CDZ The second amendment allows for multiple use under the keep and bear doctrine.

[2aguy]

A lady killed six people doing a hundred miles an hour in a 35 zone in her Mercedes...one of the woman...23 years old...was pregnant and on her way to a neonatal appointment.

Yet...not a single person is calling for common sense car control...

Driver in Los Angeles crash that killed 6 identified as nurse going 100mph: officials

A horrific West Los Angeles crash left six people dead and multiple others injured on Thursday afternoon after a driver in a Mercedes-Benz sped through a red light.

www.foxnews.com

I did…..I said cars should be
Banned

 

[Missourian]

I did…..I said cars should be
Banned

Too much too soon.

You have to start with scary sports cars with high horsepower engines.

Noboby NEEDS 230hp to go to work or head to the grocery store. The Model A Ford only had 40 horsepower and even into the 1970s the Volkswagen Beetles had a mere 36 horsepower.

That's all you need. We have to rid our streets of these high speed, high horsepower engines...I mean...what are the owners of these vehicles compensating for?

What? The vehicle involved wasn't a sports car?....


....

....

....that doesn't have any bearing on the need to rid our streets of dangerous high horsepower sports cars!

 

[Hossfly]

Then MOVE

Screw ya, Mac. I ain't goin' nowhere.

 

[flan327]

A lady killed six people doing a hundred miles an hour in a 35 zone in her Mercedes...one of the woman...23 years old...was pregnant and on her way to a neonatal appointment.

Yet...not a single person is calling for common sense car control...

Driver in Los Angeles crash that killed 6 identified as nurse going 100mph: officials

A horrific West Los Angeles crash left six people dead and multiple others injured on Thursday afternoon after a driver in a Mercedes-Benz sped through a red light.

www.foxnews.com

Oh grow up

Now let’s talk about PLANE CRASHES

 

[flan327]

Too much too soon.

You have to start with scary sports cars with high horsepower engines.

Noboby NEEDS 230hp to go to work or head to the grocery store. The Model A Ford only had 40 horsepower and even into the 1970s the Volkswagen Beetles had a mere 36 horsepower.

That's all you need. We have to rid our streets of these high speed, high horsepower engines...I mean...what are the owners of these vehicles compensating for?

What? The vehicle involved wasn't a sports car?....


....

....

....that doesn't have any bearing on the need to rid our streets of dangerous high horsepower sports cars!

We don’t live in RUSSIA

 

[2aguy]

Too much too soon.

You have to start with scary sports cars with high horsepower engines.

Noboby NEEDS 230hp to go to work or head to the grocery store. The Model A Ford only had 40 horsepower and even into the 1970s the Volkswagen Beetles had a mere 36 horsepower.

That's all you need. We have to rid our streets of these high speed, high horsepower engines...I mean...what are the owners of these vehicles compensating for?

What? The vehicle involved wasn't a sports car?....


....

....

....that doesn't have any bearing on the need to rid our streets of dangerous high horsepower sports cars!

Also, sue the car makers….who market and sell their cars to irresponsible people…….

 

[2aguy]

Too much too soon.

You have to start with scary sports cars with high horsepower engines.

Noboby NEEDS 230hp to go to work or head to the grocery store. The Model A Ford only had 40 horsepower and even into the 1970s the Volkswagen Beetles had a mere 36 horsepower.

That's all you need. We have to rid our streets of these high speed, high horsepower engines...I mean...what are the owners of these vehicles compensating for?

What? The vehicle involved wasn't a sports car?....


....

....

....that doesn't have any bearing on the need to rid our streets of dangerous high horsepower sports cars!

Yep…..speed capacity bans…..

 

[flan327]

Does EVERYONE here drive EXACTLY the speed limit?

Bull crap

 

[2aguy]

Does EVERYONE here drive EXACTLY the speed limit?

Bull crap

No...the argument, according to the gun grabbing fanatics is that because a tiny number of people misuse guns, we need to ban them........so, using their logic, we apply it to the far deadlier object....cars...which kill a hell of a lot more people every year than guns do......

We all just want common sense car control.......

 

[flan327]

No...the argument, according to the gun grabbing fanatics is that because a tiny number of people misuse guns, we need to ban them........so, using their logic, we apply it to the far deadlier object....cars...which kill a hell of a lot more people every year than guns do......

