James Paterson Quote

"... in all countries where personal freedom is valued, however much each individual may rely on legal redress, the right of each to carry arms -- and these the best and the sharpest -- for his own protection in case of extremity, is a right of nature indelible and irrepressible, and the more it is sought to be repressed the more it will recur."

by:	James Paterson (1823-1894) English jurist, historian
Source:	Commentaries on the Liberty of the Subject and the Laws of England Relating to the Security of the Person, (London, 1877), Vol. 1, p. 441; quoted in Joyce Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms. The Origins of an Anglo-American Right (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), pp. 169-170
Rating:
Categories:	Arms, Defense, Disarmament, Freedom, Guns, Militia, Redress
	Tweet

-- Joe, Rochester, MI
-- Dave Doyle, Oklahoma City, OK
-- Helberg, Minnesota
I give it three beacuase he was referring to the sword and to fight 1-1 is a thousand time braver than shooting with a gun. Give a man a knife and let him hunt the tiger and see how many brave people step forward. Guns are for cowards - I say no more. Have a wonderful weekend, Robert  -- Robert, Sarasota
meaningless extracted babble.  -- Anonymous, Reston, VA US
The 'right' of the PEOPLE to 'keep and bear Arms' encompassed every kind of weaponry of self-defense - it was not specific to projectile weaponry, however, it was as inclusive of these weapons as in all other forms. There are, if you look closely, several words in the Constitution that are capitalized when they shouldn't necessarily be - this was not done by mistake. According to their rules of grammar, this type of capitalization was their way of adding emphasis on a single word. 'Arms' isn't a word that requires capitalization, in our day, but was done so to add emphasis to the importance of the idea behind it. What is important enough that they thought the citizenry should be protected inviolate in their right of bearing Arms? On the premise that 'Arms' meant any type of weapon (including but not limited to 'rifles' or 'guns') - It cannot be reasonably argued that a "well regulated militia" was the sole intent of the 2nd Amendment. Their type of warfare and understanding absolutely required a rifle (not even a pistol, at the time, would be sufficient). A sword, bayonet, knife, or other weapon, could be used by the army or militia, but were suicide if used without a rifle... In writing the Bill of Rights, the word ‘Arms’ (an all inclusive ‘right’) was used instead of something more specific – it is clear that the founder’s intent was focused upon the right of self-protection by ‘Arms’. The man who fears his law abiding and responsible neighbor, because he has a particular tool or ‘Arm’ of self-defense, is the same man, if in a foxhole, that I would rather give myself up to the enemy than to ask him to watch my back.  -- Logan, Memphis, TN
Wake up and see what is happening in England since they removed the right to keep and bear arms ... violent crime increased by 50%. Terrorists used knives to hijack planes on 9-11, but one citizen with a handgun would have prevented numerous deaths. I don't hunt endangered species, but use a knife to hunt a tiger (who has 8 built-in knives) makes you an idiot, not brave. Criminals will attack with the best tool they have, be it knife, bat or gun. My 15 year old daughter could not possibly defend against a 5'10" 180 lb (small) man, with or w/o a knife. Using a handgun is about self-defense, protecting life, not bravery.  -- Anonymous
The day they tell us we can no longer bear arms, I will purchase as many as I can find. Therefore, "...and the more it is sought to be repressed the more it will recur," makes sense to me. Apparently "meaningless extracted babble' describes Anonymous' opinion of himself.  -- David L. Rosenthal , Hollywood
What about cross-bows, spears, flaming arrows, catapults, and trebuchets? Certainly in 1877 the speaker was familiar with guns of all kinds and cannons, too. Should a person be allowed to buy a tank? Why not! They are for sale. Why is it increasingly difficult to be allowed to protect oneself? Obviously, the State's intent is to make us completely vulnerable and under their control. In a free Republic the People are permitted to make sure that does not happen.  -- E Archer, NYC
I think it is apparent our two resident gun grabbers, are afraid to take a dump without Uncle Sugar's permission.  -- Shooterman, Beaumont, Tx
-- Anonymous, Raleigh, NC
'Bravery' or 'cowardice' are not the issue when confronted by someone trying to do harm to a person. Effective protection is the issue. - Sometimes "Discretion is the better part of valor" - Shakespear - "King Henry IV" || Sometimes "He who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day." - unsourced - || Sometimes, you need to fight. Carry protection and carry the best protection you can get your hands on. Generally that's your wits. Sometimes, it's a gun.  -- Terry Berg, Occidental, CA

Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
Email: