ReadyontheRight
Member
Hawkeye - After reading your first post again. I think we are in violent agreement.
Knighthood=Bad=Slippery Slope.
Knighthood=Bad=Slippery Slope.
CCW, the American knighthood?
- Thread starter The Real Hawkeye
- Start date
- Status
The Real Hawkeye
member
Then you are one of the few, it seems, who understands the point I was making.
Mulliga
Member
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.
If the requirements for being a knight in the Middle Ages were as loose as CCW requirements are now, nearly everyone could be a knight. Becoming a knight required years of devotion and training. A Florida CCW takes about two days' worth of pay at minimum wage, a training class that can be done in an afternoon, and maybe a month's worth of waiting for the card to come in the mail.
I agree that asking for permits for an innate human right is, on an ideological level, wrong, but people who choose to obtain a CCW should not be ridiculed or degraded for choosing to protect themselves without running the risk of being charged with a felony for carrying without a permit.
If the requirements for being a knight in the Middle Ages were as loose as CCW requirements are now, nearly everyone could be a knight. Becoming a knight required years of devotion and training. A Florida CCW takes about two days' worth of pay at minimum wage, a training class that can be done in an afternoon, and maybe a month's worth of waiting for the card to come in the mail.
I agree that asking for permits for an innate human right is, on an ideological level, wrong, but people who choose to obtain a CCW should not be ridiculed or degraded for choosing to protect themselves without running the risk of being charged with a felony for carrying without a permit.
The Real Hawkeye
member
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.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Yes! You understand my point.
PlayboyPenguin
member
Agree, not agree, or partially agree...you still have to admit it was a cool topic that made people think. 
The Real Hawkeye
member
That's what I do.
Jim March
Member
We are much closer to the classic concept of the citizen's militia dating all the way back to the old Roman Republic than we are any sort of "knighthood".
The militia structure that our Founding Fathers had most in mind was that followed by some of the Italian city-states, and the Swiss. They were particularly mindful of Machiavelli's notes on militias - and this wasn't printed in "The Prince". Machiavelli was, among other things, a militia captain and had an excellent reputation as such.
US law still classes us as the "unorganized militia", the last remaining vestige of this concept.
If "retail level terrorism" starts taking hold in the US the way it has in Israel, it's not impossible that the concept of an "emergency defense militia" could get linked to CCW. Shortly after 9-11 a sheriff in Oregon set up rotating shifts of citizens to watch key bridges and dams. He didn't seek out such people via the CCW rolls (which he had access to) but it's surprising he didn't - forget the gun part of it, those were people who already had background checks.
The militia structure that our Founding Fathers had most in mind was that followed by some of the Italian city-states, and the Swiss. They were particularly mindful of Machiavelli's notes on militias - and this wasn't printed in "The Prince". Machiavelli was, among other things, a militia captain and had an excellent reputation as such.
US law still classes us as the "unorganized militia", the last remaining vestige of this concept.
If "retail level terrorism" starts taking hold in the US the way it has in Israel, it's not impossible that the concept of an "emergency defense militia" could get linked to CCW. Shortly after 9-11 a sheriff in Oregon set up rotating shifts of citizens to watch key bridges and dams. He didn't seek out such people via the CCW rolls (which he had access to) but it's surprising he didn't - forget the gun part of it, those were people who already had background checks.
I think it is a very good analogy. I would take issue with the relationship of sovereignty to citizens vs government - but that is a different if parallel issue.
Stickjockey
Police have become just a part the King's plethora of agents and Guard.
-----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Stickjockey
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.
-----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Which is exactly my point. Knights in days of old could purchase knighthood as much as earn it, exactly as we do with CCW. Did you get yours for free or did you have to pay a "tax" to the crown to get your "right" to self defense.
I'm trying to agree with your point
Stickjockey
Member
Herein lies the problem; there is no modern U.S. equivalent.
No, they weren't. again though, neither were they required to actively enforce the will of the Crown, as were knights. If being required to actively enforce the will of the Crown (laws of the land, in other words) isn't acting as "part of the King's plethora of agents and Guard," I don't know what is.
This is fun!
+1...this is a thought provoking supposition.
Is the real distinction we are trying to get at here the difference between a man's right to bear arms versus the privilege to bear arms that masquerades as a right?
Or are we discussing the idea of a nation of self-sovereign individuals?
Or...better yet...can a CCW be a knight of the American Republic...when he doesn't even really live in a true republican nation?
Is the real distinction we are trying to get at here the difference between a man's right to bear arms versus the privilege to bear arms that masquerades as a right?
Or are we discussing the idea of a nation of self-sovereign individuals?
Or...better yet...can a CCW be a knight of the American Republic...when he doesn't even really live in a true republican nation?
I don't buy the analogy at all. It is like Star Wars geeks saying they are follower of the Force and Jedi.
At best, the CCW laws are just allowing legal cover to the ability to own a gun to protect self and family. There is no real trust to become some avenger or proactive defender of civilization. Most CCW types don't even carry that much. Most have little real training in usage or tactics.
