• 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
We do now have limited government. We always have had limited government. There is no issue here to complain about.

what we have is a massive expansion beyond the limits intended by those who created the constitution and those expansions were not done properly-ie by amendments but rather by dishonest interpretations
 
what we have is a massive expansion beyond the limits intended by those who created the constitution and those expansions were not done properly-ie by amendments but rather by dishonest interpretations

That is an opinion. It is not fact.

What is fact is that we have a limited government.
 
And what you just wrote proves that I am correct. There indeed can be what some consider as incremental encroachments that insist constitute the right has been INFRINGED but that has not been the agreement of many many courts and justices over our long history. Thus, the idea that some have pushed here that the meaning of INFRINGED is something as small as HINDER is ridiculous and not supported by reality.

Not at all. Infringement originally meant to break, damage, or violate.

infringe (v.) mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from L. infringere "to damage, break off, break, bruise," from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + frangere "to break" (see fraction). Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760. Related: Infringed; infringing.
Online Etymology Dictionary

Or in other words, to change. There is little doubt that the 2nd has been changed over the years since its conception.
 
Not at all. Infringement originally meant to break, damage, or violate.

infringe (v.) mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from L. infringere "to damage, break off, break, bruise," from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + frangere "to break" (see fraction). Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760. Related: Infringed; infringing.
Online Etymology Dictionary

Or in other words, to change. There is little doubt that the 2nd has been changed over the years since its conception.

And you seemed to be doing well until you had to goof it all up with your OR IN OTHER WORDS. The words from the definitions agree with 1828 Webster's as I have reproduced many times in several threads now.

For the right to be INFRINGED it must be BROKEN or DESTROYED. One cannot enjoy a right while having it INFRINGED at the same time as they are mutually exclusive and cannot happen at the same time with the same right.
 
And you seemed to be doing well until you had to goof it all up with your OR IN OTHER WORDS. The words from the definitions agree with 1828 Webster's as I have reproduced many times in several threads now.

For the right to be INFRINGED it must be BROKEN or DESTROYED. One cannot enjoy a right while having it INFRINGED at the same time as they are mutually exclusive and cannot happen at the same time with the same right.

"violate" and "damage" do not mean destroyed, so your assumption is not well-founded.
 
"violate" and "damage" do not mean destroyed, so your assumption is not well-founded.

The definition I provided clearly indicated that INFRINGED involved negating or breaking or destroying or contravening the right to keep and bear arms.

Websters 1828 dictionary


infringe

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.]

Simply put, incremental encroachments are not damage or violations that rise to the level of being INFRINGED.

Or to think of it in a very practical way - you cannot both have your right INFRINGED if you are at the same time enjoying your right to keep an bear arms.

As I have said many times and not one person has shown otherwise, there are countless things that have been legislated regarding placing restrictions or limits on firearms and they are perfectly legal within the scope of the Second Amendment. The most zealous of gun lobby supporters can indeed judge them to be incremental encroachhments but that does not rise to the level of having your rights INFRINGED as the Second Amendment states.
 
Last edited:
The definition I provided clearly indicated that INFRINGED involved negating or breaking or destroying or contravening the right to keep and bear arms.

Websters 1828 dictionary

I think I'm more inclined to going with an etymology source than a dictionary from after the document in question was written. Being that the word infringe can mean to violate or damage, an easy comparison, in human action terms, might be the rape of a woman. When a woman is raped, it violates her, and damages her. It changes the way she perceives herself, as she was prior to her being violated. Violation and damage are not equal to destruction.
 
I think I'm more inclined to going with an etymology source than a dictionary from after the document in question was written. Being that the word infringe can mean to violate or damage, an easy comparison, in human action terms, might be the rape of a woman. When a woman is raped, it violates her, and damages her. It changes the way she perceives herself, as she was prior to her being violated. Violation and damage are not equal to destruction.

You are confusing apples with cinderblocks. That will only cause you to chip your teeth on the hard grey pie filling.

