• 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!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%
  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%
  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%

  • Total voters
    148
so you have changed from saying infringe means to ban to merely claiming ban was the more popular definition. remind me where there is any support for the argument that the federal government was actually delegated the power to HINDER our right to KBA?

This sort of semantic argument that continually equivocates and evades demonstrates what I have said all along for dozens of years. Those who start off with the premise that guns should be severely restricted or controlled by the all wise mommy dearest government will spend all types of effort working backwards from pretty clear language in an attempt to find a constitutional basis for their nanny state desires

But your screed utterly fails since I have never expressed support for such bans.

All I am trying to do is to educate people on American History and the meaning of words as used in American History.

The rest of what you accuse me of seems to be the creation of your own imagination.
 
But your screed utterly fails since I have never expressed support for such bans.

All I am trying to do is to educate people on American History and the meaning of words as used in American History.

The rest of what you accuse me of seems to be the creation of your own imagination.

by constantly claiming that the other definitions are not proper and by also suggesting that all the schemes the dem party is mouthing to hassle honest gun owners clearly demonstrate to most of us that you are supporting all sorts of restrictions on gun owners. Be it constantly complaining about the NRA and gun owners you have demonstrated what side you are on.
 
Your argument is a fraud and blatantly dishonest. As I have already told you - and as you conventiently pretend to ignore - you ignore definition #1 - the most common usage of the time and its definitive and final language as to what INFRINGE means. You then compound your intellectual fraud by continuing to ignore definition #2. And even when you pick the third least used definition - your commit intellectual fraud by attempting to ignore the words before the word 'hinder"..... DESTROY.

So tell us Federalist - why would you ignore all of definition 1, all of definition 2 and the first half of the least used definition and only focus on what you think one word means?

Why would you do that?

Those are two possible definitions. There is a third as well. What evidence do you have that those, and not the third, are what the founders meant?
 
by constantly claiming that the other definitions are not proper and by also suggesting that all the schemes the dem party is mouthing to hassle honest gun owners clearly demonstrate to most of us that you are supporting all sorts of restrictions on gun owners. Be it constantly complaining about the NRA and gun owners you have demonstrated what side you are on.

I have NEVER suggested that any definition from the time period in discussion was not proper. You are simply wrong about that.

The rest of your post is simply political carping and self induced paranoia about what you believe based on your own political leanings. You certainly have a right to those beliefs, but in the end, they are simply extremist beliefs.
 
Indeed it does and with that the entire premise of the anti gun argument based on a claim that only bans = infringements goes spinning down the porcelain pipe on its way to cesspool where other crappy arguments end up

Yes indeed. Just like yesterday's digested baloney.
 
Those are two possible definitions. There is a third as well. What evidence do you have that those, and not the third, are what the founders meant?

Because the definitions are presented in order of common usage and the one.... sorry - the small portion of the one you cling to - #3 is clearly labeled as LITTLE USED showing that the Founders would far more than likely not be familiar with or if they opted to ignore the more common usage and focus on obscure usage - they most likely would have clarified it with additional or better yet different language altogether is that was their meaning.
 
But your screed utterly fails since I have never expressed support for such bans.

All I am trying to do is to educate people on American History and the meaning of words as used in American History.

The rest of what you accuse me of seems to be the creation of your own imagination.

Simply present your evidence that the founders intended your particular chosen definition for infringed.
 
Yes indeed. Just like yesterday's digested baloney.

AHHHH. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I am touched. However, we still have this to consider which overrides any imitative effort at cleverness

Focusing on the word HINDER as the key word in the definition of the word INFRINGE only is valid if one intentionally ignores the complete and utter finality of the most common used term at the time - definition #1 with its definitive words.

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.

And then only if one compounds that error of intellectual fraud by then ignoring the second most common usage of the term at the time - #2 with its definitive words.


2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

And then only if one even further decides to become even ore egregious in their commission of intellectual fraud and ignore the first half of the term that precedes the word HINDER which is TO DESTROY.


3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

And then to compound this grand felony of high intellectual fraud, one must conveniently ignore the phrase placed in the brackets after that definition #3

[Little used.]

