Jim Bowie is spinning in his grave!

Wildone39 said:
Yep, you live in Massachusetts alright! Sorry man. Just look who your state voted for also. This country needs to wake up and see whats going on, Or we wont have one that is free much longer.
Click to expand...
+1!

Damn right! The U.S is becoming a giant Nanny State much similar to European nations, and now with Mr Hussein Obama in charge, things could move towards a Middle-East situation...
 
Outdoors Fanatic said:
+1!

Damn right! The U.S is becoming a giant Nanny State much similar to European nations, and now with Mr Hussein Obama in charge, things could move towards a Middle-East situation...
Click to expand...


I think everyone just needs to calm down a little. By your logic, after eight years of W, Walmart should be selling hand grenades. Other than letting the assault weapons ban expire, what real impact has back to back Republican administrations had? I wouldn't expect any seismic shift now either. The reason being that most Federal legislators are sitting on majorities far too slim to get behind anything radical. Politicians are generally far more moderate than the media would have you believe, for the simple reason that their job security depends on it. And that's what's going wrong with local knife restrictions. Some people are not being reminded often enough that their jobs depend on thinking before before acting.
 
artmichalek said:
I think everyone just needs to calm down a little. By your logic, after eight years of W, Walmart should be selling hand grenades. Other than letting the assault weapons ban expire, what real impact has back to back Republican administrations had? I wouldn't expect any seismic shift now either.
Click to expand...

Really? The sunset of the AWB is the first time in my lifetime of 46 years that I have ever seen any kind of federal gun legislation go away. The SC ruling which began the reversal of years and years of municipal gun legislation was the first, as well.

Those reversals ONLY became possible as the result of back to back Rep. administrations.

Clinton and his Dem cronies got the AWB passed, and most Dems called Clinton "moderate" during his admin.

I would fully expect two administrations of Obama to attempt re-instatement of another AWB, plus the appointment of more anti-gun judges. I see no reason that wouldn't happen.

And if guns go on the block, it's just a matter of time before you start seeing knife legislation, if the UK is any example. Which I think it is.

Still don't see the danger? Then let me paint the picture this way: If an administration can't respect the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, why in the world would you expect them to get anything else right?

Andy
 
Andrew Colglazier said:
Really? The sunset of the AWB is the first time in my lifetime of 46 years that I have ever seen any kind of federal gun legislation go away.

Those reversals ONLY became possible as the result of back to back Rep. administrations.

Clinton and his Dem cronies got the AWB passed, and most Dems called Clinton "moderate" during his admin.

I would fully expect two administrations of Obama to attempt re-instatement of another AWB, plus the appointment of more anti-gun judges. I see no reason that wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. There have been 5 Republican presidents in your lifetime serving a total of 7 terms, and that's all they've done. And don't forget that the renewal of the ban was sponsored by five Republicans. Judging by how little the Democrats have accomplished since taking over both houses of congress, I would be shocked if they made anything happen more quickly.

Still don't see the danger? Then let me paint the picture this way: If an administration can't respect the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, why in the world would you expect them to get anything else right?
Click to expand...

Well, the current administration pretty much shredded the 4th amendment and just took a pretty good run at the 24th. And yes, both parties have been complicit in this. The danger is in picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you want to hold your elected representation accountable for based on partisan loyalties.
 
artmichalek said:
That's exactly my point. There have been 5 Republican presidents in your lifetime serving a total of 7 terms, and that's all they've done. And don't forget that the renewal of the ban was sponsored by five Republicans. Judging by how little the Democrats have accomplished since taking over both houses of congress, I would be shocked if they made anything happen more quickly.



Well, the current administration pretty much shredded the 4th amendment and just took a pretty good run at the 24th. And yes, both parties have been complicit in this. The danger is in picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you want to hold your elected representation accountable for based on partisan loyalties.
Click to expand...

The most sweeping gun legislation passed during fairly recent Dem administrations, and went away within the last one. That's a pretty rapid development.

The renewal was sponsored by five R.I.N.O.s; the vast majority of the Rep. membership opposed it.

And while Bush has attempted some inroads concerning wiretapping and some other similar things, he has hardly "shredded" the 4th. Not to mention the defeats in this area he has met in the courts.

I'll still lay money on the Dems attempting new anti-gun legislation.

Andy
 
There has been case law in Texas that allowed a "Bowie shaped" knife under 5.5".

I think they used "Bowie knife" in making the laws because everyone knows what one of those looks like, in terms of shape, size, usual length (similarly with dirk, dagger, poniard, "Arkansas toothpick", etc.), and why they chose the size limit of 5.5". That's a decent-sized hunting knife, without getting into fighting knife size. Consider, USAF Pilot's survival knife, 5" blade; USMC combat knife AKA "Kabar", 7" blade. Both have the clipped point and blood groove associated with a Bowie, but are different sizes.

Matt in Tx
 
txmoonwolf said:
There has been case law in Texas that allowed a "Bowie shaped" knife under 5.5".

I think they used "Bowie knife" in making the laws because everyone knows what one of those looks like, in terms of shape, size, usual length (similarly with dirk, dagger, poniard, "Arkansas toothpick", etc.), and why they chose the size limit of 5.5". That's a decent-sized hunting knife, without getting into fighting knife size. Consider, USAF Pilot's survival knife, 5" blade; USMC combat knife AKA "Kabar", 7" blade. Both have the clipped point and blood groove associated with a Bowie, but are different sizes.

Matt in Tx
Click to expand...

Tesas knife laws are made by/for little girls The Constitution says nothing about limiting the length of knives. It does say that the right to be armed shall not be infringed.
 
There's a teensy little problem inherent in "assuming" that "everybody knows what a Bowie knife looks like." Not to be too much of a stickler, but do they? IMHO, nobody knows what Jim Bowie carried and/or used, and thus it's pretty impossible to define a "Bowie knife."

Clipped point? Probably pretty doubtful on one of Bowie's knives. Blood groove? Nope, you can absolutely forget about that. And the thought of calling ANY knife with a 5-1/2" or shorter blade a "Bowie knife" is pretty ridiculous.

But all of that notwithstanding, yeah, the Texas law is dumber than most, and that's saying a lot.

(BTW, how can Bowie "spin in his grave" when he doesn't HAVE a grave?)
 
An interesting historical note that may give a little light on this particular inclusion into the Texas state knife law. There were two legislators in the Texas senate, one was the speaker (may have been the house) who got into a knife fight on the senate floor. Both had Bowie knives, one 10" and the other 12", if I remember correctly. The senator with the 12" knife killed the speaker on the senate floor during a session.

I will try to find the link with the exact info and post it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top