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

[Koios]

I think "infringed" is unambiguous. Cannot even be a littlebit hindered.

And BYGOD, I am a 2A literalist, and think you'd be a fool and a communist to think every American, from birth, cannot keep and bear arms, which is of course why we've banned thalidomide, which denied too many their right to bear arms!!!

Of course, maybe I have my "arms" wrong. Are we talking weapons? Is so, no problem. Keep them, and bear them.

BUT NOWHERE DOES IT SAY YOU CAN SHOOT THEM!!!

 

[Dubya]

'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.

It's not really a waste of time to research and find out exactly what the Founders meant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Irrelevant.
You claimed that:

[the SCotUS] has ruled that particular weapons can be banned.

HAS RULED -- that is, there is a ruling to that effect.

If this is true, you can cite the case.
If it is not true, then you're either lying, or ignorant.

So... please cite the case where the SCotUS upheld a ban on specific weapons, and provide the text to that effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Irrelevant.
You claimed that:

[the SCotUS] has ruled that particular weapons can be banned.

HAS RULED -- that is, there is a ruling to that effect.

If this is true, you can cite the case.
If it is not true, then you're either lying, or ignorant.

So... please cite the case where the SCotUS upheld a ban on specific weapons, and provide the text to that effect.

Still waiting for you to cite the case where the SCotUS upheld a ban on specific weapons, and provide the text to that effect.

 

[Dubya]

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?

United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

came from:

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Uncensored2008]

So then Marty was wrong.

Wrong about what?

Arms does refer to armaments that can be carried, cannon were/are termed "ordinance." People could and did own ordinance, but the second does not protect it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Were they privately owned, or made by the community and communally owned?

I still dont consider a cannon an "arm"

They were privately owned by Daniel Boone.

And cannon are not arms, they are ordinance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are totally full of shit!

You mean Alexander Hamilton and George Mason were full of shit?

Son, you're a mindless communist lying through your teeth in hopes of revoking basic civil liberties from the American people

You don't bother to read what was said during those times. Things aren't just the way you want them to be and that's why you can't accept what is.

Fucktard, I listed a half dozen quotes from those who wrote the documents.

You are attempting to rewrite reality to suit your leftist desire for an authoritarian state. The problem you have is that the right is well educated, as well as well armed. When you spew your ignorance, gleaned from hate sites like ThinkProgress, you merely open yourself for derision.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did they have FIM-92 Stinger missiles back in those days that could take down airliners?

Are you trying to outlaw private ownership of Stinger missiles, or are you trying to deny American citizens the right to own a .22 semi-auto with a 15 round magazine?

Stinger missiles are a type of arm, do you think people should be allowed to have them?

Stingers are ordinance, sparky.

 

[Koios]

You are totally full of shit!

You mean Alexander Hamilton and George Mason were full of shit?

Son, you're a mindless communist lying through your teeth in hopes of revoking basic civil liberties from the American people

You don't bother to read what was said during those times. Things aren't just the way you want them to be and that's why you can't accept what is.

Fucktard, I listed a half dozen quotes from those who wrote the documents.

You are attempting to rewrite reality to suit your leftist desire for an authoritarian state. The problem you have is that the right is well educated, as well as well armed. When you spew your ignorance, gleaned from hate sites like ThinkProgress, you merely open yourself for derision.

No; I think he meant you. Did you note the Y followed immediately by o and u? Apparently not.

But let's try it both ways, and see how it works:

Folks (dipshits) with dictionaries who think suddenly they're Con Law scholars:

Well-regulated militia would indeed be one comprised of people with arms. That's why when we get ours blown off in war, they send us home. Should be obvious, and what makes the US different than Darfur. No goverment paid mercs lopping off arms.

People who can look out the ******* window and see reality:

All manner of arms are not allowed, for the average Joe / Jane. And what's the commonality? Lethality. If it can kill too large a number of people, it's offensive and not defensive, in nature. Thus, ixne on the ownership, by citizens. And now assault / survival weapons appear to be in the same league. But they're grandfathering those already owned. Seems a reasonable compromise, given the REALITY of the situation, something completely foreign to Righty Retards.

*Sigh*

 

[saveliberty]

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.

What part of "compromising on gun control", means giving up something to the gun control nuts is confusing you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is a very simple discussion just on the topic of what did the Founders mean when they used the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment.

Discuss, if you can!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

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

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

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

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence acknowledges an individual right, and although not a fundamental right, the individual is entitled to own firearms nonetheless. It is consequently incumbent upon the state to justify the restriction or preemption of the exercising of that right; and citizens are entitled to challenge any gun control measure in court.

Second Amendment case law is in its infancy, however, with many questions still unanswered, such as what weapons are ‘in common use at the time’ and what weapons are considered ‘dangerous and unusual.’

We know from Heller that handguns constitute a ‘protected class of weapons,’ for lack of a better phrase, as they are in common use and the preferred method used by Americans to exercise the right of self-defense. Yet to be determined is whether or not semi-automatic rifles are also in common use or dangerous and unusual.

The important thing to remember is that regardless what gun control measures are enacted, regardless the jurisdiction, those who consider such measures an infringement on their Second Amendment right will be afforded due process, and the right to seek relief in court.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No; I think he meant you.

No stupid, he has no clue what he means.

You see fucktard, I just listed numerous quotes from the founding fathers that confirm what I stated. For one of you Khmer Rouge morons to claim that you are furthering the "original meaning," by redefining "infringe' to suit your authoritarian desire.

