I'm seriously lethal with a 1-lb rock at 50-yds. Does that meets legal requirements.
I could show up some where out of my head with a box of rocks + be a serious threat~!

This is a very good point and it should reverse all the ridiculous knife regs various states impose that hardly many folks are even aware of- but would be criminals if stopped by a hardnosed cop and face a wing-nut judge ~!

"Arms" includes anything that is used as a weapon. Guns, knives, clubs, battle axes, morning stars, and etcetera.

Gotta say it!

The Constitution does NOT grant ANY Rights... The Constitution guarantees that Government will NOT infringe on our Rights, and considers ALL Rights to be natural, pre-Constitutional!

The Federal Government is power grabbing, and the States and People have

been too acquiescent in permitting the gradual creeping power grab!

IF we don't halt it, the slippery slope might cause civil unrest and the shedding of
our blood against jack booted thugs!

Besides the abundant use of "They", "Legal experts", I would prefer some solid sources. Otherwise, it is all nice fluff! I own, and carry, and possess, in their sheaths,
in my vehicles, lots of machetes, "Bowie", and similar "Rattlers" knives!

Even have the multi tool lock blade knives from Sheffield, and Kershaw (#1920 BLSTWM BigHawk), that have standard screwdriver tips, but also, I added Torx bits, for auto and computer work...

I think I am just "out there, without a lawyer" in the wind, and will have to take my chances. Do I run, hide, in fear, or just go on about my Lawful use of tools, and
face the consequences of meeting up with "Officer Dumnuts" ?

I met him last week, at the Seminole County Public Library, Branch #1, where I am a volunteer IT tech. I was sipping from the water fountain, with my cell phone in my left hand, near to the house wall phone. I was wearing my badge!!!

Officer Dumnuts (Yes, grossly obese, too!) asked if I was using the wall phone, like he is looking for a crime to investigate! IDIOT!!! That phone only works in the small building, between the main desk upstairs, and the 5 conference rooms downstairs!

I said "No", and skedaddled off to finish my tasks! The taint of "officiousness" is
embedded from Barack (Obama)(Davis)Soetoro, all the way down to the lowly street cop, who is not to be trusted with the Police Vehicle, so is assigned local
walking duty!

Gads, man, don't get this Technical Sergeant started on why it's very bad to give any power to idiots!

Well!!!!!! what about ball bats, broom handle, pencil, or even a pitch fork for a farmer??? AND, whatever gets the job done. Obama wants us all to stand naked, so to speak

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

-- John Adams

Bring back switchblades!!! The federal law banning them was based on histrionics and fear alone, just like the 1994-2004 AWB.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ! RING A BELL ???

Heller vs Mcdonald could be why Tennessee repelled their ban on carrying knives larger than 4' and switchblades and I believe brass knuckles in July of this year.

Heller v McDonald??? Those are two separate cases. The District of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v Chicago. Both were firearms cases.

I guess you didn't read the article?

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Mr mullins tells it better than alex and is right on the money

Would my souvenir Moro Kris I picked up in the Philippines be an "illegal" knife?

Is it black? Does it look scary? These are features that make "arms" illegal in this country after all.

As a complement to the "country gentleman" persona I like to emulate, this article has convinced me to buy a cane sword.
The ladies would call it, "accessorizing".

I want one, too. There is a company in S Africa which makes BEAUTIFUL ones. Expensive, but I sooo want one. Or two.
www. sword cane dot com.

Ever fancy yourself a Musketeer? Buy a practice Epee and grind the tip to razor sharpness. Then, it's "En Garde! Monsieur Pussycat!"

(He, yes, i am old enough for the Tom & Jerry references, which would be lost nowadays because they are too "violent" for children and not "PC")

No, never much liked the rapier. They were created to snake through links in chain mail armor, but just don't have the style of a good katana. Or, I've seen excellent work lately by individual smiths replicating Celt, Norse, and other styles using modern steel.

I just really like the concept of having a USEABLE sized blade handy, since it isn't "legal" to strap an 18" short sword to my thigh here in the People's Republic of CT.

You know, it may be possible that ultimately gun control gets so out of hand throughout the world that it may be that armies are even reduced to spears, and swords, and bows and arrows...like that mentioned in the Bible in the last days. This may mean that LITERALLY the folk surviving Armageddon beat the swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, while burning the shields and bows and arrows for fuel...just saying.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that
protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
As ratified by the States:
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.
The framers of the United States Constitution knew
that if we ever lost the First Amendment that we
would need the Second Amendment to get it back.

I never knew our knives are protected and it makes sense. Thank you for this article.

In theory... But try and get a cop to buy the argument. I got a FELONY weapons charge in California in 1994 for having a knife with a knuckle shield in a locked toolbox, in the trunk of my car.

The cop was intent on finding something, ANYTHING to charge me with and well...here's a bit of irony, as I was being booked in Merced County Jail: OJ Simpson was in a slow speed chase in a white Bronco after he got caught nearly cutting his ex wifes head off. He never got a felony weapons possession charge. Go figure.

My simple question is how stupid can someone be to need the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." to be interpreted. There is no interpretation needed. It means EXACTLY what it says.

OK genius. You say that the word infringed doesn't need to be interpreted. Let's say that the Government passes a law that prisoners cannot conceal carry in their jail cells, or that patients in a mental hospital cannot order a gun on the internet for delivery to their hospital beds? If those laws are challenged by someone because they allegedly violate the Second Amendment, the process of determining whether or not the law is Constitutional requires deciding whether or not those laws "infringe" on the right to bear arms. That is what "interpreting" the word infringement means, genius.

While we are at it, tell me exactly how does a background check to be sure that you are not a felon or a mental patient "infringe" your right. I want to know.

Placing any type of condition or qualifier for a natural right is an infringement.

$160, up to one year wait time and a single judge that hates guns rejecting your permit. I think you can call that infringe

what law are you citing and where. That isnt the federal law to purchase a fire arm, and you know it.

yes you are correct that it is not for the purchase, but for the permit to pick it up. I am from upstate NY. you can infringe indirectly as well as directly. reduce the number of rounds a clip contain. control the number of rounds you can store or purchase. NY is now trying to control shotguns by stating they have to be single shots. That I would be concidered infringe.

I agree with your position, but the term 'arms' may need to be defined properly.
Note: I did not say it needs interpreted, but opponents of the 2nd amendment don't seam to know what the word means.

So you want to own an F-15, or perhaps a few tactical nukes?

I can go get a tank if I had the money.

many people can and do own actual machine guns..

it's all about how much money you have to spend.

Some of the former Soviet Union are selling off submarines, nukes and other things..

Militias had the same weapons a standing army did, but rarely had siege weapons.
same difference.

You are DISHONEST. NO one is suggesting WMDs. That said, the STATED intent of the founders was not that private citizens would have own the same TYPE weapons as the military. It was that private citizens would own very the weapons to be used when THEY were called to BE the military.

It depends on your stated goal. The founders expected men to come to a "well regulated militia" with their own weapons at a time when the main weapon was a musket. If the stated goal is to remain ready to serve in a well regulated militia, then keeping an appropriate infantry weapon, makes sense, and I agree with that as the fundamental purpose. But if the purpose is some fantasy idea that there will be a civilian uprising fighting the military in a battle for control of the country, then the civilians won't win with hand arms, you need fighter jets and nukes to be even with today's military.

We know however that arming a civilian uprising was not the purpose of the 2nd amendment. How do we know? If you know the history of the 1790s, you know that president Washington used strong military force to put down Shay's rebellion and the Whiskey Tax rebellion.

First ,let me correct you the men were not to come " to " a well regulated militia , They were the militia ! Second, We are not to have a standing army, thus the militia . And we are to fight ALL enemies foreign & domestic.{ who would you think domestic would be if not our own government heads ? }

Interesting you mention Shays Rebellion, as I was reading about it not 18 hours ago. I was not aware of the expediency that was placed on the Philadelphia Convention to draw up the Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation because of the Rebellion.

Sort of puts the Constitution in a new light since it did form a stonger central government who would be able to better deal with things like Shays Rebellion, which itself is nearly identical to the 99% vs. 1% that we have today. In many ways, things just have not changed at all since 1786.

(sorry to go way off topic)

I think it is actually on topic.

If you read anything the founders wrote about a standing military, you would know the first sentence of your last paragraph is the OPPOSITE of the truth.

The last sentence of your next to last paragraph shows you have no concept of ACTUAL warfare. If it were true, Afghanistan would have been glass before the USSR left the area.

Enlighten me on what your first sentence means. I said that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to assure that men have weapons in their home to bring when called by the militia. That is different and opposite from a "standing army." The Founders opposed a federal standing army but supported civilian militias run by the state governments. I don't see where that is wrong.

I also pointed out that President Washington and the Congress -- made up of men who passed the Second Amendment -- sent the army to put down two citizen armed rebellions in the 1790s. In other words, President Washington and the Congress directly opposed your fantasy that the 2nd Amendment protected and enabled citizens to arm themselves for revolution against the government.

As for your last point, asymmetrical warfare can be successful, but only if the rebels have the right weapons. Rifles, even automatic rifles like the AK-47, won't succeed in the long run a full scale fight against a modern equipped national military. The Afghan guerrillas were losing the fight against the Soviets using AK-47s and hand arms. It wasn't until President Reagan's Operation Cyclone that the guerrillas were armed with FIM-92 stinger missiles that brought down soviet aircraft. Congressman Charlie Wilson, the big supporter of the Afghans, said that the stinger missiles turned the war around -- before the delivery of the Stingers the guerrillas never won a set battle, after the delivery of the stingers they never lost one.

So, tell me, in your view, under the 2nd Amendment can citizens keep FIM-92 stingers at home for use in the coming citizens revolution? If not, they won't be successful.

Watch out Clear... Theres a Constitutional Scholar afoot...

Not that it would matter what man says about mans version of equity unless he's in line with Yahweh - but Knives, as well as tomahawks are a great line of defense in battle in days gone by and could very well be a good support to every household when the ammo runs dry along with other instruments - relying first on Yahweh as the first form of protection - ALL arms have their role.

In the era in which the 2nd Amendment was written, knives were just as common of an arm as a gun. It should only be obvious that the right to keep and bear arms should include firearms and all "lesser weaponry". What really irks me are some of the knife laws in my area which can put you in jail for merely carrying a knife on your person with a blade longer than 3 3/4".

Don't forget bows and arrows, swords (although they are a type of knife), clubs, and anything else I didn't think of.

Welfare cards???

When properly sharpened.

A few weeks ago there was a couple of men dressed in "Buckskins" (they were part of a Muzzle Loading demonstration). They both walked into a supermarket, each one not only had a large knife, each one had a throwing hawk, (Tomahawk).
Not once did any one seemed concerned, in fact they received smiles, nods and some of the youngsters wanted to know which one was Daniel Boone. No one shrieked in terror at the sight of the Knives or Tomahawks.

Bob Unruh: "Now, a new argument prepared by three legal experts goes further, arguing that the Second Amendment’s protection of “arms” includes knives as well."

Well, don't hold your breath. Why should we think that the Second Amendment is going to serve us any better for knives than it has for guns? Think about it: The Amendment with the wording "shall not be infringed" is the most infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, if we're truthful with ourselves, we also know it's very likely that a future generation of our posterity will see the Second Amendment repealed. This is the inherent nature and danger of optional rights verses God-expected responsibilities, such as the following one depicted by the Apostle Paul:

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8)

For more, listen to "The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight," delivered last March at the Springfield, Missouri Firearms and Freedom Symposium. Click on my name, then our website, and scroll about half way down the home page to our Featured Messages.

If you prefer to read, see our blog article "You Can't Win Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight."

It seems to me that when anyone, government or individual, tries to change, modify or erase any "rights" and "protections" given by God Almighty, that government or individual might want to change its tune. By interfering, changing, modifying or erasing God-given anything, those doing so stand in stark opposition to God and His will for humanity, which means they are setting themselves and/or the government up for complete and utter judgment and destruction by God Almighty. The expression "don't mess with Texas" is far more daunting when it's stated, "Don't mess with God Almighty."

Rachael, thanks for responding. But keep in mind that except perhaps as the Paper's timekeeper in Article 7, the Constitution knows nothing of God and God and His Word know nothing of optional rights. Instead, the Bible is replete with God-expected responsibilities.

When the framers replaced non-optional God expected responsibilities with optional rights, America was sold down the river. Check out our blog article "Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights" and "America's Hell: Paved With Rights." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Blog and either scroll down or do a search on the titles.