The Ban on Martial Arts Weapons

J

JohnR7

Joined
Oct 15, 1999
Messages
718
Most people know that under the Imperial Government in Japan, and even at one point when Japan was under US control, there was a ban on weapons. In fact, a lot of the weapons used in Martial Arts, are everyday tools that a simple farmer would need to work the land, and produce food.

I was wondering if anyone could offer us any insight on just when weapons have been banned in the last 2000 years, or even the last 6000 years, and when they have not been baned. Also, does anyone know of any country today, that has a ban on martial arts weapons, so that it is illegal to buy, sell or own them to any degree.

We are preparing a case before the Court system, and I want to do as much research as I can, outside of the rather crappy arguements that have been presented in the court systems in the last 30 or 40 years regarding this subject.

The main concern, is that the Constitution provides for a "free militia". That does not mean Congress does not have a right to regulate the Militia, but I believe it does mean they can not disband or outlaw it.

I am convinced that the purpose of a free militia is to insure freedom in this country. So that a paid militia would not be used by a dictator government to rule with a iron fist. This was one of the checks and balances built into the country when it was founded. Thanks, JohnR7
 
I dont know, but I'll ask my all-knowing western civ. teacher for you. when do you need the info by?
 
here is a bit of info I found while doing a term paper.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word “militia” from 1777 is: “U.S. ‘The whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not.’” (Wood 1) This means that, if a person is capable of being drafted by the military (not a felon and without mental problems), then that person is part of the militia; “the people” are the militia.

If you need something in writing, check http://www.m-w.com/ I asked for a definition from around 1776 and a lady named Linda Wood e-mailed me that definition and a few others.

Mark

 
Remeber that back then, the definition of 'regulated' was different. It actually meant to adequately prepare more than it meant to restrict it.

 
>> This means that, if a person is capable of being drafted by the military (not a felon and without mental problems), then that person is part of the militia; “the people” are the militia.

Thanks Balilover, that helps me out quite a bit. There are a lot of organizations that would like to tell us what they think the word "militia" should mean. But I think we have to look at it in terms of what it really means as we find it in the Constitution.
 
I have a quote from one of that founding fathers somewhere that states something like Once the Militia is under Govt. control, the free world is doomed. I'll see if I can find the exact quote.
 
>> I have a quote from one of that founding fathers somewhere that states something like Once the Militia is under Govt. control, the free world is doomed.

I am sure that is a referance to a PAID militia. If a government or even a individual has enough money to hire himself a army, they can control the people and collect taxes to generate more money.

This is the exact situation that the founding fathers did not want to see happen here in America. They wanted a militia that would serve the country. Yet as a check and balance, they wanted the government to know that if it got out of line, the militia may turn on them.

I have a great deal of trouble with the way a lot of the people interpert the second amendment. They do not want to interpert it in a way that strangthens the constitution, they want to use the constitution in a way that would weaken or even destroy it.

We live in a country where it is legal to own an assult rifle, but it's illegal to import balisong knives. I believe this is wrong, and I plan to go into the Federal Court System as a private individual to present my case. I am sure there are many people who would contribute to a fund for a challange to this Customs Ruling, but I think that would create to much of a problem and drag the whole thing out longer than need be. Thanks, JohnR7
 
The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms. Contrary to what various anti-gun groups will tell you, the second ammendment is not just limited to the militia. It's all in the wording.

This is the exact wording of the second ammendment, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited (that the rest of the phrase is dependent on "well regulated militia"), constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

This is the position of Prof. Roy Copperud. The American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

I know, this is a bit confusing. But once you brush up on the rules of grammar, you will see that this is true and the second ammendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms.
 
>>Contrary to what various anti-gun groups will tell you, the second ammendment is not just limited to the militia.

If a militia means all able bodied men, I suppose the right to bear arms has been extended to men who are not able bodied.

Let's keep to the point here. I desire to go before the US Federal Court System to argue that the Balisong Knife is a Martial Arts weapon, contributed about 100 years ago, by the Filipino nation, when they were liberated from Spanish rule, and the ban on ownership of weapons was lifted.

While the US Government has every right to regulate the Martial Arts, as it does Kick Boxing for example. I do not feel they have the right to ban ownership of a Martial Arts weapons, such as the Balisong Knife. Nor do I feel it is covered by the Switchblade laws. Only customs considers it a switchblade, they are not considered switchblades when it comes it transporting them over a state line.