Folks (dipshits) with dictionaries who think suddenly they're Con Law scholars:

Well-regulated militia would indeed be one comprised of people with arms. That's why when we get ours blown off in war, they send us home. Should be obvious, and what makes the US different than Darfur. No goverment paid mercs lopping off arms.

People who can look out the ******* window and see reality:

I'm sure you imagine yourself clever or something.

Really, you're a ******* retard.

All manner of arms are not allowed, for the average Joe / Jane. And what's the commonality? Lethality. If it can kill too large a number of people, it's offensive and not defensive, in nature. Thus, ixne on the ownership, by citizens. And now assault / survival weapons appear to be in the same league. But they're grandfathering those already owned. Seems a reasonable compromise, given the REALITY or the situation, something completely foreign to Righty Retards.

*Sigh*

Wrong again, fucktard.

Those who have the authority to define what the authors who established the protection for civil liberties meant, are those authors themselves.

{"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334 }

You're an idiot, and a thug. An uneducated buffoon yearning for the yoke of servitude.

 

[Koios]

No; I think he meant you.

No stupid, he has no clue what he means.

You see fucktard, I just listed numerous quotes from the founding fathers that confirm what I stated. For one of you Khmer Rouge morons to claim that you are furthering the "original meaning," by redefining "infringe' to suit your authoritarian desire.

Folks (dipshits) with dictionaries who think suddenly they're Con Law scholars:

Well-regulated militia would indeed be one comprised of people with arms. That's why when we get ours blown off in war, they send us home. Should be obvious, and what makes the US different than Darfur. No goverment paid mercs lopping off arms.

People who can look out the ******* window and see reality:

I'm sure you imagine yourself clever or something.

Really, you're a ******* retard.

All manner of arms are not allowed, for the average Joe / Jane. And what's the commonality? Lethality. If it can kill too large a number of people, it's offensive and not defensive, in nature. Thus, ixne on the ownership, by citizens. And now assault / survival weapons appear to be in the same league. But they're grandfathering those already owned. Seems a reasonable compromise, given the REALITY or the situation, something completely foreign to Righty Retards.

*Sigh*

Wrong again, fucktard.

Those who have the authority to define what the authors who established the protection for civil liberties meant, are those authors themselves.

{"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334 }

You're an idiot, and a thug. An uneducated buffoon yearning for the yoke of servitude.

Nope. Once again you miss the obvious, that anyone with an IQ north of goldfish should recognize: He knows exactly what he meant; it's you who cannot parse the patently ******* obvious.

 

[lukelk]

The 2nd amend. is and was intended to have a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. that was when they wanted the states to set up militias. do you think we should disband the US military and go back to state run militias?

 

[Dubya]

You are totally full of shit!

You mean Alexander Hamilton and George Mason were full of shit?

Son, you're a mindless communist lying through your teeth in hopes of revoking basic civil liberties from the American people

You don't bother to read what was said during those times. Things aren't just the way you want them to be and that's why you can't accept what is.

Fucktard, I listed a half dozen quotes from those who wrote the documents.

You are attempting to rewrite reality to suit your leftist desire for an authoritarian state. The problem you have is that the right is well educated, as well as well armed. When you spew your ignorance, gleaned from hate sites like ThinkProgress, you merely open yourself for derision.

I'm a person who has studied American History. Jefferson and Madison were against the National Bank. Without going into too much detail, that you can find in any history book, the concept was whether government should or shouldn't be involved in such matters. The First Democrat President stopped funding the National Bank before it's charter ran out, but let's back up to how that bank was started. Madison vetoed a bill for a National Bank and in the same year sent a request to Congress to pass a bill for a National Bank, when the economy went south. The Federalists evolved into the Whigs who wanted the government involved in banking. The Whigs evolved into the Republicans who set up a national banking system during the Civil War. The Federal Reserve and income tax was signed by Wilson, but the income tax and the proposal to have a federal reserves system was designed by the Republicans before Wilson was in office.

You're full of bullshit from blogs that lie about history. I have thoroughly researched these things and I don't fault Madison for changing his mind. I think what Jackson did was a little extreme and I think the income tax and federal reserve system designed by the Republicans were good ideas, but the Republicans wanted more private control and I favor the modern system, which seems to work fairly well.

I know your type and facts mean nothing to you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

…and Constitutional, until such time a court rules otherwise.

As with all other issues concerning our civil liberties, one’s rights are not subject to majority rule, the majority does not determine who will or will not have his rights – including Second Amendment rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Clearly not.

It’s a fallacy confusing cause and effect – conservatives mistakenly believe that because Chicago has some of the toughest gun regulations in the country, it should be the safest city in the country, at least with regard to gun violence. They incorrectly infer that Chicago is an example of ‘failed’ gun control laws.

What the right fails to understand is that the issue isn’t the nature of gun regulation in Chicago, but the inconsistent crazy quilt of gun laws and regulations around the Nation. Guns can be relatively easy to acquire in Indiana, for example, and brought into Chicago illegally with ease. This is not the fault of Indiana lawmakers, of course, but a failure of society in general to understand and take action against violence inherent in American culture.

Needless to say there’s a partisan component to it as well, with Chicago being an overwhelmingly democratic city and the president’s hometown.

 

[Koios]

The 2nd amend. is and was intended to have a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. that was when they wanted the states to set up militias. do you think we should disband the US military and go back to state run militias?

Precisely. Hell; we have gobs of regulations, and the only ones that get overturned by the Supremes are out-and-out bans on guns. But regulating and banning of certain types? No problem. No Court has ever overturned them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

came from:

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither this case nor the NFA34 has anything to do with the 1994 AWB - so, no.