On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:06:25 -0800, Gunner
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:19:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
Post all the bull**** you want. The Founders used Infringed, not
"encroached". I gave you the English definition of Infringed. Deal
with it.
Hmm. It looks like you chose the one that means "encroached." g
You pulled out the SECOND meaning and you ignored the first meaning.
Do you think the FFs intended the secondary meaning over the primary
one? Here's what you posted:
=======================================
Definition of infringe
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
. 2. act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
=======================================
For the first one, I'll refer you to your own link:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...glish/infringe
Quit trying to b.s. your way through, Gunner. You should know by now
that you aren't going to get away with it.
So you are claiming Gay still means Happy and Carefree?
And I'll refer you again to the 1828 edition of Webster's -- the first
American dictionary -- for a better understanding of the
contemporaneous meaning:
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,infringe
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.]
So which one were they using? Laugh laugh laugh!!
The first. To "break." As in, not allowing you to keep and bear any
arms.
I think you slammed yourself in the teeth there, Gunner. As the courts
have said, your right isn't "infringed" unless they keep you from
owning a gun.
Your opinion is noted.
It's not my opinion. It's the clear opinion of the Supreme Court --
all of the conservative Justices, who were the majority in Heller.
Yet the SCOTUS claimed Dred Scott was still a slave while in a Free
State. Until the civil war..which killed a million people.
So you're saying you DON'T have a RKBA, that Heller is wrong?
And you spew about Heller..which is a judgment that somewhat returns
law to Constitutional standards?
Spew? Mostly I quote. It's one type of originalist interpretation:
original meaning, rather than original intent.
One of. What part of the Founders writings did you and your
Leftwingers seem to ignore..other than ALL of them?
It is not textualist. It is not about intent. It is based on Scalia's
doctrinal approach, which is "original meaning." (which, FWIW, makes
the most sense to me.)
And we are back to Scalia again. Fascinating. Shall we go back to
Dred Scott again too? Hummm
Only if you want to keep hanging your hat on decisions that have bneen
overturned.
Oh...but they were LAW..and you wish to ..hell you desire to live
under bad law written by assholes with negative agendas.
You mean, like the conservative Justices of the Supreme Court? I have
to keep reminding myself that you know better than them, that they're
just assholes with negative agendas, and you knew the Founders
personally...
The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm
the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
So who is being disarmed? Did they come for your handguns and rifles?
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter
XVIII, May, 1788.
So are you properly formed?
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
Which state was that?
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep
and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of
Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are
peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
Federal restrictions only. Note "Congress." See Barron v. Baltimore
(1833)
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789,
"Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
The Founding Fathers on Arms
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day,
events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security
and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the
very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference —
they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
Your buds at Guncite say this is bogus:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
So does everyone else who has looked for it in Washington archives.
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The
same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms,
for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay
them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived
of the use of them."
Thomas Paine
Are you destitute of arms?
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young,
how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is
able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
So, do you have a gun?
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation,
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the
difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can
they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our
own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who
do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
Bogus.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...plowsquotation
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is
inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all
times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom
Bogus. There were only 85 Federalist Papers. These words appear
nowhere in them.
This bogus quote apparently was derived from Hamilton's words about
disciplining the militia (Federalist 29):
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at
large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to
see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them
once or twice in the course of a year."
Hamilton was talking about the militia, and the weakness inherent in a
miltia that is not under more intense training and discipline.
You should read it sometime. hah! fat chance of that...
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores
the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
Bogus. What he said was that the Federalist’s attacks on liberties
(under Adams), including jailing Republican newspaper editors and
reading his (Jefferson's) mail, were “an experiment on the American
mind, to see how far it will bear an avowed violation of the
constitution.”
"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to
govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
"
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer
And this relates to gun regulation *how*?
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784
Which liberties do you think Burke included?
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison
So, take your arms. Whom are you planning to shoot?
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman
Later Quotes on Gun Control
Do you own guns? What "essential liberty" have you given up?
"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it
very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having
left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as
best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame
us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an
honest mistake."
Malcolm Wallop
former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)
You frequently post bogus quotes from Jefferson, including some on
which you've been corrected before but which you continue to post, but
this is the first time I remember you bogus-quoting Washington.
You must be digging deep into your volume of "The Gun Nutz
Encyclopedia of Spurious Quotes, Bogus History, and Wishful Thinking".
