Re: Guns

[Robert Hoffmann <escape@alt-escape.com>]

At 12:45 PM 09/20/1999 -0700, Stan wrote:
>> I'm sorry that this inconveniences you, but this seems acceptable
>> under second amendment logic that I've been reading here. 

>your sarcasam is touching. 

Stan,

I was not being sarcastic.  I've lived for over 30 months total in Germany,
so I know what it's like being barred from firearm ownership, hunting, etc.
 But I've always been told that once I enter a foreign country, I am
subject to its laws.  You yourself admitted that you haven't exhausted the
legal avenues for holding a gun in Washington, even though those avenues
may seem fruitless.  Without applying for a concealed weapons permit in
Washington, and then being turned down, you would have a very poor basis
for challenging their laws in court.

>> > Firearms shall be permitted so citizens of the U.S. can  > > 
>overthrow their government if they choose.
>
>agh! someone who has never studied history!. pitty your doomed to 
>repeat it and try and take us down with you. not "if they choose", 
>when they find that the govt has become so unresponsive to there 
>needs that it needs to be replaced. READ THE DAMN 
>DOCUMENTS!!!

I did not quote the Constitution verbatim, but I know what it says.  There
is no material difference that we have on this point.  You needn't split
hairs or curse over this.

>> > The second amendment says nothing about sport shooting or 
>> > hunting, so you can't appeal to the constitution for possession 
>> > for these purposes.
>
>again, you are showing your ignorance, there really wasn't any 
>such thing as "sport shooting" per say, you used the same firearm 
>for hunting, for self defence and military use. do think the state and 
>county Militias showed up and issued firearms? (in some cases 
>yes, after the war began for troops who had no firearms) but for the 
>vast majority they showed up with what ever firearm they happened 
>to own.

This is more obfuscation than hair-splitting.  The Constitution is only
concerned with one possible use of firearms, as covered above.  What
existed and didn't exist when the Constitution was written is rather
immaterial to this issue.  The Constitution allows U.S. Citizens to keep
and bear arms, and it gives one reason for that right, although it doesn't
prohibit other uses.  Nor does it guarantee those other uses.  Can we agree
on this point?

I know you like to accuse those who have slight differences with you of
ignorance, but that is not the kind of manners that should be prevalent in
a discussion of civil and civic affairs.  I assure you that I am quite
intelligent and well-informed, even if you would take anything I write,
misinterpret it, and use your misinterpretations as a basis of an
argumentum ad hominem.

Thank you,


Bob Hoffmann                         229 East C St., Suite B
Alt-Escape Adventures                Moscow, ID  83843  USA
http://www.alt-escape.com            Phone: (208) 883-0642
                                     Fax: 1-800-683-3799