We all just want common sense car control.......

Still babbling

 

[Open Bolt]

Still babbling

That is incorrect. Proving that the gun control movement only cares about abolishing freedom is not babbling.

 

[flan327]

That is incorrect. Proving that the gun control movement only cares about abolishing freedom is not babbling.

You ARE incorrect

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here is the right to keep and bear arms at it existed in England 1400 years ago:

"Ceorl, also spelled Churl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were killed, was valued at 200 shillings."

Ceorl | Medieval, Feudalism, Manorialism

Ceorl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were

www.britannica.com

"Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately AD 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the fyrd varied with the status of the individual, landholders receiving the heaviest fines and common labourers the lightest."

Fyrd | Anglo-Saxon, Mercian, Wessex

Fyrd, tribal militia-like arrangement existing in Anglo-Saxon England from approximately ad 605. Local in character, it imposed military service upon every able-bodied free male. It was probably the duty of the ealderman, or sheriff, to call out and lead the fyrd. Fines imposed for neglecting the

www.britannica.com

I'd hardly call a peasant farmer rich even if he does own a small plot of land.

England, in those days, was a place that knew war, knew attempted invasions. People were expected to bear arms. Expected to render military service.

For example we have the Assize of Arms of 1181

Assize of Arms of 1181 - Wikipedia.

"the obligation of all freemen of England to possess and bear arms"

Not the RIGHT. The obligation. People were FORCED to have arms. Forced to provide service for the KING. This wasn't people protecting their own. This was people doing as they were told by the king.

"The Assize of Arms did not describe an ancient legal or political individual right to arms, rather the Assize of Arms represented an imposed responsibility on subjects."

The English Bill of Rights had something.

Bill of Rights 1689 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The English Bill of Rights 1688

The English Bill of Rights has protected the rights and freedoms of people in the Commonwealth for centuries. But in the last 100 years, ever since Federation was enacted under the Commonwealth of…

commonlaw.earth

"Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

This is the right to keep arms, rather than bear arms. They may have arms. "as allowed by law". The last part is massively telling. A right goes ABOVE laws. This one is BELOW laws. Meaning the govt could make a law, and wham, no arms.

Also it's only protestants. That stops it being a right. It's a privilege. A right is for everyone. As with the Assize of Arms which prevented Jews from owning arms.

The English Bill of Rights was designed to strengthen protestants. There was a massive tug of war between Catholics and Protestants, the Protestants had just won, and they wanted to make sure Protestants were armed so they could be more powerful than the Catholics and destroy them.

That they said: (6.) By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.

Means that Protestants before this could not have arms. Means there wasn't a right to bear arms, or even keep arms in the period before this. At times, when necessity dictated, people would have had arms, to defend the country. But nothing much more.

The Britannica reference you've posted seems a bit random. There's no link to their reference that a Ceorl's status was marked by their right to bear arms. Almost certainly, the Assize of Arms would have been the document relevant at this time, and it was a right to bear arms.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The fact that constitutions were not written willy nilly doesn't do much to establish that those two terms are not interchangeable.

Keep in mind also that everyone has a natural right to self defense. If you possess a weapon for any reason (including for militia service) then you have the right to use it to defend yourself if someone is attacking you with enough force that you need the use of that weapon to save your life.



Those two terms as well seem interchangeable.



Remember, I already agree that bear arms means service in the militia. The only thing that I disagreed with was "defense of themselves".



1541:
"And be it further enacted by authority aforesaid, that no person or persons from the last day of June shall in anyways shoot in or with any handgun demyhake or hagbutt at any thing at large, within any city, borough, or market town or within one quarter of a mile of any city, borough or market town, except it be at a butt or bank of earth in place convenient, or for the defense of his person or house, upon pain to forfeit for every such shot ten pounds; the present act or anything therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding."

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/33-hen-8-c-6-§-1-an-act-concernin-crossbows-and-handguns-1541/

Here are some old court rulings mentioning the right to use a gun to defend your home:

Rex v. Gardner (1739): "And they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty."

Mallock v. Eastley (1744): "the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family."

Wingfield v. Stratford (1752): "It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game."