Your words fit your example of a rape of a woman. It does not fit with the Second Amendment nor the meaning of the term INFRINGED at the time. To pretend that it is some absolute that cannot be regulated or controlled by government makes it an absolute that defies reality. There have been many incremental encroachments that are perfectly legal and perfectly still protecting the basic right. To define it the way you ant to define it betrays the experience of the last 225 years and defies reality as we know it with this right.
 
One of the more bogus arguments is a claim that if you once engaged in activity that theoretically is protected by the second amendment, then future attempts to curtail other activities that should be protected by said amendments do no deprive you of your rights

its akin to throwing a newspaper editorial writer in jail because he said Obama is a turd and the prosecutor noting that for 4 years he wrote articles saying Obama was a turd but the latest editorial is illegal

or the government telling anyone who owns "controversial books" that they cannot obtain other banned books

there is not term of use on the second amendment nor do you use up your rights by frequent exercise thereof
 
You are confusing apples with cinderblocks. That will only cause you to chip your teeth on the hard grey pie filling.

Your words fit your example of a rape of a woman. It does not fit with the Second Amendment nor the meaning of the term INFRINGED at the time.

Words have meanings, as I believe I recall you saying several times on this very forum. The word infringe did not mean merely "destroy" at the time of the founding of the country. As for the rape comparison, it is perfectly legitimate as a comparison. When something is damaged or violated, it does not imply destruction, whether we are talking about guns or people.
 
Words have meanings, as I believe I recall you saying several times on this very forum. The word infringe did not mean merely "destroy" at the time of the founding of the country. As for the rape comparison, it is perfectly legitimate as a comparison. When something is damaged or violated, it does not imply destruction, whether we are talking about guns or people.

those who support gun banning want to grease the way to a ban with incremental erosion of our rights and they will defend those erosions as constitutional. when bans come they will claim that a ban also is constitutional because the incremental steps had been upheld and accomplished almost a complete ban anyway
 
I understand why some cling to false notions of how an Amendment should or shouldn't be modified.

But that horse bolted from the barn long ago. No where in the Second Amendment does it mention a prohibition on ownership due to mental defect or major crime conviction. Yet the mentally ill and felons are barred from ownership.

In the oft quoted Heller decision what the ardent 2nd A leave off once past the right to bear is an individual one is, and I quote Justice Scalia- "Like most rights, the 2nd amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." he goes on to say the opinion of an individual right doesn't nullify the bar to ownership for the mentally ill and convicted felons. Nor the 1939 Miller case on restrictions on commercial sale of firearms.

So the Second Amendment has been restricted without going through the process of amendment, one of the Supreme Courts rather more strict Constitutionalists says the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited and restrictions can be put on it.

Argue what infringement means til the cows come home, the Supreme Court has already decided and in our Nation of Laws that is the trump card.
 
restrictions on felons etc is generally seen as "due process of law" based on the status of the individual rather than the right in general
 
I understand why some cling to false notions of how an Amendment should or shouldn't be modified.

But that horse bolted from the barn long ago. No where in the Second Amendment does it mention a prohibition on ownership due to mental defect or major crime conviction. Yet the mentally ill and felons are barred from ownership.
5th amendment. Due Process.

In the oft quoted Heller decision what the ardent 2nd A leave off once past the right to bear is an individual one is, and I quote Justice Scalia- "Like most rights, the 2nd amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." he goes on to say the opinion of an individual right doesn't nullify the bar to ownership for the mentally ill and convicted felons.
No one questions this.

Nor the 1939 Miller case on restrictions on commercial sale of firearms.
You'll have to quote the text and tell us what exactly you think he's saying.

So the Second Amendment has been restricted without going through the process of amendment...
Like all others. No one questions this.

The REAL quetsions:
Do you know on what basis other rights are limited?
Do you know the circumstances necessary for a restriction on a constitutionally-protected fundamenta right to not violate the constitution?
 
Words have meanings, as I believe I recall you saying several times on this very forum. The word infringe did not mean merely "destroy" at the time of the founding of the country. As for the rape comparison, it is perfectly legitimate as a comparison. When something is damaged or violated, it does not imply destruction, whether we are talking about guns or people.

The Second Amendment can only mean one of two opposite things because of the word INFRINGED.

