The folly of weapons control

[Empty Hands]

But if you try to ban guns in the U.S.A., expect rebellion.

If only the American people had such respect for their own liberties! No, I'm afraid banning guns will fail to raise the masses to rebellion, no more than all the other encroachments on our liberty over the past 50 years have. For the few hardened and passionate enough to do so, a bright future full of Ruby Ridges awaits you. The worst part of it is, most of the rest of society will not only fail to defend those who rebel, they will think they deserve their fate.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Speak for yourself. I'm as Canadian as you.

I grew up shooting. Nearly everyone I knew grew up with in Nova Scotia had guns. It's certainly part of MY cultural fabric, thank-you. Many, many Canadians own firearms, whether pistols, rifles, shotguns or whatever. If firearms are that ubiquitous in Canada, then they're certainly part of the cultural fabric.

Best regards,

-Mark

Fair enough. I professed to speak for an entire country and got called on it.

I know that many Canadians own firearms. I'm also not arguing for more controls on legal ownership in our country. Realistically, I think that envelop has been pushed as far as it will go. Removing long guns from the national firearms registry was a sane response on the part of the government IMO.

As for the "cultural fabric" comment I made, that was a poor choice of words. To my knowledge, however, we cannot lay claim to an enshrined constitutional right to the ownership of firearms. Perhaps I'm wrong. I tend to see gun ownership in this country as a privilege reserved for people who observe rules. I do not hold legal gun owners responsible for those who don't obey rules, provided they take care in securing their weapons.

As you're no doubt aware, our Mayor David Miller has repeatedly advocated for a ban on handguns in the City of Toronto. I'm pro-gun control, and I know how preposterous and fundamentally dishonest that is.

I am certainly not naive enough to suggest we could reduce gun violence in this country by placing more controls on a group of citizens that is already highly scrutinized. Rather, I would like to see a serious effort in this country to deal with smuggling across our borders.

I hope I've clarified my position, and I apologize for speaking for others.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Gordon,

You mistake all violence as being bad. Self defense, were violence is used to defend oneself, is not bad. It is not evil. It's a necessity to survive a wrongfull assault. Legal weapons don't make it less violent, they make it where the decent people survive and not the criminal element.

And safer? Read the article.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5793973.html

that's how it makes people safer.

Deaf

Deaf and Grenadier,

I was describing my experience as a Canadian. (And not doing a terribly good job of that.) On these open forums, I have made a habit of not arguing for gun control in the USA because: (1) I don't live there, and so your individual right or decision to own or carry a weapon doesn't involve me; (2) An argument can be made -- and has been made by run rights advocates -- that the US already has thousands of gun laws at the federal, state and local levels; and, (3) Given the vast numbers of firearms currently in the US, I think sweeping gun laws would be as effective as trying to control socks.

Now, here's what grinds my gears when people speak to me personally (not what has been said on this forum) of their gun rights. Just because my next door neighbour feels safer with a gun in his kitchen drawer doesn't mean I have to. He didn't wake up one morning and say to himself, "I think I'll pick up that gun, so Gord and I are safer." He probably bought it for his protection or recreation. If he thinks he bought the gun to protect me, he is making a choice for me that he doesn't have the right to make. If, on the other hand, he bought the gun because he wanted it, observes the law, and is respectful of my safety and my family's safety, it's really none of my business.

 

[Sukerkin]

I can see your point of view, Gordon and very much applaud your approach when it comes to Net discourse - very well done that man :tup:.

I think tho' that we all have to consider environment when we speak of such an issue as gun/A. N. Other Weapon control.

In your own circumstance, in a city, strong circumspection of handguns makes sense to you. However, when I was in Canada for work purposes in 2001 (I think it was), I was very strongly advised that if I was to stray out of the urban areas and into the rural I should seriously consider carrying a firearm ... and a heavy duty one at that. Apparently anything less than a magnum just pisses the bears off :lol:.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Gordon,

I'm gonna have to introduce you to Garand. I'll get what forum he is on now but he's Canadian like you, and well you know what he ment with his handle... Garand, right? As in M1.

He's a reall good guy and shooter. Knee deep in guns he is.

Deaf

 

[Gordon Nore]

...I think tho' that we all have to consider environment when we speak of such an issue as gun/A. N. Other Weapon control..

That's a very good point.

 

[Langenschwert]

Fair enough. I professed to speak for an entire country and got called on it.

Hey, we're flame free and that's cool with me. Movin' on.

I know that many Canadians own firearms. I'm also not arguing for more controls on legal ownership in our country. Realistically, I think that envelop has been pushed as far as it will go. Removing long guns from the national firearms registry was a sane response on the part of the government IMO.

You might be rational and have no problem with law-abiding gun owners, but politicians have come right out and said that their goal is the disarming of the Canadian public...

To wit: "disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy

To my knowledge, however, we cannot lay claim to an enshrined constitutional right to the ownership of firearms.

True enough.

As you're no doubt aware, our Mayor David Miller has repeatedly advocated for a ban on handguns in the City of Toronto. I'm pro-gun control, and I know how preposterous and fundamentally dishonest that is.

Yeah, Miller is an *** in that regard. Every American city that bans handguns sees their gun crime skyrocket. Look at Washington D.C. for a good example. He just wants to ban pistols so as to appear to be doing something. Tackling the root causes of crime is hard, and requires thought, social responsibility and hard action. Legislating against already law-abiding citizens is easy. Canadians have a habit of lying down and taking it.

Rather, I would like to see a serious effort in this country to deal with smuggling across our borders.

While in theory this is an excellent idea, in practice it's hardly possible. I'm from the East Coast, and let me tell you, it's a smuggler's paradise by the simple virtue of its geography. There's simply no way to patrol such a vast, underpopulated shoreline. Let's not even start about the Western border. Talk about porous. We'd have to build the Great Wall of Canada to keep stuff out... literally. If there's a market for something in Canada, it'll find its way in. What we need to do is ensure proper support for law enforcement and a culture of self-defence. There have been 45 minute delays to 911 responses for home invasions here in Canada. The police can't always protect you, and neither are they required to, unless you are a) a criminal in custody or b) a ward of the crown. The citizens (without whom a country is nothing) must be entrusted with the means to lawfully defend themselves from those who don't follow the law.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[chinto]

historically no matter how draconian the penalty's for weapons possession or use they have never worked!
the only one ever kept from a weapon by such weapons bans is the honest law abiding citizen you would want armed well in any sensible society!

 

[Tez3]

historically no matter how draconian the penalty's for weapons possession or use they have never worked!
the only one ever kept from a weapon by such weapons bans is the honest law abiding citizen you would want armed well in any sensible society!

The problem with allowing a country such as the UK to arm when they have traditionally not been armed is that the majority of people do not know how to handle weapons of any description. While I hasten to add I wouldn't want the UK armed, I'd be interested to know how people thought we could go about arming them if we ever did have a change in the law? this a genuine question btw, not designed to inflame etc! I'm curious as to how we could go from how we are now to being an armed country such as America which has built up or at least started it's life as a country being armed.
Just had a thought which I'm adding it could also be that we would have to arm up in time of war etc. So how could we go about it?

 

[Ahriman]

When I'll have the time to search through my archives, I'll edit this post to add the exact source and date of the quote, but sometime in the late 19th century, an English judge was questioned what to do if one finds a thief in one's house. "As silently as you can, get your shotgun, load both barrels, and shoot him in the back." So while in the past decades or in the past century the UK's population is disarmed, it wasn't always the same...
...
Now to the question. Being Hungarian I can't really speak for the UK, I can only say what would most likely happen here if I don't consider the actual political problems. If weapons would be at an instant considered legal to get with only criminal record as an obstacle, the first wave of buyers would be idiots who have problems with someone and those who really care about SD. The first group would try killing a few, the second would most likely stop some crimes in time. Activity of both groups would ensure a second buyer wave, now with the majority adding to the second group of the first wave, either being afraid of the remains of the first group or understanding the efficiency of armed civilians and the impossibility of an omnipresent police.
Now sad as it is, Hungary is in a situation where easy to get guns would most likely result in a civil war, as the first group is rather... big here and aided by a political party. So making guns reachable here is not really an option right now... but I can always make a crossbow, an onager or a polybolos......
If a country is in a more stable situation, making guns easy to get may work as described. Oh, and criminals wouldn't really rush to get legal guns - it's always cheaper to get hardware illegally. The first group I mentioned is those who are too stupid to be criminals, but would use the opportunity if present.

