THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

I believe that my position is invulnerable. Hit it with a nuclear warhead (or the rhetorical equivalent) and it will survive without a scratch.

We'll see how things turn out.

I think you already know.

Now I am familiar with all of that.

oralloy wrote:

Now I am familiar with all of that.

You didn't mention the handgonne ("hand cannon").

Instead of constructing a lord's keep on the motte, they should have constructed a German-style bergfried. And they should have located the motte near the entrance to the bailey so that arrow-fire from the bergfried could have helped to secure the gates.

A bergfried is just an uninhabited, fortified tower of a castle (or wall).
The donjon was the inhabited version of it ... especially in mottes.

The Firearms Act of 1920 also repeals the right to have guns from 1689.

All a new law has to do in order to repeal an old right is override it with new rules that are contrary to the right.

That is incorrect. I am pointing out the clear and intended meaning of the words.

You wanted a court ruling that mentioned infantry weapons. Off hand that is the only one I can think of. Their logic was sound I think.

Please point to the specific words in the bill that do that.

If the old rules are still valid as written then NOTHING was repealed.

Can they still own arms? Yes. Can they still own guns? Yes. Your argument that they can't do that is BS.

So your argument is that "under the law" means nothing about what is allowed by the law?

You keep repeating the same crap over and over.

You don't change words or their meanings.
The words mean whatever YOU say they mean even if it is not the dictionary and legal definitions.
But you don't change words or their meanings.

Simple fact. You do change words to mean what you want them to. Then you claim you don't do what you obviously do.

The ruling has nothing to do with what arms means under the EBR since it deals with the US Constitution.

After the Firearms Act of 1920, the old rules from 1689 were no longer valid (within the UK at least).

That is incorrect. The Firearms Act of 1920 gave the British government the power to deny individuals the ability to own guns.

"As allowed by law" was authorization to set rules for people to follow when possessing or carrying guns.

It was not authorization for telling individuals that they could not have guns at all.

Those don't overturn the EBR right.

They enforce it by making something "allowed by law".

You state this repeatedly while ignoring the words of the rule from 1689.

Your opinion doesn't change the actual words.

The meaning of the actual words still exist in spite of you bastardization of them.

They always had that power. Read the F**ing EBR you keep claiming granted the rights.

ROFLMAO... That is your argument? You are claiming "as allowed by law" means all items are allowed and can only have laws creating rules about how the allowed items can be carried or used?

You do realize that is a ridiculous argument, don't you?

The British government did not have the power to prevent individuals from having guns until 1920.

No. I have repeatedly stated that they were able to bar narrow categories of guns.

What wasn't allowed was to tell an individual that they were not permitted to have any gun at all.

So, to be clear, parliament couldn't ban guns until it did. Is that about right?

And it onlycan become the law of the land if signed by the sovereign.

Really? What happens if Parliament wants to pass a law and the Queen refuses to sign it (let's say hypothetically she thinks the proposed law would be a very bad idea)??