Second amendment and swords

[xcr]

Had have seen the US town requiring Gun Ownership in the Media- In one of Michael Moore's movies.
As for the Blade length reg. - 1.5 inch seems low- I dont think I own a knife that dosent violate that (not that im in the habit of carring them, but like virtualy everyone, I own sevral). I think the lenth reg here is 8-10inch or so.
I dont think Id want to live in a society were everyone carries a gun or a sword. Givin that ive never fired a gun, and only seen one once outside of a museam (or hardware store, for that matter- its not like there illegal), I think i'd personally be better of with the latter- once I got used to the idea that getting hit is under certin curcumstances only an inconvience (same problem for paint-ball players and guns, i suppose).
Hard to conceal a sword, I should think.
Here a question- If they did become a common weapon again, would they have pistol grips?
In a society were carring a weapon is legal, it makes little sence to spacifically ban a sword. But then perhaps not- a sword is not really a pracitical hunting weapon, for example.

[Black Jeebus]

How many of you have been through Kennesaw? There's nothing there. Thats why theres no crime. Its growing true, but right now we're talking 21,675 people. Telling something like neighboring Atlanta every home owner had to own a gun would be disastrous.

[Fechter1]

Does anyone here know the statistics for firearm accidents in Kennesaw? Might be interesting...

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Percy Blankney
Swords are not benign. More people were killed by swords during WWII than by nuclear weapons.

Where do you get the number of people killed by swords in WWII?

Atomic weapons (only counting initial blast effects) killed about 100,000.

That's alot of people killed by swords (are you counting bayonets?)

--Philistine

[Philistine]

Originally posted by prototoast
To use a modern counterexample, the national guard cannot be considered the "militia" when it can be called up by the federal government. A recent example being the war in Iraq.

"Militia" is currently defined by statute. It includes, but is not limited to, the National Guard.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 USC Sec. 311

--Philistine

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally posted by Soldier
A lack of underlying social and legal structure is anarchy, no matter how many guns there are or not. In fact, if there is no underlying social or legal structure, how can gun control exist? Naturally an anarchic or near-anarchic society you want to point to will have weapons all over the place.

The debate here is gun control added when social and legal structure is already present. If you're going to commit a crime already, why would you be worried about how you get a gun? Gun control may keep guns out of the hands of criminals some, but much moreso out of the hands of those of us trying to defend ourselves from criminals.

Please explain the European case:

Several countries will long-lasting legal systems, in many cases more stringent gun control than almost all of USA, and much lower rate of homicide. Sweden, for example, is a country the size of california and a population just under 9 million. The annual homicide rate is about 100 or so, lower than many USA cities.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

(1) The Kennesaw law was a response to a gun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. It was more of a political statement than anything else, and it isn't enforced...

(2) Philistine, states can try to "define militia by law" all they like, but their definitions do NOT supercede the US Constitution, and it is clear from the founders' copious other writings that they did NOT intend by "militia" anything like the National Guard, which is at the behest of the federal government and therefore is a component of its standing army.

( Imagine what would happen if a state decided to "define by statute" what comprises speech and therefore to limit its free exercise to a certain narrow group. How far do you think that would fly constitutionally? )

A state can call a cat a dog if it likes, but it still isn't going to fetch the paper.

(3) Peter's point about different societies is a good one: to say that gun control or gun ownership reduce or exacerbate crime is reductionistic. There are a myriad of other factors at play, and they are probably much more important. So you have, as he says, countries like Sweden, with stringent gun control---Japan is another---with low crime rates...you also have ountries with HIGH rates of gun ownership, like Switzerland, also with extremely low crime rates. You have countries with lots of guns, like the US, with lots ofcrime...and countries with NO gun ownership, and even higher rates of crime ( like Thailand ). There's obviously a lot more going on than just the per capita prevalence of firearms...

