Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[Bikenut]

Your definitions do not say all limits are infringements.

To illustrate how exactly your reading of that definition is incorrect, I've cited Supreme Court rulings clerifying it, I've cited verious limits the authors of that amendment placed on the right at that time, and I've cited the exact English law from the 1600s of which our second amendment comes from.

Not all limits are infringements.

It isn't MY definition but is Oxford's definition... and the cites you have given are nothing more than examples of where limits (infringements) have been justified using excuses to justify.

"Infringe" means to "limit" and to "limit" means to "infringe".

Arguing what degree of limiting (infringing) is Ok is still arguing in favor of infringing (limiting).

 

[Blueshell]

It isn't MY definition but is Oxford's definition... and the cites you have given are nothing more than examples of where limits (infringements) have been justified using excuses to justify.

"Infringe" means to "limit" and to "limit" means to "infringe".

Arguing what degree of limiting (infringing) is Ok is still arguing in favor of infringing (limiting).

There is a difference between defining the bounderies of a right and undermining that right.

No right has ever, is, or ever will be unlimited. All rights have bounderies, the most basic of which being your right to swing your arms ends where my noes begins.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Are you aware the use of insults is the tactic of someone who cannot support their argument with facts and only hopes to discredit the opposition?

It's not a tactic. It's just an insult.

Idiot.

Those who cannot support their argument with facts so they resort to attempting to diminish, demean, and marginalize, their opposition with insults.

 

[Blueshell]

Those who cannot support their argument with facts so they resort to attempting to diminish, demean, and marginalize, their opposition with insults.

Yeah some do one or the other.

I do both

 

[Bikenut]

There is a difference between defining the bounderies of a right and undermining that right.

No right has ever, is, or ever will be unlimited. All rights have bounderies, the most basic of which being your right to swing your arms ends where my noes begins.

Defining the boundaries is defining the limits which is defining the infringements.

And my rights do not end where your nose begins.... but I am responsible for any damage I do to your nose while using my rights. That is the difference that many folks cannot grasp....

The right is absolute... but the user of the right is responsible for any harm/damage they do while exercising that right. The right should not be limited/infringed upon but the user of the right should be punished for any damage/harm they do.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Those who cannot support their argument with facts so they resort to attempting to diminish, demean, and marginalize, their opposition with insults.

Yeah some do one or the other.

I do both

And there you have it Ladies and Gentlemen... from his own words.

All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner or anti gunner lite in discussion and let them out themselves.

 

[Blueshell]

Defining the boundaries is defining the limits which is defining the infringements.

See your own definition doesn't even support that.

And my rights do not end where your nose begins....

Good luck arguing that in court.

The right is absolute...

No right is absolute.

Not a single one of them.

And that's why you never offered evidence that they are.

 

[Blueshell]

And there you have it Ladies and Gentlemen... from his own words.

All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner or anti gunner lite in discussion and let them out themselves.

Oh look who's tossing insults again. You. According to your own standard, calling me anti-gun means you cannot support your argument.

Well, you can't support your argument, and here you just broke your own standard.

So you're a hypocric and an idiot.

 

[Bikenut]

Oh look who's tossing insults again. You. According to your own standard, calling me anti-gun means you cannot support your argument.

Well, you can't support your argument, and here you just broke your own standard.

So you're a hypocric and an idiot.

I merely pointed out what your own postings show and what everyone reading this discussion has already seen.

And now that your response has degenerated to nothing but name calling and I have met my objective of allowing your own posts to prove my point....

Please do continue to insult and ridicule while trying to get past the plain language that supports my argument:

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Say what you will you still cannot deny:

infringe - definition of infringe in English from the Oxford dictionary

infringe
-snip-
2Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold added by me for emphasis.

 

[Bikenut]

Food for thought..........

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Defining the boundaries is defining the limits which is defining the infringements.

boundary: definition of boundary in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

boundary

noun (plural boundaries)

(often boundaries) A limit of a subject or sphere of activity:

subject: definition of subject in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

A person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with:

And the subject in this case would be............... rights.

infringe - definition of infringe in English from the Oxford dictionary

infringe
-snip-
2Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold above added by me for emphasis.[/quote]

Infringements are defined as limits... therefor limits are infringements. Arguing that not all limits are infringements is arguing that infringing using limits is Ok as long as one agrees with those limits. In other words... agreeing with the degree of infringement due to agreeing with the limit. And using the government's own past limits to argue that limits are not infringements is to argue that infringing is Ok as long as the government decides what infringements are "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable". Yet those limits are still infringements.

And any standard or test (like Strict Scrutiny) is nothing more than the government's way to justify imposing limits (infringing). Remember... he who has the power to limit (infringe) has the power to control.

