<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17092" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hunting with automatic firearms has been illegal
in every one of the United States (Idaho and Wyoming most certainly
not excepted) for at least the last 4 decades.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</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 4:25
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><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="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; 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 class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; LINE-HEIGHT: 21px; FONT-FAMILY: sans-serif; -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">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>
<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>=======================================================
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3239 - Release
Date: 11/05/10 00:34:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>