Founding Fathers Battle Gun Grabbers From the Grave

I would like to address the simple statement, "shall not be infringed" with regard to keeping and bearing arms, in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We must consider the original meaning of the authors of this statement, in their own mindset and time frame. As we all know, words can/tend to change their meanings over time. One recent example is the word "sick", which used to mean you were "crazy", as in, "That guy must be one sick person to do that", now is being used as a term for "cool", or "out-of-the box", or "wildly awesome", as in "That guy is so awesome, he's sick", or "That rod is sick!"

So, to alleviate concerns that the 2nd Amendment wording is old and misunderstood today, here are actual definitions of the key words in the 2nd Amendment in regard to "shall not be infringed". These definitions were copied from a period dictionary of the 18th Century, at the time of the writing of those words, 1780. So, if we consider with the key word "INFRINGE", we can determine the original meaning of the authors of the 2nd Amendment, in their own words and understandings of that era.

In 1780, the use of the word "infringe" as a verb, means:

To INFRINGE ... v.a. To violate, to break laws or contracts; to destroy, to hinder.

Assuming some ambiguity in "hinder", we look that up to find:

To HINDER ... v.a. To obstruct, to stop, to impede.

Assuming some ambiguity in "obstruct", we look that up to find:

To OBSTRUCT ... v.a. To hinder, to be in the way of, to block up, to bar; to oppose, to retard.

Assuming some ambiguity in "impede", we look that up to find:

To IMPEDE ... v.a. To hinder, to let, to obstruct.


So, we can clearly infer that their understanding of the word INFRINGE, in 1780, is:
a. Not so different than it is now in the 21st century
b. Is another way of saying to impede, or to "be in the way of", oppose, or retard.

So, interpreting "shall not be infringed" is the same as saying that putting obstructions in the way or to slow down the process, or make it near impossible to obtain is 100% against the original meaning of this part of the 2nd Amendment. That said, ANY legislation that slows down or effectively prevents a United States citizen from keeping and bearing arms is in violation this amendment.

Therefore, not only are these new gun control legislation changes are in violation of our constitutional rights, but existing laws are also in violation, regardless of type of firearm. And, these rights cannot be legislated against according to this same Constitution. So, new laws cannot change the meaning, or override ANY part of this statement.

Source Link to PDF: "A General Dictionary of the English Language - Thomas Sheridan, pub. 1780"

reply to post by TrueAmerican


This is more a war on the way free people think than it is on gun violence. The gun grabbers want people to think that honest gun owning Americans can't be trusted, when the truth is just the opposite. Most people are trying to protect their rights by voting with their dollars buying guns and ammo at a record rate. I would suggest that anyone who actually cares about The Second Amendment join the NRA, NRA-ILA, Gun Owners of America, your local gun club, and write to your representatives. The majority will obey the laws whatever they end up being, so now is the time to stand up and be heard before we end up with laws we don't like.

reply to post by Krakatoa


I completely agree, but you must remember all our so-called political leaders are attorneys. What attorneys do best is twist the facts and make people believe in their agenda. The gun grabbers are trying to convince the public that banning certain semi-auto rifles will make them safer, even though these guns are used in an extremely small percentage of crimes. If they are able to ban them, how long do you think it will be before they go after semi-auto hand guns? All I'm saying is there are more and more people who don't understand our Constitution, or would like to see it completely abandoned.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Yea those pesky facts do get in the way. Fact is the FF had their own ideas, played their own politics and had their own agendas, and a lot of times didn't agree or get along.

Hell, they were backstabbing each other trying to nominate the first president.

Anyone who thinks they would know what the FF would think or act today is not only very narcissitic, but are full of themselves.

Fact is, the FF didn't live in today's world, they didn't have the same ideals, and probably would have very different viewpoints.

There has been waaaaayyy tttooooo maaaannnyyy threads about this. Enough talk, if thay want to come and get the guns......then let them come and let the chips fall where they may.

If folks have not figured it out by now....they don't care what you think. They will do what they THINK they can do and we will see what happens.

Jus' Sayin'



spez

Originally posted by SPEZNA1
There has been waaaaayyy tttooooo maaaannnyyy threads about this. Enough talk, if thay want to come and get the guns......then let them come and let the chips fall where they may.

If folks have not figured it out by now....they don't care what you think. They will do what they THINK they can do and we will see what happens.

Jus' Sayin'



spez

If it actually is what you say, then all the more more reason for U.S. citizens to exert their Constitutional Rights according to the 2nd Amendment, to prevent that from happening, would you agree? Promoting fatalism is easy, taking it on bended knee is easy, standing up for what is right is always difficult. This has been (and is being) done by too many present and past generations of citizens, sacrificing their lives and families for us to simply acquiesce without stepping up to defend our rights.

