Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <1962@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 01:50:21 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1962
Posted: Thu Feb 14 01:50:21 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 05:38:54 EST
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:watdcsu:-90500:inmet:3900168:177600:1174
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Feb 12 20:58:00 1985

>***** inmet:net.flame / mit-eddie!barry /  1:08 pm  Feb  8, 1985
>An important point which was missed in the discussion of British handgun
>rules is that the British never considered owning weapons to be part of
>a list of god given rights.  The British also VOLUNTARILY gave up their
>guns.  Would Americans do the same?  Why not?
>

Just as a matter of historical interest:

"That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence
suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law,

					- The English Bill of Rights
					Quoted in "Firearms and Violence"
					Ed. Don B. Kates. pp 408

Apparently the Convention Parliament which adopted the Bill of Rights
meant to write legislation later, but meant to clarify rights at the time.

The article claims that the wording went through several revisions, among
them, one like our own second amendment, which refers to common defense.
The article also claims that the "as allowed by law" clause did not
pose the obvious problems -- Blackstone and others apparently 
interpreted this right to keep arms as fundamental.

By the way, this was in the 1600's and was part of the basis for the
USA Bill of Rights.