"More typical liberal answers" writer of Feb. 14 really put me in my place.

To the editor:
"More typical liberal answers" writer of Feb. 14 really put me in my place. I would like to apologize for any duress my letter has caused any reader. It was not my intention to inflame, only to show a different perspective gained from thought, questions, propositions or ideas. How we express our ideas in language is limited to the way we define that language.

James Madison said it in Federalist No. 37, The genius of the Republican form of government, quoted from The Federalist, We the People, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, edited by Michael Loyd Chadwick, Global Affairs Publishing, 1987, pg 192: "Besides the obscurity arising from the complexity of objects, and the imperfection of the human faculties, the medium through which the conceptions of men are conveyed to each other adds a fresh embarrassment. The use of words is to express ideas. Perspicuity, therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly and exclusively appropriate to them. But no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as not to include many equivocally denoting different ideas. Hence it must happen that however accurately objects may be discriminated in themselves, and however accurately the discrimination may be considered, the definition of them may be rendered inaccurate by the inaccuracy of the terms in which it is delivered. And this unavoidable inaccuracy must be greater or less, according to the complexity and novelty of the objects defined. When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated."

For example: On thought proposition 1. Enforcing the 2nd Amendment is the same as enforcing Roe v. Wade. The point was how enforcing is being done. Enforcing the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) is easily allowing arms to be had and their access. Roe v. Wade ensures the legal right for an abortion. Yet, access through professional planned-parenthood clinics have been regulated out of existence, thus the right has been "constructively" hindered. Operators of such clinics have been assaulted and killed. Thus, should not both propositions be enforced equally as the law of the land as decided by the Supreme Court?

It appears enforcing for the 2nd Amendment is not the same as Roe v. Wade. What if, the 2nd Amendment was enforced like Roe v. Wade? You couldn't buy a gun from a legal dealer because of protesters and assassins. Or, there were so many administratiave hoops you couldn't get one. This is how I think questions inspire thought, not argument. Again, I am sorry for any affront. Heaven knows liberals see things differently than do conservatives!