Changing attitudes about firearms

[Oblio13]

As for rights....... bearing handguns never came into it.

It did for us. A ten-point "Bill of Rights" is part of our constitution (we're a constitutional republic, not a democracy as so many seem to think). #2 reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

James Madison was the author, and it was his view: "that the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave." Militias at the time consisted of all able-bodied men.

His concept of a universal militia originated in England, ironically: "The requirement that subjects bear arms and serve military duty dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required every subject between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land owning subjects) to own a weapon other than a knife. The reason for such a requirement was that it was the duty of every man to ... protect the king’s peace ..."

 

[Toddy]

Matt S please read the thread. The gun lobby is just that, an association of interested parties trying to influence legal change. The proponents for the use of a handgun for self defence are as exhibited by those posting in favour of such on this thread. Defence is simply one strand used by the afforementioned lobby which tbh is not much (as has been said in the thread) of a reason in the UK.

THe Home Guard had to account for and return all weapons issued. So where do all those handguns get to ?

The arms mentioned in Oblio's post are bladed ones, or archery..............firearms weren't around back then and Freemen meant something else entirely. It did not just imply not a slave.
The context of the document is crucial.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Oblio13]

... The arms mentioned in Oblio's post are bladed ones, or archery..............firearms weren't around back then

Care to wager?

Of course they weren't the same as our modern firearms. But then neither your kings nor our constitution specify what kind of arms, other than that they be better than a knife.

Languages have evolved as well. But that doesn't mean we only have freedom of speech if we speak in Olde English.

...and Freemen meant something else entirely. It did not just imply not a slave...

According to my dictionary, a medieval freeman "could leave his lord's manor without permission and could marry anyone".

 

[Toddy]

I can't even start to try to explain Medieval social structures in this thread.

The only firearms ordinary folk saw back then were flaming torches The development of the gun is a whole other timescale.

I believe the Koreans and the Chinese are now both claiming the invention of gunpowder, but they appear to have used it in celebrations and to drive away evil spirits

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Toddy]

Well, that one ramble on didn't it ?
Mostly good natured, defintely took a few tangents, terribly political and incredibly off topic and mostly the same old arguments raising their heads.

I now have at least ten pleas that enough is enough.

Thank you all for your courtesy and your input

Oblio13 I'm sure everyone here hopes your friend makes the best recovery.

cheers,
Toddy