• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Letter of mine published in The Olympian

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

dawei wrote:
sv_libertarian wrote:
http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/story/332171.html

While my letter is not about OC, someone in the comments section mentioned OC before I could!
You might want to quote the Second Amendment more clearly: Should read infringed, NOT impaired.

The WA State constitution, Article 1, Section 24 reads as follows:

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.
-http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/constitution.htm

Our constitution is even more permissive and already recognizes it as an "individual right" (the thing going on with the DC-ban in SCOTUS) so Steve had it right.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

dawei wrote:
sv_libertarian wrote:
http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/story/332171.html

While my letter is not about OC, someone in the comments section mentioned OC before I could!
You might want to quote the Second Amendment more clearly: Should read infringed, NOT impaired.
As I mentioned (and it is hard sometimes to work with 250 words) I was refering to the Washington Constitution.
 

dawei

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
15
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
dawei wrote:
sv_libertarian wrote:
http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/story/332171.html

While my letter is not about OC, someone in the comments section mentioned OC before I could!
You might want to quote the Second Amendment more clearly: Should read infringed, NOT impaired.
As I mentioned (and it is hard sometimes to work with 250 words) I was refering to the Washington Constitution.
Ah so, said the blind man to the deaf dog; thanks for clarifying.
 

thewise1

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
383
Location
Moscow, ID
imported post

Ugh at the people who seem to think that a concealed weapons permit stops felons from carrying; by definition, felons break laws.

:lol: Unbelievable. I was gonna leave a comment, but people just don't get it.
 
Top