Home deliveries of knives bought online to be banned in UK

[LR1955]

SH:

Stick to the topic please.

LR55

[montana]

Totally agree.


That was certainly possible way back in the days when soldiers provided their own weapons, but it seems extremely unlikely now.

To disarm "a country" would require disarming its armed forces. Can you cite any case(s) in modern history wherein a Western nation's armed forces were disarmed by their government?


I wish people would be much more careful about invoking "the Founding Fathers" as if they were of one mind about everything.

In fact, they were divided on many, if not most, issues. Some were in favor of slavery; others were opposed.

Some thought that only landed, white males should have rights; others thought that all adults, regardless of race, sex, or property status, should have rights.

Some thought that there was no need to even have a Bill of Rights. And some really wanted a strong central government (see Federalism and anti-Federalism).

First I would like to say I'm happy to see you are feeling better Stan and I have missed your presence here on the forum. It gets kind of boring with out your unique take on things. Keep getting better Stan, somebody has to keep me honest

When I was talking about a disarmed nation I was referring to nations like Germany and Japan after WW2.

As the divide among our founding fathers you are correct about their division on many issues but I have never seen any of this divide when it came to the Second Amendment.

[stanc]

First I would like to say I'm happy to see you are feeling better Stan and I have missed your presence here on the forum. It gets kind of boring with out your unique take on things.

Thanks. Although I'm pretty sure there are some folks here who don't share that sentiment.

When I was talking about a disarmed nation I was referring to nations like Germany and Japan after WW2.

Ah. Very true. Good examples.

As the divide among our founding fathers you are correct about their division on many issues but I have never seen any of this divide when it came to the Second Amendment.

Concur. But, regarding the Founders views in regard to the 2A, I "found" (pun intended ) an interesting article:

The framers and adopters of the Second Amendment were generally ardent supporters of the idea of well-regulated liberty. Without strong governments and effective laws, they believed, liberty inevitably degenerated into licentiousness and eventually anarchy. Diligent students of history, particularly Roman history, the Federalists who wrote the Constitution realized that tyranny more often resulted from anarchy, not strong government.

When I began this research, most people assumed that regulation was a relatively recent phenomenon, something associated with the rise of big government in the modern era. Actually, while the founding generation certainly esteemed the idea of an armed population, they were also ardent supporters of gun regulations.

Categories of gun laws that the Founders endorsed.

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.

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.

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.

http://theconversation.com/five-types-of...oved-85364

[montana]

Thanks. Although I'm pretty sure there are some folks here who don't share that sentiment.

There have been many heated debates between you and me on this forum in the past "but I hope people realize" I enjoy this kind of debate. It is a real debate, that makes a person think and makes them smarter, "especially in my case LOL". That said, I consider everyone here as my friend and especially you Stan. You have proven me wrong more than once "much to my surprise" which only helped me with a truth on a subject. Love or hate you, people enjoy your take on things. This forum would be a lot less with out you, so take care of yourself or else
Now back to the topic at hand.

[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.

[stanc]

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

Registration of some types of firearms is still registration.

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.

I could find no such statement in the 1828 (First Edition) Webster's.

Even if it is therein, it does not tell us what was the legality of concealed carry in the various States during the 18th century.

Anyone who claims 2A was never intended to discourage or fight tyranny is, at worst, a liar; at best, uninformed.

There is no mention in the 2A that overthrowing the government is a reason for the RKBA.

And more importantly, the Constitution itself clearly states that armed insurrection is illegal.

[BjornF16]

Stanc

Lame reasoning through and through. As has been pointed out to you time and time again, the intent of the Founders (i.e. Original Intent) counts, whether the words say it specifically or not.

As I have pointed out previously and documented in a reference I have also pointed out repeatedly, the reasons for states' insistence of 2A RKBA was:

1. Deter government tyranny
2. Self and community (state/country) defense
3. Hunting (although less so than the above two reasons)

[stanc]

Lame reasoning through and through.

In other words, you don't actually know what was the legality of concealed carry in the various States during the 18th century.

As has been pointed out to you time and time again, the intent of the Founders (i.e. Original Intent) counts, whether the words say it specifically or not.

As I have pointed out previously and documented in a reference I have also pointed out repeatedly, the reasons for states' insistence of 2A RKBA was:

1. Deter government tyranny
2. Self and community (state/country) defense
3. Hunting (although less so than the above two reasons)

And yet community defense is the only reason noted for the RKBA, even though it would've been very easy to include those others, if the author wanted them included.

