[Vision2020] discharging firearms

[Robert Dickow]

"It just doesn't make sense if bearing arms doesn't include the use of such
arms. " 

Yes, of course. The thread was about the term 'bear' specifically. What I
was asserting is that the term 'bear' itself and alone does not mean, in
this instance, to use. The use of the firearms for shooting bullets is
implied by general context and not by that one term. Let's say that there is
an amendment to the constitution that explicitly gives everyone the right to
bear pencils. "The government shall not infringe on the people's right to
bear pencils." We infer from that that we all have the right to write things
down, because that is what pencils are for, primarily. But still, the word
'bear' itself does not suddenly take on the literal meaning of 'use', or
even literally 'to write things down'. It only means, literally, that we can
carry them. That we can use the pencil to write things down is an inference.
It is also this kind of inference(?) that prevents us from concluding that
the statement gives us the right to go around stabbing people in the eye
with the pencils, which is also a potential 'use' of the pencil. Common
sense, in other words. 

But, this is getting into some pointless semantic distinctions of Platonic
proportions, isn't it?

Bob Dickow, troublemaker

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Garrett Clevenger
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 12:03 AM
To: Robert Dickow
Cc: vision2020_moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] discharging firearms

It just doesn't make sense if bearing arms doesn't include the use of such
arms.  

What good is a milita that would be allowed to carry weapons but not be able
to use them?

To me at least bearing arms means wielding and using them.  Grizzly bears
know what I'm talkin' 'bout.  Bearing can be an action which in the case of
a firearm is the use of the firearm..
<snip>