Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 3:12:02 GMT
theres the old saying. Free men (and women) have guns/swords. slaves dont. that is a very wise saying. "A citizen is armed. A subject is not." I think it's been around for a while in many forms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 5:00:40 GMT
The concept of honour that people bring into this discussion is interesting, people say the romanticism of the sword is over rated, civilary out and because of that the sword went on the decline. Its the arguements that we over romanticise it, that declining population was a result of its abolishment and the introduction of firearms saw its technological obseletion. Thats quite true for the most part, but one has to remember that the "romance of honour" was as alive in the times the swords were involved as they are today. I'm studying Chaucers Canterbury Tales at the moment for university 1st year, the first tale Knights Tale leading in is the 3rd party telling by Chaucer of the chivalry of honour in combat and love but also the harsh realities, its a good account of the 15th C ideals of honour but also how it sat in the realities of the day. The knight witnesses the wives of a battle massacare grieving heavilly that their dead husbands not just slain were left in a pile for the crows, the knight in his chivalry and honour with nothing invested rallies his men to find the culprit, old King Creon of Thebe's, he goes and battles him and his army and strikes him down personally, then as they are negotiating the dead they find two knight cousins Arcite and Palamon whom he sends to athens to be locked up for life instead of killed, far more to the story but it illustrated that it was a concept brought in to balance the barbarity. Duels were a transitional thing too, take the Holmgang of the Norse, very set out and regulated, lots of rules and the duel just had to have blood shed to have a winner a life lost wasnt mandatory. Then the loser could concede to compensating the winner with no tarnish to his name or honour because he had the stones to get in the holmgang to begin with. That was a transition from families having at it and constant blood fueds into regulated ruled duels that would wrap up an incedent once and only because of the life lost in that part of the world at that time. Again the arguement that weapon abolishment was a law thing. Also yep guns paved the way for the swords decline and particularly in duels as one could use either but the favouring as guns was increasing. Also remember that duels around the period of the firearms were illegal again loss of life. There was across the historical spectrum a reason for romancing the ideal, chivalry, duels, they were all cultural ways of controlling the thuggery at least in the higher classes (you know the valuable people you want to keep around), and also it was a notion of the time that the honourable arms bearing man wasnt a "better off man" but a "better man" if he had a personal code by his arms. I may or may not have made a proper point I'm really tired
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 5:18:53 GMT
Honour is a relative concept. The view that it is honourable to die for your country, that in war their is honour and a hundred other things, but the question is what exactly do we mean by honour? Why do we view dying in battle as if it is a great and glorious thing? Granted I've never been in the military and I've never been to war but I honestly can't see the honour. Fighting to defend others from the oppression of tyrants is honourable, defending the weak and those who can't defend themselves is honourable. Undoing the wickedness perpetrated by others is honourable. However, all this is very idealistic, there is no one innocent in war when the war is between nations. Look at all the atrocities committed on both sides in war and tell me that one side can be considered "honourable" and the "good" guys. All I see when I read about the wars of the past and of the present, is not glorious victory and triumph but the shocking waste of precious life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 7:26:05 GMT
...I think the sword is an excellent symbol and badge of... "kindness, willingness to help, patience." Eh, that's not what I wrote and not what I meant. I was trying to describe the sword as a symbol of: and then I said, describing another symbol that I think should be carried beside the sword: I just didn't describe the second symbol. I don't know- a medic bag with lollipops in a side pocket? Heh. Then I said this, it being my main point: Think: "Holding relief in my right hand and destruction in my left" That sort of thing. To add a relevant comment back on topic- I think the other guys nailed the "why" with: '...ease of life being an entitlement in this age...' and '...those with power to control constantly fear losing that control...' Those seem the most true from what I've seen. loc978, Well said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 9:33:01 GMT
The reason we no longer carry swords is a question of fashion. We don't wear capes or tights anymore either.
I agree with the symbolism expressed in this thread about the honor and dignity etc. of a swordfight, but times change. Swords were outlawed way before modern firearms became what they are today and now, in turn, firearms are basically outlawed in many areas. It's cyclical in a way.
And amidst all this turmoil of outlawing ways of defending yourself, fashion still rules all. Sorry, but I'd feel really weird walking into McDonald's or somewhere with a sword on my hip. Out of place and out of time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 11:09:16 GMT
in muscat oman they still carry swords and daggers on ther hips. its part of there traditional garb. even there sultun has a scimiter in his sash.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 15:59:57 GMT
HA! That's too funny! I wonder what Shields' second was thinking. Probably something on the line of "Oh crap, we better settle this before I actually have to wield that thing!" Thanks for the link.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 17:03:08 GMT
This may not have much to do with the subject at hand, but I feel this "point and click" or point and shoot mindset is what is wrong with our society today. We've built up such a need for technology and letting it do everything for us has made a good portion of our society lazy. I guess my point is that a lot of rely on how big they're gun is and such that they've forgotten that the best weapon anyone can use is their mind.
Now don't get me wrong I'm not bashing gun use. I myself do not own one.