A - If the gun lobby advocates are correct, any incremental encroachment is indeed something which violates it and rises to the level of INFRINGEMENT. Any incremental encroachment - no matter how major or minor - how large or how small - how significant or how insignificant it may appear to others would indeed by a violation that rises to the level of INFRINGEMENT because it takes away the total complete control of that right from the individual. It must be that way - it has to be that way - it can only be that way because what is minor to one individual will be major to others so no incremental encroachment can be tolerated without violating the right and making it INFRINGED. And an act resulting in someones right - even one lone American - will still have the right to be INFRINGED. So it cannot be tolerated if the Second Amendment is to be honored in full.

The other alternative is

B - In 225 years of American history, the right to keep and bear arms has never been considered as an absolute which cannot be regulated or partially controlled by the government. We have had all manner of laws from outright ban and confiscation to registration to waiting periods to background checks to being legally denied to some individuals outright,. And all of that left untouched by the courts. So the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on the true and actual meaning of the word INFRINGED. This means that the right cannot be regulated or controlled or impacted in such a way by government that the right is destroyed, is contravened, is neutralized or is negated. It will be up to the peoples government to decide where that falls in practical terms.

There is no other way around this. It can only be one of those two visions.

Either government can pass regulations on the right or government cannot pass regulations on the right because to do so would cause someones rights to be INFRINGED and that is forbidden by the Second Amendment.
 
there was no federal infringement on the RKBA until 1934. BTW Haymarket, I don't believe the second amendment was properly applied to states until the 14th amendments incorporation

so for almost 100 years any state regulation would not have been prohibited by the second amendment

so your 225 year bit is a bit specious
 
there was no federal infringement on the RKBA until 1934. BTW Haymarket, I don't believe the second amendment was properly applied to states until the 14th amendments incorporation

so for almost 100 years any state regulation would not have been prohibited by the second amendment

so your 225 year bit is a bit specious

You can believe anything you want to believe about federalization. It matter not to me because it does not negate the fact of my argument. Regardless if count from day one of the nation or from the adoption of the 14th amendment, there have been innumerable incremental encroachments on the right that have never been thrown out by the court as violations. that is simply reality and fact. So my analysis still stands no matter how you want to look it or what you personally believe about federalization.
 
You can believe anything you want to believe about federalization. It matter not to me because it does not negate the fact of my argument. Regardless if count from day one of the nation or from the adoption of the 14th amendment, there have been innumerable incremental encroachments on the right that have never been thrown out by the court as violations. that is simply reality and fact. So my analysis still stands no matter how you want to look it or what you personally believe about federalization.

when was the first FEDERAL ENCROACHMENT
 
I have no idea.

well you talked about 225 years of infringements and I noted until the 14th amendment the second amendment was not at issue due to state infringements

1934 was the first federal crapping upon the second amendment

and guess who did it? the arch crapper himself, the odious FDR
 
well you talked about 225 years of infringements and I noted until the 14th amendment the second amendment was not at issue due to state infringements

1934 was the first federal crapping upon the second amendment

and guess who did it? the arch crapper himself, the odious FDR

Again - it matters not since those things what you and others consider as incremental encroachments and thus caused the Second Amendment to be INFRINGED have been upheld as legal.

My argument is thus validated regardless if it was 225 years ago, 160 years ago or 80 years ago. there have been many incremental encroachments upheld in law and the right was never found to be INFRINGED by any of them. Thus my acceptance of the Websters 1828 dictionary definition of INFRINGED as used at the era of the adoption is valid and the view that INFRINGED means HINDER is not because incremental encroachments are not found to be a violations and not cause the right to be INFRINGED.

Thank you for helping to prove that.
 
5th amendment. Due Process.


No one questions this.


You'll have to quote the text and tell us what exactly you think he's saying.


Like all others. No one questions this.

The REAL quetsions:
Do you know on what basis other rights are limited?
Do you know the circumstances necessary for a restriction on a constitutionally-protected fundamenta right to not violate the constitution?

