[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: That's what laws are... semantics.

ZNYFRH, let's take a look at context, which is critical to semantics in law.

The forefathers answered that question directly.

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;…" Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789 quoting Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State by the Honorable Samuel Adams, Esquire.

"The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb, vol. 15, p. 213 (1904).

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. 1824. ME 16:45.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States … Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

"In England...A large proportion of the most valuable of the provisions in Magna Charta, and the bill of rights in 1688, consists of a solemn recognition, of limitations upon the power of parliament; that is, a declaration, that parliament ought not to abolish, or restrict those rights. Such are the right of trial by jury; the right to personal liberty and private property according to the law of the land; that the subjects ought to have a right to bear arms;..." Joseph Story, Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Book III at 718, § 1858. Chapter. Whole Book.

"Here, let us again pause, and reflect, how admirably this division, and distribution of legislative power is adapted to preserve the liberty, and to promote the happiness of the people of the United States…Fifthly, and lastly; by the separation of the judiciary from the legislative department; and the independence of the former, of the control, or influence of the latter, in any case where any individual may be aggrieved or oppressed, under colour of an unconstitutional act of the legislature, or executive. In England, on the contrary, the greatest political object may be attained, by laws, apparently of little importance, or amounting only to a slight domestic regulation: the game-laws, as was before observed, have been converted into the means of disarming the body of the people:…" Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D [Section 13: Restraints on Powers of Congress con't]. Whole Book.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…" Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D [Section 13: Restraints on Powers of Congress con't]. Whole Book.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (Julian P. Boyd, Ed., 1950). See more discussion on this quote HERE.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1. Coxe sent a copy of his essay to James Madison along with a letter of the same date. Madison wrote back and the quote follows.

"Accept my acknowledgments for your favor of the 18th. instant. The printed remarks inclosed in it are already I find in the Gazettes here [New York] ... The amendments ... will however be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your pen." James Madison in a response letter to Tench Coxe above supporting the interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right.




ONCE AGAIN,
What you people are asking, is that the historical context which PUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS TOGETHER, be ignored.

ZNYFRH said: I agree. So do you believe that you should be able to carry an armed and loaded SAM launcher on your person, if that is the arms which you choose to carry?

Is a SAM launcher a reasonable form of self-defense from another individual?

Is this not a petty, diversionary question of opinion of justification as opposed to RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL?

ZNYFRH said: There is proof that at least one person, educated in how to use firearms, comfortable with firearms, owner of firearms, was intimidated by OC of a gun. He even states a scenario, in a park, where it would be threatening.

No one person, or majority of people may remove the rights of others, on any basis or pretext.

That one person had "insecurity issues".

ZNYFRH said: Then why don't you believe that my rights to life, liberty, and PoH should be upheld by telling you to CC a gun?

FEELING secure, is not a right. BEING secure, is a right. Arms are a means to that end, and a means Constitutionally protected, explicitly.

ZNYFRH said: Then how come I can't leave my blinds open if I'm watching porn on my TV? There are plenty of restrictions on property rights when you and your property disturb the peace.

You ask this as if I recognize and justify that infringement of privacy? This is diversionary, again, and deflective debate tactics at best.

Stick to the subject you are arguing.

ZNYFRH said: Don't suggest I'm being childish and then give "what-ifs" like this.

LOL, ROFLMAO.....

You can give plenty, but can't take any, eh?

ZNYFRH said: Post #12 again. The reason you can't dismiss that as "nonsense and unprovable" is because it's about personal opinion. So far, at least 2 people in this thread have said that it is their opinion.. That means you can't dismiss it as nonsense.

Reality check! Opinion is SUBJECTIVE, logical reasoning is OBJECTIVE, as is the law.