At best, the CCW laws are just allowing legal cover to the ability to own a gun to protect self and family. There is no real trust to become some avenger or proactive defender of civilization. Most CCW types don't even carry that much. Most have little real training in usage or tactics.
SSN Vet
Member
privelaged classes
Interesting thread....
Knights expanded and secured the power of their sovereign.....I see the RKBA as the antithesis to this.
I'm presently convinced that the 2nd amendment was intended as a check against such oppressive governments .... and not simply a right to bear arms for self defense .... that the right to oppose the government with arms, though dangerous to exercise, was preserved as an option because that government could not legally disarm the populace.
Take the American Civil War (or war of northern aggression if you prefer) as a case in point .... setting aside the morality of the slavery question (which, for the record I personally view as egregiously immoral and ultimately the God ordained demise of the confederacy) .... the argument can be made that the southern states had a constitutionally protected right to revolt.
Has anyone ever considered why Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were not tried for treason after the war?
One reason is that Andrew Johnson opposed the war and and it's outcome and would have let the south go back to slavery if he could have gotten away with it. He had no interest in directing his attorney general to pursue Davis and Lee with charges.
But another reason might have been a fear that the case would be lost before the US Supreme court. Pulling the rug out from under the north’s justification for subduing the south by arms.
The idealism of the "American experiment" was that they're are no privileged classes .... and don't think for a minute that this is globally accepted concept. The caste system of India is alive and well. The Jihadist want to return to a global system of Caliphates, with non-Muslim infidels a subordinate class. "Communist" China? a modern Oligarchy if ever there was one.
Is there a caste system in the good old USA?
I think big media has empowered itself to define who's a heroes and whose a villain by employing selective and biased reporting. Hence a house full of crooked politicians who would never bite the hand that really puts them in power.
People with big money sure seem to buy significantly more "justice" than the "for all" rest of us.
Troubling to think that the next American revolution may come in our lifetime .... but it's an inevitable response to oppression isn't it?
Interesting thread....
Knights expanded and secured the power of their sovereign.....I see the RKBA as the antithesis to this.
I'm presently convinced that the 2nd amendment was intended as a check against such oppressive governments .... and not simply a right to bear arms for self defense .... that the right to oppose the government with arms, though dangerous to exercise, was preserved as an option because that government could not legally disarm the populace.
Take the American Civil War (or war of northern aggression if you prefer) as a case in point .... setting aside the morality of the slavery question (which, for the record I personally view as egregiously immoral and ultimately the God ordained demise of the confederacy) .... the argument can be made that the southern states had a constitutionally protected right to revolt.
Has anyone ever considered why Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were not tried for treason after the war?
One reason is that Andrew Johnson opposed the war and and it's outcome and would have let the south go back to slavery if he could have gotten away with it. He had no interest in directing his attorney general to pursue Davis and Lee with charges.
But another reason might have been a fear that the case would be lost before the US Supreme court. Pulling the rug out from under the north’s justification for subduing the south by arms.
The idealism of the "American experiment" was that they're are no privileged classes .... and don't think for a minute that this is globally accepted concept. The caste system of India is alive and well. The Jihadist want to return to a global system of Caliphates, with non-Muslim infidels a subordinate class. "Communist" China? a modern Oligarchy if ever there was one.
Is there a caste system in the good old USA?
I think big media has empowered itself to define who's a heroes and whose a villain by employing selective and biased reporting. Hence a house full of crooked politicians who would never bite the hand that really puts them in power.
People with big money sure seem to buy significantly more "justice" than the "for all" rest of us.
Troubling to think that the next American revolution may come in our lifetime .... but it's an inevitable response to oppression isn't it?
Michael Courtney
Member
Revolution is only inevitable if the government opposes a justified effort at secession. See www.secession.net.
Michael Courtney
Gordon Fink
Member
In a word, no. Knights and CCW holders have very little in common other than the occasional bearing of arms.
American citizens were supposed to be individually sovereign and hold the rights traditionally restricted to the so-called nobility.
~G. Fink
American citizens were supposed to be individually sovereign and hold the rights traditionally restricted to the so-called nobility.
~G. Fink
The Real Hawkeye
member
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.
Precisely my point.
Gordon Fink
Member
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
~G. Fink
Stickjockey
Member
Which is, interestingly enough, my point.
The Real Hawkeye
member
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.
This nation was founded, however, on the principle of individual sovereignty. Governmental authority derives from the sovereignty that we, as individuals, possess as free men. 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.
Last edited:
Stickjockey
Member
I agree with the first part of this. On the whole, our culture has forgotten that ultimately our country is made up of individuals who are sovereign in their own right. (Strange, when everyone screams about government "by,for, and of the people.) Would I be wrong in sayng that many of us here, though, do so more out of a choice to abide by law, than out of a feeling of "need for permission" from some higher power? We choose to follow the law, rather than feeling we are bound by it. Many here have "not admitted
" to carrying in places where legally they would be going against the law.Silver Bullet
Member
Gives new meaning to the term "Coat of Arms", I guess.
- Status
