The right pre-dates the act. The act was to keep a Catholic King from ever disarming Protestants. (No one can ever seem to keep Religion or Politics out of Statute Law). If you read the commentaries about the second amendment when it was originally written you'll find that the assumption was that everyone was armed.
Bob W wrote: > That claim is often overstated. The 1689 bill says this: > > "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their > defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" > > which is a long way from the claim that there is an absolute right for > anybody to have guns. > > Even the 2nd amendment of the US consitution is wide open to different > interpretations and certainly does not of necessity imply the freedom > that the Charlton Heston lobby claims. > > The 1689 bill of rights also specifically excludes Papists from > sitting in Parliament. Its value with respect to universal human > rights is distinctly limited. > > -- > Bob > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of P. J. Alling >> Sent: 10 January 2007 04:53 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: PESO - American Fence >> >> Historically under English Common law, it's a right. After >> Centuries of >> attempts at limiting this right, and in specific opposition of the >> attempts by Charles II and James II to disarm all but those who >> supported them, it was revitalized in the English >> Deceleration of Right >> of 1689. (This by the way is seen by many as the direct >> ancestor of the >> US second amendment). Too bad that's being forgotten. Rights >> shouldn't >> be given up so easily. >> >> > > > > -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
