If we have the right to bear arms, why is it the less dangerous weapons are banned before guns? Is this purely because guns have such strong advocacy groups? I'm not saying we should ban guns or anything, I'm just saying if guns are allowed why aren't these much less lethal weapons allowed?
2006-12-21 03:20:22 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
SAYS ME: I already have a true bad boy but thanks for the offer ;>
2006-12-21 05:41:04 · update #1
I know you need to register guns or get a permit to carry a concealed weapon and there are age restrictions. That's not what I'm asking at all. If guns are legal as long as they have a serial number are registered and you have proper documentation allowing you to own and carry them, why can't we do the SAME thing with knives, which we know are less dangerous as they have less range?
2006-12-21 05:43:52 · update #2
It depends on the laws of your state. Those items you listed are considered prohibited weapons in Texas. Those weapons are not allowed to be possessed (outside the home) under any circumstance along with several others. Some guns are also prohibited weapons. It is the way that the laws were made up by the bureaucrats years before we came along. I think that some of those prohibited weapons could be moved off the list in this time. you know the old saying "Never bring a knife to a gunfight" even a switchblade is not as fast as the gun.
2006-12-21 03:30:12 · answer #1 · answered by gunsmoke_70 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question has a few holes in it.
Where are guns always legal? You have to register all of your guns and/or have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If you do not have either the registration or the permit you have an illegal fire arm.
I would not consider any of those weapons listed above as less dangerous. A pencil in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing is just as lethal as any of the weapons you listed.
Butterfly knives, numchakus and switchblades all sound like weapons of choice for high school trouble makers. Any weapon, knife, gun, etc. found or used on school properties, the owner or holder of said weapons will face crimial charges.
2006-12-21 11:54:23 · answer #2 · answered by Barb 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they are not less dangerous they just have less range - guns are not always legal - because people think of them as more dangerous guns can be a defensive weapon the ones you mentioned are considered more offensive - if you have an effective defensive weapon that is legal there is no reason for more
if you want to play with weapons hopefully a TRUE bad boy will teach you a lesson before you hurt someone
2006-12-21 11:22:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the NRA has such a strong lobby, guns are saved from the fate of other weapons. We do have the right to keep and bear arms and everything you have said are "arms" but a bunch of people who want to enslave and control our lives think that it is bad to be able to defend yourself, because if you could, how could they take over your life?
By making weapons illegal, they ensure complete control of your life by throwing your butt in jail when they catch you exercising your 2nd amendment rights. We need less government and more freedom.
2006-12-21 11:34:50 · answer #4 · answered by Mike R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a great question. Personally I think they should not if hand guns arent. The argument that you can hide does not make sense since you can hide a hand gun also. Look at hunting knives and they are as dangerous as all those and yet they are also legal. Makes no sense to me.
Maybe there is no one to lobby for those weapons.
2006-12-21 11:29:18 · answer #5 · answered by Joey J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The right to bear arms is different than the authoriztion to carry a legal concealed weapon. There is no registration process for those knives, nunchucks, ninja stars, etc. Bearing arms refers to the right to own, not to carry on your person on the street. Many people own guns for hunting and for protecting their home and for target shooting and do not carry them down the street concealed. Those who are licensed to carry usually do so for authorized specific reasons and are well documented and trained in gun safety. There's no way for that to apply to the things you reference
2006-12-21 11:28:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many laws were created in times when enforcement was selective. In the words of one Florida Supreme Court justice: "Never intended to be applied to the white population". Having a broader group of weapons being illegal gave the police of that time more opportunities to prosecute whomever they felt needed it.
2006-12-23 22:31:34 · answer #7 · answered by jmwildenthal 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
all weapons should be legal for all non criminals.except nukes, we are to be armed to keep our government in check, we can't very well do that with pea shooters. on top of that, criminals (and politicians) are afraid of a well armed populace. look at the crime rate in washington dc, where it is illegal to have a handgun within your own home locked away in a case. or kennesaw, where it's the law(sort of)that all citizens should have a gun.or "great" britan, knife crimes are insane there.
2006-12-23 12:32:20 · answer #8 · answered by otis the brave (luke 22:36) 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Every state (and city) that I have lived in, that restrict the weapons you describe, also have restrictions on fire arms, especially hand guns.
2006-12-21 11:29:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
pirates have a much stronger lobbying group than do ninjas
2006-12-21 12:48:19 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