Home deliveries of knives bought online to be banned in UK

[BjornF16]

Registration
Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration...and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens...in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service.

Rubbish argument. This "tracking" was only to ensure militia members met weapon requirements. They didn't "register" any of their other owned firearms.

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.

Another rubbish argument. I've seen no proof whatsoever of this in 18th Century America. In fact, Webster's dictionary extols the usefulness of pistols to be concealed.

Loyalty oaths
One of the most common claims one hears in the modern Second Amendment debate is the assertion that the Founders included this provision in the Constitution to make possible a right of revolution. But this claim, too, rests on a serious misunderstanding of the role the right to bear arms played in American constitutional theory.

In fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.

The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.

Yes, they disarmed loyalists just as they discussed disarming insurrectionists. There is no evidence of the Founding Fathers advocating any such notion during Constitutional Conventions. Anyone who claims 2A was never intended to discourage or fight tyranny is, at worst, a liar; at best, uninformed.

Straw man arguments.