 

[thardey]

The problem with allowing a country such as the UK to arm when they have traditionally not been armed is that the majority of people do not know how to handle weapons of any description. While I hasten to add I wouldn't want the UK armed, I'd be interested to know how people thought we could go about arming them if we ever did have a change in the law? this a genuine question btw, not designed to inflame etc! I'm curious as to how we could go from how we are now to being an armed country such as America which has built up or at least started it's life as a country being armed.
Just had a thought which I'm adding it could also be that we would have to arm up in time of war etc. So how could we go about it?

Good question, and one I was wondering about myself as this thread progressed. First you would have to start with the police. The media would be the key to making the whole thing work. You've got to associate guns with protection, aka the police. Even the bad guys here use the the police model as the "gold standard." The media would have to begin showing the police as heavily armed and responsible. It sounds like the police have a lot of respect there already, more so than in America, so this wouldn't be to hard to show, if the media cooperated.

Once you've done that, the next image would be to associate "good people" with helping the police. You could set up a Public relations program where people could see what the police do, how they handle situations, how they are trained, etc. At the completion of this program, you could issue a gun permit. Then you would keep the image of "good people" being armed. That is, it is the "responsible citizen" that works with the police to assume the heavy burden of protecting his own family.

Even if someone believes that cops are corrupt, or a good-ole-boys system, or whatever personal issues they may have, they'll still tell their kids: "The police are there to help you." They'll always be the "good guys" they just may not always do it in the right way. So, if you associate pistols with police more strongly than with thugs, you'll appeal to the right kind of people.

For instance, in my mind the Glock is a police pistol. Before that, the Revolver. Guess what I shoot? A revolver that my Grandfather gave me (who was a cop), and a Glock! I also strongly associate the Glock with the army, another type of police system. (again, the "Good guys.") When I think of gang-pistols, or armed thugs, I can't picture a specific type of gun. It doesn't have a strong emotional attachment to me. Even if I think of the "Glock fohty" in gang-slang, that's the gangs trying to use police pistols. That is, the police own the Glock, so to speak. When I see my gun, or carry it, or handle it, I automatically associate it with the "good guys." Which means I have to give it the respect that that reputation deserves.

If I associated the gun with the "gad guys" then there is nothing to either draw me to it, or cause me to treat it with respect, only fear. It would be a weapon of random destruction, not the tool of a responsible citizen.

If you could keep that distinction in your media, and in the public eye, I would bet that you could begin to arm your country responsibly.

Like the Katana thread -- it seemed to be less about the Katana, and more about the character of the person possessing it. The same works with Guns.

 

[tellner]

Typical absolutist blinders on lots of people here. As far as chinto and a number of others are concerned "weapons control" can and must only mean "absolute prohibition on all weapons in civilian hands without one single one getting through". If that is the standard for an effective law there has never been a single working law in the history of humanity.

Politics is the art of the possible. Laws can be effective even if *shudder* people break them once in a while.

Laws against drunk driving have been effective. There is less of it now than there was forty years ago.

Laws against lead in gasoline have effectively reduced the amount of lead in the atmosphere. There is still lead out there, but there's a hell of a lot less, and the effects on human health have been dramatic.

Laws against prostitution have not eliminated the oldest profession. But it has lowered the numbers of working whores more than most people can imagine. During the 18th and 19th centuries most men had their first sexual experience with prostitutes. A good case could be made that most men in America got at least as much sex from pros as from girlfriends and wives combined. That doesn't happen any more even though there are still call girls and streetwalkers.

Laws against murder, rape and robbery are broken all the time. Most of us believe we are a little bit safer for them being there even if they aren't perfect.

The only reason for the reflexive bleat of "weapons laws don't work" is that the lobbyists and absolutists have been hissing that particular lie into our ears for about seventy years. I mentioned two laws which absolutely worked in the gun-friendly United States. The use of automatic weapons, destructive devices and automatic knives has plummeted since the 1934 NFA and the 1950s regulations on the production and ownership of automatic knives. There's no doubt about it. None whatsoever.

They didn't get rid of all of them. There are still crimes committed with them. But the number is vanishingly small. The True Believers will say "Well, yeah, but people use other things, so the laws didn't work at all because gun control laws can only be about banning all guns everywhere."

Listen to what I actually said and repeated. The goal wasn't to get rid of all weapons everywhere except in some of the more paranoid fantasies that the gun lobbyists use to get you to open your checkbook every few months. The point was to reduce the number, increase the cost and reduce the amount of crime committed with these particular items. And it worked like a charm. It did it by changing peoples' minds and perceptions.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Listen to what I actually said and repeated. The goal wasn't to get rid of all weapons everywhere except in some of the more paranoid fantasies that the gun lobbyists use to get you to open your checkbook every few months. The point was to reduce the number, increase the cost and reduce the amount of crime committed with these particular items. And it worked like a charm. It did it by changing peoples' minds and perceptions.

Tellner,

If the object was to mearly stop a partular type of crime (like murder), but only if that crime is commited in one certian way(like being shot), then what good did it do as for actual effect?

Like 'gun crime'. If the number of murders are the same but simpley less are shot, more are stabbed, beaten, strangled, ran over, etc... well that law isn't worth a tinkers d&#m. What is more, if in the process it denighs others who can't effecively defend themselves except with those very instruments (cripled, inferm, lame, etc..), then you hurt far more than you help.

And as I posted, I feel far more of the use of machineguns was stopped by the police killing off alot of those rampaging back in the '30s. Dillinger, Nelson, Bonnie&Clide, etc... and they killed them very spectacular and displayed the results.

And about the 'gun lobbby'. Well I guess I'm the gun lobby. I'm a NRA Endowed member and Texas State Rifle Association Life Member. And I teach Concealed Handgun License (CHL) classes here in Texas. So you kind of know where I stand on this.

Deaf

 

[chinto]

The problem with allowing a country such as the UK to arm when they have traditionally not been armed is that the majority of people do not know how to handle weapons of any description. While I hasten to add I wouldn't want the UK armed, I'd be interested to know how people thought we could go about arming them if we ever did have a change in the law? this a genuine question btw, not designed to inflame etc! I'm curious as to how we could go from how we are now to being an armed country such as America which has built up or at least started it's life as a country being armed.
Just had a thought which I'm adding it could also be that we would have to arm up in time of war etc. So how could we go about it?

actually before WWI most of the UK's citizens were armed. often with things like shotguns and muskets and or small pistols, and that was started to be outlawed around WWI as I understand it.
for centurys the shire reve was required to hold an asembly of all the men over 14 where they had to show that they had a weapon and it was in good repair... initially a bow and or sword or spear, and latter a musket. but I would argue for both in my country the USA and the UK that weapons control does not work and that the UK of Briton should remove the laws that are weapons control from the books and train the people who want it to use their weapons .

oh on a historical note.. the reason that there were the "rights of Englishman" came from the fact that the common law allowed the peasant and merchant to have and carry arms! in France for instance that was not true and so the lower classes there had very few rights. armed societies tend to be much more free then unarmed ones.
Switzerland is an example much as the UK is historically.

 

[Tez3]

actually before WWI most of the UK's citizens were armed. often with things like shotguns and muskets and or small pistols, and that was started to be outlawed around WWI as I understand it.
for centurys the shire reve was required to hold an asembly of all the men over 14 where they had to show that they had a weapon and it was in good repair... initially a bow and or sword or spear, and latter a musket. but I would argue for both in my country the USA and the UK that weapons control does not work and that the UK of Briton should remove the laws that are weapons control from the books and train the people who want it to use their weapons .

peasantoh on a historical note.. the reason that there were the "rights of Englishman" came from the fact that the common law allowed the and merchant to have and carry arms! in France for instance that was not true and so the lower classes there had very few rights. armed societies tend to be much more free then unarmed ones.
Switzerland is an example much as the UK is historically.

