quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx
<delete long winded chest thumping and personal attacks>

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

DomKen so you are saying that the English common law that although battled back and forth over who got the right, had for centuries allowed and even at some points mandated that people keep and bear arms suitable to their condition, that was the precedent for the american colonies gun mandates for all colonists. (Laws mandating that every head of household own a musket and keep powder and lead in their home) wasn't the predecessor to that recent experience with militia?

Isolating the two is silly they are very much connected.

The "recent" militia experience was a result of the mandate that every colonist bring musket lead and powder, or be forced to buy and keep them, which draws it's legislative line back to English common law requireing that subjects keep and bear arms, along with the back and forth denials of that right based on religion.

I am telling you that you have your facts wrong and haven't read what the founders wrote.

There was no requirement in Britain for commoners to own a firearm. There was a legal right that allowed people to own weapons appropriate to their class, IOW none at all unless you were a land owner.

Citizens were not only expected to have suitable weapons at the ready for these duties, but, since passage of the Statute of Winchester in 1285, were assessed according to their wealth for a contribution of arms for the militia.[41] When not in use for musters or emergencies, nearly all of this equipment remained in private hands. A series of later statutes spelled out in detail the arms each household was required to own and the frequency of practice sessions.[42] During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, for example, every family was commanded to provide a bow and two shafts for each son between the ages of seven and seventeen and to train them in their use or be subject to a fine.[43] To promote proficiency in arms, Henry VIII and his successors ordered every village to maintain targets on its green at which local men were to practice shooting "in holy days and other times convenient."[44]

Indeed, the statute specifically states that it is permissible not only for gentlemen, but for yeomen, servingmen, the inhabitants of cities, boroughs, market towns, and those living outside of towns "to have and keep in every of their houses any such hand-gun or hand-guns, of the length of one whole yard."[46] The use of shot was forbidden, as was the brandishing of a firearm so as to terrify others, and the use of guns in hunting by unqualified persons.[47]

The kingdom's Catholics formed an important exception to the tolerant attitude toward individual ownership of weapons. After the English Reformation they were regarded as potential subversives, and as such were liable to have their arms impounded. They were still assessed for a contribution of weapons for the militia, but were not permitted to keep these in their homes or to serve in the trained bands.[49]

Seeems my facts are quite in order contrary to your beliefs.
The first law mandating arms was not firearms but rather longbows under Henry VIII
Continueing as history marched on Guns and later muskets were required.

Including several laws in the colonies that required them VA colony, Maryland Colony and most other colonies had laws requireing their ownership. Do I need to supply you with confirmation of those laws as well?


Connecticut’s 1650 laws required
everyone above the age of 16, with a few exceptions, to own “a good musket or other
gun, fit for service….”

1 Code of 1650, Being a Compilation of the Earliest Laws and Orders of the General
Court of Connecticut (Hartford, Conn.: Silas Andrus, 1822), 72-73.

During the French and Indian Wars, Roman Catholics (referred to disparagingly as "Papists") were suspected of having sympathies with the French. In 1756, the colonial government in Maryland ordered the surrender of all arms or ammunition in their possession. 52 Maryland Archives, 454.

Shortly after the Dutch colony of New Netherlands was taken over by England, and
renamed New York, the Duke of York gave orders for the arming of its people. “Besides
the general stock of each town, every male within this government from sixteen to sixty
years of age” with a few exceptions, was required to be armed. Heads of households
were required to arm themselves at their own expense; “if sons or Servants, at their
Parents and Masters Charge and Cost….” If you were not armed, the penalty was five
shillings—roughly equivalent to a stiff traffic ticket today.1

Maryland:

“An Act for Military Discipline” enacted in February or March of
1638 required “that every house keeper or housekeepers within this Province shall have
ready continually upon all occasions within his her or their house… for every person
within his her or their house able to bear arms, one serviceable [working] gun” along with
a pound of gunpowder, four pounds of pistol or musket shot, “match for matchlocks and
of flints for firelocks….”

There are more if needed, and since at the times the colonies were English soil, these laws were in keeping with English Common Law.


Using the Bill of Rights of 1689, a fancy name for the terms of surrender of Parliament to a foreign invader, as justification for anything is beyond pointless.

While I couch the English Bill of rights in Neutral terms as to who was legitimate and who was not as it bears no difference on the idea that gun and other weapon rights were given and taken from English subjects based on religion, you show so much bias as to be not worthy of calling scholarship.

The Founders had a very recent experience from the French and indian War where the british standing army had not done much of a job protecting the people anbd citizen militias had filled in the gap. Those same militias had formed the core of the rebellion against George III and the Founders believed that the militia could substitute for a standing army, which they had reason to distrust.


However you failed to respond to my salient point, do you truly think personal ownership of firearms is a guarantor of your freedom? Do you believe that civilians with weapons can defend themselves against the US Army?

I chose to keep to a single point that was being debated rather than allow myself to be sidetracked onto a subject I had already discussed several pages ago.

