Skip to comments.What the Meaning of 'Infringe' Is
Posted on 01/13/2013 6:59:56 AM PST by Kaslin
And now boys and girls, it's time for "Fun with Words!" Today's featured contestants are Vice President Joe Biden and a man whose television ratings are so bad it's a wonder he still has a job, Piers Morgan.
Perhaps its because he was disgraced in scandal--in his beloved England--getting caught publishing fake photographs of British troops committing fake atrocities in Iraq. But whatever reason, American television viewers consistently overlook him when choosing prime time viewing.
Vice President Biden used a lot of interesting expressions this past week. He kept reiterating that the President, for example, will utilize the executive order (a noun: rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law) on the issue of either limiting the ownership of, or the confiscation of, guns owned by law-abiding citizens.
Simultaneously Piers Morgan was eschewing the controversial internet talk show host Alex Jones one night, justifying the execution and shooting of Jones the following, and then got "pwned," diced, char-grilled, and feasted upon by best-selling author Ben Shapiro one night later.
Throughout both Biden's odd media appearances and Morgan's inept ratings stunts both men repeatedly expressed their respect for the Constitution's Second Amendment. It is an amendment that defines rights given to us by the divine, and enumerated and recognized by our basis of law.
I've had it up to my eyeballs with what the political and theological left continue to call, "respect for the Second Amendment."
I think most of America has as well.
Personally, I couldn't care less if you respect ("a noun: proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment.") it or not.
The Constitution of the United States declares you may not infringe upon it.
Beyond that, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times--most recently in 2008 and 2010--that infringe means what we think it means. (A verb: acting so as to limit or undermine something; encroach on.)
The problem for the left is known as cognitive dissonance. ("a noun: psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes. Often occurring when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information.")
Because Joe Biden and Piers Morgan believe that the world sees things the way they do, it is almost impossible for them to handle honest to goodness fact, truth, and demonstration of ideas that would solve the actual issue we face in school shootings. This is very much the case for those ideas that run contrary to theirs.
Yet Shapiro was right, Morgan, Biden and others exploit the deaths of the children of Sandy Hook, to solve a problem that does not need to exist. And it wouldn't--if only there were more guns in the hands of We The People.
In both Newtown, Connecticut and the Portland, Oregon shootings, the character deficient individuals who were killing innocent people, immediately ceased shooting others and shot themselves, the moment (not a second before), that they realized a gun was aimed at them.
In the Newtown case the shooter had already jumped through the hoops of the gun control legislation on the books. He had been denied the opportunity to buy a gun based on his desire not to have a background check run. Additionally, the Newtown school's gun-free security system made it harder for him to get into the building--trying separate locked doors--and finally blasted his way in when he had grown frustrated enough.
But imagine if an armed security officer, policeman, or school personnel had been waiting on the other side. 20 children would be alive today that are not with us.
I find it excessively odd that the solutions of Biden and Morgan appear to only attack, address the behavior of, and seek to limit the actions of law-abiding people. As if after passing more than twenty thousand federal, state, and local gun laws, this nation still believes that legislation will prevent criminal, heinous acts from happening.
In reality the only thing that will prevent heinous acts, is fear by the people who would be prone to carry them out. We call it an incentive towards good behavior, and it is not rocket science. Why do conceal carry states have such precipitous drop in violent crime--the immediate year following such deregulation.
And Misters Biden and Morgan, why did the three worst shootings of last year occur in Oregon, Colorado, and Connecticut which already have restrictive gun laws. Why not in Texas?
I also find it odd that while President Obama signed legislation this week that insured himself armed guards as lifelong protection at the expense of the taxpayer, that he also voted in 2004 against allowing people simple handguns to protect their home, and in 1996 answered a survey where he indicated in his own handwriting that he was in favor of a ban on the manufacture, sale, and distribution of handguns of any sort.
So while arming himself, President Obama has literally worked to disarm everyday Americans--his boss.
Whatever executive action (used by Joe Biden this week: a noun: used by the Central Intelligence Agency starting in the early 1950s to refer to their assassination operation) the administration decides to take, they had best be prepared for the fallout. For the controversial Internet personality Alex Jones said on CNN that there would be a second American revolution. The best-selling author Ben Shapiro said, Americans have a right to be armed against "the tyranny" (a noun: oppressive power exerted by government) of a government that overreaches. The two men who couldn't be more different from one another both speaking what the majority of Americans already know.
That we will not allow any power, foreign or domestic to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms
Suppose some how a law got passed where gun owners were to surrender their gun’s. How would it be enforced? After all law enforcement takes an oath, so what is that oath to? The current winds of who ever is in power at that time or to the constitution and the country.
Now that we have that cleared up, shouldn't some one in congress be enforcing our nations indebtedness which the Constitution also prohibits?
While many liberals don’t like guns period, most of them are enormously ignorant about the meaning of the second amendment. They think the 2nd amendment is about hunting, target shooting, and gun shows. And killing people. The 2nd amendment was created to help make sure citizens wouldn’t be subjected to tyranny from a repressive government. Like the kind we have now.
Joe Biden infringes on the English language.
“Simultaneously Piers Morgan was eschewing the controversial internet talk show host AlexJones one night, justifying the execution and shooting of Jones the following,and then got “pwned,”......”
What doe the above mean? The part right before “PWNED”
If Biden and Obama are acting to violate the parts of the constitution they don’t like, the answer is simple. Impeach them. Now for the hard part, finding a person in congress with a spine.
Vice President Joe ( Bye - bye) Biden is
A Surrey with Infringe on top.
