-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Right to bear arms
- Thread starter FlaNJ
- Start date
- Status
An very old, but also thoughtful question. This may bleed more into the realm of politics than laws (for which I think we have a separate sub-forum).
However, off the top of my head it's likely a culmination of several different variables crashing together. First is whether knives count as "arms." Knives are generally tools, with many types of knife never having been intended for combat usage. This line of reason suggests toeing a line between calling all knives "arms" and thus labeling them permanently as weapons, or leaving them as tools, which avoids the explicit label but also not covered under the Second Amendment. Another theory (which isn't mutually exclusive to the first) is that weapon regulations over the years are designed to favor the rich and powerful, the same people who were the politicians. Guns were often the realm of rich white people who could afford them, while knives and bludgeons were what the poorer (often minority) classes used. By regulating weapons of the lower class, the rich could remain armed while disarming the "undesirables." This theory holds up rather well when you look at old statutes from the 1800s, like in my native Maryland, where the concealed weapon law originally only applied to blacks, Latinos and Native Americans, and was later amended to remove references to race but retained self-defense exceptions that were selectively enforced on minorities only until the later 20th century. Still another theory is about pragmatism: A firearm (or pepper spray, which is also generally legal in most places) put you at a distance from an aggressor, removing the danger of having to close with the attacker into striking range. Knives on the other hand not only require you to close, but are impractical. A knife is deadly force, and if you're going to use deadly force, why get close? Not saying that is my personal opinion! That is just want a lot of people think, including cops who often pressure for regulation of knives.
However, off the top of my head it's likely a culmination of several different variables crashing together. First is whether knives count as "arms." Knives are generally tools, with many types of knife never having been intended for combat usage. This line of reason suggests toeing a line between calling all knives "arms" and thus labeling them permanently as weapons, or leaving them as tools, which avoids the explicit label but also not covered under the Second Amendment. Another theory (which isn't mutually exclusive to the first) is that weapon regulations over the years are designed to favor the rich and powerful, the same people who were the politicians. Guns were often the realm of rich white people who could afford them, while knives and bludgeons were what the poorer (often minority) classes used. By regulating weapons of the lower class, the rich could remain armed while disarming the "undesirables." This theory holds up rather well when you look at old statutes from the 1800s, like in my native Maryland, where the concealed weapon law originally only applied to blacks, Latinos and Native Americans, and was later amended to remove references to race but retained self-defense exceptions that were selectively enforced on minorities only until the later 20th century. Still another theory is about pragmatism: A firearm (or pepper spray, which is also generally legal in most places) put you at a distance from an aggressor, removing the danger of having to close with the attacker into striking range. Knives on the other hand not only require you to close, but are impractical. A knife is deadly force, and if you're going to use deadly force, why get close? Not saying that is my personal opinion! That is just want a lot of people think, including cops who often pressure for regulation of knives.
That's a quadruple negative! What are you trying to say? I am too tired to figure it out.
Because the rich elite who run our once-great nation do not want you to be able to defend yourself, plain and simple. Your life is worth less than theirs. Just look at NYC gun laws, for example. Donald Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr., Howard Stern, Steven Tyler and Joe Perry (both of Aerosmith), just to name a few, all have unrestricted NYC carry permits. These type of permits are very hard to get. Tyler and Perry were able to get them, despite extensive and well-publicized histories of illegal drug use, because they basically bribed the NYPD licensing authority with free tickets to one of their shows, a limo ride, backstage passes and an after-concert party. The same thing happens here in Massachusetts. Carry permits are "may issue". Local police chiefs take care of celebrities with unrestricted permits, while regular people (like the rest of us) get permits that are restricted to target, hunting, or employment (armored car and bank guard employees, for example. Get caught carrying outside of the restriction and you are in big trouble! Some people are more equal than others.
Esav Benyamin
MidniteSuperMod
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Messages
- 90,915
Somewhat like "the power to tax is the power to destroy."
Because if you give a law abiding citizen a ten inch knife instead of a nine inch one he will turn into a mass murderer
(Sarcasm)
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2014
- Messages
- 30
This is good material, lol.
shunsui
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,786
Around here you can't carry a gun for self protection. At least they're consistent ?
Are there actually federal laws against carrying a knife, or are they all just local and state laws ?
No carry laws at the federal level except in federal buildings. All knife carry laws are by state. In Arizona, Indiana and Vermont you can carry any knife you want, even switchblades.
Don't forget Kansas on that one.
And more on the way if this keeps up!
