The argument over the Second Amendment routinely centers on guns. But our Second Amendment right to \u201ckeep and bear arms\u201d has just as much to do with casting off the stratification of the social class system and buttressing religious freedom.<\/p>\n
The Bill of Rights solidifies a number of beliefs and rights discussed in the body of the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.<\/p>\n
The Declaration of Independence cites \u201cthe Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God\u201d plus the famous words \u201cthey are endowed by their Creator,\u201d and Article VI of the Constitution states \u201cno religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.\u201d These religious beliefs and freedoms are solidified in the Bill of Rights First Amendment, \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n
Two grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence are \u201cFor depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury\u201d and \u201cFor transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.\u201d While the Constitution under Article 1 sec 9.2 states \u201cThe Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended.\u201d These rights are solidified in the Bill of Rights Fifth Amendment \u2014 \u201cNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentation or indictment of a Grand Jury\u201d \u2014 and Sixth Amendment: \u201cthe accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.\u201d<\/p>\n
One cannot discuss the Bill of Rights independently but must consider it within a broader discussion encompassing two other pillars of our system of government: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.<\/p>\n
Today people immediately consider \u201carms\u201d to be guns. But in the long run-up to American independence \u2014 in medieval, pre-colonial and colonial times \u2014 arms for \u201cbearing\u201d were usually edged weapons, especially swords.<\/p>\n
The Metropolitan Museum of Art tells us that in medieval times \u201cgenerally speaking only noblemen were allowed to carry a sword in public.\u201d<\/p>\n
Plinio Correa de Oliveira writes in \u201cWhat is the Symbol of Nobility and Power? And Why?\u201d that \u201cThe people of the Middle Ages regarded the sword with a certain profundity, esteeming it as a symbol of man\u2019s God-given nobility.\u201d<\/p>\n
French nobility<\/a>\u00a0prerogatives after 1440 included the right to \u201cwear a sword.\u201d The sword was used during the noble \u201cdubbing ceremony,\u201d\u00a0still practiced by today\u2019s British Crown<\/a>.<\/p>\n In\u00a0\u201cWarrior Pursuits: Noble Culture and Civil Conflict in Early Modern France\u201d<\/a>\u00a0Brian Sandberg writes \u201cThe early seventeenth century jurist Charles Loyseau points out that \u2018all nobles except those of the long robe have the right to bear the sword as the insignia and mark of nobility.”<\/p>\n As guns became more prevalent, swords took on even greater symbolism of higher class.<\/p>\n Ben Miller in\u00a0\u201cFencing in Colonial America and the Early Republic: 1620 \u2013 1800\u201d<\/a>\u00a0makes repeated reference to fencing as \u201cthe noble art\u2019 or \u201cthe noble science.\u201d He also tells us that the Virginia fencing master, Edward Blackwell stated: \u201cIn fine, Air in Wearing, and Skill in Using a SWORD, are such additional Accomplishments to a Gentleman, that he is never esteem\u2019d polite and well bred without them.\u201d<\/p>\n Webster\u2019s 1828 Dictionary<\/a>\u00a0defining arms\u00a0notes that \u201cfor common soldiers a sword is not necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n There was often religious \u2014 as well as class \u2014 restrictions on such \u201carms.\u201d As far back as 1181, the English Assize of Arms required freemen to maintain a lance for defense of the King, but specifically restricted Jews from maintaining arms. In District of Columbia et al. v. Heller Justice Antonin Scallia, delivering the majority opinion, discussed other historical instances of access to arms denied based on religious affiliation.<\/p>\n The prerogative to \u201cbear arms\u201d of the day, specifically the sword, was a right, privilege and symbol of nobility denied to the commoner and often subject to a \u201creligious test.\u201d<\/p>\n There is no reference to citizen\u2019s arms in the Declaration of Independence or the body of the Constitution \u2014 but there is ample evidence regarding equality and prohibitions against nobility. Our Declaration of Independence reflects all men have an \u201cequal station\u201d and \u201call men are created equal\u2026\u201d while the United States Constitution declares under Article 1 Sec 9.8 \u201cNo Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States\u201d and in Sec 10.1 forbids the states from granting \u201cany Title of Nobility.\u201d<\/p>\n Under the Second Amendment, while \u201ckeep\u2026 arms\u201d bolsters the First Amendment\u2019s guaranteed religious freedom, the right to \u201cbear arms\u201d solidified the Constitutional rejection of \u201cTitles of Nobility\u201d and reaffirmed that \u201call men are created equal\u201d with an \u201cequal station\u201d as stated in the Declaration of Independence.<\/p>\n I wonder if opposition to the Second Amendment\u2019s right of people to \u201cbear arms\u201d might also be \u2014 at some level \u2014 a rejection of the \u201cequal station\u201d of all people, a reaffirmation of a sort of \u201cNobility,\u201d a sense of privilege by an established \u201cprofessional political class?\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The argument over the Second Amendment routinely centers on guns. But our Second Amendment right to \u201ckeep and bear arms\u201d has just as much to do with casting off the stratification of the social class system and buttressing religious freedom. The Bill of Rights solidifies a number of beliefs and rights discussed in the body … Continue reading “Our Second Amendment: A rejection of nobility”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-57141","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/57141","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=57141"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/57141\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":57142,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/57141\/revisions\/57142"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=57141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}