New knife law hits london

[MichaelScott]

The Deacon is correct. Reading a 200 year old document as if it were written today is guaranteed be interpreted incorrectly. I like Deacon’s reformulation. Makes sense of what the framers intended.

[ChrisinHove]

After Michael’s suggestion above I wiki’d The 2nd Amendment ... jeepers, it really is remarkable how a passage so short can allow such a variety of interpretations (by those who want to find them).

Very true. Most due to misunderstandings that result from the changing meanings of words in the 200+ years since it was written. Mainly, regarding what the militia was and who comprised it, and about what the word "regulated" meant in terms of said militia. The militia was pretty much every free male who was not too young, too old, or too infirm to fight, and the term "well regulated militia" simply meant that at members of that group should be well trained in the use of arms.

Current language would be more along the lines of: Since an adult citizenry well trained in the use of arms is needed to defend the republic against potential tyrants both foreign and domestic, the right of all Americans to own and use weapons shall not be infringed.

.

Is this clearer to the modern mind, do you think?

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”

From the English Bill of Rights 1689

[MichaelScott]

No. Too many vague conditions definable by whom ever is in power.

Unambiguous declaration of an indiviual’s rights to life, liberty, freedom of thought and expression and the possession of arms for self protection and resistance to tyranny is what I will accept. If push comes to shove, “Molon Labe” will be my watch word.

[Sjucaveman]

After Michael’s suggestion above I wiki’d The 2nd Amendment ... jeepers, it really is remarkable how a passage so short can allow such a variety of interpretations (by those who want to find them).

Very true. Most due to misunderstandings that result from the changing meanings of words in the 200+ years since it was written. Mainly, regarding what the militia was and who comprised it, and about what the word "regulated" meant in terms of said militia. The militia was pretty much every free male who was not too young, too old, or too infirm to fight, and the term "well regulated militia" simply meant that at members of that group should be well trained in the use of arms.

Current language would be more along the lines of: Since an adult citizenry well trained in the use of arms is needed to defend the republic against potential tyrants both foreign and domestic, the right of all Americans to own and use weapons shall not be infringed.

.

Is this clearer to the modern mind, do you think?

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”

From the English Bill of Rights 1689

Plus this has the as allowed by law clause at the end whereas the second amendment is an inalienable right.

[The Meat man]

Current language would be more along the lines of: Since an adult citizenry well trained in the use of arms is needed to defend the republic against potential tyrants both foreign and domestic, the right of all Americans to own and use weapons shall not be infringed.

Very succinct and accurate rendering of the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.

[ChrisinHove]

After Michael’s suggestion above I wiki’d The 2nd Amendment ... jeepers, it really is remarkable how a passage so short can allow such a variety of interpretations (by those who want to find them).

Very true. Most due to misunderstandings that result from the changing meanings of words in the 200+ years since it was written. Mainly, regarding what the militia was and who comprised it, and about what the word "regulated" meant in terms of said militia. The militia was pretty much every free male who was not too young, too old, or too infirm to fight, and the term "well regulated militia" simply meant that at members of that group should be well trained in the use of arms.

Current language would be more along the lines of: Since an adult citizenry well trained in the use of arms is needed to defend the republic against potential tyrants both foreign and domestic, the right of all Americans to own and use weapons shall not be infringed.

.

Is this clearer to the modern mind, do you think?

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”

From the English Bill of Rights 1689

Plus this has the as allowed by law clause at the end whereas the second amendment is an inalienable right.

So the 1689 Bill of Rights IS linguistically clearer - it is unambiguous in rendering the right to bear arms subject to whatever is passed as English Law. They say that the English Bill of Rights was the template for the American Constitution, so the Second Amendment was written with it in hand but omits that caveat - the more you look into your Second Amendment the clearer the intent becomes.

This must be old hat to you guys, but it’s a fascinating topic to a stranger, with real relevance to what one reads in the news.

