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

[Si modo]

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 ******* 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 **** 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 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?

What is the definition of 'is'?

 

[Ernie S.]

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 **** 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 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?

What is the definition of 'is'?

And a blowjob isn't sex.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 ******* 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.

Do you believe it is unconstitutional to deny a convicted felon the right to own guns?

 

[Dubya]

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 ***** 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.

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.

 

[saveliberty]

The nuance of infringe is also to disallow even the borders of the issue to be eaten away. Not stopping the left I see.

Oh, and you gun control nuts suck.

 

[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.

Should we all bow to you now, Master?


**** 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.

 

[Dubya]

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 ******* 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 **** 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?

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.

 

[Dubya]

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 **** 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 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?

What is the definition of 'is'?

Don't worry about it, it's not in the 2nd Amendment!

 

[Si modo]

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 **** 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?

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.

Who said that?

Oh, you did.

Do you often argue with yourself?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Who said that?

Oh, you did.

Do you often argue with yourself?

Sadly yes, and its not even 50% on wins.

 

[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 ******* 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.

Do you believe it is unconstitutional to deny a convicted felon the right to own guns?

Personally? No I believe felons give up certain, if not all rights when convicted. I believe that felons shouldn't vote and I see the logic in not allowing them to possess firearms. How much further rights restrictions should go perplexes me.

 

[Ernie S.]

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 ***** 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.

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.

 

[Dubya]

The nuance of infringe is also to disallow even the borders of the issue to be eaten away. Not stopping the left I see.

Oh, and you gun control nuts suck.

Words have denotation and connotation. Words also change their meanings with time. When you look in a dictionary like this:

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Source: infringed - definition of infringed by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

...and you see that word has an obsolete meaning that is different than today, then you pause in your interpretation. If you aren't a complete moron, you should have figured out sometime in your life that the words in the English language have more than one meaning. You notice things like the word infringed has a Latin root and since you are smart enough to know those Founders studied Latin, you look up the meaning of that word in Latin. It means to destroy in Latin. You check a dictionary of that time and notice the word appears in English in the early 1500s and means to break. Now, put it in context, you are breaking a right, using what was a powerful word that once meant to destroy.

If you check historical sources, you will discover the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the populace from being disarmed and they used strong words to prohibit it like: shall not. The reason for the 2nd Amendment is simply to preserve liberty by prohibiting the populace from being disarmed. They believed as long as people had their weapons, they would retain their liberty or fight to get it back.

There was no standing army, but a militia has the potential to become one. History is full of examples of leaders who can get others to follow them. So the people are even a check on the militia.

The whole thing is actually brilliant thinking. They solve their problem of a foreign invasion and put safeguards in to prevent an internal power grab. They punt the religious exemption back to the states along with the responsibility to form a militia. The federal government doesn't have any money and needs to build a navy.

Are you people proud of stupid?

 

[Ernie S.]

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?


**** 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.

Did I make that claim, gun grabber?

 

[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.

Who said that?

Oh, you did.

Do you often argue with yourself?

That's why I keep using the word populace to explain it, so it won't be confused with a person.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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?


**** 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 ******* 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.....

 

[Ernie S.]

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 **** 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?

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.

 

[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.

 

[Dubya]

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

It's a ***** 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.

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.

 

[Dubya]

Should we all bow to you now, Master?


**** 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.

Did I make that claim, gun grabber?

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