OK...reader beware, I'm about to spout off a totally un-informed, off-the top-of -my-head opinion again about something that bugs me. Apologies in advance. Anyway, I'm not a big second ammendment activist. I really don't mind the idea of registering or getting a license for my guns--as long as it's cheap. Of course it wouldn't solve anything, but it's normal for government to try and control us and tax us for the privilege at the same time. That's why we revolted against England, right? So we could abuse ourselves without British help.
Anyway, all that aside, I just think that as a reasonable, law-abiding citizen geezer, I should be able to keep and bear ordinary arms. Not flame-throwers, rocket launchers and high explosives, but ordinary things like hunting rifles, shot guns, pistols, swords, knives and my various martial-arts weapons. No problem right? WRONG!
For some reason (the power of numbers, that is), my 12 gauge is totally legal for me to carry where I live, but many far less destructive traditional martial arts weapons may be banned. Why is it legal and acceptable to carry a very lethal firearm but not a large knife, balisong, pair of nunchaku, collapsable asp-style baton, sword (katana, itak, ginunting, kris, kampilan, etc.). Honestly, I feel like I have to hide my athletic bag in the trunk when I go to teach class. Then I worry about getting accused of violating "concealed" weapons ordinances if I'm ever stopped and searched. Since I routinely commute accross several city and county lines, I can never keep up on all the changing ordinances anyway. Que lio!
So, in short, what about our supposed "Right to keep and bear arms?". I guess it has nothing to do with the lethality or intent of the "arms" involeved. Instead, our "right" only applies to the popular and culturally acceptable firearms of our occidental heritage. Nevermind that during late colonial times, swords were still a common arm of self defense and a backup to the slow-to-reload muskets of the Revolutionary War period. My question to all of you is, "Does this seem right? And if not, is there anything we can do about it?" Well?
Anyway, all that aside, I just think that as a reasonable, law-abiding citizen geezer, I should be able to keep and bear ordinary arms. Not flame-throwers, rocket launchers and high explosives, but ordinary things like hunting rifles, shot guns, pistols, swords, knives and my various martial-arts weapons. No problem right? WRONG!
For some reason (the power of numbers, that is), my 12 gauge is totally legal for me to carry where I live, but many far less destructive traditional martial arts weapons may be banned. Why is it legal and acceptable to carry a very lethal firearm but not a large knife, balisong, pair of nunchaku, collapsable asp-style baton, sword (katana, itak, ginunting, kris, kampilan, etc.). Honestly, I feel like I have to hide my athletic bag in the trunk when I go to teach class. Then I worry about getting accused of violating "concealed" weapons ordinances if I'm ever stopped and searched. Since I routinely commute accross several city and county lines, I can never keep up on all the changing ordinances anyway. Que lio!
So, in short, what about our supposed "Right to keep and bear arms?". I guess it has nothing to do with the lethality or intent of the "arms" involeved. Instead, our "right" only applies to the popular and culturally acceptable firearms of our occidental heritage. Nevermind that during late colonial times, swords were still a common arm of self defense and a backup to the slow-to-reload muskets of the Revolutionary War period. My question to all of you is, "Does this seem right? And if not, is there anything we can do about it?" Well?