Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Right to Bear Arms? What History Tells Us.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
    Cool !!!! --

    Can we do that ??

    I disavow ALL statements I've made here to date -- consider them all a "Pop Quiz" that everyone failed miserably

    I feel a lot better now -- thanks


    Can I have a redo on that pop quiz????

    Comment


    • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
      Can I have a redo on that pop quiz????
      As long as you promise not to cheat
      I like Dogs far better than most People

      As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

      BoRG

      Comment


      • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
        Over zealous prosecutors seized upon the general language "other Engines to kill and destroy the Game" in an attempt to make the mere possesion of guns illegal. Their attempts were rebuffed, by reliance upon the English Bill of Rights: "a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family".
        I think this is a Saxon underground attempt at humor. 'The Game' was the Norman Conquest, or why else would you need an 'Engine'? It was later also used to refer to 'The Great Game', which oddly enough continues to this day.

        There's also the 'Great Experiment', another Saxon attempt at freedom, which with ups and downs seems to be doing OK.

        Oz is still very much a work in progress, what with the quality of personnel. But rehabilitation of thieves has proved possible, and I'm personally very hopeful.
        Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
        (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
          The law in question was 5 Ann., c.14 (1706), which...prohibited the mere possession of certain weapons and other items, regardless of the use to which said items were employed.
          What exactly did the law in question prohibit?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
            What exactly did the law in question prohibit?
            Go back and read my post again. The answer to your question is contained therein.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
              Go back and read my post again. The answer to your question is contained therein.
              Have you actually read the statute the defendant was accused of violating?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                Have you actually read the statute the defendant was accused of violating?
                Yep.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                  Yep.
                  Did it prohibit possession of a gun?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                    Did it prohibit possession of a gun?
                    It did if you believe a gun is an "engine" which can be used to kill game or unless some other law intervened to prevent that prohibition.

                    Now a question for you...

                    Do you think that a gun is an instrument that can be used to kill game?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                      It did if you believe a gun is an "engine" which can be used to kill game or unless some other law intervened to prevent that prohibition.

                      Now a question for you...

                      Do you think that a gun is an instrument that can be used to kill game?
                      Yep.

                      What did the courts say about whether or not a gun was an "engine" for killing game?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                        Yep.

                        What did the courts say about whether or not a gun was an "engine" for killing game?
                        They said it was an engine capable of killing game, but because a gun was important for defense of the person and the home, they would not apply the blanket prohibition on merely having one. Instead, the law would only apply to the gun if the gun was actually used for illegal poaching.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                          They said it was an engine capable of killing game, but because a gun was important for defense of the person and the home, they would not apply the blanket prohibition on merely having one. Instead, the law would only apply to the gun if the gun was actually used for illegal poaching.
                          So, the courts held that possession of a gun violated the act which prohibited the possession of an engine for killing game?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                            So, the courts held that possession of a gun violated the act which prohibited the possession of an engine for killing game?
                            Nope.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                              Nope.
                              Why did the court rule that possession of gun didn't violate the law that prohibited possession of an "engine" for killing game and then convict the defendant?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                                Why did the court rule that possession of gun didn't violate the law that prohibited possession of an "engine" for killing game and then convict the defendant?
                                Because the application of the English Bill of Rights protected the keeping of the gun for the lawful purposes of self defense and defense of ones home.

                                Now a question for you. Your statements have been a bit across the board. Are you a proponent of the "pure collective right" theory of the 2nd Amendment which holds that the 2nd Amend serves only to protect the right of the states to arm the militia in the absence of adequate federal action? This was, of course the view expressed in Hickman v Block.

                                Or are you a proponent of the "sophisticated collective right" theory which holds that it is an individual right, but the right is tied to a well regulated militia?

                                If the latter, I have some follow up questions....

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X