Well in the context of this discussion, it is one and the same. Why are you splitting hairs, iceaura?
You and only you made the big deal of the distinction. That was you, splitting hairs. That was your distinction, entirely. In the context of this discussion, you were and are the only one attempting to make that distinction central and significant and thereby deny the significance of the British Crown's disarming of its peasantry in the considerations and motivations behind the political will of the heirs of that peasantry.
Nobody else, just you.
Which illustrates the fact that you are completely full of shit here.
They did not forbid the peasantry to carry guns. On the contrary, the peasants were often encouraged to be armed.
And often disarmed, when a different ass sat on the throne.
Even England, with its Charters and codified restrictions on royal decree, repeatedly did exactly that:
https://www.historytoday.com/stephen-cooper/gun-control-right-bear-arms
By the time Blackstone wrote his Commentaries, the right provided for in the Bill of Rights had already been modified by the Disarming Acts of 1716 and 1725 and by the Act of Proscription of 1746, which served to suppress the Jacobite Rebellions and demilitarise the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. In the early 19th century, when it was widely feared that a ‘crime wave’ was sweeping across the country, fuelled by soldiers and sailors returning from the Napoleonic Wars, Parliament enacted the Vagrancy Act of 1824, the Night Poaching Acts of 1828 and 1844 and various Game Acts, starting in 1831. These all had the effect of controlling the possession of firearms, at least by the ‘lower orders’.
That loyal peasants were sometimes encouraged to bear arms of certain kinds appropriate to their station is irrelevant (except possibly in establishing self defense as a basis for the 2nd Amendment, which it does).
The "Monarchy" had not attempted to disarm its subjects. The British Parliament, on the other hand, did
Desist with the bullshit, it's not getting you anywhere.
Britain's government was a monarchy. That's the name for when a hereditary King sits on a throne and issues decrees etc. That government, through its legislative subsidiary Parliament (which included a House of Lords, btw) disarmed its peasants, repeatedly, and they did not forget the experience of being disarmed by a central government.
And if they had forgotten, the American ones, they would have been reminded by the various confiscations and restrictions in the colonial years prior to open revolt.
They only attempted to disarm those not loyal to them and encouraged the arming of those loyal to them. Understand now?
Yes. They disarmed their disloyal peasantry, the people they wanted to rule without their consent. And the people they disarmed like that did not forget the lesson learned.
Do you understand why the victims of these statutory disarmaments - amounting to the entire peasantry, by turns, at whim, depending on who sat on the throne - would formulate and establish the 2nd Amendment?
Remember your original question, the comical one: Which monarchy would have been on their minds, the authors of the Bill of Rights?
And it hasn't been that long. The heirs of that six hundred year hard lesson have for two hundred and fifty more inherited the reaction, the intransigent defiance and no excuses reservation of capability for violence, including the sheer bloodyminded blockheaded refusal to reason:
http://www.jeffreyearlwarren.com/the-westering-man/
