<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18975"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>Kentucky? Try every northern county of this
state!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>w.</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=kjajmix1@msn.com href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">keely emerinemix</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=dickow@turbonet.com
href="mailto:dickow@turbonet.com">dickow@turbonet.com</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, November 05, 2010 1:21
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>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>www.keely-prevailingwinds.com<BR></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR>>
From: dickow@turbonet.com<BR>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<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:
vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]<BR>>
On Behalf Of Robert Dickow<BR>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:01
PM<BR>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<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:
vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [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>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> <BR>>
=======================================================<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>>
=======================================================<BR>> <BR>>
=======================================================<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>>
=======================================================<BR>
<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>