THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

As usual, you were wrong about many things, especially what is written in Blackstone's Commentaries. St. George Tucker was the premier American constitutional scholar at the beginning of the 19th century. James II was not deposed, he in fact fled to France to avoid that eventuality, which enabled him to maintain the legal fiction that he and his successors were the "true" kings. Once again, you know nothing of what went on there in those days with your silly references to "the people." The people in the aggregate simply did not exist politically. James fled because his son-in-law, William III of Orange had invaded southwestern England with a large Dutch army, abetted by officers of the King's army.

I've already pointed out you several errors. You, however, are someone constitutionally incapable of admitting either your ignorance or that you're wrong. I will, therefore, waste not more time on you.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

As usual, you were wrong about many things, especially what is written in Blackstone's Commentaries.

That is incorrect. Blackstone did not say that people who were not entitled to hunt game were denied the ability to own guns after the English Bill of Rights.

People with such social status in fact were allowed to possess at home whatever was the common infantry gun of the day. And they were allowed to carry it for protection when away from home.

Setanta wrote:

St. George Tucker was the premier American constitutional scholar at the beginning of the 19th century.

Perhaps his comments about the US legal system were more accurate than his erroneous comments about the UK.

Setanta wrote:

James II was not deposed, he in fact fled to France to avoid that eventuality, which enabled him to maintain the legal fiction that he and his successors were the "true" kings. Once again, you know nothing of what went on there in those days with your silly references to "the people." The people in the aggregate simply did not exist politically.

I know that after the 1689 English Bill of Rights, ordinary people had the right to keep an infantry long gun at home and carry it for protection when away from home.

Setanta wrote:

I've already pointed out you several errors.

No you haven't.

Setanta wrote:

You, however, are someone constitutionally incapable of admitting either your ignorance or that you're wrong.

That is incorrect. I am one of the few people here who do do that.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

You are confusing England with America.

I am not the one using US case law to support an argument about British gun rights. That was you.

Quote:

England does not have a Constitution that makes rights superior to laws.

What does "as allowed by law" mean to you?

Quote:

The British government did not have the power to prevent an individual from having any gun until after 1920, which is when the law was changed to give them this power.

If they didn't have this power then how could they pass a law to prevent an individual from having a gun? The simple fact is they always had that power. They didn't suddenly wake up one day and have the power to pass a law that they couldn't have passed the day before.

Quote:

There is a huge difference between "banning a narrow category" and "banning everything".

Really? What is the difference? There is no difference in the power to ban any and every narrow category they want to ban or banning every narrow category they want to ban. They are the exact same thing.

Quote:

That is incorrect. Under current British law an individual can be prevented from having a gun, even if they agree to follow regulations.

I see you didn't answer the question. Deflection doesn't help your argument. Under British law individuals can have guns. Your attempt to say that they can't is just another example of the lies you spin.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You need to read Blackstone before you claim it supports your argument that everyone could have guns.

Quote:

A proclamation for disarming papists is also binding, being only in execution of what the legislature has first ordained: but a proclamation for allowing arms to papists, or for disarming any protestant subjects, will not bind; because the first would be to assume a dispensing power, the latter a legislative one; to the vesting of either of which in any single person the laws of England are absolutely strangers.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I am not the one using US case law to support an argument about British gun rights. That was you.

My position about the right involving infantry weapons is supported by the history and context surrounding the right. The British government had always encouraged the public to own infantry weapons and practice with them. The creation of the right was directly related to people's outrage over having been denied the ability to possess infantry weapons.

I mentioned the Miller case because you specifically asked about a court case, not because I was trying to bolster my position. That is the only court case that I am aware of that addresses the issue, and since you were asking for a court case that addressed the issue, that was the natural answer.

But anyway, with the exception of the European Court of Human Rights (which is outside the scope of this thread), rights in the UK do not trump laws. They do not have a Constitution that constrains their legislative power like we do in the US.

parados wrote:

What does "as allowed by law" mean to you?

It certainly doesn't mean that rights trump laws in the UK.

parados wrote:

If they didn't have this power then how could they pass a law to prevent an individual from having a gun?

