(urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe
crushtv at gmail.com
Tue Mar 17 08:46:15 PDT 2009
>This is a common myth. In fact, the Second Amendment is the only one
>of the Ten that clearly states its purpose -- which is that a well-ordered
>militia is essential for "security" of the state.
I find this to be the biggest straw-man in the whole debate on the 2nd
Amendment. The amendment states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The first part ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State") is a dependent, informing or justifying clause. The
_independent_ clause which carries the mandate and provides the chosen
solution to the problem posed by first clause is not a bit ambiguous: "The
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." No
doubt, there are some heated arguments behind that defensive justification.
Furthermore, the amendment grants this "right" to "the people." To read this
amendment as pro-regulators like to would mean that the first amendment
"right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances" would only apply to the right of state
governments to assemble and to make official statements to the Federal
>In other words, it isn't about
>opposing the government; it's about having the ability to repel invaders
>on the spur of the moment.
I could dredge up quotes from the Founders refuting this, but I'm sure you
seen them before.
More information about the Urth