7
   

THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2016 05:59 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

Your guesses may be good or they may be bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're not making guesses. If you demonstrated an adequate understanding of the British history, or even an interest in learning that history, perhaps you'd improve your guesswork. As it is, I don't get the sense that you understand that the British experience with volunteer home defense was far different from the American experience with state militias.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2016 06:32 am
@oralloy,

Quote:

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.


Quote:
33 Hen. 8. c. 6. " None shall shoot in, or
* keep in his House, any Cross-bow, Hand-
* gun, Hagbut or Demi-hake,

http://static.englishdictionary.education/800/arquebus.jpg

Quote:
hagbut ‎(plural hagbuts) (obsolete) An arquebus, a firearm with a long barrel.


As I said. Bull **** from you.



Hand-gun in the statute appears to mean a gun carried by hand rather than a pistol unless you are going to argue that pistols at the time where longer than 3'.
Quote:
any Hand-gun under the
* Length of one Yard

But let's look at the entire phrase.
Quote:
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

There is nothing in that phrase about length of gun. It says that no one without lands of value of 100£ per annum can keep any gun. Any gun is not the same thing as pistols.

Quote:
none shall travel with a Cross-bow bent or
* Gun charged, except in Time of War;
You seem to have missed that part.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2016 06:45 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Your guesses may be good or they may be bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're not making guesses.

That's a pretty unreasonable usage of the term guess. The odds of my "guess" there being true are 100%.


joefromchicago wrote:
If you demonstrated an adequate understanding of the British history, or even an interest in learning that history, perhaps you'd improve your guesswork.

Unless someone can present a case that I am wrong about something, my understanding of British history and my conclusions based on that understanding seem to be adequate enough.


joefromchicago wrote:
As it is, I don't get the sense that you understand that the British experience with volunteer home defense was far different from the American experience with state militias.

If you want to make a case that I am wrong about something I'd be interested in checking out what you have to say.

If no one presents any case that I am wrong about something, then there is no reason to think that I am wrong about anything.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2016 06:48 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
As I said. Bull **** from you.

My facts are all in order. The law in question only restricted weapons under a certain length, and it expressly stated that people can have guns over that length and use them in self defense.


parados wrote:
There is nothing in that phrase about length of gun. It says that no one without lands of value of 100£ per annum can keep any gun. Any gun is not the same thing as pistols.

There is, however, more than one phrase in that law. Some of those other phrases do define the maximum lengths of the guns that are restricted by the law and expressly allow people to have and use guns over those lengths.


parados wrote:
You seem to have missed that part.

I saw it. People can carry unloaded guns while out traveling on the road in case they come upon a situation where they need to defend themselves.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2016 07:26 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
There is, however, more than one phrase in that law. Some of those other phrases do define the maximum lengths of the guns that are restricted by the law and expressly allow people to have and use guns over those lengths.


Now that you understand there is more than one phrase, can you tell us what happens when 2 phrases are separated by "nor"?


No person having less than 100 per annum can have a gun nor can anyone that has a gun have one shorter than 3'.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2016 08:19 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Now that you understand there is more than one phrase,

I never said there was only one phrase.


parados wrote:
can you tell us what happens when 2 phrases are separated by "nor"?

It means there is a second prohibition.


parados wrote:
No person having less than 100 per annum can have a gun

Not an accurate summary of the prohibition. Only specific types of guns were restricted. Further, it only restricted possession of those types within someone's house.


parados wrote:
nor can anyone that has a gun have one shorter than 3'.

Not an accurate summary of the restriction. Only specific types of guns were restricted. Further, the exemption for wealthy landowners applies to this restriction as well.



When we get to the part of the law that speaks about guns in general, we get:

"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."

"none shall . . . . 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,"
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2016 08:48 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
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


You seem to not understand English, oralloy. The phrase is very clear.

Quote:

Not an accurate summary of the restriction. Only specific types of guns were restricted.
Only if you completely ignore the meaning "hand-gun" at the time.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2016 10:09 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Only if you completely ignore the meaning "hand-gun" at the time.

Actually we are talking about the wrong law. I was thrown off by your description of the case as the guy being convicted for having a gun.

One second. I'll submit a new reply to your earlier message.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2016 10:13 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
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?

That is incorrect. These people were convicted of hunting while not having an annual income of 100 pounds (i.e. poaching). The 1733 case only involved guns because they had been used for poaching.

5 Ann.c.14 does not even mention guns. The statute can only restrict guns under the part of the law referring to "any other Engines to kill the Game". And for any individual gun to fall under that heading, there has to be evidence that that individual gun was used for poaching.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2016 07:32 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The 1733 case only involved guns because they had been used for poaching.

Really? Perhaps you should read the 3 charges against him.

He was charged with having a gun and not having an income of 100 pounds.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2016 08:33 am
@parados,
On page 142 it states:

Secondly, he did keep a another gun not being qualified by which and action accrued for another 5l.

But you need to read the rest.
On the first count the defendant argued a gun was not an engine of destruction for game but the court ruled it was on page 143.
On the second count the court ruled it is the defendant's responsibility to prove he has an income of 100l to prevent being convicted.