[Sjucaveman]

The biggest challenges the three second amendment are that people try to say citizens that aren't in the military don't qualify as well regulated militia. But, when the wording is taken as it would have most likely meant when written a militia consisted of able bodied men and boys who were knowledgeable in the use of firearms and were willing to fight. Most militiamen were farmers, smiths, and many other professions, not professional soldiers like those wanting to ban gun ownership would want you to believe.

[MichaelScott]

The Second Amendment is there because if the First is violated by the government the people have the right he means to strongly object.

[Sjucaveman]

The Second Amendment is there because if the First is violated by the government the people have the right he means to strongly object.

One might say, explosively object :)

[The Deacon]

Is this clearer to the modern mind, do you think?

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”

From the English Bill of Rights 1689

Clearer, but only in the sense that no words have really changed meaning over the years. Otherwise, it's qualified so as to be effectively meaningless.

Given that my dictionary still defines "subject" as "a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign", my read would be that subjects of the English monarchy who were neither Catholic or Anglican, but who believed in Jesus Christ, were being granted the limited and qualified right to possess arms of some unspecified, but obviously restricted, type or types. Have no idea what "suitable to their conditions" meant at that time, beyond the implication that it limits that right, possibly by virtue of a person's social class. "As allowed by law" further limited it and since laws can, and often do, change over time, is probably what has allowed your government to slowly erode whatever right you once had to legally defend yourselves with weapons or even carry knives as tools.

I'd also surmise that those limitations were among the reasons our founding fathers wanted to make it clear they felt the people had the absolute and unrestricted right to own and use arms. Granted, even ours have been eroded over the years, but to a much lesser degree than they might have been without the 2nd Amendment. Whether it has ever actually been a deterrent to a home-grown tyrants is impossible to prove. I suspect that when we suggest it might have to those who think "that could never happen here", we come off sounding a bit like the guy who, when questioned as to why he has a banana in his ear replies that it keeps the elephants away and, when someone points out there are no elephants within a hundred miles replies "pretty effective, isn't it".

[MichaelScott]

Nicely analyzed, Paul. Whenever so-called rights are subject to interpretation by someone else they are not rights, but terms and conditions subject to change. Regardless of the original interpretations of “regulated” and “militia” for example in the wording of our Second Amendment, “…shall not be infringed” is crystal clear. We Americans (and I believe all people) have the intrinsic right to keep, bear and use arms.

That, along with the foundation of American culture, and to a somewhat lesser extent these days, on the individual not the group, is the bedrock of Western civilization. You won’t find those principles anywhere else. That is why many of us fight so hard to retain it.

[ChrisinHove]

Is this clearer to the modern mind, do you think?

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”

From the English Bill of Rights 1689

Clearer, but only in the sense that no words have really changed meaning over the years. Otherwise, it's qualified so as to be effectively meaningless.

Given that my dictionary still defines "subject" as "a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign", my read would be that subjects of the English monarchy who were neither Catholic or Anglican, but who believed in Jesus Christ, were being granted the limited and qualified right to possess arms of some unspecified, but obviously restricted, type or types. Have no idea what "suitable to their conditions" meant at that time, beyond the implication that it limits that right, possibly by virtue of a person's social class. "As allowed by law" further limited it and since laws can, and often do, change over time, is probably what has allowed your government to slowly erode whatever right you once had to legally defend yourselves with weapons or even carry knives as tools.

I'd also surmise that those limitations were among the reasons our founding fathers wanted to make it clear they felt the people had the absolute and unrestricted right to own and use arms. Granted, even ours have been eroded over the years, but to a much lesser degree than they might have been without the 2nd Amendment. Whether it has ever actually been a deterrent to a home-grown tyrants is impossible to prove. I suspect that when we suggest it might have to those who think "that could never happen here", we come off sounding a bit like the guy who, when questioned as to why he has a banana in his ear replies that it keeps the elephants away and, when someone points out there are no elephants within a hundred miles replies "pretty effective, isn't it".