They had the power to pass any law.

Like I explained when I was pointing out that rights do not trump laws in the UK, the will of the majority as expressed by the vote of Parliament had absolute power.

parados wrote:

The simple fact is they always had that power.

That is incorrect. They did not have the power to deny an individual from having guns until the law was changed in 1920.

parados wrote:

They didn't suddenly wake up one day and have the power to pass a law that they couldn't have passed the day before.

Their power to pass laws was unchanged. Their power to ban guns only came when they used their power to pass laws, and created a new law that gave them the power to ban guns.

parados wrote:

Really? What is the difference?

The difference between "banning everything including what the right was meant to protect" and "narrow bans that don't impact the purpose of the right" should be self evident. I'm not sure how to explain it.

Maybe an example: Free Speech.

A law against falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would be a narrow ban that does not harm the intent of the right.

A law forbidding anyone from discussing politics would be a broad ban that contradicts the purpose of the right.

parados wrote:

There is no difference in the power to ban any and every narrow category they want to ban or banning every narrow category they want to ban.

I don't understand what you mean here.

parados wrote:

I see you didn't answer the question. Deflection doesn't help your argument.

I did answer your question. What you quoted from me was from a different part of my post than where I answered your question though.

My answer to your question is directly below where I quoted your question.

parados wrote:

Under British law individuals can have guns.

Only if the British government chooses to allow it. Since 1920 they have had the power to deny an individual the ability to have guns if they so choose.

parados wrote:

Your attempt to say that they can't is just another example of the lies you spin.

My posts are all factually correct. The truth by default cannot be a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Unless it is a half-truth of course. But all of my posts contain the entire truth.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

You need to read Blackstone before you claim it supports your argument that everyone could have guns.

Quote:
A proclamation for disarming papists is also binding, being only in execution of what the legislature has first ordained: but a proclamation for allowing arms to papists, or for disarming any protestant subjects, will not bind; because the first would be to assume a dispensing power, the latter a legislative one; to the vesting of either of which in any single person the laws of England are absolutely strangers.

I thought we'd already hashed out the Protestant thing.

It looks to me like their court rulings quickly applied the right to everyone regardless of religion.

If I am wrong about that and the right truly was restricted to Protestants, there were LOTS of Protestants in the UK who were around to exercise the right.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

My position about the right involving infantry weapons is supported by the history and context surrounding the right.

No, it's not as has been pointed out to you by several people.

Quote:

The creation of the right was directly related to people's outrage over having been denied the ability to possess infantry weapons.

Are you referring to the right that says they could have weapons "as allowed by law?" The same right you keep ignoring the words of?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I thought we'd already hashed out the Protestant thing.

It looks to me like their court rulings quickly applied the right to everyone regardless of religion.

So we should just ignore Blackstone? Does that negate all your arguments where you attempt to use him but don't quite quote him exactly like I did?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

No, it's not as has been pointed out to you by several people.

That is incorrect. England always encouraged the people to have the standard infantry weapons of the day, and encouraged the people to use and practice with those weapons.

Then Protestants were suddenly deprived of the ability to possess these infantry weapons that people had always been encouraged to own.

The right to keep and bear arms came directly from this conflict over the ownership of infantry weapons. This is why, for the entire duration of the right, people were allowed to possess standard infantry weapons.

parados wrote:

Are you referring to the right that says they could have weapons "as allowed by law?"

Yes.

parados wrote:

The same right you keep ignoring the words of?

I think I just spent the past few pages discussing these words with you. How exactly am I ignoring them?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So we should just ignore Blackstone?

Of course not. Bring him on. The more Blackstone the better.

parados wrote:

Does that negate all your arguments where you attempt to use him but don't quite quote him exactly like I did?

No.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

This is from Blackstone -

Quote:

A proclamation for disarming papists is also binding, being only in execution of what the legislature has first ordained: but a proclamation for allowing arms to papists, or for disarming any protestant subjects, will not bind; because the first would be to assume a dispensing power, the latter a legislative one; to the vesting of either of which in any single person the laws of England are absolutely strangers.