Many Schools have martial arts training. Most YMCA's offer classes, many Universities offer the Martial Arts as a part of their Physical Education department, for exercise. Many Police train in the Martial arts. Grandmothers are give self assertive classes that are a branch of the Martial Arts. Senators and Judges have at one time trained in the Martial Arts. This is evidence enough of itself, to establish that the US Government approves and endorses the Martial Arts as a excepted form of training.

For the Customs department of the Government to try and ban Balisong Knives, for me is a case of the executive branch of the Government usurping the power of the legislative branch of the Government. Also, they make a mockery of the Justice department, and weaken the Constitution.

It is essential for each and every new generation to embrace the constitution and decide to live by it. When the Goverment violates the second commmandment and bans balisongs the way they do, they have weakened the Constitution and this weakens the upcoming generations resolve to live by the constitution to guide their life by it.

I have no interest to argue a case for weapons, I do not feel any personal need for weapons at all. In fact the Bible says if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. I believe we should build up, strengthen and create, not tear down and destroy. But by definition a Martial Arts Weapon is a tool. I do not believe we should ban tools, because they can be used as a weapon. If that were the case, we would have to outlaw and ban most everything, because most everything shows up in the FBI Uniform Crime Report as being used in a crime.

I want to represent every knife collector, who does not feel the Government should interfer in their hobby of collecting. That is why I am asking for imput from people here on this board. In the very least, this is a debate that belongs in the open arena, and not a choice that Customs should make for us. Dictators make choices for the people. We are a free people, and our government is to be of, by and for the people. Choices of this sort, belong in the open public arena of debate. Thanks, JohnR7
 
If there were some sort of guarantee that NOONE on earth would be violent then I would agree that we have no need for weapons. However, when unarmed innocent people are being mugged, raped, shot, stabbed, gashed, cut, beat, bashed, carjacked, etc.. then the ability to own a weapon can greatly improve your chances of survival. I'm not saying we should live by the sword, but I am a firm believer in at least having the sword availibe so that is you need it you can live, not by it, but because of it. I would hate like hell to not live by the sword but still die by it.
 
>>If there were some sort of guarantee that NOONE on earth would be violent then I would agree that we have no need for weapons.

Paul says it so much better than I can, so I will just defer to him:

Romans 12:17-19
Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. [18] If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

If we feel someone has wronged us, then rather than to take matter into our own hands, we should plead our case before a God of Justice, and allowed Him to deal with them.

Romans 12:19
Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.

Our part is to walk in love, and we leave it up to God, to deal with those who do not.

There are those who worry about ever tiny infraction that people commit against them, and all the while do not see the harm they are doing to others. That is why we are to judge ourselves and not judge others. Thanks, JohnR7

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, [5] casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, [6] and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled. 2 Cor. 10:4-6


 
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't those passagers speak of Vengeance and Revenge? I am speaking of Defense, nothing more, nothing less. I wish to be armed strickly for defense. Not revenge, not offense, not vengeance.

"If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men."

But sometimes it is not possible and I refuse to allow someone to hurt my friends or my family and I will do whatever it takes to prevent them from being hurt. I will not however, take vengeance into my own hand if they do get hurt. I am sure that a God of justice would not want you to leave your family defenseless.
 
>>I am speaking of Defense, nothing more, nothing less. I wish to be armed strickly for defense.

While the purpose of a militia is for national defense and what is best for America as a nation, I am sure our founding father did not intend for us to be empty handed in our personal defense or the defense of our family. The whole idea of the constitution was to give rights to people so they could be free from tyrants. The founding fathers, rebellious lot that they were, felt you needed weapons to insure that the tyrant would not make a subject of you.

This is the arguement today, that the Government is trying to take away peoples weapons, so that they can bring people under their control. The very thing the constitution is suppose to protect us from. Our Government is to be of the people, by the people and for the people. Things are to be resolved in the forum of public debate. We are not to be at the mercy of a dictator who forces his will upon us, so as to take away our freedom of choice. But freedom only works for responsable people. Stupid people end up in prison and lose their freedom.

I do not feel a need for a weapon for defense, because I believe God will defend me and my house. Psalm 34:7 "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them." The advantage of trusting in God to defend us, is that we get protection from more then just people who would want to harm us. He can give us protection from sickness, "accidents" (carelessness) and so forth.

Even David, who was a mighty fighter, even he killed a bear, a lion and a giant. He trusted in God to defend & protect him.
Thanks, JohnR7 www.BalisongKnife.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top