Good heavens that's just not true! where did you get that information from? What is a 'reve'? We've never had them. There is also no such thing as rights of Englishmen as we have no constitution, we are subjects not citizens.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Good heavens that's just not true! where did you get that information from?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
History of gun control in the United Kingdom

With the decline of Archery as mandatory there were growing concerns in the sixteenth century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use[8] As English subjects, Protestants had a conditional right to possess arms according to the Bill of Rights.[9]

That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.
​

The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.[10]

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
​

Formerly, this same British common law applied to the UK and Australia, as well as until 1791 to the Colonies in North America that became the United States. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of Common Law. These rights no longer exist in the UK, since the UK's doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty allows the repeal of previous laws with no enshrined exceptions such as contained within a codified constitution.
Modern restrictions on gun ownership began in 1903, with the Pistols Act. This required a person to obtain a gun licence before they could buy a firearm with a barrel shorter than 9 inches. The gun licence had been introduced as a revenue measure in 1870; the law required a person to obtain a licence if he wanted to carry a gun outside his home, whether for hunting, self-defence, or other reasons, but not to buy one. The licences cost 10 shillings, which is about £31 in 2005 money, lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at post-offices.
A registration system gun law - the Firearms Act - was first introduced to Great Britain in 1920, spurred on partly due to fears of a surge in crime that might have resulted from the large number of guns available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. The law did not initially affect smoothbore weapons, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork.
Fully automatic weapons were almost completely banned from private ownership by the 1937 Firearms Act, which took its inspiration from the US 1934 National Firearms Act.[citation needed] Such weapons are nowadays only available to certain special collectors, museums and prop companies. The 1937 Act also consolidated changes to the 1920 Act that controlled shotguns with barrels shorter than 20". This length was later raised by the 1968 Firearms act to 24".
The first control of long-barrelled shotguns began in 1968 with the Criminal Justice and Firearms Act[8]. This required a person to obtain a "Shotgun Certificate" to own any shotgun. The Act did not require the registration of shotguns, only licensing. This act was accompanied by an Amnesty when many older weapons were handed into the police. This has remained a feature of British Policing that following an incident a brief amnesty is declared.[11]
Changes in public attitudes in the 1970s and 1980s changed the basis on which firearms were perceived and understood in British society. Increasingly graphic portrayals of firearms involved in gratuitous acts of violence in the mass media gave rise to concern of the emergence of an aggressive "gun culture". A steady rise in violent gun crime in general also became an issue of concern.

What is a 'reve'? We've never had them.

Yes you have. Or more properly, reeve:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeve_(England)

In England, a reeve was an official elected annually by the serfs to supervise lands for a lord. The reeve himself was a serf. He had many duties such as making sure the serfs started work on time and ensuring that no one was cheating the lord out of money. The system was introduced by the Saxons, dating at least to the 7th century, and continued after the Norman Conquest.
The reeve of an entire shire was a Shire-reeve, predecessor to the Sheriff.

There is also no such thing as rights of Englishmen as we have no constitution, we are subjects not citizens.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Englishmen

The term Rights of Englishmen is used to describe the rights granted to English citizens under the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights.

 

[Tez3]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
History of gun control in the United Kingdom


With the decline of Archery as mandatory there were growing concerns in the sixteenth century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use[8] As English subjects, Protestants had a conditional right to possess arms according to the Bill of Rights.[9]

That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.​

The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.[10]