Yes Federalist... what you have given us is baloney indeed!!!!!
 
Because the definitions are presented in order of common usage and the one.... sorry - the small portion of the one you cling to - #3 is clearly labeled as LITTLE USED showing that the Founders would far more than likely not be familiar with or if they opted to ignore the more common usage and focus on obscure usage - they most likely would have clarified it with additional or better yet different language altogether is that was their meaning.

bottom line

magazine restrictions
waiting periods
banning bayonet lugs or flash hiders
limitations on how many firearms an honest person can purchase in a given day, week or month
training requirements

etc are INFRINGEMENTS on our rights to keep and bear arms
those who want citizens disarmed support those infringements

nothing more nothing less so why waste so much time on evasive attempts to pretend that the term infringement doesn't mean what everyone else knows it means
 
Because the definitions are presented in order of common usage and the one.... sorry - the small portion of the one you cling to - #3 is clearly labeled as LITTLE USED showing that the Founders would far more than likely not be familiar with or if they opted to ignore the more common usage and focus on obscure usage - they most likely would have clarified it with additional or better yet different language altogether is that was their meaning.

Okay, simply present your evidence that this is not the definition that the founders had in mind and we will all be convinced.
 
bottom line



nothing more nothing less so why waste so much time on evasive attempts to pretend that the term infringement doesn't mean what everyone else knows it means

"what everyone else knows it means"!?!?!?!?!?!?

This is the peg you hang your hat on? "what everyone else knows it means"!!!!!!

Amazing.

If you are correct, if Federalist is correct, and if we can discard 95% of the definition of the word INFRINGED used at the time and focus narrowly on one word HINDEr that was admittedly "little used" at the time, then any incremental step taken by government to do anything less than allow every citizen the right to have any arm they wanted would be the only reasonable conclusion. After all, if you are right, any incremental encroachment is a violation of the Constitution. No weapon could be barred, banned,forbidden. No step could be taken which slows down or impedes a citizen in any way shape or form regarding their own personal choice about a weapons and its use.

Aside from the overwhelming evidence from the rest of the 95% of the definition in use at the time - aside from that - there is just one little problem that you and Federalist have in that insistence. 225 years of American History. Your view that any incremental encroachment constitutes an infringement has NEVER EVER been in action in any way shape or form in this nation. Your view is a fantasy that bears no relationship to the real world of the past 225 years ofAmerican history.

So not only does the definition of the day not support you - but neither does the experience of American history and 225 years of American jurisprudence.

You end up with nothing aside only your self imposed ideological beliefs because you want to believe them.
 
"what everyone else knows it means"!?!?!?!?!?!?

This is the peg you hang your hat on? "what everyone else knows it means"!!!!!!

Amazing.

If you are correct, if Federalist is correct, and if we can discard 95% of the definition of the word INFRINGED used at the time and focus narrowly on one word HINDEr that was admittedly "little used" at the time, then any incremental step taken by government to do anything less than allow every citizen the right to have any arm they wanted would be the only reasonable conclusion. After all, if you are right, any incremental encroachment is a violation of the Constitution. No weapon could be barred, banned,forbidden. No step could be taken which slows down or impedes a citizen in any way shape or form regarding their own personal choice about a weapons and its use.

Aside from the overwhelming evidence from the rest of the 95% of the definition in use at the time - aside from that - there is just one little problem that you and Federalist have in that insistence. 225 years of American History. Your view that any incremental encroachment constitutes an infringement has NEVER EVER been in action in any way shape or form in this nation. Your view is a fantasy that bears no relationship to the real world of the past 225 years ofAmerican history.

So not only does the definition of the day not support you - but neither does the experience of American history and 225 years of American jurisprudence.

You end up with nothing aside only your self imposed ideological beliefs because you want to believe them.

You steadfastly refuse to offer any evidence of which definition the founders intended.

That leaves us having to accept what in reality is nothing more than your (somewhat idiosyncratic) opinion on the subject.
 
tell me Haymarket, if the founders want congress the power to INFRINGE (hinder, delay etc) our rights why was that power never delegated on congress in the constitution and why did the patron saint of the nanny state government worshippers have to engage in a dishonest mutation of the commerce clause to "find" that power?
 
