English Bill of Rights

Thirdpower points out that Coalition to Stop Gun Violence likes to point out that the English Bill of Rights allowed for disarmament, so by virtue of our Bill of Rights being based on it, ours must too. Obviously CSGV are concerned, much like the drafters of the English Bill of Rights, that we can’t have a bunch of armed papists and dirty street urchins wandering around this country with guns. Guns are for proper Protestant gentlemen! That’s a Bill of Rights they can believe in. Rights for some but not for others.

I’m sure that argument will go over well with our Supreme Court, 6 of 9 of which are Catholic. Oh yeah, and remember folks, we’re paranoid and delusional for thinking these people want to ban guns. They can have my guns when the Archbishop of Canterbury pries them from my cold dead fingers.

9 Responses to “English Bill of Rights”

  1. Sebastian says:

    Yeah… I thought that was kind of hilarious.

  2. Thirdpower says:

    Ladd does fancy himself a composer.

  3. LC Scotty says:

    Was that Everitt?

  4. Those darned armed Papists! Hey, wait, I’m one of them despite my WASP-y sounding name.

    Sorry, Ladd, you can’t pry my fingers loose.

  5. Bram says:

    The English Bill of Rights, unfortunately has been superceded. As far as I know, the U.S. Bill of Rights hasn’t been – although most of our pols like to pretend the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments don’t exist.

  6. “The English Bill of Rights, unfortunately has been superceded.”

    Actually, no. The English Bill of Rights was only a limitation on the king. It was an attempt to guarantee Parliamentary supremacy. William & Mary were promising to behave themselves in exchange fro receiving the English crown. It was only regarded as a limitation on Parliament in some sort of moral example way–not a legal limitation.

  7. mobo says:

    Our Bill of Rights originally allowed for censorship and property takings (among many other things) within the states. Do they really want to go there?

  8. Brad says:

    The anti-gunners lost the argument over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment years ago. Yet they keep regurgitating the same crap over and over. In their tiny minds, they probably really really believe they might yet convince the public to agree with their interpretation. Sadly, that’s just more evidence of their disconnected worldview which resembles a fantasy more than reality.

    The only people they are influencing are themselves. They have to keep their dogma pure so the faithful don’t give up hope, since all hope of victory is gone.