tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post6900116817788757307..comments2023-12-05T08:00:14.402-05:00Comments on On Second Opinion Blog: The Meaning of 'Shall Not Be Infringed'David E. Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01108309257699077532noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-22944382510038025742016-11-17T07:04:56.715-05:002016-11-17T07:04:56.715-05:00I believe what the second amendment is saying is t...I believe what the second amendment is saying is that since there was a thought that standing armies were not favored due to historic coups of powerful armies taking over governments, a well regulated malitia was necessary in lieu of an army to the security of a free state. Since there was a need for well regulated malitias to defend a free state and since there was also the potential for malitias to form a coup and use their power to potentially take over a free state. The un-infringed right of the people to keep and bear arms was for the potential defense of renegade well regulated malitias. The whole concept of the new nation was a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Since a well regulated malitia was necessary to defend such a nation governed by the people, the people had and have the right to keep and bear arms to potentially defend themselves from the well regulated malitias which became a standing army and which the people still have the right to potentially defend themselves from.<br />.The Peoplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02444248185948686636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-56035247234884361292016-11-13T18:46:45.978-05:002016-11-13T18:46:45.978-05:00Ed you are confusing the 10th amendment and what i...Ed you are confusing the 10th amendment and what it refers to.<br />The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. <br />That means the States cannot interfere with any of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights", and vice versa, the federal government cannot interfere or legislate rights that are not in the Constitution. <br />Even they have and do all the time. It was always suppose to We the Peoples duty to make sure they didnt. <br />As to the right to use a firearm, that completely depends on what context and how it was used. Self defense, Murder. strong armed robbery. these are instances of firearm use that the States have jurisdiction over, and have laws governing those uses. So I'm afraid I don't see where the confusion is. Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058451013595597610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-50464001495510534352016-11-13T18:36:11.072-05:002016-11-13T18:36:11.072-05:00You added several different qualifiers to the orig...You added several different qualifiers to the original context of the 2nd amendment. <br />Your right's as they exist don't include other peoples private property or government buildings. My employer can read my emails, fire me if I make political comments, etc etc.<br />I have freedom of speech, but I cant run into a movies theater and yell fire.<br />My point is, and they used to teach this because it was part of the founding fathers instructions about rights. Your right's exist only if they aren't infringing on other peoples rights.<br /><br />That includes safety in a government owned building. Or say a restaurant which is owned by someone and their private property, is also a place where your rights dont exist. It's not that hard to figure out. Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058451013595597610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-18500005535031210612016-11-13T15:40:44.329-05:002016-11-13T15:40:44.329-05:00I'm just a simple folk. Infringe means to me, ...I'm just a simple folk. Infringe means to me, "Don't go near my rights listed in the constitution!"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07994743646226972894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-86517808141840365552016-06-21T10:59:39.008-04:002016-06-21T10:59:39.008-04:00One of the overriding issues is self determination...One of the overriding issues is self determination when many of the limitations of government where penned into our founding documents. People of conscience and morals where the intended participants in enjoying these rights...When the population is largely without personal morals this body of law becomes unenforceable. Self determination is ordered by a set of values based in a body of moral rules, or a philosophy that understood that there are rules for conduct. As a larger portion of our population fails to follow traditional values, the rights become ineffective. Rights as put forth in our founding documents were for those who already had a well developed code of conduct. We have a large segment of our lawmakers who can't pas the morals test at this time, and a large segment of the population who choose immoral lives voting for them. These rights wont work in populations who don't have a basic set of traditional values.FRANKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15052510017320418462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-16082339514563397072016-06-20T05:07:15.692-04:002016-06-20T05:07:15.692-04:00It is offensive to think that the founders never r...It is offensive to think that the founders never realized that future "arms" would be greatly more powerful than theirs - this was obvious from even a rudimentary knowledge of history. Thus, it was never a thought to limit the citizen's right to then-existing arms any more than assuming that the government would never have improved arms.Sidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04655980291978440341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-17976412419750402862016-04-25T19:33:27.791-04:002016-04-25T19:33:27.791-04:00Thank You !Thank You !Jessenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680218244682274928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-65712097208953830032016-01-12T20:17:37.386-05:002016-01-12T20:17:37.386-05:00An infringement is not an absolute but is an invas...An infringement is not an absolute but is an invasion of right that breaks the possessor's right. There are restrictions that arguably would not be infringements of the right to bear arms. The fact that "infringe" does not make the final draft of the first amendment tells you its use there could have weakened those rights.