The King can't because it is a legislative act which means the legislature can deny anyone arms if they so desire.
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.
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.
I continue to doubt that because of the court rulings.
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,
I don't see any relevance, but I agree that your statement is factually correct.
The entire point of the right is to allow people to have the standard infantry weapon of the day.
When the right was created, the standard infantry weapon was a gun.
Would you like to make a case that this particular fact is worth paying attention to?
The entire right was repealed in 1920.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
What court rulings?
You keep misrepresenting what those rulings say.
Really?
What court rulings applied it to everyone?
IF you are wrong? ROFLMAO.
You have been repeatedly told you are wrong including historical documents that show you are wrong.
You seem incapable of admitting you are wrong even when everyone else knows you are.
No relevance to the fact that the parliament can ban guns? The fact that the parliament can pass legislation to ban guns would seem to be very relevant to any argument where one claims that the parliament banned guns.
Find one historical document that says this.
You keep repeating it but have provided no support for it.
There is NOTHING in the EBR that states arms means standard infantry weapons.
There is nothing in Blackstone that states that.
There is nothing in Dewhurst that states that.
It is YOUR made up argument.
It is not a fact.
It is assailable because you have provide ZERO historical support for it.
Your entire argument is based on something that doesn't exist and never existed.
parados wrote:What court rulings?
Rex v. Gardner (1739): "And they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty."
Mallock v. Eastley (1744): "the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family."
Wingfield v. Stratford (1752): "It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game."
Rex v. Dewhurst (1820): "A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is travelling or going for the ordinary purposes of business. But I have no difficulties in saying you have no right to carry arms to a public meeting, if the number of arms which are so carried are calculated to produce terror and alarm."
parados wrote:You keep misrepresenting what those rulings say.
No misrepresentation. The words are very clear and unmistakable.
parados wrote:Really?
Yes.
parados wrote:IF you are wrong? ROFLMAO.
Yes. If I am wrong about that, there were still a great number of Protestants in England who would have been able to exercise the right.
parados wrote:You have been repeatedly told you are wrong including historical documents that show you are wrong.
I've not seen any convincing case made that those courts were not applying the right to all religions.
You seem incapable of admitting you are wrong even when everyone else knows you are.
When the right was created it said nothing about that arms means "standard infantry weapon." What the right DOES say is "as allowed by law" when it comes to arms.
What Blackstone comments on rights he says nothing about "standard infantry weapon" or about guns but talks about arms "as allowed by law."
When Dewhurst is convicted in the courts, the weapons are pikes. Shouldn't they all have had "standard infantry" guns if your argument is correct?
You keep repeating the same thing without any facts.
When shown you have no facts, you simply claim you do have facts and no one has shown you to be wrong.
You simply deny any argument that you disagree with and pretend it doesn't exist.
If one can own a gun then guns are not banned. You don't get to argue that guns are banned then pretend that the fact that guns can be owned is not a fact worth paying attention to.
No, it wasn't. The right is as follows:
Quote:That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
Passing legislation reventing the ownership of guns unless they are licensed repeals no part of the right.
Guns are not the only arms under that right.
As allowed by law is still relevant to the right.
I'm not aware of any. Often, blatantly apparent facts were not attested to in historical documents because it was assumed that everyone already understood them.
That is incorrect. I have repeatedly supported it with the context in which the right was created.
That is incorrect. I did not create the history of England.
Pointing out history would count as providing historical support would it not?
The history of England is something that very much existed.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
The fact remains, England had always required the general populace to have standard infantry weapons, and the right was created as backlash when Protestants had been denied the ability to own standard infantry weapons.
Not necessarily. Was there any reason to prevent them from having pikes?
It is a fact that England always required the general populace to have standard infantry weapons.
No one is capable of showing that I have no facts, given that I am repeatedly posting those facts.
Did I argue that guns were banned, or did I argue that the British government has the ability to deny an individual from having a gun?
That is incorrect. As the right is all about standard infantry guns, a ban on all guns repeals the right.
This does not change the reality that they no longer have the right to have guns.
joefromchicago wrote:So, to be clear, parliament couldn't ban guns until it did. Is that about right?
Yes.
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.
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.
Says nothing about the gun being a standard infantry weapon.
Nor does it state that all person should have a gun.
Nor does it state that guns can't be banned by legislation.
Goes directly to the point that guns were banned under game laws for many decades after the EBR which you claimed wasn't true.
Says nothing about the gun being a standard infantry weapon.
Nor does it state that all person should have a gun.
Nor does it state that guns can't be banned by legislation.
Says nothing about the gun being a standard infantry weapon.
Nor does it state that all person should have a gun.
Goes directly to the point that guns were banned under game laws for many decades after the EBR.
Says nothing about the gun being a standard infantry weapon.
Nor does it state that all person should have a gun.
Nor does it state that guns can't be banned by legislation.
The words are very clear. They say nothing about the right to carry the standard infantry weapon of the day.
You don't get to add things not in the ruling.
Your ipse dixit is still without fact.
If we apply the ENTIRE section which allows arms as allowed by law, it shows how specious your argument is.
You seem to keep forgetting that part of the EBR.
Lack of seeing a fact doesn't mean the opposite is true
You haven't presented a convincing case that the judge is applying the right to all religions.
You haven't presented a case that the judge applied the case to anyone other then the persons involved in the case which is what the judge is ruling on specifically.
The fact remains, England had always required the general populace to have standard infantry weapons, and the right was created as backlash when Protestants had been denied the ability to own standard infantry weapons.
It wasn't true. After the English Bill of Rights, game laws did not prevent people from having guns.
The fact remains, England had always required the general populace to have standard infantry weapons, and the right was created as backlash when Protestants had been denied the ability to own standard infantry weapons.
So your argument is that something exists because no one bothered to ever say it exists.
Except you haven't because the right does not say it nor do the court rulings. You have simply claimed something exists without any evidence.
You mean the history that never states that guns are a standard infantry weapon that all Englishmen are allowed to have in their homes? You did create that history because it isn't in any historical document.
Let me know when you actually do point to the actual history and not your made up version of it.
Yes, it does exist and it states this about the right to bear arms you claim was created in 1689.
Quote:That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
That history says nothing about guns being allowed for all Englishmen but puts 3 restrictions that would prevent them from having guns.
1. It puts a religious test to bear arms.
2. It puts a Condition test to bear arms.
3. It puts the test of only the arms that are allowed by law are allowed.
You have yet to show how any of those tests would allow for all Englishmen to have guns for their defence.
The laws of the time that your court cases overturn decades later show that guns were not allowed for most Englishmen under the game laws in existence at the time and for over 50 years to follow.
The only fact that remains is you have presented no evidence to show this to be a fact.
It is your opinion
and completely unsupported by any historical evidence.
Repeating that statement several times doesn't provide any more evidence.
So you admit that pikes are arms?
If pikes are arms, does that make guns a narrow section of arms?
No evidence to support this. It is not a fact but merely your opinion.
Posting something repeatedly doesn't make it a fact.
You have posted no evidence to make it a fact.
It is merely your opinion.
Since you claim it is a fact, it is your responsibility to provide us with real evidence.
Simply repeating it is not evidence.
I am curious how England could require something but never publish that anywhere and it is not mentioned in historical documents.
That doesn't sound like a fact to me. It sounds like you making **** up.