"Defense of themselves" and "self defense" are really the same two words just switched in order. "Selves" refers to individuals.



Actually the point of the militia was to fight for the federal government. They thought that a standing army would lead to tyranny. By ensuring that the federal government would always have a competent militia to fight for it, they hoped to avoid raising a standing army.



I see nothing particularly awkward about these sentences:
The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.
Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defense of himself and the state.

As I said in my first post, it's one of those things that probably made sense and was clear 200 years ago, but in the modern era is less clear. Mostly because of the way we use language now.

Like I also said, I've come across no language that supports the view that states were giving a right to self defense in a clause about the militia.

Yes, there's a right to self defense, and potentially yes you could use any weapon at hand to defend yourself with that. But that's miles away from the 2A or any of these pre-Mississippi clauses protecting a right to self defense in a clause about protecting the militia.

Your 1541 quote doesn't seem to be relevant for this discussion. It's pointing to people making an exception in a gun ban for self defense. The 2A isn't a gun ban.

Same with the court rulings. Firstly they dealt with KEEP ARMS. You could keep a gun for self defense. Bearing arms was a duty, not a right.

Yes, the militia was designed to fight for the feds, but also to fight AGAINST the feds. It was designed to be a check and balance on the federal government. Hence why arms were kept in individual hands and people couldn't be kicked out the militia.

 

[ralfy]

Any discussion about the militia in relation to the American concept of a militia is like discussing how many angels dance on the head of a pin. It is moot. The Heller case put that puppy to bed by affirming that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to any membership in any organization. Later affirmed even further by the McDonald and (more recently) Bruen cases. It is settled law that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Liberals don't like it because like all Leftest Revolutionaries their agenda is to do away with the right to keep and bear arms. That is always a threat to their authoritative takeover of a government. If not outright do away with it then make it extremely restrictive like banning AR-15 and other firearms in common use.

About the Heller case, you forgot to mention that little point about felons and the mentally ill.

The links I shared refer to comments made while 2A was being drafted.

 

[Open Bolt]

It was still a standing army.

Not in any meaningful sense.


--------------------------------------------------------------

You ARE incorrect

No I'm not. "Establishing that the gun control movement only cares about abolishing freedom" isn't "babbling."

 

[Open Bolt]

"the obligation of all freemen of England to possess and bear arms"
Not the RIGHT. The obligation. People were FORCED to have arms. Forced to provide service for the KING. This wasn't people protecting their own. This was people doing as they were told by the king.
"The Assize of Arms did not describe an ancient legal or political individual right to arms, rather the Assize of Arms represented an imposed responsibility on subjects."

Being required to have arms incudes having the right to have those arms.

How can someone fulfil a requirement that they have arms if they don't have the right to have them?

The English Bill of Rights had something.

Bill of Rights 1689 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The English Bill of Rights 1688

The English Bill of Rights has protected the rights and freedoms of people in the Commonwealth for centuries. But in the last 100 years, ever since Federation was enacted under the Commonwealth of…

commonlaw.earth

"Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"
This is the right to keep arms, rather than bear arms. They may have arms. "as allowed by law". The last part is massively telling. A right goes ABOVE laws. This one is BELOW laws.

Rights are only above laws in the US.

In England, rights are provided by the laws themselves. And rights can be changed or repealed if those laws are changed or repealed.

Meaning the govt could make a law, and wham, no arms.

That in fact happened. England abolished their freedom in 1920.

But they had 1300 years of freedom between 605 and 1920.

Also it's only protestants. That stops it being a right. It's a privilege. A right is for everyone. As with the Assize of Arms which prevented Jews from owning arms.
The English Bill of Rights was designed to strengthen protestants. There was a massive tug of war between Catholics and Protestants, the Protestants had just won, and they wanted to make sure Protestants were armed so they could be more powerful than the Catholics and destroy them.

Catholics were only prevented from amassing an arsenal. They were still allowed to have a gun to defend their home from criminals.

That they said: (6.) By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.
Means that Protestants before this could not have arms. Means there wasn't a right to bear arms, or even keep arms in the period before this. At times, when necessity dictated, people would have had arms, to defend the country. But nothing much more.

Protestants were only prevented from having arms during the period of Stuart tyranny. They had the right to keep and bear arms both before and after that period.

