I'm sure many are asking themselves "What's next?"

a reply to: Kurokage

Yepp, you missed out on the greatness. But read this fast....it's about to be removed in 3....2....1....

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I starred your post as a way of showing that two people with a different view don't have to be obnoxious to each other, the stars don't really mean much but it's the best I can do.

As I've never trained with firearms, the unknown is just that to me, unknown, if that makes any sense.
No one wants to be in a situation where one can be injured by an attacker, but a firearm and the distance between me and an attacker makes the firearm "seem" more dangerous to me. When it's "close up and personal" I imagine it's not that different really.

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: Kurokage

Yepp, you missed out on the greatness. But read this fast....it's about to be removed in 3....2....1....

What a shame I missed it, I'm sure you posted something wonderful about me


The sky news article you posted states...

A campaign is aiming to encourage young people to put down their knives

This happens every now again in any big city, they put "bins" out so kids can hand in there machetes, swords, and knives without being arrested, but it's more about publicising gang related knife crime than taking away peoples kitchen utensils.

a reply to: Kurokage

Well, to be fair, for the average person trying to use a gun, the farther away they are from you, the better that it is for you...but there is definitely an "uncomfortable" range where they are too far to try and attack but close enough to most likely hit you. That's when you just hope that they aren't really going to shoot.

I've been held at gunpoint before, staring down a shotgun pointed at me from someone inside of a vehicle about 15 feet away. Sometimes hope is all that you have...

I reciprocated stars for the same reason...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Nah
they made that just for boom sticks
the laws specifically say the second covers firearms
i may be wrong but that is what i have gathered

You have gathered from the wrong pile of information, then, because you are wrong. The writers of the 2nd Amendment knew the term "firearms"--if they had only intended in to address firearms, they wouldn't have said "arms," which is a much broader spectrum of weaponry, to include knives.

As a Second Amendment issue, the knife/sword distinction is not particularly important. If one is protected by the Second Amendment, so is the other. (Just as handguns and long guns are both Second Amendment arms.) So while this Article concentrates on knives, most of the analysis applies equally to swords.
Knives and the Second Amendment - The Wall Street Journal
online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/knives.pdf

so perhaps we need to begin securing our rights from the bottom up.

Seems that knives are only kinda legal.



However, such knives are still generally illegal to carry in public, whether on one's person or in a vehicle, unless transported in such a manner as to prevent ready access by the owner (lockbox, locked trunk, etc.) Folding, non-lock blade knives are legal to carry if the blade length does not exceed 7 cm (2.756 in).
Knife legislation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: FHomerK

You may have moved on; I'm a bit late to this thread.

But I just gotta ask. How "big" in economic terms, is the black-market in guns and knives in London? (BTW, I really don't consider "London" to be part of Britain anymore, no offense intended).

I'd have to believe that anyone with the interest and the cash could shop through "Hooky Street" and buy any handgun, possibly even a long gun, and certainly any knife they wanted to buy!

Any idea how large the black market in guns and knives and swords is?

a reply to: howtonhawky

Firstly, I shared that article with you when I responded to you asking about Americans' right to own knives.

Secondly, you're not arguing anything that I haven't already said.

I guess my point is that I don't know what you're getting at, other than agreeing with me that you were wrong...unless I misunderstood your initial question and comment.

As far as carrying knives, that differs by state. My CCDW license allows me to carry any bladed weapon (including swords), shuriken, billy clubs, nunchaka, etc., but we're not necessarily talking about carrying the weapon, because you're initial comment to which I responded was:

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Do you/we have some type of right to own knives?

not in the usa we do not

That's kind of hard to misunderstand: You claim that we do not have the right to own knives in America, but we do.

Then I responded to you saying this:

originally posted by: howtonhawky

the laws specifically say the second covers firearms
i may be wrong but that is what i have gathered

Again, that's not difficult to understand--you claimed, even after told otherwise, that the second amendment only covers firearms.

Now you are claiming that the 2nd Amendment DOES cover bladed weapons.

It's difficult to discuss this with you, because you keep moving the goal post, making one claim (twice), then agree with me, then change the discussion to carrying knives instead of the right to own them.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

naw

not moving goal post
learning

can you carry a switch blade?

it is not a right if you have to get a permit for it

it is an allowance

so then do tell why muzzle loaders are not regulated?

we lost the second amendment battle along with the first

side ? do you think bare arms means to carry or to give birth to or both

i say both but we have lost the battle so far

i stand by my first comment strongly we do not have the right but are now allowed only in some cases

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I just found your post here. srry

still it is an allowance now days

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: SlapMonkey

naw

not moving goal post
learning

That that's awesome.

can you carry a switch blade?

it is not a right if you have to get a permit for it

it is an allowance

Agreed, and I have said this the entire time concerning the gun-control debate. The fact that I have to have a permit to carry concealed in my state makes it a privilege and infringes upon my right 'that shall not be infringed.'

But when you have the SCOTUS ruling that such limitations do not infringe upon rights, then you get the government speaking out of two sides of the same mouth, with confuses the hell out of everybody.

The interesting thing is that the Second Amendment is the ONLY amendment that specifically notes that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed," and to anyone with a dictionary, they know that this is synonymous with limiting or undermining. We have many, many laws--both federal and state--that limit and undermine the second amendment. Ideologically speaking, I disagree with limits being legal as it pertains to the second amendment, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe that some limitations are necessary.

do you think bare arms means to carry or to give birth to or both

I think that "bare arms" are arms without sleeves over them

i stand by my first comment strongly we do not have the right but are now allowed only in some cases

But your comment was generically saying that we don't have a right to own knives, and that's not true, we just don't have the right to own every knife manufactured in the world. Again, per the writing of the second amendment, I think that those laws limiting some knives are unconstitutional, per the letter of the amendment and the spirit of the second amendment as written and when written.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

to anyone with a dictionary,

you may want to clairify that to say anyone but me with a dictionary.

truth is that when written the word infringe meant to break. comes from the french word infrango...

also well regulated militia very well could mean regulations as we have today that i am disgusted with.

we are the militia

the definition of militia at the time of framing the 2nd was clouded with regulation but when you trace down the origins of the word militia i come up with it meaning basically not active duty nor reserve duty nor in active but silent duty. Meaning a silent fighting force not currently connected to active military

and the bare arms part means imo both ability to make and handle weapons.

givin that if argued correctly that would mean that banded together the militia does have the right to possess any weapon we can collectively handle including abombs aircraft carrier..... whatever we can build.

freedom is just a scotus ruling away

just something to chew on

a reply to: Kurokage

I must have misunderstood. My apologies.

Fear, they use it to exert control over the populace and serve the government’s principal aim... consolidating power.
The people want to be safe from harm. The ruler imposes security and order in exchange for the surrender of certain public freedoms.

radicalized individuals
deranged or alienated individuals

And the subtext is that if we want to catch them we need to start looking within.
The other is among us.
The pretext for the surveillance state is thus established,actually a theater of fear.

How about the color-coded terror threat meter...device to remind us to be fearful.

Now its the "Gun".......lead us to fear the lesser danger.
Taking away our rights, by subjecting us to arbitrary and irrational rules, and by constantly reminding us that this is the only thing between us and death...by a Gun the fear of what humans can do to each other.
The newly created Fear can be used to gin up more fear, more restrictions on our freedoms, and so the cycle goes.

It’s our reaction that determines whether or not their actions are ultimately successful.