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

[Robert Dickow]

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
=======================================================