• 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
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.

I've already provided it, but since you don't seem to understand:
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.

fraction (n.) late 14c., originally in the mathematical sense, from Anglo-French fraccioun (Old French fraccion, 12c., "breaking") and directly from Late Latin fractionem (nom. fractio) "a breaking," especially into pieces, noun of action from pp. stem of Latin frangere "to break," from PIE root *bhreg- "to break" (cf. Sanskrit (giri)-bhraj "breaking-forth (out of the mountains);" Gothic brikan, Old English brecan "to break;" Lithuanian brasketi "crash, crack;" Old Irish braigim "break" wind). Meaning "a breaking or dividing" is from early 15c.; sense of "broken off piece, fragment," is from c.1600.
 
I've already provided it, but since you don't seem to understand:
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.

fraction (n.) late 14c., originally in the mathematical sense, from Anglo-French fraccioun (Old French fraccion, 12c., "breaking") and directly from Late Latin fractionem (nom. fractio) "a breaking," especially into pieces, noun of action from pp. stem of Latin frangere "to break," from PIE root *bhreg- "to break" (cf. Sanskrit (giri)-bhraj "breaking-forth (out of the mountains);" Gothic brikan, Old English brecan "to break;" Lithuanian brasketi "crash, crack;" Old Irish braigim "break" wind). Meaning "a breaking or dividing" is from early 15c.; sense of "broken off piece, fragment," is from c.1600.

But if we apply YOUR definition that YOU support and YOU advocate and YOU think it right - it clearly and obviously goes against the long American history of all sorts of incremental encroachements that have been untouched by courts as rising to the level of a right that has been INFRINGED?

How do you then reconcile your claim that your definition with its little BRUISING of a right constituting INFRINGED with the historical reality that lots of incremental encroachments or BRUISES if you will have been untouched by he courts and do not constitute a right that has been INFRINGED?

Please answer this as it is the central key question on this issue: How do you reconcile the definition you feel is right with the reality that says otherwise?

Again - if you are enjoying the right, it has not been BROKEN to use the definition you favor. And if it has not been BROKEn then even by your definition it does not rise ot the level of a right that has been INFRINGED.
 
I wanna see him claim that a hurdle or three in a runners run path doesn't hinder. Bruise is a good one above ^. Bruising someone doesn't stop them but it hinders them. Standing in someones way doesn't stop them from going around you but it hinders them.
 
I wanna see him claim that a hurdle or three in a runners run path doesn't hinder. Bruise is a good one above ^. Bruising someone doesn't stop them but it hinders them. Standing in someones way doesn't stop them from going around you but it hinders them.

An excellent point. Which is why a mere hindrance or bruising would not rise to the level of a right that has been INFRINGED.

Thank you for helping to prove that the use of the definition lizzie favors is not applicable and clearly wrong.
 
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.
So what regulations would you recommend be passed on the right to keep and bear arms?
 
I wanna see him claim that a hurdle or three in a runners run path doesn't hinder. Bruise is a good one above ^. Bruising someone doesn't stop them but it hinders them. Standing in someones way doesn't stop them from going around you but it hinders them.
Any precondition laid upon the exercise of a right not inherent to same is an infringement.
Haymarket argues his intelledctually dishonest definition of infringement because it is the only way he has anything to stand on.
:dunnio:
 
Any precondition laid upon the exercise of a right not inherent to same is an infringement.
Haymarket argues his intelledctually dishonest definition of infringement because it is the only way he has anything to stand on.
:dunnio:

You may want to use spell check when you butcher a word like INTELLEDCTUALLY (sic) when throwing stones at others cognitive abilities. It almost as bad as butchering the word ILLITERATE or MISSPELLED.

You should read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

You will discover that ORIGINALISM, or trying to find out the original meaning of the Constitution when written, is hardly the equal of employing intellectually dishonest tactics.

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the constitution.[1] It is based on the principle that the judiciary is not supposed to create, amend or repeal laws (which is the realm of the legislative branch) but only to uphold them.[1] The term originated in the 1980s [2] but the concept is a formalist theory of law and a corollary of textualism.
Today, originalism is popular among political conservatives in the U.S., and is most prominently associated with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. However, some liberals, such as Justice Hugo Black and Akhil Amar, have also subscribed to the theory.[3]

As for the definition - it is not mine. It is from Webster's Dictionary 1828 edition. That sort of research is part of the originalist approach favored by serious people - often conservatives.
 
Last edited:
restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are infringements on the right

nothing more, nothing less
 
And the Supreme Court has ruled restrictions are Constitutional, the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right, the mentally ill and felons are barred from exercising the 2nd A WITHOUT being enumerated in the 2nd A.
 
And what conservatives/libertarians/gun lovers seem to not understand/accept is change.
Everything changes, the year is 2012 not 1612.
The wild west is no more, the "king of the hill" is no more.
Man is becoming , slowly, more and more social - I think this is where the tea baggers have a problem.
And, YES, even the definition of words change.
Pick up a dictionary from the 1600s.....can't find one....the 1700s ....probably the first one.
Compare that to one designed in the 2000s, again, if there is one.
To do this, one would have to visit the NYC public library and do some serious digging.
Design, an interesting word...
Definition, another word of interest..
INFRINGE : to break
to encroach
There is a difference between the two.
I can see and accept the Constitution framers use of "infringe" . In their time, no government was 100% or even close to being trustworthy..
Today, things are different..
 