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.​

Formerly, this same British common law applied to the UK and Australia, as well as until 1791 to the Colonies in North America that became the United States. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of Common Law. These rights no longer exist in the UK, since the UK's doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty allows the repeal of previous laws with no enshrined exceptions such as contained within a codified constitution.
Modern restrictions on gun ownership began in 1903, with the Pistols Act. This required a person to obtain a gun licence before they could buy a firearm with a barrel shorter than 9 inches. The gun licence had been introduced as a revenue measure in 1870; the law required a person to obtain a licence if he wanted to carry a gun outside his home, whether for hunting, self-defence, or other reasons, but not to buy one. The licences cost 10 shillings, which is about £31 in 2005 money, lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at post-offices.
A registration system gun law - the Firearms Act - was first introduced to Great Britain in 1920, spurred on partly due to fears of a surge in crime that might have resulted from the large number of guns available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. The law did not initially affect smoothbore weapons, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork.
Fully automatic weapons were almost completely banned from private ownership by the 1937 Firearms Act, which took its inspiration from the US 1934 National Firearms Act.[citation needed] Such weapons are nowadays only available to certain special collectors, museums and prop companies. The 1937 Act also consolidated changes to the 1920 Act that controlled shotguns with barrels shorter than 20". This length was later raised by the 1968 Firearms act to 24".
The first control of long-barrelled shotguns began in 1968 with the Criminal Justice and Firearms Act[8]. This required a person to obtain a "Shotgun Certificate" to own any shotgun. The Act did not require the registration of shotguns, only licensing. This act was accompanied by an Amnesty when many older weapons were handed into the police. This has remained a feature of British Policing that following an incident a brief amnesty is declared.[11]
Changes in public attitudes in the 1970s and 1980s changed the basis on which firearms were perceived and understood in British society. Increasingly graphic portrayals of firearms involved in gratuitous acts of violence in the mass media gave rise to concern of the emergence of an aggressive "gun culture". A steady rise in violent gun crime in general also became an issue of concern.



Yes you have. Or more properly, reeve:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeve_(England)

In England, a reeve was an official elected annually by the serfs to supervise lands for a lord. The reeve himself was a serf. He had many duties such as making sure the serfs started work on time and ensuring that no one was cheating the lord out of money. The system was introduced by the Saxons, dating at least to the 7th century, and continued after the Norman Conquest.
The reeve of an entire shire was a Shire-reeve, predecessor to the Sheriff.



From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Englishmen

The term Rights of Englishmen is used to describe the rights granted to English citizens under the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights.

Oh well if it's in there it must be correct mustn't it!

:lol2:artyon:artyon::lol2:

 

[Ahriman]

:semi-off:
While I'm always greatly doubtful when it comes to ANY wiki (especially since Nyarlethotep corrupts the articles), this one has a rather long citation list. If I could get enough time, I'd read through the links and get the books, but I don't have any, in fact I should be still carving waxes... if anyone else does have some, I think we'd be very grateful.
:semi-off:

 

[Tez3]

It's in the interpretation though isn't it? the 'Bill of Rights' for example says that Catholics mustn't succeed to the throne, that still stands. It's not a Bill of Rights as the Americans know it, the Magna Carta doesn't give rights to anyone other than the Earls, it is however a basis from which other laws have been based. Merely citing a lot of old acts means nothing. The truth is in England certainly the only people to own guns were and still are the gentry for shooting peasants and other game with, yes that's a deliberate spelling. The common man couldn't afford weapons, the long bow was superceded centuries ago. Having the right to bear arms didn't mean to say you actually could, your feudal lord would only arm you when he had a battle to fight and along you would "volunteer" for it.
And reeves were not commonplace however reivers were.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Oh well if it's in there it must be correct mustn't it!

:lol2:artyon:artyon::lol2:

So, rather then actually cite references to refute my source, you just laugh at it. Thats is really intellectually mature, and makes for great argumentation.

It's in the interpretation though isn't it? the 'Bill of Rights' for example says that Catholics mustn't succeed to the throne, that still stands. It's not a Bill of Rights as the Americans know it, the Magna Carta doesn't give rights to anyone other than the Earls, it is however a basis from which other laws have been based. Merely citing a lot of old acts means nothing.

Considering that we are talking about the historical legal allowence of civilians to own weapons in England, I thing that “citing a lot of old facts” is the very issue we are discussing.

No one said that the Magna Carta is the same as the American Bill of Rights. All he was doing was showing how it was legal, whether it was practical or not, as to whether English subjects could own the prevelant weapon of the day.

And reeves were not commonplace however reivers were.

Ok, but you said:

What is a 'reve'? We've never had them.

And instead of saying that you were incorrect, you try to justify your mistake.

Its ok, we all make them. Just some of us are more readily able to admit it then others.