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 And rights can be changed or repealed if those laws are changed or repealed.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 - 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.
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.
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.
www.foxnews.com