Okay, simply present your evidence that this is not the definition that the founders had in mind and we will all be convinced.

I have already presented you with the evidence.

Are you laboring under the delusion the the men who wrote the Constitution were not also men of their time and place and what applied to all other people of their day somehow and someway did not apply to them?

Are you laboring under the delusion that the most common of word meanings somehow someway escaped them in favor of some obscure meaning which was LITTLE USED at the time?

It appears that if you want to pretend that
1- the most common usages of a word were not indeed used by the founders, and
2- they employed the use of word meaning that were LITTLE USED at the time in some sort of alternative linguistic reality divorced from the rest of the nation

then the responsibility is totally and completely upon you to show the exception to the rule. Otherwise you are attempting to flip the script and that is not how things work.

You want to pretend that the normal usage of terms in that era of history was not applicable to the men who wrote the document, by all means do so.
 
tell me Haymarket, if the founders want congress the power to INFRINGE (hinder, delay etc) our rights why was that power never delegated on congress in the constitution and why did the patron saint of the nanny state government worshippers have to engage in a dishonest mutation of the commerce clause to "find" that power?

I have no idea what you are talking about. They gave plenty of powers to COngress in the Constitution which apply to this issue. Plenty of them.

We have been through this before and you know darn well about Article I, Section 8.
 
I think we are all waiting for the anti gun advocates to prove that the founders intended the federal government to have the power to impose silly restrictions on the citizenry's ability to keep and bear arms

what is more likely?

that the commerce clause was intended to allow infringements on our rights

or that

anti gun extremists twist the language of the constitution because they KNOW the plain meaning is a prophylactic against their silly attempts to hassle honest gun owners?
 
I have no idea what you are talking about. They gave plenty of powers to COngress in the Constitution which apply to this issue. Plenty of them.

We have been through this before and you know darn well about Article I, Section 8.

yeah I know the leftwing's carte blanch delegation of power

but the patron saint of the ever expanding federal government had to use the commerce clause and "affecting interstate commerce" to hassle those wishing to own machine guns

that alone proves I am right
 
yeah I know the leftwing's carte blanch delegation of power

but the patron saint of the ever expanding federal government had to use the commerce clause and "affecting interstate commerce" to hassle those wishing to own machine guns

that alone proves I am right

It alone proves that there is language there which proves you wrong. First you claim there is not language then you carp and moan about the language that is there that was used to do what you claim cannot be done because there is no language to do it.


Make up your mind so we know what position you are taking here.

You might not like Article I , Section 8 - but thats really irrelevant to what reality is. It is part of the Constitution and if you do not like it - that is your right but it is irrelevant.
 
I have already presented you with the evidence.

Are you laboring under the delusion the the men who wrote the Constitution were not also men of their time and place and what applied to all other people of their day somehow and someway did not apply to them?

Are you laboring under the delusion that the most common of word meanings somehow someway escaped them in favor of some obscure meaning which was LITTLE USED at the time?

It appears that if you want to pretend that
1- the most common usages of a word were not indeed used by the founders, and
2- they employed the use of word meaning that were LITTLE USED at the time in some sort of alternative linguistic reality divorced from the rest of the nation

then the responsibility is totally and completely upon you to show the exception to the rule. Otherwise you are attempting to flip the script and that is not how things work.

You want to pretend that the normal usage of terms in that era of history was not applicable to the men who wrote the document, by all means do so.

You can wave your hands all you want, but at the time one of the valid definitions of the word infringe was to hinder. If you would like to substantiate your ridiculous theory that infringe means to completely deny, then please offer your evidence that this was the intention of the founders.
 
You can wave your hands all you want, but at the time one of the valid definitions of the word infringe was to hinder. If you would like to substantiate your ridiculous theory that infringe means to completely deny, then please offer your evidence that this was the intention of the founders.

LITTLE USED. Do you know what that means?