If I violate your decisions, nothing happens. If I violate theirs,
I've got real trouble. g
If you buy a gun, nothing happens. If you forbid others from buying
guns..they will sooner or later..come and kill you.
Ayup..you
are indeed a Blue Stater, and you love it there from the looks of it.
I like it well enough to have lived here for about 50 of my 64 years.
Thank you for making my case. VBG
So if it was mandated to be legal to flush your toilet 200 yrs
ago..and then some idiots made it illegal..then a couple years
ago..they said you could flush it on alternate days...it was new law?
Which laws is that? Your hypotheticals make no sense. Try real laws.
No firearms allowed in DC, NYC, Chicago etc etc etc. The Right to
Keep and Bear arms is badly infringed and in fact..broken, violated
and transgressed upon.
It's not quite true that firearms weren't allowed in those places. In
NYC, handguns have always been allowed with a license.
In DC..they were not allowed. In NYC..you couldnt get a liscense.
INFRINGED.
Nope.
Cites? Bring em up..and Ill slap em right back in your teeth
Try it. In fact, here's the list of licensed handgun owners in NYC:
(first, an explanation)
http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-ne...ermit-holders/
(next, the list)
http://gawker.com/5974190/here-is-a-...-new-york-city
Getting a "premises permit" in NYC is a PITA, but as you can see,
plenty of people have done it.
What you're doing is mixing up carry permits with premises permits.
There are some carry permits in NYC, but not many.
The situation there is a lot like the whole state of NJ, although
getting a permit to purchase is easier in NJ. Getting a carry permit
here is only slightly more likely than in NYC. I don't know of anyone
who has one, but, as I said, one of my former physicians has a NYC
carry permit.
How are your teeth holding up, Gunner? From here it looks like you
were hit with a boomerang. d8-)
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pe...ml#HowDoIApply
"How do I apply for a handgun license?
Applicants must personally appear and submit a signed application to
the License Division when applying. Fees may be paid by credit card or
with two money orders. The application fee is $340.00. Effective March
19, 2012, the fingerprint fee is $91.50. "
That is not even a CCW permit...but a $450 fee to simply OWN a
handgun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York
" all the states that issue carry pistol licenses, New York State has
arguably the strictest handgun licensing policies in the nation.[9]
New York City, which is effectively a "no-issue" jurisdiction for
carry pistol licenses,[10] has even stricter laws, including those
regulating handguns exclusively kept at home, thereby making it
difficult to virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain,
possess, or carry firearms lawfully within New York City.[11]
(This is horse****. That whole Wikipedia entry is poorly written and
full of contradictions. "Ordinary citizens" can "obtain" and "possess"
handguns -- if they want to jump through the hoops and spend a pile of
money.)
The constitutionality of many of New York's restrictive firearms laws,
including the newly-enacted SAFE Act, are being challenged by lawsuits
at the state and federal levels."
****ing Infringed! You damned well know it..yet you toss it into
the mix so I can respond and make you look like an utter ******?????
You really better learn to read your own stuff, Gunner. I only said
that you can own a handgun in NYC. I didn't say you were likely to get
a carry permit.
And getting a handgun in NYC means you have to spend at minimum $450
for a permit and it takes 6 months. You left that out as well.
You dont consider that to be an infringement? And about that pesky
'and bear arms" thingy....? Hummm?
As I said, I think the law is vulnerable to a 14th Amendment argument,
especially since Heller.
I know a physician who has a NYC carry permit. The gun nutz keep
saying they aren't allowed. That's not true.
So are they like LA carry permits? 9 million residents and 37 permits
to big campaign doners?
Something like that. The difference between D.C. and Chicago, on one
hand, and NYC, on the other, is that the first two had NO provision
for owning a handgun. The Court says that's unconstitutional. NYC
does, but it would be up to the courts to decide if their regulations
are so onerous that they violate the Constitution. It seems unlikely,
given the extensive list in that Gawker article. A lot of people
managed to jump through the hoops.
So its Constitutional until its not.
Pretty much. That's a representative democracy for you. 'Got a better
plan for government?
Carry permits are not an issue. I didn't mention them, and the Supreme
Court said in Heller that it is not questioning several types of
regulations. Interestingly, and confusingly, they listed 19th century
prohibitions against carrying guns as examples of the historical basis
for regulations. But they didn't include carrying, except in specific
places, in their short list of regulations they aren't questioning.
