They wrote shall not be infringed and they meant it!

This is a discussion on They wrote shall not be infringed and they meant it! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mlr1m Did the Government use the amendment process when they decided that some infringements are permissible? Or did they just pull that ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: They wrote shall not be infringed and they meant it!

  1. #16
    Member Array Crowbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Western Missouri
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Did the Government use the amendment process when they decided that some infringements are permissible? Or did they just pull that out of their hat? I do not recall an amendment giving the Government the power to place restrictions on weapons.
    Just sayin.

    Michael
    Point taken but, like Noway said, they are making restrictions not actually changing the Constitution. I still don't agree with it in any way, shape, or form but there is a difference. It's much easier to get a restriction repealed than it is an amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    One basis for restricting even constitutional rights, the 2A in particular, comes from one of the SCOTUS rulings, that I am sure has been brought up in this forum on several past occasions. In that ruling it was established that no right is without restriction and in terms of guns, it established the ability of the states to deny guns in "sensitive" places like schools, and courthouses. Of course, it didn't define sensitive places in it's entirety, leaving the door open for interpretation.
    A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. --George Washington

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    You would think "shall not be infringed" would be pretty straightforward huh? Even comparing todays language to that of the day it was written, there is no wiggle room, it was not written to allow for interpretation. It was very clear and specific. Too bad all of our judges and "constitutional scholars" don't seem to understand that.
    W9HDG and The Old Anglo like this.
    Walk softly ...

  4. #18
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,230
    I like this thread but will withhold from commenting.....for now.

  5. #19
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowbait View Post
    Point taken but, like Noway said, they are making restrictions not actually changing the Constitution. I still don't agree with it in any way, shape, or form but there is a difference. It's much easier to get a restriction repealed than it is an amendment.
    OK, I'll play. What is the difference between a restriction on a right and an infringement on said right? If a law were passed that you can only get your guns out of your mandated safe on every 5th Tuesday of the month, would that be a restriction or an infringement? If we restrict your right to free speech to a 100 yard square box at the south-west corner of town or your right to worship to between 03:00 and 04:00 on Thursday nights. Would those be restrictions or infringements? This looks like a very slippery slope and one the FF clearly did not want to have to navigate.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Answer is simple. A restriction is an infringement.

    As written for the 2nd amendment "infringement" means nothing so no other word(s) such as "restrictions" negates infringement.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by WHEC724 View Post
    Hiram, when I hear a level-headed person like you make a statement like that, it catches my attention. The problem is that like it or not, we have a more of a democracy than a republic, and what we are getting is what the 'people' are asking for.
    You state we get what the 'people' are asking for. I guess you need to define 'people' because it sure isn't what the masses are asking for. If you mean the lobbyists, corporate America, politicians then yes they get what they ask for.
    The Old Anglo likes this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  8. #22
    Member Array Crowbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Western Missouri
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    OK, I'll play. What is the difference between a restriction on a right and an infringement on said right? If a law were passed that you can only get your guns out of your mandated safe on every 5th Tuesday of the month, would that be a restriction or an infringement? If we restrict your right to free speech to a 100 yard square box at the south-west corner of town or your right to worship to between 03:00 and 04:00 on Thursday nights. Would those be restrictions or infringements? This looks like a very slippery slope and one the FF clearly did not want to have to navigate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowbait View Post
    Point taken but, like Noway said, they are making restrictions not actually changing the Constitution. I still don't agree with it in any way, shape, or form but there is a difference. It's much easier to get a restriction repealed than it is an amendment.
    The point I was trying to make is that this is their way of working around it; I'm not advocating it. This way they can say "hey look, we didn't touch your precious second amendment. You still have the right to keep and bear arms, we're just telling you when, and where you can have them, and what kind you can have. No big deal guys, calm down." Like I stated in the title, it's that pesky "shall not be infringed" part that they continually choose to overlook. I sincerely think that it is going to take some incredibly drastic measures on the part of the People to get the Gov't's attention and make them realize that we are tired of them not giving a true representation of the majority and simply bowing down at the feet of the loudest, most wealthy, or most obnoxious minority.
    I would hate to speculate what those "drastic measures" would be and won't speculate for fear of getting my wrists slapped by the mods (I also find the restrictions on the first amendment here ironic. Even in hypothetical situations, or when the A word is DIRECTLY involved in a 2A bill. We wouldn't want anyone to get their little feelers hurt. Post Modernism at work. But that's neither here nor there). Like Crowman said: a restriction is an infringement. End of rant.
    A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. --George Washington

