:popcorn:
:pepsi:
Printable View
:popcorn:
:pepsi:
You can't talk about "not be infringed" in regard to rights and then talk about only infringing a little and SCOTUS deciding for us how much is too much infringing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kansastom
Infringing is infringing. The definition doesn't change because a few robed "educated" folks say so. If it is a right, than it can't be regulated. It can't be infringed. It must be 100% unfooled around with.
What it comes down to is that you do not recognize RIGHTS. You seem to only recognize privileges granted to you by some perceived higher authority and that's what I was trying to get at originally.
pass the :popcorn: and :coke:(dangit bumper...we need a cocacola smiley...get rid of that pepsi treasonous nonsense:rolleyes:)
Here is one of my posts from another thread (slightly edited) that explains my position:
It is not a question of what right we have. It is a question of what power does the government have. Nowhere in the Constitution did we grant the government any power related to what type of weapons we can have, nor how we can bear them.Quote:
Our Constitution and our Bill of Rights are the best embodiment of a philosophy personal liberty, freedom, and government restraint that can be found in any nation's founding documents!
However, they do not grant us any rights. We had our rights before there ever was a government, or a Constitution. The Constitution grants certain powers to the government. If some duty, action, or power is not listed on there, then it is forbidden to the government. The Bill of Rights specifically lists a few of our inalienable rights that the government can not touch. It is, however, completely redundant, as the government is not given the power to do so in the first place!
I believe that one of my inherent rights as a human being is to breathe. I don't care what any legislature, president, judge, law, or majority of people say, this is still my right. This unalienable right is not listed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but is still my right. Nobody can restrict this right, infringe upon it, make me take a breathing class, get a breathing license, register my lungs in some national database, limit the size of my lungs, or determine the type of air I inhale.
I made this determination, all by myself, and I doubt anyone would disagree with it.
I have made the same determination for my right to keep and bear arms.
So, I would ask you to point to the enumerated power in the Constitution that would give the government the power to decide or limit how we bear our arms?
As to whether or not any of this applies to the state, there is an interesting case going before the Supreme Court this year:
SAF Press Release :: SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 2ND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO CHICAGO GUN BAN
That being said, it doesn't matter. from another of my posts:
Quote:
We have certain unalienable rights inherent in our humanity. No government, constitution, or bill of rights can grant them to us, nor take them away.
We have the right to keep and bear arms, as does every citizen of every nation everywhere. Regardless of what laws are passed, amendments added or removed to the Constitution, or supreme court decisions, we, as humans, have an individual right to keep and bear arms.
infringe
–verb (used with object) 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object) 2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in- 2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to break
to interfere with-
--------------------------------------------------------
I bolded the words that are key to me. Encroach and Weaken. Pretty specific. Anything that weakens the rights or encroaches upon them would be infringement, and therefore unlawful. I believe that regulations and restrictions do infringe on those rights as defined here.
As I said before, I don't think that licensing cc and requiring training is a bad thing, other than the fact that it is an infringement. The question that comes with allowing states to begin to regulate is - When do we decide that their controls are "too strict"? The politicians are the ones who will interpret what that means. That is why we must interpret the 2A so forcefully, so that it can not be twisted.
We have the same problem with all the UN gun ban treaties. They use wording that would make sense, but is vague (the average man, or reasonble regulations, or rational restrictions). They would make sense, but the question is who will be interpreting what they mean. To a socialist European country, or someone who believes guns cause crime, reasonable restrictions could mean "only the military" because they are the only ones who can be trusted (also read - they are the only ones the politicians have control over).
Edit: The other thing to look at is what "infringe" meant in the language of 1700s. I can't say I'm an expert in that, but that should be the baseline that we are looking at. The meaning of a word can change a lot in 200 years. However, in this case, I think it is pretty consistant. Noone uses that language much anymore except in legal terms, and their exegesis is generally pretty good.
Quote: "Nobody can restrict this right, infringe upon it, make me take a breathing class, get a breathing license, register my lungs in some national database, limit the size of my lungs, or determine the type of air I inhale. "
I like that. Puts things in an interesting perspective on the pettyness of regulations.
Okie dokie.Quote:
Originally Posted by packinnova
Infringe (from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000)
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
So how does that definition, applied to our 2A Right, apply? Your opinion/interpretation?