Clearly there is not a right to have arms for everyone. Even the king can't allow protestants arms according to Blackstone. The parliament can by passing laws but laws are not the same thing as rights.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I think I just spent the past few pages discussing these words with you. How exactly am I ignoring them?

You are ignoring them by dismissing their meaning. "As allowed by law" means the right is not absolute but can be legislated to restrict which arms are allowed under law. That means the right doesn't change if the arms allowed under law changes.

Your argument is that if someone can legally do something then that is a right. That is nonsense. It would mean that rights can be changed by laws even in the US.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

This is from Blackstone -

Quote:
A proclamation for disarming papists is also binding, being only in execution of what the legislature has first ordained: but a proclamation for allowing arms to papists, or for disarming any protestant subjects, will not bind; because the first would be to assume a dispensing power, the latter a legislative one; to the vesting of either of which in any single person the laws of England are absolutely strangers.

Good.

parados wrote:

Clearly there is not a right to have arms for everyone.

Assuming for the sake of argument that that is true, so what?

Why would it matter if the UK did limit the right only to Protestants?

parados wrote:

Even the king can't allow protestants arms according to Blackstone.

It looks to me like he is saying the king can't deny Protestants arms.

parados wrote:

The parliament can by passing laws but laws are not the same thing as rights.

Rights could be thought of as a category of laws if you think about it a certain way.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You are ignoring them by dismissing their meaning.

I've just spent the last several pages explaining that meaning.

parados wrote:

"As allowed by law" means the right is not absolute but can be legislated to restrict which arms are allowed under law. That means the right doesn't change if the arms allowed under law changes.

Within reason. That only justifies narrow bans that don't impact the purpose of the right. It would not authorize a broad ban that undermines the entire point of the right.

parados wrote:

Your argument is that if someone can legally do something then that is a right.

I don't recall saying such a thing.

parados wrote:

It would mean that rights can be changed by laws even in the US.

Well in the UK, rights can be changed by laws. The only exception would be the European Court of Human Rights, but that is outside the scope of a gun rights discussion.

The US is different in that we have a constitution that limits legislative power. For those rights that are protected by our Constitution, it takes a constitutional amendment to change the right.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

You, however, are someone constitutionally incapable of admitting either your ignorance or that you're wrong

I see what you did there Cool

0 Replies

Talking to that member is tedious, one has to entertain one's self where one can find the opportunity.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Why would it matter if the UK did limit the right only to Protestants?

Quote:

I know that after the 1689 English Bill of Rights, ordinary people had the right to keep an infantry long gun at home and carry it for protection when away from home.

Do you see a problem with those 2 statements? Are you arguing that papists are not ordinary people?
Clearly some people could be prevented from having arms including long guns after 1689.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

It looks to me like he is saying the king can't deny Protestants arms.

The King can't because it is a legislative act which means the legislature can deny anyone arms if they so desire.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

IF a narrow ban doesn't impact the purpose of the right then your argument falls apart.

Arms do not just include guns but include all manner of other types of weapons. Guns are a narrow category of arms as a whole. If a narrow ban is allowed then banning guns is allowed since they don't include all arms.

But once again, you ignore the fact that guns are not banned in England. One can own guns if one is licensed.

Quote:

Well in the UK, rights can be changed by laws.

What part of the right was changed by the laws? We will see that you have to argue that guns are the only arm when it comes to the right. That is nonsense on your part.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Do you see a problem with those 2 statements?

No.

parados wrote:

Are you arguing that papists are not ordinary people?

Me personally, no. But it is possible that England at the time did not view them as ordinary people.

I continue to doubt that because of the court rulings. But if it is the case that England did feel that way, then that is how they felt.

parados wrote:

Clearly some people could be prevented from having arms including long guns after 1689.

It looks to me like their court rulings quickly applied the right to everyone regardless of religion.

If I am wrong about that and the right truly was restricted to Protestants, there were LOTS of Protestants in the UK who were around to exercise the right.

1 Reply

THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know