Then on page 144 a defendant was convicted under the statute enacted under Ann of having a gun, which is an engine of destruction.

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=mKFhAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA145

There are several cases earlier in the book but they don't give dates so I can't show they were after 1689.
Clearly, you are ignoring everything can to keep up your false argument.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2016 05:41 pm
@parados,
Its too close to call so I went out and bought those guns. I hope the U S kgb, the fbi dont see this post or I'll probably be getting a visit from them, especially if tRump is elected.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2016 11:14 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The 1733 case only involved guns because they had been used for poaching.

Really? Perhaps you should read the 3 charges against him.

One of the charges was that he had been poaching.

Another of the charges was that he was selling meat that he had gained from his poaching.


parados wrote:
He was charged with having a gun and not having an income of 100 pounds.

Not exactly. He was charged with hunting and not having an income of 100 pounds.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2016 11:15 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
On page 142 it states:
Secondly, he did keep a another gun not being qualified by which and action accrued for another 5l.

Yes. He needed to have the required wealth in order for it to be legal for him to hunt with his guns.


parados wrote:
But you need to read the rest.
On the first count the defendant argued a gun was not an engine of destruction for game but the court ruled it was on page 143.

In other words, he argued that he had not been hunting with his gun and the court found that he had been hunting with his gun.


parados wrote:
On the second count the court ruled it is the defendant's responsibility to prove he has an income of 100l to prevent being convicted.

Yes. People who can show that they have the required degree of wealth were allowed to hunt.


parados wrote:
Then on page 144 a defendant was convicted under the statute enacted under Ann of having a gun, which is an engine of destruction.

Yes. It was illegal for someone to use their guns for hunting unless they had the required degree of wealth.


parados wrote:
There are several cases earlier in the book but they don't give dates so I can't show they were after 1689.

5 Ann.c.14 was passed in 1706, and (I think) modified in 1710.

It can safely be assumed that any conviction under this statute took place on or after 1706.


parados wrote:
Clearly, you are ignoring everything can to keep up your false argument.

It is more that nothing contradicts my position because I am actually correct.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2016 11:16 am

An interesting find from 1631:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rushworth-papers/vol3/pp134-135

Some of the drill instructions are lacking context because there are no corresponding illustrations on the webpage, but these quoted parts show that there was concern about the cost imposed on people who purchased their own muskets for militia duty:
Quote:
It is required, that the Muskets be all of a Bore, the Pikes of a Length. But to the end this course may not by a sudden Alteration turn to a general Charge and Burthen upon the People, the Lords Lieutenants, and the Deputy Lieutenants are rather to use the way of Advice, and Encouragement, as a matter which will be very acceptable to his Majesty, who will take Notice of the Affection of such as shall most readily provide Arms according to this Order than to enforce a present general Observation thereof. But in Case where the Arms shall be decayed, and must be renewed, this Order is to be strictly observed.
Quote:
A principal Care is to be taken for the Provision of the Arms, that they may be provided at such Rates as they are truly worth, that the People be not subject to the abuse of Undertakers for these Businesses:
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2016 11:18 am
@oralloy,
I notice you didn't read the actual charges.

Maybe if you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and yell "nyah, nyah, nyah!" at the top of your lungs I won't notice that the second charge was specifically for having another gun while not having an income of 100 pounds.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2016 11:20 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Yes. He needed to have the required wealth in order for it to be legal for him to hunt with his guns.


Quote:
he did keep a another gun


Read that three times and then tell me how it can possibly be interpreted to mean he was hunting with that gun.

Quote:

In other words, he argued that he had not been hunting with his gun and the court found that he had been hunting with his gun.

He was hunting with one gun but he did keep another gun.

Do you need the English language explained to you?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2016 03:17 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
I notice you didn't read the actual charges.

One of the charges was of hunting while not being qualified:

"Declaration versus Defendant, an Attorney of this Court, for 40£ Debt; for that he at Holcomb Regis in Com. Devon, 28 Nov. 1733, did use a Gun to kill and destroy the Game, not being qualified so to do by the Laws of the Realm, whereby an Action accrued to Plaintiff to demand 5£ Part of the said 40£."


Another of the charges was of selling meat acquired by unlawful hunting:

"Thirdly, The same Day he exposed to Sale six Hares against the Form of the Statute, not being qualified, in his own Right to kill Game, whereby an Action accrued to demand 30£ Residue of said 40£."


parados wrote:
Maybe if you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and yell "nyah, nyah, nyah!" at the top of your lungs I won't notice that the second charge was specifically for having another gun while not having an income of 100 pounds.

The guy was using his guns to poach game.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2016 03:18 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Quote:
he did keep a another gun

Read that three times and then tell me how it can possibly be interpreted to mean he was hunting with that gun.

The charges clearly establish him as a poacher.


parados wrote:
He was hunting with one gun but he did keep another gun.
Do you need the English language explained to you?

It was just as illegal for him to hunt with the other gun.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2016 07:19 pm
@oralloy,
He was charged with 3 crimes. He was convicted of all 3 crimes. Why do you keep only pointing to 2 of the crimes and ignoring the third?

There is no question he committed all three but you seem to want to argue that he only committed 2.
0 Replies
 
 

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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/21/2019 at 04:27:57