iOwnTheWorld.com

We use the word “encroach” in land surveying to explain a trespass or intrusion.
Brown’s Boundary Control And Legal Principles defines it as: “Intrude; trespass; to gradually take possession or rights of another.”

Another surveying term I am reminded of is “adverse possession”, which, according to Barron’s Law Dictionary, must be “actual, visible, open, notorious, hostile, under claim of right …”
Sound familiar?

+5

I am a feelin infringed herea!

+3

FreeMan , No Bro, the magic word is “disenfranchised”. Seems to set off all kinds of bells and whistles. But maybe only for communists. Go figure.

+5

I agree that most people will probably take option #2 (linked page) but that will turn into option #3 when the feds try to confiscate said illegal weapons.

+4

Strange timing. I looked up the definition of infringe this morning. 1)to actively break the terms of a law, 2) act to limit or undermine (something, a law)

The definition of Regulation was also interesting. Regulation creates, limits or controls a right.

To my mind to limit or control a right is to infringe upon that right and gun control law is unconstitutional and thereby unlawful.

+4

Nice of you guys to make it clear that your guns are more important than other people’s lives.

+1

Jefferson was an evil capitalist racist; he’s dead now. Let us live in a cool world now. Mmmmkay?

Now you swear by the Constitution, buy BOY, I can remember those halcyon days of constitutional shredding when “the constitution is not a suicide pact” the wisdom of inbreded wingnuts like you guys.

Duh.

0

I know you hillbillies are not educated nor very smart. You don’t know shit about history. I am one of your worst nightmares since I teach classes on gender, racism and ethnicity.

Groovy.

And yes, I frack my students. Duh. Same sex sexuality has been reported for every animal species, OK? We have adequate data and let tell you wingnuts: it is quite common among all primates. All primates routinely engage in wide range of non-reproductive sex.

They call me lion.

0

Good Night Katchecon.

0

Nytol

+2

When some gun-grabbing turdbag throws out the lame argument that the second amendment applied to muzzle loading rifles, after I tell them that they’re a moron, I tell them the following:

1. In 1776, both the best technology available to the British government troops was muzzle loading rifles. So the second amendment guaranteed access to guns of equal power to the weapons used by government troops.

2. Now, government law enforcement agents have access to a whole array of weapons the average person couldn’t even dream of owning like true automatic assault weapons (like MP5s), grenade launchers, grenades, body armor, silencers, etc…

So the second amendment has already been been curtailed terribly by the fact that the government has a significant firepower advantage over any individual member of the public living within current laws. So, if anybody has been screwed by the current interpretation of the second amendment, it has been the law abiding, gun owning public.

+4

More lives are saved than lost and more crime is prevented by having guns at our disposal than being empty handed – so the premise is backwards to say we don’t care.

Anyone who wants guns banned is the one who doesn’t care about good people being victinized by thuggery. You are the evil one in all this.

The adage of “If only one life is saved it’s worth it” applies to HAVING guns better than not. So you lose that logic. stfu lib, you’re evil and don’t like free people.

+2

If you want to go back to the first National infringement don’t you have to start with the NFA of 1934?

Before that you go back to the racist-based anti-gun laws meant directly for the freed slaves.

Anti-gun laws were first born from racism.

+2