Replies

Perhaps the term "reasonable restrictions" is not the best, but it is the one I have seen used and I could not think of a better one when I composed my post.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." -- Thomas Jefferson

The Rights of one person are limited by the rights of another.

Those are all restrictions in that they limit the rights of a person from extending as far as that person might like. That person has no right beyond a certain point. Perhaps it would be better to say "reasonable limits" rather than "reasonable restrictions."

If the "judge, jury, and spectators decide to open fire simultaniously" on "Defendants and prosecuters" the right to life of the "Defendants and prosecuters" will be restricred/limited and it will be murder unless maybe, in the case of the defendant, he has just been convicted and sentenced to death. (Since you are willing to restrict/limit their right to life, you must have some subconscious foundation for doing so. What is it?)

And since you think there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction on rights, that means Mr Manson could be armed and shooting back, which probably would not be much of a problem, but if the defendant was the Unabomber and he was bearing his choice of arms there would be a large problem.

As to "Powers and privileges are granted to, or revoked from, government by the
people. We the people have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms" and "The governments PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms may be restricted, or
revoked, by the people. The government is the servent, the people are the masters, NOT the other way
around."

I am not disagreeing with that and it is not the issue in question.

I'd object if you cut off my fist so it can't hit your nose. You'd likely object if I cut off your nose so there's no danger of my fist hiting it. Let's just respect each others right to keep what we've got. If either of us uses their body parts to assault the other without provication, there's already a law against that. Should we cut out peoples vocal cords so they can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre? Please note the word "action" in that Jefferson quote. It's actions that may be illegal, not fists, guns, or vocal cords.

The people in the courtroom would only open fire in self defense, of course. There would probably be a lot less BS, and more mutual respect in an well armed courtroom. Who knows, justice might even break out! The point being, an armed society is a polite society.