The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[ding]

Do you understand the concept? Then we can be done when you've got it.

Clearly, there is confusion as to what you are saying. As near as I can tell, the 2nd Amendment has no teeth if the populace can't own guns AND belong to the militia. It seems to me that was what the founders intended. This would be especially true if said militia were under the auspices of the federal government. So maybe you could expound on your statements a little more and explain what you are trying to convey to me. Better yet, do you believe the 2nd Amendment gives peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own and possess firearms that a light infantry of the day ought to possess?

 

[ding]

Do you understand the concept? Then we can be done when you've got it.

Here is my proof that the Framers intended the militia to be the people themselves and keep and possess their arms.

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in 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 band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

 

[ding]

Do you understand the concept? Then we can be done when you've got it.

What did they mean when they refered to a well regulated militia?

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you understand the concept? Then we can be done when you've got it.

Clearly, there is confusion as to what you are saying. As near as I can tell, the 2nd Amendment has no teeth if the populace can't own guns AND belong to the militia. It seems to me that was what the founders intended. This would be especially true if said militia were under the auspices of the federal government. So maybe you could expound on your statements a little more and explain what you are trying to convey to me. Better yet, do you believe the 2nd Amendment gives peaceable law abiding citizens the right to own and possess firearms that a light infantry of the day ought to possess?

Clearly there is.

Somehow when I said "the right to keep arms is the right to own weapons" and "the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia" you suddenly think I'm saying that the militia has the right, or that you can only have the right if you're in the militia. Personally I can't find anywhere where I said that.

So, I've said like 5 times already that the people can own guns and they can be in the militia, and you're now telling me the founders said this. Yeah, they said this, and I said this.

What an individual may own is actually quite difficult. The line between what they have a right to own, and what can be banned isn't always so clear. In the past it was arms, as in, weapons you can carry in your arms, ie, not a cannon. In the modern era people would say it's what is common for people to have as an individual, like handguns.

What you have to remember is that the 2A doesn't grant a right, it merely tells the US federal govt (and now state govts) what they can't do. What they can't do is prevent individuals from having arms. So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.

So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you understand the concept? Then we can be done when you've got it.

Here is my proof that the Framers intended the militia to be the people themselves and keep and possess their arms.

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in 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 band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Then again, I said right from the beginning that people could own weapons and be in the militia...

 

[Boss]

In the past it was arms, as in, weapons you can carry in your arms, ie, not a cannon. In the modern era people would say it's what is common for people to have as an individual, like handguns.

"Arms" is short for "armaments" not a description of where you can carry a weapon. And FYI, the US Government, up until about 1890, paid privateers to patrol the waters of the Eastern seaboard with ships equipped with many cannons. There is no restriction of cannons in the 2nd Amendment and if you can find a cannon today, you can still own one.

What you have to remember is that the 2A doesn't grant a right, it merely tells the US federal govt (and now state govts) what they can't do. What they can't do is prevent individuals from having arms. So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms.

You are right, our rights are endowed by our Creator... that's where they come from and they cannot be alienated. That means, man cannot remove them. People can own as many arms as they want, it's their inalienable right and 2A doesn't limit the number or allow the government to restrict the number.

The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.

Where does the 2nd Amendment give them this authority? The answer is, nowhere. Again, it is an inalienable right. What states can do is regulate what types of arms can be bought and sold by the general public. There has been a nationwide ban on fully-automatic weapons since the 1920s but individuals can still obtain special permits to own them if they so desire.

 

[ding]

So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.

So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.

I disagree. I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use. I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.

 

[ding]

Then again, I said right from the beginning that people could own weapons and be in the militia...

I have no doubt it was clear in your mind what you meant. I'm no mind reader. You seem a bit put off.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...and yet, one of President Washington's first duties was to ride at the head of a military force to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania, who were, in fact, trying to exercise their right to bear arms against an oppressive government.

I suspect that Washington was not in favor of a "well regulated militia", especially since he avoided relying on state militias as much as possible, all the way through the revolution, having repeatedly found them unreliable, and poor soldiers, in general.

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

 

[Tennyson]

The simplest way to look at the Second Amendment and avoid semantics is the Bill of Rights did not grant rights. The only purpose was to absolutely prohibit the federal government from infringing on those rights. There is no historical evidence, nor would there be any evidence, of a condition on an unalienable right. The only concept of this is in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause regarding life, liberty, and property. The Second Amendment is absolute. It was not novel as it mirrored the state's constitutions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.

