ReadyontheRight
Member
Hawkeye - After reading your first post again. I think we are in violent agreement.
Knighthood=Bad=Slippery Slope.
Knighthood=Bad=Slippery Slope.
My comparison strictly referenced the privilege of bearing arms handed down to both the knight and the CCW license holder from a superior sovereign, as opposed to the right of doing so claimed by the sovereign himself, and by Americans who consider themselves sovereigns, not needing permission from a superior to exercise a right they were born with.I understand the point, but I don't agree with it. Comparing CCW holders with feudal knights is a stretch, at least in terms of what knights actually were and what CCW holders are.
Yes! You understand my point.Knights bow to a king, I still stand a free man.
English commoners under the Magna Carta required no individual permission (license) or fees (taxation) to keep and bear arms. Neither was having been imprisoned or served other punishment grounds for the denial of this right.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
Quote:
Or could be purchased through donations of various types.
While your statement is true, my discussion is about knights in the theoretical Arthurian sense.
I would take issue with the relationship of sovereignty to citizens vs government - but that is a different if parallel issue.
English commoners under the Magna Carta required no individual permission (license) or fees (taxation) to keep and bear arms. Neither was having been imprisoned or served other punishment grounds for the denial of this right.
Police have become just a part the King's plethora of agents and Guard.
Troubling to think that the next American revolution may come in our lifetime .... but it's an inevitable response to oppression isn't it?
But they both have received leave from "the crown" (as it were) to enjoyed the elevated status of one privileged to bear arms in public. Peasants did not have that privilege, and neither do non-CCW holders in the United States, excepting Alaska and Vermont.In a word, no. Knights and CCW holders have very little in common other than the occasional bearing of arms.
Precisely my point.American citizens were supposed to be individually sovereign and hold the rights traditionally restricted to the so-called nobility.
Any analogy is potential prey to argumentum absurdum. Naturally, knights and CCW holders are not identical in every way to one another. Within the scope of receiving permission from a sovereign to bear arms in public, however, they are comparable and analogous, for the purposes of the point I was making. Both the knight and the CCW holder look to a superior for permission, because neither believes themselves sovereign in themselves.Historical knighthood also entailed military service to a feudal lord. State CCW permits do no such thing. A knight was more analogous to a commissioned officer than to a CCW holder. A CCW permit is like a driver license or a building permit or a business license.
~G. Fink
This notion has been lost to modern Americans, which is why we, like the knights of old, seek permission from an external sovereign to bear arms in public, a thing which is already our natural right.
Gives new meaning to the term "Coat of Arms", I guess.CCW, the American knighthood
Gives new meaning to the term "Coat of Arms", I guess.