THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

Are you saying your position is that citizens didn't own guns but used government owned guns when they mustered? It certainly doesn't support your position that they wanted people to own their own and supply their own weapons.

If you read further of almost 100 men mustered only 8 are recorded as providing their own weapons. A pretty dismal showing if everyone was supposed to provide their own weapon.

You have proposed that Henry VIII was promoting owning and training with weapons commonly used by the infantry. That was not the case at all. The bow was no longer a common military weapon.

The law was passed because bow makers, etc, wanted to try to force people buy and use a dying weapon.

The laws are not the evidence that you claimed. We are back to you repeating something doesn't make it true. It merely means you can't support your argument with facts.

This is incorrect. While I personally agree that the longbow was obsolete at this time, the government of England still viewed it as the best infantry weapon.

The reason why the longbow was declining in English use was because there were no longer enough competent bowmen

In part, yes. But the British government shared the opinion of the bow makers.

Evidence of this other than your unsupported opinion?

Do you have any evidence of this other than your unsupported opinion?

Evidence of this other than your unsupported opinion?

According to your source out of 186 men only 16 had bows.

You do like to mix up your history.

Why would there be few bowman if 30 years earlier they were ordered to practice?

Perhaps the government didn't have the intentions you claim they did.

But let's get back to your argument that the government wanted people armed and allowed them to carry arms.

In the book you posted a link to -
https://ia600205.us.archive.org/11/items/cu31924027939101/cu31924027939101.pdf

Page 428 in the pdf, there is a section on wearing arms.
Henry VII issued a proclamation that men were not to carry arms in town under pain of forfeiture or imprisonment.
In Leicester anyone caught carrying a weapon was "to lie in prison" as long as the mayor liked.

James I prohibited carrying daggers and pistols.
No pages or lackeys were to wear swords by proclamation in 1661.
Sword clubs were banned in 1720.

Clearly, the government felt the need to control arms for centuries.

They did not promote everyone having infantry weapons.

Yes, but that control did not extend to preventing people from having whatever was the standard infantry weapon of the day, using it to defend their homes, or carrying it while out traveling.

They started doing so with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and they didn't stop until the Firearms Act of 1920.

That depends on "everyone". There were possible exclusions based on religion.

They clearly figured that when they provided the same sort of chart just a few pages later, people would not need a repeated in-depth description and the term "set down" would be sufficient.

In t he
Tudor reigns every kind of cra ft wa s set down under the
genera l t erm of ship,

In 1 545 the wages of a superior mechanic and a sawyer
were 4d . a day hi s meat and drink, in addition, were given
him, and they were set down at 3d .

Devon, or
S omerset — S ome gifted ma n, too well known in his d a y for
it to be required that his n ame should be set down in the
entry,

Wrong. They could not carry it while traveling from one end of London to the other.

They could not carry it after arriving in Leicester from London.

They could only carry it while in the wilds. That is not the same thing as carrying it while traveling.

Sure. If we just ignore every other act that was passed to prevent people from having arms. The game laws prevented peasants from owning weapons after 1181 and prior to 1920.

There were exclusions based on class. There were exclusions based on types of weapons.

You are now simply arguing that some exclusions don't amount to a ban but other exclusions do amount to a ban.

The book is littered with charts of moneys paid for items from school books to clothing. For you to argue that the author expects someone to assume a noun from 5 pages previously is asinine.

If something is ordained then one has to designate who ordained it and in the same sentence.

There is no designation so the definition that fits the words as used takes precedence.

The numbers were simply written is the only reasonable definition of "set down" that anyone conversant in the English language can assume.

Why did the author not use "set down" when he referred to the prices that were "limited the prices?" "Limited the prices has a clear meaning.

But to further bolster the case of how you are getting this wrong:
The author uses "set down" 10 other times in the book. In all cases it refers to to being written down.

In 1 545 the wages of a superior mechanic and a sawyer
were 4d . a day hi s meat and drink, in addition, were given
him, and they were set down at 3d .

Such a journey wouldn't really be a case of going out traveling.

Applying this model to today, people would be able to take an M-16 in their car whenever driving in the countryside.

That abuse of the game laws led to the king being deposed and the passage of the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

No exclusion that prevented ordinary people from having regular infantry weapons.

There is a huge difference between "a narrow restriction that does not violate a right" and "a broad restriction that undermines the entire purpose of a right".

I think the definition that is more in line with a decree best fits the context of the sentence.

Not in all cases. Note PDF-page 478 (458 as marked on the page):

Since the majority of persons would not travel far from home, your argument is that less than 5% would ever need be armed.

Ever been to the countryside?

It isn't very "wild". Your chances of having to defend yourself from marauders is less than in the city these days.

Based on carrying weapons in the wilds, there would be no need to carry anywhere in present England or in the US for that matter.

I guess if we completely ignore the use of game laws after 1689 you can make that argument.

The passage of the English Bill of Rights was because the king took rights away from protestants with a specific proclamation not because he enforced game laws.

Sure there were. They are called game laws.

You have cited court cases that were after 1689 that were a result of enforcing game laws.

Can you tell us precisely where that line is at? Because now you are just arguing that what you say is correct and everyone else is wrong.

What you think is nonsense.

Again, what you think is nonsense.

If that is true, how would it be relevant? Our right is what our ancestors made it.

After 1689, the game laws were not used to disarm non-hunters.

Perſons * not having Lands, or fome other Eſtate of º Inheritance, in their own or their Wives º Right of 1ool. per Annum, or for Life, or * Leaſe of 99 Years of 15o l. per Annum, * other than the Son and Heir of an Eſquire, * or other Perſon of higher Degree, and * Owners and Keepers of Foreſts, Parks, * Chaſes, or Warrens ſtocked with Deer or * Conies for their neceſſary Uſe in Reſpećt * of the faid Forefts, &c. are declared to be * Perſons not allowed to keep any Guns, Perſons * not having Lands, or fome other Eſtate of º Inheritance, in their own or their Wives º Right of 1ool. per Annum, or for Life, or * Leaſe of 99 Years of 15o l. per Annum, * other than the Son and Heir of an Eſquire, * or other Perſon of higher Degree, and * Owners and Keepers of Foreſts, Parks, * Chaſes, or Warrens ſtocked with Deer or * Conies for their neceſſary Uſe in Reſpećt * of the faid Forefts, &c. are declared to be * Perſons not allowed to keepany Guns,

Secondly, That 16th fanuary 1733. he did keep another Gun, not being qualified, &c. by which an Aćtion accrued for other 5 l.

~ EORG E the Second, by the Grace of J. God, of Great Britain, France and Ire und King, Defender of the Faith, &c. To ll to whom theſe Preſents ſhall come, Greet ng: we do hereby give and grant unto him the faid H. M. during our Pleaſure, full Power and Authority to feize and take all and all Manner of Guns, Baws, Grey-hounds, Setting Dogs, Lurchers,, and other Dogs, Trammels, Low hels, Hays or other Nets, Hare-pipes, Snares or other Engines for taking Conies, Hares, Pheaſants, Partridges or other Game ;