Dr_Scholl Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I found this on another forum and thought it was entertaining. Enjoy. #! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I found this on another forum and thought it was entertaining. Enjoy. #! Interesting watch if a bit short. I would be interested to know what proportion of the voters were from the states, it doesn't appear to specify Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sable Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 the English Bill of Rights 1689 which states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Was a good debate until they let that old guy loose. The ladies grandson was cleaning a loaded gun was he, yeah, of course he was(!) You could tell it was a webcast as they were actually letting the pro-gun people speak! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 the English Bill of Rights 1689 which states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence ".... as allowed by law" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) ".... as allowed by law" If by that you are suggesting that the only arms the people are permitted to use for self defence are those arms allowed by law as in legislation, you have misunderstood what was written. The 'as allowed by law' part is a confirmation that the right is permitted by law (as in common law). The context is important and the preamble to the list of rights affirmed (not granted) states the 'injustices' that had preceded, in this case the disarming of Protestants which was contrary to common law; "Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.: Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;" "And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;" Edited June 5, 2013 by Breastman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 the English Bill of Rights 1689 which states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence Care to quote that sentence in full and not just the bit that suits your purpose? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Care to quote that sentence in full and not just the bit that suits your purpose? J. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law Done it for him.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law Done it for him.... Thank you. The crucial point being the last five words. The arms suitable for personal defence (in the main) are pistols which, currently, aren't allowed by law. People tend to use this clause as being evidence that bearing arms for defence can never be prohibited which is not correct, as those last few words make clear. Parliament is perfectly at liberty to pass a law which prohibits the carrying or possession of arms for defence if it so pleases (although it currently hasn't) and that provision cannot stop it doing so. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Thank you. The crucial point being the last five words. The arms suitable for personal defence (in the main) are pistols which, currently, aren't allowed by law. People tend to use this clause as being evidence that bearing arms for defence can never be prohibited which is not correct, as those last few words make clear. Parliament is perfectly at liberty to pass a law which prohibits the carrying or possession of arms for defence if it so pleases (although it currently hasn't) and that provision cannot stop it doing so. J. That is your (and many others) interpretation of the sentence, but if you examine the sentence for want of a better word, 'properly', the subject (again bad choice of words given the context) of the sentence is NOT the arm(s), it is the Protestant/subject. The 'and as allowed by law' IMO is an affirmation of the right granted to the subject (as in person). If you look at the context of the whole document, the start of which is in my post above. In the statement below of the injustice suffered, which is the 'opposite/negative' of the rights outlined, why would you think that the writer was referring to a type, or for that matter any arm(s)?; "By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;" IMO they are clearing referring to the people (Protestants/Catholics), NOT the arms. Common law/natural/'god given' rights cannot be legislated against, even by Parliament (despite what politicians would have us believe), and this is why there isn't a legislative act/law directly prohibiting the use of arms for self defence. In the same way the Human Rights Act 1998 is a declaration of rights, the act/document itself does not grant you the rights which are written upon it, it just states for the record what rights you already have. This subject is massively complicated and i'm not going to pretend i know it all, or even have it right for that matter , but the only documentary i've ever seen which has covered this (and i emphasise the fact i've only ever seen 1 to actually broach the subject!) claimed that the right to bear arms in this country is still 'on the books' and could not be taken away by an act of parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.