(urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe

[brunians at brunians.org]

You're not?

.


> I'm not sure what this really has to do with Wolfe.  (And I know I've had
> my
> digressions too.)
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:01 AM, David Stockhoff
> <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why this isn't enough:
>>
>> The intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to defend
>> themselves.
>>
>>
>> And that's all I'm going to say.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> brunians at brunians.org wrote:
>>
>>> It is what the framers thought.
>>>
>>> If you don't believe me you should read the Federalist and the
>>> anti-Federalist.
>>>
>>> Or just, you know, continue to believe what you prefer to believe.
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  I guess I'm a moderate conservative or libertarian on the issue.
>>>>>>> I think the Second Amendment creates an individual right and
>>>>>>> that that individual right clearly isn't meant to cover every
>>>>>>> conceivable form of weapon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would argue that the intent was self-evidently for it to cover
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> conceivable type of weapon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, the most powerful weapons available in the eighteenth century
>>>>> were
>>>>> warships, many of which were privately owned, as was much artillery
>>>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>> sense of crew-served weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net