1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

in-fringe - defined

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Rick Barker, Jun 5, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,383
    According to Websters:

    In-fringe (verb)
    Inflected form: infringed (as in the 2nd Amendment
    1: violate : transgress
    2: encroch : trespass

    How come this word does not register with politicians and lawmakers?
    If you pass any type of law, regulation, limitation or tax that seeks to limit the sale, ownership, transfer, of the gun itself or ammo, accessories contribuite to infringing on gun ownership. The Supreme Court has to make this clear to these people that if you try to limit ammo, or make it impossible to transfer a firearm that in itself is an infringement?

    I don't understand.
     
  2. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,961
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    lawyers(most politicans are) don't understand Mr. Webster, they believe in their own english not our's

    Its all about power with them, not what is right or wrong!

    you can't explain the Constutition to people who have never read it, mainly because they have come out of the government school system that has not taught it in over 40 years!
     
  3. BT-100dc

    BT-100dc Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,487
    The framers of the Constitution knew exactly what infringe meant. Webster originated the word in the year 1533. Now if it were slang during the period the Constitution was written, then I can see interpretaion would be the issue. It's clearly not since the word was written as defined. Gun owners must not allow politicians to infringe on our Constitutional rights. That's why I oppose Obama, Eric Holder & Sotomayor. These people also don't see the Second Amendment as an individual right. Read the Constitution, it lists individual, state & federal government rights. When people say the 2nd Amendment is a state right then that infringes on the individuals' right. It is what it is. BT-100dc, NRA Member since 1970.
     
  4. GW22

    GW22 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,246
    Rick:

    It isn't really that hard to understand. The problem of liberal-minded people wanting to infringe on our gun rights (eliminate them, actually) has nothing whatsoever to do with grasping the definition of the word. In general, people wanting to infinge on our rights are ignorant of guns, gun ownership and the kind of people who typically own guns. They also have a fallacious view of the supposedly causal relationship between legal gun ownership and crime. So they CHOOSE to ignore what the framers meant in the consitution. They CHOOSE to twist the words and refute what the Supreme Court has said about it.

    One thing we should all consider is how more and more Amercians are being raised in this ignorance and how the tide is going against us. In order to maintain gun ownership rights for future generations and minimize the inevitable taxation and all the sneaky "end-run" tactics they will use against us we need to stay on top of our elected officials, open our wallets to support the NRA and the like, and try to POLICE OUR OWN.

    The guns we all love to legally own and use are, unfortunately, also very attractive to irresponsible idiots who make us all look bad. So when you see people acting foolishly with guns, or talking stupidly about the subject, try to educate them a little bit. Or at least let them know you don't approve. It's hard to stop the urban criminals from using guns when the government is part of the problem, but maybe we can curb the negative effects of all the gun totin' hillbillies and punks who act so foolishly and harm our cause and reputation. The constitution protects their rights too but if we don't help control their behavior we are going to eventually lose the battle of public opinion.

    Finally, be aware that citing "Websters" no longer ensures credibility. The rights of that term are no longer legally protected. You can write your own dictionary tomorrow and publish it as "Websters."

    -Gary
     
  5. jimrich60

    jimrich60 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    You have to understand that most of our "lawmakers" actually do understand the meaning of "infringe", just as they really understand that their arguments about guns "causing crime" or safety issues or any of the many arguments used to justify gun control, are false and simply are ploys to persuade the populace to go along with more and more laws. And even more important, I think they fully understand the basic reason for the Second Amendment to prevent tyranny-that is in fact why they keep trying to "infringe" it. only that way can they expand and keep more and more power and control over our lives. As Pelosi has recently said while in China, the government needs (read wants) to control every facet of our lives.

    Jim R
     
  6. Trab

    Trab TS Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Messages:
    127
    ACORN.......
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.