9
   

THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 04:16 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Perhaps you missed what was said about carrying weapons when traveling in the "wilds".

It referred to traveling along roads and highways away from population centers.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 04:18 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Game laws were being passed enforced under George I and Goerge II and the Jacobeans.

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


Quote:
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,

That's the Game Act of 1670 that (in part) led to the king being deposed and the English Bill of Rights.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp745-746

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

Unless maybe they were indisputably hunting with their gun, but even then I'd be surprised.


parados wrote:
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.

Most of the convictions seem to be of the statute listed at the bottom of page 129 and all of page 130. That statute appears to be focused on prohibiting handguns and shortened long guns. No problem with full-length infantry weapons.

Note (page 129 and 130, mostly 130):

"33 Hen. 8. c. 6. " None shall shoot in, or
* keep in his House, any Cross-bow, Hand-
* gun, Hagbut or Demi-hake, unless his
* Lands be of the Value of 100£ per Annum
* on Forfeiture of 10£ for every Offence
* nor shall shoot in any Hand-gun under the
* Length of one Yard, nor Hagbut or
* Demi-hake of three Quarters of a Yard
* long, on the like Penalty ;

. . . .

* none shall travel with a Cross-bow bent or
* Gun charged, except in Time of War; or
* shoot within a Quarter of a Mile of a
* City, Borough or Market-Town, except
* in Defence of himself or his House, or at
* a Dead Mark, in Pain of 10£.

. . . .

* But the Followers of Lords Spiritual and
* Temporal, Knights, Esquires, Gentlemen,
* Inhabitants of Cities, &c. and those that
* dwell two Furlongs distant from a Town,
* may keep in their Houses, and shoot (at a
* Dead Mark only) with Guns not under the
* above Lengths.
"


Quote:
~ 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 ;

That looks like an oath of office taken by gameskeepers. The context is clearly aimed at poachers and not at people who have guns for non-hunting purposes.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 11:50 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
I can guarantee that you'll not find anyone convicted of that statute after 1689.


You seem to not have read any of the book I posted. But rather you simply ignore everything that disputes your claims.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 02:28 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
The funny thing is the statute enacted under Anne was after 1689.

I'm sure there was a game law statute enacted then. But it was not the draconian statute that you quoted from the book.

It was also not one of the other two game law statutes that are printed in the book (one of which I partially quoted).

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.


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

Yes, but these game laws and these convictions would not have involved the possession of regular infantry weapons.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 02:45 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
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.

I didn't find the text of the law, but I did find a familiar cite of mine:

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."


Presuming that the judge was able to read the statute correctly, the statute did not even mention guns. If someone was to be convicted of unlawful gun use under this statute, they had to have been caught using the gun to hunt with, at which point their gun would have counted under "any other engines to kill the game".
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2016 11:01 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 07:10 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Do you have any evidence that private individuals owned "normal infantry weapons" for personal defense?

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.

I am not aware of any surveys of the levels of private gun ownership in the UK in this period however. So no hard data.


joefromchicago wrote:
Because the typical infantry weapons of the 17th and 18th centuries would have been terrible weapons for personal 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. Given the limits of technology back then there wouldn't really have been a way to increase rate of fire unless they used bow and arrows.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 07:18 pm
@oralloy,
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 don't have to presume anything. I have presented cases of people being convicted of having guns in violation of the game laws after 1689.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 10:15 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Wow... so a judge had to make that ruling 64 years after 1689?

Is there a problem? It looks like a good ruling to me.


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

Of course not. I've cited court rulings earlier than that. I referred to that specific ruling this time because in that ruling the judge directly addressed the contents of a law that I was trying to determine the contents of.


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

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.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 10:24 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

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

oralloy wrote:
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.

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?

oralloy wrote:
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.

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.

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

Are you suggesting that members of the yeomanry kept bayonets at home for personal defense? Truly, it beggars the imagination. Rolling Eyes
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 04:37 am
@joefromchicago,
muskets were called "Handles for bayonets" (except for the Pa Long Rifle which gave you one shot close- in after which you needed a tomahawk)
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 06:01 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
So, in other words, you're just guessing.

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.


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

I've not heard anything about the militia system changing substantially due to the Glorious Revolution. Unless I see a compelling argument that it changed substantially, I assume that the militia system continued much as it did before.


joefromchicago wrote:
Were volunteers expected to show up with their own weapons?

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.


joefromchicago wrote:
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.

