In the US constitution it says 'all men have a right to bear arms' at that time, did all Englishmen have that?

Question

I believe that the right to bear arms (originally swords) was given to all Americans solely because it was denied to the common man in England. Can anybody concur or deny this? And if I'm right, did it still apply until just recently when all guns or sharp blades (specifically swords) were banned?

Answer 1

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the 2nd Amendment. First is the way I which it is phrased. Today it is usually as follows:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The correct form in which was presented to the various States and ratified by those States is as follows (source on this is the Library of Congress):

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The first example is poor syntax sentence structure (something Founders did not do) and has an entirely different meaning than the second example when the sentence is parsed. In the second example those words to preceding the single comma comprise a “dependant clause.” That is it cannot stand on its own and has no meaning without being attached to a full and complete sentence. The words following the single comma are a independent clause (complete sentence) and represent the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment without the preceding dependant clause.

This interpretation is clear in the writings of the Founders and in the early court cases. Interestingly the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford [1856] makes it clear that a citizen has right to be armed and that the federal government has no standing in that right. It is also clear that the existance (or not) of a militia has nothing to do with that right. This also is aparent in the words of the amendment when compared to the first amendment where it begins, "Congress shall make no law. . . . " where in the 2nd Amendment it ends with, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is a far stronger restriction on the federal government in that the federal government cannot even do anything "indirectly" hurt that right.

This is further on solid ground in the understanding of what the Bill of Rights was meant to do. Thinking of it as a list of rights diminishes what they are and their connection to the delegated powers of the body of the Constitution which create the federal government. The ten ratified Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights are comprised of two types. The first eight are exclusionary in that they exclude the federal government from some act. The remaining two are basic truth Statements which are applicable every where and when within the borders of the United States and the Territories it controls. To make it perfect clear, these first ten amendments on based on the Founders acceptance that all of the rights mention (and unmentioned) exist prior to the ratification of the Constitution.

This is because the Constitution is rooted in Common Law applicable to application for all who are culturally root in English culture. This then addresses your question, yes, the right to keep and bear arms is rooted in English Common Law which is evolved from Celtic and Saxon Village Law. Here each member of the community (exclusive of slaves) had not only a right to be armed but a duty to attend the call of the Liege Lord and bring their weapon and this duty precedes the existence of the gun.

Answer 2

Along with freedom and all that jazz, there's a matter of simple practicality. Englishmen of the late 18th century did not have to contend with potential hostile natives and wildlife whereas colonials did. Weapons were a necessity in colonial america.

As others mentioned further back in the aftermath of the Norman Invasion, anglo-saxons were forbidden to carry arms save for hunting knives and cudgels. What is often ignored is the fierce resistance that followed the Battle of Hastings in 1066 particularly in the north.

Answer 3

1) The right to bear arms was not swords. It was GUNS. Always.
2) The English commoner has NEVER had the right to bear arms without the express consent of the governing body, first the King, and later Parliament.
3) Our right to bear arms is being ignored by our politicians because they know that curtailing this freedom is the first step toward tyranny. All tyrants have banned arms under the excuse of protecting the populace.

Why is it that Hitler and the Nazi performed barbaric experiments on human beings in the name of research and eugenics, and now eugenics is almost a dirty word.

Yet Hitler also enforced very rigid gun control, and yet so many people in this country think that gun control is such a good thing.

Gun control is ILLEGAL in this country, and yet none of our politicians, Democrat or Republican, will stand up for our rights.

What does that say to you?

Answer 4

Actually in England the police don't even carry firearms...the people have respect for the society and fear of the law. When they are stopped there is no fight like on COPS.
I really don't know where you got this idea from but I am going to suggest doing some more research.
The right to bear arms orginally came before the Revolution when England's troops walked around fully armed ( I think) basically you need to do your research

Answer 5

The United States is the only English speaking nation where there is a right to bear arms. In the states that have arrisen out of the British Empire however that does not mean that a private citizen possessing weapons was restricted. It just means that the state has a right to regulate them.

Answer 6

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That would be concerning guns.

Answer 7

I believe before the time of William the bastard. the english free people were obligated to bear arms and train monthly with them. After the norman conquest is when you brits lost the right to bear arms...with a small elite of normans in a country full of anglo-saxons and brittons it made sense for weapons to be restricted

Answer 8

Englishmen did not have this right. England had undergone several attempts at replacing Hanoverian monarchs with Stuart pretenders. They didn't want a local population, particularly Irish or Scots, to have a supply of fire arms.

Answer 9

Amendment 2 says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If they wanted to say "the right of the militia to keep & bear arms, . . ." they would have said so. "People" refers to individuals and creates a personal individual right just as it does in Amendments one, four, nine & ten.

Answer 10

The reason it was instituted was because the militia as a whole was the only thing that elevated a few revolutionaries into a standing army. Without private firearms ownership, the continentals would have lost horribly.