Using Semantics To Violate My Rights!
No offense but those who are seriously going to continue micro-managing semantics are most likely going to loose any legitimate or productive debate. The simple truth is the English language grows and develops. By trying to a “static” set of parameters you simply limit its expansion. What we must concentrate on is expressing ourselves in a manner that is meaningful to the audience we are addressing. Now unfortunately, the current “bureaucracy” is accomplishing this very well. They haven’t “limited” the language they use to “specific” definitions. They have specifically utilized the breadth of definition to specific words to induce support for their agendas. They have continuously done so in regards to the constitution. And to this point it has been working for them.
Here is an example. Lets say that some would declare that “Senator Fienstien is a bitch.” Those that are unaware of the “definition” of the word “bitch” will understand what I meant. Those that are a little to “collegiate” for their own good may choose to ridicule this statement simply because she is not a member of the canine species. (Which quite honestly in my opinion would be equally arguable.) Once again its all a matter of semantics.
The important thing we focus on at this point is the “message” that is being articulated. Quit redirecting attention with excessive concern for semantics.
MY message (and I hope many others as well); That arms (for those who wish to adhere to semantics : “arms” being used in reference to “weapons” specifically of the “firearm” persuasion.) are our individual common law RIGHT. They are our means to self defense from ALL aggressors, both foreign and domestic.
THEIR message (I’m painfully aware is that of many others as well); That guns CAUSE aggression and the common citizens should have no access to them for their own safety.
The “MESSAGE” being portrayed should be the focus, so let us continue to focus on the “MESSAGE” and not the “verbiage”.