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,288
    All you have to do to change anything in the Constitution is appoint the right people to the court. It has no more meaning or standing than any group of 5 on the bench at any given time.
    When the court ruled there was a 2 amendment right Obama said loud and clear "I will fix that when I appoint one more Justice to the court"
    Any right you think you have is only as good as 5 on the court say it is.
    Wake up and welcome to the new world.

  10. #24
    Distinguished Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,455
    "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

    With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

  11. #25
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,339
    When all the materials are in place and the catalyst interacts this country will go under total civil war again. All the elements are in the pot right now, the catalyst is in the jar, and the hand holding it is but feet away. History will repeat it's self because we as a country full of sheep did not learn from what was and what shall be is inevitable.

    Murphy's law will happen, just prepare mentally, fiscally, and physically for what is coming. Call me insane. But I study history and history has a much bigger gun than you think.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  12. #26
    VIP Member
    Array WHEC724's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    6,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowman View Post
    You state we get what the 'people' are asking for. I guess you need to define 'people' because it sure isn't what the masses are asking for. If you mean the lobbyists, corporate America, politicians then yes they get what they ask for.
    This may come as a shock to you, but your good neighbors, the folks on this board and the folks you probably go to church with, are not the masses. We are a minority.

    The majority are a new generation of entitlement. They were raised in the belief that things are owed to them and have become dependent on a system that gives things to them. They'll give up any freedom and elect anyone who will tell them the lie that they can have something for nothing. They vote the corrupt politicians into office and keep re-electing them as long as they keep hearing the lies that they want to hear, and there are far more of 'them' (the people) than there are of 'us' (the few who can still think for ourselves).
    __________________________________
    'Clinging to my guns and religion

  13. #27
    Distinguished Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by WHEC724 View Post
    This may come as a shock to you, but your good neighbors, the folks on this board and the folks you probably go to church with, are not the masses. We are a minority.
    I hate to say it but I fear you are all too right! Darker days are coming.

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by mlr1m
    Did the Government use the amendment process when they decided that some infringements are permissible? Or did they just pull that out of their hat? I do not recall an amendment giving the Government the power to place restrictions on weapons.
    Just sayin.

    Michael
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowbait View Post
    Point taken but, like Noway said, they are making restrictions not actually changing the Constitution. I still don't agree with it in any way, shape, or form but there is a difference. It's much easier to get a restriction repealed than it is an amendment.
    The part of the Constitution in question here specifically state that there will be no infringements on the Right in question. Therefore allowing any restrictions/ infringements would be a total change of the clause in question.
    How can anyone believe that adding restrictions to a right that the Constitution says cannot be restricted or infringed upon is not a change?

    Michael

  15. #29
    Member Array Crowbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Western Missouri
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    The part of the Constitution in question here specifically state that there will be no infringements on the Right in question. Therefore allowing any restrictions/ infringements would be a total change of the clause in question.
    How can anyone believe that adding restrictions to a right that the Constitution says cannot be restricted or infringed upon is not a change?

    Michael
    I guess you missed my post #22...I explained what I meant.
    A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. --George Washington

  16. #30
    Member Array Crowbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Western Missouri
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    All you have to do to change anything in the Constitution is appoint the right people to the court. It has no more meaning or standing than any group of 5 on the bench at any given time.
    When the court ruled there was a 2 amendment right Obama said loud and clear "I will fix that when I appoint one more Justice to the court"
    Any right you think you have is only as good as 5 on the court say it is.
    Wake up and welcome to the new world.
    I agree I guess...And I am awake I just don't want to give up on this great country like it seems you have, though I hope that isn't the case.
    A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. --George Washington

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

what part of shall not be infringed upon dont they get

Click on a term to search for related topics.