There are those claiming the only proper process IS to amend the 2nd Amendment if restrictions are to be put on any amendment. There are quite a few who claim the exact opposite of Justice Scalia's opinion, that ANY restriction is an infringement and unconstitutional. They refuse to accept restrictions have been on the 2nd Amendment since before they were born and they try to pretend it just never happened.

You should research Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller case. I think he explains his opinion far better than I can, it is but a quick Google away.

I know that once the Supreme Court renders a decision on the Constitutionality of a law or restriction that is the law of the land. The circumstances, justifications, and arguments for or against don't matter once the ruling is given. The restriction doesn't have to meet any legal bar or Constitutional threshold... amending the Constitution has an extremely difficult process, for good reason. Restricting the rights doesn't, again for a very good reason.

Is why DOMA was a law and not a Constitutional amendment.
 
well you talked about 225 years of infringements and I noted until the 14th amendment the second amendment was not at issue due to state infringements

A question for you Turtle

is it your legal opinion that the right to keep and bear arms was NOT infringed on before 1934 by any government be it local, state or federal? Or is it your opinion that you simply do not care about those infringements because they were not done by the federal government?

You also seem to ignore that when I stated that the right had been subject to incremental encroachment for 225 years it was done by the government - I did not specify which level of government that did these things. I would expect that a gun supporter would consider any level of government as equally damnable for their actions if they INFRINGED upon what the Second Amendment is suppose to guaranty.
 
Last edited:
Again - it matters not since those things what you and others consider as incremental encroachments and thus caused the Second Amendment to be INFRINGED have been upheld as legal.

My argument is thus validated regardless if it was 225 years ago, 160 years ago or 80 years ago. there have been many incremental encroachments upheld in law and the right was never found to be INFRINGED by any of them. Thus my acceptance of the Websters 1828 dictionary definition of INFRINGED as used at the era of the adoption is valid and the view that INFRINGED means HINDER is not because incremental encroachments are not found to be a violations and not cause the right to be INFRINGED.

Thank you for helping to prove that.

Ya know Hay? We are all aware that you know how to spell infringed. We are also aware that you prefer to apply your own definition of it, rather than the ones which were etymologically correct at the time the 2nd was penned. There's really no need to keep capitalizing it, as we generally know how to read, and how to pick up subtle hints. ;)
 
Ya know Hay? We are all aware that you know how to spell infringed. We are also aware that you prefer to apply your own definition of it, rather than the ones which were etymologically correct at the time the 2nd was penned. There's really no need to keep capitalizing it, as we generally know how to read, and how to pick up subtle hints. ;)

Lizzie - please pick which one is correct based on what you think the actual definition of the word INFRINGED means.

The Second Amendment can only mean one of two opposite things because of the word INFRINGED.

A - If the gun lobby advocates are correct, any incremental encroachment is indeed something which violates it and rises to the level of INFRINGEMENT. Any incremental encroachment - no matter how major or minor - how large or how small - how significant or how insignificant it may appear to others would indeed by a violation that rises to the level of INFRINGEMENT because it takes away the total complete control of that right from the individual. It must be that way - it has to be that way - it can only be that way because what is minor to one individual will be major to others so no incremental encroachment can be tolerated without violating the right and making it INFRINGED. And an act resulting in someones right - even one lone American - will still have the right to be INFRINGED. So it cannot be tolerated if the Second Amendment is to be honored in full.

The other alternative is

B - In 225 years of American history, the right to keep and bear arms has never been considered as an absolute which cannot be regulated or partially controlled by the government. We have had all manner of laws from outright ban and confiscation to registration to waiting periods to background checks to being legally denied to some individuals outright,. And all of that left untouched by the courts. So the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on the true and actual meaning of the word INFRINGED. This means that the right cannot be regulated or controlled or impacted in such a way by government that the right is destroyed, is contravened, is neutralized or is negated. It will be up to the peoples government to decide where that falls in practical terms.

There is no other way around this. It can only be one of those two visions.

Either government can pass regulations on the right or government cannot pass regulations on the right because to do so would cause someones rights to be INFRINGED and that is forbidden by the Second Amendment.
 
Back
Top Bottom