The Real Hawkeye
member
Originally, in England, only the king and his guard possessed the privilege to bear arms in public for the purpose of his personal defense, and the defense of his sovereign privileges. Gradually, however, another class of men privileged to bear arms in public arose. I speak of the knights. These were not the king's guards, but a special class elevated by the sovereign king himself to a status of personal liberty symbolized by the privilege of bearing arms in public, for the defense of themselves, their liberties and properties.
In America, however, we had a different idea of sovereignty. We the People were each personally sovereign, and thus required no permission, no knighthood, to bear arms. The authority to do so resided with us as individuals, being sovereigns ourselves, as individuals. Gradually, however, over the passage of many years, we forgot that we were personally sovereign, and our elected "servants" in government have since presumed to set themselves up as our new sovereigns. The symbol of this transformation was the presumption of passing laws restricting the carrying or arms to those privileged few in government, and to those appointed by them to defend them from the disarmed peasantry, for disarmament in public has always been the prime designator of peasant status.
Gradually, however, in recent years, through a series of "little Magna Cartas," citizens of many states have managed to wrench from their new sovereigns in government a new status, reserved for "qualified" individuals only, i.e., CCW license holders; those who have been bestowed by their sovereigns in government, once again, with the privilege of bearing arms in public for the defense of self, their liberties and their properties. Are these the new knights of the American republic? Is this why our ancestors fought the War for Independence?
Except for Vermont and Alaska, I think the comparison is a valid one. What do you all think of my analogy?
In America, however, we had a different idea of sovereignty. We the People were each personally sovereign, and thus required no permission, no knighthood, to bear arms. The authority to do so resided with us as individuals, being sovereigns ourselves, as individuals. Gradually, however, over the passage of many years, we forgot that we were personally sovereign, and our elected "servants" in government have since presumed to set themselves up as our new sovereigns. The symbol of this transformation was the presumption of passing laws restricting the carrying or arms to those privileged few in government, and to those appointed by them to defend them from the disarmed peasantry, for disarmament in public has always been the prime designator of peasant status.
Gradually, however, in recent years, through a series of "little Magna Cartas," citizens of many states have managed to wrench from their new sovereigns in government a new status, reserved for "qualified" individuals only, i.e., CCW license holders; those who have been bestowed by their sovereigns in government, once again, with the privilege of bearing arms in public for the defense of self, their liberties and their properties. Are these the new knights of the American republic? Is this why our ancestors fought the War for Independence?
Except for Vermont and Alaska, I think the comparison is a valid one. What do you all think of my analogy?