After all of those school shootings there's still people out there who think people with the IQ of the average toilet attendent should be allowed guns...
Worst part is a lot of these guns are not pistols or shotguns but full blown automatic military weapons.
you miss the point why should i be restricted because of idiots, its like saying ban cars because there are more deaths caused than guns, same reply why should we suffer because of idiots jail em
restriction of the right to bear arms, should be dealt with by police, a criminal record no means way jose will you be allowed to bear arms but that alone will not stop them acquiring them, 13% of Americans are black, who in turn commit 58% of all gun related crime, next comes the latins, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out, if they have them and you dont god help you as no ****er else will
The magna carta didn't give the general population the right to bear arms and form militia's to stand against government.
wrong mate there was not a government only a Kings decree, government only came when cavaliers were beaten by the roundheads , all English yeomanry at the time of magna carta up to and including the wars with France, were required by law to practice archery, as there were no guns this was the lethal weapon of the day
the gun deaths are so high because of criminals, with the mindset of gimme what you have or ill kill you, or mental nutters who should be in an institution not roaming the streets. and gang warfare, so if they stopped joe public from buying weapons to protect themselves, gun deaths would go through the roof
The British Constitution and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Defence 22 December, 204 Your Right to be Armed Whatever happened to the right to keep and bear arms? by RKBA SRA Secretary Richard Law was invited to tease out the answer to this question in a presentation to the British Constitution Group’s conference in Sutton Coldfield on 1November 2014, and this summary is derived from his notes. Faithful readers of theShooter’s Journal and of this blog may find some of the history familiar, but it remains as true and relevant as it ever was. We should add that Mr Law didn’t use these notes during his presentation, as the print was too small and the light wasn’t good enough to refer to them; and they’ve been lightly edited for publication here. The short answer to the question is this: the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is hiding in plain sight, but to find where it’s hiding and to test whether it’s still real or not, one has to reach back through time to find its beginnings and then follow it to the present. The dawn of English legislation—the root of what we have today—was originally compiled by King Alfred the Great (AD 849-899), as the Doom (pronounced Dome) Book. Alfred amalgamated several pre-existing Saxon codes of law from the earlier kingdoms and prefixed it with Mosaic Law from the Bible. Biblical law from the Pentateuch tends to be people-oriented, while the early Saxon codes were more concerned with property and inheritance. Christians are familiar with the Ten Commandments, while Jews recognize a further 603, one of which, at Leviticus 19:15, says: Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great; but judge your neighbour fairly. Every four-year-old understands the principles of fairness, articulated, often loudly, at that age by a simple phrase: “It’s not fair!”—and often enough they’re right. King Alfred originated the requirement that the able-bodied men of his counties should turn out when he called them to defend the realm. It was an obligation, rather than a right, but it presumed a right. Alfred made no legislative or financial provision to arm or train his men. When called upon, they had to turn up ready to go toe-to-toe with the Vikings/French/Irish/etc., so the obligation was both to be armed and to have trained ready for that eventuality. There was nothing in his law that would prevent the men turning out in response to a threat; either individually, or collectively as the militia, to meet any enemy with appropriate force, defensively. Clearly, no one could fulfil his obligation if he didn’t have the right to bear arms in the first place. This concept survived the Norman invasion, as all William I won at Hastings was the Crown—the right to be recognized as successor to Edward the Confessor. That came with all the legislative baggage of the kingdom. The victorious knights who came with William to enforce his claim to the throne became a tier of government, and the obligation to turn out as necessary followed the top-down style of Norman-French governance. The king called the barons, and they called out their retainers. The phrase ‘common law’ comes from Henry II (1133–89)’s drive to improve the judiciary in the 1160s. He sent out judges from his own court to the counties to hear matters, so that there was one law common to all the people, reflecting the fairness principle in Leviticus and becoming the proto–quarter sessions and circuits. The common law principles came out of cases being recorded, and judges regarding each other’s decisions as binding in similar cases—the principle known as stare decices. This wasn’t, in Henry II’s time, the common law as we know it. There were still alternatives to the courts in the form of trial by ordeal and trial by combat, and court hearings did not necessarily trouble to hear evidence. Trial by ordeal was still in use in the witch hunts of the 1640s, and the right to silence that defendants had until Michael Howard’s tenure at the Home Office was actually an obligation until fairly recently. King John’s Magna Carta in 1215 is sometimes regarded as the first Human Rights Act, although Alfred would probably want his Doom Book regarded as such. King John had a go at revoking Magna Carta the following year, and it was King Edward I who issued a statute reconfirming it in 1297. So, the common law obligation has been there since before the Norman Conquest: it being a requirement for each man to arm himself as best he could afford (“suitable to his condition”) and to train in preparation for the call-out should it ever come. The time and effort weren’t wasted because, if the realm wasn’t in peril, there could and would be threats to the peace closer at hand.
Wow Roger, You've had that in your back pocket all this time mate. I'm not a constitutional expert, and on the face of it that's an impressive statement right there. There's some reference above about it being a summary of notes, and I have no idea who the characters involved in the debate are, but like I said, on the face of it, it's an impressive statement At this moment in time you and the Guinness have got me on that one