I find it rather curious that the 2A omits such important reasons, whereas the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights are so specific in spelling out their protections.

[bj139]

Guys:

Also why anyone would buy a bucket of rocks when all they need to do is go to a river and police up a bucket of rocks?

LR55

I would think you would be arrested for stealing rocks owned by the crown.

Such is the case whenever anything becomes over regulated.

[BjornF16]

In other words, you don't actually know what was the legality of concealed carry in the various States during the 18th century.

Irrelevant. The discussion is on 2A and RKBA. There were NO federal restrictions on concealed carry in the 18th Century.

And yet community defense is the only reason noted for the RKBA, even though it would've been very easy to include those others, if the author wanted them included.

I find it rather curious that the 2A omits such important reasons, whereas the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights are so specific in spelling out their protections.

All you have to do is look at the debates and published writings to see...yet you refuse.


Leading a horse to water, here is how the 2A was proposed in the House, as submitted by the author:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Representative Fisher Ames of Massachusetts had this to say about the submission of the Bill of Rights:

Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments. He has hunted up all the grievances and complaints of newspapers, all the articles of conventions, and the small talk of their debates. It contains a bill of rights, the right of enjoying property, of changing the government at pleasure, freedom of the press, of conscience. Oh! I had forgot, the right of the people to bear arms.

Nothing to see here...keep moving along...

[BjornF16]

Tench Coxe, a PA delegate to Constitutional Convention, published "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution" under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette (June 18, 1789):

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

[BjornF16]

Samuel Nasson, a delegate to the MA convention who voted against ratification of the Constitution, explained the common understanding of the 2A arms guarantee in a letter dated July 9, 1789 to Representative George Thatcher, a federalist from MA:

I find that the Amendments are once again on the Carpet. A Bill of Rights well secured that we the people may know how far we may Proceed in Every Department. Then there will be no Dispute Between the people and rulers in that may be secured the right to keep arms for Common and Extraordinary Occasions such as to secure ourselves against the wild Beast and also to amuse us by fowling and for our Defense against a Common Enemy. You know to learn the Use of arms is all that can Save us from a foreign foe that may attempt to subdue us, for if we keep up the Use of arms and become well acquainted with them, we Shall always be able to look them in the face that arise up against us.

[BjornF16]

Tyranny...common defense...hunting.

I find it rather curious that the 2A omits such important reasons, whereas the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights are so specific in spelling out their protections.

I don't believe the Founders ever contemplated that morons today couldn't comprehend the meaning of "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

[Tex Nomex]

Tench Coxe, a PA delegate to Constitutional Convention, published "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution" under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette (June 18, 1789):

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

And also:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[SharpDog]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."

- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country 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."

- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."

- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

[BjornF16]

Lots of water...but will the horse drink?

[stanc]

Irrelevant. The discussion is on 2A and RKBA. There were NO federal restrictions on concealed carry in the 18th Century.

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

All you have to do is look at the debates and published writings to see...yet you refuse.

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..."

[JASmith]

I have seen speculation that the reason the Second Amendment was worded so tersely is that nearly everyone at the time felt the RKBA is so glaringly obvious that no explanation was needed.

While that may be what we would today call an excuse, the wording has allowed anti-gunzealots and trolls plenty of room for mischief.

Unfortunately, I no longer have the reference handy but am hoping another of us does have it

[stanc]

I have seen speculation that the reason the Second Amendment was worded so tersely is that nearly everyone at the time felt the RKBA is so glaringly obvious that no explanation was needed.

That's been brought up before. The problem with the idea that hunting and individual defense were not noted as reasons for the RKBA because they were "glaringly obvious" is that -- just having fought the War for Independence -- the need for a militia, and defense of the State, would have been far more glaringly obvious.

Yet, when it came time for Madison to put quill to parchment, collective defense was the sole reason cited for having the RKBA, while individual defense and hunting were omitted.

While that may be what we would today call an excuse, the wording has allowed anti-gunzealots and trolls plenty of room for mischief.

Indeed. There would've been less room for such "mischief" if the 2A had not linked the RKBA to the militia, or State defense, and just said "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Not that that would've prevented any of the infringements that have occurred...

[BjornF16]

Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service. The most famous was the judge and professor Thomas Cooley, who wrote a massively popular 1868 Treatise on Constitutional Limitations. Concerning the Second Amendment it said:

“Among the other defences to personal liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms. . . . The alternative to a standing army is ‘a well-regulated militia,’ but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms. How far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by the courts.” Id., at 350.

“It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.” Id., at 271.

- Scalia, DC v Heller