People responded to Stuart tyranny by beheading one of the Stuart kings, and then later chasing the last of the Stuart kings out of the country. They immediately reestablished the right to keep and bear arms as soon as he was gone.

The Britannica reference you've posted seems a bit random. There's no link to their reference that a Ceorl's status was marked by their right to bear arms.

Encyclopedia Britannica isn't credible in their own right??

Here is another site that speaks of being armed as the right of a free person back in those days:

"The ceremony of manumission marked the transition by the giving of weapons. Freedom brought obligations as well as privileges; the freeman had the right to take his oath, he was ‘law-worthy’; he might also be called upon to give his oath as an oath helper to support his lord at law. He also had the right to defend himself and his own, as well as the duty to defend his lord when called upon to do so."

Southern Kingdoms, AD 600–800 - A Brief History of the Anglo-Saxons: The Beginnings of the English Nation

Southern Kingdoms, AD 600–800 - A Brief History of the Anglo-Saxons: The Beginnings of the English Nation - by Geoffrey Hindley

erenow.net

Almost certainly, the Assize of Arms would have been the document relevant at this time, and it was a right to bear arms.

No. The first Assize of Arms came nearly 600 years later.

But it is true that the Assizes of Arms were statements of the right to keep and bear arms.

As I said in my first post, it's one of those things that probably made sense and was clear 200 years ago, but in the modern era is less clear. Mostly because of the way we use language now.

It's pretty clear to me.

By the way, you do realize that the consequences of connecting the militia to the right to keep and bear arms is that everyone has the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons??

Like I also said, I've come across no language that supports the view that states were giving a right to self defense in a clause about the militia.

We don't need the right to self defense to be given to us. We already have it. Everyone always has the right to defend themselves.

That said, these two have language that protects self defense:
The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Yes, there's a right to self defense, and potentially yes you could use any weapon at hand to defend yourself with that. But that's miles away from the 2A or any of these pre-Mississippi clauses protecting a right to self defense in a clause about protecting the militia.

We don't need them to protect self defense. Everyone already has an innate right to defend themselves.

Self defense and the right to keep and bear arms coexist with each other quite nicely. Any weapon that is possessed because of the right to keep and bear arms, is available to be used for self defense if there is a threat grave enough to require the use of that weapon.

Your 1541 quote doesn't seem to be relevant for this discussion. It's pointing to people making an exception in a gun ban for self defense. The 2A isn't a gun ban.

The 1541 law is an example of people having the right to use a gun to defend their home.

Same with the court rulings. Firstly they dealt with KEEP ARMS. You could keep a gun for self defense. Bearing arms was a duty, not a right.

Agreed. The courts said that people could keep a gun to defend their home.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Being required to have arms incudes having the right to have those arms.

How can someone fulfil a requirement that they have arms if they don't have the right to have them?



Rights are only above laws in the US.

In England, rights are provided by the laws themselves. And rights can be changed or repealed if those laws are changed or repealed.



That in fact happened. England abolished their freedom in 1920.

But they had 1300 years of freedom between 605 and 1920.



Catholics were only prevented from amassing an arsenal. They were still allowed to have a gun to defend their home from criminals.



Protestants were only prevented from having arms during the period of Stuart tyranny. They had the right to keep and bear arms both before and after that period.

People responded to Stuart tyranny by beheading one of the Stuart kings, and then later chasing the last of the Stuart kings out of the country. They immediately reestablished the right to keep and bear arms as soon as he was gone.



Encyclopedia Britannica isn't credible in their own right??

Here is another site that speaks of being armed as the right of a free person back in those days:

"The ceremony of manumission marked the transition by the giving of weapons. Freedom brought obligations as well as privileges; the freeman had the right to take his oath, he was ‘law-worthy’; he might also be called upon to give his oath as an oath helper to support his lord at law. He also had the right to defend himself and his own, as well as the duty to defend his lord when called upon to do so."

Southern Kingdoms, AD 600–800 - A Brief History of the Anglo-Saxons: The Beginnings of the English Nation

Southern Kingdoms, AD 600–800 - A Brief History of the Anglo-Saxons: The Beginnings of the English Nation - by Geoffrey Hindley

erenow.net

No. The first Assize of Arms came nearly 600 years later.

