Talk:Right to keep and bear arms

Self Defence sprays

I wrote that A person can legally take martial arts classes in the UK to defend themselves as well as carrying self defence sprays such as Farbgel and StoppaRed UV sprays. I put this in the article because I feel that it belongs there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.16.223 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 29 June 2014‎

"The right to keep and bear arms is not legally or constitutionally protected in the United Kingdom."

This isn't true: The article even says "The English Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestants the right to bear arms within the law". The Bill of Rights is part of the English constitution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.148.62.141 (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The operative words being "within the law." The law changed, which is unsurprising given that 329 years have elapsed. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the right went away, no matter how much it was curtailed Rivalin (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Since the passing of gun control laws, the UK has one of the lowest firearm death rates among developed nations, with 0.2 deaths per 100,000, compared to 10.2 in the U.S.[29]" What a staggeringly dishonest line this is, it implies false causality with absolutely no grounds (cue some weasel words from one of the gun control zealots who'll try to defend it). The UK had one of the lowest rates of firearms deaths before the passing of those gun control laws. Rivalin (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The right to keep and bear arms

The article describes what this right is, then goes on the US section to decribe the rights in broader terms, like personal defense....It's just not there...not even hunting..."a well ordered militia," is the only context included. Target practice, sport shooting are NOT guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment...anywhere. The baring of arms does not include anything but ownership for the well ordered milita, that's all that in there. The 2nd Amendment has been obsolete since the US started handing out wea[ons to soldiers. The whole thing applies to nothing anymore, by virtue of it's first 3 words. it is presently meanless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.187.100 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Regulated had a different definition back then. Are you a constitutional lawyer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikom15 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Incorrectness of "No right to bear firearms exists under international law, in particular there is no human right to self-defense and its means"

The article linked as proof in fact says the exact opposite, with an entire section titled "Duty to recognize a right to self defense." Accordingly, I am editing the previous "No right to bear firearms exists under international law, in particular there is no human right to self-defense and its means. Instead, states are under an obligation to reasonably limit access to firearms as part of their duty to protect the right to life.[14]" Apfox (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)