Guns: how much longer will it take ....

I can count on pretty much every law ever written in American/English history.

The US Constitution. The English Bill of Rights. The 1181 Assize of Arms. The Magna Carta. Various other statutes from the Middle Ages. All of the court rulings that apply all of those laws. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. And yes, probably also ancient Anglo Saxon law.

Fine.
But since Christianity was dominating here in Europe for centuries, these rights came from God via their lord (king, count, whatever).
We got that from the Roman "benefice".

Fine. But my question was regarding your first definition of "free man" - which certainly was before all those named laws.
And really what you call "ancient Anglo Saxon law". (It would be interesting, if the law of the Angles and Jutes differed a lot from that of the Saxons - I have no idea.)

I refer to this for my definition of a free person:

Ceorl, also spelled Churl, the free peasant who formed the basis of society in Anglo-Saxon England. His free status was marked by his right to bear arms, his attendance at local courts, and his payment of dues directly to the king. His wergild, the sum that his family could accept in place of vengeance if he were killed, was valued at 200 shillings.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/ceorl

Yes. It didn't differ to the situation here, actually, it was taken from the Saxon rules here.
Here, it changed in 14th/15th century, in cities and towns at first ("mass shootings" of those days were done with swords*. And later, after the Reichskammergericht ("Imperial Chamber Court") was instituted as the highest court in the Holy Roman Empire in 1495, carrying arms became strictly regulated.

*Arms were then stored in the local Zeughaus ("arsenal").
As a consequence of the Peasants' War of 1525, the peasants nearly everywhere had to deliver their swords and other weapons to the local authorities.

The real start of the Nazi party?

By whom?
And you really think that we had had in 1525 already political parties? Well, thanks!!!

Do you really think Americans are going to give their guns to the authorities?

Sorry to tell you, but that is not gun culture. Nice attempt to smear gun owners who are concerned with the leftists ending the 2nd Amendment.

Sure looked like gun culture. The "We need guns to fight the New World Order, (sometimes referred to as the Evil Zionist Rothschild New World Order), is coming to get us" is a big part of the gun culture.

An earlier post.

Didn't work the first time, still no cigar.

To someone like you, who thinks anyone with a gun thinks like these people. You are a narrow minded person.


No it's not, the alt-right is not the" gun culture".

That is an understatement.

Please do not post false information. Your post said I posted the exact same message twice:



Please produce the posts where I posted the exact post twice. You can't. You are making accusations up from nothing.

I just did. There you go. That sentence was the same. Try to remember what you have said, I can't do it for you.

Also I never said it was exactly the same. I said earlier post. You read a lot into a short sentence.

An after thought, the site will not let you post a an exact post twice, for those of you that do not know that.

Thanks for your reply Oralloy / Coldjoint.

So lets say that way back, over 1000 years ago, it was a right given to free'd peasants. What if the 'marks' of free men were: to wear a star on their chest (so people knew they were free), to vote (if such a system existed), and to pay taxes...

The thing is, such marks are arbitrary - They varied from society to society, and context (of the area) to context (ditto). Rights too are arbitrary, varying from country to country in the modern world.

What is similar, is that all free countries, including the US, have laws that restrict freedom, so that society can function. From country to county, those laws differ, rendering the 'truth' of the law relevant to only that country, or perhaps not at all.

All that is to say, it's good to know there is some historical basis for the chant, but it is just that, a chant based on marks that in essence, vary from country to country, and century to century.

-------------------

There is also the issue of regulation. I doubt they had any way of regulating such things back then (only absolutely vital registers were kept, like land titles), and perhaps no need to (you see how this 'right' is contextual?). Criminal records were only kept by the courts (There was no policing force as exists today). They didn't understand mental health (the worse kinds - which they probably burned at the stake), they had travel issues (with robbing hoods along the highways), etc. So, context...which, as per above, all varied from kingdom to kingdom, and century to century (or millennia to millennia if you prefer)

--------------------

To tell other countries that 'you are no longer free because you regulate guns' is sloganistic, wrong, and rather insulting. It follows an ideology blindly, without ever understanding why the existence of a 'right' exists in any given time or place (eg to Churl), how rights change from time to time, and place to place, and also without understanding what freedom entails.

---------------------

I have no issue generally with citizens possessing guns. I do have issue with:
- criminals
- mentally ill (the dangerous kinds); and
- domestically violent persons
possessing guns / having easy access to them

Only regulation has the potential to influence the above.

The other arguments of where, how, what type etc, are for each country to decide.

As example of the 'truth' of laws, and the affects of context. There used to be a law here, that cars must give way to horses. It was written when cars first started appearing on roads here. It was only repealed a decade or so ago...the law by then (well before really, but for some reason it had never been repealed earlier), was no longer relevant. The context had well and truly changed.

I dont see that one in the constitution. Ya see, there is a huuuge difference when some old douche writes it into the bill of rights. We are sorta stuck with a law that really needs re thinking but its almost untouchable.

The work it will take is generational and Im afraid that many more eople will die before even the gun nuts recognize that they have a huge role to play in fixing this amendment. "A well regulated militia..." may have worked two centuries ago, but its an anachronism today.

You're saying the context has changed.

By the way, in case you don't know. I live in Australia. I was using that old law as to paint a picture on how context affects laws. It's also relevant to how ideas shape laws. And from there, how ideas shape constitutions / bill of rights.