U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2009, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,222 posts, read 6,991,337 times
Reputation: 6603

Advertisements

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Up until the recent SCOTUS decision in the Heller case the "well regulated militia" phrase was interpreted by many to mean that there was no individual right for a citizen to keep and bear arms.

Now the question is what does the word "infringe" mean?

What do you consider to be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms?

GL2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2009, 05:13 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,612,395 times
Reputation: 2983
It means a style of dress charactertized by tiny leather or fabric strips dangling here and there...as in "It was an Old West-style wedding, and the bride appeared INFRINGE." (many of the bridesmaids were dressed infringe, as well, in keeping with the theme of the wedding.) It's different from "inlace", or "insilk", which are used in OTHER weddings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Rural Central Texas
3,581 posts, read 9,002,297 times
Reputation: 5402
Somebody has been reading too many redneck dictionary jokes!


I take the term to mean any restriction pertaining to the possession and proficiency in using weapons. Note the language does not actually indicate ownership, but rather "to keep" and to "bear". This indicates possession/responsibility and utilization to me.


In the time period this was written, most Americans did not actually own their own weapons, but rather the community maintained a weapons store. This included knives, swords, maces, lances, halbards, firearms, cannons, pikes, etc, etc, etc. The populace was required to train in the use of these weapons as part of the local militia. Those wealthy enough to own their own weapons usually had better quality equipment that in the militia stores.

I feel that the writers intended this access to weaponry to persist and wished to prevent the governments from restricting access to the weaponry. Since private ownership was limited, I do not think this language was limited to that privelidge, but was broader....extending to the use of the public weapon stores. It further included the bearing of those arms which indicates to me that the mere possession was not the intent, but also the use of those weapons was a protected right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 05:26 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
3,198 posts, read 2,864,856 times
Reputation: 2907
Any attempt by an elected government official to stand in the way of our Constitutional right to bear arms. The government currently has the regulation part well in hand, and everything is as it should be. Legal US residents with no felony convictions should not be discouraged in any way from owning a firearm. Regulations as to what guns are legal and not legal should be made, but should be handled with care. While there is no obvious reason for an ordinary citizen to need an automatic weapon, we must still insure our rights are not compromised while also promoting safety and responsibility.

The government seems to constantly attempt to remove our right to keep and bear arms, by regulating them down to nothing a little bit at a time. They know we will not stand for a straight forward attack, so they sneak in a little here and there. These are infringements on our right to bear arms. These actions taken by our government only serve to lessen the law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves from the criminals who are in no way affected by gun laws. See, they don't follow them anyway. They don't buy them legally, they don't register them, and they don't obey any regulations regarding weapon type, ammo capacity, etc. Until the day comes that our leaders can rid the streets of the illegal weapons, we must fight for our right to bear arms.

And if the day comes when crime is no more and illegal weapons are non existent, we must still fight for our right to bear arms. Because we would be putting ourselves in a terribly compromising situation by giving up our ability to defend ourselves from enemies both abroad, and possibly right here at home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Portlandia "burbs"
10,236 posts, read 13,520,511 times
Reputation: 25856
Did you think to post a similar thread in the Politics Forum? The topic of guns is a huge one there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Bel Air, California
20,344 posts, read 20,421,819 times
Reputation: 31588
infringe is where I put my beer
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,222 posts, read 6,991,337 times
Reputation: 6603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesbabe View Post
Did you think to post a similar thread in the Politics Forum? The topic of guns is a huge one there.
I hadn't done that Bluesbabe. I may later.

GL2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,057 posts, read 29,713,783 times
Reputation: 10450
Isn't it peculiar that the people who make the most noise about the Second Amendment never bring up that phrase about the "well regulated militia," which seems to indicate that the Framers believed a formal military presence throughout the country would be necessary, as opposed to individual citizens running around yelling about their "right" to bear arms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,251,619 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
Isn't it peculiar that the people who make the most noise about the Second Amendment never bring up that phrase about the "well regulated militia," which seems to indicate that the Framers believed a formal military presence throughout the country would be necessary, as opposed to individual citizens running around yelling about their "right" to bear arms.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

"the people" are the citizenry of the united states.

if you do the studies like others have done, the militia was made up of all citizens between the ages of 18 and 45. These were not forced, or enlisted members of military, they were plain ordinary citizens.

here is one such group that has pulled the second amendment to pieces and studied not only the words but the punctuation as it was used in the time of authoring the Constitution.

GunCite: gun control and Second Amendment issues
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2009, 11:12 PM
 
Location: So. of Rosarito, Baja, Mexico
6,571 posts, read 17,949,017 times
Reputation: 5919
Sorry Macmeal...you must be a young one.

It is "fringe" not "infringe"...two different words and meanings.

Fringe is a border of loose threads on a womens clothing ( 19th century etc or earlier).

Got that from memory and my school dictionery of (Circa) 1936 from kindergarden which I still have today..

Infringe is to take away the right or deny someone of a choice in a matter or possesion.

There was a song (can't remember the title) words were "surry with the fringe on top".

Maybe someone my age will remember better.

Steve

Last edited by Steve Bagu; 03-25-2009 at 11:14 PM.. Reason: Correction on time period
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top