with you. People will come up with ideas and Congress will pass what they choose. You already have all those politicians in your pocket, worry about your own state! They're only a disaster away from change.

Please, Oh please will you lefties keep calling lawful gun owners gun nuts... It's going to slap you in the ass when the next election cycle comes around.

 

[Ernie S.]

The definition of infringed should have been realized in the very first post after the OP... Unfortunately we have people who feel the need to deliberately misinterpret the words meaning through their own agenda driven tyrannical haze... Thus we are over 135 posts on a thread that should have died on post #2.

raving lunatic is now our resident lexicographer? Poor, stupid, child.

 

[tjvh]

The definition of infringed should have been realized in the very first post after the OP... Unfortunately we have people who feel the need to deliberately misinterpret the words meaning through their own agenda driven tyrannical haze... Thus we are over 135 posts on a thread that should have died on post #2.

raving lunatic is now our resident lexicographer? Poor, stupid, child.

And what is stupid about my desire to maintain the Freedoms our forefathers rightfully(The 2A) saw fit to include in our Constitution?

 

[Ernie S.]

My definition of asshole are people satisfied with the status quo.

My brother collects guns and was way before the ban on assault weapons. I think you could make laws limiting magazine size for the general public, but allow people to have wavers, just like with a machine gun. I was with my brother when he bought a lot of his weapons and accessories.

There is a way to work out a sensible solution that would allow the law abiding citizen to enjoy access to weapons that the criminals couldn't obtain, without stealing them. They shouldn't be easily available at a gun show that a crack whore who can pass a background check can purchase for them.

The problem with finding sensible solutions is that criminals and crazies are not sensible.
Lanza was known to be pretty damned strange, to the point where his mother should have made it impossible for him to get to her weapons.
Everyone in Columbine knew that Harris and Klebold were fruitcakes, but no one did anything to stop them but propose reactionary legislation to make themselves feel better.
10 people are murdered every week in Chicago. I'd bet 9 of ten killers were forbidden by law to possess a firearm and that less than 1 in 100 was allowed to carry a weapon in public.
Do we need more laws for criminals and crazies to disregard? NO! We need to enforce the laws we have without limiting the ability of the rest of us to defend ourselves from them.

You are the people who make sure those guns are available.

You gun nuts keep acting like the we are going to ask the criminals. Why are you people even worried about the solutions on a federal level, because you don't want to be part of the solution? The status quo is not a solution, so you're just wasting everyone's time. Only gun nuts are going to agree with you. People will come up with ideas and Congress will pass what they choose. You already have all those politicians in your pocket, worry about your own state! They're only a disaster away from change.

I don't make guns available to criminals and crazies. If anything, you do by letting burglars burgle and shooters shoot. My weapon locked in my home is hardly making my gun, "available".

Go ahead! Come up with ideas. If you come up with better than a reaction, you'll get support from the right. If all you come up with is further limits to my right to legally own firearms, not only will your proposal lose, your reelection efforts will as well.
I'd almost like to see the 1994 AWB reinstated. It would be an interesting SCOTUS case, in light of recent 2nd Amendment tests.

 

[Ernie S.]

When someone starts claiming Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party, then someone tried to use a cheat sheet with the wrong answers on it.

Did I make that claim, gun grabber?

You quoted it and I wasn't talking to you.

You replied to my post. Who WERE you talking to?

I may have quoted someone else who made that claim, but I sure as hell didn't support it.

 

[Dubya]

Should we all bow to you now, Master?


Fuck you you arrogant asshole!

When someone starts claiming Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party, then someone tried to use a cheat sheet with the wrong answers on it.

Hey Dumbass the current republican party was founded in Ripon, WI and the first major leader was John C Fremont in 1854......but here is where you're a fucking idiot....

Jefferson founded the democratic-republicans.....who called themselves.......wait for it.....republicans....and while it may have a direct lineage to the democrat party........none of those people would believe in the homoloving baby killing socialism that you enjoy so much.....

History is what it was.

There no evidence, I recall seeing that they called themselves Democratic Republicans and a political party isn't determined by using a word. I have seen accounts of them later being called Democrats and Republicans.

The big issue in early American politics was the National Bank. They started calling people who supported it Federalists and people like Jefferson and Madison were called Anti-Federalists. The National Bank dominated politics until Democrat President Andrew Jackson stopped funding it before it's charter ran out. Along the way the Federalist faded. The Federalist of the Northeast were the first to seriously talk about secession and that's a little known fact of history. The Federalists evolved into the Whigs and then the Whigs evolved into the Republican. What we call the Democratic Republicans evolved into the Democrats. The Democrats issue was voting rights for males, whether they owned property or not.

There has always been a pro-business element in politics and it started with the Federalists.

 

[buckeye45_73]

My definition of asshole are people satisfied with the status quo.

My brother collects guns and was way before the ban on assault weapons. I think you could make laws limiting magazine size for the general public, but allow people to have wavers, just like with a machine gun. I was with my brother when he bought a lot of his weapons and accessories.

There is a way to work out a sensible solution that would allow the law abiding citizen to enjoy access to weapons that the criminals couldn't obtain, without stealing them. They shouldn't be easily available at a gun show that a crack whore who can pass a background check can purchase for them.

The problem with finding sensible solutions is that criminals and crazies are not sensible.
Lanza was known to be pretty damned strange, to the point where his mother should have made it impossible for him to get to her weapons.
Everyone in Columbine knew that Harris and Klebold were fruitcakes, but no one did anything to stop them but propose reactionary legislation to make themselves feel better.
10 people are murdered every week in Chicago. I'd bet 9 of ten killers were forbidden by law to possess a firearm and that less than 1 in 100 was allowed to carry a weapon in public.
Do we need more laws for criminals and crazies to disregard? NO! We need to enforce the laws we have without limiting the ability of the rest of us to defend ourselves from them.

You are the people who make sure those guns are available.

You gun nuts keep acting like the we are going to ask the criminals. Why are you people even worried about the solutions on a federal level, because you don't want to be part of the solution? The status quo is not a solution, so you're just wasting everyone's time. Only gun nuts are going to agree with you. People will come up with ideas and Congress will pass what they choose. You already have all those politicians in your pocket, worry about your own state! They're only a disaster away from change.

what is this blabbering shit.....gun nuts? why dont you call the shooter in aurora a gun nut of the hunders of criminals in chicago that have killed people gun nuts......funny how you dont do anything to those people.....


so what should happen to the Aurora Shooter?

 

[Dubya]

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?

You don't understand it.

It simply means: You are not allowed to disarm the populace. It doesn't mean you can't take someone's gun from them when you arrest them.

You mean I don't understand it after you have distorted it.
I understand it just fine. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed, not shall be limited to the weapons some asshat in 230 years or so approves of.

I never claimed a felon should retain the right to keep and bear arms, or am I part of "you people" again.

You are sad, really. You don't see how badly you've lost.

You're too lazy to research it and just want to invent the meaning.

 

[Ernie S.]

The definition of infringed should have been realized in the very first post after the OP... Unfortunately we have people who feel the need to deliberately misinterpret the words meaning through their own agenda driven tyrannical haze... Thus we are over 135 posts on a thread that should have died on post #2.

raving lunatic is now our resident lexicographer? Poor, stupid, child.

And what is stupid about my desire to maintain the Freedoms our forefathers rightfully(The 2A) saw fit to include in our Constitution?

So you agree that the meaning of "infringed" is "Not taken away without good reason"?

Can you point me to an 18th century dictionary definition that includes the qualifier "without good reason"?

 

[Dubya]

The definition of infringed should have been realized in the very first post after the OP... Unfortunately we have people who feel the need to deliberately misinterpret the words meaning through their own agenda driven tyrannical haze... Thus we are over 135 posts on a thread that should have died on post #2.

The word was chosen because I knew that's where the confusion lies. The meaning of the word has changed in 224 years.

If the government passed a law making it illegal to own a semi-automatic rifle, the law would be legal.

 

[Dubya]

The problem with finding sensible solutions is that criminals and crazies are not sensible.
Lanza was known to be pretty damned strange, to the point where his mother should have made it impossible for him to get to her weapons.
Everyone in Columbine knew that Harris and Klebold were fruitcakes, but no one did anything to stop them but propose reactionary legislation to make themselves feel better.
10 people are murdered every week in Chicago. I'd bet 9 of ten killers were forbidden by law to possess a firearm and that less than 1 in 100 was allowed to carry a weapon in public.
Do we need more laws for criminals and crazies to disregard? NO! We need to enforce the laws we have without limiting the ability of the rest of us to defend ourselves from them.

You are the people who make sure those guns are available.

You gun nuts keep acting like the we are going to ask the criminals. Why are you people even worried about the solutions on a federal level, because you don't want to be part of the solution? The status quo is not a solution, so you're just wasting everyone's time. Only gun nuts are going to agree with you. People will come up with ideas and Congress will pass what they choose. You already have all those politicians in your pocket, worry about your own state! They're only a disaster away from change.

Please, Oh please will you lefties keep calling lawful gun owners gun nuts... It's going to slap you in the ass when the next election cycle comes around.

If you have something to add to the discussion, then add it. If you're going to troll, I'll put you on ignore, so I don't even have to read your shit.

 

[Ernie S.]

You don't understand it.

It simply means: You are not allowed to disarm the populace. It doesn't mean you can't take someone's gun from them when you arrest them.

You mean I don't understand it after you have distorted it.
I understand it just fine. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed, not shall be limited to the weapons some asshat in 230 years or so approves of.

I never claimed a felon should retain the right to keep and bear arms, or am I part of "you people" again.

You are sad, really. You don't see how badly you've lost.

You're too lazy to research it and just want to invent the meaning.

I'm done arguing with you. Anyone who thinks the word "infringed" meant anything different than what the lexicographers of the time published in dictionaries is just too stupid to bother with.

