On the other hand, the common obligation to bear arms was transformed, as a result of the Civil Wars of the 17th century, into an individual right. In course of time, the weapons changed: firearms and handguns became common in the 16th century and, as the costs of war escalated, so the Crown was obliged to rely more and more on standing forces, though the English were always reluctant to accept the need for these, or pay for them. In other words, there was an obligation to bear arms, rather than a right. At all times, it is clear that the men who were summoned to fight were expected to provide and bring suitable weapons with them, according to their ‘station’ in life. Sometimes, the king tried to insist that all able-bodied men had the duty to serve, at other times he called on the landowners to assist him. Defence was largely a matter for local militias, but the Crown had various powers to summon men to assist in defence and, from Norman times, to assist in the invasion of France. It was also a society that was organised for war, yet the Crown had no standing army or navy. Britain has few guns and gun control is strict yet the legal position was once the same in Britain as it is in the US.įrom the ninth century, medieval England was a monarchy and a comparatively centralised state. The contrast with Britain could not be more marked. The right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution, which is very difficult to amend. ![]() ![]() President Obama has tried and failed to introduce stricter gun control before but the fundamental obstacle remains what it has always been. ![]() The purchase of firearms is largely unregulated in the US and it is unlikely that Congress will act to change this any time soon.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |