Jump to content

NY District COurt overturns decades long banning of Nunchucku


cybermgk

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...