Feinstein's Gun Control Bill Will Trigger The Next American Revolution

...I apologize as I really didn't mean it that way.

No problem. I didn't take it badly and I'm sorry if I led you to believe I did. Sometimes the tone of written communication comes across in an unintended, unfortunate way.

As for the "is what it is" comment, if we cannot understand simple written words and every one of them has to be held to interpretation, then I would suggest that there could be no such thing as a binding contract. Words have meanings that do not need to be interpreted, especially when they are used in an unambiguous way.

As for the word "interpretation", I used it, with quotation marks, in my original post in this thread because because that is what was used in the article and that is what I was responding to.

I'm actually concerned with the meaning of the words or the definition of the words separately and in combination in the phrase "The right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Note that the words "candy", "apple" and "red" all have meanings of there own, but combine them into "candy apple red" and they have a meaning they don't have individually.

I think you are confusing an important issue here. The Constitution was written to limit the Federal Government (and the State via the 10th), not the individual.

I think we already agreed that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not granted by the Constitution, but acknowledged as existing. And I agree that the Constitution was written to limit the Federal Government (and the States via the 10th), but how do we know what the government (at any level) is limited from if we don't understand the meaning of the words?

As to the individual: "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men...". You already seem to think that one individual's right to keep and bear arms can be limited by another individual's real property rights. I think that means that the government could intervene on the side of the individual with property rights, taking action against the individual trying to exercise what he thinks of as his right to keep and bear arms, and that action would not be an infringement. In other words, "the right to keep and bear arms" has limits. The question being, what are those limits. The answer to that question requires a clear understanding of the meaning of the words in the 2ndA, which we don't have so far as I know.

Again, it depends on who is doing the constraining.

I disagree that the meaning, the definition of a right depends on who is doing the constraining. You and another person have the right to life. If the other person attacks you with the intent to murder you and take your property, that does not mean that the meaning, the definition of the right to life has changed or reached its limits, as long as you are still alive anyway. Now as to the other person's right to life, the meaning and definition of the right to life is the same as yours, but that person's right to life did reach its limits when he tried to murder and steal from you. In each case, the "right to life" is the same, but in one case the right reached its limits.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying there so we can leave that part for later if you wish to pursue it. (In response to: If something is outside the constraints of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms", as you appear to claim in regard to real property owners, then of course government regulation of whatever is outside the constraints is not an infringement.

Now that there presents what we might call a problem because it is pretty much what I want to pursue.

The Fifteenth Amendment states a right. It states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."

It says right there that citizens of the United States have a right to vote. It's clear as day.

But, a citizen of the United States who is a resident of the State of Nevada does not have a right to vote for the Governor of the State of Ohio. There are other circumstances in which, even with "The right of citizens of the United States to vote...", a citizen of the United States does not have the right to vote. That's because those circumstances are not covered by the meaning of the words "The right of citizens of the United States to vote...".

So, what is not covered by the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"? And if something is not covered by those words, how can government limitation of that something be an infringement within the terms of the Second Amendment?

To answer those questions, we need an understanding of the meaning, the definition, of the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms", as individual words and in combination.

I guess the old saying "your rights end where mine begin" could apply here.

Well yeah, but to make the determination we have to understand what the rights of each of us are. That's what I'm trying to get to in the case of the Second Amendment.

By the way, don't be locating your nose where I have the right to swing my fist :)

No problem. I didn't take it badly and I'm sorry if I led you to believe I did. Sometimes the tone of written communication comes across in an unintended, unfortunate way.

Indeed it does, I guess it mostly depends on the mood of the reader at the time, I just wanted to be clear about my intentions.

I'm actually concerned with the meaning of the words or the definition of the words separately and in combination in the phrase "The right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Note that the words "candy", "apple" and "red" all have meanings of there own, but combine them into "candy apple red" and they have a meaning they don't have individually.

FRiend, you are equating a noun with a simple sentence, if I were to write "cherry blossom red", does that equate with a simple sentence such as "do not enter"?

but how do we know what the government (at any level) is limited from if we don't understand the meaning of the words?

I hear ya, today the courts could decide the meaning of out really means in. Heck, Clinton questioned the meaning of the word "is" and got away with it. I understand your fears but my argument is as it has always been, if we have to interpret every word in a contract, there is no such thing as a valid contract. Simple word have axiomatic meanings. Do we need to define Ex Post Facto? Bills of Attainder? We The People? Are you concerned that the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? has to be defined as well? Is there really any ambiguity to those words?

You already seem to think that one individual's right to keep and bear arms can be limited by another individuals real property rights. I think that means that the government could intervene on the side of the individual with property rights, taking action against the individual trying to exercise what he thinks of as his right to keep and bear arms, and that action would not be an infringement. In other words, "the right to keep and bear arms" has limits.

NO, I didn't say I could limit your rights, I said that I can refuse you the right to be on my property, for any reason I deem fit. If you don't like the terms, don't enter. You have no right to egress or occupy my property. As a property owner can also throw you off of my property if I don't like what you have to say. Is that a violation of your 1st. Amendment rights?

I can refuse your presence on my property if your black, is that a violation of the 14th.? Civil rights law?

I can't believe you are confusing aggressor vs. defender. You write that someone who is trying to murder me (note the word you used, murder, has a very distinct meaning) and think the aggressors rights supersede or remain the same? Self defense is a God Given Right against one who is attempting to end your life. Laws in most States are very clear on this. Most even recognize lethal force to prevent harm being done to another being.

Hmmmm, can US Citizens vote for Canadian Parliament? Why are you conflating State vs. Federal elections? Ever hear of Sovereign States? I can't vote for them but I can financially support their candidacy. I don't believe your argument is valid on it's face.

To answer those questions, we need an understanding of the meaning, the definition, of the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms", as individual words and in combination.

The dictionary is very clear on the definitions of words. If words do not have ever lasting meaning, then again I submit you could never have a valid contract. The libs for years have been subtly changing the meanings to suite their agendas, "regulation" comes to mind as well as their attempt to redefine the word "marriage" In that regard, I understand you concerns.

Well yeah, but to make the determination we have to understand what the rights of each of us are. That's what I'm trying to get to in the case of the Second Amendment.

The Federalist Papers make quite clear the intent of the Founders, too bad the black robe thugs never use them.

FRiend, you are equating a noun with a simple sentence, if I were to write "cherry blossom red", does that equate with a simple sentence such as "do not enter"?

“Cherry blossom red” does not equate with “do not enter”. But I’m trying to point out that words in combination may have a different meaning than the individual words alone; for example “cherry blossom red” also does not equate with “cherry”, “blossom”, or plain old “red”.

Do we need to define Ex Post Facto? Bills of Attainder? We The People?

Yes, at least we need to have definitions for them. I didn’t know the definition of “Ex Post Facto” or “Bill of Attainder” until I was told in school (which was a long time ago now).

Are you concerned that the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? has to be defined as well? Is there really any ambiguity to those words?

I’m not so much concerned with the definition of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” as I am with the definition of “the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, or the definitions of “the right to Life”, “the right to Liberty” and “the right to the Pursuit of Happiness”, as well as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

As a property owner (I) can also throw you off of my property if I don't like what you have to say. Is that a violation of your 1st. Amendment rights?

As you’ve stated it I’d say no, with the caveat that while I regard the Bill of Rights as an authoritative source confirming the existence of “freedom of speech”, I don’t know of a similarly authoritative source confirming the existence of “property rights”. Nor do I know exactly what “property rights” are, though lots of people seem to have an opinion they don’t back up. NB: I do believe “property rights” exist and that they are essential to a level of civilization above savagery. Some people say that when you are robbed “It’s only money” or “It’s only a material thing”. I say it’s not only an attack on you and your property, it’s an attack on civilization.

You write that someone who is trying to murder me (note the word you used, murder, has a very distinct meaning) and think the aggressors rights supersede or remain the same?

I think that the meaning and definition of the right to life of someone who becomes your aggressor is the same as yours up to the point that someone becomes your aggressor, but that the aggressor’s right to life reached its limits when he tried to murder and steal from you. When he tried to murder and steal from you his right to life ended and you may take appropriate defensive action up to and including ending his life (local laws to the contrary aside). His rights do not supersede or remain the same as yours. Is there some reason you think the meaning and definition of the right to life of someone who becomes your aggressor is different than yours before that someone becomes your aggressor (all else being equal)?

The Fifteenth Amendment states the existence of “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…” without further saying more about what that right is. So why can’t US Citizens vote for Canadian Parliament? What does it matter if the election is State or Federal? After all, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…” is stated and nothing denying them the right to vote for the Canadian Parliament or in the elections of States of which they are not residents is stated. The answer is that the meaning and definition of “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…” is not clearly stated in the Amendment. It's not stated that citizens of the United States only have the right to vote when they have the authority, for lack of a better term, to vote. Similarly, the meaning and definition of “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” is not clearly stated in the Second Amendment.

The dictionary is very clear on the definitions of words.

It may be clear on the definitions of individual words (although sometimes I wonder) but not so much on the words in combination, particularly when the combination is long. What does the dictionary say about the following combination: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"? Is that combination of words in the dictionary?

The Federalist Papers make quite clear the intent of the Founders, too bad the black robe thugs never use them.

And your post ends there which caused me some confusion. When I first looked at your response I noted it contained some definitions the formatting of which I found to be unfortunate. I didn’t have time to respond then and when I came back I found this somewhat different post. Going back to the main thread I found the moderator removed post 164, I assume at your request, and post 166 was your response. I didn’t know you could do that.

As I recall, your definition for the word “right” was for it as an adjective. I prefer the following definition of “right” as a noun, from Webster’s 1828 dictionary (Webster’s 1828 is the closest I’ve found to the time of the Founders):

“10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.”

I think that comes closest to what is meant when we speak of a “right”, although I’m not entirely satisfied with it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.