In a system where category of inequality is not allowed to exist all members of the inequal group automatically cease to exist as humans. This twisted logic is the most damning feature of liberalism. Of course, no liberal admits this because it would bring him close to realization he's a Nazi yelling to the crowd "catch the Nazis".
#25 sounds suspiciously liberal to me ;-) If individuals don't have any inherent political right why should they have any right to bear arms? In republic only citizens that served in the military could have such right, as in Starship troopers. Under monarchy it is king's decision. Although often dictated by circumstances.
English king, Edward I., if I remember correctly, forbade commoners to bear sword and buckler because fencing schools were spreading like a wild fire and people were harming each other to prove their efficiency with those weapons. On one hand the king needed their subjects to be capable with arms to serve in his army (French nobles felt very vividly the English commoner proficiency with bow at Crecy ;-), on the other enough is enough.
Similarly, the duells of nobles made headaches to king and the Church for centuries as they could not do much about it.
So it seems to be a prudential judgment of our superiors.
In all times and places the right to possess arms has been seen as the prerogative of legally free men. It doesn't necessarily imply political rights as such, but rather the independence of free heads of household, who unlike women, children, and slaves have personal power of their own and aren't completely dependent on others for protection. Sovereigns individual or collective, however, may legitimately restrict the carriage and use of arms on their domains (after all, it's their property and they own it) and everywhere have done so.
In a system where category of inequality is not allowed to exist all members of the inequal group automatically cease to exist as humans. This twisted logic is the most damning feature of liberalism. Of course, no liberal admits this because it would bring him close to realization he's a Nazi yelling to the crowd "catch the Nazis".
#25 sounds suspiciously liberal to me ;-) If individuals don't have any inherent political right why should they have any right to bear arms? In republic only citizens that served in the military could have such right, as in Starship troopers. Under monarchy it is king's decision. Although often dictated by circumstances.
English king, Edward I., if I remember correctly, forbade commoners to bear sword and buckler because fencing schools were spreading like a wild fire and people were harming each other to prove their efficiency with those weapons. On one hand the king needed their subjects to be capable with arms to serve in his army (French nobles felt very vividly the English commoner proficiency with bow at Crecy ;-), on the other enough is enough.
Similarly, the duells of nobles made headaches to king and the Church for centuries as they could not do much about it.
So it seems to be a prudential judgment of our superiors.
In all times and places the right to possess arms has been seen as the prerogative of legally free men. It doesn't necessarily imply political rights as such, but rather the independence of free heads of household, who unlike women, children, and slaves have personal power of their own and aren't completely dependent on others for protection. Sovereigns individual or collective, however, may legitimately restrict the carriage and use of arms on their domains (after all, it's their property and they own it) and everywhere have done so.
All those points needed explaining because most liberals, like most materialists, have no idea how opposed to common sense their ideology really is.