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671445484560678700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-45875049217821064112016-01-12T19:57:46.441-05:002016-01-12T19:57:46.441-05:00The fact that the word infringe does not appear in...The fact that the word infringe does not appear in the first amendment with respect to either freedom of conscience or the press is a clear indication that it's use was considered and rejected, because of fears that it would be construed to limit these rights. It is also a rule of statutory construction that words and phrases must be given meaning where doing so does not defeat the purpose of a statute. A restriction on the second amendment limiting the right to purposes consistent with a well organized militia gives meaning to the dependent clause.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671445484560678700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-37227863092615615952016-01-09T11:36:09.371-05:002016-01-09T11:36:09.371-05:00So how are bans on certain types of weapons, like ...So how are bans on certain types of weapons, like assault rifles and automatic weapons constitutional?<br />badflashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05164642661851464951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-83061740502179789662016-01-06T04:12:48.333-05:002016-01-06T04:12:48.333-05:00Maybe some of you missed the Idea of the Bill of R...Maybe some of you missed the Idea of the Bill of Rights. These Rights were not granted to you by Government but by your Creator.The Government didn't give you these rights so it is not in Governments power to take these rights from you. "Infringed" Definition: : a narrow area along the edge of something. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means you can't pick away at the Fringe of this. The truth is out there.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15828175629270849307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-43817827943000869282015-12-24T11:10:20.214-05:002015-12-24T11:10:20.214-05:00There is no restriction placed on ones ability to ...There is no restriction placed on ones ability to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, and there are in fact legitimate reasons why it would be both acceptable and reasonable (eg, in the instance of an actual fire). You can make the argument a person might be found responsible for damages, but that isn't a restricted act, rather it is a punitive act after the fact.<br /><br />Punitive acts after the fact already exist for the use of arms, and it is the only legitimate application of the law.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815868910267060352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-59159244757994584842015-12-17T11:05:40.079-05:002015-12-17T11:05:40.079-05:00Origin
Mid 16th century: from Latin infringere, fr...Origin<br />Mid 16th century: from Latin infringere, from in- 'into' + frangere 'to break'.<br /><br />Buzzards27https://www.blogger.com/profile/12882106632688445362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-26016574873636070672015-12-17T11:04:33.703-05:002015-12-17T11:04:33.703-05:00Thoughtful, but erroneous interpretation of this c...Thoughtful, but erroneous interpretation of this clause. The flaw you have made is assuming the present day meaning of the word infringe. Even in your examination of other contemporaneous usage of that single word, you've assumed it meant then what it means now.<br /><br />Look to its origins. It has a strict meaning, "to break". To completely take something away. Today the meaning has evolved to mean any alteration or restriction is an infringement. Vastly different. <br /><br />Origin, Mid 16th century: from Latin infringere, from in- 'into' + frangere 'to break'.Buzzards27https://www.blogger.com/profile/12882106632688445362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-15163429637304400432015-12-04T01:01:21.021-05:002015-12-04T01:01:21.021-05:00"Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying ..."Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. He attempted to protect freedom of the press and religion with this proposal: “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience”.<br />Perhaps you should inspect Adams' view on Catholicism before you use that example as applicable to the use of "infringe" in the 2nd. Apparently, his use of infringe is not as rigid as you need to support your second amendment fantasies.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00503095242459532560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-59602027565440732982015-10-14T04:58:45.678-04:002015-10-14T04:58:45.678-04:00Something very few actually stop to think about is...Something very few actually stop to think about is that if something requires a permit or permission from another then it is NOT a right, it is a privilege. A true right cannot be granted, taken, altered, restricted, or manipulated in ANY way. Anything that is, is simply a privilege and nothing more. For the most part we have no rights in this country anymore, we have granted privileges that we foolishly and mistakenly believe to be "rights". There is quite a difference.The Infringed Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01275394293655827287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-13839779993214810202015-08-26T17:43:46.793-04:002015-08-26T17:43:46.793-04:00I read it this way. The right of the Militia in or...I read it this way. The right of the Militia in order to maintain a Free State is allowed to be armed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17324966278623136347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-82399415427906189052015-08-26T17:42:30.728-04:002015-08-26T17:42:30.728-04:00I read it this way
