Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

NY District COurt overturns decades long banning of Nunchucku

Started by cybermgk , Dec 18 2018 10:46 AM

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

8 replies to this topic

#1 cybermgk

Member

Members
2,676 posts

Joined:

10-October 17

Posted 18 December 2018 - 10:46 AM

https://www.dailywir...d-james-barrett

ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2

Back to top

#2 Jeffrey

Member

Members
6,953 posts

Joined:

10-January 08

Posted 18 December 2018 - 11:03 AM

Something seems fishy about lumping them in with firearms as they've done here.

...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

Back to top

#3 spec5

Nuclear Member

Members
4,844 posts

Joined:

18-April 09

Posted 18 December 2018 - 11:17 AM

My grandson uses Nunchaku in Okinawan Karate. He uses Bo, Tonfa and Sai too. Good thing they don't ban them here.

NRA Member Life Member
ISRA Member
Illinois Carry
Pershing Nuclear Missile 56th Field Artillery Brigade Veteran 1970-1973
1/41 Field Artillery Germany 1971-1973

Back to top

#4 Euler

Member

Members
3,267 posts

Joined:

26-February 18

Posted 18 December 2018 - 03:54 PM

Something seems fishy about lumping them in with firearms as they've done here.

The 2nd Amendment protects arms, not just firearms.

I've posted it before, but in the 1600s, the arguments for and against private individuals owning swords and daggers are the same arguments we see today with rifles and handguns.

The anti side said that if people were allowed to own and keep swords in the home, arguments among family members or neighbors would become murders. The pro side said they were for home defense and, in the event of foreign invasion, to help the standing army defend the cities.

The anti side said that if people were allowed to carry concealed weapons (daggers) in public, street fights and bar fights would become murders. The pro side said they were for self defense from criminals, who would have their own daggers even if daggers were outlawed and would think nothing of killing someone for their wallet.

The only argument that wasn't made was someone on the pro side saying they wanted to keep a sword in the home so they could go deer hunting with it on the weekends.

In the meantime, Machiavelli (not concerned with individual liberties) argued that a prince should not disarm his people, because he needed their trust to rule effectively, and if he should disarm them, they would wonder what it was he intended to do that he first required them to be unable to defend themselves.

No gunpowder required.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.