Knife restrictions are stupid anyway. Baning flick knives and balisongs won't stop someone from taking a knife from their kitchen draw.
knife restrictions were mostly passed as feel good restrictions anyways and are disproportionately enforced against minorities.
So how long until they become puppets of Russia?
Arms literally means weapons. The word is usually used for guns, but it wouldn't be too crazy if the Supreme Court wanted to interpret it as any weapon. However, because the amendment still doesn't say you can have whatever arms you want, that interpretation wouldn't be enough to make restrictions on knives unconstitutional.
I do think the idea of knife restrictions in a country where there is very little in the way of gun restrictions is silly.
Good. It's pretty silly that in some places you can be licensed to conceal carry a .44 magnum but god forbid you have a blade with a push-button release.
Like everyone I know who works outside of an office carries a pocket knife, if just to open boxes and packaging and the like. It's such a weird thing to think of as being banned in certain places.
As long as we're keeping the Second Amendment, this seems perfectly sensible.
I've made the joke before that the most dangerous thing you could do with a butter knife is to spread honey on somebody and wait for an opportunistic bear to savage them. It's funny because it's true (and we killed all the bears.)
Ah the good ol Switchblade Knife Act of 1958, the ultimate in feel good measures that do little to nothing to curb violence. Here's to hoping it gets overturned, while it is legal to own auto knives in most states the legal hoops you have to jump through to warranty a knife or cross state lines is stupid.
I think the definition of arms relating to the 2nd amendment applies to weapons of any kind as long as they don’t create a direct and unjustifiable risk to the public. The same precedent is used in determining what kinds of speech are protected under the first amendment.
For examples, some things which the 2nd amendment shouldn’t protect are:
States requiring permits to carry a weapon, because it can be argued that people deciding to carry without proper training and information can put themselves and others at risk. Even though my state doesn’t have any problems so far with permitless carry, I can see why it may not work well in other areas.
Permit requirements for owning explosives and explosive weaponry. Since many explosives can be somewhat unsafe/unstable, simply owning them creates a public risk without training on proper storage and handling.
Nukes. I shouldn’t have to point out why this obviously isn’t protected by the 2nd amendment, but some people like making stupid arguments.
Things which should be protected under the 2nd amendment include:
Knives and blunt weapons like collapsible batons. Simply owning or carrying either of these do not create an additional danger to the public. Almost anything has potential to be used as an effective melee weapon which doesn’t fall into the currently existing bans on sharp and blunt weapons.
Ownership of assault weapons and machine guns. Simply owning any one of these does not endanger public safety. They are both overwhelmingly the least likely type of firearms to be used in a crime which is supported by FBI statistics. At least with machine guns you could argue they should require special permits and an extended background check because they are a little bit more dangerous and should be kept out of the hands of anyone who isn’t qualified to have them. They also require more training to use in a safe manner compared to semiautomatic weapons due to differences in functionality and recoil which can cause bad/unintentional things to happen with the weapon. (Example: don’t pull the magazine out first when experiencing a jam with an open bolt machine gun because the bolt can still move forward and fire a round when you detach the magazine!) A flat ban via closing the registry like we have now should be ruled unconstitutional which brings me to the next point.
Firearms registries should be illegal. They are almost always used exclusively to harm the rights of gun owners as evidenced by several high profile actions by state and federal institutions against gun owners as a whole. (The Hughes amendment and New York’s doxxing of everyone on their state registry comes to mind.) Adding insult to injury, they don’t even help to solve or prevent gun crime, which is the reason why Canada got rid of theirs.
Short barreled weapons and suppressors shouldn’t have additional restrictions because owning and using them don’t create an added danger to public safety. Any suppressed weapon over 22lr is still over 100 decibels even with subsonic ammunition and isn’t going to make you undetectable like Mr. Bond.
Dont even get me started on how arbitrary short barreled weapons restrictions are.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/237763/dd6f7928-3333-40d4-bf65-5f368b23ca33/257DE011-790B-4530-BA83-48CFF8E742AB.jpeg
This is not quite true. It's not as strict as the UK, but that doesn't mean there's little restrictions.
I suppose I am speaking relative to Europe generally. It's not just 'not as strict as the UK' though - it's FAR less strict. You do you, but you can't even buy a handgun in the UK whereas you can walk around with open carry in the states. Our police don't even have guns yet yours shoot people all the time (although I admit they need them due to the proliferation of guns.) I'm not judging - just speaking to the contrast and how silly it is to have knife restrictions in a country with very lax gun laws. I understand there's some regulation, but you need to look at Europe to see how different things are.
From what I've seen, the places here in the US with strict knife laws tend to have strict gun laws too. NYC as an example. You need to be politically connected and pay a bunch of bribes to have even a chance at getting a pistol license, and the cops arrest people all the time for carrying "gravity knives", or knives that can be opened with a flicking motion.
I suppose that makes sense, yeah, but it's still relatively easy for most people to get a gun. Look - I am not trying to be an arsehole when I disagree with people on this forum regarding the gun issue, even though I admit I have been callous about it in the past. I understand a lot of opposing points of view on the issue and have softened in my views to some degree as well. I try to be polite when discussing it, but I feel like people are sometimes too sensitive to my minor critique and tend to assume I am advocating for much more than universal background checks, a training course and mental health evaluation, much like with a car except the last point. I guess a plurality of people in America here would react very negatively to that point of view, but I'm only honestly representing my beliefs and am not trying to be rude.
Nah, I gotcha.
To be fair, from my understanding, the number of people who have guns in NYC is considerably more than the number of people who have licenses for them. Easy to smuggle in from out-of-state. Of course, there's also apparently a trade in stuff that's not even legal in the US, I hear stories about dudes storing RPGs and full-auto AKs in their apartments. I have no idea where they'd get that crap, certainly not from the legal market here.
At least from what I can tell, you’re at least willing to look at the reasoning behind some arguments which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for other people on here. I think the main problem is the majority arguments for gun control would rather make the majority of guns illegal instead of trying to better control who is allowed to have access to ANY guns. There are a bunch of things we could be doing better, but I think some gun rights which don’t effect public safety should be given back to us in exchange for any new legislation, otherwise both sides are going nowhere as they have been for several decades.
I’m not too sure about Aks, but most AR 15s only need a few pieces of metal (or in some cases just one because of lightning links) to become capable of sending you to supermax prison
You can get there Get sent there by removing bits of metal in the receiver without needing bits of metal.
The wonderous 3rd hole that gets the ATF going.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/IMG_8076-393x700.jpg
on firearm registries, they do help solve crimes its just the current federal system is purposfully designed to be the least usable as possible and that's where you have states step in with a hodgepodge of rules and security and they have limited use as they have limited data sets. a federal registry or federal framework for state run databases.
you're blaming the system for being bad when its purposefully designed to be useless right now.
Because the ATF is untrustworthy and by slowing them down they hoped they would focus on more important things like actual gun crime instead of Mr. Collector putting a stock on his pistol.
I don't quite agree with it, but I also don't agree with a stock on a pistol being illegal. I think it'd be great if we could merge the ATF and DEA and refocus their efforts on actual criminals.
Do you understand how the current system works?
For the sake of argument allow me to explain two things here. The first is what a registry will do in regards to helping stop crime.
Guy buys gun, guy registers it with the government, guy commits crime, police trace gun to him. That works perfectly fine if the person who bought the gun is also the one who commits the crime. What happens if the gun gets stolen? You're at a dead end.
Now lets talk about how it currently works.
Guy buys gun, guy fills out 4473 to buy gun, guy takes gun home and commits a crime. The police call the ATF, the ATF calls the manufactuer and asks who they sold it to, they call the place they sold it to and asked who did they sell it to, they call the place that sold the guy the gun, the 4473 is presented to the ATF and the gun is traced to him. What happens if the gun gets stolen? You're at a dead end.
Now one of these methods provides a very nice layer of personal protection in regards to privacy of a potential purchaser or gun owner, the other lets the government know everyone who owns everything. In both cases we wind up with the same result, but in one of those cases you have now sacrificed personal privacy in the name of speeding up a process that is actually pretty damn quick already.
Let me know which one you think is going to have a greater chance of being abused.
Friendly reminder that Canada had a national registry and abolished it when, after nearly two decades of it being maintained, police could not point to a single crime that the registry had aided in prosecuting.
It was a completely worthless waste of money, because criminals rarely use legally-owned firearms, and never leave their weapons at the scene of a crime. If you catch the perp with their gun, you don't need a registry to determine if the gun was stolen.
Registries accomplish nothing, they're just a feel-good measure. Historically their only use has been as shopping lists for confiscation. See: Hawaii, New York.
How many boxes are you all receiving? Is American packaging tape tougher than the tape used in other countries?
I regularly carried a pocketknife while working as an A/V tech, on account of regularly needing to cut open wire sheathing and plastic clamshell packaging, plus prying open stubborn electronics cases. It's just a ubiquitous utility item in a lot of non-office jobs.
A lot. It just makes it easier. I could get by without it, but why would I choose to? I work in a tire shop, and the tires come tied together with a bunch of packing tape and tied together with this really tough plastic wire to tie them together, our oil comes packed in big cardboard boxes, as well. I also volunteer with a rescue squad here and the packaging on most of our equipment in the amberlamps is similarly abundant and annoying. A knife speeds things up. Sometimes I will use it to carve up apples and the like, or dig grease out from under my nails. Its a pretty handy tool. Anyone who works in similar environments to either probably uses them the same way I do.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
