• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How do you define the term "infringe"? ][W:161]

Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

LaMidRighter said:
I don't trust modern politicians to rewrite any amendment. I prefer to use the unusual and dangerous standard set by SCOTUS which seems to say if there is no reasonable control of the damage area, like explosives and WMDs the scope of the right has been exhausted. Arms in the founders time was more than a muzzle loader, it was as much the knife/sword/club as it was the cannon/muzzle loader. Matter of fact the Howitzer is over a century old, as are the gattling gun(both owned by civilians years agoe before regulations) and the merchant ships post revolutionary war did have cannons.
Click to expand...

No, I don't trust modern politicians to rewrite the Second amendment, either. They are the same ones who are ignoring other amendments, most notably, the fifth.

And if today's Congress were to write a Constitution, it would weigh three hundred pounds printed on onion skin and no one would know what was in it.

So, the best course would seem to be to continue to rely on the SCOTUS to provide a "reasonable" interpretation of this and other amendments, hopefully, one that will displease both the NRA and the gun control advocates.

Even though the SCOTUS' decisions may be "unusual and dangerous", they are still better than whatever Congress might come up with, and we all (or most anyway) understand that the right to keep and bear arms can not be absolute.
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Dittohead not! said:
No, I don't trust modern politicians to rewrite the Second amendment, either. They are the same ones who are ignoring other amendments, most notably, the fifth.

And if today's Congress were to write a Constitution, it would weigh three hundred pounds printed on onion skin and no one would know what was in it.

So, the best course would seem to be to continue to rely on the SCOTUS to provide a "reasonable" interpretation of this and other amendments, hopefully, one that will displease both the NRA and the gun control advocates.

Even though the SCOTUS' decisions may be "unusual and dangerous", they are still better than whatever Congress might come up with, and we all (or most anyway) understand that the right to keep and bear arms can not be absolute.
Click to expand...
And yet, except for the whim of the people, it is absolute.
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

dnsmith said:
Yet the Cambridge Dictionary is very specific:

infringe on/upon sth phrasal verb Definition:
If something infringes on/upon someone's rights or freedom, it takes away some of their rights or limits their freedom
'These restrictions infringe upon basic human rights'.
Click to expand...
If you want to use textualism, you will need the original meaning of the word "infringed," not a contemporary dictionary.

This is from an earlier post I made regarding the definition of "infringe" during the late 18th Century:

The militia statement was the prefatory clause, and the "shall not be infringed" is the operative clause. Infringed is absolute in its meaning that guns are off limits and untouchable. The word 'infringe" when the Bill of Rights was written was derived from the Latin word infrango. The meaning according to Websters dictionary of the era was, meant to break, abolish, or cancel.
Click to expand...
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

dnsmith said:
I would argue that the term 'arms' would translate to a weapon equal to what ever is in use at the time, any time, to include 'now' time.Actually most gun rights people DO take the latter position, but further choose to allow some limitations to prevent excesses. That choice could change back to the original without limitation at the whim of the voting public.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think they do. The term "arms" is much broader than the term "guns", for one thing. For another, the idea that just anyone can have any gun any time is not something that many people would support.
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

dnsmith said:
And yet, except for the whim of the people, it is absolute.
Click to expand...

yes, taken literally, it is.

except, of course, for the definition of that pesky word, "infringe."
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Dittohead not! said:
Actually, I don't think they do. The term "arms" is much broader than the term "guns", for one thing. For another, the idea that just anyone can have any gun any time is not something that many people would support.
Click to expand...
"Any gun" isn't on the table because no one is going to repeal the Hughes Amendment anytime soon.

Believe it or not, it's actually possible to support 30rnd mag ownership without supporting machine-gun ownership. Just because someone opposes banning military weapon look-alike rifles doesn't mean they support owning ICBMs; Just because someone opposes a 10rnd limit doesn't mean they support owning nukes, hard as that may be for you to grasp. A semi-auto hand gun with a 15rnd mag =/= a fighter jet.
 
Last edited:
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Jerry said:
"Any gun" isn't on the table because no one is going to repeal the Hughes Amendment anytime soon.

Believe it or not, it's actually possible to support 30rnd mag ownership without supporting machine-gun ownership. Just because someone opposes banning military weapon look-alike rifles doesn't mean they support owning ICBMs; Just because someone opposes a 10rnd limit doesn't mean they support owning nukes, hard as that may be for you to grasp. A semi-auto hand gun with a 15rnd mag =/= a fighter jet.
Click to expand...

All of those things are "arms." The Second amendment does not make a differentiation.
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Dittohead not! said:
All of those things are "arms." The Second amendment does not make a differentiation.
Click to expand...
:roll: here we go again....

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ""dangerous and unusual weapons"."

~snip~

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Click to expand...
In order to be a protected, a weapon must be both 1."in common use at the time", and may not be 2. "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership. So, let's go down the list:

  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

Boo Radley said:
OK. SO the only need required for owning crack is that I wish to own it? The only need for owning a meth lab is that I want to own it? The only need for me wanting a nuke is that I want to own it? A tank? A missile launcher? There are no lines, right?
Click to expand...
  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.

