During the late 11th century and middle 12th century Pope Urban and Pope Innocent II banned the use of the common crossbow in battle. Why???? The crossbow had the power to pierce the armor of the Royal Knights. No royal knights, no power over their countries. Anarchy would prevail. That did not fulfill the purpose of the Pope’s agenda.
Recommend0 recommendationsPublished in Senior Chatters
The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas/Guerra del Atlántico Sur), also called the Falklands Conflict/Crisis, was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United…
Letting Go, Beginning Again by Helen Sophie Whelan Amelia Daxton had enough of life. She needed somewhere to go, make a new start, and yet…
Ian Brady and Myra Hindley The Moors murders were carried out by Ian Brady and Myra Hindley between July 1963 and October 1965, in and…
Battling the Demons A Short Story by Tony Killinger “But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passes through waterless places,…
THIS IS A VERY LONG BLOG!. The O. J. Simpson murder case (officially called the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson)…
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please confirm you want to block this member.
You will no longer be able to:
Please note: This action will also remove this member from your connections and send a report to the site admin. Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.
Leaf Im not sure if I’m understanding the point but are you saying if we don’t ban guns we will
Anarchy? Are not the current Democrats arguing the second amendment is outdated for the time? Not sure I follow.
All I’m saying is that this has been a problem for 1000 years. In the middle ages the Pope ran supreme. The Nobles pledged loyalty to the Pope first then the King. If the Nobles were slaughtered the whole stack of cards would fall. We are a modern society that enables dialectics to prevail and wisdom put into action. Of course THE BILL OF RIGHTS were written at a time in history when the Amendments were more clearly defined. That no longer applies. Anarchy occurs when there isn’t some form of Governmental law in place. Of course I say let’s cross the aisle and work together.
The Bill of Rights no longer applies? Did you seriously just say that? Please tell us how these Amendments that serve to protect individual freedoms no longer apply. I truly want to know how you have come to such a conclusion.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I am well aware of THE BILL OF RIGHTS as called Amendments. Studying THE CONSTITUTION for four years was a prerequisite toward my Degree In history. They are called Amendments because they are subject to change otherwise they would be called Laws. Yes tempering my remarks as to conform may be for the best, but I expect the same in return. I said what I said because it is true not to be antagonistic.But thanks for the history lesson it always pays to revue.
An amendment is indeed a law. The constitution is the governing law of our land. Any amendment made to this document and ratified also becomes the law of the land.
These first ten amendments were designed specifically to prevent our government from stepping on individual rights. I am not a law breaker. I have had the proper training in the use of firearms. So please explain to me why the government wants to take away the freedom of this responsible citizen. The framers of this country gave me this right and I take umbrage to the notion that our current iteration of government believes they can infringe on my constitutional privilege.
I am and always will be respectful in my postings. However, I believe debate is a worthwhile endeavor. The bottom line for now is that I have constitutional backing to support my position. To have even the most basic right stripped from me, causes me to become very passionate about defending those rights.
In our country we have three description of the rights of the people. 1) The Right as fulfilled by a citizen’s best interest. 2) A privilege such as a driver’s license, the privilege of the vote. If and when these privileges are abused they can legally be removed. If you have a hard time connecting voting with privilege the law steps in and revokes these privileges especially in the case of a committed Felony 3)The Amendment, which include rights was subject to change such as the Repeal of the 18 Amendment and the Volstead Act which fruitlessly pursued and failed the 18th Amendment. Sometimes people make mistakes like the Volstead Act and the Law must be amended accordingly. The one concept our Forefather’s recognized was the fallacy of man. They purposely left a margin for error.
An amendment is still law while it is on the books. I agree that privileges such as driver’s licenses and the ability to vote can be removed easily. However, these are not guaranteed specifically by the constitution as is the right to bear arms.
Amendments are not any easier to change than the rest of the constitution. Once an amendment becomes law of the land, the requirements to propose a change are as follows:
In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds super-majority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification. Three-Fourths of the states must then ratify such a change.
As you see, it’s not easy to alter the law of the land. The votes are just not there. Any circumvention of this route is unconstitutional as per Article V of the constitution.
I have a question for both of you. What is the history of countries that were forced to have “no gun” laws for their citizens? How did they do? Did the end justify the means? What was the crime rate afterwards? I want to know what the future might look like.
I can’t give you any specific information on this, but Skippy and Capp both said that in Australia, the criminals are the only ones who can get the guns. Law abiding citizens are not permitted to protect themselves or their families.
hi chalk, if anyone is interested just google australian gun laws, it gives all the stats, it too big to put in here xxx
All I can say in this subject is , I am Australian and I live in Australia and I don’t own a gun, my choice. I am not afraid in my own home or out in the sticks by myself or in the city. There is nowhere here in my life that I feel threatened or scared of me or any of my family getting shot. I don’t live and have never been to another country where laws are different or the same so I can not comment on other countries that I know nothing about. End of rant ! Lol xxx