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