Re: The Division Bell
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:27 pm
The question does need to be asked - what market was that item written for?
Mike Yardley has a long history of protesting firearms restrictions in the UK. IIRC he was one of the key speakers at the inaugural meeting of the Sportsmans Association at Bisley in 1997, and was one of its founding officers. If he is now writing pieces in support of restrictions on firearms, one should ask - why?
Even the most hardline supporter of the Second Amendment would find difficulty in giving citizens unrestricted access to weapons. "The right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms" is not a licence to own, for instance, a private nuclear ballistic missile submarine and its primary armament. The lesser right from which the Second Amendment derives (Bill of Rights 1 W&M 1688)
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare
Dispensing Power.
That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.
Late dispensing Power.
That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.
Ecclesiastical Courts illegal.
That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious.
Levying Money.
That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall.
Right to petition.
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.
Standing Army.
That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.
Subjects’ Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
remains good law, but under any sensible interpretation allows no more than personal weapons. Therefore I contend that limitations on weapons are a legitimate use of law. So we are (always) arguing about where the lines are drawn. Yardley, it seems to me, has chosen to support drawing of lines in a place that may please an American political audience but is unlikely to please anyone else and is unlikely to be supportable by rational argument. I think that's a mistake, but it doesn't make him a bad human being.
Mike Yardley has a long history of protesting firearms restrictions in the UK. IIRC he was one of the key speakers at the inaugural meeting of the Sportsmans Association at Bisley in 1997, and was one of its founding officers. If he is now writing pieces in support of restrictions on firearms, one should ask - why?
Even the most hardline supporter of the Second Amendment would find difficulty in giving citizens unrestricted access to weapons. "The right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms" is not a licence to own, for instance, a private nuclear ballistic missile submarine and its primary armament. The lesser right from which the Second Amendment derives (Bill of Rights 1 W&M 1688)
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare
Dispensing Power.
That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.
Late dispensing Power.
That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.
Ecclesiastical Courts illegal.
That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious.
Levying Money.
That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall.
Right to petition.
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.
Standing Army.
That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.
Subjects’ Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
remains good law, but under any sensible interpretation allows no more than personal weapons. Therefore I contend that limitations on weapons are a legitimate use of law. So we are (always) arguing about where the lines are drawn. Yardley, it seems to me, has chosen to support drawing of lines in a place that may please an American political audience but is unlikely to please anyone else and is unlikely to be supportable by rational argument. I think that's a mistake, but it doesn't make him a bad human being.