Saturday, April 28, 2018

The Medieval Roots of the Second Amendment

it was indeed to have a "militia". LINK

Having and knowing how to use weapons was a man’s role in the medieval period. 
All levels of society owned weapons throughout the medieval period. It distinguished laymen from clerics (who, nonetheless, also possessed and used weapons), the free from the unfree, and law-abiding citizens from criminals. It also signaled the ability to defend one’s honor with violence.
Bearing and using weapons was associated with enfranchisement—literally, being a Frank (“free”).
Anyone who has a passing interest in the Middle Ages knows that the “feudal” social system set up by the Franks required nobles to exchange mounted, armored military service for land.
What fewer people pay attention to, however, is that common soldiers were also required to do military service and to own swords, shields, bows, and arrows. This was in direct continuity from the era of migrations, when the duty of the free men of the Germanic tribes was to fight alongside their chiefs.
more at the link, about weapons and the relationship between gun ownership and weapons in Europe.

An armed society, in other words, was seen as a positive good. On both sides of the Atlantic, weapons ownership equaled liberty. Disarmament on the Continent only came with strong centralized government: Tlusty makes a strong case that building a stable state and ending the near-anarchy of premodern Germany necessitated ending the population’s right to bear arms. Of course, in modern Switzerland, firearms ownership is still ubiquitous, but gun-owners are trained from a young age in the responsible use of weapons.

when I bought hunting rifles for my son, to get a license they needed to pass a gun safety course. In the past, many ordinary people obtained this training in the military.

The bad news: The author goes beyond her level of expertise and suggests that if you encourage credit card companies from enabling gun purchases, you would solve the gun problem in the USA.

Two problems with this:

One: uh, cash? (which is an argument they will use for a future cashless society)

and two: What about the weapons already in the hands of folks?

here in the Philippines, even though gun ownership is restricted and illegal guns are commonly confiscated,  most middle class folks have a gun or two hidden away for personal safety. (Lolo used to have his WWII submachine gun in our closet when we first moved we don't own any guns now, only machetes and vicious dogs for protection).

The problem with guns is that you have to know how to use it and be prepared to do so. And that takes both training (to do it automatically) and a mindset (to watch for threats, even in benign situations).

that is why I never learned to fire a handgun, and even had a waiver not to carry one in the National Guard.

For the average civilian, when confronted by a professional (killer or cop) you hesitate long enough for him to shoot you or maybe take the gun away and shoot you with your own gun.

the irony about the fight against the NRA is that the straw man NRA person is a white guy bigot, but the real story of gun homicide is that it is not a white problem per se.

and remember the next time you read about the "high murder rate" from guns in the USA: that this has a racial bias, 

this is a public health emergency, and it has been going on as long as I have been a physician (which dates back to 1970).

IF this was happening in the upper middle class white community, stopping gun crime would be seen as a priority (I remember when yuppies started to be threatened, Giuliani got rid of guns by frisking down suspicious people, and the death rate went way down).

but one of the evil things done by President Obama was to polarize the country against the law abiding citizens of all races, by protecting the civil rights of thugs not to be frisked on sight or to be thrown out of school for misdemeanors (which is how the Florida shooter could legally own a gun: They ignored his high school criminal activity).

the "BLM" types have it wrong: it's drugs and gang related violence that kills.

CDC list of risk factors for school violence.

read the whole thing (too long to post).

Alas too many young men feel they have to carry a gun or to join a gang to be safe. What's wrong with this picture?


as for those who as "what would Jesus do"? or "Jesus would not carry a weapon". I agree.

He didn't carry a weapon: But Peter did, and knew how to use it.

No comments: