Newt speaking at a NRA rally

[whitehall]

Another scoop for Media Matters. You really gotta admire those people. Not only are they writing the script for left wing news programs but they are hiring sleazy investigators to dig up dirt on republicans and they still find time to cherry pick Newt's use of the word "abridged". What a pathetic bunch.

 

[hortysir]

Words have meaning does abridged mean exactly the same thing as infringed? In the context of the Bill of Rights?

It's a common transposition.

The word 'abridging' appears in the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

I did mention that in the OP. However with the founders words have certain meanings, if the founders meant abridged to mean the same thing as infringed why didn't they use the same word (either/or) in the first and the second?

Probably just trying to avoid sounding repetitive.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Another scoop for Media Matters. You really gotta admire those people. Not only are they writing the script for left wing news programs but they are hiring sleazy investigators to dig up dirt on republicans and they still find time to cherry pick Newt's use of the word "abridged". What a pathetic bunch.

Why are you bringing up Media matters? This didn't come from Media matters nor to my knowledge are they talking about it. I mentioned it I don't think many people have an issue with it but me. But then again that's how a lot of the foundation documents wording got twisted by allowing people to substitute words that aren't used in the original documents.

 

[konradv]

Words have meaning does abridged mean exactly the same thing as infringed? In the context of the Bill of Rights?

Yes.

Yes and no I just did a quick search and found this article.
Abridge vs. Infringe

So what’s the point in this English lesson?

The point is that these documents were meticulously written and that the words chosen were chosen intentionally. When we don’t consider each word and understand exactly what was being recorded, we risk not truly understanding the freedoms our Constitution protects. When we don’t understand our freedom, we can’t appreciate or protect it.

The next time you read through documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, take your time. Ask yourself why certain words were used, and then do a little research to learn more about the chosen words. You may find yourself with a new appreciation for the freedoms you already thought you understood.

Abridge vs. Infringe

So what's the difference? Is there really any anymore, if there ever was? It's all academic, IMO. I guess we've infringed on the 1st and abridged the 2nd.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes.

Yes and no I just did a quick search and found this article.
Abridge vs. Infringe

So what’s the point in this English lesson?

The point is that these documents were meticulously written and that the words chosen were chosen intentionally. When we don’t consider each word and understand exactly what was being recorded, we risk not truly understanding the freedoms our Constitution protects. When we don’t understand our freedom, we can’t appreciate or protect it.

The next time you read through documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, take your time. Ask yourself why certain words were used, and then do a little research to learn more about the chosen words. You may find yourself with a new appreciation for the freedoms you already thought you understood.

Abridge vs. Infringe

So what's the difference? Is there really any anymore, if there ever was? It's all academic, IMO. I guess we've infringed on the 1st and abridged the 2nd.

There was a specific intent that they used two different words that have similar meanings. As I said words and how the founders used them had meaning to them. Read that link I used in the post you responded too.

 

[konradv]

Yes and no I just did a quick search and found this article.
Abridge vs. Infringe


Abridge vs. Infringe

So what's the difference? Is there really any anymore, if there ever was? It's all academic, IMO. I guess we've infringed on the 1st and abridged the 2nd.

There was a specific intent that they used two different words that have similar meanings. As I said words and how the founders used them had meaning to them. Read that link I used in the post you responded too.

I did and I still didn't see much of a difference, at least from what it said. If one was to say "we've infringed on the 1st and abridged the 2nd", what possible response could there be, if you stick with your interpretation? Seems to me you need to go the synonym route or risk losing freedoms "by definition".

 

[idb]

Nope, If abridged and infringed meant the same thing to them they would have used either one of the words in both amendments.

People would have meant all the people, person would have been singular as in individual rights.

Outstanding analysis! Boy oh boy.......you sure do know you some founding fathers intent! Your brilliant ass belongs on the bench.

If you have put as much research in the writings of the founding fathers as I have you would understand their intent also.

Words meant something to them, especially in something they put everything they had on the line for. If abridged meant the same as infringed to them they would have used one word in both amendments.

Since you're so well researched you'll be aware that they didn't expect that the constitution would be in force as written for more than a generation.
So, the good news is that there's no need to worry about the wording now because the founding fathers didn't expect them to have any import by now.

So...relaaaaaaax...it's all going to be OK....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Outstanding analysis! Boy oh boy.......you sure do know you some founding fathers intent! Your brilliant ass belongs on the bench.

If you have put as much research in the writings of the founding fathers as I have you would understand their intent also.

Words meant something to them, especially in something they put everything they had on the line for. If abridged meant the same as infringed to them they would have used one word in both amendments.

Since you're so well researched you'll be aware that they didn't expect that the constitution would be in force as written for more than a generation.
So, the good news is that there's no need to worry about the wording now because the founding fathers didn't expect them to have any import by now.

So...relaaaaaaax...it's all going to be OK....

Since you're so well researched you'll be aware that they didn't expect that the constitution would be in force as written for more than a generation.

Your wrong but a subject of the queen wouldn't understand that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So what's the difference? Is there really any anymore, if there ever was? It's all academic, IMO. I guess we've infringed on the 1st and abridged the 2nd.

There was a specific intent that they used two different words that have similar meanings. As I said words and how the founders used them had meaning to them. Read that link I used in the post you responded too.

I did and I still didn't see much of a difference, at least from what it said. If one was to say "we've infringed on the 1st and abridged the 2nd", what possible response could there be, if you stick with your interpretation? Seems to me you need to go the synonym route or risk losing freedoms "by definition".

If they meant for both to mean the same the founders would have used one of the two words. Maybe INFRINGED was the one word that was set in stone of the time never meant to be changed, and abridged is not so set in stone.

 

[idb]

If you have put as much research in the writings of the founding fathers as I have you would understand their intent also.

Words meant something to them, especially in something they put everything they had on the line for. If abridged meant the same as infringed to them they would have used one word in both amendments.

Since you're so well researched you'll be aware that they didn't expect that the constitution would be in force as written for more than a generation.
So, the good news is that there's no need to worry about the wording now because the founding fathers didn't expect them to have any import by now.

So...relaaaaaaax...it's all going to be OK....

Since you're so well researched you'll be aware that they didn't expect that the constitution would be in force as written for more than a generation.

Your wrong but a subject of the queen wouldn't understand that.

You spent almost an hour on Google and that's the best riposte you could come up with?

I know, Google didn't give you a site that explained everything in an Abbott and Costello routine - so you weren't able to understand it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since you're so well researched you'll be aware that they didn't expect that the constitution would be in force as written for more than a generation.
So, the good news is that there's no need to worry about the wording now because the founding fathers didn't expect them to have any import by now.

So...relaaaaaaax...it's all going to be OK....

Since you're so well researched you'll be aware that they didn't expect that the constitution would be in force as written for more than a generation.

Your wrong but a subject of the queen wouldn't understand that.

You spent almost an hour on Google and that's the best riposte you could come up with?

I know, Google didn't give you a site that explained everything in an Abbott and Costello routine - so you weren't able to understand it.

When do you stop licking the shoes of the queen?

 

[idb]

Your wrong but a subject of the queen wouldn't understand that.

You spent almost an hour on Google and that's the best riposte you could come up with?

I know, Google didn't give you a site that explained everything in an Abbott and Costello routine - so you weren't able to understand it.

When do you stop licking the shoes of the queen?

Forget looking for Abbott and Costello to explain the constitution to you...try Archie comics maybe.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You spent almost an hour on Google and that's the best riposte you could come up with?

I know, Google didn't give you a site that explained everything in an Abbott and Costello routine - so you weren't able to understand it.

When do you stop licking the shoes of the queen?

Forget looking for Abbott and Costello to explain the constitution to you...try Archie comics maybe.

Since you do not live within a Constitutional Republic maybe you should do your own research. Tell to queen I said kiss my red white and blue American ass next time to bow to her.

 

[idb]

When do you stop licking the shoes of the queen?

Forget looking for Abbott and Costello to explain the constitution to you...try Archie comics maybe.

Since you do not live within a Constitutional Republic maybe you should do your own research. Tell to queen I said kiss my red white and blue American ass next time to bow to her.

"Who's on first?"

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's get real, shall we?

abridgedpast participle, past tense of a·bridge (Verb)


Verb:
Shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.
Curtail (rights or privileges).
The SECOND AMENDMENT is abridged all over the place.

Can you legally own a rocket launcher?

No?

Then your 2nd amendment right is already abridged, isn't it?

And if the Floundering Fathers were in control of our nation today?

You STILL couldn't own a rocket launcher.


The FF's werent damned fools.

Neither are the courts.

No right is absolute and may be subject to restriction, provided the government has a compelling reason and evidence in support.

Prohibiting private ownership of a rocket launcher is clearly a compelling reason supported by evidence.

The Supreme Court has ruled, therefore, that rights may indeed be ‘infringed’ or ‘abridged’ per the appropriate standard of review, in accordance with a compelling reason and evidence, such as not allowing citizens to own a rocket launcher.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's get real, shall we?

abridgedpast participle, past tense of a·bridge (Verb)


Verb:
Shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.
Curtail (rights or privileges).
The SECOND AMENDMENT is abridged all over the place.

Can you legally own a rocket launcher?

No?

Then your 2nd amendment right is already abridged, isn't it?

And if the Floundering Fathers were in control of our nation today?

You STILL couldn't own a rocket launcher.


The FF's werent damned fools.

Neither are the courts.

No right is absolute and may be subject to restriction, provided the government has a compelling reason and evidence in support.

Prohibiting private ownership of a rocket launcher is clearly a compelling reason supported by evidence.

The Supreme Court has ruled, therefore, that rights may indeed be ‘infringed’ or ‘abridged’ per the appropriate standard of review, in accordance with a compelling reason and evidence, such as not allowing citizens to own a rocket launcher.

No right is absolute

You are correct certain rights are inalienable rights and cannot be restricted by man only by the one who gave them. Those right's consist of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Forget looking for Abbott and Costello to explain the constitution to you...try Archie comics maybe.

Since you do not live within a Constitutional Republic maybe you should do your own research. Tell to queen I said kiss my red white and blue American ass next time to bow to her.

"Who's on first?"

Don't be a hater, just be a good little subject like you have always been. Remember the queen cares for you.

 

[idb]

Since you do not live within a Constitutional Republic maybe you should do your own research. Tell to queen I said kiss my red white and blue American ass next time to bow to her.

"Who's on first?"

Don't be a hater, just be a good little subject like you have always been. Remember the queen cares for you.

Look what I found - just for you.
It's a politics lesson!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Who's on first?"

Don't be a hater, just be a good little subject like you have always been. Remember the queen cares for you.

Look what I found - just for you.
It's a politics lesson!

Don't be a hater just be the good little subject for the queen she will be happy for you.