BTW, just because you say that I "do not recognize RIGHTS", does not make it so. I have already said that I absolutely affirm that I have the RIGHT to "keep and bear arms". I also believe that I have a DUTY to be Instructed and Trained, to be issued a CCL. But, that's just me.
Another BTW, if I could afford it, I would own a M1 Abrams; because I believe I have a Right to own one, just not the funds.
Now THAT makes sense! Very good! I can really understand that thinking!Quote:
Originally Posted by BigStick
This is an interesting topic! It reminds me of when I applied for my first concealed carry permit. One of my answers to one of the Chiefs queries was "I had a right.." to which he promptly replied, "you have a privilege!" I wasn't about to argue with him! It seems "the right to..." not backed up by the law renders the right useless but when awarded the privilege it seemed to give more weight to the right! In any event right or wrong the right can be taken away...so use the privilege wisely!
in·fringe (from infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.)
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
Note definition 2 marked as obsolete. That is the meaning of the word in the 2nd amendment and what infringe actually means in any discussion of the 2nd amendment. You have to interpret the Constitution using the meaning of words at the time of ratifications, not the modern meanings.
Any regulation that does not defeat or invalidate the right to keep and bear arms does not infringe based on original meaning of the term.
If this is true...Quote:
Originally Posted by BurgDog
It still leaves the question: Where in the Constitution did we give the government the power to restrict any of our rights?
There is the preamble:Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead
-insure domestic tranquilityQuote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
-promote the general welfare
and Section 8
Since everyone is in the militia or could be per the justification clause of the second amendment, a case could be made that training the Militia on the use of weapons is a permitted government power. Regulation, as in the original meaning of well trained and ordered, of the militia would be an acceptable permitted use of the government power.Quote:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Sort of like the Swiss model if we really did all that.
I don't see anything in what you quoted (or in the whole Constitution) that grants the government power over our rights, especially our right to keep and bear arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by BurgDog
The government can insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare without violating our rights.
Training the militia in the use of weapons in no violates our right to keep and bear arms (or any other right).
The Bill of Rights is a declarative statement that tells the government that tells the government to leave our rights alone. It is specifically a Bill of Rights for the people, not for the government. In no way, shape, or form can it be taken to grant the government power.
That is an interesting perspective. I don't think I had ever read it quite that way, but I can see how one could. But I still don't think that gives them the right to restrict ownership or control how we carry, merely to give us training in how to do so properly. I think it would be great if the govt. did institute training for the people of the militia.Quote:
Originally Posted by BurgDog
Now I could see this applying once the militia was formed and in service. They could then asses levels of training and proficiency and control who could have what arms while on duty, and assign required training. But once again, I don't see this as giving them power to "infringe" on our rights as general citizens.
Yes, it IS interesting. The State (not Feds) grants a "Militia License" (Open or Concealed Carry, doesn't matter), upon the successful completion of "Training", to a person. Almost exactly like getting a Drivers License. That person is also, by virtue of the "successful completion", automatically inrolled in the State Militia. Very interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigStick
The creation of the Constitution by our representatives is what grants certain powers to the government. The existence of the document creates the government and they must act within the boundaries of that document.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead
The government is charged with the creation of just laws to ensure the public welfare.Quote:
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
In essence what you are saying is akin to selective blindness. Because you, in your understanding of what you believe about the government, think that your rights supercede the rights of others or the governments powers, you think that the government doesn't have the power to limit what you do.Quote:
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...
You are wrong. You are wrong both legally and realistically.
Legally, the rights enumerated in the BoR are not unlimited. The SCOTUS, which was created by the Constitution to be the final arbiter of what is, and what is not, constitutional has determined that no "right" is unlimited. ALL rights are subject to regulation. Your personal opinion will not change that. When our forefathers created this country THEY determined that ONLY the opinions of the SCOTUS are what IS and what IS NOT. You may disagree but it doesn't matter and has no weight in anything. Nor will it ever have any weight.
Realistically you're wrong because the government is the party with the guns, jails, police, yada, yada, yada who can FORCE you to obey under threat of prosecution and incarceration. Thus, the government HAS the ability to limit what you do. Is this legal? Maybe, maybe not. Realistically, what will happen is that you get arrested, jailed, charged, prosecuted, sent to prison, and THEN you get to apply to the same government in an appeal explaining why you shouldn't be stuck in a cell. Good luck with that one.
So, self inflicted political blindness isn't such a smart idea.