RKBA response to the "technology argument?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gwinnydapooh

Joined
Jan 20, 1999
Messages
641
Have you ever heard the technology argument against the 2nd Amendment? Sure you have. It goes like this:
"The founding fathers could not have foreseen the kind of full-automatic, built-for-killing, downright meanypants guns you use! They only knew about muzzleloaders, so that's all you get to carry!"

We've all answered, of course, that the First Amendment wasn't trashed when the typewriter and the telegraph came along, nor were the clauses about interstate commerce invalidated by the building of the interstate highway system. But what about turning it back on them?

After all, the argument is that the 2nd applies only to what the founding fathers used and knew--but in their day, the carry of daggers, double-edged knives, large knives, concealed knives, several types of swords, or at the very least a large cane was standard. People who walked around without those things were considered stupid. Therefore, according to the technology argument, we should all be allowed to carry the best knife, sword, cane or whatever that we can afford! Remember, the 2nd doesn't say "firearms," it says "arms." Has anyone used this already and how did it work?
I'm just waiting to ambush some anti with it. I'm going to a so-called "leadership conference" in about 10 minutes so I should get the chance.

------------------
"Iron Discipline is essential in acquiring proper truth-handling abilities. Neglect it and suffer. Thus endeth the lesson."
Master Warren Rowland
 
Another argument that I have never understood is that the word "People" in the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the individual. Yet in EVERY other instance in the Constitution they will argue that "People" means the individual.
 
Gwinny,

Although I think our best hope in preserving knife rights is not to present them as weapons, I've also wondered why they don';t fall under the "arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment.

Is it that they aren't "serious" weapons in this day and age? Surely folks cannot simultaneously argue that modern firearms are too potent for the 2nd amendment and that double-edged knives aren't potent enough. And if they should support this argument we can say "well, then I'll carry a sword" in much the way CA knife folks can't carry a 3" auto but a Vaquero Grande is just fine.

My only concern with our 2nd amendment priveledges are that perhaps no weapon is "potent enough." We have these rights for the purpose of resisting foreign or domestic tyranny. Yet even with an "assault rifle" that includes a bayonet lug and a 30-rnd magazine, how capable is the modern private citizen of resisting a government armed with tanks and attack helicopters?

-Drew
 
Corduroy, you've actually got that 180degrees backwards. Knife carry *must* be linked to legitimate self defense just like handguns are in the US, or we'll lose all carry rights.

Here's the deal: in England and Australia, their "gun rights movements" focused on the "legitimate sporting and hunting uses". LONG before they faced a total handgun ban, laws were passed that required locked in-home storage of longguns rendering them useless for defense, and handguns had to be stored at shooting clubs.

The problem is, gun violence by criminals and the insane will STILL HAPPEN. And they did. So at that point, the gov't thinks they're balancing the "recreation abilities" of a few upper-class hunters and some "gun nuts" plinking at ranges versus "public safety".

Well THAT'S an easy choice: screw up some people's fun to save lives. On paper it makes sense.

In the US the discussion is different. Here, shooting an armed robber is still legal and fairly common, in homes, in businesses and now with CCW permits, almost five million people can do it on the streets.

So to ban guns HERE, you're balancing "public safety in banning guns" versus "public safety in HAVING GUNS AROUND".

See the difference? Once England and Australia gave up the defense argument, it was ONLY A MATTER OF TIME! That's why the grabbers and statists talk about "legitimate recreational use" - don't let 'em get away with it!

Now let's talk knives. If you say that your 4" locking folder with a thumbstud is ONLY for slicing bagels and other utility chores but people are getting killed with them on the street, your argument to be able to keep such a critter is weak as hell.

IF you claim it IS a legitimate self-defense weapon, then much more thought has to go into stripping you of it!

This is what the AKTI has missed.

(NOTE: the following refers to shall-issue CCW states with "heavy training" such as FL/OK/UT/OR/TX/AZ/etc. When CA/NJ/MA/NY/MO/IL/OH and others convert to shall-issue, they're certain to follow the "heavy training" program like TX and the rest. "Light training" states such as WA/ID/GA and Vermont are somewhat different critters.)

Long-term, I think the solution is CCW. For adults and people between 18 and 21 there needs to be a "lesser permit" requiring a "background check only" allowing you to carry unlimited cutlery or impact weapons. ASP batons, cane swords, it's all good. CCW for "full adults" would of course cover guns too, if they volunteer to add in the training regimen (8 to 16 hours, typical) and shooting test otherwise they can stick with "blades and bonkers".

The "18 to 20 sub-adult for handgun" thing is unfortunately FEDERAL law. At present there ain't much we can do about it at the Fed level but at the state level, we can at least allow 18-to-20s to carry other weapons. We can also get bladed weapons into the public mindset as "legit self defense tools" just like handguns are considered in the shall-issue states.

In short, declare serious blades as legit weapons and hitch our wagons to CCW.

Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page (California) http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw
 
James, Bald1: don't move or kill this thread please, it's too important. I'll put wormhole pointers to it on ATKI and Politics, we'll keep it going in General?

Thanx!

Jim
 
Nothing to add except, thanks for all the great information and food for thought.

Harv
 
Make no mistake, the comments already made about Australia and the UK are 100% valid. I live in England and I am sick of the self-riteous attitude of people in general regarding knives and firearms. The hoplophobe loves to slander those who have intrests like ours, ignoring the fact that one is a completely law abiding citizen.
Do not surrender an inch. You cannot reason with those who would take your rights away. Appeasement does not work because these are not reasonable people and they are not honest when they say they are only intrested in banning certain items. They lie. Beleave me, I know.
 
Extremely lucid statement, Jim March.
Thanks.

