• 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
This is true, but as I stated I was wrong.

One cannot be WRONG in presenting a definition for a word. You made no error in selecting the proper definition from an authoritative source on the appropriate term being discussed.

You did just what you were suppose to do and was 100% correct in doing so.

So pretending otherwise because your own suitable and appropriate definition cause you to lose the debate is dishonest, disingenuous and participating in intellectual fraud trying to get a do-over that you are not entitled to.
 
To hear you accuse someone else of this is just hilarious, civilian.

You just did this same thing yesterday but your usage was far more egregious and the hallmark of the worst sort of intellectual fraud imaginable.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...defense-weapons-w-129-a-8.html#post1061281681

see post 79 to which you had not a single word of a reply or defense

But if you feel you can show where I did this, please do present your information and stop attacking me personally.

I will be happy to put up as an equal wager a significant sum of money to you or others if you can show that I engaged in DEFINITION SHOPPING trying to change the agreed upon definition of a term that I myself found the definition for and then attempted to change it when it bit me in the ass. Are you up for that?
 
Last edited:
You repeatedly expect a honest response, and, repoeatedly, you do not get one.
What's that they say about insanity? :)

LOL! Well if I'm insane, we know who to blame for it; honestly, he drove me there. :roll:
 
You repeatedly expect a honest response, and, repoeatedly, you do not get one.

What about my last ten replies do you find less than honest? Like there is a snowballs chance l of getting you to provide an honest answer to that question

Since you asked: They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Like you attacking me but pretending to have me on IGNORE and then slinking back to do it again while again pretending to have me on IGNORE and then doing it again while pretending to have me on IGNORE.
 
What about my last ten replies do you find less than honest? Like there is a snowballs chance l of getting you to provide an honest answer to that question

Since you asked: They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Like you attacking me but pretending to have me on IGNORE and then slinking back to do it again while again pretending to have me on IGNORE and then doing it again while pretending to have me on IGNORE.

Boo-hoo. Poor baby. :roll:

crying-baby-300x300.jpg
 
Except it does not say that. And that sort of incrementalism is a development that is not at all reflected in the finality of the actual definition which applied at the time.

That's not true, so says SCOTUS.
 
I for one understand the statistics. But what some seem to be forgetting is that they had different laws from the start and they added onto them. Since in the US you are starting from a different base level, what laws work in other countries will not necessarily have the same affect here.

In those societies, even before the advent of the gun, swords were restricted in ownership, usually to a "Knight" Class and Noble Classes. When guns came into being, they applied the same restrictions upon them. When dealing with the issue of guns, you have to understand that the other countries have always had some restrictions on the ownership of "weapons" while the US has had very little restrictions upon ownership of "weapons".

The US is unique in it's attitudes and laws governing ownership of "weapons". Therefore, what works elsewhere will not necessarily work here. Because of our uniqueness in the issue, we have to seek a unique path and solution on the issue.

It's not widely understood among Americans, but the whole concept of “a ‘Knight’ Class and Noble Classes” is part of what we were utterly rejecting when we founded this nation.

Under the European concept of nobility, people were born in a vast social hierarchy, which determined which people were better than which other, just by their parentage. At the top of this hierarchy was a king, and below him, several different levels of nobility including knights, dukes, counts, barons, and so on.

One of the best-known phrases from our Declaration of Independence is the statement that “…all men are created equal…”. What most people don't realize, I think, is that this was a direct repudiation of the European concept of nobility. A king is not better than a duke; a duke is not better than a knight, a knight is not better than a peasant. They are all created equal, and endowed by their creator with the same inalienable rights.

I'm fairly sure that there is some language in the Constitution which prohibits the federal government or any lower government from granting titles of nobility, and imposes restrictions on Americans accepting any such title granted by a foreign government.


So, as you point out, in Europe's society, weapons were restricted to upper classes of nobility. As Mao Tse Tsung observed, all power flows from the barrel of a gun. Europe's society was based on the idea that the upper noble classes should have that power over lower classes. In America, there are no such classes, and nobody is to have that sort of power over anyone else. We are all born equal, and as such, we all are equally entitled to access to weapons.
 