In order to maintain a Free St...I read it this way<br />In order to maintain a Free State the People of a Regulated Militia can be ArmedAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17324966278623136347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-66966676893287341252015-08-26T17:40:59.389-04:002015-08-26T17:40:59.389-04:00I read it this way. The right of the Militia in or...I read it this way. The right of the Militia in order to maintain a Free State is allowed to be armed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17324966278623136347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-26944326950390892822015-03-31T13:16:08.179-04:002015-03-31T13:16:08.179-04:00It is impossible to use truth or logic in any disc...It is impossible to use truth or logic in any discussion with a liberal, they simply do not have any truth or logic in them! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04231305140975332545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-36739321053517435822014-06-06T02:00:31.902-04:002014-06-06T02:00:31.902-04:00Just because people say "nuclear arms" d...Just because people say "nuclear arms" doesn't make it a correct usage of the term. Historically there was a distinct difference between the concept of "arms" and "ordinance". Calling one the other may have very well drawn the same ire that confusing "magazine" and "clip" does today. Nuclear "arms" would actually be considered a form of ordinance under those original definitions, as arms are considered handheld and/or personally carried piece of weaponry. However, a machine gun would DEFINITELY fall under the definition of arms, as well as their original intentions. They wanted to be able to call forth an effective infantry force from the populous as a militia. Machine guns are most definitely part of the "arms" of any effective infantry force just as much as they are a personnel carried infantry weapon.<br /><br />But even as I talk about how "arms" does not mean "ordinance", let's also not forget about the 9th amendment, stating that just because a right is not enumerated that does not make it any less of a right. There are many instances of ordinance that is considered a common law right (and therefore just as much of a right as an enumerated right is). Artillery is mentioned as historically recognized as a right even in supreme court cases as far back as the founding fathers still being alive. So while there is no historical common law right to nuclear weapons, and therefore it would be hard to consider it protected under even the 9th amendment...there are forms of ordinance that are rightful under the 9th.BeGe123https://www.blogger.com/profile/12665692393672414697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-864885158439513272014-06-06T01:04:54.057-04:002014-06-06T01:04:54.057-04:00@Ed - In the 9th amendment.
One of the biggest fe...@Ed - In the 9th amendment.<br /><br />One of the biggest fears the founding fathers had about enumerating certain rights into a "Bill of Rights" was that it would be manipulated later to be said that just because a right wasn't listed it therefore wasn't a right. They believed in numerous rights, more than could ever simply be listed out, argued and ratified individually.<br /><br />To combat this eventuality they wrote the 9th amendment, basically saying that the amount of rights a human being has could never be all written into a simple Bill of Rights, so don't assume that just because it's not in here it's not a right.<br /><br />So basically, any good evidence that something has traditionally been perceived as a right in common law is just as good as it being enumerated into the Bill of Rights itself.<br /><br />The right to usage of such arms, for defense of self, for defense of state, for hunting, for practice/proficiency/training, and even simply for sport, is well established historically. Therefore such rights are just as good as having been enumerated, and are no lesser than those that are enumerated.BeGe123https://www.blogger.com/profile/12665692393672414697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-51318619830752277652014-06-06T00:57:31.373-04:002014-06-06T00:57:31.373-04:00The 14th amendment extended all such protections t...The 14th amendment extended all such protections to being restrictive upon state law just as much as federal. That would mean that restrictions on rights are "prohibited by it to the States", to apply that in the context of the 10th.<br /><br />So yes, the states are just as constitutionally bound to uphold individual rights as the federal government is.BeGe123https://www.blogger.com/profile/12665692393672414697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-22882026611140985242014-01-09T23:13:56.666-05:002014-01-09T23:13:56.666-05:00The Declaration of Independence put it this way . ...The Declaration of Independence put it this way . . . . it is their right, it is their duty<br /><br />Yes, our duty.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06497603545208608285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7451288357533743404.post-58813190051192594742013-05-17T18:44:17.885-04:002013-05-17T18:44:17.885-04:00The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm peop...The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this. The term "Well Regulated" in the Second Amendment meant "Well Manned and Equipped " in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time. United States v. Miller also determined that the term "Arms" refers to "Ordinary Military Weapons". American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under contract. "Shall not be infringed" means no government restrictions. Pocono Shootinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07671237274986979301noreply@blogger.com