The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - origin of the "right to keep and bear arms"

agricola · August 21, 2002, 11:09 AM

imho there is a difference between the "natural right" of self defence and the "right" enshrined in your RKBA. obviously self-defence is in existance, but the RKBA is something different because its advocates (including most of you) state that it is a defence against oppression, wheras Malcolm in the article I posted and the evidence of history suggest that, at least in the 1689 Bill of Rights, it was a defence against a percieved enemy (ie the Catholics) from getting into a position where they could enforce their beliefs.

Malcolms study in the article shown and history suggests that, at least before the 1600's, there was no percieved "right" to bear arms, rather that it was something done at the behest of and granted by the crown. When the Civil Wars removed the Crown from the scene, eventually resulting in the Glorious Revolution, the members of parliament took for themselves the power to grant or bestow such "rights" as they (parliament) saw fit.

With your revolution all the old ties to the motherland are broken; no king, no parliament and no militia. To prevent the British Army coming back and taking their new found freedom, and with the established and easily provable seventeenth- and eighteenth-century distrust of the standing army in general and the professional soldier in particular, the wording of the second amendment suggests to me, to use modern parlance, of a situation not unlike the Swiss model - a musket (or M16 or whatever) and a pistol with ammunition in every home for the defence of the commonwealth - ie: the framers were creating a militia and requiring each citizen to be a part of it; not the so called "natural right" to defend one's home, which they could easily (as the framers of the Bill of Rights) said - something like "The Right to Keep and Bear arms for any citizen for their personal defence and defence of their goods shall not be infringed"

the NHS example was designed to show you that, at least on this side of the pond, there is something that we consider a "right" that you don't.

August 21, 2002, 11:09 AM	#10
agricola Senior Member Join Date: April 1, 2002 Location: cymru Posts: 940	imho there is a difference between the "natural right" of self defence and the "right" enshrined in your RKBA. obviously self-defence is in existance, but the RKBA is something different because its advocates (including most of you) state that it is a defence against oppression, wheras Malcolm in the article I posted and the evidence of history suggest that, at least in the 1689 Bill of Rights, it was a defence against a percieved enemy (ie the Catholics) from getting into a position where they could enforce their beliefs. Malcolms study in the article shown and history suggests that, at least before the 1600's, there was no percieved "right" to bear arms, rather that it was something done at the behest of and granted by the crown. When the Civil Wars removed the Crown from the scene, eventually resulting in the Glorious Revolution, the members of parliament took for themselves the power to grant or bestow such "rights" as they (parliament) saw fit. With your revolution all the old ties to the motherland are broken; no king, no parliament and no militia. To prevent the British Army coming back and taking their new found freedom, and with the established and easily provable seventeenth- and eighteenth-century distrust of the standing army in general and the professional soldier in particular, the wording of the second amendment suggests to me, to use modern parlance, of a situation not unlike the Swiss model - a musket (or M16 or whatever) and a pistol with ammunition in every home for the defence of the commonwealth - ie: the framers were creating a militia and requiring each citizen to be a part of it; not the so called "natural right" to defend one's home, which they could easily (as the framers of the Bill of Rights) said - something like "The Right to Keep and Bear arms for any citizen for their personal defence and defence of their goods shall not be infringed" the NHS example was designed to show you that, at least on this side of the pond, there is something that we consider a "right" that you don't. __________________ pete wylie: " I've never had a fight in me life. But after 40 years of living as a half-decent human being I gained a criminal record for doing my Joe Pesci thing. But it was Joe Pesci played by Michael Crawford."