Switchblades and butterfly knives were regulated because they were “Scary,” not because they were actually better or more dangerous than any other kind of knife. Butterfly knives in particular are actually a much worse weapon than other knives (no hand guard), but they are often explicitly targeted by laws because they are scary and intimidating.
Banning a weapon because of how it looks, as opposed to what it actually does… hmmm… what does that remind me of?
I love how people hold up military and LEOs as the examples of people who “should” have guns. Go watch some non-combat arms soldiers who go to the range every six months to shoot from a static position, and realize they barely know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of. I’ve trained some soldiers in handgun use and been terrified of the thought that someone might be dumb enough to give them bullets. Then you go watch a Youtube video of a cop shooting himself in the foot and you realize that a person’s actual competence has nothing to do with their employment.
Some “amateurs” are more responsible and better-trained than the “professionals.”
Because registration is a necessary precondition to confiscation.
For the nine billionth time.
FWIW, I don’t think it’s right that the government has the power to control lobbyists, either.
Your not getting my point, and I can see you’ve not read many, if any, of my previous posts on these boards .. so I’ll bring you up to speed.
I’m against registration, as in: the Government forces the people to register their firearm (or any arms). That said, I well know that there are many professions that require carrying. You mentioned law enforcement and military. Add to that private investigators, private security, armored car, etc. I fully expect the Government to keep close tabs on their own employees’ weapons … LEO and military guns will be registered every which-way. Good for them.
When it comes to private business, unfortunately, business licenses and permits and also insurance companies will get into the mix. I can see registration being forced on the employee in those cases. At least the employee has a choice to not take the job.
Now we get to the amateurs. We are the “people” referred to in the 2nd amendment. Our right to keep and bear should not be infringed. Of course it will be, that’s the nature of Government. It doesn’t help that gun rights activists (presumably) like yourself, jump into the middle of a thread without reading or comprehending all of it, and engage in knee-jerk accusations.
You see, I’m one of the big 2nd Amendment protectors around here … I think it’s a clearly worded and straightforward right, and I’ve been railed against by every anti-gunner in these threads for months.
You should read the whole thread. When come back, bring apology.
Switchblades are very dangerous. They can be opened in milliseconds with a button press. On the other hand, the legal gravity knives and assisted opening require a lateral sliding of a button, and this process takes… milliseconds. Clearly switchblades are worse. What the authorities fail to realize is that switchblades require the ethnically diverse gang wielding them to do a musical number first before they use them.
Butterfly knives (balisong), nunchaku, and shuriken are also clearly more dangerous. Because ninjas use them (well, 2/3) and ninjas are evil. And the hours of training that it takes to learn to use them effectively means that they are more dangerous, and any criminal who wishes to use them over simpler weapons has a much higher chance of causing injury (to himself).
Where in the constitution does it place a higher burden on the professional exercise of a right than the non-professional exercise of a right? Even Scalia seems to think that the government can require licensing and registration as long as the licensing is “shall issue”.
No its not. Plenty of tyrannies have disarmed their population without a registry. And frankly I think any fears of a general confiscation at the federal level are paranoid delusions.
In the end, you can oppose registration if you want but the constitution isn’t going to provide you with any cover on that.
Saying it just once with facts to back it up would be sufficient.
Well, I suppose they could have a drive-by confistication.
And in what possible way does that link show that registration is necessary for confiscation? It certainly helps in some situations, but it isn’t necessary.
There’s something about the Constitution you don’t apparently know … so I’ll tell you now: it only protects us from the Government. Your employer can walk all over your Constitutional rights, as long as you’re willing to take the job. So, if you carry a weapon professionally, your employer can privately keep a registry of your weapons, and can also require you to register your guns with the Government.
It gets worse … if you are a member of the military, you voluntarily waive certain rights while you’re enlisted. If your employer, private or military requires you to register your weapon, I’m pretty sure you can’t apply to the Constitution for help. You do have the choice to avoid such employment.
In the end, I have no problem with an employer requiring registration, and certainly don’t care if you’re willing to subject yourself to such treatment voluntarily.
