THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

Perhaps you missed what was said about carrying weapons when traveling in the "wilds".

Game laws were being passed enforced under George I and Goerge II and the Jacobeans.

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,

The book lists several people charged with the crime of having a gun in violation of owning a gun and not having 100 pounds per annum after 1689.

~ 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 ;

I can guarantee that you'll not find anyone convicted of that statute after 1689.

The Defendant was convićted by the Ju ftices at Seſſions on 5 Ann. c. 14. fećī. 4. that he unlawfully had and kept in his Cu ftody a Gun, being an Inſtrument for the Deſtrućtion of the Game.

F | RST, Thạt the firſt Count is not good fince by the Statute 5 Annae, c. 14. §. 4. it is Enaćted, That any Perſons not qua lified to keep and üfe any Grey-hounds, Set ting-Dogs, Hays, Lurchers, Tunnels, or other Engine to kill and destroy the Game, fhall forfeit

The funny thing is the statute enacted under Anne was after 1689.

Games laws were passed after 1689.
People were convicted of having a gun under those game laws after 1689.

I am sure that if one of us were to look up the text of 5 Ann, c. 14. §. 4. (I'm mildly curious so will probably make a brief attempt to do so), it will be clear that the statute did not prevent people from having regular infantry guns.

Yes, but they didn't prevent ordinary people from having normal infantry weapons for defense.

Do you have any evidence that private individuals owned "normal infantry weapons" for personal defense?

Because the typical infantry weapons of the 17th and 18th centuries would have been terrible weapons for personal defense.

Wow... so a judge had to make that ruling 64 years after 1689?

Are you now going to argue that this was the first person charged under that law in 64 years?

I have presented cases of people being convicted of having guns in violation of the game laws after 1689.

Well, I have evidence that the law allowed them to do so. Presumably some people would have chosen to have a gun for self defense, and would have chosen to comply with the law when doing so. I'm sure others chose to not have guns for self defense (or couldn't afford it). And some might have chosen to risk having illegal guns for self defense.

The purpose of letting people own infantry weapons and use them for self defense was not to give people the best possible defense, but to have them show up for militia duty with a serviceable weapon that they already knew how to shoot well.

That would spare the government the cost of arming and training them, and life-long use of the weapon might even give people better skills than they would have gotten from a standard military training.

However keep in mind that around 1700 muskets gained fixed bayonets so they would have been effective melee weapons after this point.

So, in other words, you're just guessing.

Really? What do you know about the militia (yeomanry) system in Great Britain after the Glorious Revolution?

Were volunteers expected to show up with their own weapons?

There was relatively little skill needed to use a firelock or flintlock musket. Unlike the longbow, which took years to master, the typicaly recruit could pick up the basics of musketry in a day, and after a couple of weeks he would be about as good as he would ever need to be. So years of practice wouldn't make anyone more proficient in the use of the musket. The hard part wasn't the musket, it was the infantry drill, and I reckon men could practice that at home with a broomstick if they were so inclined.

Are you suggesting that members of the yeomanry kept bayonets at home for personal defense?

Truly, it beggars the imagination.

muskets were called "Handles for bayonets"

I wouldn't consider that a guess. If I had ventured to estimate a percentage of households then I'd be guessing. Unfortunately I don't know enough to venture a guess.

I assume that the militia system continued much as it did before.

They would have preferred that people volunteer. But most people had to be drafted into the militia.

Unless there was some change that I am unaware of, they would have preferred people to bring their own weapon. They did realize though that some would come unarmed and would need government-provided weapons if they were to be armed.

The primary advantage to the government was probably the cost of the muskets.

I very much doubt that

That people were convicted of poaching when they hunted game in violation of the law does not change that people were allowed to possess standard infantry guns, use them to defend their homes, and carry them for defense when out traveling.

oralloy wrote:

I wouldn't consider that a guess. If I had ventured to estimate a percentage of households then I'd be guessing. Unfortunately I don't know enough to venture a guess.

A guess doesn't have to be specific to be a guess.

oralloy wrote:

I assume that the militia system continued much as it did before.

And yet another guess.

oralloy wrote:

They would have preferred that people volunteer. But most people had to be drafted into the militia.

Another guess, and a pretty bad one at that. Nobody was drafted in the yeomanry. There was no conscription in England/Great Britain/the UK until World War I.

oralloy wrote:

Unless there was some change that I am unaware of, they would have preferred people to bring their own weapon. They did realize though that some would come unarmed and would need government-provided weapons if they were to be armed.

More guesses.

oralloy wrote:

The primary advantage to the government was probably the cost of the muskets.

But you don't know that. So that's another guess on your part.

No, they were convicted of having a gun while not having an annual income of 100 pounds. The one case was 1733. You do realize that 1733 is after 1689, don't you?

Not only did this law not prohibit the possession of full length infantry guns, the text of the law expressly said that people were allowed to have such guns and use them for self defense.

Bull ****.

One person was convicted of having a gun while not having an income of 100 pounds per year.

I would love to see the text of this law you think exists. Please post it.