NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st01384.htm[/QUOTE]
For purposes of this section, “machete” means “a heavy knife at least 18 inches in length and having a blade at least 1.5 inches wide at its broadest measurement. This subsection shall not apply to carrying a machete on one’s person or in a vehicle if the machete is carried for the purpose of cutting vegetation or if the machete is being transported for the purpose of cutting vegetation. In a prosecution of a violation of this subsection, there shall be a permissible inference that such carrying of a machete is not for the purposes of cutting vegetation. Such presumption may be rebutted.

Any individual who requires a machete for the purposes of cutting vegetation shall register the machete with the local police department on an annual basis and, upon payment of an appropriate annual registration fee as determined by the local granting authority, shall be issued a permit authorizing him to possess the machete solely for the purposes of cutting vegetation.

:rolleyes:
"permissible inference", I guess the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is being thrown out the window in good ol' Massachusetts

Seems like a reasonably sensible bill, I don't really see the need to drive around with a machete.

Seems like a reasonably sensible bill, I don't really see the need to drive around with a machete.

Ya...its a weapon which is hack and slash....if you can't walk around with a sword, why a machete?

Well, what can you expect from a state that keeps electing Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank? Be careful as they will be after your stake knives, pens, scissors, etc. next. I'm glad I left that state in 1969.

Ya...its a weapon which is hack and slash....if you can't walk around with a sword, why a machete?

Note to self: check Massachusets regulations to see if there are laws against walking around with a sword. If there isn't, purchase one - a really really big one, and walk around with it.

Well, what can you expect from a state that keeps electing Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank? Be careful as they will be after your stake knives, pens, scissors, etc. next. I'm glad I left that state in 1969.

You've got to be kidding! Its a huge weapon and is no knife. You CAN carry it if its for vegatation, but it just has to be registered. Its not really a self-defense weapon anyways, its like saying you need a nuke or a AK-47 to blast your enemies. :rolleyes:

Well, what can you expect from a state that keeps electing Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank? Be careful as they will be after your stake knives, pens, scissors, etc. next. I'm glad I left that state in 1969.
Britain already has your steak knives, what next? :eek:

Note to self: check Massachusets regulations to see if there are laws against walking around with a sword. If there isn't, purchase one - a really really big one, and walk around with it.

Ya...umm...let's put it this way. I know there is a law against it. Cause when I went to Anime Boston the first year they sold REAL Katannas for about $40-$70 a piece. You couldn't even walk around with the wooden kendo stick without it being sealed and orange tagged.

Walking around with a three-foot Rurouni Kenshin reversed blade is illegal...so a machete should be to lol.

This would never happen in a classless society.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st01384.htm :rolleyes:
"permissible inference", I guess the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is being thrown out the window in good ol' Massachusetts
This sort of nonsense just irritates the crap outta me! Makes me wanna drive up to Massa-chew-setts and walk up and down the streets with a machete in one hand and a Glock in the other! Grrrrrr! :upyours:

Britain already has your steak knives, what next? :eek:

Sorry? Steak knives are illegal here? Since when?

Sorry? Steak knives are illegal here? Since when?

Hope fully he means butchering knives...last time I thought steak knives can't be used as good weapons because they will break really easily when used as a weapon.

Hope fully he means butchering knives...last time I thought steak knives can't be used as good weapons because they will break really easily when used as a weapon.
Virtually anything can be used as a weapon if you know what you're doing. The point the OP was trying to make is that once you start banning "weapons," the process never ends.

Virtually anything can be used as a weapon if you know what you're doing. The point the OP was trying to make is that once you start banning "weapons," the process never ends.
So if I killed someone with an occelot, that would mean I couldn't have one?

Virtually anything can be used as a weapon if you know what you're doing. The point the OP was trying to make is that once you start banning "weapons," the process never ends.

I am well aware of that...but exactly what's the point of caring a machete around on the street? Reason alone should say the answer is looking for/finding trouble.

