Izzy is truth.
oralloy wrote:That is incorrect. That post quotes a number of court rulings which enforce the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights.
The funny thing about that statement is none of the quotes you listed cite the English Bill of Rights.
Lack of evidence on your part doesn't make your argument true.
When you cite the English Bill of Rights as your source how can the exact words in that document not be relevant?
These are the EXACT words in the document.
Quote:That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
Those words are not relevant?
How can you claim it is a universal right that has no restrictions based on those words?
One only has to read the exact words in the document to know you are are proposing something that didn't exist.
Let's examine the relevance.
Quote:The right was created in 1689.
Rex v Dewhurst wasn't until 1820. So clearly you are arguing that the right exists because of the English Bill of Rights.
You also said this:
Quote:Rights that were made in 1689 were transmitted to us.
Arguing that the words in 1689 meant what you claim was ruled on in 1820 is nonsense. It is nonsense on 2 counts. First, words change meaning over time and rights change with court rulings.
You don't get to interpret the words of 1689 with an 1820 mindset.
Secondly, you haven't shown that Dewhurst actually ruled what you are claiming.
You seem to guilty of wishful thinking that no one will actually look at the words and you can simply apply meanings that clearly aren't there or are in fact antithetical to the actual words.
You seem to want to completely ignore the part of your statement that states the right was created in the Bill of Rights.
The same thing you then said wasn't relevant.
oralloy wrote:I do not perceive any relevance to the claim that the right was created narrowly.
Because you want to completely ignore the exact text in the English Bill of Rights. It only give certain rights to protestants and only weapons allowed under law.
oralloy wrote:Rex v Dewhurst was a case of a court using the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights as part of their ruling.
Too bad you haven't quoted any part of the ruling that cites the English Bill of Rights as part of the ruling that grants gun ownership to everyone without restriction.
You're both referring to the same right, aren't you?
oralloy wrote:It may or may not have been narrowly tailored, but I strongly dispute that it was limited to the extent of hardly being a right.
I have no doubt, but then that just means that parados's point is relevant to your position.
If it weren't, there would be no reason for you to dispute it, strongly or otherwise.
oralloy wrote:I believe that, if Parados' claim is 100% correct, it will not damage my argument even slightly.
Why not? If the EBR didn't create a genuine right to bear arms, then what's left of your argument that the EBR did create such a right?
I need go no further than your own words. Your "strong dispute" of its truth proves its relevance.
oralloy wrote:parados wrote:oralloy wrote:"Concern to maintain archery went right to the top of English society and dated back to at least 1363, when the first of a succession of ordinances and parliamentary statutes had commanded that Englishmen should spend their Sundays and holidays not in pointless amusements such as football, bowls, tennis and dice, but in shooting at the butts.2"
"Henry VII and Henry VIII defended the longbow with statutes banning the possession of crossbows and handguns by the lower orders; they promoted it with further statutes ordering every householder to keep bows, not only for himself, but for his servants and children, and commanding every adult and adolescent male to use them.4"
"Under Henry VIII proclamations reinforced the message, repeatedly commanding local officials to do all in their power to promote archery and suppress the unlawful games that threatened to supplant it.5 In 1528 Henry drove the point home with a reminder that it was archery practice that …"
Did you read your citation? It bans guns for a large part of the population.
Quote:"Henry VII and Henry VIII defended the longbow with statutes banning the possession of crossbows and handguns by the lower orders
Since the statutes BANNED handguns for the lower orders, it would not allow guns to be owned by those people under the law.
At the time, guns were not advanced enough to surpass the longbow. These laws were banning novelty weapons in order to force the masses to use regular military weapons.
Things changed once guns became the normal military weapon.
The statute clearly banned guns for the lower classes. Many statutes did that.
joefromchicago wrote:You're both referring to the same right, aren't you?
I'm confident that I can establish that I did not address Parados' point until after he repeated it and complained of me ignoring it. But I'm beginning to question what I would achieve by doing so, other than distracting the discussion from more relevant points.
Is there any relevance to the question of who was the first person in the thread to raise the issue?
The ruling is quoted here (bottom of the first column and top of the second):
As a bonus, it looks like the 1820 Dewhurst ruling clearly states that it is interpreting the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights.
I don't see how there was ever any doubt, but since you were worried about courts expressly citing the English Bill of Rights, here you go.
You've consistently insisted that people here address the points that you raise in your posts.
You shouldn't be surprised, then, that I insist on the same thing. Re-read your response above and ask yourself whether you addressed the question that I actually posed. If you conclude that you didn't, then you should take the opportunity to answer it. On the other hand, if you think you did, then we have nothing left to discuss, as I have no interest in maintaining parallel monologues with anyone.
oralloy wrote:"My referral to the creation of the right" and "Parados' claim that the right was created narrowly" are not the same thing.
You're both referring to the same right, aren't you?
oralloy wrote:I did indeed refer to the creation of the right. But I didn't address Parados' claim that it was narrowly tailored until he repeated it and complained of me ignoring it, at which time I questioned how that was relevant.
You said that the EBR created the right to bear arms, and parados said that the right you referred to was narrow (to the point of being illusory). So you're both talking about the same thing, you just interpret it differently. Isn't that correct?
oralloy wrote:I honestly cannot perceive any relevance to the claim that the right was created narrowly.
So if someone says that your position is wrong, that's not relevant to your position?
As, I said. You take things out of context and claim things they are not.
You are not citing a ruling. What you have linked to is a transcript of the court case. Dewhurst and 5 of his fellows were found guilty by the jury. (page 604)The arms they were carrying were for the most part pikes. The specific part of the case appears to be jury instructions by the judge.
Clearly the judge isn't stating that they have rights to carry a gun.
He is quoting Blackstone that they have the rights to have arms based on their station and as allowed by law.
In this case they had arms as NOT allowed by law since they were convicted.
But that leads us to where the actual argument about arms comes from which is Blackstone's Analysis of the Laws of England.
Blackstone lists 3 absolute rights and several relative rights.
Arming oneself is not an absolute right. It is a conditional right under British law at the time.
The note references the fact that the US Constitution eliminated the conditional aspect found in British law.
Being jury instructions doesn't make the judge's words any less valid.
The judge stated that people have the right to carry guns when they are going singly or in a small party on the road for the purposes of traveling or business.
Their case still makes a convenient cite demonstrating that we have the right to carry guns when we go about in public.
Does this mean that you agree that the right was created in England and came to the US via English Common Law?
Being jury instructions makes it not be a ruling.
oralloy wrote:The judge stated that people have the right to carry guns when they are going singly or in a small party on the road for the purposes of traveling or business.
No. He didn't say that. You are once again ignoring the exact words
and the context and applying your own meaning.
oralloy wrote:Their case still makes a convenient cite demonstrating that we have the right to carry guns when we go about in public.
No. It doesn't since the case dealt mainly with pikes.
oralloy wrote:Does this mean that you agree that the right was created in England and came to the US via English Common Law?
No. It means England had a limited right and the US changed it. You are claiming England had the same right as the US.