This article protects the right of well-off Protestants to own “arms” – firearms or guns.

This article reflects a fear of Catholics as well as a fear of standing armies, which under Charles II and James II were seen to be composed substantially of Catholics. The best protection against Catholic absolutism was considered to be a well-armed Protestant population organized into local militia units.

There was debate over whether or not to extend the right to bear arms to all Protestants regardless of their “condition,” or wealth, but fears of arming “the mob” prevented this. The original draft of the article produced by the House of Commons granted the right to bear arms to all Protestants, but the House of Lords added the qualifying language “suitable to their condition” and “as allowed by law.”

The king traditionally had the right to summon and dissolve Parliament as he wished. Some kings, such as Charles I, abused this power by choosing to rule for many years without ever calling a Parliament. This abuse of power by Charles I led to the English Civil War and the temporary elimination of the English monarchy. When the monarchy was restored under Charles II, it was established that the king should call Parliament at least once every three years. After the Glorious Revolution, the expectation was that Parliament should be in session at least once every year.

This last article stresses the importance and permanence of Parliament. With the Bill of Rights the Parliament was established as the main power in government. For England, the days of absolutist monarchy were over. A constitutional monarchy had been born.

In short, this article states, “What happens in Parliament stays in Parliament.” Basically, in the interest of encouraging open and honest discussion, it states that no one should be punished because of what they say in Parliament.

Before the Bill of Rights, the freedom of speech in Parliament was generally unprotected. People had been punished for statements made in Parliament that were not favorable to the king. Freedom of speech in Parliament was a privilege that could be granted by the king on special occasions or to special individuals, but this was the exception, not the rule. Speech made by members of Parliament while out of session was still unprotected as was, of course, speech made by any other English subject outside of Parliament.

This article asserts the unlimited right of Englishmen to petition, or formally complain, to their king without fear of reprisal.

Perhaps also dating back to the The Magna Carta, this right was one that had been claimed for centuries but was repeatedly challenged by kings. The most recent challenge, and the one foremost in the minds of the framers, occurred under James II. James II ordered Anglican Bishops to read a statement of religious toleration in their churches. Seven bishops interpreted the statement as being pro-Catholic and protested the order by exercising their right of petition. James II responded by having the bishops arrested. This incident caused James II to lose crucial support with the staunchly Anglican Tories and was thus a key event leading to his eventual downfall.

(Pictured above: A portrait of the Seven Bishops)

This incident also probably led Tories to support the inclusion of this article in the Bill of Rights even though the Tories were generally in favor of limiting the right of petition. For their part, the Whigs had been long-time supporters of the right of petition.

Before the episode of the “Seven Bishops,” the right of petition had been a divisive issue for Whigs and Tories. In fact, it was a controversy over the right of petition a decade earlier that led to the formation of the Whig and Tory parties.

At the time this was written, “suspending” a law meant to temporarily nullify a law but not to repeal it. When a law is suspended, it temporarily does not apply. The power to suspend a law was intended to be used by a king in a time of emergency.

That said, this clause simply states that the suspension of any law by anyone in the British monarchy without the expressed consent of Parliament is illegal

This is a reference to the movie Taken, in which Liam Neeson plays a former CIA operative who sets about tracking down his daughter after she is kidnapped while traveling in France using mostly fatal chops to the throat (see below) to mow down those involved in the kidnapping.

Once Eyedea’s rose-colored glass-like perspective on life was shattered by the pressure of having to figure out his life, he began to see the world around him in it’s true form. Therefore, each day brought with it new experiences.

He’s analogizing his heart’s inability to develop hard feelings about someone to someone with ED (the abbreviation for erectile dysfunction, which is a sexual dysfunction characterized by the inability to develop or maintain a hard dick).