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


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

I'm suggesting that anyone in the UK (or at least anyone among British Protestants) who wanted to do so, could do so. No membership in any yeomanry required.


joefromchicago wrote:
Truly, it beggars the imagination. Rolling Eyes

I don't see the problem. After 1700, bayonets were part of the standard infantry weapon. I'm pretty sure there were no laws prohibiting it.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 07:46 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

muskets were called "Handles for bayonets"

I very much doubt that.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 07:51 am
@oralloy,
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.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 01:08 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
I very much doubt that

You can look it up .Its a line that was used to describe the Brown Bess, not the Charleyville musket. The Pa Long Rifle, by its hand-made design, had no bayonet unless it was forged by the gunsmith (The Pa German gunsmiths used the Jaeger as their model and those were game rifles)
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 01:26 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
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.



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?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 07:50 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
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.

If you are referring to where I said "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 question whether that counts as a guess. If it does, it is a very reasonable guess.

The odds that someone somewhere in the UK chose to do this are 100%.


joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I assume that the militia system continued much as it did before.

And yet another guess.

A pretty reasonable guess. I'm at least superficially familiar with the history of the militia, and I think I would have read about such a significant change if it had happened. In addition, I expect that if anyone here had evidence of such a change, they would present it.


joefromchicago wrote:
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.

I'm not familiar with this yeomanry, but if they were a part of the militia, they were not the entirety of the militia.

Note:
"By the 1750s, France had been destabilized by revolution. Marauding Scottish warriors had ventured as far south as Derby in 1747. The Seven Year War against France began in 1757. Parliament’s response was outlined in the Militia Act of 1757 that sought to re-establish the militia as a potent force. The legislation ordered that in each parish a constable should compile a list of men aged between 18 and 50 – the upper age limit was reduced to 45 in 1762. From this catalogue, men were selected by ballot (drawn) for one month’s military training and served for three years."

http://www.prestonherts.co.uk/page97.html


joefromchicago wrote:
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.

I'm not aware of any reason to think that they changed their preference for people bringing their own arms. It is reasonable to presume that a system continues when there is no reason to think that it has changed.

The occasional government preparations for providing arms to people who did not bring in their own arms shows that the government realized that this was necessary.


joefromchicago wrote:
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.

I know that it would be an advantage to not have to pay for as many weapons. I found your argument convincing regarding training. I can't think of any other advantage to having people bring their own weapons when they show up for duty.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 07:52 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
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?

Your recent posts had been referring to a law that dealt only with poaching. My reply was in reference to the content of those posts.

If you want to return to discussing this law though, I am more than happy to do so. I remind you that the law that you are referring to here only restricted pistols and other guns under a certain length.

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.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 09:02 pm
@oralloy,
Bull ****.

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

Quote:

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.

I would love to see the text of this law you think exists. Please post it.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2016 10:19 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Bull ****.

I think you'll find that my facts are all in order.


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

Must have been a pistol, since that statute only restricts guns under a certain length, and expressly states that people have the right to have full length guns and use them for self defense.


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

All you have to do is scroll up. The text of the statute is posted near the top of this page. But here it is again.

You had posted this link to a book:
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=mKFhAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA134

The bottom of page 129 and all of page 130 of that book contain the statute in question.

"33 Hen. 8. c. 6. " None shall shoot in, or
* keep in his House, any Cross-bow, Hand-
* gun, Hagbut or Demi-hake, unless his
* Lands be of the Value of 100£ per Annum
* on Forfeiture of 10£ for every Offence
* nor shall shoot in any Hand-gun under the
* Length of one Yard, nor Hagbut or
* Demi-hake of three Quarters of a Yard
* long, on the like Penalty ;

. . . .

* none shall travel with a Cross-bow bent or
* Gun charged, except in Time of War; or
* shoot within a Quarter of a Mile of a
* City, Borough or Market-Town, except
* in Defence of himself or his House
, or at
* a Dead Mark, in Pain of 10£.

. . . .

* But the Followers of Lords Spiritual and
* Temporal, Knights, Esquires, Gentlemen,
* Inhabitants of Cities, &c. and those that
* dwell two Furlongs distant from a Town,
* may keep in their Houses, and shoot (at a
* Dead Mark only) with Guns not under the
* above Lengths.
"

I bolded and underlined the part that says people can have full length weapons and the part that says people can use them in self defense.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/29/2020 at 04:09:16