I think though it inevitable that swords were no longer carried. Such is the way of the world I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Apr 8, 2010 0:31:20 GMT
Yup... guns. Guns are smaller, more effective, have range, and as a weapon are pretty much in all ways superior. Also, as Mike mentioned early in this thread... most of the 'civilized' world has moved away from carrying weapons of any sort... but if they moved back to doing so, guns would be the choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 2:05:37 GMT
I guess my point is that a lot of rely on how big they're gun is and such that they've forgotten that the best weapon anyone can use is their mind. I agree completely on the lethality and adaptability of the human mind, but when a weapon is called for, I'm reaching for the biggest one I can use effectively. If I Need a handgun, my .45 with hollow points is going to get the job done every time. I'm not taking any chances, any risks with my aim. When the gun comes out, the other guy goes down. No ifs, ands, or buts. And no chances. And that, of course, gives me more incentive Not to pull it out at all. If I'm not ready to go the whole way, I'm not going at all. No shooting to wound. No *BLAM* "Now let's talk about this lesson you just learned..." It's either I find another way out or someone dies and it won't be me or mine. That's a lot of incentive to find another way out. And why don't we carry swords? Because of guns. They're more effective. They're easier to use and to learn to use well. They're more concealable. And they're more effective at range. And a good gun costs less than a good sword (barring collector's guns).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 2:13:41 GMT
Think: "Holding relief in my right hand and destruction in my left" That sort of thing. To add a relevant comment back on topic- I think the other guys nailed the "why" with: '...ease of life being an entitlement in this age...' and '... those with power to control constantly fear losing that control...' Those seem the most true from what I've seen. loc978, Well said. I've only read the passed page but reading that bolded statement made something pop in my head, the control and that sense of power that people would have with carrying a sword, they just CANNOT handle it, i guess if you got a permit such as you can get for a concealed firearm might work, but if anyone can carry a sword people would abuse it, I'm sure this has been said before but ehh. People cannot control themselves, the majority in my opinion don't have much self control.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 2:20:28 GMT
It's so stupid that you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon but not one to carry an unconcealable sword...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 2:25:15 GMT
It's so stupid that you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon but not one to carry an unconcealable sword... True story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 5:28:18 GMT
It's so stupid that you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon but not one to carry an unconcealable sword... Sad, is what it is (in one guy's opinion, anyway). You can't openly carry a weapon (as defined by a bunch of arbitrary rules... I can kill someone as easily with a folding utility knife as with a combat knife... where do we draw the line?) within city limits most places because it "might scare people", and they "might react irrationally". ...as aries said, a vast majority of people lack self-control these days. They also lack a sense of self-determination. Only one rational reaction to it all, as I see it. Quoting a recent (hilarious) movie: "I've always been kind of a loner. I avoided other people like zombies even before they were zombies."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 6:52:53 GMT
Funny thing is Where I'm at we ahve open carry ;D nobody ever does it, but we can open carry a firearm but cannot have a knife greater than I believe 2 inches in blade length... seriously?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 12:00:55 GMT
knife-expert.com/oh.txtThere's no size mentioned in the state knife laws for Ohio so it would be at the discretion of the police officer who finds the knife on you. 2.5" is the maximum blade length for most federal buildings but 3-4" is normally fairly acceptable is most areas - schools are "no carry" zones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2010 16:21:45 GMT
changed one little letter, just to see... knife-expert.com/or.txt...our laws only mention concealed weapons, felons with weapons, and public buildings... at least according to that site. So in theory, it should be legal to openly wear a sword in Oregon. Of course, any city can add to state law, so I'm not about to try it in Portland.
|
|
|
Post by sparky on Apr 8, 2010 21:41:08 GMT
My biggest disappointment was finding out that I could not carry my sword cane with my CWP...... it only covers firearms. I can hide a shot gun under my duster a pistol under my shirt and on my ankle....... but nooooo you can't carry a concealed sword!
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Apr 8, 2010 21:42:21 GMT
There are too many intwining jurisdictions in law. Between federal, state/province, county, city, etc. it gets tricky to keep up with. Seems here I can get away with a 3.5" folder on a pocket clip if my shirt doesn't cover it. Granted, I typically carry a bit more. Granted, soon I'll have a handgun and will be applying for a CCW. Crazy world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2010 11:44:38 GMT
One of the reasons I don't have a CCDW permit is you have to provide your own gun for the safety course here. Of course I live in a state with fairly liberal weapons laws. I can carry a "normal" pocket knife or HUNTING knife as much as I want, but an collapsible baton is a no go. Whatever, between a small can of pepper spray, 34+ inches of hardwood I use to walk with, and the 3+ pounds of gray and white matter between my ears I consider myself fairly well armed. Not to mention my appearance most days doesn't mark me as a good target somewhere between biker, hippie, and goth with long hair, tattoos, and lots of black clothing. people still seem to cross the street when they see little ol' me coming.
(*edited to add legal definitions*)
500.080 Definitions for Kentucky Penal Code. As used in the Kentucky Penal Code, unless the context otherwise requires:
(4) "Deadly weapon" means any of the following: (a) A weapon of mass destruction; (b) Any weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, may be discharged; (c) Any knife other than an ordinary pocket knife or hunting knife; (d) Billy, nightstick, or club; (e) Blackjack or slapjack; (f) Nunchaku karate sticks; (g) Shuriken or death star; or (h) Artificial knuckles made from metal, plastic, or other similar hard material;
|
|