The Politics of Gene Wolfe

brunians at brunians.org · 06 Jul 2010, 22:23 · from 2010-July.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: brunians at brunians.org (brunians at brunians.org)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:23:18 -0400
Subject: (urth) The Politics of Gene Wolfe
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W1031E80AE7A495C75CD4F1CFB00 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W1031E80AE7A495C75CD4F1CFB00 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <b6fd6e576e1ca47f838b4e244c10b863.squirrel 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
>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net