2nd amendment and non firearms

[herplover]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place.This may sound stupid but why doesn't the 2ND amendment apply to swords and larger sized knives considering back when it was made swords and knives were common?Just curious if anyone knows the actual reason why they aren't covered or if they were at one time and were since taken away.

[internet troll]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place.This may sound stupid but why doesn't the 2ND amendment apply to swords and larger sized knives considering back when it was made swords and knives were common?Just curious if anyone knows the actual reason why they aren't covered or if they were at one time and were since taken away.

I am guessing that the founding fathers considered the government taking away the right to bear firearms as one of the greatest threats to the freedom of free men. I also imagine that firearms were the point of contention at the time. I am guessing that knives and swords weren't even on their radar at the time and they did not consider them necessary to mention. Wouldn't surprise me if a time traveling founding father popped into our time would say "Say what? We never even figured we would have to protect the right to carry a sword"

That might make a good topic for a paper someday. Comparing the laws of owning knives and swords to guns back in the 1780's. It would be interesting to see the evolution of knife and sword laws without any Constitutional protection, to the evolution of gun laws with Constitutional protection.

[Mitch10mm]

I would think just the opposite and that the founding fathers did have knives swords and other arms in mind.

[streaker69]

I am guessing that the founding fathers considered the government taking away the right to bear firearms as one of the greatest threats to the freedom of free men. I also imagine that firearms were the point of contention at the time. I am guessing that knives and swords weren't even on their radar at the time and they did not consider them necessary to mention. Wouldn't surprise me if a time traveling founding father popped into our time would say "Say what? We never even figured we would have to protect the right to carry a sword"

That might make a good topic for a paper someday. Comparing the laws of owning knives and swords to guns back in the 1780's. It would be interesting to see the evolution of knife and sword laws without any Constitutional protection, to the evolution of gun laws with Constitutional protection.

I respectfully disagree. Here's why.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No where in the 2nd does it say anything about firearms, but clearly states "arms", in the meaning of the word of that time frame, arms would have meant any weapons, not just firearms.

How it changed to mean firearms is via revisionist history and the intentional distortion of the term through the years in an effort to control the population.

After all, who would want to see someone walking down the street with a 2 handed bastard sword? There's no lawful reason for someone to carry such a dangerous weapon, right? Most people wouldn't think twice at a law banning the carrying of swords and knives because they see even less of a need for them than guns.

[Lexington]

I agree with Mitch and Streaker. I've always considered the term "arms" in the 2nd Amendment to refer to all weapons, and not just firearms. Most soldiers of the day carried long knives or swords, and many of our irregulars carried tomahawks and axes as well.

Melee weapons were the first to fall on the altar of progressivism, as they were the weakest link in the chain. "Why would you need a sword? Just carry a gun! It's much more civilized, and can be concealed!"

Now we've advanced to, "Why carry a gun? You have a cell phone. Just call 911."

The incrementalism has to start somewhere. And look where it's gotten us.

[internet troll]

No where in the 2nd does it say anything about firearms, but clearly states "arms", in the meaning of the word of that time frame, arms would have meant any weapons, not just firearms.

Honestly, I can buy that, I've always looked at arms as guns, but I could see arms including other means of defense. Something I will take into future consideration.

[ungawa]

I am guessing that the founding fathers considered the government taking away the right to bear firearms as one of the greatest threats to the freedom of free men. I also imagine that firearms were the point of contention at the time. I am guessing that knives and swords weren't even on their radar at the time and they did not consider them necessary to mention. Wouldn't surprise me if a time traveling founding father popped into our time would say "Say what? We never even figured we would have to protect the right to carry a sword"

Most cultures have seen sword bans throughout history and around the world. I would think many of them would have been aware of that at the time.

[ImminentDanger]

"Why would you need a sword? Just carry a gun! It's much more civilized, and can be concealed!"

Now we've advanced to, "Why carry a gun? You have a cell phone. Just call 911."

The incrementalism has to start somewhere. And look where it's gotten us.

That progression has not ended yet --- it is moving toward a cop (Control of Population) on every corner in AmeriKa ... You won't need to call 911 for a LEO because there will be a camera or a Population Control Officer within 100' of any where you are...

Think that's absurd ---- just look at what's happening with the TSA Viper program...

...

[WhiteFeather]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place.This may sound stupid but why doesn't the 2ND amendment apply to swords and larger sized knives considering back when it was made swords and knives were common?Just curious if anyone knows the actual reason why they aren't covered or if they were at one time and were since taken away.

In PA its § 908. Prohibited offensive weapons with its vague wording. As to why, might have been to many knife fights in movie with movies like west side story.

here is the solution to legalize them once again in PA.


Rep Brooks has introduced HB 2548 Knife Preemption on July 11, 2012

Here was the Nov 28, 2011 sponsorship memo to address the problem with local municipality regulating knifes.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI...011/0/9210.pdf



Read text of HB 2548 Knife Preemption here

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&bn=2548



we still need to deal with stun gun & sandbag in section 908 prohibitive offensive weapon IF HB 2548 passes, as its very late in the 2011-2012 session and this might not move in Judiciary Committee.

.

Note the items in brackets are being removed from section 908 which would be a great for US

.

§ 908. Prohibited offensive weapons.

~snip~

"Offensive weapons." Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, [dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise,] any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

~snip~

.
..
...

[Mitch10mm]

When I was at the Country Knife Store I asked if he had heard anything about 2548, he said the same as you. He said they were ” set up and ready if it goes through”. He was called to another customer and I let it go. His reply had me wondering is there going to be record keeping of the sale of autos or was it an innocent reference to stocking shelves?

I'm kind of a knife freak, my son likes knives more than guns. The Boker AK47 auto seems a bit clunky and I actually prefer my Kershaw Leek or Shallot with spring assist. Maybe higher end autos are smoother in operation. Gun show guy had the Boker and tried to get me for I think he asked 90 bucks! Someday I'll spend a little more and get aSpyderco Military but I've been impressed with the Kershaws.

Back on topic, my apologies. I really hope it passes so I don't have to worry going from township to township. Peace of mind. Any indication if it looks like it will go through problem free? I would think with Pa and its sportsmen and farms, rural regions there would be support not to mention volunteer fire and rescue etc. Of course much is lost on those with the actual power to decide