Here it is for you. Here it is found by you. Here it is posted by you. Here it is agreed to by you. Here it is used by you. Here is it defended by you.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/139998-abc-nightline-pushing-gun-issue-w-194-a-31.html

You selected the definition in our long debate.

You picked the definition from Meriam Webster.

You were responsible for it and then it bit you in the butt and you have never gotten over the shame of it and have been trying to atone for your mistake to your fellow true believers in the gun culture ever since. The only problem is that you did not make a mistake. The definition you proved was fine and dandy. And it proved me correct and you wrong.

Thank you and Merry Christmas.

Your definition says infringe means to hinder.
 
Your definition says infringe means to hinder.

here is the definition - not MINE but the 1828 Websters

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.]

You ignore the most common usage - #1 -. You ignore the words TO BREAK..... TO VIOLATE ..... CONTRAVENTION ......
You ignore the second most common usage - #2 . You ignore the words TO BREAK .... TO VIOLATE .... TO TRANSGRESS ..... TO NEGLECT TO FULFILL.
YOu focus in on only part of definition #3 - the word HINDER while you ignore the words tha precede it in the same thought ... TO DESTROY AND HINDER clearly indicating that it is the act of destruction that leads to the act of HINDER(ing) the right.

And perhaps you should use the same 1928 Webster's Dictionary to discover the meaning of HINDER?

HINDER, a. comp. of hind. That is in a position contrary to that of the head or fore part; designating the part which follows; as the hinder part of a wagon; the hinder part of a ship, or the stern. Acts 27.

CONTRARY TO THAT....... not at all the incrementalist meaning of today.

Yet again, some want to attach modern meanings to words which did not have those meanings at the time of the era of the adoption of the amendment.
 
here is the definition - not MINE but the 1828 Websters



You ignore the most common usage - #1 -. You ignore the words TO BREAK..... TO VIOLATE ..... CONTRAVENTION ......
You ignore the second most common usage - #2 . You ignore the words TO BREAK .... TO VIOLATE .... TO TRANSGRESS ..... TO NEGLECT TO FULFILL.
YOu focus in on only part of definition #3 - the word HINDER while you ignore the words tha precede it in the same thought ... TO DESTROY AND HINDER clearly indicating that it is the act of destruction that leads to the act of HINDER(ing) the right.

And perhaps you should use the same 1928 Webster's Dictionary to discover the meaning of HINDER?



CONTRARY TO THAT....... not at all the incrementalist meaning of today.

Yet again, some want to attach modern meanings to words which did not have those meanings at the time of the era of the adoption of the amendment.

Your normal, twisted blather cannot change the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear" so you try to work the fringes. "Arms" now means whatever you say it does. "Infringe" now means that limitation is fine, if only kept a mere milimeter short of a complete ban. In short, you have tossed out selected words with clear meaning and now try to distort "historic" meanings to morph the law of the land more to your liking. ;)
 
here is the definition - not MINE but the 1828 Websters



You ignore the most common usage - #1 -. You ignore the words TO BREAK..... TO VIOLATE ..... CONTRAVENTION ......
You ignore the second most common usage - #2 . You ignore the words TO BREAK .... TO VIOLATE .... TO TRANSGRESS ..... TO NEGLECT TO FULFILL.
YOu focus in on only part of definition #3 - the word HINDER while you ignore the words tha precede it in the same thought ... TO DESTROY AND HINDER clearly indicating that it is the act of destruction that leads to the act of HINDER(ing) the right.

And perhaps you should use the same 1928 Webster's Dictionary to discover the meaning of HINDER?



CONTRARY TO THAT....... not at all the incrementalist meaning of today.

Yet again, some want to attach modern meanings to words which did not have those meanings at the time of the era of the adoption of the amendment.

Sorry, but according to the same dictionary you provided, hinder means to stop, impede, obstruct or retard.

hindered - HIN'DERED, pp. Stopped; impeded; obstructed; retarded.

If you'd like to provide evidence from contemporaneous sources that your twisted definition of infringe is what the founders intended, please feel free to do so.
 