The right of Protestants to arms was affirmed because it was they who had been disarmed by the Catholic King. This was a period of extreme religious intolerance, indeed one of the reasons your founding fathers sailed away.

The wording “suitable to their condition” may just be an archaic way of saying “proportionate”, but could well refer to the 1181 Assizes of Arms which dictated what Arms you HAD to have ready.

But the meaning "contrary to Law" seems indisputable.

And as I wrote above, those who wrote your second amendment had this to hand but deliberately omitted any reference to it being subservient to the law, either current or future.

But get this: Henry II’s Assizes of Arms in 1181 ....

“Every knight was forced to arm himself with coat of mail, and shield and lance; every freeholder with lance and hauberk, every burgess and poorer freeman with lance and iron helmet. This universal levy of the armed nation was wholly at the disposal of the king for the purposes of defence. ... By his Assize of Arms Henry restored the Ancient Anglo-Saxon Militia System, and supplied the requisite counterbalance to the military power of the Land-owning Aristocracy which they were still able and too willing to maintain.”

And ...

“The Anglo Saxon militia, or fyrd, was a type of early Anglo-Saxon army that was mobilised from freemen to defend their shire, or from selected representatives to join a royal expedition. Service in the fyrd was usually of short duration and participants were expected to provide their own arms and provisions.

Ultimately the fyrd consisted of a nucleus of experienced soldiers that would be supplemented by ordinary villagers and farmers from the shires.”

Your Second amendment seems to go all the way back to Alfred the Great!

[MichaelScott]

I suspect you are correct. Given that America and England share centuries of history, culture and significant aspects of our legal systems this is not surprising. We do, however, differ in that we have had no absolute ruler claiming divine right who had to be curbed by what we might call common law, instead of divine law and Papal or Church power.

Indeed, the individual is supreme in our culture which is codified in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. In Britain it appears that the government linked loosely to the Royal Family is supreme, not the individual citizen, therefore basic human rights as we have been discussing are subject to the interpretations of those in power at any given time.

Most of us in America instinctively oppose that. Real freedoms are only ultimately guaranteed by force. Governments that attempt to reduce or remove the ability of it’s citizens to ultimately oppose it by force seek to disarm and muzzle the people. That is why we are especially vigilant. We have seen this happen to other people and will not allow it too happen here.

So, I have made my position clear and even though I enjoy the discussion I may have drifted too far into the “political” arena and a knife forum is no place for that. I welcome private discussion with those who care to engage. At this point, I think I will bow out.

Thanks again for your interesting, historical and well presented ideas.

[The Meat man]

Thanks to you MichaelScott, Deacon, ChrisinHove, and others for setting an example of respectful, cordial, and productive discussion on these very touchy topics. I'm glad to be a fellow member of such a forum.

[MichaelScott]

Me too. Thanks!

[SpyderEdgeForever]

I too thank you for the well thought out discussion.

On Molon Labe, from Wikipedia:

" Molon labe, meaning "come and get it", is a classical expression of defiance. When the Persian armies demanded that the Greeks surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae, King Leonidas I responded with this phrase. It is an exemplary use of a laconic phrase."

[ChrisinHove]

It’s certainly been a very interesting discussion, and I think one that has been occupying the constitutional high ground rather than the political swamp. My understanding has expanded, so thank you.

[ThePeacent]

as a foreigner, I too have gained knowledge and clarity regarding the always interesting US Culture, History and laws thanks to this thread

thank you all

[ChrisinHove]

as a foreigner, I too have gained knowledge and clarity regarding the always interesting US Culture, History and laws thanks to this thread

thank you all

To a fellow European ... the more I read up about their Constitutional Republic the more I like it. The authors of it knew exactly what they wanted to keep and what they wanted to leave behind from the Old World.

[MichaelScott]

We have mostly discussed the Constitution relative to individual (a critical distinction) basic rights. I think in order to understand that one must also understand the Declaration of Independence from which the Constitution and the foundational philosophy of America sprung.

Understand this and you will know what constitutes America:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”