Unless you are not from the U.S., in which case you may not understand that need at all. In which case I feel sorry for you....that's not being sarcastic, but honestly sorry you cannot understand this aspect of being an American citizen.

reply to post by Krakatoa


Sorry folks, that link is bad, but unfortunately, my time to edit the post has expired. So, here's the fixed link:

A General Dictionary of the English Language - Thomas Sheridan, pub. 1780

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty



You could say the same exact "positive" things about the Federal Reserve today.

What I said had nothing to do with my opinion, it is fact. A privatized central bank works against the common persons interests. Hamilton was BANKER puppet who later retired and became a banker himself. He was a federalist.

Are you seriously arguing that a privatized central bank is a good thing?

Talk about being in complete denial. You must love the Federal Reserve. Ben Bernanke is going to save us all from financial collapse!! Don't you know, the Fed works in our interests!!!

Waterbottle, you are officially discredited in my book for generalizing the founding fathers as racist, raping, slave owners. Good job, you're ignorant as hell.

When Samuel remarried, his second wife Elizabeth was given an enslaved woman named Surry. He reportedly insisted that “A slave can not live in my house; if she comes she must be free.” It’s unclear whether the family formally freed Surry at that time; they were apparently still writing out emancipation papers many years later.

However, Adams’s letters showed that he cared about Surry as a member of his household. When he was in Philadelphia in 1775 and worried about his family getting out of British-occupied Boston, he remembered her in his letters to his wife:

17 June: “I wish to hear that my Son and honest Surry were releasd from their Confinement in that Town.”
28 June: “Let me know where good old Surry is.”
30 July: “Tell Job and Surry that I do not forget them.”

boston1775.blogspot.com...

reply to post by eLPresidente


Um, did I say all of them were? No I didn't. Go read what I said. You're the ignorant one.

Most were though, especially the prominent ones. Sorry that you can't handle history. But then again you have a follower mentality, just look at your avatar, idolizing a human. Get your own mind and lead yourself.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Um, did I say all of them were? No I didn't. Go read what I said. You're the ignorant one.

Most were though, especially the prominent ones. Sorry that you can't handle history. But then again you have a follower mentality, just look at your avatar, idolizing a human. Get your own mind and lead yourself.

edit on 24-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

Oh so you have to make strawmen up for the founding fathers because you can't win the second amendment argument, now you have to bring up even MORE strawmen? for me? Ok.

I think Ron Paul is a great man and has qualities of principle and consistency that should be studied and imitated by people who strive to do the same. I don't bash on you for your animal avatar because accusing others of guilt by association of imagery is not my thing. It is sad that you have to resort to it to. The lack of intelligence always leads to such behavior.

reply to post by eLPresidente


What straw-man? Want me to list all the founding fathers that owned slaves vs the ones who didn't? I'll win the argument. Sorry. It is you who can't handle historical fact. I have no clue why right wingers get so touchy about slave ownership. They act like your personally attacking them by mentioning slavery. Did you own slaves? No. So why are you getting so emotional?

Did you know the constitution protected the slave trade for 20 years? Hmm...I wonder why they put that in there...

When the US Constitution was written in 1787, a long forgotten and peculiar provision was included in Article I, the part of the document dealing with the duties of the legislative branch:

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

In other words, the government could not ban the importation of slaves for 20 years after the adoption of the Constitution. And as the designated year 1808 approached, those opposed to slavery began making plans for legislation that would outlaw the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

history1800s.about.com...


And um, what second amendment argument? I'm pro gun ownership. Sorry. Try again.

It is sad that you have to resort to it to. The lack of intelligence always leads to such behavior.

And you're the one crying about a strawman argument?

Did anyone just see Kerry`s speach on being Sec. of State? Was I hearing things, he was talking about the New World Order, The U.S. being the Global leader, what is up here, and then right after that They march out the people to try and push the gun control measures through. Could they be any clearer in their intent. If you haven`t watched the speach watch it and you will see what I am talking about. I don`t know about all of you but I did not sign up for this, and our freedoms mean everything to me. It is time to look deeply into what is happening here and question everything. This is not my idea of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

What straw-man? Want me to list all the founding fathers that owned slaves vs the ones who didn't? I'll win the argument. Sorry. It is you who can't handle historical fact. I have no clue why right wingers get so touchy about slave ownership. They act like your personally attacking them by mentioning slavery. Did you own slaves? No. So why are you getting so emotional?