So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.

I disagree. I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use. I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then again, I said right from the beginning that people could own weapons and be in the militia...

I have no doubt it was clear in your mind what you meant. I'm no mind reader. You seem a bit put off.

No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.

 

[Dr Grump]

[QUOTE="ding, post: 15669164, member: 59921"
I disagree. To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

No where here does it say have access or have a ready supply. It literally says possess.

possess: have as belonging to one; own.

Furthermore, at the time of ratification, how did they have a ready supply if it were not for each citizen owning his own weapon?[/QUOTE]

In order to belong to a militia. If that isn't the case why mention militia at all?

 

[Tennyson]

So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.

So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.

I disagree. I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use. I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.

So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.

I disagree. I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use. I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.

Infringe meant something different in the 18th Century? Really? Like what? Like eat potatoes?

A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (R. Cawdrey, 1604)

I have this from the 1604.

"infringe, to breake, to make weake, or feeble. "

I doubt that's it.

A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language [&c.].

I have this from Johnson's Dictionary

"To INFRINGE. v. a. [infringo, Lat] 1. To violate ; to break laws or contracts. Waller. 2. To destroy : to hinder. Waller."

I mean, this was from 1768, only 20 years before they'd be debating this amendment that was put forward, and it doesn't seem to mean that either. And it didn't change in the next dictionary A Dictionary of the English Language

That's from 1828.

The order of the Amendments is neither here nor there.

 

[Tennyson]

So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.

So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.

I disagree. I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use. I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.

Infringe meant something different in the 18th Century? Really? Like what? Like eat potatoes?

A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (R. Cawdrey, 1604)

I have this from the 1604.

"infringe, to breake, to make weake, or feeble. "

I doubt that's it.

A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language [&c.].

I have this from Johnson's Dictionary

"To INFRINGE. v. a. [infringo, Lat] 1. To violate ; to break laws or contracts. Waller. 2. To destroy : to hinder. Waller."

I mean, this was from 1768, only 20 years before they'd be debating this amendment that was put forward, and it doesn't seem to mean that either. And it didn't change in the next dictionary A Dictionary of the English Language

That's from 1828.

The order of the Amendments is neither here nor there.

The word "infringed" is derived from the Latin word infrango. The meaning according to Webster’s dictionary of the era was "meant to break, abolish, or cancel." It is absolute. Today's meaning "to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights." Two completely different meanings. Moreover, that only scratches the surface: The meaning of infringed in the lexicon of the times, the context of infringed in other sections of the Constitution, the meaning how the debates within the Constitutional convention used the word, the historical context and contemporaneous social, economic, and political events in 1787.

Madison's wanting the Bill of Rights inserted into the body of the constitution is very relevant. The rejection precludes any branch of the federal government from interfering in state laws.

Fourthly

That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, if they allow individuals to have only one weapon, then people can clearly have arms. (the issue of whether the feds have the power to limit isn't necessary to bring up here). The feds have to allow for there to be a market in arms, but they don't have to allow fully automatic weapons, for example, because people can still be armed with modern weaponry without having those.

So, the line is flexible as to what individuals can and cannot own.

I disagree. I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use. I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.

Infringe meant something different in the 18th Century? Really? Like what? Like eat potatoes?

A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (R. Cawdrey, 1604)

I have this from the 1604.

"infringe, to breake, to make weake, or feeble. "

I doubt that's it.

A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language [&c.].

I have this from Johnson's Dictionary

"To INFRINGE. v. a. [infringo, Lat] 1. To violate ; to break laws or contracts. Waller. 2. To destroy : to hinder. Waller."

I mean, this was from 1768, only 20 years before they'd be debating this amendment that was put forward, and it doesn't seem to mean that either. And it didn't change in the next dictionary A Dictionary of the English Language

That's from 1828.

The order of the Amendments is neither here nor there.

The word "infringed" is derived from the Latin word infrango. The meaning according to Webster’s dictionary of the era was "meant to break, abolish, or cancel." It is absolute. Today's meaning "to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights." Two completely different meanings. Moreover, that only scratches the surface: The meaning of infringed in the lexicon of the times, the context of infringed in other sections of the Constitution, the meaning how the debates within the Constitutional convention used the word, the historical context and contemporaneous social, economic, and political events in 1787.

