Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 06:48 PM EST |
I'm not sure your crossbow argument holds much weight given there was compulsory
longbow practice in England during much of that time.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 05:36 AM EST |
"The right to bear arms should not have limits."
Wow.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 03:34 PM EST |
That's pretty good going, seeing as Henry VIII wasn't around
until the 1500s! The longbow as a weapon peaked about 100
years earlier, and in Henry's time was probably on the wane.
But in the preceding centuries, when the Normans were
fighting to preserve their continental territories, the
longbow was still a better weapon than the crossbow. It
lacked the range, but was just as lethal arrow for quarrel,
and had a much faster fire rate - the crossbowmen might be
able to take out longbowmen from a distance with their first
quarrel, but by the time they'd reloaded they would be
subject to a hail of arrows as the longbowmen got into
range.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 04:21 PM EST |
Yes.
There really should be no limits to the right to bear arms.
I personally feel that the limitations on the rights to carry NBC weapons are
very stifling to my personal freedom and I would feel a lot safer if I knew that
there were a couple of nukes, some anthrax colonies and a few sarin breweries in
the neighbourhood.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|