US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[colubridae]

Regarding your point that anyone owning a gun must be mentally ill, why do you think such a comment is valid?

More to the point: Where did Clinton Huxley claim that "anyone owning a gun must be mentally ill"?

If the problem is that the mentally ill can get firearms, the solution is to prevent the mentally ill from getting firearms. Not sure why you think that should extend to people who aren't mentally ill.

Bit of a Catch-22.

Welcome to the game.

If I understand correctly, CHux is implying (by quoting catch-22) that anyone who wants a gun must be mentally ill, by definition.

"anyone who wishes to be relieved of duty for insanity reasons must be sane. To be insane you must want to continue military service, and so, since you don't make a request for an insanity discharge, you don't get one" That's a paraphrase of the central point of catch-22.

If this is not what CHux meant I apologise to him.

If it is his meaning then once again he’s shot himself in the foot with his sarcasm.

I assume there will be no retraction or apology from him for said sarcasm.
However it does point out that Chux has no valid point to make, only nasty sarcasm.

[Clinton Huxley]

I presume the statement that "you cant do something about a unless you also do something about b", even if a and b are unconnected is some kind of logical fallacy.

[Hermit]

If I understand correctly, CHux is implying (by quoting catch-22) that anyone who wants a gun must be mentally ill, by definition.

My understanding is different. Huxley asked if mental illness is screened for. Seth replied with this: "No, many states have simply refused to comply with the federal request to provide information on people who have been "adjudicated mentally defective" or "involuntarily committed" to a mental institution or is incompetent to handle their own affairs. In part this is due to the fact that many states simply do not keep records of such individuals at the state level, and the NICS (National Instant Check System) law does not require the states to do so (nor could it, due to separation of powers and state sovereignty issues), so such records are "incomplete" at the FBI." Catch-22 in this case means that even if there was a concerted and systematic attempt to exclude mentally ill people from owning firearms by the relevant organisations, it is bound to be as leaky as a sieve because some states do not want/need/care to provide the necessary information to make it watertight. Using Joseph Heller's use of the term, catch 22 simply says: You can't win.

[mistermack]

Does anyone know how the right to bear arms is protected re knives?

Wouldn't it be ludicrous, if carrying guns was freer than carrying knives?

Can you get permits to carry concealed knives, switchblades, or openly carry large bladed knives?

[Coito ergo sum]

Wow! Got the point in one post! Good for you. You see, CES is exactly right, no specific "gun laws" are actually required at all, because everything bad that one can do with a gun is already prohibited by other laws. And if you don't do anything wrong with your gun, why should there be a raft of laws controlling every little thing about them, from "drop tests" to magazine capacity to banning cosmetic items?

That is not exactly true, since there are some reasonable regulations that can apply directly to guns, such as "if you transport your weapon within city limits, you need to keep it in the trunk or a locked cabinet" or, manufacturing safety regulations, regulations concerning sales of weapons (such as business licenses to register gun merchants). Reasonable regulations could include regulation of the kind of ammunition - such as "no rocket propelled grenades," no "home use stinger missiles," and no poison tipped bullets, or whatnot. There could also be reasonable regulations such as "if you commit a felony using a gun, you can't own one anymore." There are lots of reasonable regulations that would allow a "well regulated militia" (all the people) to have a right to bear arms which is, well, "well regulated."

But the right to keep and bear arms is NOT dependent upon membership in the Militia, and never has been, as the Supremes said in Heller.

I never said it was. I did not even imply it. Your statement is a common one, and an almost knee-jerk reaction from gun proponents whenever the word "militia" is used. Note - I said "all the people" (capable of bearing arms) because it was said in the 18th century that the militia is "all the people," and the 2d amendment says, flat out, "A well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And, part of the well-regulation can mean regulations on the manufacture, manner/timing/licensing of sales, registration of weapons, and limitation on the power thereof. What in what I wrote said to you that I thought the right to keep and bear arms was dependent on membership in the Militia (I assume you mean formal state militias, as opposed to the entirety of the people capable of bearing arms).

