• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gun Control

mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
metis said:
In a democracy, that's their choice. IMO, it is the height of hypocrisy for a state to limit the length of a blade but allow for something like an AR-15.

BTW, public transportation has their own rules.
Click to expand...

Yes, as for the 2nd, arms are not a fire weapon alone. So you are correct.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Wildswanderer said:
Pretty sure you can't carry a sword or a rifle on the bus. Seems consistent to me.
Click to expand...

But if you have a state where you can carry openly a gun in situation A, but not a 2 hand long sword, then it is not consistent.
I don't know if that is the case, but if it is, then that is the point.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Wildswanderer said:
So, make a federal law to allow them all?
Click to expand...

Well, they are arms and if you want a federal law of open carry, then it should include such weapons in the following case.
If I have the right to carry a weapon for self-defence of a certain effective lethality, but not of a lesser, then it is not consistent and in effect a violation of my rights.
 
Mock Turtle

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
We seem to have a silly law in the UK concerning carrying knives (apart from defined legitimate reasons) - limited to 3 inch blades and non-locking, so a one inch or so blade that locks (and could be carried on a key-ring) is apparently illegal. Found that out after I bought one. :oops:
 
Stevicus

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Mock Turtle said:
Can't quibble with that, since the victorious nations (or ones seen as such) often don't look to the future as much as they should, and hence do provoke the type of response seen leading up to WWII. The same could be said about the fall of the USSR, where the glee of so many about this perhaps disregarded what was likely to be happening in the countries affected. Not sure what one can do about this though, apart from us all having a lot more empathy and generosity.
Click to expand...

One of the key factors which led many nations to the First World War was malignant nationalism, but as the war raged on, many people saw just how dangerous, bloody, and deadly nationalism could truly be - and there was a reaction against it. Of course, Germany under the Kaiser was considered the worst offender in that regard, but the same nationalist fever gripped other nations as well.

But because of shifts in global opinion and the balance of power, the allied governments didn't want to be seen as conquerors or imperialists anymore. They wanted to exude an image of decent, responsible, righteous liberals who favor democracy, human rights, and the sovereign rights of other nations - but they still wanted to keep all the wealth and ill-gotten booty from conquest. That's where the contradiction came in.

The problem is that you can't really have it both ways. If a nation wants to be a decent, responsible member within the family of nations, then they should be that. If they want to be bloodthirsty conquerors and imperialists, they can be that, too. But if they want to be both at the same time, then there are going to be problems.

Seems many countries are placed into roles that they didn't explicitly plan.
Click to expand...

Well, it's certainly not something that the people have direct control over.

I can't see much change unless there is a general movement for change, and perhaps prompted by children, but even there I don't hold out much hope.
Click to expand...

I think there will be movements for change, but not necessarily in the direction that many people want it to go. There was a chance for change, but too many people got suckered in by Reaganite consumerism. Yet another example of people wanting to have their cake and eat it, too - and then wondering later on why things are going bad.

That's why I have very little empathy now for what's going on, since the people should have known better. They should have heeded the warnings and criticisms of what Reagan and his ilk were doing to the country.
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Well, they are arms and if you want a federal law of open carry, then it should include such weapons in the following case.
If I have the right to carry a weapon for self-defence of a certain effective lethality, but not of a lesser, then it is not consistent and in effect a violation of my rights.
Click to expand...
Yes they should all be legal then. But it's a state issue, not a federal one, as far as I can determine.
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Mock Turtle said:
We seem to have a silly law in the UK concerning carrying knives (apart from defined legitimate reasons) - limited to 3 inch blades and non-locking, so a one inch or so blade that locks (and could be carried on a key-ring) is apparently illegal. Found that out after I bought one. :oops:
Click to expand...
That is silly.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Wildswanderer said:
Yes they should all be legal then. But it's a state issue, not a federal one, as far as I can determine.
Click to expand...

Well, not really as if you have a given right to a weapon, it can't be arbitrarily limited. There has to be a legal reason for it. So in principle because the 2nd is federal as an universal right and not a state right, you really can't do it. That is not the same as the SC doing something about it.
 
W

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Well, not really as if you have a given right to a weapon, it can't be arbitrarily limited. There has to be a legal reason for it. So in principle because the 2nd is federal as an universal right and not a state right, you really can't do it. That is not the same as the SC doing something about it.
Click to expand...
But there's no second amendment that applies to knives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top