As most of you probably know, there were attempts made in committee to exempt not only current military and law enforcement from the provisions of HR1808, but to extend that exemption to FORMER military and law enforcement. I think that's an interesting topic worth discussion, because it relates both to current debate within the culture, as well as to historical norms that have some pretty terrifying implications associated with them.
The debate within the culture is exemplified by the scandal that came about from the social media statements of a Medal of Honor recipient who took umbrage with civilians who train and have kit. You all know what I'm referring to, and I'm not here to debate whether he was right or wrong, but merely to identify the discord that exists in the culture around whether civilians have a place in it, or whether it's limited to veterans. I only mention it because it's a way I can sum up what I'm referring to in a single example.
The historical norms refers to the various warrior societies that existed in antiquity, where the right to keep and bear arms was strongly associated with class. In antiquity, the right to keep and bear arms was generally limited to a warrior caste, that most often you had to be born into, or earn your way into through service to a nobleman.
I mention these things partly to demonstrate that the sentiments of certain committee members don't exist in a vacuum. Their idea to exempt military and law enforcement wasn't just a random idea they had, but something that's almost branded into people's very concept of civilization: The state appoints certain people to protect society as a whole, those people are armed, those not appointed as protectors need not be armed, and society as a whole is safer as a result of only arming those who specifically NEED to be armed. That was the claim anyhow, and still is to this day. But, as most of you will know, the right to keep and bear arms was granted to the warrior castes at birth, and extended into their old age and retirement until their death, both long before and long after they were physically capable of serving their function. Another striking conflict with this claim is the fact that relatively few members of the warrior caste actually engaged in combat or policing of any kind. When you just randomly designate an entire branch of society, obviously not all members of that branch have the physical or mental prowess to be warriors, and those who aren't talented at fighting end up serving in support roles. Nevertheless, their warrior status and right to carry the weapons as symbols of that status remain, conflicting with the notion that weapons must be limited as much as is practical for everyone's safety.
Of course we know from history that the right to keep and bear arms was far from the only privilege unique to the warrior classes. They had many other rights and privileges that separated them from other positions within their society, that went far beyond any practical necessity related to serving their alleged function of protecting the people. And we know that their privileged lives were the result of their true function, which was to protect the status quo of the ruling class first and foremost, and namely from the very people they ruled, vs. an external threat. The weapons that became symbolic of their status were carried into their retirement to signal their privilege within their society, and their privilege was given to them in exchange for their service to the rulers, making it tantamount to a bribe for their allegiance. The weapon was a symbol of rank that said, "Treat this person with privilege or suffer the consequences."
So this sentiment that exists both in the culture and now in our legislature bears all the hallmarks of that of the warrior castes wielded by the tyrants of antiquity. The house members who proposed that exemption and voted for it were saying the quiet part out loud and hoping no one would notice. It was a dog whistle to those who would sell their souls: "Give us the power we crave, and we'll reward your loyalty with privilege."
While that provision of the bill didn't survive the committee, the sentiment behind it is alive and well. It's the precise opposite of what our founders wanted. They specifically gave THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms because they were students of history, and had seen it play out in their own time. They knew that a designated warrior class could always be bought and used to usurp the very people it was ostensibly formed to protect. They knew the formation of a warrior class was from its very inception the seditious act of a nation's leaders prior to seizing power. Therefore, 2A culture is WARRIOR CULTURE. It's not about hunting or even self defense. It's about stripping the warrior class of not only its tools of oppression, but the SYMBOLIC nature of those tools as a demonstration of privilege, and placing those symbols under the ownership of THE PEOPLE.
So with all that in mind, I would urge everyone to think about what 2A culture really is, and what it would mean for us if a warrior class in this country were able to successfully seize it for their own exclusive identity. There's a battle being fought in the courts and legislatures all across the country, but there's an equally important, if not MORE important, battle being fought in the culture wars. After all, laws are a product of culture, not the other way around.
I doubt this was lost on our founders. While it's generally assumed that the second amendment was put in place to facilitate the taking up of arms against a tyrannical ruling class, its full implementation might actually prevent that scenario before it even got off the ground. And just as this wasn't lost on our founders, I also don't think it's lost on politicians today. While their petty bills banning cosmetic features might appear to us to be the result of ignorance, I now believe the ignorance is on our part. They understand the symbolic power of weapons in society, and THAT is why they're concerned with cosmetics more than the actual capabilities of a given weapon.
Another behavior of the gun grabbing politicians we like to mock is their militarizing of paper pushers and meter maids. If you're paying any attention, you'll have noticed that every Barney Fife in the country is getting strapped and decked out in camo and tactical gear. Most of us just laugh, and a few take to YouTube to panic over the impending door to door gun grab to be carried out by Washington's army of desk jockeys. Both sides, I would argue, are missing the point. The symbolic arming of the fed's desk warriors is no laughing matter, and they won't have to send them door to door for them to be an effective tool of oppression.
So for those who say, I don't NEED a fully automatic M4, or, I don't NEED body armor; neither do the vast majority of the appointed warrior class. Not now, and certainly not in retirement. Just like the vast majority of the knighted nobility never used the swords or armor they wore as status symbols their entire lives. But they understood the symbolic power they had, and successfully used it to their full advantage. Failure to understand and utilize that symbolic power that our founders bequeathed to us will likewise be our downfall as a free people.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by okie
Bookmarks