Skip to main content

View Diary: The Logic Behind Weapon Rights? (44 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seeming contradiction: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dogs are fuzzy
    Absolutely nothing to do with "self defense"
    That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law
    More context might be helpful in making your point.
    •  In fact, Joyce Lee Malcolm cites a case (0+ / 0-)

      from old-time England in which someone was arrested for having poaching equipment. He escaped punishment because he wasn't carrying something like a net or a trap that could only be used for hunting, but instead was carrying a gun, which the court ruled was legitimate to possess because he might have to shoot a human attacker.

    •  Not contradiction (0+ / 0-)

      The framers were thinking rather more of the defence of protestantism than the individual. Although the two do of course go hand in hand to some extent, the intent was to protect Protestants as a group.

      It was also a matter of providing landed gentry (who formed most of the politicians) with the opportunity to organise a further rebellion against any future monarch who wished to impose the "Papist religion". That's why the phrase "suitable to their Conditions" is included. At that time; firearms particularly hand guns and even muskets, were still comparatively recent and very expensive. Ordinary people would have relied on pikes, knives and perhaps swords in terms of "arms".

      Also bear in mind that there would still have been people who fought in the English Civil War who would have been well aware that a large country house could still be subject to a seige or artillery attack

      "Who stood against President Obama in 2012?" - The trivia question nobody can answer.

      by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:29:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site