It's an individual right, not a collective one.

Who said it wasn't an individual right? If you respond to my post, please respond to what I write, and not some other issue. Yes, it's an individual right and nothing I said implies otherwise.

Of course there might be "reasonable" regulations, but the question is "why should there be other than proscriptions on misusing arms?"

Safety regulations, perhaps. Quality regulations, to make sure arms are of good quality and accuracy. Time, place and manner restrictions - like we have for the First Amendment (like - don't bring your legal case to a federal judge and have your M-16 loaded and in your hand...in the courtroom...). They didn't allow guns in federal courthouses in the late 1700s, despite the fact that the ink hadn't dried on the second amendment.

People already own rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, field artillery, tanks, machine guns and claymore mines. All of those are legal to own if you meet the requirements of the NFA and pay the tax.

Key words - "meet the requirements of the NFA." That's a regulation on the ownership of those guns, and some folks who have individual rights don't "meet the requirements." Just what those requirements are is subject to debate, and they don't merely relate to the single criteria you say should apply, which is "own whatever you want, until you misuse it..."

It's hardly necessary to have a specific law that says "don't fire your artillery field-piece anywhere that someone can get hurt by it" now do we?

Actually, we do. Because without such a law, you pretty much can only get in trouble if you actually hurt someone with it, or damage their property. Just being "anywhere near" other people while doing something is not a crime unless there is a criminal law that applies. So, yes, "anywhere near" would require a law - how near? 100 yard? 200? Completely outside city limits? County limits? Not in this state?

That would be covered under the existing criminal concepts of assault,

"near" is not the same thing as assault. If you want to make limit the law to "don't assault someone with your Howitzer," then you're right. But, firing the weapon "anywhere near" another person is not an assault.

criminal negligence

Firing a weapon "near" someone would only be criminal negligence if someone got hurt by it. If your suggestion was to limit the firing of Howitzers "near" other people, then you wouldn't necessarily require there to be damage caused to the nearby person. You would want a regulation that says that being X feet/miles away from another person and firing a Howitzer is illegal.

or other laws that protect individuals and their property against someone using ANY tool, weapon or substance to harm them or their property.

That is one way to do it, but not the only way. It's not a violation of the 2d Amendment to restrict or ban the use of poison or uranium soaked bullets, for example.

If you want to keep poison-tipped bullets around, so what?

Because the people have decided that "well-regulation" entails limiting the type of ammo to non-poison tipped bullets. It is an individual right, but just like freedom of speech is not absolute, and we can have time, place and manner restriction, and we can protect against defamation, libel, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual harassment, etc., and limit what people say where and when, we can make similar limitations on gun ownership. Nothing in the 2d Amendment or in the history of the second amendment, or in your beloved "Intent of the [white robed and glorious] Founders [with a capital F]" says or implies otherwise. Shoulder fired mini-nukes and radioactive weapons are not something individuals must be allowed to own, except in the cases where they "misuse" them.

So long as you don't use them to harm anyone, who cares?

The capacity to kill large numbers of people, makes it good public policy to limit capacity, because it's preferable to not have situations where 1,000 people die from a Howitzer bombardment, than to allow every swingin' dick to have one in his back yard.

The point being that like guns, criminals who desire to use poison bullets against another person will do so whether there's a law against it or not, so why bother, why not just prosecute them for the underlying crime of murdering or injuring someone if they do such a thing?

That's one way to do it. But, it's not the only way, and the 2d Amendment does not require your preferred way. The "well-regulation" is defined by the Legislature, with a check-and-balance of the Courts, to make sure that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," is not taken away, but rather is merely regulated.

As for transport laws, no, there should not be any such laws.

Should not? Or "can't be because the 2d Amendment prohibits them." Sure, maybe you're right about the former, and that would be up to the Legislature as limited and checked by the Courts to make sure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed, but rather is merely regulated. As for the latter, well, it doesn't.

First, an unloaded firearm is useless for its intended self-defense purpose, which violates the concepts outlined in Heller and the emerging line of cases that are defending the private individual's right to keep and bear LOADED arms (effective arms) in public and in their homes.

You'll never be allowed have a loaded gun in court with you during your federal tax evasion trial. And, that's not a deprivation of your right to keep and bear arms. Whether the legislature also doesn't want you to have one on a playground is up to the legislature, and the courts will decide if the law is constitutional. Clearly, time, place and manner regulations are permissible, and always have been, even in the times when the white-robed "Founders" were strolling thoughtfully about the countryside thinking their Great Thoughts.

So long as you do not misuse that weapon, it doesn't matter if it's loaded or not, now does it?

You may be right. I'm just talking about what the 2nd Amendment requires.

And if you do misuse it, why you are already liable under a host of other laws proscribing dangerous, careless, or negligent behavior. We don't need specific gun laws.

Says you, but specific gun laws are not prohibited by the 2nd Amendment. Moreover, you already showed that you were wrong about the "firing anywhere near another person" rule. That wouldn't be against the law. I can take my rifle and fire it anywhere near people and I'm not breaking the law, and just as you suggested that it would be inappropriate to fire certain arms near other people, well, the legislature or city council may decide that firing a rifle near other people, like in a residential neighborhood is itself dangerous and careless, and specifically prohibit it. The law could say "firing a rifle within 100 yards of a house within our city limits is dangerous and careless, and is hereby unlawful." That way, the issue isn't "was I careless or dangerous," but, "did I fire the weapon and was I 100 yards or less from a house inside city limits?" See the difference?

As for "if you commit a felony you can't own one anymore, that is not "gun control" legislation, that is PEOPLE control legislation that dictates personal conduct as a consequence of bad behavior. Such laws are appropriate because they do not regulate weapons per se, nor do they affect anyone who isn't a felon (for example).

It's gun control legislation because it limits who can own guns. What if the law said - if you commit a felony, or a misdemeanor, or a traffic infraction, or a parking offense, or jaywalk, or if you're late in filing your taxes, then you can't own a gun? Why is "felony" automatically o.k. with gun control folks? Not all felonies are violent and not all relate to guns. If I carry a prescription medication in my pocket outside the bottle and without the prescription paper with me, I am committing a "Felony." And, every gun proponent that I've ever talked to has said that it's perfectly fine under the 2nd amendment to limit gun ownership to non-felons and non-mentally ill folks. So, if felonies are good reason to deprive folks of guns, why not misdemeanors? And, I don't mean "why wouldn't it be a good idea in Seth's opinion?" I mean - "why is it Constitutional under the second amendment to limit gun ownership to non-felons, but not non-misdemeanors?"

Law-abiding people should be allowed to carry whatever firearms they wish to carry,

Not poisoned tip weapons - not a 2000 to 6000 round per minute minigun - not an M-61 Vulcan - not stinger missiles or rocket propelled grenades. Not in my opinion, anyway.

Why not?[/quote]

Too dangerous - kill too many people in one go - they are military weapons - and they aren't conducive to home defense -- the people that use them generally require a lot of rigorous training to operate them, and untrained people can easily screw up and shoot a lot of other people quickly - it's unsafe in the hands of the untrained, etc. Lots of reasons. And, the 2nd Amendment is flexible enough to allow the legislature to limit certain weapons, without eliminating the right to keep and bear arms. It's always been that way, and is in full accord with the "intent of the Founders."

If they are law-abiding, they won't misuse them.

That's not true. Generally law abiding citizens misuse a lot of things - cars, knives, fists, cinder blocks, pipes, bats, baseballs, bars of soap - humans commonly misuse things, without breaking criminal laws.

If they are criminals, they won't obey the prohibition,

I'm not talking about prohibition of arms. I'm talking about regulation.

so what's the point of creating the prohibition except to disarm the law-abiding citizens but not the criminals.

Who said anything about taking away all arms?

I know people who own both Miniguns and Vulcans and RPG's.

Both of those three?

Nobody with a Stinger, since the military doesn't sell those to civilians.

Are they violating the rights of citizens by not doing so? And, the Stinger is made by a private company, Raytheon. And, I never said people don't own those weapons - my point was that the 2nd Amendment does not REQUIRE that people be allowed to own them, and certainly allows "regulation" of who owns them, and where they carry them, and how. There's nothing wrong from a 2nd amendment standpoint, with time, place and manner restrictions. YOU may not agree with certain particular regulations, but that's a different question than "is a restriction constitutional?"

None of those people have ever done anything remotely unsafe merely by possessing those arms,

Says you. But, the 2nd Amendment doesn't require that everyone be allowed to possess every type of arm anywhere, anytime, anyhow. You have even admitted that. So, maybe those guys are perfectly safe with those weapons. I don't know. I'm ONLY addressing whether the Legislature has the power to make that determination, with the Court's check-and-balance that they regulate arms constitutionally. The answer is - yes. The 2nd Amendment does not mean that there can be no regulations.

and they generally just shoot them quite safely in appropriate areas,

The law must designate what is appropriate. That's a time, place and manner restriction. Thank you for agreeing with me that time, place and manner restrictions are acceptable under the 2nd Amendment.

like the Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot the weekend after next near Fort Knox, Kentucky, at which I will do some shooting myself and will observe literally hundreds of people with lawfully-owned machine guns, including Miniguns, having a rollicking good time shooting the crap of out cars, busses, and all sorts of other fun stuff. Happens twice a year, and is one of many such shoots nationwide every year.

In the legally designated, by law, place, in a legally prescribed manner, at lawful times. Sounds like reasonable regulation to me.

And did you know than since the NFA was passed in the 1930's, only ONE lawful owner of a machine gun has ever murdered someone with his machine gun, and that happened to be a Sheriff's deputy who killed his wife. This, in spite of the fact that there are more than 400,000 legally-owned machine guns in the US. Pretty damned good safety and law-abidingness record if you ask me.

Sounds great. But, whether someone abides by the law depends on what the law is. And, the only point I made is that regulation of gun ownership is allowed under the 2nd Amendment. You appear to have admitted that I am correct.

wherever they wish to carry them (with the consent of the owner if it's private property),

Not courthouses or high schools, for example, and particularly not the arms I listed above, and others like them, in courthouses and high schools. I don't want some pissed off litigant awaiting the judge's ruling while holding his M-16, or a fucked up high schooler with a gun.

Did you know that in most school shootings, the only one with a gun is the fucked-up high schooler? That's why such massacres happen, because state and federal laws create "gun free zones" that are nothing more than gun-free hunting zones for criminals. Had even ONE teacher or administrator been armed at Columbine High School, things might have turned out much differently. It certainly changed how law-enforcement responds to "active shooter" incidents. [/quote]

Maybe. That's up to the Legislature to determine.

As for courtrooms, on more than one occasion people (including prosecutors and judges) have been murdered by pissed off litigants OUTSIDE the doors of the courthouse, where the shooter knows unarmed people will be present. I'm fine with disarming people while they are actually inside a SECURED facility that is well-patrolled with armed police officers ready to take on someone who tries to attack the building, but it should be required that the entire building be fully secured, and that at security screening points there be gun lockers that members of the public can use to store their firearms while in court, but which allows them to re-arm themselves before they exit the building.

It's nice that you're "fine" with it. But, what the 2nd Amendment permits and doesn't permit doesn't have anything to do with whether you happen to be "fine" with depriving people of the right to possess an arm because a (supposedly) secure facility is well-patrolled. How secure is "secure?" How many cops is "well-patrolled?" It's all a determination of the government. You've just admitted to one time, place and manner restriction. Since you're not the dictator of the country, we ought also to be able to agree that the decision is made by the legislature, city council, etc. Your espousal of what you are "fine" with is certainly important, as you are a citizen with a right to state your wishes and persuade others to follow and yell at your elected officials. But, constitutionality is not determined, as a matter of law, by what you happen to be "fine" with?

in any peaceable manner, concealed or otherwise, and it should be totally unremarkable that they do so.

Whether something is "remarkable" is like whether something is "good" or "bad," purely subjective. I think it should be quite "remarkable" that someone straps a minigun to his SUV and rides down Main Street with it on a busy night.

Why? [/quote]

Because they can shoot 2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute, and if your oh-so-law-abiding buddy can have when, then so can "the Aryan Brotherhood," the "KKK" and the "M13 gang" or the Crips and the Bloods.

So long as he never discharges it inappropriately,

The law must determine what is appropriate and inappropriate.

Moreover, the idea of an "oopsy" by a single shot rifle, which has to be purposefully pointed and aimed to be likely to hit anyone, and if one accidentally discharges, it's only possible to shoot one person and is not all that sure about killing him --- vs. 2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute fired willy nilly on a crowded street --- surely you see the difference?

Oops! I was negligent and the damn minigun went of on main street! I didn't commit a criminal act because I was only negligent, and the injured persons can bring lawsuits against me for compensation....

all he's doing is adding to the safety and security of the community in the event that someone ELSE decides to unlawfully use their firearm. And if he does decide to discharge it inappropriately, it would be nice if everyone else on the street was able to respond to such an attack with overwhelming return fire, rather than everyone else being a government-disarmed potential victim that such a person can shoot at with impunity, knowing nobody's going to shoot back at him. You see, if a criminal wants to hose down a crowd at a shopping mall with a pintle-mounted minigun, at the moment in many places, there's very little to stop him from doing so at present. It would be far better if more civilians were armed so they could respond to such situations, don't you think?

I don't think the 2nd Amendment REQUIRES the law to be as you appear to prefer. I don't personal prefer the law to be as you prefer.

Oh, and at the moment, it's perfectly legal to do exactly that in any state where it's legal to own a machine gun.

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. I think that kind of law is perfectly legitimate under the 2nd Amendment. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry. That too, sounds fine to me. To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians. Twenty-five states have no further restrictions on civilian ownership of machine guns (some require registration with the state) than what is required by federal law. Other states have either placed further restrictions or outlawed operable machine guns to civilians entirely.

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faqhtml.html and http://guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html

So, if you're o.k. with that, then we're in agreement. The government can regulate gun ownership and even restrict the ownership of certain types of guns by civilians or certain segments of civilian society. Whether any particular regulatory scheme is "fine" or "appropriate" is a matter of opinion, and up to the legislature, city council, etc., as checked-and-balanced by the Court to be sure they don't deprive the people of the right to keep and bear arms. Yes?

Only if they MISUSE their firearms should they be subject to legal sanction.

Not "only."

Of course "only." If they don't misuse them, what would be subject to legal sanction?

If they possess them in a prohibited location, such as in a secure, tightly patrolled courtroom or courthouse. You already admitted that such a regulation is "fine." Therefore, you have admitted to one instance where something other than "misuse" would result in legal sanction. Therefore it is of course NOT "only." I can't see how you can say otherwise. You've admitted to at least one example of non-misuse resulting in legal sanction. Thus, it is not "only."

A prescription is nothing more than an authorization to purchase, and many states require a citizen to get a "firearms owner's permit" prior to purchasing any firearm.

Handguns, in some state. Concealed carry permits, sure. But, you're trying to claim that "many" states require a citizen to get a firearms owners permit to purchase any firearm including long guns, shotguns, etc.? You're kidding right? I tell you what - list those states for me. I don't know a single state that "requires a citizen to get a firearms owners permit prior to purchasing ANY firearm."

And for every firearm sold commercially in the US, the seller must fill out and retain permanently the Form 4477 and obtain a NICS background check at the time of sale.

Why are you so sneaky on your phrasing here. Sure, "commercial" sales - but, lots of sales of firearms are not "commercial" sales. And, isn't it a form 4473?

only a certain profession can issue those prescriptions and that profession has to be licensed,

All commercial sales of firearms must be done by persons licensed to do so by the federal government.

Not all sales of firearms are "commercial" sales.

So? Not all transfers of drugs require a prescription. Only some of them require it, and even then many such transfers take place illegally without one.[/quote]

All you've managed to arguably do is indicate that guns may well be regulated as much as drugs. Your assertion was that they were far and away the most regulated consumer product. They really aren't that.

A person doesn't need a license to sell his rifle.

Depends on the state.

A person can NEVER sell his prescription medications, and can not legally engage in non-prescription drug sales either unless one has a registered business, registered with the Food and Drug Administration and the State Food and Drug Agency applicable in that state.

A person commits a felony if he sells his prescription painkiller.

So? That's one distinction among many. I still say firearms are more heavily regulated than prescription drugs are.

You say it, but that's all you do. You haven't established it. Plainly, a person commits a felony if one sells his non-prescription drugs too, because to be a seller of any drugs, even non-prescription, you have to register with State food and drug agency, and the federal FDA.

You cannot be in the business of even FIXING firearms without a license.

In the business? Yes. But, you can fix your friends firearm, or your own. You can't diagnose your friends illness and prescribe him even an aspirin. That's practicing medicine without a license.

Horsepucky. You can give all the advice you like,[/quote]

You cannot diagnose or treat someone and you can't prescribe a cure. That's a felony.

and all the OTC drugs you like to anyone you like, so long as you do not falsely represent yourself to be a physician.

Actually, you not only can't falsely represent yourself as a physician, but also you can't treat or diagnose, or prescribe, even if you say you're not a doctor. Not only you can't say you're a doctor, you can't do doctory stuff.

As for prescription meds, no, you cannot dispense them without a license, but again, that just balances the comparison because you can't "dispense" guns commercially without a license either.

By balancing your comparison, I win. Because if we say that firearms are as regulated as pharmaceuticals, then your assertion is false.

I'd say on balance it's about equal on that point.

About equal means I'm right.

False, because I can carry a rifle without a license, because it doesn't require a license.

Depends on the state.

Which states require a license for a rifle?

[Wumbologist]

Does anyone know how the right to bear arms is protected re knives?

Wouldn't it be ludicrous, if carrying guns was freer than carrying knives?

Can you get permits to carry concealed knives, switchblades, or openly carry large bladed knives?

The laws regarding knives are a bit funny at times. However, I wouldn't really consider knives to be "arms". It's a tool that has many valid uses, and is only marginally useful as a defensive weapon.

In much of the US, switchblades are either totally illegal, or illegal to carry. I have one that a cop friend gave me as a gift. Legally I can own it here in Massachusetts. However, despite being legally permitted to carry a handgun in the state of Massachusetts, I cannot legally carry my switchblade, ever. I think that's pants-on-head retarded, but there's not much I can do about it.

Other types of knives are also regulated, depending on the location. Most urban areas have some sort of knife ordinance regulating the maximum blade length, carrying a large bladed knife is likely to be acceptable only in more rural areas.

I don't think I've ever heard of a location that requires any sort of permit to carry a knife.

[colubridae]

I presume the statement that "you cant do something about a unless you also do something about b", even if a and b are unconnected is some kind of logical fallacy.

Nice attempt at misrepresentation.

The argument goes as follows:-

The reason for banning guns is because they are dangerous and kill people (irrespective of the initial reasons for their invention).

Your reasons should be applied to all else (e.g. cars) otherwise it becomes an arbitrary and wilful abuse of power.

I’ve been caught by Christians with the same type of argument.
“you must respect other’s beliefs”
“Ok what about the belief that one should stone to death a woman caught in adultery. Must I respect that?”
“Ah well obviously that’s different”

Please don’t keep re-iterating the same arguments as if you’ve suddenly spotted a flaw in my argument. It’s little better than throwing out embarrassingly incorrect failed sarcasm.


Can you also clear up the meaning of your ‘catch-22’ reference?

[mistermack]

I don't think I've ever heard of a location that requires any sort of permit to carry a knife.

It's not so much that a permit is not required. It's that a permit is not AVAILABLE.
So you can get permission and carry a concealed gun, but you can't carry a concealed switchblade knife.

In view of which is most dangerous, it's seems a ridiculous situation.
And if a knife is DESIGNED AS A WEAPON, which many are, then they are arms by any reasonable definition.

How can you enshrine the right to bear DEADLY arms, and at the same time restrict the right to bear LESS deadly arms. How ludicrous is that?

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think I've ever heard of a location that requires any sort of permit to carry a knife.

It's not so much that a permit is not required. It's that a permit is not AVAILABLE.
So you can get permission and carry a concealed gun, but you can't carry a concealed switchblade knife.

It's only certain kinds of knives. Knife wielding is subject to reasonable regulation.

In view of which is most dangerous, it's seems a ridiculous situation.
And if a knife is DESIGNED AS A WEAPON, which many are, then they are arms by any reasonable definition.

Arguably, the same right to bear arms applies to knives too. But, since reasonable regulation is allowed with respect to firearms, one would expect them with regard to knives too.

How can you enshrine the right to bear DEADLY arms, and at the same time restrict the right to bear LESS deadly arms. How ludicrous is that?

They are both subject to regulation.

[colubridae]

I presume the statement that "you cant do something about a unless you also do something about b", even if a and b are unconnected is some kind of logical fallacy.

Nice attempt at misrepresentation.

The argument goes as follows:-

The reason for banning guns is because they are dangerous and kill people (irrespective of the initial reasons for their invention).

Your reasons should be applied to all else (e.g. cars) otherwise it becomes an arbitrary and wilful abuse of power.

I’ve been caught by Christians with the same type of argument.
“you must respect other’s beliefs”
“Ok what about the belief that one should stone to death a woman caught in adultery. Must I respect that?”

I presume the statement that "you cant do something about a unless you also do something about b", even if a and b are unconnected is some kind of logical fallacy.

A and B are connected.They are connected by the fact that they are both dangerous and kill people.

This is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Why do you think it is not?


Guns and cars are connected in other ways.
They use combustion to produce motive power.
They are mostly made of metal.
They are operated, mostly, by humans.
They were invented in the second millennium after the supposed birth of a mythical creature known as Jesus.

These connections are not relevant to the discussion.

If you have a valid reason for banning guns that doesn’t apply to cars please give it.
It should be easy.
Please account for the fact that you have spent a large amount of posting space on spurious arguments, when the numbers of gun deaths are far smaller than the number of car deaths, ought to produce a larger amount of posting effort on your part.

Please account for the fact that you have simply restated invalid reasons over and over again in a vain attempt to validate your viewpoint.

[Wumbologist]

It's not so much that a permit is not required. It's that a permit is not AVAILABLE.

For a non-switchblade knife, a permit is not available because it is not required. In jurisdictions where a switchblade is legal to carry, a permit is not available because it is not required.

So you can get permission and carry a concealed gun, but you can't carry a concealed switchblade knife.

Exactly. It's stupid, and a result of 1950's era hysteria over dangerous "riff-raff", who stereotypically carried a switchblade and caused mayhem. I doubt many people today worry about this, but on the other side of the coin, nobody gives a shit enough to make an issue over trying to legalize it.

In view of which is most dangerous, it's seems a ridiculous situation.
And if a knife is DESIGNED AS A WEAPON, which many are, then they are arms by any reasonable definition.

Again, it's more a matter of people not being too concerned about it. I'm not going to bat for knife rights, because I don't care about carrying a knife for protection. It's a stupid and potentially dangerous (to myself) half-measure. A firearm is the most effective personal self-defense tool available, I can get that, I don't need or want to carry a knife for self-defense.

How can you enshrine the right to bear DEADLY arms, and at the same time restrict the right to bear LESS deadly arms. How ludicrous is that?