To revisit my opinion on the effectivenss of an armed popular rebellion in these times please see my post #270 on post page 14

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The Statute of Winchester of 1285 including language related to firearm ownership? First known firearm is from 1364. Methinks the site you copied and pasted from is spreading lies.

quote:

Indeed, the statute specifically states that it is permissible not only for gentlemen, but for yeomen, servingmen, the inhabitants of cities, boroughs, market towns, and those living outside of towns "to have and keep in every of their houses any such hand-gun or hand-guns, of the length of one whole yard."

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

-fast reply-

Now wait just a damn minute here.

I went back and edited my comment so it didn't flame or personally attack the poster, I addressed his comments as I had originally intended it to mean and seen on my own it didn’t come off as an attack on his person.

But since I most obviously need to explain this again I will.

To imply that defending yourself is no longer possible or prudent is a slave’s mentality and should be understood to be such. A free man must and will fight by any and all means necessary to maintain his rights to freedom. That was the intent of the FREE men that established this country and that should be the intent of the free men we are supposed to be now. To dismiss our right and responsibility to preserve freedom, defend our families, or provide food is just contrary to the responsibilities of a leader, provider and dominant (each packs alpha). I am not debating DomKen’s historical accuracy of the British 19th century. I was commenting on the attitude displayed that we seemingly couldn’t and therefore shouldn’t stand up for our rights. It sure sounded that his implication was that we are no longer able to stand up to such a powerful Army so we shouldn’t. That’s bullshit ( I assure you that men and old warrior friends of mine that are familiar with my tenasity have no eagerness to test my resolve or ability) and this is certainly not the only reason a man should be prepared for any future contingencies (I’ll address this shortly).

Concurrently to sensor an opinion about commentary made, not only seems a violation of another amended article of the said constitution, I believe it might violate the TOS of this place. I went back and altered my comment to ensure it addressed the comment and not the author personally, I do believe that initially my comment was easily misunderstood (I corrected that). I believe that DomKen is expressing a slave's mentality and or morality; nothing wrong with that morality if he is comfortable with that. I just happen to think contrary to that concept. I would hope that I am still aloud the right of an opinion of opposition toward his comments, or has the big "O" enacted further executive orders that deny me that?

At that I will respond to DomKen's most recent query as to whether owning and being armed with simple firearms can match the standing US Army. Without them (weapons), you have absolutely no chance. But with them, along with the training the same US Army provided me along my determination to remain free, I assure you that I am certainly a match for any Army. Concurrently I will not stand alone; I will not go away and submit quietly to spare myself hardship, or to simply placate any potential tyrannical forces.

Let’s just evaluate this from a simple perspective not having a single thing to do with governmental overthrow or other such whimsical folly. Let’s say tomorrow that Yellowstone erupts and we are cast into chaos. Hell it happened in New Orleans (damn you people for making me drag out the flooding reference that someone else beats to death). Now the "impending" Yellowstone eruption is supposed to be a continental catastrophe if not Global in scope. Should I wait for an Army or a Police Force to provide and instill order as we witnessed in other recent disasters? Or should I myself be prepared to defend and supply my home and the rights I have as a free man. Crazy enough if our political system crashed due to such an incident, I would actually fight through such an event and seek to help reestablish the United Staes Constitution, I actually believe in that damn “ancient” parchment.

But in the meantime I would have to rely on my personal stores and ability to come out of this on my own, just me and my family along with a few close friends that also have an idea that being prepared for anything (you know, plan for the worst and hope for the best) at least affords us a chance at survival.

Ohhhh, I’ll need my pistols and assault rifles, my Ranger Handbook, a few other survival manuals that remind me of details I don’t stay rehearsed on, not to mention my long range, big game rifles to assist me in this survival endeavor. So you can rely on the Fed to secure your bed, I have a much larger degree of trust in myself. I suppose I should mention, I don’t look forward to such a time as others might, I simply believe in being prepared for life’s little inevitabilities.

So as you can see, I have no delusions of romantic warrior like grandeur, I am a simple man, with a common (American) plan.

Anyway, have a good day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

It also made this claim:

quote:

Indeed, the statute specifically states that it is permissible not only for gentlemen, but for yeomen, servingmen, the inhabitants of cities, boroughs, market towns, and those living outside of towns "to have and keep in every of their houses any such hand-gun or hand-guns, of the length of one whole yard."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Get real DomKEn you're stretching to find fault and be right even though I specified it started with arms control and moved to gun control right there in the post. The right to keep and bear ARMS

You're caught in your own lie.

Sources provided, the C&P already was very long and collected from various sources.

The space between paragraphs should have had those ... between them to you could keep up.

But the part where I specificly state:

"Seeems my facts are quite in order contrary to your beliefs.
The first law mandating arms was not firearms but rather longbows under Henry VIII
Continueing as history marched on Guns and later muskets were required. "


Seems this should have covered you question had you actually read instead of scanning for gotcha point, Guess that would require too much integrity of scholarship and debate for you though.