<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18975">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I am not sure that everyone has understood Keely's point,
which I think is as follows:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>What is the purpose of including the words "well-regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state" in the 2nd
Amendment?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>"</FONT><FONT
size=3>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."</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Currently, the probability of the 2nd Amendment being modified
in any meaningful way is probably very close to zero.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>There are two reasons generally given:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. Using such weapons is not sporting.
Taking a clean, safe shot with a single-fire rifle is.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I shudder to think that these cretins could have been armed
with automatic weapons.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>w.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=areaman@moscow.com href="mailto:areaman@moscow.com">Dan
Carscallen</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, November 05, 2010 2:22
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] FW: discharging
firearms- was Pres mans-up,Crabtree doesn't</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Regarding "well-regulated militia", the definition of militia that I
think most apply is "<SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 21px; FONT-FAMILY: sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-text-size-adjust: none"
class=Apple-style-span>The entire able-bodied population of a community, town,
county, or state available to be called to arms."</SPAN><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>So there's that . . .</DIV>
<DIV><BR>DC</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Nov 5, 2010, at 13:21, keely emerinemix <<A
href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</A>> wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR><FONT color=#8064a2><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt" size=3><FONT face=Verdana>Keely<BR><A
href="http://www.keely-prevailingwinds.com">www.keely-prevailingwinds.com</A><BR></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR>>
From: <A href="mailto:dickow@turbonet.com"><A
href="mailto:dickow@turbonet.com">dickow@turbonet.com</A></A><BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:43:52 -0700<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW:
discharging firearms- was Pres mans-up, Crabtree doesn't<BR>> <BR>>
Thanks, Tom! The Webster online does NOT indicate that 'to bear' (at
least<BR>> in the case of bearing arms) means also 'to use.' I feel
better now.<BR>> <BR>> Bob Dickow, troublemaker<BR>> <BR>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</A>
[mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]<BR>> On Behalf Of Robert
Dickow<BR>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:01 PM<BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>>
Subject: [Vision2020] FW: discharging firearms- was Pres mans-up,
Crabtree<BR>> doesn't<BR>> <BR>> Well, I guess if 'to bear' means
also 'to use,' then my argument does not<BR>> hold. However, I must say
that that definition was not my lifelong<BR>> understanding of the
meaning of 'to bear,' which is means 'to carry,' as in<BR>> 'to bear a
heavy load of wood.' Using the wood is another thing altogether.<BR>>
("Hand me that match, will ya? I want to finish up bearing my wood
now.")<BR>> <BR>> Bob Dickow, troublemaker <BR>> <BR>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</A>
[mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]<BR>> On Behalf Of Garrett
Clevenger<BR>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 11:32 AM<BR>> To:
vision2020_moscow.com<BR>> Subject: [Vision2020] discharging firearms-
was Pres mans-up, Crabtree<BR>> doesn't<BR>> <BR>> Bob
writes:<BR>> <BR>> "But to complicate things, keep in mind that
although the Constitution<BR>> protects the right to keep and bear arms,
it says nothing about our rights<BR>> to discharge those arms."<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> >From what my dictionary says, "to bear" means "to hold
and use" which in<BR>> the case of a firearm seems to me to mean to
discharge.<BR>> <BR>> If a law prevents someone from using their gun,
how is that not<BR>> unconstitutional? (I'm playing the devil's advocate
here)<BR>> <BR>> I suppose that since there are laws that limit free
speech, I suppose<BR>> interpretation of our constitutional amendments is
very subjective.<BR>> <BR>> gclev<BR>> <BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A> <BR>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> <BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A> <BR>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> <BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A> <BR>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN><BR><SPAN>List
services made available by First Step Internet, </SPAN><BR><SPAN>serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>