Because knives aren't a concern in the US. It's not like the UK where you have to be 18 to purchase a silverware set with a butterknife in it. We don't care. I carry a knife as a tool. Big deal.

[mistermack]

What it proves to me is that the US has a ludicrous addiction to guns, based on the wild-west fantasy of the gunfighter.
Americans get fed this rubbish from an early age, and "grow up" believing that they need guns to save themselves from the baddies. It's John Wayne and Clint Eastwood producing a national delusion.

As knives don't feature strongly in the national fantasy, nobody has objected to sensible laws governing them.

[Wumbologist]

What it proves to me is that the US has a ludicrous addiction to guns, based on the wild-west fantasy of the gunfighter.

You spelled "a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for personal and common defense" incorrectly.

Americans get fed this rubbish from an early age, and "grow up" believing that they need guns to save themselves from the baddies. It's John Wayne and Clint Eastwood producing a national delusion.

I didn't get "fed" any of what you're referring to from a young age. I grew up in a relatively anti-gun part of the country (Massachusetts), and in an anti-gun household. I was anti-gun for a long time myself, until I realized that the arguments against gun ownership weren't as convincing as I has been brought up to believe. I never watched a single John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie until after I became a gun owner, and while they were enjoyable and entertaining, I don't see how they're relevant to the topic at hand unless you're simply vomiting forth another absurd and baseless strawman about people who dare to disagree with your dogmatic views on gun possession and ownership.

As knives don't feature strongly in the national fantasy, nobody has objected to sensible laws governing them.

Nobody gives much of a shit one way or another, because a knife is a tool. Any sensible person who wants to carry a weapon for self-defense here carries a gun. Hell, I'd carry a collapsible baton as a defensive weapon before I considered a knife for the job. On the other side of the regulatory fence, knife laws are typically not strictly enforced. I have a couple of different knives that I carry (as tools!), and neither one is smaller than the Boston ordinance's 2 1/2" limit. I've used them as tools in front of Boston police officers on more than a few occasions, and in none of those instances did the cop whip out a tape measure to check that I was in compliance. I'm not some wet behind the ears punk, and I'm not a gangbanger, so they quite frankly do not give a fuck if I'm carrying a pocketknife that isn't quite in line with the letter of the law.

[mistermack]

I didn't get "fed" any of what you're referring to from a young age. I grew up in a relatively anti-gun part of the country (Massachusetts), and in an anti-gun household. I was anti-gun for a long time myself, until I realized that the arguments against gun ownership weren't as convincing as I has been brought up to believe. I never watched a single John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie until after I became a gun owner, and while they were enjoyable and entertaining, I don't see how they're relevant to the topic at hand unless you're simply vomiting forth another absurd and baseless strawman about people who dare to disagree with your dogmatic views on gun possession and ownership.

Yeh right. I've heard VERY similar stories from Christian apologists, they very often claim to have started out as atheists. I don't believe them and I don't believe you.
You should watch a fistful of travellers cheques. It puts your gunfighter fantasies right where they belong :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzbcAem4 ... page#t=74s

[Wumbologist]

Yeh right. I've heard VERY similar stories from Christian apologists, they very often claim to have started out as atheists. I don't believe them and I don't believe you.

Actually, I started out as a Christian apologist and became an atheist. Again, it was a matter of things not making quite as much sense as I had been brought up to believe, and when I started to ask questions, it fell apart. As far as you not believing me, I could give a shit less. I'm interested in having an honest and rational discussion about the merits of legal gun ownership and carry, if you're looking for something else, bother someone else.

You should watch a fistful of travellers cheques. It puts your gunfighter fantasies right where they belong :

I don't have gunfighter fantasies. I sincerely hope that I never have reason to so much as point a firearm at another person, let alone to have to pull the trigger. I take reasonable, common-sense precautions to avoid situations that might lead to that happening. I carry a firearm as an absolute last resort measure, for if all else fails. If you're not going to contribute anything to this thread besides personal attacks about the mental state of gun owners and straw man arguments about how we all think we're John Wayne, please grow up or go away.