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2013
- Messages
- 4,897
Well said. It doesnt matter what laws there are or arent, criminals and insane people will do what theyre gonna do anyways so why are law abiders so limited? Why cant the "leaders" see it the way it is? Its so obvious they have to know they are avoiding the truth, but I better stop here before I go on a rant. I like to carry big knives like cold steels huge folders for defense, its mostly for peace of mind a preparedness though. Fortunately theres technically no length limit where I live, but theres a concealed weapons law that could be used in the favor of a cop or other legal enforcer to make knives illegal that technically arent.
JMHO but Knives are not "Arms". When they wrote the Constitution, Arms were Guns & Swords so knives were not included as they are tools. Since they are not covered by the Constitution, they are therefore the purview of the States and each state can make whatever law they want to on knives. Some state and local laws suck, some don't.
The answer if both simple and complex...the framers wrote that the right to keep and bear arms cannot (shall) be infringed, but they also mentioned a militia (civilian fighting force) in the very same phrase and wrote it in such a convoluted and awkward way that no one knows if they mean people owning weapons in general or just while in service of a credible state militia (which would tie in with the 10th Amendment). They also did not define what "arms" referred to specifically. My personal suspicion is that they were only referring to state militias and citizens bearing arms in relation to activities of such groups.
On the state level, it varies widely. Some states do not have any kind of right to keep/bear arms (Maryland for instance) mentioned anywhere in their constitutions. Some other states are bluntly at the opposite end of the spectrum (Arizona for instance) and simply say citizens can keep and bear arms, period. Then you have states that fall in the middle, like Texas. The Texas Constitution states a right to keep and bear arms, but also says that the legislature has the power to regulate the wearing of arms.
The takeaway is this:
1)No one knows if the writers of the 2nd Amendment were talking about owning and carrying weapons in general, or just during official state militia activities.
2)They never defined what "arms" means.
3)The 2nd Amendment is one of the most poorly phrased sections of ANY of the founding documents, it is very unclear and awkwardly written and obviously subject to copious debate every day.
4)Many state constitutions have provisions that are written much more clearly and directly, some are simple and broad, others more nuanced, some not at all.
On the state level, it varies widely. Some states do not have any kind of right to keep/bear arms (Maryland for instance) mentioned anywhere in their constitutions. Some other states are bluntly at the opposite end of the spectrum (Arizona for instance) and simply say citizens can keep and bear arms, period. Then you have states that fall in the middle, like Texas. The Texas Constitution states a right to keep and bear arms, but also says that the legislature has the power to regulate the wearing of arms.
The takeaway is this:
1)No one knows if the writers of the 2nd Amendment were talking about owning and carrying weapons in general, or just during official state militia activities.
2)They never defined what "arms" means.
3)The 2nd Amendment is one of the most poorly phrased sections of ANY of the founding documents, it is very unclear and awkwardly written and obviously subject to copious debate every day.
4)Many state constitutions have provisions that are written much more clearly and directly, some are simple and broad, others more nuanced, some not at all.
Agree. And of course personal firearm ownership for hunting and self protection is not the reason 2A is in there either.
But certainly the Fathers never dreamed that knives would be regulated, any more than an axe, hoe, or pitchfork.
The scourge of the career politician was something else they overlooked, unfortunately.
- OS
shunsui
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,786
Yeah, it's a can of worms. I think you need to take a step back and see the forest.
"It would be ... strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated Militia --- and to find that purely institutional guarantee accorded a position of great prominence immediately following freedom of religion and freedom of speech."
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
on the Second Amendment:
A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law,
Princeton Unversity Press, 1997.
"It would be ... strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated Militia --- and to find that purely institutional guarantee accorded a position of great prominence immediately following freedom of religion and freedom of speech."
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
on the Second Amendment:
A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law,
Princeton Unversity Press, 1997.
You seriously need to do some reading of the writings of the founders of the nation. They left a quite a record of what they intended, and it is easy to research. So, yes you can know. To state "no one knows" is ridiculous considering the record left for posterity.
You should also learn who and what the militia were instead of assuming.
"Personal suspicion" just doesn't cut it on something so important and so easily researched.
shunsui
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,786
What's funny is the way they like to say this or that founder quote is wrong on the internet. Take the case of:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed—unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison
People like to say that's a Fake Founders Quotation. Apparently it is, but what they don't seem to understand is the actual statement is.... well judge for youself how "fake" the content is.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed—unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison
People like to say that's a Fake Founders Quotation. Apparently it is, but what they don't seem to understand is the actual statement is.... well judge for youself how "fake" the content is.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
- Status