Now, within a given country such comparisons may be more apt. everal states reported significant drops in crimes such as strong-arm robbery and carjacking after passing shall-issue concealed-weapons laws. But even then, we can't be sure that we aren't confusing correlation with causation...or if it IS ausation, how much is attributable to the prospect of armed victims and how much is due to simple demographic trends, policing, and who knows what else?

I'm a strong advocate of the right to keep and bear arms, but---fair is fair...

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Inquartata

(2) Philistine, states can try to "define militia by law" all they like, but their definitions do NOT supercede the US Constitution,

Actually, it is a federal statute. Not a state statute. (Though they can't supercede the Constitution either).

and it is clear from the founders' copious other writings that they did NOT intend by "militia" anything like the National Guard, which is at the behest of the federal government and therefore is a component of its standing army.

Here's where I have to disagree to some extent. The Constitution clearly envisions the "militia" being at the behest of the federal government, e.g. Article I, Section 8: "Congress shall have the power....To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. [My emphasis].

I do agree with your points 1 and 3, though.

--Philistine

[coyotetiger]

Well what abou the other class. Their is the organized and the unorganized. What do you do about the second LEGAL class.

Regards,
Mr. T

[Soldier]

Originally posted by Inquartata
(1) The Kennesaw law was a response to a gun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. It was more of a political statement than anything else, and it isn't enforced...

(2) Philistine, states can try to "define militia by law" all they like, but their definitions do NOT supercede the US Constitution, and it is clear from the founders' copious other writings that they did NOT intend by "militia" anything like the National Guard, which is at the behest of the federal government and therefore is a component of its standing army.

( Imagine what would happen if a state decided to "define by statute" what comprises speech and therefore to limit its free exercise to a certain narrow group. How far do you think that would fly constitutionally? )

A state can call a cat a dog if it likes, but it still isn't going to fetch the paper.

(3) Peter's point about different societies is a good one: to say that gun control or gun ownership reduce or exacerbate crime is reductionistic. There are a myriad of other factors at play, and they are probably much more important. So you have, as he says, countries like Sweden, with stringent gun control---Japan is another---with low crime rates...you also have ountries with HIGH rates of gun ownership, like Switzerland, also with extremely low crime rates. You have countries with lots of guns, like the US, with lots ofcrime...and countries with NO gun ownership, and even higher rates of crime ( like Thailand ). There's obviously a lot more going on than just the per capita prevalence of firearms...

Now, within a given country such comparisons may be more apt. everal states reported significant drops in crimes such as strong-arm robbery and carjacking after passing shall-issue concealed-weapons laws. But even then, we can't be sure that we aren't confusing correlation with causation...or if it IS ausation, how much is attributable to the prospect of armed victims and how much is due to simple demographic trends, policing, and who knows what else?

I'm a strong advocate of the right to keep and bear arms, but---fair is fair...

If I didn't concede the point earlier, I should have, and will now: I am not very familiar with this study. I do not know how closely it looked at the issue; it may well have been comparing very similar countries with differing levels of gun control; I do not know for sure. And yes, I realize quite well that this makes it nearly invalid for any kind of argument. As I have stated in many previous arguments, I haven't the time nor the inclination to do further research into it.

As for Kennesaw being a tiny little city - I've seen plenty of crime in the little 7,000 person town I last lived in. I don't consider a town of 21,000 or so little by any means, and certainly of enough size for significant crime. Has anyone compared crime rates in Kennesaw to those of other similarly-sized communities? Not far from the little town of 7,000 is another I used to live in, of about 20,500 or so - crime is a very significant factor there, and one of the main reasons we didn't return there when we moved back to the area.

[laughingduelist]

More people were killed by swords during WWII than by nuclear weapons.

I don't think so. A neighbor of my uncle's used a .45 to shoot a Japanese officer who charged him with a 300 year old katana at Guadlecanal. He still has the sword. It's possibly the most beautiful weapon I have ever seen, but it is nowhere near as effective as a pistol.