[Vision2020] FW: discharging firearms- was Pres mans-up, Crabtree doesn't

Art Deco deco at moscow.com
Fri Nov 5 16:25:56 PDT 2010


I am not sure that everyone has understood Keely's point, which I think is as follows:

What is the purpose of including the words "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" in the 2nd Amendment?

"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."

Does the language mean that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed with respect to the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state?  Can the right to bear arms be infringed for other purposes?

These questions have been argued for many, many years.  The US Supreme Court has the final say; you and I don't get to say.  However, contrary to the belief of rabid holders of opposing and different views, I think it is safe to say that the language is ambiguous with respect to bearing arms for purposes other participating in a well-regulated militia.

I do not believe that the framers of the constitution anticipated how weapon technology would evolve.  I do not believe that they intended for weapons to be used by non-patriotic groups like organized crime, dope smugglers/peddlers, etc.  But I realize that this is only an opinion, one, which at this point, whose truth is next to impossible to verify.

Currently, the probability of the 2nd Amendment being modified in any meaningful way is probably very close to zero.


I spend a lot time in the woods locally and in other places, like recently in northwestern Wyoming.  I talk to a lot of people including both sport and slob hunters.  A lot of hunters (but not all) are opposed to allowing hunting with automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

There are two reasons generally given:

1.    Using such weapons is not sporting.  Taking a clean, safe shot with a single-fire rifle is.

2.    There is a safety issue.  This can happen at any time, but is more likely to happen late in the hunting season, late in the day after certain hunters (some them impaired by alcohol) get frustrated and start shooting at sounds or just to be shooting.  It's bad enough when these hunters use single-fire weapons, but when they spray bullets all over the place with semi-automatic or automatic weapons, the safety issue becomes more critical.

A few years ago before Bennett bought sizeable parts of Moscow Mountain and closed parts of Foothill Road (aka the Ridge Road) there was a group of five ATV mounted hunters ( three men and two women, known to residents as the Fearsome Fivesome) in their 50's or 60's that fired their single-fire weapons all over the place late in the afternoon, apparently not aiming at anything in particular.  (They also left prodigious numbers of Keystone Beer cans in their wake.)

I shudder to think that these cretins could have been armed with automatic weapons.

Is this what the framers of the constitution intended?  I doubt it, but my opinion is not well financed or politically popular, is not rabidly held, and counts not a whit.

w.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dan Carscallen 
  To: Vision 2020 
  Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: discharging firearms- was Pres mans-up,Crabtree doesn't


  Regarding "well-regulated militia", the definition of militia that I think most apply is "The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state available to be called to arms."


  So there's that . . .

  DC

  On Nov 5, 2010, at 13:21, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:


    Not really responding to the "bear/use" argument, but along the same line . . . I continually wonder why the phrase "well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment doesn't get more discussion.  It seems to me that a bunch of poorly informed, angry, hate-fueled, paranoid men crawling around a Kentucky forest in greasepaint with little supervision and lots of powerful arms and ammo can't possibly be a "well-regulated" ANYTHING, much less a "militia."  If these types of people would submit to commonsense regulation, order, discipline, accountability and the occasional intrusion of fact, perhaps we could then consider their gun rights in a different light.

    Frankly, these "militias" are an insult to the brave men and women in the U.S. armed forces, and the worst possible argument in favor of wide-open gun ownership and use.

    Keely
    www.keely-prevailingwinds.com




    > From: dickow at turbonet.com
    > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
    > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:43:52 -0700
    > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: discharging firearms- was Pres mans-up, Crabtree doesn't
    > 
    > Thanks, Tom! The Webster online does NOT indicate that 'to bear' (at least
    > in the case of bearing arms) means also 'to use.' I feel better now.
    > 
    > Bob Dickow, troublemaker
    > 
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
    > On Behalf Of Robert Dickow
    > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:01 PM
    > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
    > Subject: [Vision2020] FW: discharging firearms- was Pres mans-up, Crabtree
    > doesn't
    > 
    > Well, I guess if 'to bear' means also 'to use,' then my argument does not
    > hold. However, I must say that that definition was not my lifelong
    > understanding of the meaning of 'to bear,' which is means 'to carry,' as in
    > 'to bear a heavy load of wood.' Using the wood is another thing altogether.
    > ("Hand me that match, will ya? I want to finish up bearing my wood now.")
    > 
    > Bob Dickow, troublemaker 
    > 
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
    > On Behalf Of Garrett Clevenger
    > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 11:32 AM
    > To: vision2020_moscow.com
    > Subject: [Vision2020] discharging firearms- was Pres mans-up, Crabtree
    > doesn't
    > 
    > Bob writes:
    > 
    > "But to complicate things, keep in mind that although the Constitution
    > protects the right to keep and bear arms, it says nothing about our rights
    > to discharge those arms."
    > 
    > 
    > >From what my dictionary says, "to bear" means "to hold and use" which in
    > the case of a firearm seems to me to mean to discharge.
    > 
    > If a law prevents someone from using their gun, how is that not
    > unconstitutional? (I'm playing the devil's advocate here)
    > 
    > I suppose that since there are laws that limit free speech, I suppose
    > interpretation of our constitutional amendments is very subjective.
    > 
    > gclev
    > 
    > =======================================================
    > List services made available by First Step Internet, 
    > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
    > http://www.fsr.net 
    > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
    > =======================================================
    > 
    > =======================================================
    > List services made available by First Step Internet, 
    > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
    > http://www.fsr.net 
    > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
    > =======================================================
    > 
    > =======================================================
    > List services made available by First Step Internet, 
    > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
    > http://www.fsr.net 
    > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
    > =======================================================

    =======================================================
    List services made available by First Step Internet, 
    serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                  http://www.fsr.net                       
             mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
    =======================================================


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  =======================================================
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101105/2ec449c0/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list