(urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe

brunians at brunians.org brunians at brunians.org
Tue Mar 17 10:03:55 PDT 2009

> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:20 AM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to more
>> readily defend themselves against the government, when this becomes
>> necessary, as it inevitably does.
> This is a common myth.

This is a Big Lie, that you are repeating.


The debate recorded in 'The Federalist Papers' and 'The Anti-Federalist
Papers', and usage of the term militia at the time clearly show the
opposite of what you say. This lie has been refuted time and time again,
but like the proper Big Lie that it is, continues to be repeated.


>                          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. 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.

Secondarily. Its primary purpose is as I have stated, as my sources reflect.

I note that you do not confute me, you merely state that I am wrong. For
shame, Dan'l. Please do provide any evidence you might have to support
your position.

> I myself am deeply conflicted about the Second Amendment. It seems
> clear to me that the free access to guns we have now is causing a
> huge wave of homicides.

Why? Because there have been many prominent and lurid stories in the news

>                              But, while I have no desire to own a gun
> myself, I insist on the *right* to own one.

What exactly does this mean? If you chose to exercise you right - let us
assume that you needed to, that there were scary people after your family
and the police had already informed you that there was nothng that you
could do - how hard would it be for you do to arm yourself without going
out onto the black market?

> Meanwhile, this is becoming less and less about Wolfe's politics and
> more and more a discussion of our politics. Does anyone have any
> strong sense of where Wolfe stands on the tarriff issue?

He doesn't mention that prominently in almost every story. I would imagine
that it is less important to him than the right to keep and bear arms and
the right to be secure in the possession of one's property, both of which
get mentioned frequently.


More information about the Urth mailing list