Home deliveries of knives bought online to be banned in UK

[BjornF16]

Summarizing the 2A: 1. States the purpose of the militia; 2. Confirms the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms (which ultimately supports manning the militia).

The purpose of the militia was to: 1. Eliminate the need for a standing army (i.e. fear of tyranny); 2. Provide for defense of state and country.

The purpose of RKBA (acknowledged as a pre-existing right) was for: 1. Self Defense; 2. Defense of community (local, state, country); 3. Sporting purposes (i.e. hunting).

The overwhelming majority of 18th and 19th Century writings, debates, INTENT, was that 2A guaranteed RKBA for the people for the reasons listed above; ultimately to support the manning of the militia.

If the militia was the ONLY reason for 2A, then the Founders would have enabled the federal government to have de facto gun control by limiting the membership of the militia by legislation. What then, is the reason for confirming the "pre-existing" right to keep and bear arms for the people?

This would render "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" completely meaningless and a waste of the paper upon which it was written.

This was never the Founders intent (as can be gleaned by actually reading what they said/meant).

Propagating otherwise is merely the work of progressive gun grabbers and their "useful idiots".

[PeterD]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...bings.html

Can you make it on their leaderboard?

[stanc]

The purpose of the militia was to: 1. Eliminate the need for a standing army (i.e. fear of tyranny); 2. Provide for defense of state and country.

The militia system failed on both counts. Today we have a large, standing Army; and the deficiencies of State militias caused them to be superseded by the National Guard.

The purpose of RKBA (acknowledged as a pre-existing right) was for: 1. Self Defense; 2. Defense of community (local, state, country); 3. Sporting purposes (i.e. hunting).

The trouble with that claim is, the author of the Second Amendment cited only item 2. Since he omitted items 1 and 3, it appears that he did not consider them purposes for the RKBA.

If the militia was the ONLY reason for 2A, then the Founders would have enabled the federal government to have de facto gun control by limiting the membership of the militia by legislation.

I don't know if that is true, but the Founders DID limit the membership of the militia by legislation: the Second Militia Act of 1792.

[brian y]

stanc, I do not know were you found this but it is wrong; "Public carry
The American colonies inherited a variety of restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. In 18th-century England, armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions.

The American Revolution did not sweep away English common law. In fact, most colonies adopted common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence, including the ban on traveling armed in populated areas. Thus, there was no general right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted, and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons. "

This is English law of the 18th century,"The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms.[5][6]

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law.[7]

The term arms is derived from the Latin arma (neuter plural), meaning weapons and/or armor, and armare, which means to equip.[8] Originally used in the 1600s, the term refers to the process of equipping for war.[9] It is commonly used as a synonym for weapon.[10] Use of these terms with regard to the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on the concepts of the right of self-defense, defense of property, and defense of state."

The English Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestants the right to bear arms within the law.[27] The first serious control on firearms was established with the passing of the Firearms Act 1920.

[stanc]

stanc, I do not know were you found this...

:confused: I posted a link to the full article below the quoted excerpts.

...but it is wrong;

"Public carry
The American colonies inherited a variety of restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. In 18th-century England, armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions.

The American Revolution did not sweep away English common law. In fact, most colonies adopted common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence, including the ban on traveling armed in populated areas. Thus, there was no general right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted, and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons. "

This is English law of the 18th century,"The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms.[5][6]

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law.[7]

The term arms is derived from the Latin arma (neuter plural), meaning weapons and/or armor, and armare, which means to equip.[8] Originally used in the 1600s, the term refers to the process of equipping for war.[9] It is commonly used as a synonym for weapon.[10] Use of these terms with regard to the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on the concepts of the right of self-defense, defense of property, and defense of state."

The English Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestants the right to bear arms within the law.[27] The first serious control on firearms was established with the passing of the Firearms Act 1920.

Brian, I don't see anything in your post that states what English law allowed/restricted in regard to either travel with arms, or concealed carry.

[Tex Nomex]

Seems I'm having yet another flashback here on 65G.