I suppose it’s not absolutely necessary. The Khmer Rouge just went door to door and asked:
"Nevertheless, virtually all the other recent examples point quite in the other direction. For example, had the Cambodian civilians of the 1970s been as well-armed as American civilians are, it is far from obvious that the Khmer Rouges, whose army numbered less than one hundred thousand troops, could have murdered as many of them as they did. Indeed, the Khmer Rouges behaved as though they agreed with this assessment. The Cambodian people were already largely disarmed because guns had been prohibited from the time of the French occupation. Even so, the Khmer Rouge leadership wanted to make sure and took the extraordinary precaution of a nationwide house-to-house, hut-to-hut search to confirm that the country was indeed defenseless. Once it was sure, the army clubbed and bayoneted to death two or more million people, which amounted to almost a third of the country’s population.
The Khmer Rouge search parties did not advertise their objectives beforehand (supposing that they even knew them). They placed a good communitarian face on their actions, which might almost have been conned from Garry Wills. One witness reported they would
knock on the doors and ask the people who answered if they had any weapons. “We are here now to protect you,” the soldiers said, “and no one has a need for a weapon anymore.” People who said that they kept no weapons were forced to stand aside and allow the soldiers to look for themselves . . . . [This all] took nine or ten days, and once the soldiers had concluded the villagers were no longer armed they dropped their pretense of friendliness."
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/75-3/753-4.html
But just helping is bad enough. People on the pro-gun side of the argument understand that.
Tracing this back through the footnote in your link, the one witness was under treatment for psychosomatic blindness. So just maybe she has a different view of the need for a gun in the US than you do.
I’m not saying it didn’t happen in one Cambodian village. She has no motive to lie. God bless her. But I don’t think you can fairly understand a holocaust by reading law review articles that cherry-pick through history for obscure uncollaborated incidents to make a political point.
At this rate, a million Americans will be shot to death, mostly in briefly considered impulsive suicides, in the next 30 years. Does anyone sensible think there will be a holocaust here in that time? You are bringing up a tiny historical incident, from a culture far different from ours, to obscure the real stakes.
Without the former Just In Case? While if it was good enough for Odysseus it’s good enough for me and I consider boar hunting with a spear and a short sword one of the few examples of true hunting for sport, where the other animal has a fighting chance, going up against a boar without something else isn’t an even match, it’s just suicide.
Not that I would do it, of course. Even little javelinas scare me, because they will gang up on you.
[bold mine]
And the only sort of gun control scheme that will do anything at all about that is one that makes it impossible for the average Joe Schmo to have any access at all to a firearm without an hours or days long process. Which pretty much defines ‘infringement’ of the “right to keep and bear arms”.
If you are talking about guns being locked up in hunting clubs, and only allowed out for brief periods, that would be a lot more than infringing on a right. It would be closer to eliminating it, since you could hardly ever bear arms. Examples of infringing would be to have a few unusual types of arms that are forbidden, or to have classes of citizens – say, children, or the insane, or criminals – who aren’t allowed to bear arms. And that kind of infringing is just what most of today’s supposed 2nd amendment advocates are for. Remember that in 18th century America, there were no gun restrictions except against, and only in some states, blacks and, for a while, loyalists.
If you are talking about people having to take serious, government graded, tests for concealed or open carry, like the drivers licensing tests most seem to fail the first time out, and then have to wait a couple weeks to re-take, I do think this would reduce the number of people with guns and save lives.
Greater and more accurate publicity concerning gun dangers might also discourage gun ownership, even without changes in law. Many probably think, due to misinformation, that guns are more dangerous for young children as opposed to teenagers and young adults, when just the opposite is true. If they knew how much more dangerous legally possessed guns are to young adult family members than to burglars, some might voluntarily disarm. A lot? I don’t know how many, but every life saved is precious.
In my home state of Indiana crossbows are arguably more restricted than guns. For example, the only people permitted to hunt with crossbows are those who have lost some or all use of one arm. In contrast, anyone who can legally own a gun can hunt with one.
When some nut jumped over the White House fence with a katana, the Washington Post reported he’d been charged with taking “a prohibited weapon” onto the grounds…raising, in my mind anyway, the question: Prohibited? With what weapons are you allowed to attack the President?
Why would you think I dont know that? I’m not sure what that has to do with the debate.
My point was that there is no second amendment prohibition against regustration. This isnt settled law but even Scalia probably agrees with this.
Can’t fairly understand a holocaust? What’s it take to understand that less than 100,000 armed men killing ~1.7 million except it’s real easy if only one side has all the guns.
Gun violence is already decreasing in America. Suicides, will continue to happen. We have already established in countries with less guns they just jump in front of trains or hang themselves. Plus you are obviously not counting all the lives saved every day by firearms against other weapons like knives. Here’s one example…