And the Supreme Court has ruled restrictions are Constitutional, the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right, the mentally ill and felons are barred from exercising the 2nd A WITHOUT being enumerated in the 2nd A.
The SCOTUS is correct...back in the day (1700s) of the original "clean" BOR (bill of rights) and the Constitution, the mentally ill did not "exist" , they were swept under the carpet..
Things are different today, things CHANGE.
 


I think this clears a lot of things out.
 
Again - if you are enjoying the right, it has not been BROKEN to use the definition you favor. And if it has not been BROKEn then even by your definition it does not rise ot the level of a right that has been INFRINGED.

So now that you have explained to us what the federal government MAY do, what do you suggest it SHOULD do?
 
It is very clear that ALL of the people currently hawking all kinds of gun control as a 'solution' to the issue are nearly completely ignorant of anything regarding guns.
Thus, here's no need to take seriously any opinions from these "common variety pro-gun control" (tm) people. H Lee White
I am "one of those" ignorants.
For 70 plus years I have wondered why we need to kill....in order to defend ourselves....a "stun gun" is, IMO, a good idea...
To listen to , but NOT necessarily accept arguments from the other side is a good idea....NOT IMO...In my opinion, its a "closed mind".
Does the NRA think that our latest mass murdered need an assault rifle to defend him self from school children ????
Even if he was sane, and he had a stun gun, how many could he murder ?

NO, the mentally unstable (like me) do not need an assault weapon, further, IMO, NO citizen does, unless that citizen hates his fellow man that much.
 
So now that you have explained to us what the federal government MAY do, what do you suggest it SHOULD do?

pray there are not more mass killings of the innocents.
 
pray there are not more mass killings of the innocents.

So you only care about controlling the carnage, not at stopping the violence entirely?
 
So you only care about controlling the carnage, not at stopping the violence entirely?

Yeah - I am only into carnage control. In fact, here in Michigan I am President of the Carnage Control Commission & Cooperative. ;):roll:

Why would I want to stop violence? :doh
 
pray there are not more mass killings of the innocents.

So you have wasted all this effort to convince us of what the federal government MAY do, but in the end you don't really want it to do anything at all? If you are not for some sort of change, why bother even discussing the issue?
 
So you have wasted all this effort to convince us of what the federal government MAY do, but in the end you don't really want it to do anything at all? If you are not for some sort of change, why bother even discussing the issue?
I see through your false expression of astonishment.
 
And the Supreme Court has ruled restrictions are Constitutional, the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right, the mentally ill and felons are barred from exercising the 2nd A WITHOUT being enumerated in the 2nd A.

actually the supreme court merely stated that some restrictions may be upheld

since those were not in front of the court those comments are dicta.
 
And what conservatives/libertarians/gun lovers seem to not understand/accept is change.
Everything changes, the year is 2012 not 1612.
The wild west is no more, the "king of the hill" is no more.
Man is becoming , slowly, more and more social - I think this is where the tea baggers have a problem.
And, YES, even the definition of words change.
Pick up a dictionary from the 1600s.....can't find one....the 1700s ....probably the first one.
Compare that to one designed in the 2000s, again, if there is one.
To do this, one would have to visit the NYC public library and do some serious digging.
Design, an interesting word...
Definition, another word of interest..
INFRINGE : to break
to encroach
There is a difference between the two.
I can see and accept the Constitution framers use of "infringe" . In their time, no government was 100% or even close to being trustworthy..
Today, things are different..

translation-progressives don't like conservative gun owners and use gun control schemes as a means to harass and hassle conservative gun owners

anti gun extremists understand that the constitution-as written and intended-provides a massive roadblock to the anti gun schemes progressives want to impose so therefore progressives and other gun haters lie about what the second amendment means

and to claim the government is more trustworthy today
LOL
 


I think this clears a lot of things out.


my local news-I saw this. I used to do this slot in a different form many many years ago as a guest
 
I see through your false expression of astonishment.

Actually, it's not false astonishment. I don't understand why he would spend so much time trying to convince us what the government MAY do, but be completely indifferent to whether it actually does anything.
 
actually the supreme court merely stated that some restrictions may be upheld

since those were not in front of the court those comments are dicta.

When the Justice called the intellectual anchor of the conservative side of the Supreme Court says the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited that means something. To use your own description of 'restriction equals infringement' then as far as the Supreme Court is concerned the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can be infringed.

As mentioned many times before nowhere in the Constitution does it state the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the mentally ill or felons. The 'show me where in the Constitution' crowd can't be happy.

Oh the idea of just how the 2nd Amendment is applied is very much part and parcel of the Heller Decision. The Right of self defense in the home was upheld, but not the right of unlimited carry.
 
Back
Top Bottom