You used the word exercised to explain what the constitution claims as infringe as if they were equivalent that are patently not You use is dishonest fraudulent and known to you to be completely false in some diabolical attempt to mislead people
The definition you provided supports me.
You have not shown it does, your claim is false, misleading and fraudulent.
To apply the term INFRINGED as it has to do with a contract and pretend it has the same application to the entirely different realm of arms is fraud and dishonesty.
To try and deny what you supposedly read numerous times can only point to a deliberate attempt to infuriate. troll an mislead. I'm happy to say it makes you look more like what you are. That sentence I think should be engraved in stone attributed to you as an example of the dishonesty and fraudulent nature of gun control.
For the benefit of the psychologically sick, deliberately blind zealots and worst of all the most damaged of all, gun control advocates, I repeat. You will notice the specific reference to "contracts". It seems you lied about that to present your bent and twisted version which is a complete Haymarket fraudulent and false fabrication.
INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]
There seems to be a pile of brown stuff around your feet that you have tried to polish and failed abysmally.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Crimefree: To claim that if government allows one to own certain types of arms under certain conditions and on payment of certain fees still allows one to keep and bear arms and is not an infringement because the right can still be exercised is claiming infringe = exercise. It patently does not.
Is there anyone who thinks this is even vaguely difficult to understand
That makes no sense since there is only ONE SINGLE so called "term" and that is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It can only be one of two situations and they cannot exist at the same time: either you have the right to exercise or you do not. If one can keep and bear arms then by the very existence of that reality - the right has not been INFRINGED.
Well that is pretty clear what did you say your first language was it certainly is not English. Here you have a right that changes like a traffic light. If you are carrying it you may not keep it.
The word excise appears nowhere in the constitution and nothing in the 2nd is even vaguely similar. The correct wording is that the right may not be tampered with so as to reduce the scope, meaning or the right AFFIRMED by the 2nd. It is inviolate in its terms which may not be infringed in anyway manner shape or form same as a contract which the constitution is. It's terms of employment of the government.
I'm done with you, your bull**** is beyond comprehension and you cannot expect sane people to take you seriously or respond to the dishonesty and fraud you present.