I have to say that, apart from mostly being very fat and particularly dense, the septics DO have good laws in many cases. One of those laws is the right to self-defence in your own home, ie: slotting anyone who comes in without permission or a warrant. Fantastic law.

As for that old bowlarks about it being a 'constitutional right' to bear arms - let's face it, it's a bit of an anachronism isn't it? Every time someone says 'You have too many guns', the usual redneck hillbillies jump straight in with a bunch of cr@p about 'The Constitional Right to Bear Arms' and how 'It is what we have to defend our freedoms from those who would oppress us', namely, the government of the day.

The problem is, it's not like it was 200 years ago - these days, your freedom loving righteous militia brothers have not a hope in hell of going up against your own armed forces if you and the gobment decide to go head-to-head. The days when the federal dudes had long rifles and cannons, and the militia had long rifles and access to cannons are long gone. What's your average redneck going to do when an Apache (helicopter that is) comes over the brow of a hill? That's right, he's going to turn into a cloud of pink vapour.

So, the right to bear arms? Give me strength!

Arguably, a bunch of people in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing a fairly reasonable job keeping modern all-arms militaries pretty busy without heavy weapons of their own.

However, Scalia J. addresses the point directly:

It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

<snip>

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

NTM

Originally Posted by California_Tanker

Arguably, a bunch of people in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing a fairly reasonable job keeping modern all-arms militaries pretty busy without heavy weapons of their own.

Could that be because said modern militaries are nowhere near as ruthless as the previous one? Also, I keep reading here and there that most adult Iraqi males had/have a Kalashnikov (a mandatory wedding celebration accessory) but whilst Saddam had at least some problems with assassination attempts, he always came out on top in his own country.

(btw I'm pleased about the decision - be good if it happened here - its just that, like Biped, I think the idea of taking on the govt is pushing things a bit)

but if you shoot them with 20mm anti tank rifles you can take the pilots head off.
said a spam why he had a 20mm anti tank rifle and stayed up waiting for the UN to take it off him
we had the right to arms or at least C of e members did funny don't remeber when it was repealed though

Originally Posted by brighton hippy

we had the right to arms or at least C of e members did funny don't remeber when it was repealed though

As far as I have been able to find out, it hasnt.
Nor has the obligation to put in a certain amount of practice every week and the obligation of your Parish to provide facilities/space to do so.
I'm sure some kindly soul will pop along shortly and produce the relevant legalities to prove us wrong though :D

Apparently an Englishmans right to bear arms was enshrined in The Bill of Rights.
The American 2nd Amendment was based upon this

Originally Posted by California_Tanker

Arguably, a bunch of people in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing a fairly reasonable job keeping modern all-arms militaries pretty busy without heavy weapons of their own.

However, Scalia J. addresses the point directly:

It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

<snip>

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

NTM

I'd say that bunch of angry armed folks protecting their homes do cause considerable trouble even to sophisticated military since they might be quite well motivated. Will, Skill, Ability...successful fight needs those in that order. When there is will, there is way, so to speak.

Originally Posted by California_Tanker

Arguably, a bunch of people in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing a fairly reasonable job keeping modern all-arms militaries pretty busy without heavy weapons of their own.

weeellll not exactly. You see, Saddam kept them Shia militia's pretty well mulla'd, and we gave Saddam's boys a pretty good kicking in GW1, and we did it again in GW2, and in fact, we are now still giving a kicking to militias from both the sunni rednecks and the shia ones.

As for Iraq, well, the militias are getting raped over there too, albeit the casualty rate is higher - the Afghan/Insurgent casualty rate that is.

Just as 'the right to bear arms' has little or no meaning (unless you count political hand-wringers) against a modern army, and if a modern army, on the orders of a hated gobment, goes to war on its own people, the rightfully bearing arms militias are going to get whacked.

Just my thought on the matter.

Anyway, guns don't kill people, bullets do! :D

Wasn't the CoE right to bear arms concerned with the Longbow? Did it encompass musketry?

Originally Posted by PartTimePongo

Wasn't the CoE right to bear arms concerned with the Longbow? Did it encompass musketry?

are we talking the 1689 thing? Obviously musketry had been around some time