 

[Dubya]

The problem with finding sensible solutions is that criminals and crazies are not sensible.
Lanza was known to be pretty damned strange, to the point where his mother should have made it impossible for him to get to her weapons.
Everyone in Columbine knew that Harris and Klebold were fruitcakes, but no one did anything to stop them but propose reactionary legislation to make themselves feel better.
10 people are murdered every week in Chicago. I'd bet 9 of ten killers were forbidden by law to possess a firearm and that less than 1 in 100 was allowed to carry a weapon in public.
Do we need more laws for criminals and crazies to disregard? NO! We need to enforce the laws we have without limiting the ability of the rest of us to defend ourselves from them.

You are the people who make sure those guns are available.

You gun nuts keep acting like the we are going to ask the criminals. Why are you people even worried about the solutions on a federal level, because you don't want to be part of the solution? The status quo is not a solution, so you're just wasting everyone's time. Only gun nuts are going to agree with you. People will come up with ideas and Congress will pass what they choose. You already have all those politicians in your pocket, worry about your own state! They're only a disaster away from change.

I don't make guns available to criminals and crazies. If anything, you do by letting burglars burgle and shooters shoot. My weapon locked in my home is hardly making my gun, "available".

Go ahead! Come up with ideas. If you come up with better than a reaction, you'll get support from the right. If all you come up with is further limits to my right to legally own firearms, not only will your proposal lose, your reelection efforts will as well.
I'd almost like to see the 1994 AWB reinstated. It would be an interesting SCOTUS case, in light of recent 2nd Amendment tests.

There are lists in various threads, usually covered up with people saying the same thing over and over. Except for the assault weapons ban, the President's proposals given to Congress weren't bad ideas. Those Executive Orders were good ideas.

 

[Dubya]

Did I make that claim, gun grabber?

You quoted it and I wasn't talking to you.

You replied to my post. Who WERE you talking to?

I may have quoted someone else who made that claim, but I sure as hell didn't support it.

Maybe you didn't realize what you were agreeing to, because our buddy Si modo likes to play games.

I'd say my main position in this gun control debate is being pissed off that people can't act like adults, work together and solve the problems with solutions that benefit society, including gun owners. This shit of digging in your heals and saying nothing needs to be changed is bullshit. If people can have a machine gun, there ought to be ways worked out to allow people to pretty much do what they want, as long as they are a law abiding citizen. Without cooperation, only one side is going to do what it can do on the federal level and the states are going to get involved and can really make some stupid law.

The issue doesn't affect me anyway, because I got rid of my weapons a long time ago when my children grew old enough to get their hands on them. I had six kids, lived in a nice neighborhood and the risk to my children outweighed any danger from outside the home. I grew up and didn't need to play with those toys anymore.

 

[Dubya]

The problem with finding sensible solutions is that criminals and crazies are not sensible.
Lanza was known to be pretty damned strange, to the point where his mother should have made it impossible for him to get to her weapons.
Everyone in Columbine knew that Harris and Klebold were fruitcakes, but no one did anything to stop them but propose reactionary legislation to make themselves feel better.
10 people are murdered every week in Chicago. I'd bet 9 of ten killers were forbidden by law to possess a firearm and that less than 1 in 100 was allowed to carry a weapon in public.
Do we need more laws for criminals and crazies to disregard? NO! We need to enforce the laws we have without limiting the ability of the rest of us to defend ourselves from them.

You are the people who make sure those guns are available.

You gun nuts keep acting like the we are going to ask the criminals. Why are you people even worried about the solutions on a federal level, because you don't want to be part of the solution? The status quo is not a solution, so you're just wasting everyone's time. Only gun nuts are going to agree with you. People will come up with ideas and Congress will pass what they choose. You already have all those politicians in your pocket, worry about your own state! They're only a disaster away from change.

what is this blabbering shit.....gun nuts? why dont you call the shooter in aurora a gun nut of the hunders of criminals in chicago that have killed people gun nuts......funny how you dont do anything to those people.....


so what should happen to the Aurora Shooter?

Why do gun nuts run their mouths about Chicago? Don't you know what's going on there and why?

 

[Dubya]

You mean I don't understand it after you have distorted it.
I understand it just fine. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed, not shall be limited to the weapons some asshat in 230 years or so approves of.

I never claimed a felon should retain the right to keep and bear arms, or am I part of "you people" again.

You are sad, really. You don't see how badly you've lost.

You're too lazy to research it and just want to invent the meaning.

I'm done arguing with you. Anyone who thinks the word "infringed" meant anything different than what the lexicographers of the time published in dictionaries is just too stupid to bother with.

When you are allowed break a right of the people, it isn't a right anymore. It's total and that's why the modern definition doesn't work. Break doesn't mean take a little chip out of it, it means to smash it, like the Latin root means destroy.

 

[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.

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.

At least. Might very well be that said restriction must be an effective means at achieving a compelling state interest and th eleast restrictive means to that end.

Note that the DC ban on handguns violatrd the constitution withut regard to any level of scrutiny.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This is a lie. The SCotUS has never upheld a ban on specific weapons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

This is a lie. The SCotUS has never upheld a ban on specific weapons.

Was the first semi-automatic assault weapons ban challenged in court?

 

[NYcarbineer]

'Shall not be infringed' does not protect an absolute right to own guns - no rights are absolute - so arguing over the definition is time wasted.