I once spent a spring afternoon attending a library book reading/signing with my wife and daughter. By chance, my daughter's Literature teacher was also there. Q&A time comes and this teacher starts a vigorous argument with the author about what the author's own book meant. Predictably, Q&A was cut short and our book is, to this day, unsigned.

The sad truth: Some people become so enamored with their own powers of 'logic' and the resultant theories that they will not, or cannot, accept an obvious truth, even from the very authors themselves.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

[just_john]

Folks, I want to give y'all some additional perspective - I am a personal friend of PeterD. He is from Australia, his wife is from England. He has had an "up close and personal" opportunity to watch what happens when common sense is removed from the legislative process - IN TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES - at different points in time. He is not an alarmist but rather "a watchman on the wall" trying desperately to help the rest of us see what is coming and to help prepare us for as many argumentive points as possible!
Guys - if we can't quit fighting among ourselves, how in God's great earth are we going to show the rest of the world enough solidarity and common sense to show them that we really do know what we are doing and that we really aren't a threat to them but rather we ( the collective 2nd Amendment "brotherhood" ) are what is keeping them safe.
You don;t have to agree with him but, at the very least, listen to what he has to say and pay heed - he has been there and done that and has seen the cost!

[Tex Nomex]

Folks, I want to give y'all some additional perspective - I am a personal friend of PeterD. He is from Australia, his wife is from England. He has had an "up close and personal" opportunity to watch what happens when common sense is removed from the legislative process - IN TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES - at different points in time. He is not an alarmist but rather "a watchman on the wall" trying desperately to help the rest of us see what is coming and to help prepare us for as many argumentive points as possible!
Guys - if we can't quit fighting among ourselves, how in God's great earth are we going to show the rest of the world enough solidarity and common sense to show them that we really do know what we are doing and that we really aren't a threat to them but rather we ( the collective 2nd Amendment "brotherhood" ) are what is keeping them safe.
You don;t have to agree with him but, at the very least, listen to what he has to say and pay heed - he has been there and done that and has seen the cost!

I take no issue with PeterD's posts. The Western World is an anomaly. We can lose it if we are not vigilant. His posts point this out.

I am not at all certain that even the best-reasoned and most erudite of arguments can motivate the disinterested, the ignorant, the lazy, the weak-minded or the cowardly to run to the defense of the right to bear arms. No matter what we say, the sheep rely on Uncle Sugar to keep them safe. From us. Of course, that’s a part of the grabbers’ plans and they've been working on the infantilization of this society for quite a while now, so it should surprise no one...

I don't see us as fighting amongst ourselves at all. Occasionally, someone from the soy latte crowd wanders in to have a go at disruption, but that's what they do. Those guys aren't "us".

[stanc]

Guys - if we can't quit fighting among ourselves, how in God's great earth are we going to show the rest of the world enough solidarity and common sense to show them that we really do know what we are doing and that we really aren't a threat to them but rather we ( the collective 2nd Amendment "brotherhood" ) are what is keeping them safe.

Keeping them safe from what?

"Ordinary" crime? There's still lots and lots of crime. It'd be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the 2nd Amendment "brotherhood" has kept them safe from crime.
Mass shootings? It's gun owners who've been doing those, which is one reason why they see private ownership of firearms as a threat.
Tyrannical government? Except perhaps for the lunatic fringe, I doubt that anyone is actually concerned about the government becoming tyrannical.

You don;t have to agree with him but, at the very least, listen to what he has to say and pay heed...

:confused: I haven't seen him say anything much. All of his threads that I've looked at just contain a link to a story, along with a brief remark.

[brian y]

Brian, I don't see anything in your post that states what English law allowed/restricted in regard to either travel with arms, or concealed carry.

You are correct stanc, Their was no law restricting travel with arms or concealed carry, The English Bill of Rights of 1689 allowed Protestants the right to bear arms within the law. The first serious control on firearms was established with the passing of the Firearms Act of 1920.

[stanc]

You are correct stanc, Their was no law restricting travel with arms or concealed carry, The English Bill of Rights of 1689 allowed Protestants the right to bear arms within the law.

