2nd Amendment for non-firearms

[nc-1701]

I've been looking into getting a good knife lately, either a butterfly knife or a switchblade. But research has informed me that in many states owning such a weapon would be illegal (Including gun rights bastions like Texas ). Further even non bladed weapons are heavily controlled, I have a decent set of nunchucks I made, that (in Georgia) I cannot legally take outside of my home.

But people here can (and do) carry guns openly. While I'de like to think otherwise some dude with an semiauto pistol is way more dangerous than I'll ever be with a knife or blunt weapon. This is really upsetting me, I'm not a huge fan of guns, I don't own any and don't intend to, but I don't think they should be banned. I definitely don't think less lethal weapons (with smaller lobbying groups) should be either.

Why is nobody else upset by this? And why are 2nd amendment debates always just about guns?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note that nowhere does it say anything about guns or firearms, any sane reading includes protection for other weapons as well. I'm not an idiot and I realize that we might restrict more powerful weapons (bombs, RPGs, machine guns, etc.) But knives and blunt weapons are significantly less dangerous than guns and should enjoy the same protections under the 2nd amendment.

Not here to talk about gun control today, this thread is about melee weapon control. And possibly how it relates to our current gun laws (assuming that our current reasonable laws are reasonable and will not be changed).

 

[Formaldehyde]

What would be the reason for owning and carrying a knife which really only has one useful purpose?

Target practice? Hunting?

 

[nc-1701]

What would be the reason for owning and carrying a knife which really only has one useful purpose?

The same as for carrying a gun?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Get a concealed carry permit if you are so worried about being physically attacked.

 

[Arctic Daishi]

It's really a common misconception that Texas is a "gun rights bastion." For instance, open carry isn't legal in Texas.

Non-firearms should be regulated just as much as firearms, which is to say, not at all.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is probably due to the rich and colorful history of the region.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana

 

[nc-1701]

Get a concealed carry permit if you are so worried about being physically attacked.

I have no desire to own or carry a gun and to my knowledge in many states a CCP only covers firearms.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But you have a desire to carry nun-chucks or a deadly knife?

 

[Arctic Daishi]

But you have a desire to carry nun-chucks or a deadly knife?

Guns are much too quick, he wants to savor all the little emotions.

 

[downtown]

This is actually a good question, and one I hadn't really thought of before. It's much harder to accidentally kill yourself, or somebody else, with a knife or hell, nun-chucks than with a handgun, and it would be much harder to kill a ton of people all at once. While I'd question the practicality of nunchucks for personal defense, I can't see a good policy reason to restrict them MORE than handguns.

 

[nc-1701]

But you have a desire to carry nun-chucks or a deadly knife?

Or at least have the option in certain circumstances.

I like to practice martial arts stuff with my nunchucks, if I could do this outside it would be really great for the security deposit in my apartment
Unlike a gun a knife does have a variety of secondary utility purposes that could come in handy. Also I never have to worry about it accidentally going off when I don't want it to, or if I did ever use it to defend myself I don't have to worry about a stray bullet hitting someone who is innocent. All in all it seems much safer and more reasonable, not to mention cheaper.

 

[Arctic Daishi]

This is actually a good question, and one I hadn't really thought of before. It's much harder to accidentally kill yourself, or somebody else, with a knife or hell, nun-chucks than with a handgun, and it would be much harder to kill a ton of people all at once. While I'd question the practicality of nunchucks for personal defense, I can't see a good policy reason to restrict them MORE than handguns.

Actually, I'd say it's much easier to kill and/or injuring yourself with a knife. When dealing with a gun, virtually everyone knows that they have to be extremely careful. However, many people don't recognize just how dangerous and deadly a knife can be.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Knives are far easier to conceal. They are also rarely used for self-defense. Instead, they are frequently used by criminals to help commit felonies and even to kill people.

You also run the risk of it being taken away from you, in which case you would quite likely die or at least be seriously hurt.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I've been looking into getting a good knife lately, either a butterfly knife or a switchblade. But research has informed me that in many states owning such a weapon would be illegal (Including gun rights bastions like Texas ). Further even non bladed weapons are heavily controlled, I have a decent set of nunchucks I made, that (in Georgia) I cannot legally take outside of my home.

But people here can (and do) carry guns openly. While I'de like to think otherwise some dude with an semiauto pistol is way more dangerous than I'll ever be with a knife or blunt weapon. This is really upsetting me, I'm not a huge fan of guns, I don't own any and don't intend to, but I don't think they should be banned. I definitely don't think less lethal weapons (with smaller lobbying groups) should be either.

Why is nobody else upset by this? And why are 2nd amendment debates always just about guns?



Note that nowhere does it say anything about guns or firearms, any sane reading includes protection for other weapons as well. I'm not an idiot and I realize that we might restrict more powerful weapons (bombs, RPGs, machine guns, etc.) But knives and blunt weapons are significantly less dangerous than guns and should enjoy the same protections under the 2nd amendment.

Not here to talk about gun control today, this thread is about melee weapon control. And possibly how it relates to our current gun laws (assuming that our current reasonable laws are reasonable and will not be changed).

Why aren't people allowed to carry swords but are allowed to carry guns?

Hmm. That's a good question actually!

 

[downtown]

Actually, I'd say it's much easier to kill and/or injuring yourself with a knife. When dealing with a gun, virtually everyone knows that they have to be extremely careful. However, many people don't recognize just how dangerous and deadly a knife can be.

If you're fending off an attacker, it's a lot harder to accidentally stab the wrong person (other than yourself I suppose) than it would be a gun.

While I can understand that some folks might not treat a knife with as much respect as a gun, unless you slice an important artery, an accidental stab wound is a lot less likely to kill (or even seriously injure) than a gunshot.

I'm unaware of too many stories of kids accidentally stabbing themselves to death with knifes (although I'm sure happens), or bludgeoning themselves to death with nunchucks.

 

[Leonel]

It's hard to kill someone with a melee weapon. Prisoners in America get shanked like 10-20 times and they're still walking about and bleeding all over stuff. There was that knifing spree in China where 24 students didn't die. You can always come back from an injury, you can never come back from death.

 

[Silurian]

You also run the risk of it being taken away from you, in which case you would quite likely die or at least be seriously hurt.

Someone started waving a knife at me once.

Luckily for me they could run faster.

I did get a bit of a cut on my hand.

 

[lovett]

This is actually a good question, and one I hadn't really thought of before. It's much harder to accidentally kill yourself, or somebody else, with a knife or hell, nun-chucks than with a handgun, and it would be much harder to kill a ton of people all at once. While I'd question the practicality of nunchucks for personal defense, I can't see a good policy reason to restrict them MORE than handguns.

Howabouts "It would be great public policy to restrict access to guns, but the political environment does not allow it. However, for much the same reasons, it is good public policy to restrict access to knives. And the political environment allows that."

 

[Arctic Daishi]

Howabouts "It would be great public policy to restrict access to guns, but the political environment does not allow it. However, for much the same reasons, it is good public policy to restrict access to knives. And the political environment allows that."

Except for the fact that restricting gun ownership isn't a "great public policy."

 

[Tarquelne]

Except for the fact that restricting gun ownership isn't a "great public policy."

There's a story about a farmer who made a 1 gauge shotgun to shoot birds - a flock at a time - who were after his fields. According to the story the Man came along and took his gun away because private individuals aren't allowed to own artillery.

Looking at the crime reports, accidental shootings, etc. I do think we have to ask ourselves: Would any of this be actually be worse if private citizens owned 75mm howitzers? Would it *really*?