This one's a crapshoot, should it reach the Supreme Court.
VBG and you continue to validate my statements. VBG
??? Your "statements" suggest you've decided the issue and that you
know better than the Justices of the Supreme Court. Not likely.
There are several versions of that Gawker list floating around, and
note that some of them are not actually handgun permit lists. But it's
not in question that there are several thousand premises permits for
handguns issued in NYC. The list in Gawker apparently is legit, for
2010.
Several thousand...and the population is 8,244,910
The truth is, they're "may issue," just like NJ, and they're damned
hard to get. But the Court didn't define what restrictions would be
allowed, so it will be unlikely that a case reaches the Court from a
denial in NYC.
Chuckle...see the last line in the quote from Wiki.....VBG
We'll see. The whole law (SAFE Act) is severable, and I don't see
anything in there that's a clear violation of the terms laid down in
Heller. But you never know.
VBG
What Heller decided was that a total ban on handguns, as in D.C. and
Chicago, are unconstitutional. As for what regulations and limitations
the Court will allow, we don't know yet. And the lower federal courts
regularly express their uncertainty about the consequences of Heller.
Yet if you read the Founders words...The Right to keep and Bear Arms
Shall not be Infringed...its pretty must graven in stone. NO INFRINGED
Not broken. Not violated. As long as you can have guns, the right is
not infringed.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Yet you
yourself admitted "they are damned hard to get" and only for 'special
people"
I didn't say only for special people. But that only applies to the
carry law. It isn't clear that the S.C. would overturn that no matter
what the terms of NYC's carry law are. If it were me, and if I were a
lawyer, I think I'd attack it on 14th Amendment grounds. But the Court
may well not even grant cert on a challenge to a carry law. See
Heller.
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/artic...arry-2012.aspx
And you dont consider it to be infringement of the worst sort.
Fascinating.
I object to NYC's carry law because of its unequal application -- a
14th Amendment case. I generally favor shall-issue CCW laws, with
sturdy background checks and training requirements. But if the
question is constitutionality, I think you're sucking wind.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.
You and your Leftwinger buddies have spewed your desires for so
long...even the courts are either afraid of rocking the boat too
badly..or are afraid of you and yours.
Is that your new ride in Gun Nutz Fantasyland? Do you need a ticket
for that?
Keep dreaming Blue Stater. Laugh laugh laugh. Hell..even here in
Leftwing California...we can get CCWs.
You keep bouncing back and forth between handgun possession and CCW.
You should first make up your mind about where you think the
constitutional problem is.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.
The notible terms are "keep" and "bear"
So Heller was a return to Constitutional
law...somewhat. Still not "legal" to bear arms in those places..so
its not returned to Constitutional mandate...its still broken,
violated and transgressed upon.
That remains to be seen. If a handgun carry case reaches the Supreme
Court, expect fireworks.
They simply need to review the 2nd Amendment, written in 1787
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be Infringed.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Right. And if you can own a gun for personal, legal use (such as
self-defense), your right is not infringed. Nothing more, nothing
less.
You keep forgetting about that nasty little "and bear" portion. Why
is that?
You had better spend the time to actually read Heller.
And in NYC? No-issue CCW except for the very very few.....and
Chicago..a gun ban.
Heller doesn't say carry bans are unconstitutional. The Court may or
may not consider that to be an infringement. I have a problem with
those bans -- especially the highly selective permitting as in NYC --
but I'm more interested in what the law will be, under the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd in Heller. So far, I think they have it
right.
Yet you are ok with NYC and Chicagos literal ban on firearms and its
admittedly near impossiblity to get a CCW.
No, I said no such thing. I said that NYC's regulations may or may not
be constitutional.
What I would like is one thing. What the Court decides about the
Constitution is another. What you decide about it is mostly nutz. d8-)
Make up your mind Eddy.
See above.
Hell..even Morton Grove gave up that ghost decades ago
That was a ban on ownership. Are we back to that now, or are you still
on CCW?
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.
No answer, eh?
You blue staters...idiots of the very worst sort.
Gunner
You only say that because you know we understand the Heller decision,
and you hate it.
Hate a 75% improvement? Why would you think that?
Because you keep referring to Court decisions "made by idiots."
--
Ed Huntress