origin of the "right to keep and bear arms"

[SW9M]

so would the torys be for or against the EU?

[agricola]

sw9m,

could you tell me just how Simon Heffer's view on the RKBA differs from mine BTW? he explicitly says it isnt a "pre-existing" right, states he believes in the social contract etc etc. the place that he differs from me is that he falls into the trap of assuming that gun crime is exploding out of control, despite elsewhere stating that "its now as high as in 1993" - which is a fundamental error.

that is what you are getting at, isnt it?

[SW9M]

that is what you are getting at, isnt it?

No.

[Zander]

You seem reluctant to answer this question:

Are fares on the railway system controlled by the government?

[gburner]

Stupid though some of my comments may be, you still haven't answered the questions that I posed.....

I am trying to get to the heart of whether the right to personal ownership of firearms in the UK is something that is widely supported by the majority of the subjects yet has been denied them by a minority of powerful, bureaucratic elites.

If this is the case, and I believe it to be, how was this usurpation of rights accomplished.

Here's a hint...explain it to me, from the beginning as if I am stupid and a lunatic.

[agricola]

gburner,

i have already responded to the questions you posted, do a google search about RKBA in the UK and you will come across very few people who acknowledge it as a "natural right" - aside from some libertarians like those at the samizdata site - even Heffer, who has been the lone voice on this, suggests that RKBA would be a "new right" and in response to (his suggestion) breaking of a Hobbesian social contract.

zander,

rail fares are set (to lower them) by the government ombudsman. if the fares were set by the companies, then they would be higher - which is what companies like Stagecoach want, so they can force the railway out of business and force those customers onto their primary business, ie: long distance coaches.
now you may think that is the right of the business community as they consider the rail system is inefficent and outdated, yet under BR and on the (albeit rare) companies that actually want to maintain the system as a business, the system is far more efficent, environmentally sound, quicker, safer and cheaper than the alternative, which is of course not what some companies want.
i would suggest that you would be opposed to the system because it, in its original pre-privatization form, was a great example of how state provided transportation systems are markedly superior than those provided by the private sector - look at the London Undergorund for another example of how a brilliant system is in the process of being ruined in the name of "private enterprise".

[SW9M]

are you ignoring me?

[agricola]

why dont you just come out and write what you mean? hurry up, as i have to be in work in 50 mins

[SW9M]

my question was,

so would the torys be for or against the EU?

It just a simple yes or no question.

This thread has morphed into a question of general freedom. So let me put it another way. Who is predomenantly in power?
Tory or Labour.

And by the way I'm sorry to inconvience you with this question.

[agricola]

sw9m,

it is inconvient because its something, if you were interested in it, that you could easily find out with a google search. some tories are in favour of the EU, some are against - but that applies to Labour as well. pretty much the only parties that are unified on the issue of Europe are the nationalist parties like the SNP and Plaid because they would guarantee independent Welsh and scottish nations as part of the EU.

Also the debate is not so much on the membership of the EU as to the change of Sterling for the Euro.

[edited: sorry, missed that bit. the party thats predominantly in power is the tory party - no labour government had ever got a second term, and one would be on shaky ground if you said the current incumbents were representative of the Labour tradition]

[SW9M]

You have stated that you are just as free as we in the U.S. are. I would like to draw your attention to this thread that speaks about how the right to speak out against the EU would be defeated. By order to "lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures". Now we recently made the news "we being gun owners" for us openly criticizing the U.N. None of us were arrested or jailed. We openly criticize our political leaders and what happens? Nothing. Do we get "legally suppressed"? No.

How can you say that you are just as free when their was enough criticism of the E.U. that they had to pass a law that allowed the suppression of these people.

By your own admission, this paper speaks out in favor of the Tory. Those whom are predomenently in power. I would understand this coming from a paper that was against the Tory. So how much spin was done for this article? Just how bad was it? Or is this the truth and the Tory graph knows that nothing can be done about it? How can you say that these people who had to be legally suppressed are free?

Sounds like Red China with a British accent to me.

By the way, CHECK.

[Ben Swenson]

possibly, although it would usually require that that person be present to be offended by the statement made;

Interesting. So, taking offense at what someone says to you (no actual harm done) is grounds for having them arrested? Or does this just apply for remarks that could be considered racist? For instance, could I be arrested for offending an individual by making negative comments about his or her hairstyle, or commenting that they are unhealthily obese? I am no longer trying to argue the disparity between English and American freedoms - that is obvious - just curious, really.

which sort of misses the point - despite your "absolute moral" system i would wager that there are certain events that are wholly "evil" that you would find "good" actions.