But let us look at the entire definition and not merely one word in an obscure and little used meaning and see why your obsession with that one word HINDER is the perfect example of intellectual fraud.

Focusing on the word HINDER as the key word in the definition of the word INFRINGE only is valid if one intentionally ignores the complete and utter finality of the most common used term at the time - definition #1 with its definitive words.

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.

And then only if one compounds that error of intellectual fraud by then ignoring the second most common usage of the term at the time - #2 with its definitive words.


2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

And then only if one even further decides to become even ore egregious in their commission of intellectual fraud and ignore the first half of the term that precedes the word HINDER which is TO DESTROY.


3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

And then to compound this grand felony of high intellectual fraud, one must conveniently ignore the phrase placed in the brackets after that definition #3

[Little used.]


Now explain again why you focus on the 5% of several definitions and ignore the other and ignore the fact that it is clearly labeled as LITTLE USED.

And then explains to us how the founders were men apart from the rest of the society they lived in and were independent of common usage and actually employed an alternate system of word meanings which focused on the obscure and ignored the most common and clear of meanings?

And then explain to all of us how in something as vitally important as an amendment to the Constitution the founders would knowingly and willingly use an obscure and little used meaning of a word that had the very opposite meaning to almost everyone else at the time?

Please do.
 
Last edited:
Now explain again why you focus on the 5% of several definitions and ignore the other and ignore the fact that it is clearly labeled as LITTLE USED.

And then explains to us how the founders were men apart from the rest of the society they lived in and were independent of common usage and actually employed an alternate system of word meanings which focused on the obscure and ignored the most common and clear of meanings?

And then explain to all of us how in something as vitally important as an amendment to the Constitution the founders would knowingly and willingly use an obscure and little used meaning of a word that had the very opposite meaning to almost everyone else at the time?

Please do.

I focus on that definition because that is the one that is applicable, which is also why the founders chose to use that word.

You can rant all you want, but infringe means to hinder. You presented the definition, not me.

But feel free to present any court decision or any constitutional scholar who can corroborate your ludicrous definition of the term. Until you do, you are merely spouting your own opinion, which, for all intents and purposes, is meaningless and unimportant.
 
Last edited:
Yep, it means it is Used, even if only rarely. It means that it can apply.

Little used does not equate to not used.

So now all you have to do is to provide ample verifiable evidence that the founders intentionally and purposely passed up the conventional and widely used meaning in favor of an obscure and little used meaning and knowingly used that even though it gave the opposite take on their intent.

I wish you luck with that.

Of course, it brings up the more obvious question as to why you and others would willingly focus on that tiny little part of a little used definition and pass up the greater 95% of the larger definition.

Can you explain why you would do that?
 
I focus on that definition because that is the one that is applicable, which is also why the founders chose to use that word.

No - it is the one which is little used.

Now all you have to do is show us that the founders intentionally and purposely ignored the far more common use of the term INFRINGED that was known to the people of its time and commonly used in favor of an obscure and little used meaning which totally changes the meaning of the commonly used term.

Lotsa luck with that.
 
So now all you have to do is to provide ample verifiable evidence that the founders intentionally and purposely passed up the conventional and widely used meaning in favor of an obscure and little used meaning and knowingly used that even though it gave the opposite take on their intent.

I wish you luck with that.

Of course, it brings up the more obvious question as to why you and others would willingly focus on that tiny little part of a little used definition and pass up the greater 95% of the larger definition.

Can you explain why you would do that?

I don't have to "prove" anything. But context can tell a lot of what is meant by a particular word.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the US and the framers just finishes, successfully, a revolution. They also knew that we were both militarily weak and our ability to defend the nation was based upon a militia concept where all adult male citizens participated with privately owned firearms. Any Infringement, by whatever definition you want to use, would weaken the Nations ability to defend itself.

So in context with the times and conditions at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the Founding fathers clearly intended "shall not be infringed" to mean it shall not be changed in anyway whatsoever that would weaken the peoples ability to act effectively as a militia when needed.

I also don't believe that our founding fathers ever intended that the "militia" concept would be taken away from the citizens.
 
Back
Top Bottom