(urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe
danldo at gmail.com
Tue Mar 17 10:13:55 PDT 2009
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:03 AM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
> This is a Big Lie, that you are repeating.
I'm familiar with the concept of the Big Lie. The Bush administration
used it often enough.
> 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.
I'm not talking about anything but what the Amendment says. It gives
a purpose. The given puropse is "the security of the State." How it
came to be there is another question, but has no legal bearing on the
question of what the Amendment says and means.
> 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.
My evidence is the Amendment itself. Why do you suppose that *no*
other Amendment in the Bill of Rights has a clause justifying its presence?
Or any evidence *in the Amendment itself* that confutes what the
Amendment clearly says about its purpose?
The debates that led to its adoption are all well and good; but what
was actually adopted is very clear.
Note that I do not make the false argument that the RKBA is a corporate
rather than an individual right. It is clear that the right is granted to "the
people" rather than a corporate body.
>> 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
No. Because the homicide rate in this country is utterly out of hand.
>> But, while I have no desire to own a gun
>> myself, I insist on the *right* to own one.
> What exactly does this mean?
The same kind of thing it might mean if I said that, while I do not choose
to join in public protest marches, I insist on the *right* to do so. That I
do not choose to exercise certain rights for myself does not mean that
I regard them as less important, or that I will not defend those rights for
those who do choose to exercise them.
> 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?
I'm not interested in making imaginary suppositions. I don't live in a
>> 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.
"The terriff issue" was facetious; my point is that surely the topic of
Wolfe's politics is not exhausted by his opinion on the RKBA?
More information about the Urth