 

[Blueshell]

...[blah blah blah]...

infringe (v.)
mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from Latin infringere "to damage, break off, break, bruise," from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + frangere "to break" (see fraction). Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760. Related: Infringed; infringing.
Infringe | Define Infringe at Dictionary.com

infringement (n.)
1590s, from infringe + -ment.
infraction (n.)
mid-15c., "the breaking of an agreement," from Middle French infraction and directly from Latin infractionem (nominative infractio) "a breaking, weakening," noun of action from past participle stem of infringere (see infringe).

impinge (v.)
1530s, "fasten or fix forcibly," from Latin impingere "drive into, strike against," from assimilated form of in- "into, in, on, upon" (see in- (2)) + pangere "to fix, fasten" (see pact). Sense of "encroach, infringe" first recorded 1738. Related: Impinged; impinging.

trespass (v.)
c.1300, "transgress in some active manner, commit an aggressive offense, to sin," from Old French trespasser "pass beyond or across, cross, traverse; infringe, violate," from tres- "beyond" (from Latin trans-; see trans-) + passer "go by, pass" (see pass (v.)). Meaning "enter unlawfully" is first attested in forest laws of Scottish Parliament (c.1455). The Modern French descendant of Old French trespasser, trépasser, has come to be used euphemistically for "to die" (compare euphemistic use of cross over, and obituary). Related: Trespassed; trespassing.

You might try actually educating yourself on this topic before emberrasing yourself further.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
...[blah blah blah]...

infringe (v.)
mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from Latin infringere "to damage, break off, break, bruise," from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + frangere "to break" (see fraction). Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760. Related: Infringed; infringing.
Infringe | Define Infringe at Dictionary.com

infringement (n.)
1590s, from infringe + -ment.
infraction (n.)
mid-15c., "the breaking of an agreement," from Middle French infraction and directly from Latin infractionem (nominative infractio) "a breaking, weakening," noun of action from past participle stem of infringere (see infringe).

impinge (v.)
1530s, "fasten or fix forcibly," from Latin impingere "drive into, strike against," from assimilated form of in- "into, in, on, upon" (see in- (2)) + pangere "to fix, fasten" (see pact). Sense of "encroach, infringe" first recorded 1738. Related: Impinged; impinging.

trespass (v.)
c.1300, "transgress in some active manner, commit an aggressive offense, to sin," from Old French trespasser "pass beyond or across, cross, traverse; infringe, violate," from tres- "beyond" (from Latin trans-; see trans-) + passer "go by, pass" (see pass (v.)). Meaning "enter unlawfully" is first attested in forest laws of Scottish Parliament (c.1455). The Modern French descendant of Old French trespasser, trépasser, has come to be used euphemistically for "to die" (compare euphemistic use of cross over, and obituary). Related: Trespassed; trespassing.

You might try actually educating yourself on this topic before emberrasing yourself further.

The fact that you continue to post a quote attributed to me that you changed the wording of shows your level of integrity.

Allow me to suggest reading the definitions you posted more carefully. Perhaps it would help to research the meanings of the words contained within those definitions in order to gain a better understanding of what they actually say.

For example...

transgress: definition of transgress in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

transgress

Definition of transgress in English:
verb
[with object]
1Infringe or go beyond the bounds of
Bold added by me for emphasis

Limits... damage the right

Limits...weaken the right

Limits.... encroach, infringe upon the right

Limits.... violate the right

infringe - definition of infringe in English from the Oxford dictionary

infringe

2Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold added by me for emphasis

I am not embarrassed in the least..

 

[Blueshell]

The fact that you continue to post a quote attributed to me that you changed the wording of shows your level of integrity.

My use of ellipsis and brackets shows my integrity to be perfect.

Allow me to suggest reading the definitions you posted more carefully.

You're speaking to a person who can argue your side better than you can. This isn't my first time around the block.

Child endangerment is a limit on your right to keep and bear arms and not an infringement as you are still free to own any gun and keep it ready to use. While you admit civil liability for damage, you overlook criminal liability which will put you in prison, where your right to keep and bear will certainly be limited to an extreme.

Additionally, the second amendment only applies to the Federal government, not the states. In order for your right to keep and bear to be as protected in your state as it is federally, your state has to have it's own version of the second amendment in it's state Constitution.

I've linked to many good sources in what began as a civil effort to debate. Now, after first being attacked, I fire back. While you suggest I research, something I've been doing for 15 years now and thus know for certain that your ilk needs correction or culling, allow me to suggest you go **** yourself

Lock it up.

 

[Blueshell]

Where are all the 'cold dead hands' revolting against the government over United States v. Lopez?

That's what I thought....you're all full of ****.

 

[Blueshell]

The fact that you continue to post a quote attributed to me that you changed the wording of shows your level of integrity.