Your normal, twisted blather cannot change the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear" so you try to work the fringes. "Arms" now means whatever you say it does. "Infringe" now means that limitation is fine, if only kept a mere milimeter short of a complete ban. In short, you have tossed out selected words with clear meaning and now try to distort "historic" meanings to morph the law of the land more to your liking. ;)

I do NOT write dictionary definitions. I find it especially difficult to travel back into time of the year 1828 and write the Websters' definition provided. Attacking me does not change the 1828 Webster's meaning of the words. No matter how much you wish it otherwise.
 
Sorry, but according to the same dictionary you provided, hinder means to stop, impede, obstruct or retard.

hindered - HIN'DERED, pp. Stopped; impeded; obstructed; retarded.

If you'd like to provide evidence from contemporaneous sources that your twisted definition of infringe is what the founders intended, please feel free to do so.

Yes. And that is completely and 100% consistent with the definitive destructive finality of what was presented in the definition of INFRINGED.

Thank you for providing even more evidence supporting my viewpoint. It is appreciated.
 
Yes. And that is completely and 100% consistent with the definitive destructive finality of what was presented in the definition of INFRINGED.

Thank you for providing even more evidence supporting my viewpoint. It is appreciated.

Do you know what impede and retard mean? They are incremental.

Infringe means to hinder. Hinder means to impede or retard.

Your argument is in ruins.

How are you coming along with your evidence that your twisted definition is what the founders intended?
 
Last edited:
I do NOT write dictionary definitions. I find it especially difficult to travel back into time of the year 1828 and write the Websters' definition provided. Attacking me does not change the 1828 Webster's meaning of the words. No matter how much you wish it otherwise.

Fotunately, you also do not write SCOTUS opinions, or even seem to read them very well. The Heller case greatly limitted, yet did not preclude, what restrictions or "infringements" may be applied. E.g. keeping guns locked up, disassembled or trigger locked was struck down, as was restricting handguns to those owned before 1975 or only by LEOs, yet no further clue, or definition, was offered as to what is a "reasonable restriction" vs. "infringement". No SCOTUS judge ever wishes to be overbroad, so they stick to the specific arguments made (and the law as written) in a specific case appealed to them. The court has finally held that this "right of the people" is not related to any militia ties at all or based on whether residing in state vs. federalyl controlled property. Things are crawling right along.
 
Do you know what impede and retard mean? They are incremental.

Infringe means to hinder. Hinder means to impede or retard.

Your argument is in ruins.

How are you coming along with your evidence that your twisted definition is what the founders intended?

Again, you are a product of the modern age and insist on using modern meanings to terms which have changed over the centuries. What makes this so egregious is that you have been educated on this but you persist in doing it for ideological and political reasons.
 
Fotunately, you also do not write SCOTUS opinions, or even seem to read them very well. The Heller case greatly limitted, yet did not preclude, what restrictions or "infringements" may be applied. E.g. keeping guns locked up, disassembled or trigger locked was struck down, as was restricting handguns to those owned before 1975 or only by LEOs, yet no further clue, or definition, was offered as to what is a "reasonable restriction" vs. "infringement". No SCOTUS judge ever wishes to be overbroad, so they stick to the specific arguments made (and the law as written) in a specific case appealed to them. The court has finally held that this "right of the people" is not related to any militia ties at all or based on whether residing in state vs. federalyl controlled property. Things are crawling right along.

My argument is NOT based on SCOTUS decisions.
 
Again, you are a product of the modern age and insist on using modern meanings to terms which have changed over the centuries. What makes this so egregious is that you have been educated on this but you persist in doing it for ideological and political reasons.

Sorry. These are the definitions out of your old timey dictionary.

Infringe is defined as hinder.

Hinder is defined as impeding or retarding.

These are incremental, and they are in the old dictionary you cited.

Your argument is kaputt.
 
Sorry. These are the definitions out of your old timey dictionary.

Infringe is defined as hinder.

Hinder is defined as impeding or retarding.

These are incremental, and they are in the old dictionary you cited.

Your argument is kaputt.

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?
 
Last edited:
Your definition says infringe means to hinder.

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
 
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

Only 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, Turtle, you mention a cesspool and it would seem the perfect resting place for anyone attempting to do what I just described here.
 
Last edited:
Only if one intentionally ignores the complete and utter finality of the most common used term at the time - definition #1 with its definitive words.
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.
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.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom