(urth) The Politics of Gene Wolfe

[brunians at brunians.org]

Free men may arm themselves in their own defense.

Slaves may be armed in defense of their masters.

Livestock has no desire to be armed.

.


>
>
>>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
>>government.
>
> 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.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>