Please take this thread as your opportunity to demonstrate your own integrity: Bring your 'unlimited' right to keep and bear against the clear governmental tyranny that is United States v. Lopez.

I do not encourage you to do this as I say every right has limits, but you insist there are no limits.

I understand your acts of domestic terrorism will take time to carry out, and I look forward to my unit hunting you down, but please do use this thread to post pictures and/or video as evidence that you mean even a single word you've said here.

 

[Bikenut]

Please take this thread as your opportunity to demonstrate your own integrity: Bring your 'unlimited' right to keep and bear against the clear governmental tyranny that is United States v. Lopez.

I do not encourage you to do this as I say every right has limits, but you insist there are no limits.

I understand your acts of domestic terrorism will take time to carry out, and I look forward to my unit hunting you down, but please do use this thread to post pictures and/or video as evidence that you mean even a single word you've said here.

I said rights are absolute. I also said misusing a right has consequences. Why is it that you are the only one talking about acts of domestic terrorism/doing harm? Why is there the threat of....

Originally posted by Blueshell
-snip-I look forward to my unit hunting you down-snip-

And what "unit" would that be? Perhaps knowing if you are a member of law enforcement would shed light on why you think limits (infringements) are Ok?

Oh.... changing the wording of one of my posts before quoting it as you have done:

Originally posted by Blueshell

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
...[blah blah blah]...

My use of ellipsis and brackets shows my integrity to be perfect.

A person with integrity would have quoted the wording in my original post and then added his comment but someone who wished to mislead would do as you have done. Insults and ridicule aren't working so now you are ratcheting things up and implying that there is some connection between me and acts of domestic terrorism. Smacks of desperation. And shows a severe lack of integrity.

I don't have to do much of anything as long as your own posts show that you believe in limiting (infringing) upon the right to keep arms to ways you consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" while touting how much you support the right to keep arms. The only difference between a full on anti gunner and an anti gunner lite is the degree of limits (infringements) desired. Your own posts show you not only agree with limits (infringements) and advocate for them but you would go so far as to have the government control what methods of keeping arms are allowed on the open market.... while playing word games to justify imposing those limits (infringements).

All that is necessary is to engage those who would limit (infringe) upon rights in conversation and let them out themselves while watching their responses melt down into insults, ridicule, and desperate attempts to imply those who disagree engage in illegal acts.

Edited to fix my last sentence in order for the wording to flow more easily and to fix the quote box.........

 

[Firefighterchen]

Haha his unit? Really?

Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Firefighterchen]

The timing is great.

Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BluesStringer]

The people who wrote that amendment supported a verity of limits such as a minimum age and storage of militia weapons in the church, and a ban against criminals owning firearms.

I do not believe you can substantiate those claims because I do not believe that any such limits existed at the time of either the ratification of The Constitution, or the passage of amendments known as the Bill of Rights three years later. I think you're as full of crap about those supposed limits as you are about strict scrutiny ever being applied to the Second Amendment at the federal level before 2/4/2016.

To illustrate how exactly your reading of that definition is incorrect, I've cited Supreme Court rulings clerifying it...

The Supreme Court has overruled itself so many times in this country that to say something is "clarified" because the Supreme Court said it, is to admit not to know what Article, Section, Clause or Amendment to the Constitution might even support (or fail to support) their decisions. The Supreme Court is no less fallible than Obama or any of the worst Congress-critters in history. The Constitution doesn't need to be interpreted, it needs to be upheld, defended and protected, and the SCOTUS has failed those duties as often as anyone else has.

I've cited verious limits the authors of that amendment placed on the right at that time...

You have not. The first quote of yours at the top of this post is the first time I've even seen you mention such nonsense, but simply mentioning it is not a "citation" in any case. A citation includes some reference to code, or the Federalist Papers, or even in some cases just a letter from one of the "authors" you claim placed limits on the 2A "at that time" that they wrote it that unequivocally supports the lie that you're promulgating. A citation needs no substantiation, because it is the substantiation of the premise being discussed. You can't cite or substantiate your claim because there is no citation or substantiation to turn to for it. "I said it, therefore, I cited it" is a ridiculous statement.

and I've cited the exact English law from the 1600s of which our second amendment comes from.

See above. You've only asserted that the 2A came from some 17th Century British law, you haven't connected the dots proving that your assertion was true or accurate. Show us where one of the authors of the 2A stated unambiguously that the British law you say is the source of the 2A actually is. Until then, you're just as full of crap as you have been about strict scrutiny ever being applied to a Second Amendment case at the federal level before 2/4/2016.

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

I said rights are absolute. I also said misusing a right has consequences.

If a right has no limit then it cannot be misused, because any rule defining misuse is a limit.