Howzat? You are betting that I would consider events that violate the absolute moral code to be good? You obviously are ignorant of my moral absolutes, and as such are making a very dangerous wager.

besides, you are looking at it through your value-system, which is not going to provide the same answer as someone over here, with their own value system. after all, something like the RKBA is sort of loved over in the USA, despite there being people who would like to see it removed, the fact that it stays because of a "majority" opinion is the same thing (before we respond with the inevitable "its our constitutional right", remember the "legal" approach is the best one for gun-grabbers)

Now it is you who are missing the point. I'm not claiming that my values are absolute for me but are not absolute for you. I'm claiming that I recognize values that are absolute for humanity.
[horrified]"But Cordex, how can you do that? That's so ... judgemental!" [/horrified]
Perhaps. But I think if you consider it, there are a few things that are considered universally absolute. Only severity and mitigating conditions vary - the absolutes remain.
Do not initiate force is the big one.

they do have NHS contracts

If they willfully commit to a legally binding contract and welch on it, they should be held accountable.

however they know that they cannot be replaced and so using this knowledge forced the government into making their contracts wide enough so that they could do 50/[5]0 public/private work. normally i would have no problem with this, except that these consultants are also the ones that bitch most when junior doctors or the nursing staff, who are woefully underpaid, talk about strike action to get a better deal - one rule for one, and one for another. besides, IMHO BUPA should also be made to pay for their time - they would if they were borrowing a CAT scanner, and this is the same thing.

BUPA should pay their workers the agreed-upon rate for their time but should not have to pay the NHS for the priviledge of hiring a free person. Humans are not owned by a system/company/government (like a CAT scanner might be) and unless they commit voluntarily to a contract limiting them to one job, they should be able to work where and when they can find employment.
Tell me, does the gov't have a monopoly on medical education?

again you miss the point - the police station (read NHS hospital) is not a privately owned concern - you have already paid for it using taxes, and why should you pay more for the priviledge of using it?

Well, if doctors are freelancing out of a publically owned hospital for private gain then that could be wrong.
Back to your scenario. If a police officer did private detective work on his off-hours for extra money, that is not a problem. If, however, he uses department resources (which would include his time when he is on the public clock) for his private detective agency, he would be in the wrong and should be held accountable.

I don't know how the NHS/BUPA system works, but I've tried to cover several possibilities. What am I missing?

[MeekAndMild]

Getting back on topic a minute after bouncing all over the place:

imho the right is a modern (1600's) corruption of old english (and european) ordinances that the subjects of the Crown must bear arms to serve in the King's forces according to their circumstances.

So do you believe in the divine right of kings?

If you could, would you mind spelling out your guiding social philosophy, using quotes from original sources if possible? I would be interested to hear exactly what you believe is the basis for law.


(I have a theory that you have as a core belief a sort of Calvinistic negativism, the concept that Mankind is irretreivably flawed by Original Sin and you are looking to "The Law" as a deux ex machina for salvation.)

[Ben Swenson]

So it's gettin' back on topic that we'll be doin', is it?

Okay, Ag,
What are the earliest references that you can find regarding the owning and carrying of Arms? I'm especially interested in references regarding restrictions and/or the "right" of free persons to bear them.

Or do you think the idea really originated in England?

[gburner]

Cordex/Meek & Mild...
Thank you both for amplifying on my original question....perhaps he will favor you with an answer instead of referring you to the librarian.

Agicola,
I am participating in a debate with you. If you don't care to answer my questions or, as I suspect, don't have an answer, please be kind enough to say so before going over to the Teletubbies forum.
Search this google, pal.

[Zander]

"rail fares are set (to lower them) by the government ombudsman."

Precisely...and thanks for the grudging admission.

"if the fares were set by the companies, then they would be higher - which is what companies like Stagecoach want, so they can force the railway out of business and force those customers onto their primary business, ie: long distance coaches."

Well, that's an interesting conspiracy theory, but the problem lies with your sociofascistic government mandating fare controls.

Please refer to my previous remarks re: supply and demand.

"now you may think that is the right of the business community as they consider the rail system is inefficent and outdated, yet under BR and on the (albeit rare) companies that actually want to maintain the system as a business, the system is far more efficent, environmentally sound, quicker, safer and cheaper than the alternative, which is of course not what some companies want."

An interesting assertion...but fatally flawed.

If there is a reason the system is "cheaper", you need look no further than your government ombudsman. The costs of operating and maintaining the BR system cannot be recouped because your government caps the fares...IOW, the income. You put the operators of the system in a completely untenable situation. And then have the temerity to claim that a supposedly superior system is being threatened...in blatant violation of the laws of economics. Pitiful...

"i would suggest that you would be opposed to the system because it, in its original pre-privatization form, was a great example of how state provided transportation systems are markedly superior than those provided by the private sector"

I would suggest that your feigned ignorance of free-market dynamics isn't in the slightest an excuse for your government's policy. And the policy isn't restricted to the rail system...it is repeated endlessly, the NHS being another prime example.

No wonder so many Brits long to leave your country and migrate to our shores.

Your system, sir, is a failure...as the most amateur student of the history of socialism would be able to predict.

[Blackhawk]

You to Agricola:

I am participating in a debate with you.

You're exactly right, and that's the problem. Agricola is debating instead of discussing. He's using every trick in the high school debating book to avoid, obfuscate, and deflect substantive points lest he have to concede them. That's juvenile and vexing to those wishing to discuss any interesting points that may come up.

While this thread should be taken out and shot, it has, nonetheless, revealed a few things about Britain that I couldn't previously imagine. If half of what he's claimed about "public opinion" there is true, Britain may be irreparably lost to squish brained thinking and doomed to yet another blood letting. That's a shame, but what's scary is that the U.S. isn't in that great of a shape on those same issues. It's still hundreds of times better, but the signs are there....

[agricola]

gburner,

i answered your questions - if you dont like the answers, then tough, but please dont try and ignore the fact that they were answered. if you have an alternate theory, then lets hear it, but please research it yourself.

blackhawk,

so, because we dont think in the same way you do, that renders us liable to "civil war"? please try to remember that our history is very different from yours post-Rebellion, especially on social and workers rights issues which covers part of the new ground here. there is no reason why RKBA should be an issue in the UK, at least from a historical perspective. you may accuse me of "Obfuscating" but i havent seen anyone challenge the theory that RKBA is even in the top 100 concerns of the british citizenry.
please understand that we are not you, we dont have your history and we value different things.

zander,

its not "supply and demand" being carried out by Stagecoach, and its not a conspiracy theory. the fact, which you havent managed to refute, is that BR did not require the level of subsidy it now does in government hands. how many people over here think the rail service is better since privatisation? obviously, noone (especially the consumer) has any rights in your system aside from the Corporation that decides who gets what.

free market capitalism is a utopian ideal that has as much chance of existing as utopian communism, ie: none.

[USP45]

What are the earliest references that you can find regarding the owning and carrying of Arms?

I'll help... this is not the oldest, but it's a start -- Luke 22:36

~USP

[gburner]

Agricola....

For the last time, when was a general referendum held in the UK in which all of the eligible voting public were given the opportunity to vote yes or no on individual firearm possession. If the answer is never, then why has this not occured. If it has not occured because of the machinations and manipulation of the political process by your socialist masters, then how dare you state that you are as free there as we are here. Do not refer me to a search as that does not illustrate what you know, or don't.

[Scott Conklin]

Nine pages of dickering with a European Socialist, eight of it after he's had his ass handed to him...again. Y'all know bandwidth costs money, right?

[gburner]

Is there a moderator about that can put this POS out of it's misery?

[Blackhawk]

I said:

If half of what he's claimed about "public opinion" there is true, Britain may be irreparably lost to squish brained thinking and doomed to yet another blood letting.

And you concluded that I meant:

so, because we dont think in the same way you do, that renders us liable to "civil war"?

No. I meant that if another nation determines there's anything of value left, they're going to come and clean your clock AGAIN!

But maybe it won't even have to be a blood letting. Brussels need only tell you that by your participation in the EU, you've agreed that a tolerable tribute should be regularly sent there.

The thought of the British people having become such cowardly pantywaists as to eagerly submit to a fiction such as "the government" to do their thinking for them is extremely depressing.

[agricola]

blackhawk,

remind me which nation has "cleaned our clock" lately? last i remember we sent the last lot that tried back home, before any assistance arrived from elsewhere.

gburner,

since you cannot read it yourself:

it was just before an election (1997) and was part of the Labour Party manifesto, there was no referendum (because referenda are subject precisely to those flaws that you point out).

you are flawed in your reasoning by saying:

"What sort of general national referrendum demonstrated a public will against personal ownership of fire arms in Great Britian afer the slaughter in Dunblain?"

because the law, as it stood, was only changed a very small amount - moving handguns from section 1 to section 5 of the Firearms Act, its been the case for at least 50 years that no firearms licence would be issued for "self defence" unless a clear threat presented itself, and from the debates in Hansard, at which all groups, including such luminaries of the anti-control movement as Colin Greenwood, were represented, as well as the anti-gun movement, police, shooter's rights organisations and so forth.

i agree this thread has been taken beyond its useful life - since we have been invaded by the "america is always right" brigade:

then how dare you state that you are as free there as we are here

how dare i!

[Ben Swenson]

i agree this thread has been taken beyond its useful life - since we have been invaded by the "america is always right" brigade:

*chuckle* And those of us who very clearly state that America isn't always right and has flaws ... but is still more free than Britain.
I'd say we've had just as many problems with the "We're just as free because we didn't want to be free in the first place so it's the same as being free in the first place." brigade ... but that's just me.

Agricola: 'an army of one'. An overwhelmed army, but an 'army of one' nonetheless