(urth) The Politics of Gene Wolfe
severiansola at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 3 20:55:23 PDT 2010
>That would be a legitimate interpretation of the Second Amendment, Lee,
>except for two things:
>1) The Founders who wrote it that way didn't interpret it that way. I'd
>imagine they would know since they wrote the thing.
>2) The Bill of Rights was placed in the Constitution for the purpose of
>protecting the people's liberties against the encroachments of the
Those are reasonable arguments. I have nothing against them. It just appears
to me that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow regulated militias
to function. This has little to do with how the Second Amendment is usually
invoked today. Why didn't the Founding Fathers mention self-defense, hunting
and defense from fascist governments in that amendment? Why only militias? And
are there now legal militias which rely on self-owned weapons? In all militias
I know of,you must use a government owned weapon, yes? A militia armed solely
with self-owned weapons would tend to get the Ruby Ridge/Waco treatment, I think.
I have never felt a need for personal ownership of guns so I'm sure that fact
biases my opinion of the Second Amendment, just as those who enjoy the ownership
of guns would be similarly biased in the opposite direction. It is an interesting
topic but not one I will waste more of this board's space on. I can only invoke
A.E. Van Vogt so many times ;-).
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
More information about the Urth