Having the right to bear arms "within the law" indicates that there were some legal restrictions on carry.

[98Z]

Brian, I don't see anything in your post that states what English law allowed/restricted in regard to either travel with arms, or concealed carry.

Stan, you're now arguing about The English Bill of Rights, an act that the Parliament of England passed on December 16, 1689. That would be 17th Century.

I think the comment you wanted to argue about was in reference to the 18th Century. Stan, are you aware of what happened on April 19th, 1775?...

[98Z]

Actually, the discussion was about the accuracy of the quoted article. Nice try at evading the issue, though.


Again you evade the question. If the 2A was meant to cover self defense, why does it only address defense of the state?

It would've required adding only a couple of words, as was done in the Pennsylvania and Vermont RKBA:

Pennsylvania (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."

Stan, I've seen you state this so many times, in so many "state" arguments, but it clearly shows that you're not up on your "laws" as you lead others to believe. This statement from you, I've watched, in too many arguments that you initiate.

Yet, you ignore Arizona.

“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.” Art. 2 § 26

You can look that one up, if you want. It's real.

[montana]

Montana too!

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article 2, Section 12.

“The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”

[stanc]

Arizona and Montana did not exist in 1791, so I have absolutely no idea how you guys imagine they are even the tiniest bit relevant to the issue I was addressing.

At the time that Madison penned the Second Amendment, there were only five State Constitutions with RKBA provisions which he could reasonably have known of:

North Carolina (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State..."
Pennsylvania (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."
Virginia (1776) "...a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state..."
Vermont (1777) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..."
Massachusetts (1780) "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

[brian y]

Having the right to bear arms "within the law" indicates that there were some legal restrictions on carry.

Yes and No, In English law "within the law" means the law applies to everyone, Up until the English bill of rights of 1689 if you were royalty or the local Lord the law's did not apply to you, You could do what you wanted and nobody to tell you what is right or wrong the laws did not apply to you. If you were the king you could make up the law's as it suited you, King James II of England had banned protestant's from having weapon's as they were against him and he was the only one who could have an army so he could stay in power. When parliament wrote the bill of rights in 1689 they included the term "within the law" so the law's now applied to everyone. You can read about it below and how it deals with constitutional matters and sets out certain basic civil rights. One of the basic civil rights was the right to bear arms back in 1689 with no restrictions.

"The Bill of Rights, also known as the English Bill of Rights, is an Act of the Parliament of England that deals with constitutional matters and sets out certain basic civil rights. It received the Royal Assent on 16 December 1689 and is a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William III and Mary II in February 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. The Bill of Rights lays down limits on the powers of the monarch and sets out the rights of Parliament, including the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, and freedom of speech in Parliament. It sets out certain rights of individuals including the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and reestablished the right of Protestants to have arms for their defense within the rule of law."
"The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms.

"Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law".

"The term arms is derived from the Latin arma (neuter plural), meaning weapons and/or armor, and armare, which means to equip. Originally used in the 1600s, the term refers to the process of equipping for war. It is commonly used as a synonym for weapon. Use of these terms with regard to the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on the concepts of the right of self-defense, defense of property, and defense of state".

[stanc]

Having the right to bear arms "within the law" indicates that there were some legal restrictions on carry.

Yes and No, In English law "within the law" means the law applies to everyone...

Can you link to any authoritative source(s) which confirm that actually is what "within the law" means in English law?

Because it sure doesn't sound like it to me. Phrases like "within the law" and "as allowed by law" do not seem synonymous with "applies to everyone."

Instead they sound conditional, depending upon circumstances. Like how some States have constitutional provisions that protect the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, but also have laws which require a permit for concealed carry, or restrict where a firearm may legally be carried.

[98Z]

Stan, if we walked outside together, and I looked up and said, "Wow, the sky is really blue right now..."

You would argue that is wasn't.

[CVCOBRA1]

Walking??????

[stanc]

Stan, if we walked outside together, and I looked up and said, "Wow, the sky is really blue right now..."

You would argue that is wasn't.

Of course. Right now, the sky in Arizona, like here in SoCal, is kinda black. :p