Sword Question?

[MACKAY]

[QUOTE=Shay]The constitution of the US when written did apply only to certain people. [QUOTE]

You are correct in that the US Constitution and the associated Bill of Rights (constitutional amendments), only applied to males. Remember that in the late 1700's a woman was the property of the man she married, and unmarried women were the property of their fathers or eldest male relative.

Women had little to no say publicly regarding politics. It was deemed at the time too complicated and stressful for the female mind. We all know however that many a woman influenced the founding of this county, albeit most times from the marriage bed and far removed from public debate.

Indeed, during the early years of the Republic only landowners were considered citizens, and only citizens had the right to vote or hold office. If you did not own land, then too bad, no vote. So not every male had these rights either.

Brian

[Archangel]

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/gender.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.html


http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/glossg.htm

How do all these discussions get into a kilt group? The other aspects of your statement have been taken up by others: man only gained its present universal meaning in the past fifty years, if you want to say it actually has that meaning.

The Bible sources provided are invalid and outdated, and defensive. The discussion will probably be hit by the mods real soon. You want to read Kroeger and Kroeger's Suffer not a woman for the full discussion. I'm trying real hard to put is in a brief, inoffensive way. If it was universal man, then the Christ could have been female, He had to be the second Adam to redeem the first man's mistake. Women have had to bear the brunt of Adam's mistake because it became mankind's mistake and that's always womens' fault.

Quickly, apologies to my kilted cohorts who are not part of the Biblical discussion.
apologies to the mods, no problem if this is deleted and I'll say no more here on this.

[highlander_Daz]

I only set out to point out a common grammar mistake ie the incorrect use of the word "man".

in no way did i suggest any biblical significance, or man v women equallity issues.

pleas dont take offence and yes I wondered that as well how did it get into a kilt forum????

best wishes to you all

[highlander_Daz]

Oh I remeber Shay asked for some examples, which I provided,

Archangel Im very sorry if you find the biblical stuff offensive that not my intention , I agree its outdated but its simply an example of the gramatiacal use Im not suggesting that any of the content is valid in 2005.


now where were we?? oh yes swords!!

[Archangel]

Oh I remeber Shay asked for some examples, which I provided,

Archangel Im very sorry if you find the biblical stuff offensive that not my intention , I agree its outdated but its simply an example of the gramatiacal use Im not suggesting that any of the content is valid in 2005.


now where were we?? oh yes swords!!

am I going back on my word if I say there is no need to apologize? There was no offense, I was worried this tack would offend others.

yes, back to swords, much safer than the pen, er, cyber-pen.

Do the "right to carry gun" states allow wearing swords? That's probably provocative.

aha, "Mad" Major Churchill is supposed to be the last "highlander" to kill with a broadsword in combat during WW2. Any updates on this record and is there any decent biographies of him that anybody knows of?

(let's not get sideways here, we agreed in another thread that there are two swords called claymore, this would be the shorter one, and I don't think he's really from the highlands being Winston's cousin or something.)

[bubba]

NCOs have existed in every Army in history that I've ever heard of. No Army could function without them.

[Doc Hudson]

Hey Doc,

Oh, ok, because you say so, it MUST be true. And, of course, I believe everything else I read on the internet too.

Your betray your ignorance. "Sargeant" in 1066???? Did you mean "squire"? I think they cleaned and carried swords for their knights. Don't think they wore them ceremonially (or bore them in tournament or battle) until they were knighted. You Dixies and Yanks might think that the phrase "right to bare arms" originates with your Constitution, but it actually originates from the idea of becoming a knight (ie. a lesser noble) and obtaining the military and ceremonial privilege of baring a sword.

Give me some authority for the "non-nobles wearing swords" idea and the "sargeant was an office that existed in 1066" (other than "I say so, and therefore it is") and I might believe something you say. With proof, I could concede that a "sargeant" can wear a sword, but unless you are a sargeant, you are no closer to having a conventional "right" to wear a sword.

If you read all my posts that you originally responded to more closely, I was not the one possing to be the expert. I merely asked a question.

As to the dual, I believe it is customary for agreements regarding weapons, etc. to be negotiated between seconds. Further, I believe the appropriate course of conduct would be for your second to contact me to learn the identity of mine and that you and I have no further contact until the field of honour. Again, you prove your lack of historical knowledge.

J.K.D., esq.

You sound like a bloody barrister!

If you wish to become personally insulting, and I can do that quite well, let us take our arguement to Private Messages. I will be happy to exchange insults and demonstrate your ignorance in private rather than doing it in public where moderators will become incensed.

Perhaps things were done differently in Canada, but under the American and Irish Dueling Codes the challenged has the right to choose weapons. If the challenger demurrs, he has the option of apologizing.

Now, if anyone wants to continue the discussion without becoming insulting, carry on folks.

[Archangel]

You sound like a bloody barrister!

If you wish to become personally insulting, and I can do that quite well, let us take our arguement to Private Messages. I will be happy to exchange insults and demonstrate your ignorance in private rather than doing it in public where moderators will become incensed.

Perhaps things were done differently in Canada, but under the American and Irish Dueling Codes the challenged has the right to choose weapons. If the challenger demurrs, he has the option of apologizing.

Now, if anyone wants to continue the discussion without becoming insulting, carry on folks.

Do you have barristers in the US?

Duelling is also illegal in Canada.

Yes, it was getting insulting and over-reacting. If we are going to stop and challenge people on the basis of spelling we'll never finish the first sentence. JKDESQ, you didn't spell check either, does that discredit you? Answer: no.

I think sergeant is an old title, actually would have been serjeant for all that, can't put my hands on anything right now that would date it. As military, they would have a sword.
I don't think that's what the discussion is about. We're looking at when the ordinary man/woman on the street could carry swords/weapons. It may well be the American Constitution that legally removed it from nobility, noting that at that point there was no nobility to discuss anyway. (rest of discussion will be too politically charged for right now.) The remaining British colonies set their own rules but legally they would be under nobility structures, a subtle difference.
Another minor point that I can't back up right now, would be that different ranks of nobility would have different weapon privileges.

[Doc Hudson]

In britain the law says one can use "reasonable force" thats about it, on a like for like basis.

Kinsman, this is not being arguementative, but merely continuing discussion.

What would be reasonable force from one middle aged gentleman with bad knees, and using a cane, accompanied by a middle-aged female of delicate health if confronted by half a dozen gang-bangers, aka hoods, thugs, or ruffians, armed with clubs, pipes, knives, and sheer numbers, demanding money and other possessions?

Would I be brought up on charges if I used my cane to beat the living daylights out of most of the low-lifes, and send the others packing in fear of my righteous wrath?

[Freelander Sporrano]

If I wanted to go whole hog with the Scottish regalia thing what kind of swordbelt would I use to hang a basket hilt claymore from?

Guy's just to remind you all what this thread is about....and I think it was answered a few pages back...OK!