A friend sent me this missive concerning the Second Amendment by John M. DeMaggio (USN-retired):<\/p>\n
The argument over the Second Amendment routinely centers on guns. But our\u00a0Second Amendment<\/a> 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
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\u00a0Metropolitan Museum of Art<\/a>\u00a0tells 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\u00a0\u201cWhat is the Symbol of Nobility and Power? And Why?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0that \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>.\u00a0[The Hill<\/strong><\/a>]<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Here’s the problem with his discussion – he insists on contextualizing the Bill of Rights, which is great, but then he proceeds to ignore an important part of the Second Amendment itself – the entirety of the text, which is<\/a><\/p>\n
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
DeMaggio makes no mention of a well regulated militia<\/em>, which makes his entire argument difficult to take seriously. If context matters, the entire Amendment, especially one so terse, should be addressed. Surely the clause considering a well-regulated militia needs a mention.<\/p>\n
Worse yet, he engages in a bit of Fight-or-flight<\/em> sleight of hand with his concluding paragraph:<\/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><\/blockquote>\n
This is a big red flag that this is not a serious essay, at least for me. The historical aspect has some mild interest to it, but as a serious defense of an absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment, the contextual omission, the superfluous bit of rhetoric, and, additionally, the omission of any treatment of the differences between the weapons of today and the weapons of two, three, or four hundred years ago, really renders this piece as little more than a curiosity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A friend sent me this missive concerning the Second Amendment by John M. DeMaggio (USN-retired): The argument over the Second Amendment routinely centers on guns. But our\u00a0Second Amendment right to \u201ckeep and bear arms\u201d has just as much to do with casting off the stratification of the social class system \u2026 Continue reading