Madison's wanting the Bill of Rights inserted into the body of the constitution is very relevant. The rejection precludes any branch of the federal government from interfering in state laws.

Fourthly

That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

I don't think there is anywhere where "infringe" means to wrongly limit or restrict.

 

[Tennyson]

I disagree. I read the intent to be to own the technology of the day that a light infantry would and should own and use. I don't see how a reasonable person would read a number of arms limitation into it.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.

Infringe meant something different in the 18th Century? Really? Like what? Like eat potatoes?

A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (R. Cawdrey, 1604)

I have this from the 1604.

"infringe, to breake, to make weake, or feeble. "

I doubt that's it.

A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language [&c.].

I have this from Johnson's Dictionary

"To INFRINGE. v. a. [infringo, Lat] 1. To violate ; to break laws or contracts. Waller. 2. To destroy : to hinder. Waller."

I mean, this was from 1768, only 20 years before they'd be debating this amendment that was put forward, and it doesn't seem to mean that either. And it didn't change in the next dictionary A Dictionary of the English Language

That's from 1828.

The order of the Amendments is neither here nor there.

The word "infringed" is derived from the Latin word infrango. The meaning according to Webster’s dictionary of the era was "meant to break, abolish, or cancel." It is absolute. Today's meaning "to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights." Two completely different meanings. Moreover, that only scratches the surface: The meaning of infringed in the lexicon of the times, the context of infringed in other sections of the Constitution, the meaning how the debates within the Constitutional convention used the word, the historical context and contemporaneous social, economic, and political events in 1787.

Madison's wanting the Bill of Rights inserted into the body of the constitution is very relevant. The rejection precludes any branch of the federal government from interfering in state laws.

Fourthly

That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

I don't think there is anywhere where "infringe" means to wrongly limit or restrict.

The dictionary and all federal gun laws and Supreme Court rulings.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

There was no wiggle room for the federal govenment to set any limit. The word "infringe" had a different meaning in the 18th century. One thing to note is the Bill of Rights were not viewed as actual amendments. Madison's first submission was to have the Bill of Rights inserted directly into the body of the articles. This was rejected. That would have subjected the Bill of Rights to the Article V amendment process. That is why the Bill of Rights are in the order they are and why they are not under the purview of any of the three branches of the federal government.

Infringe meant something different in the 18th Century? Really? Like what? Like eat potatoes?

A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (R. Cawdrey, 1604)

I have this from the 1604.

"infringe, to breake, to make weake, or feeble. "

I doubt that's it.

A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language [&c.].

I have this from Johnson's Dictionary

"To INFRINGE. v. a. [infringo, Lat] 1. To violate ; to break laws or contracts. Waller. 2. To destroy : to hinder. Waller."

I mean, this was from 1768, only 20 years before they'd be debating this amendment that was put forward, and it doesn't seem to mean that either. And it didn't change in the next dictionary A Dictionary of the English Language

That's from 1828.

The order of the Amendments is neither here nor there.

The word "infringed" is derived from the Latin word infrango. The meaning according to Webster’s dictionary of the era was "meant to break, abolish, or cancel." It is absolute. Today's meaning "to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights." Two completely different meanings. Moreover, that only scratches the surface: The meaning of infringed in the lexicon of the times, the context of infringed in other sections of the Constitution, the meaning how the debates within the Constitutional convention used the word, the historical context and contemporaneous social, economic, and political events in 1787.

Madison's wanting the Bill of Rights inserted into the body of the constitution is very relevant. The rejection precludes any branch of the federal government from interfering in state laws.

Fourthly

That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

I don't think there is anywhere where "infringe" means to wrongly limit or restrict.

The dictionary and all federal gun laws and Supreme Court rulings.

Which dictionary?

Oxford?

infringe - definition of infringe in English | Oxford Dictionaries

"
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
‘his legal rights were being infringed’"

There's no "wrongly" there, nor anything which suggests so.

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: infringe

"To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent."

infringe | Definition, meaning & more | Collins Dictionary

"
1. (transitive) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc)
2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass"

I don't find it in these dictionaries, but found it in Merriam Webster

Definition of INFRINGE

"to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)"

So, I'd say one dictionary has found this.

As for the Supreme Court, you're going to have to show me that one.

 

[Boss]

If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

Well yes, you are! I have one and you are prohibiting me from having another. The 2A doesn't say you have the inalienable right to bear ONE weapon but no more. So where are you getting this authority?