------------------
Luke 22:36, John 18:6-11
 
Thanx, Ken and others.

Guys, "legitimate sporting use" should give y'all the creeps. Ponder this well.

Jim
 
Jim March,


I am willing to argue with you on one point. That is the mandatory training provision. I believe that it is incumbent on any individual what chooses to own or carry a weapon to know how to use it. I do not believe that the "Government" has any business in the field of mandating, sanctioning, or approving training, and certainly, NEVER any control over any kind of TESTING.

If testing is to be mandated, who gets to give the test? The NRA? (I don't think so,) HCI? (Kennedy and Schumer would like that) Maybe the Department of Justice should do it. (Janet Reno and the FBI?).

Would you like to see a copy of "Test"?

1. All Firearms are inherently unsafe because (fill in the blank).

2. No firearm should ever be kept in the home because (fill in the blank).

3. Self Defense is not a valid reason to own or carry a firearm because (fill in the blank).

4. . . .

The whole idea of a Right is that it is Not subject to prior constraint nor to any arbitrary pre qualification.

Sorry if I am coming off as a little rabid on this subject. This whole topic drives me crazy! It makes me very angry, as I know it does you. I at least have the advantage of living in a (the only?) state that still understands what the Second Amendment means, for the moment. . .

I have got to go. I have an appointment with a chainsaw. Cleanup from Floyd, Down trees, refloat boat, and see if I can get the motor started. I'll be back tonight to see what you guys are doing
smile.gif



Mike
 
Mike, look again at where I list specific states where a "training regimen" has to be part of the program.

That's NOT because "I want them", it's because either that's what's in place now (TX/AZ/UT/etc) OR "that's what's politically possible if we ever get shall-issue" (CA/NJ/IL/MA/NY/OH/etc).

Follow? Now, there's a third class: WA/ID/GA/SD and similar have shall-issue with no training requirements. As a California CCW activist, let me assure you that the jump from "no permits" to "shall issue with no training" is 100% politically impossible. OK? It ain't gonna happen. Get over it
smile.gif
.

In the "no training shall-issue" states, tacking on blade/baton carry to the existing CCW system should be fairly simple. If I were organizing such a push, I'd make contact with martial arts instructors, esp. Asian-born who are ready to make statements like "I didn't grow up with guns, I don't particularly like guns but gimme a couple of ASPs and any mugger screws with me has got BIG problems!". Get some little elderly Asian gent with a lifetime of training to make a statement like that to the state legislature and restricting blades/batons to CCW holders not only seems dumb, it seems (and IS) downright bigoted.

Now do you see where I'm coming from?

Jim
 
I was on the very edge of moving this thread to the Politics forum, when I saw Jim March's plea to leave it here. The right to keep and bear arms, which is mostly but not entirely an argument over guns at the moment, is a issue near and dear to a lot of the folks in this forum, and it is probably the main reason the "Politics" forum was set up.

As long as the thought of including sharp objects (and blunt objects too) with a permit to carry a gun is part of at least every other post here, I'll leave it here for the moment, and defer to the judgment of the forum owners.


------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001
 
Mike,

Stop and think a moment. The "mandatory" training" requirement (for those areas that have it) was not put there simply because some bureaucrat decided he wanted to intrude upon your rights.

In a perfect world, everybody would respect everybody else, those who chose go about armed would take the trouble to learn about their selected weapon, and there would be no need for bureaucrats. Unfortunately, there are criminals, there are those totally clueless individuals who buy weapons without bothering to learn how to use them properly, and there are bureacrats who try to regulate everybody.

I am a cop. I know of several instances where armed citizens have saved a cop's butt. I am all for the 2nd Amendment. But the only thing that strikes terror into my heart faster than another four years of the democrats in the White House is a well-meaning duffer with a firearm. I am talking about the guy/gal who has absolutely no inkling (except, perhaps, which end the bullet comes out of) of how their piece operates or how to shoot it, much less accurately.

These are the people the mandatory training rules were written for. Trust me, they are out there. For every citizen here in Louisiana who takes the time, trouble, and expense to get a CCW permit, with all the attendant classroom and range time, there are five folks who buy a handgun and a box of cartridges, load the gun and stick it somewhere, and never touch it again; unless they need it.

This, mind you, is in a state that is famous for being a "hunting/outdoors" state; one with a higher-than-normal percentage of citizens who were raised around firearms. Sounds like you are from one of the Carolinas, Virginia, etc., so you know what I mean.

I have absolutely no problem with someone arming themselves, for protection or whatever. I have a BIG problem with those who don't bother to learn how to handle their weapon and pose as great (or greater) danger to themselves and other innocents than they would to a goblin.

Would you be comfotable on the highway, knowing that just any bonehead who got the urge could drive like he wanted to? I know, some do that already, but at least there is SOME deterrent. Same principle...

Steve
 
As a start look at the NRA web page which lists excerpts from state constitutions on the right to bear arms, where concealed weapons are sometimes excluded. I think that some of the earliest court cases in the country on bearing arms, early 1800s, ruled against carrying large concealed knives.
 
If the Second Amendment is important to you, browse around until your find stuff about United States v. Emerson and the ruling of a judge named Cummings (or Commings) down in Lubbock, TX (my home town).

This may be the most important pro-Second Amendment ruling in our century.

If someone finds this stuff on the net, paste a link here. It's a must read, and a must spread the word kind of document.

------------------
I don't want my children fed or clothed by the state, but I would prefer THAT to their being educated by the state.
 
Pleas non withstanding, this is exactly why we have a politics forum. You want more traffic there, then you need to have more discussions.

I'm moving this there, James, you were right in your first instince to move it.

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top