# Think Tank > History >  2nd Amendment and the English longbow

## RJB

I love archery.  I've eaten deer that I've hunted with bow and stone tipped arrows I've made.  The history of the longbow was a direct influence for the Founders writing in the 2nd amendment.  Had it not been for a citizen's militia of archers at the Battle of Crécy (1346) and the Battle of Agincourt (1415), we'd probably speak French nowadays.  An armed citizenry replaced the cost of standing armies, guaranteed liberty and cut down on foreign adventurism--  (Neocons take heed.)

BTW archery was the artillery in ancient days.  They were even more deadly (at the time) than scary black assault rifles are today.



> The Real Second Amendment
> 
> By Bart Wilburn
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed 
> 
> As simple as these word are, we have been arguing about what they mean for a long time. Part of the problem is that many people engaged in the argument do not interpret the 2nd Amendment with respect for its historical context, but rather in light of what they want it to mean in support of their purposes. If we want to be honest about it, we must look to the origins of the amendment to understand it in the context of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, and only then can we consider it in our present context. *The issue is further complicated by the fact that an increasingly large proportion of the U.S. population has no experience in the use of arms; they see arms as irrelevant to their lives at best or a threat at worst. This is important because the 2nd Amendment is always susceptible and becomes vulnerable when too many think it is an archaic artifact. 
> *
> *We must first understand that we did not invent the 2nd Amendment; we inherited it.* The justification of the 2nd Amendment is rooted in late 12th and early 13th century England with the innovation of the Welsh; later called English, longbow.* The longbow was a formidable weapon that made the English army the most feared army in Europe and determined the course of European history*. It links to the 2nd Amendment because standing armies are expensive and the King of England did want to bear the cost; he relied on the barons of the shires to provide an army on demand. But the barons were not willing to bear the cost of a standing army either; they preferred to rely on the villagers of the shires for a militia of longbow artillery to support the king's demands. (See G.M. Trevelyan, The History of England, Longman Group, 1973, p. 268)
> ...

----------


## RJB

The reason you are not a slave:

----------


## pcosmar

My current Desktop Wallpaper..

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Longbows are the best, one of the many contributions to the world that the Welsh have made!  Cymru am byth!

----------


## RJB

Bump for "Republicanguy."  The Englishman does not realize the right to bear arms was once encouraged in his own country.  A tradition that we honor.

----------


## Pericles

One of the problems encountered is that too many Englishmen developed an affinity for crossbows and musquets, so those arms were restricted to people worth 100 pounds and 200 pounds respectively, in order that the common man retained proficiency with the longbow.

----------


## Cleaner44

+rep for the thread.

----------


## Athan

> Cymru am byth!


"Come at me bro?"

----------


## jmdrake

Nice article.  Thanks.  By why would it take 4 years to make a longbow?

----------


## libertyjam

> Longbows are the best, one of the many contributions to the world that the Welsh have made!  Cymru am byth!


Éirinn go Brách,  beannacht Éireannach

----------


## CaptainAmerica

the 2nd amendment is also a reminder that it is whatever is necessary in such a time that you need to defend yourself against oppression according to how willing each individual is willing to defend. the founders define "militia" pretty clearly in many of their statements and written letters. Militia belongs to the people, not the governing officials, and it is for the purpose as a last defense against a raised army being imposed on the people, this is why the militia does not belong to the governing officials.

----------


## RJB

> Nice article.  Thanks.  By why would it take 4 years to make a longbow?


I guessing it's the time too season the wood.  It must dry slowly so as not to crack.  I can usually make a bow from wood cut about six months ago.  You could probably get by with a couple weeks if you rough shape it and keep it in a very dry place.  I've never worked with yew.  It might be different from the hard woods I use.  Also England is a bit damp.  4 years does seem a bit long.

----------


## RJB

Bump for relevance.  A little history on a basic God given right.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

I've got some longbows and have done archery for a long time. 

Drying wood takes time but the actual woodworking that goes into a bow is about 20-40 hours if everything is done the old-fashioned way. 

A well made bow lasts a long time, years, decades. Arrows are much more of a pain to make though. There's a bunch of steps involved in making arrows and you're quite prone to losing them and to a lesser extent breaking them or losing arrow heads.

Good bump.

----------


## Ronin Truth

I'll choose the crossbow instead.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> I'll choose the crossbow instead.


Too slow, not enough range. Easy to work with for the unexperienced though.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Too slow, not enough range. Easy to work with for the unexperienced though.


OK, back to .45 ACP.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I'll choose the crossbow instead.





