Henry Weincek says that mine was "rather a sweeping statement."  Note, 
however, that I said that "MOST people who find themselves invoking rights 
do so for unsavory reasons."  Thus, it wasn't a sweeping statement at all.

For my take on the gun rights case, which I think was decided incorrectly 
(but about which the losing side's arguments were wrong, too), see 

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/18/gun-control-the-second-amendment/

Kevin Gutzman




Henry Wiencek <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history 
<[log in to unmask]>
07/01/2008 11:52 AM
Please respond to
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history 
<[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
[VA-HIST] Rights talk






Prof. Gutzman writes: "My analysis is that most
people who find themselves invoking rights do so for unsavory reasons (to
get away with murdering an ex-wife, say, as in O.J.'s case), and that's
what we should expect; after all, it's the political/moral minority that
has to fall back on rights talk." 

That's a rather sweeping statement. Would you apply it to the gun rights
folks who just won the big decision? Not a hostile question; merely 
asking.

Henry Wiencek

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions 
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html


______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html