CCW, the American knighthood?

[The Real Hawkeye]

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?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Is this why our ancestors fought the War for Independence?

No, its the antithesis of why they fought the War of Independence.

 

[84B20]

Extremely well put. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Stickjockey]

Are these the new knights of the American republic? Is this why our ancestors fought the War for Independence?

I would say that it is actually the police that have become the new American "knights." The reason being that during the Feudal period, the knights were allowed the privelege of bearing arms in return for a vow of fealty to the Crown. The King gave them charge of lands in return for their overseeing it in accordance with his wishes.

I would say CCW holders are closer to English commoners under the Magna Carta.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Who were below commoners? There is a class in America not privileged by sovereign license to carry arms in public, i.e., those without a CCW license. After the Magna Carta, were there still classes not permitted public arms? Did each individual commoner need to seek the sovereign privilege to carry arms in public? I don't think so. My analogy is closer, I contend. Cops are more analogous to the king's guard or a lord's retainers than to knights.

 

[PATH]

Police as Knights? Hey, there was a TV show with George Kennedy called, "The Blue Knight". Not a new thought methinkst but an interesting one none the less!

 

[Luku]

I think the analogy is a good one. I agree.

 

[Stickjockey]

Sorry; got my documents mixed up. It's the english Bill of Rights.

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

It is interesting to note that in 1689 the wording was changed from "for their common defense..."

(Note: I am not an English Law expert.)

So yes, there were different levels.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

But individuals, so long as not Roman Catholic, did not have to apply individually for a soveriegn permission to bear arms in public.

 

[Stickjockey]

Neither were they required to be the muscle backing the will of the Crown. I, as a CCw holder, am not required to go into harm's way to enforce the law.

You may be right, though; maybe the closer analogy would be Protestant commoners/Alaskans or Vermonters, since neither had to ask "the Crown's" permission?

 

[hillbilly]

While on the surface this comparison might be a bit tempting to make, I would suggest quite a bit more study into the history of knights before jumping whole hog into this analogy.

There was a whole lot more to being a knight than merely being somebody who rode around carrying weapons.

hillbilly

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I realize that, hillbilly, but as far as I take it, I think it's a good analogy, and makes an important point IMHO.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Knighthood was bestowed upon men in the past because of good deeds, meritorious service, uncommon valor, bravery, etc.

All a CCW requires is bureaucratic compliance.

Not quite the same, if you ask me.

We live in a constitutional republic, and all are equal in the eyes of the law (or should be). You are not special because you have a CCW.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make with this analogy.

I would say the closest people we have to modern knights would be winners of the Medal of Honor, Medal of Freedom, Silver Star, Navy Cross, etc.

 

[c_yeager]

"Knighthood" is a priviledge granted by the state. CCW is a human right. Thats a pretty vast difference. In places like New York and California it might very well be like that, but that is far from the normal in this nation. The big difference here is that we started off with the freedom to carry weapons and it is being taken from us, just because some people have gotten it back doesnt actually mean we are winning.

 

[Stickjockey]

Knighthood was bestowed upon men in the past because of good deeds, meritorious service, uncommon valor, bravery, etc.

All a CCW requires is bureaucratic compliance.

That, and the fact that knighthood required, on an ongoing basis, something in return, is my point.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Knighthood was bestowed upon men in the past because of good deeds, meritorious service, uncommon valor, bravery, etc.

Or could be purchased through donations of various types.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Or could be purchased through donations of various types.

While your statement is true, my discussion is about knights in the theoretical Arthurian sense.

 

[lysander]

This is an interesting theoretical analogy...one I suppose that is in the same vein as the old sheep/sheepdog mantra. I am not sure where I fall on this. I would likely argue that a modern day CCW in America is unlike a knight in the historical sense...but possibly like a knight in the Arthurian sense.

Not a knight in the historical sense because knighthood was really an instrument of military and social control tied to the monarchy. A knight raised his levy of troops, protected his lord's land and paid his taxes. It became easier to get yourself knighted when the military value of mounted heavy cavalry faded. The transition was to a title of symbolism and prestige, rather than a role as a warmaker. Less expensive and glamourous standing armies of infantry and archers replaced the heavy mounted knight. (the idea of an armored, mounted soldier really went bye-bye with the arrival of the gun. )

You could draw a possible parallel to the Arthurian knights of legend...pointing out that by taking the responsibility of carrying a deadly weapon amongst the public...you are assuming a kind of duty to protect yourself and others from violent aggression. If you want to a be "knight errant" in shining armor...riding the land in search of bad guys...have at it. Overall I think this parallel is fairly weak.

If you were looking for a modern day group that could be identified with the chivalric code...I think the "warrior class" is it. Special Operations soldiers, SWAT teams, front-line troops, etc.

Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Church.
Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.
Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

Make a few changes to that list (substitute Flag or State for Church and feudal for orders) and I think you get pretty close to current guiding principles for the various military branches.

I'm not sure where the generosity fits in...but the troops do spread MREs and Candy bars around.

I would think the idea of CCW is more egalitarian in nature. My choice for a historical parallel would be Robin Hood and his band of merry outlaw yeomen farmers.

P.S. Knights carried openly.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I am not sure I would put Special Operations, SWAT, etc in the class of knights, as knights in the Arthurian sense are sworn to uphold goodness, and are not just puppets of the law. Certainly some members of those organizations might be "knights", but not all.

For example, I would not classify Lon Horiuchi, the murderer at Ruby Ridge, to be a knight, despite the fact that he would have been a member of the "warrior class" you describe.

 

[lysander]

Lone_Gunman,

For example, I would not classify Lon Horiuchi, the murderer at Ruby Ridge, to be a knight, despite the fact that he would have been a member of the "warrior class" you describe.

Agreed. SpecOps personnel were the first parallel that came to mind to compare to the "historical" knights. I don't think there is any modern parallel for the "shining armor" knights of Arthurian legend. Additionally, note the changes I suggested to the code itself. Making appropo modern day substitutions does create a set of principles which Horiuchi could be said to have followed.

...it all depends on who your "lord" is doesn't it?

 

[Stickjockey]

Gunman-

You'd be surprised. Some of these guys were not much more than warlords themselves, especially in the early middle ages. They had there share of Lon Horiuchi's.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Personal firearms killed the need for knights and allowed the USA to fluorish unencoumbered by a feudal caste system (except for the ugly holdover of slavery ). With a good rifle, we don't need an army led and trained by knights to protect our land.

The USA is as strong as it is precisely because we do not have such things as knighthood.

I can appreciate your association of CCW holders with the chivalry of knighthood, but I think the concept of RKBA is mutually exclusive to the concept of knighthood.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Whoops -- had an AD doubletap there.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Are these the new knights of the American republic? Is this why our ancestors fought the War for Independence?

No, not really. Our ancestors fought for the rights of commoners, and allowed no special classes of people, no special privileges. I think it would be less inaccurate to say the founding fathers believed each was a king, not a mere knight.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

No, not really. Our ancestors fought for the rights of commoners, and allowed no special classes of people, no special privileges. I think it would be less inaccurate to say the founding fathers believed each was a king, not a mere knight.

If you re-read my original post, you will see that this was precisely my point. A king is a sovereign. In America, we are supposed to believe that every man is his own sovereign, and needs no knighthood, or license from a "superior," as a permission to bear arms.