Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Absolutely nothing to do with "self defense" (3+ / 0-)

    The history of the 2nd ammendment goes back to the 1688 Bill of Rights in which the Protestant nature of England was enshrined after the counter-Reformational efforts of James II resulted in his overthrow and the installation of William of Orange and Mary as co-regnants.

    Two of the grievances listed against James were:

    Standing Army.
    By raising and keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdome in time of Peace without Consent of Parlyament and Quartering Soldiers contrary to Law.

    Disarming Protestants, &c.
    By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

    Thus the Bill included the provisions:
    .
     Standing Army.
    That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.

    Subjects’ Arms.
    That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law

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

    by Lib Dem FoP on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:01:37 PM PST

    •  reply (0+ / 0-)

      History is one of my favorite subjects. I have read about this once before and found it very interesting, although I believe the Bill was unjust. If I remember correctly England removed the religious ban sometime in the early 1800's and eventually placed restrictions on weapons  as a result of the anarchists in the early 20th century. It has been a while ago so I could be a little off.

    •  Seeming contradiction: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dogs are fuzzy
      Absolutely nothing to do with "self defense"
      and
      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