From the book Bursts by
Albert-László Barabási in reference to a 16th century crusade: “The king gave land and villages to
lords and knights so that they could bring their own weapons, armor,
horses and men to bear whenever the king called them into battle. But
if the wealth and tax-free status of these men was based on their
military service, why, then, were the peasants now being asked to
march to Constantinople?”
Compare this to the U.S. Constitution's Second
Amendment, written in the 18th century, talking about a "well-regulated militia" and everyone keeping arms to
make the militia idea work. Could it be that they were looking to make
taxes and military service more egalitarian than was historically the case by not distinguishing
between the wealthy and the poor? It is surely the case that those responsible for the Second Amendment would be aware of this aspect of the traditional feudal arrangement, a system they were specifically against. For those who today claiming that the sentence fragment having to do with the "right to bear arms" should stand alone, the historical basis for it is much more complicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment