From: \[ Robert-Coyote \] (coyyote@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 23 2000 - 14:09:39 MDT
How can any state claim specficly that the right to Guns extends only to use
as a armed govmt millitia and not for personal use without violateing the
equal protection act when the Washington state constitution cleary states
they are for the individual citizen's personal defense ?
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or
the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be
construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain
or employ an armed body of men.
"Coyote"
Joao Pedro de Magalhaes wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> >If you're saying that you're a supporter of the people who are actively
> >trying to prevent me from owning guns, which I feel will be necessary to
> >defend myself from either criminals or a tyrannical government, and if
> >nothing I say will change your mind, then it's most certainly not "the
> >end." A potential rape victim may try to change her attacker's mind,
but
> >when that doesn't work she may adopt a new course of action.
>
> Yes, I am a supporter of the people who are actively trying to prevent
you
> from owning guns. In fact, the less guns you and others like you own, the
> safer I feel and the safer America becomes.
>
> Goodbye.
"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." Fortunately for us,
and
unfortunately for you, a) your opinion is diametrically opposed to what the
facts actually show, and b) one Belgians opinion doesn't mean jack over
here.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:24 MST