Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Nah. I'll patiently wait while I enjoy my freedom.
Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app
Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight
- Thread starter Ringo
- Start date
- Status
Nah. I'll patiently wait while I enjoy my freedom.
Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app
Blueshell
Banned
That's what I thought.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
You're more than welcome to talk to your superiors about starting the process...but I guess it's just easier to excuse inaction on the chain of command. Good boy.
Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app
Blueshell
Banned
Why so mad?
B
Bikenut
Guest
It isn't how you, or I, interpret the word infringe. What matters is what the word infringe means in and of itself. And all that is necessary to discover that meaning is a simple 'net search.
infringe - definition of infringe in English from the Oxford dictionary
infringe
-snip-
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold added by me for emphasis....
A plain reading of that definition says that acting as to limit is to infringe.
You are playing word games with the words "limit" and "infringe". I have shown with a reputable cite and link that the definition of "infringe" is "to limit". That definition did not mention any degree or level of "limit" that is not "infringe". It did not say any limit that the government agrees with or any limit the people agree with is not an infringement nor did it say some limits are not infringements. Disagreeing with that definition does not negate the validity of it.
And what you said, in passing,....
....is that you support "act as to limit" how people can "keep" their "arms" by not allowing tissue box firearm storage devices on the free market or requiring they be made with some kind of lock on them. That is supporting infringing on the right to keep arms by "acting as to limit" what storage devices are available to "the people" in the free market. And the only entity that would have the power to require storage devices for the purpose of keeping an arm either contain a locking device or not be allowed on the market at all would be.................. the government. So you are saying, in passing, that you support the government infringing on the right to keep arms in the area of storage devices.
The bad thing is... as long as people allow themselves to be fooled into thinking the government imposing limits is Ok as long as they consider those limits reasonable, appropriate, or acceptable, then the people themselves are helping the government to infringe (limit).
Blueshell
Banned
'To limit' vs 'is limited'.
What is don to something to change it vs what something is when left allone.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Do you have a cite and/or link to the definitions you just offered?
infringe - definition of infringe in English from the Oxford dictionary
infringe
-snip-
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold added by me for emphasis....
A plain reading of that definition says that acting as to limit is to infringe.
And if something is already limited then something or someone already acted "as to limit" (infringe).
If the right to keep arms is left alone then there would not be any limits (infringements) imposed upon it.
Your desire to limit what storage devices intended for the keeping of arms are allowed on the free market shows you would support "act as to limit" by supporting infringing on the right to keep arms with limiting what devices are available for the keeping of arms.
Blueshell
Banned
You don't know what "to" or "is" means?
If the action applies to what was already beyond the boundary of the right, then the action is not a limit or an infringement.
If you say chewing gum is not allowed in your store, someone chewing gum outside of your store does not infringe upon your rights to your store. The action occurs beyond the boundary of your right.
That something has a boundary doesn't mean a 3rd party placed it there. The default state of rights is not a state of limitlessness, but a state of non existence (because natural rights just don't exist at all, and that's as testable as gravity). Only the creation of a social contract causes right to come into being and defines it. If the action applies to what was already beyond the boundary of the right, then the action is not a limit or an infringement.
Our RKBA comes from the social contract of Christianity and has had boundaries since it's conception. At no point in human history did the RKBA exist in a limitless state.
No right includes negligence resulting in harm to others. A ban of OP's tissue box is an action taken beyond the RKBA and thus is neither a limit nor an infringement.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
B
Bikenut
Guest
I asked for a cite or a link in reference to:
'
and your lack of providing said cite or link is duly noted.
Wow! You truly do not understand what a right is just as you cannot comprehend the plain definition of infringe means to limit.
boundary: definition of boundary in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
boundary
-snip-
(often boundaries) A limit of a subject or sphere of activity:
Bold and underline added by me for emphasis...
Remember this?
infringe - definition of infringe in English from the Oxford dictionary
infringe
-snip-
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold and underline added by me for emphasis...
Boundaries are limits and limits on rights are infringements and the 2nd Amendment says the right to keep arm "shall not be infringed". Such is the English language as it is written in the 2nd Amendment and in the Oxford Dictionary.