Ok, the article defines several words, alone and in combination with other words, including the word “infringe”: A verb: acting so as to limit or undermine something; encroach on.
But what about the “something” that is being infringed, that is being limited, undermined or encroached on?
Of course you might say that the “something” is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, but what is that, and if we can’t state what it is, how are to know whether or not it is being infringed?
Let’s start with the word “right”, as a noun:
From Websters 1828 dictionary (Websters 1828 is the closest Ive found to the time of the Founders):
10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.
I think that comes closest to what should be correctly meant when we speak of a right, although Im not entirely satisfied with it.
But what about the combination of words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”? What do they mean taken together? And again, if we don’t know, how can we know if there is an infringement?
Take another look in your 1828 Webster's at the words "keep" and "bear arms". That will clear it up for you and anybody else who cares enough to understand the concept.
They won't mount door to door confiscations. That would be impossible. Read how it could go down Here.
>>>They won’t mount door to door confiscations. That would be impossible. Read how it could go down Here.<<<
In fact, I think it’s even worse than your link suggests. The goal is not outright confiscation, any more than the War on Drug really eliminated drug use.
A ban on guns would be a great tool to use selectively to terrorize the population. Stalin did something similar (although in a much cruder fashion) during the Great Terror when he would send out an edict telling police departments to “arrest” 100 people during the night. When most people awoke the next morning, they’d see a neighbor or friend gone, and this would be enough to cause most people to cower in fear. In the same way, those hiding guns - and there would be a lot of us in a confiscation scenario - would be generally left alone until someone was needed for a show trial or as a subject of government force. Suddenly you’d see on the nightly news a raid capturing dozens of “assault” weapons, followed by the names of your neighbors or friends. More finesse than the Great Terror, certainly, but the same effect.
God help us.
A ban on guns would be a great tool to use selectively to terrorize the population. Stalin did something similar (although in a much cruder fashion) during the Great Terror when he would send out an edict telling police departments to arrest 100 people during the night. When most people awoke the next morning, theyd see a neighbor or friend gone, and this would be enough to cause most people to cower in fear. In the same way, those hiding guns - and there would be a lot of us in a confiscation scenario - would be generally left alone until someone was needed for a show trial or as a subject of government force. Suddenly youd see on the nightly news a raid capturing dozens of assault weapons, followed by the names of your neighbors or friends. More finesse than the Great Terror, certainly, but the same effect.
Arent they already doing something like this with the night accidental raids on innocent people? People would be afraid to draw weapons if an entire swat team is outside pretending to be at the wrong house.
OK. Of the several definitions of keep lets use:
1. To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart.
Bear arms isnt in there so for bear, of the several definitions, lets use:
2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, "they bear him upon the shoulder;", "the eagle beareth them on her wings."
And for arms, of the several definitions, lets use:
1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
Then the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the just claim of the people to hold; to retain in their power or possession and to carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
So, can there be an unjust claim to do all that?
If you say no arms on your land and I bear arms while taking a short cut across your land, is my RKBA claim just or unjust? How about if Im fleeing from a band or murderous bandits and am forced to flee across your land?
If a man is on the gallows for murder, is his RKBA claim just or unjust?
Would a law forbidding action taken based on an unjust claim to do all that be an infringement?
That's surprising to me. In my old Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, c/r 1994 it says under Bear\bear-ing - "bear arms 1 : to carry or possess arms 2 : to serve as a soldier".
We're trying to pick fly shit out of the pepper here, KK. The 2A is clear as a bell. IMO, 0bama, BiteMe and their gang are going nowhere with their gun grabbing wet dream.
Penn and Teller did an episode of their Showtime “Bullshit” Show on the Second Amendment.
They even explained how the sentence structure and how the Amendment was worded did NOT mean that The People had to be part of an organized Militia, which is how Liberals argue against Individual Gun Ownership.
Link below to a small clip, and there is a bit of graphic language, which I always expect from Penn.
Outstanding! I nominate Penn for SecDef and Teller for CIA Dir.
“That’s surprising to me.”
Well, it is the 1828 edition of Webster’s we were using. I started with that one for this back in post 14. As I wrote, Websters 1828 is the closest Ive found to the time of the Founders.
“The 2A is clear as a bell.”
That doesn’t seem to be true for everyone, so perhaps you should explain it.
Consider as rights “the right to keep and bear arms” in comparison with “the right to vote”. Same wording. Yet everyone knows “the right to vote” is not all inclusive. A citizen can not vote every time a vote is held. A citizen can not vote in a vote held in the next state over, in a state in which the citizen is not a resident. A citizen can not vote when a jury votes unless the citizen is a member of the jury. Most everyone understands that there are things not included in “the right to vote” even though the words themselves do not exclude them.
So what about “the right to keep and bear arms”? What might not be included even though the words in and of themselves do not exclude them? Is a man on the gallows for murder included? How about a three year old? If the 2A is clear as a bell to you, please address that.
“IMO, 0bama, BiteMe and their gang are going nowhere with their gun grabbing wet dream.”
Probably so. And we’re unlikely to convince many of the folks on the far left that they are wrong (at least until they get mugged). But there are a lot of people in the middle who might be convinced one way or the other. We need to make things clear to them and to do that we need to be able to articulate our position and to do that we need to understand it at more than the sound bite level.
As I recall, Heller left the door open on the meaning of RKBA. If we don’t have good reasoning, subsequent decisions could go against us, with the support of the majority. So what do we do then? We could resist by force of arms. What if we win on that basis? By our own lights we couldn’t take away the arms of the other side even if we won, due to RKBA. That could make for a long and nasty fight.
Better to win by force of reason, the civilized way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.