> Too slow, not enough range. Easy to work with for the unexperienced though.


Just when I was thinking about getting a *Barnett Ghost 410*.  Sigh...

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Just when I was thinking about getting a *Barnett Ghost 410*.  Sigh...


Well if you already have an AR-15 you might want to look into this puppy;


It's a crossbow that will work with an AR-15 lower receiver. I don't when if ever this is going to be useful but it sure looks fun.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Well if you already have an AR-15 you might want to look into this puppy;
> 
> 
> It's a crossbow that will work with an AR-15 lower receiver. I don't when if ever this is going to be useful but it sure looks fun.


I saw that, but the bolts are something like $85 for five of them.   I thought that was a little steep, and the price for that thing was something like $1500 to boot.

----------


## The Northbreather

Instinctive shooting with a longbow is very satisfying when you're on your mark.

More fun than the newest compounds imho.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> I saw that, but the bolts are something like $85 for five of them.   I thought that was a little steep, and the price for that thing was something like $1500 to boot.


I don't see how you can't make your own. You can get aluminum shafts, heads, nocks etc. 
I don't see why they have to be 85$ a piece. When I shot recurve bows the price range was something like 10-35$ depending on the quality of the arrow. They lasted a long time though. 

1500$ does seem a bit steep for a crossbows. There's too much vibration issues with crossbows to make them as accurate as the best recurve bows so there's no need for a 1500$ crossbow. I must say... I like how it fits the AR-15 lower. It's illegal here, exactly for that reason, although, there's also a version that's legal which doesn't have the compatibility with the AR-15 lower. 


I really like longbows though. Lots of power in them and when you get used to shooting them you can be relatively accurate. Wouldn't call it pinpoint accuracy but I can say I certainly wouldn't like to be 100-300 yards from someone shooting at me. Provided it's a good archer it's good enough to hit a man most of the time at that range (not moving obviously).

----------


## phill4paul

Much like modern day weapons bows were different and for specific purpose. Long bows were mostly used like modern day flachette ordinance. It wasn't used singularly as a type of war instrument. 

  For singular use it was the shorter bows IMHO.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Much like modern day weapons bows were different and for specific purpose. Long bows were mostly used like modern day flachette ordinance. It wasn't used singularly as a type of war instrument. 
> 
>   For singular use it was the shorter bows IMHO.


Similar though very different. I agree it's similar to a flachette round in that it's a volley of penetrating objects designed to do maximum damage to whomever is hit. 

However, it's also a form of artillery. It's not real short range, for the era it was extremely long range. Even though it required lots of men firing bows, the effect was a massive field of fire that did loads of damage in many ways similar to modern day mortar strikes. 

There's also a significant difference in longbows.

There's longbows and there's warbows.

Longbows are mostly for hunting purposes have lower draw weights and lighter arrows. 
Warbows have extremely high draw weights, require years of training to be able to shoot with them and shoot really heavy arrows up to about 10oz.

----------


## phill4paul

> Similar though very different. I agree it's similar to a flachette round in that it's a volley of penetrating objects designed to do maximum damage to whomever is hit. 
> 
> However, it's also a form of artillery. It's not real short range, for the era it was extremely long range. Even though it required lots of men firing bows, the effect was a massive field of fire that did loads of damage in many ways similar to modern day mortar strikes. 
> 
> There's also a significant difference in longbows.
> 
> There's longbows and there's warbows.
> 
> Longbows are mostly for hunting purposes have lower draw weights and lighter arrows. 
> Warbows have extremely high draw weights, require years of training to be able to shoot with them and shoot really heavy arrows up to about 10oz.


  By "ordinance" I meant artillery. I think we are on the same page.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> By "ordinance" I meant artillery. I think we are on the same page.


Think so. I thought you meant shotgun flachette rounds.

----------


## Ender

> Similar though very different. I agree it's similar to a flachette round in that it's a volley of penetrating objects designed to do maximum damage to whomever is hit. 
> 
> However, it's also a form of artillery. It's not real short range, for the era it was extremely long range. Even though it required lots of men firing bows, the effect was a massive field of fire that did loads of damage in many ways similar to modern day mortar strikes. 
> 
> There's also a significant difference in longbows.
> 
> There's longbows and there's warbows.
> 
> Longbows are mostly for hunting purposes have lower draw weights and lighter arrows. 
> Warbows have extremely high draw weights, require years of training to be able to shoot with them and shoot really heavy arrows up to about 10oz.


Also love archery and have used a bow since I could carry one. Thus my avatar.

----------

