My statement still stands, "_many_ see this as a precursor to the second
amendment", if you don't read the history of the time then you really
have no understanding of why it was necessary to codify what was assumed
to be a natural right. The theory of the right to keep arms is based on
the natural right of self defense. The fact that religious bigotry, as
defined by todays standards, is part of the 1689 act simply shows that
politicians are politicians in any age, and cater to their
constituencies. Papists were unreliable they owed their allegiance to a
foreign power, the fact that a government used it's power to suppress
rights just shows that it was payback time.
William Robb wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob W" Subject: RE: PESO - American Fence
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for clarfying that Bob.
> Peter, thats at least one straw man and a very innaccurate and vastly non
> objective interpretation of the English Bill of Rights you have put forwards
> in this thread.
> I'm thinking you have lost your credibility on this one.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>
>
--
--
The more I know of men, the more I like my dog.
-- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