Accessories, not 'arms' in and of themselves. However, if we are to judge accessories by the same rule, then...

  • Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Telescopic/folding but-stock: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Flash Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Jredbaron96 said:
I'm sorry America, but I'm afraid I don't believe in personally owned ICBM's.
Click to expand...
  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

The Giant Noodle said:
Why are civilians NOT allowed to own tanks?
Click to expand...
Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Jerry said:
:roll: here we go again....


In order to be a protected, a weapon must be both 1."in common use at the time", and may not be 2. "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership. So, let's go down the list:

  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.

Accessories, not 'arms' in and of themselves. However, if we are to judge accessories by the same rule, then...

  • Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Telescopic/folding but-stock: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Flash Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

Click to expand...

and, so, we're back to LaMidrighter's idea that the SCOTUS set the standard, which it has done.

I prefer to use the unusual and dangerous standard set by SCOTUS which seems to say if there is no reasonable control of the damage area, like explosives and WMDs the scope of the right has been exhausted.
Click to expand...

Now, is your list of what is "1."in common use at the time", or "dangerous and unusual" from the SCOTUS, or did you compile it yourself?
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Dittohead not! said:
Now, is your list of what is "1."in common use at the time", or "dangerous and unusual" from the SCOTUS, or did you compile it yourself?
Click to expand...
That is the SCOTUS standard, as I linked to, and yes I write my own posts as the forum rules require, don't you?
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Jerry said:
That is the SCOTUS standard, as I linked to, and yes I write my own posts as the forum rules require, don't you?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do.

What gives either of us the right to decide what is or is not "in common use at the time", and not "dangerous and unusual"?
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Dittohead not! said:
Yes, I do.

What gives either of us the right to decide what is or is not "in common use at the time", and not "dangerous and unusual"?
Click to expand...
The ability to reason.

I know you're used to just relying on what your bible and church tell you to think and do, but some of us are capable of logical thought independently.

Since I'm in the military and served a year with different branches in a combat zone, I'm confident I can identify the arms which are "in common use" by the military. I personally had my own hands on these items. I didn't read some blog or some biased media opinion, I personally used these items.

An easy way to determine if a given item is "dangerous and unusual" is this: will it explode if you leave it alone for several years? Using that basic rule of thumb, and M16 will not ever explode, it will rust and degrade. A hand grenade, however, will explode.
 
Last edited:
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Dittohead not! said:
No, I don't trust modern politicians to rewrite the Second amendment, either. They are the same ones who are ignoring other amendments, most notably, the fifth.

And if today's Congress were to write a Constitution, it would weigh three hundred pounds printed on onion skin and no one would know what was in it.

So, the best course would seem to be to continue to rely on the SCOTUS to provide a "reasonable" interpretation of this and other amendments, hopefully, one that will displease both the NRA and the gun control advocates.

Even though the SCOTUS' decisions may be "unusual and dangerous", they are still better than whatever Congress might come up with, and we all (or most anyway) understand that the right to keep and bear arms can not be absolute.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to think things are going to have to be fought on the local levels in appellate courts. SCOTUS is so all over the place you never know whether a decision is going to be good or bad.
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Jerry said:
The ability to reason.

I know you're used to just relying on what your bible and church tell you to think and do, but some of us are capable of logical thought independently.

Since I'm in the military and served a year with different branches in a combat zone, I'm confident I can identify the arms which are "in common use" by the military. I personally had my own hands on these items. I didn't read some blog or some biased media opinion, I personally used these items.

An easy way to determine if a given item is "dangerous and unusual" is this: will it explode if you leave it alone for several years? Using that basic rule of thumb, and M16 will not ever explode, it will rust and degrade. A hand grenade, however, will explode.
Click to expand...

So, anyone with the ability to reason and who doesn't just rely on what their bible and church tell them to think and do can decide which arms are OK and which are not?

and, of course, all such people will totally agree, right?

Where does the Bible say anything about gun control anyway?
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Dittohead not! said:
So, anyone with the ability to reason and who doesn't just rely on what their bible and church tell them to think and do can decide which arms are OK and which are not?

and, of course, all such people will totally agree, right?
Click to expand...
Those are not logical consequences of my ability to reason, so your slippery-slope is irrelevant.

Dittohead not! said:
Where does the Bible say anything about gun control anyway?
Click to expand...
Please open a thread on the topic if you wish to discuss it instead of trying to hijack this thread which is not about your bible.
 
Re: How do you define the term "infringe"?

Jerry said:
Those are not logical consequences of my ability to reason, so your slippery-slope is irrelevant.


Please open a thread on the topic if you wish to discuss it instead of trying to hijack this thread which is not about your bible.
Click to expand...

Your first statement makes no sense to me at all, but then, I'm obviously some sort of religious nut or something.

I'm the one who started the thread, and you're the one who brought up the Bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom