• 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!

The attack on self defense

Webster from the 1828 edition:

INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj''. [L. 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.]


INFRINGEMENT, n. infrinj''ment. Act of violating; breach; violation; non-fulfillment; as the infringement of a treaty, compact or other agreement; the infringement of a law or constitution.

No problem. All that points to just what I said - if a right is BROKEN - it is not usable. If a right is INTACT - it can be exercised. Just like I have been saying.

If a right is non fulfilled or failed due to non performance - then it cannot be exercised. If it right can be exercised - it has not been any of those things.

The definition you provided supports just what I have been saying. Thank you for it.
 
It smashed like an overripe melon and is still stinking up the place after being trashed a dozen times. Like the Phoenix Haymarket has a magic elixir that raises it from the dead after conveniently forgetting he is now polishing a turd and trying to prove it is not a turd.

It may well be that it exceeds a memory span or simply just bounces off a belief. I am more in favour of the 2nd version.

The only scramble here is to try to find a rabbit hole to escape the stench of brown stuff some people live in.

Insulting me like a petulant spoiled child who is not getting his way does nothing for your failure to provide any real argument or present any evidence which does anything but agree with me.
 
No problem. All that points to just what I said - if a right is BROKEN - it is not usable. If a right is INTACT - it can be exercised. Just like I have been saying.

If a right is non fulfilled or failed due to non performance - then it cannot be exercised. If it right can be exercised - it has not been any of those things.

The definition you provided supports just what I have been saying. Thank you for it.

Just wanted you to see it ;)

No. I saw what you did. And I'm not necessarily in disagreement with what you just posted. By your own words you used outside sources and subjective opinions on "context" to define "infringed." Rather than the actual dictionary alone.

Furthermore when pushed on how you arrived on the limited definition of infringed...you admitted multiple times that arrival did not rely on the dictionary to limit the definition. You used your own personal views.

Edit add:

So I agree. You didn't define the word with the dictionary. You used your own views. Again...you admitted multiple times that you did not rely on the definition to impose the limits.
 
Just wanted you to see it ;)

Again - I took the dictionary definition and the Second Amendment and the US Constitution as a larger document. I applied the definition to the Second using the clear language it contained as well as Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which clearly gives Congress powers in several areas that include weapons.
 
Haymarket refuted!

as stated the federal government could not regulate commerce inside of states until after Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, and the USSC stated in 1873 the federal government had no state policing powers to regulate inside of states.

so your assertion that the founders intended the federal government to regulate firearms, is REFUTED AS WRONG!

1873 slaughterhouse

The state justified the law under the “police powers” of the state. Those were powers that historically had fallen within the sovereign powers of government. The police-powers concept, which stretched back into English and European history, of course didn’t apply to the federal government because the federal government had no sovereign powers — its powers were limited to those enumerated within the Constitution. But the concept still applied to the states.
 
Last edited:
No problem. All that points to just what I said - if a right is BROKEN - it is not usable. If a right is INTACT - it can be exercised. Just like I have been saying.

If a right is non fulfilled or failed due to non performance - then it cannot be exercised. If it right can be exercised - it has not been any of those things.

The definition you provided supports just what I have been saying. Thank you for it.

the right-as it existed in the minds of the founders and before FDR raped the 10A and the 2A was essentially absolute at a federal level. There was no federal restrictions on people owning machine guns, buying guns in the mail, or using firearms in their home states. The right was infringed the minute the federal government restricted any exercise of the right since the right was NO LONGER available as it had been prior to the federal government acting
 
the right-as it existed in the minds of the founders and before FDR raped the 10A and the 2A was essentially absolute at a federal level. There was no federal restrictions on people owning machine guns, buying guns in the mail, or using firearms in their home states. The right was infringed the minute the federal government restricted any exercise of the right since the right was NO LONGER available as it had been prior to the federal government acting
strange
you. insisting that your right to bear arms has been infringed by actions taken during FDR's administration
yet this forum is rife with posts from you bragging about your gun using activities
had that right to bear arms been infringed, it would not be possible for you to have stories to tell about your gun bearing activities
so, either you were lying about your gun bearing activities or you are wrong about your right to arms being infringed
 
strange
you. insisting that your right to bear arms has been infringed by actions taken during FDR's administration
yet this forum is rife with posts from you bragging about your gun using activities
had that right to bear arms been infringed, it would not be possible for you to have stories to tell about your gun bearing activities
so, either you were lying about your gun bearing activities or you are wrong about your right to arms being infringed

What do you think the constitution is a brute that bashes government over the head? Any infringement must be challenged and as a last resort government may be bashed over the head. It would be a lot easier if people would defend their rights telling government to buzz off when it tries but apathy is a well known pneumonia.

Promise this gun control crap is on its way out which is what its oppressive nature deserves.

The 1934 NFA came at the end of Prohibition leaving 5000 moonshine cops without a job. There was no way government was going to generate that much opposition and ill feeling by firing them. So out of the pile of crap government created when it followed the propaganda campaign of the Anti Saloon league and thought it was grabbing more power and control with those idiotic banning laws. Laws which have no working example of success no matter what is banned. were left with a problem, what to do with 5000 idle moonshine cops.

It must have been total desperation and taking a big gamble that use of the 10th could be made to subvert the 2nd and collect fees from interstate transfers. Machine guns because of the use by organised crime came under the hammer of government pants crapping.

Now you can go and check this story and see where ATF, BATF, and BATFE came from, how it was structured and staffed.

When the Volstead Act, which established Prohibition in the United States, was repealed in December 1933, the Unit was transferred from the Department of Justice back to the Department of the Treasury where it became the Alcohol Tax Unit (ATU) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Special Agent Eliot Ness and several members of The "Untouchables", who had worked for the Prohibition Bureau while the Volstead Act was still in force, were transferred to the ATU. In 1942, responsibility for enforcing federal firearms laws was given to the ATU.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
No problem. All that points to just what I said - if a right is BROKEN - it is not usable. If a right is INTACT - it can be exercised. Just like I have been saying.

If a right is non fulfilled or failed due to non performance - then it cannot be exercised. If it right can be exercised - it has not been any of those things.

The definition you provided supports just what I have been saying. Thank you for it.

The word exercise does not appear in the 2nd. You know that as well as I do so the meaning of infringe does not in the slightest support your claim.

It is quite obvious that no term of a contract may be broken in order to subvert the contract, intact. Thus to control arms in any way by government that hinders, prevents, excludes or "infringes" upon that right to keep and bear is null and void. The right is no longer intact. Arms means all arms, the people means all people. Your claim is FALSE

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.

Where do you see the word exercise in the 2nd or the definition of infringe?

If a right is INTACT all its terms apply not just some of them.

YOUR lesson all over again and still you will not learn.
 
Insulting me like a petulant spoiled child who is not getting his way does nothing for your failure to provide any real argument or present any evidence which does anything but agree with me.

Insulting you!!!!!! :roll::doh:shock::lamo

I can show how many times you have raised this lie from the dead. So tell me how many is it now?

How can commenting on your actions be insulting unless you are ashamed of how many times it is?

Trashed again Haymarket and nothing I post agrees with you.
 
Perhaps it is because you do not understand what the word INFRINGED meant in that era of the USA?

Here you go again raising the different period meaning lie of yours again. Do you never tire of this resurrection of ashes after you have been burnt?

Produce this meaning and show its derivation and publication or is a figment of some anti-social subversive imagination?
 
The word exercise does not appear in the 2nd.

Never said it did.

You know that as well as I do so the meaning of infringe does not in the slightest support your claim.

The definition you provided supports me.

It is quite obvious that no term of a contract may be broken in order to subvert the contract, intact. Thus to control arms in any way by government that hinders, prevents, excludes or "infringes" upon that right to keep and bear is null and void. The right is no longer intact. Arms means all arms, the people means all people. Your claim is FALSE

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 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.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If a right is INTACT all its terms apply not just some of them.

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.
 
Here you go again raising the different period meaning lie of yours again. Do you never tire of this resurrection of ashes after you have been burnt?

Produce this meaning and show its derivation and publication or is a figment of some anti-social subversive imagination?

Already did that and so did you with the early Websters definitions.

Insulting me with your vitriol is a very poor substitute for evidence.
 
Insulting you!!!!!! :roll::doh:shock::lamo

I can show how many times you have raised this lie from the dead. So tell me how many is it now?

How can commenting on your actions be insulting unless you are ashamed of how many times it is?

Trashed again Haymarket and nothing I post agrees with you.


The very post I replied to demonstrated that. Go back and read.

This is something you do quite frequently. You seem to be a one issue obsessed person on this issue of guns. You seem to view it in the same way that zealots embrace the faith of their own religion. You thus view me as an enemy of your faith and feel compelled by the beliefs in your head to strike out and attack me with vitriol and insults instead of simply concentrating on debate and an intellectual exchange. You have done this before, are doing it now and in all likelihood will continue to do it as it is pathological with you and like other obsessed zealots, probably have a very tenuous grasp on any semblance of control.
 
Again - I took the dictionary definition and the Second Amendment and the US Constitution as a larger document. I applied the definition to the Second using the clear language it contained as well as Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which clearly gives Congress powers in several areas that include weapons.

Exactly. I agree.

You didn't use just the definition because it would not have supported your claim.

You didn't use just the second amendment because that wouldn't have supported your claim.

You didn't rely on just he definition because your argument would not exist with out it. You had to use your subjective opinions of outside sources to limit the definition. So again:

Your limited definition is NOT based on the definition. So how could it possibly be accurate? Since you aren't basing the definition on what the word meant at the time?
 
strange
you. insisting that your right to bear arms has been infringed by actions taken during FDR's administration
yet this forum is rife with posts from you bragging about your gun using activities
had that right to bear arms been infringed, it would not be possible for you to have stories to tell about your gun bearing activities
so, either you were lying about your gun bearing activities or you are wrong about your right to arms being infringed

Excellent point.
 
Exactly. I agree.

You didn't use just the definition because it would not have supported your claim.

I used the Second Amendment and it supports my claim.

All definitions from the dictionary have to be applied to the context of the term being used in real world situations. That is simply how reality works.
 
I used the Second Amendment and it supports my claim.

You used the second amendment to limit the definition? Oh. So you didn't use the definition to limit it? Ah. I see.

All definitions from the dictionary have to be applied to the context of the term being used in real world situations. That is simply how reality works.

And there is a correct and an incorrect way to apply them. You must use the dictionary to determine that. And since you didn't use the dictionary to determine the limits of the term...how would you know what the correct way to apply them is?
 
strange
you. insisting that your right to bear arms has been infringed by actions taken during FDR's administration
yet this forum is rife with posts from you bragging about your gun using activities
had that right to bear arms been infringed, it would not be possible for you to have stories to tell about your gun bearing activities
so, either you were lying about your gun bearing activities or you are wrong about your right to arms being infringed

I cannot legally own a machine gun made after May 19, 1986. that is a blatant infringement

I cannot drive over to Kentucky, to my friend's gun shop and buy a pistol from him-it has to be transferred to another dealer in Ohio. That is a blatant infringement on my rights.

using your silly logic, blacks in Jim crow states didn't suffer infringements or interferences on their rights if they ultimately were able to vote
 
You used the second amendment to limit the definition? Oh. So you didn't use the definition to limit it? Ah. I see.



And there is a correct and an incorrect way to apply them. You must use the dictionary to determine that. And since you didn't use the dictionary to determine the limits of the term...how would you know what the correct way to apply them is?

I did it the correct way.

And the only thing you "see" is what you want to so it fits in with your own belief system. I never said anything about limiting the definition - you did. I talked about its proper application to the context of the Amendment.
 
I cannot legally own a machine gun made after May 19, 1986. that is a blatant infringement

That does NOT prevent you from exercising and enjoying the right to keep and bear arms.

I cannot drive over to Kentucky, to my friend's gun shop and buy a pistol from him-it has to be transferred to another dealer in Ohio. That is a blatant infringement on my rights.

That does NOT prevent you from exercising and enjoying your right to keep and bear arms.

using your silly logic, blacks in Jim crow states didn't suffer infringements or interferences on their rights if they ultimately were able to vote

Jim crow states did not extend any right to vote for Blacks. And since elections are state or local affairs and we have no national elections - they had no right to vote to be infringed or interfered with even though a national amendment to the Constitution said otherwise.
 
Never said it did.

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.
 
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.


Well that is pretty clear what did you say your first language was it certainly is not English.

There is no clever word play and the constitution was not written to be readable only by unscrupulous scholars of the golden light order of skunks, politicians, weasels, rabid anti-social gun control advocates with an agenda or ideologically blind charlatans.

It smashed like an overripe melon and is still stinking up the place after being trashed a dozen times. Like the Phoenix Haymarket has a magic elixir that raises it from the dead after conveniently forgetting he is now polishing a turd and trying to prove it is not a turd.

The only scramble here is to try to find a rabbit hole to escape the stench of brown stuff some people live in.

As long as you persist in this hateful vitriol, all I will do with you is point it out each and every time you use it. If you want to actually debate something - stop the nonsense and deal with the issues and leave all the poison and personal sniping aside.

I'm done with you, your bull****

Promises promises. I highly doubt it. You attack me with the passion of a true believer who has a pathological compulsion which forces them to do so. I suspect you are not done at all and will continue to attack using vitriol and negativity aplenty.

But please prove me wrong and hold true to your word that you are done with me.
 
Last edited:
That does NOT prevent you from exercising and enjoying the right to keep and bear arms.

There is no right to excise or enjoy. Produce it.

That does NOT prevent you from exercising and enjoying your right to keep and bear arms.

There is nothing in the constitution that says one can exercise or enjoy anything. If you may not keep something or bear it then the right has been infringed. QED

Jim crow states did not extend any right to vote for Blacks. And since elections are state or local affairs and we have no national elections - they had no right to vote to be infringed or interfered with even though a national amendment to the Constitution said otherwise.

They could have gone to some other state and EXERCISED their rights by you myopic and screw-ball ideology. The US constitution grants NO rights so that is a blatant lie in an attempt to present falsity in a disingenuous and fraudulent way.

I actually feel dirty.
 
Back
Top Bottom