But it is true that the Assizes of Arms were statements of the right to keep and bear arms.



It's pretty clear to me.

By the way, you do realize that the consequences of connecting the militia to the right to keep and bear arms is that everyone has the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons??



We don't need the right to self defense to be given to us. We already have it. Everyone always has the right to defend themselves.

That said, these two have language that protects self defense:
The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.



We don't need them to protect self defense. Everyone already has an innate right to defend themselves.

Self defense and the right to keep and bear arms coexist with each other quite nicely. Any weapon that is possessed because of the right to keep and bear arms, is available to be used for self defense if there is a threat grave enough to require the use of that weapon.



The 1541 law is an example of people having the right to use a gun to defend their home.



Agreed. The courts said that people could keep a gun to defend their home.

No, being required to have guns, and having a right to guns, are two complete opposites.

One is, you have no choice, the other is, you have the choice.

How can someone fulfill the requirement if they don't have the right? Easily. Plenty of times people have forced people to keep arms. It's a simple "you have to do it or we tax you more, take your children" etc etc.

What are we talking here when we talk about "rights"?

The term "right" is used for all sorts of things. Kids say they have the right to be on the sidewalk (from a book I'm currently reading). Is it really a "human right"? No, it's not. We use the term for many things, including for things which we can do.

We're discussing the US constitution, so the rights we're talking about are "human rights", rights that are literally "above the law".

So did England have "rights"? For their time, yes. For our time, no.

"
That in fact happened. England abolished their freedom in 1920.

But they had 1300 years of freedom between 605 and 1920."

This silly statement doesn't even deserve a reply.

Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Catholics were banned a lot more than you seem to think

"The 1662 Act for ordering the Forces in the several Counties of the Kingdom[a] enabled and authorized by warrant, local government personnel, to search for and seize all arms in the custody or possession of any person of persons whom the government judged dangerous to the peace of the kingdom."
Yeah, that sounds like a right. This was under Charles II's reign. He was protestant, more or less. Though religion seemed to be a thing of convenience for him, he wanted help from France, he said he'd convert to Catholicism.

Penal law (British) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Clarendon Code was the protestants fighting back against the Catholics at this time.

Maybe not all Catholics would have had their firearms taken off them, but the possibility was there, which means firearms were a privilege rather than a right.

Yep, Protestants were prevented from having arms at a certain period and then had the "right to keep arms" at other times, but again, the "right" was no a right as we consider them now.

"Encyclopedia Britannica isn't credible in their own right??"

Not really, no. Even dictionaries come up with a wide variety of definitions for things. A few people have to write, at a quick pace, certain encyclopedias, they didn't delve in depth into these matters.

"But it is true that the Assizes of Arms were statements of the right to keep and bear arms."

Well, again, not in the terms we're using for "rights" now in the present day.

"By the way, you do realize that the consequences of connecting the militia to the right to keep and bear arms is that everyone has the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons??"

Not at all. You have to understand that the constitution right, isn't a right at all. It's a limit on federal powers (and state now). This means that as long as people have access to certain types of arms, the right is safe. The government is not infringing on your right to keep arms if it prevents you from having nukes, bazookas, full-automatic weapons, if you have easily get your hands on pistols.

No, no one needs rights to be protected. All you have to do is think you have rights and you have rights. Then it's just governments infringing your rights.

Though only state governments had clauses that got anywhere near defending "himself" and whether you think "themselves" is about individuals or not, it's not in the Second Amendment.

The right is the right to bear arms. And as shown, the Founding Fathers saw this as bearing arms for the militia. Not for personal self defense.

If the 1541 is a "right", but they banned things, then, again, it's not a right as we see rights today.

 

[Flash]

About the Heller case, you forgot to mention that little point about felons and the mentally ill.

The links I shared refer to comments made while 2A was being drafted.

Felons and the mentally ill have traditionally been denied civil rights.

The cases I referenced have all been recent. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and is the law of the land.

 

[flan327]

Not in any meaningful sense.


--------------------------------------------------------------

No I'm not. "Establishing that the gun control movement only cares about abolishing freedom" isn't "babbling."

Go to the LIBRARY

MAYBE THEY CAN FIND YOU A TUTOR