.
Property rights mean I get to control MY property not control ALL property. What other people do on their property is their business. By the way... my "arms" are my property so how I "keep" my "arms" on my own property fall under my property rights too.
And now we are back to that "social contract". Any contract or standard is nothing more than a method of validating infringing (limiting, assessing boundaries) upon a right.
And yes the RKBA existed/does exist in a limitless state where ever and when ever in History there were/are people that had/have no government to infringe, limit, assess boundaries, upon it.
Do not confuse having a right and using it in a negligent manner. I have said many times that I believe those who cause harm while using their rights to do harm should be punished for causing that harm. Hence I have the right to keep my pistol in a tissue box, mounted above the mantle, leaning in a corner, or under the bed, but I would still be responsible and suffer consequences if harm resulted from the way I keep my pistol. But you would have the government make it illegal (set a limit, enforce an infringement) to put a tissue box firearm storage device on the market because you would have no one be allowed to keep their pistol in a tissue box just because you personally don't think it is a good idea. No matter how you wish to play with words or the meanings thereof nor how you try to justify imposing limits the very fact that you would impose limits, regardless of how onerous those limits might not be, puts you in the area of being in favor of gun control. Make no mistake...gun control is not limited to just guns but also involves controlling anything and everything about guns... even outlawing tissue box storage devices.
Blueshell
Banned
You gave the definition yourself so I don't know what you expect me to cite. The definition you gave says "to limit", whereas my argument is about "is limited".
You don't seem to realize the difference.
The definition you give regards actions people enact upon the right, not the inherent attributes a right already possesses.
I acknowledge that you want that to be true.
Social contracts are real things and can be as simple as house rules or as complex as the US Constitution, you're going to have to just get over it. No rights exist without a social contract creating them.
That you can do something doesn't mean you have a right to do it.
I haven't. In fact I clearly stated that using a right in a negligent manner was not condoned by the right's principal nature.
I'm intimately aware of that.
Blueshell
Banned
Exactly.
If the act only codifies a pre-existing limit, then the act is not limiting; the right was already limited and the act occurs beyond the right's boundaries.
Do we have to post the definition of synonym for you too?
Infringe means to limit & limit means to infringe.
When man first picked up a rock or club to defend himself, there were NO limits on what he could use for self defense and the Constitution says the government can NOT impose any now.
Infringe means to limit & limit means to infringe.
When man first picked up a rock or club to defend himself, there were NO limits on what he could use for self defense and the Constitution says the government can NOT impose any now.
B
Bikenut
Guest
B
Bikenut
Guest
While I know for a fact that Leader doesn't need any help I just can't let this go by without commenting simply because Blueshell's reply to Leader is the grandest example of using words to justify the words used despite the definition of those words belies how they are used to validate how they are used (mental masturbation?) I have ever seen.
If there is a pre-existing limit then there is a pre-existing infringement. And social contracts and standards of scrutiny are merely methods of making a limit, an infringement, appear to be reasonable, appropriate, and acceptable. Codifying that pre-exhisting limit (infringement) merely attempts to validate that limit (infringement).
Edited to give Leader the recognition he deserves and to clean up my own post.
Blueshell
Banned
The definition regards actions taken, not default attributes.
Blueshell
Banned
The cave man belonged to a tribe so there was a social contract in which his use of force was regulated.
Try again.
Or just give up, because I'm obviously far more educated on this topic than you are. Not all limits are infringements. I'm sorry you're to stupid to read the definition.
No right, not a single one, has ever, does, or will ever exist in an unlimited state. You know this because it's why you can't provide a proof of your argument.
B
Bikenut
Guest
The definition of infringe that I gave from the Oxford dictionary did not mention any time frame. It merely stated "act as to limit".
Any limit is still an infringement simply because it is a limit regardless of when it existed or when the actions to limit were taken. (see the much posted definition of infringe scattered throughout this discussion)
And the right to keep and bear arms is without limits because these 4 words in the 2nd Amendment... "shall not be infringed"... IS the default attribute.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Did you just move the goal posts from talking about infringing upon the right to keep arms to regulating the use of force? Interesting.....
- Status