Did you know the constitution protected the slave trade for 20 years? Hmm...I wonder why they put that in there...

When the US Constitution was written in 1787, a long forgotten and peculiar provision was included in Article I, the part of the document dealing with the duties of the legislative branch:

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

In other words, the government could not ban the importation of slaves for 20 years after the adoption of the Constitution. And as the designated year 1808 approached, those opposed to slavery began making plans for legislation that would outlaw the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

history1800s.about.com...


And um, what second amendment argument? I'm pro gun ownership. Sorry. Try again.

It is sad that you have to resort to it to. The lack of intelligence always leads to such behavior.

And you're the one crying about a strawman argument?

edit on 24-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

If I need to explain to you what a straw man is then you shouldn't even bother to debate anywhere...You applied it to the OP's topic and you applied it to me. I'm not a 'right winger' who gets emotional about slavery, I just find it disappointing whenever people try to discredit the founding fathers with slavery when it comes to the validity of the Constitution, its very old, very old.

The only one emotional here is the one attacking a members' avatar because you don't have the intellectual competence for any higher discussion

It is true the Constitution permitted importation of slaves until 1808, it was a necessary compromise to reach the number of delegates for ratification. Not my cup of tea but it has little to do with whether or not the founding fathers or those who participated in the drafting of the Constitution were almost entirely made up of 'racist slave owners'

What you fail to mention is that the founding fathers and other participants clashed on slavery, states rights, and founded nullification within the states. Nullification, was USED to protect the states like Wisconsin from the federal government because WI wanted to protect slaves entering FREEDOM. You're literally trying to argue the founding fathers created the Constitution to protect slavery.

reply to post by WaterBottle


Since I used your sources to defeat you.
You have lost your argument,by the very fact you now have no sources.So i guess we have to hear your opinions again.YAAAWN.

Better yet start a thread on your point then we can discuss it.

The O/P has asked to stay on topic.But I will debate the issue in any thread you start.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Nearly every post I posted in this thread had sources. Fail argument. You are in favor of a privatized central bank chartered by the government. There's nothing more to debate with you. You support with the federal reserve and its primitive cousin.

reply to post by eLPresidente


I know what a strawman argument is.

The whole point of my previous post was that you ignored the whole issue of slave owning founding fathers in the post I was replying to. Your whole post was crying about a strawman argument while ignoring the meat and potatoes.

The only one emotional here is the one attacking a members' avatar because you don't have the intellectual competence for any higher discussion

Sorry, but fail. You're the one that attacked me because you mis-read what I said. You claimed I said all founding fathers were slave owners, when I never said that.

You're literally trying to argue the founding fathers created the Constitution to protect slavery.

Yeah, I didn't say that all. Reaching.

S&F

I am quite sure by now that everyone knows where I stand on the Constitution, if not go read some of my previous threads and posts.

The problem as I see it, is that those of us who would actively defend the constitution, especially what is left of the bill of rights, are out numbered by the apathetic and willfully blind; out gunned, for the most part, by the government and have been outmaneuvered by the Bank and Business interests which control our government.

The only way left to take back and keep our rights is something most people do not even want to consider as an option, let alone actually act upon.

I believe it is already to late to try to work within or through the system. I also believe that any grassroots movement in that direction will be put down quickly and violently.

But, as the one who draws first blood looses, I am open to suggestions as to what line of action you all think we still have open to us.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Its intent was to give the people the means by which to have a last recourse of armament against tyrannical government:

So much for the "but they didn't know what weapons would be available today" excuse.

You can't fight a tyrannical government with muskets. It would be fair to say you would need weapons equal to what the tyrannical government has.

Are you suggesting that private citizens should have access to nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by jsipprell
Are you suggesting that private citizens should have access to nuclear weapons?

WMD's are a special case. And particularly, because of their potency, it is ALL THE MORE REASON to insure they are not wielded by the hands of those who have shown they cannot be trusted. EVER.

With my proposal, at least the cumulative power of them could never be wielded by the words of so very few. It would take each state, on a case by case basis, to fire them at a target. Those states refusing to participate and escalate war to that degree, could perhaps be spared the wrath of direct nuclear blast(s) from a situation, say, where Russia and China teamed up against us. And particularly if Russia and China could see where the nukes came from.

The underlying theme here again, is DECENTRALIZATION OF POWER. Because CENTRALIZATION, in our case (and most cases), has shown on all fronts to be extremely ineffective- and prone to corruption, politics, insanity, and greed. Not to mention the wanton destruction of many countries. We MUST remove that power from the hands of so few. Or eventually face the consequences.