Virtually anything can be used as a weapon if you know what you're doing. The point the OP was trying to make is that once you start banning "weapons," the process never ends.

I think the point of trying to distinguish weapons from everyday objects is simply to prevent weapons being used by the wrong people. If I'm a hunter then I need a high velocity rifle, if I live in a tower block and never venture to the countryside then I have no need to own such a thing and should be rightly banned from owing one.

Anything can be used as a weapon. However, it is a lot harder to kill someone with a stapler than with a machete.

One is designed to affix bits of paper to walls or other bits of paper, the other is an 18 inch razor sharp blade designed to cut tough vegetation and take the head off people you don't like.

Spot the difference...

Well, what can you expect from a state that keeps electing Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank? Be careful as they will be after your stake knives, pens, scissors, etc. next. I'm glad I left that state in 1969.

Be reasonable C. If you were Ted Kennedy or Barney Frank you'd have damn good reason to ban everything sharper than a soup spoon.

Anything can be used as a weapon. However, it is a lot harder to kill someone with a stapler than with a machete.


Bullshit. I did it once, my arm was tired, but I did it in one strike.

Bullshit. I did it once, my arm was tired, but I did it in one strike.

Yeah, if you get the right swing it's like Nunchucks that punch stples into the buggers spinal cord.

But it's an art on a par with Ecky-Thump in subtlety and skill.

Yeah, if you get the right swing it's like Nunchucks that punch stples into the buggers spinal cord.

But it's an art on a par with Ecky-Thump in subtlety and skill.

I forgot obout Ecky-Thump! Ban Black Puddings immediately!!;)

Anybody who needs to hide a machete shouldn't be carrying one.

Need of the weapon in civilized office life is non-existant. You can carry it if you want to register and pay it. Same as a gun. I really don't see what the fuss is about.

“a heavy knife at least 18 inches in length and having a blade at least 1.5 inches wide at its broadest measurement."

At least a foot and a half long blade. This slippery slope argument is bullshit. We're not about to ban staplers and scissors in Massachusetts just because we're banning foot-and-a-half blades without permits.

Use hedge clippers for vegetation, those are badass.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st01384.htm

:rolleyes:
"permissible inference", I guess the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is being thrown out the window in good ol' Massachusetts[/QUOTE]

We do it all the time in this country. Possession of certain drugs over a certain weight is automatically assumed to be intent to distribute and gets you a harsher penalty, regardless of whether you intended to sell it or smoke it all.

Bullshit. I did it once, my arm was tired, but I did it in one strike.

And I can kill someone with my bear hands. (http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Beararms.jpg)

Well, what can you expect from a state that keeps electing Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank? Be careful as they will be after your stake knives, pens, scissors, etc. next. I'm glad I left that state in 1969.

So am I. Pens =/= 18 inch blades. If it can be reasonably used as a weapon, and has no mundane use for a normal person, we're just asking that you register it. We're not taking them away.

Use hedge clippers for vegetation, those are badass.

Hedgeclippers are like uber-scissors. Or like two machetes stuck together.

This sort of nonsense just irritates the crap outta me! Makes me wanna drive up to Massa-chew-setts and walk up and down the streets with a machete in one hand and a Glock in the other! Grrrrrr! :upyours:

You should. That way, you can go to jail for knowingly violating the law. Unless you register both. Then you can carry them around all you want. But you probably didn't read that part. You probably assumed we've banned them altogether.

Since when do you have to prove you need something in order for you to have a right to it?

Thats like saying its the government that gives you rights.

You should. That way, you can go to jail for knowingly violating the law. Unless you register both. Then you can carry them around all you want. But you probably didn't read that part. You probably assumed we've banned them altogether.

We been saying that the entire thread...Hasn't got it yet I think.

Virtually anything can be used as a weapon if you know what you're doing. The point the OP was trying to make is that once you start banning "weapons," the process never ends.

Except we're not banning anything. We're making you register them. And it's like a $12 fee. If you really need a machete for cutting vegetation, then you can swing the $12. If we were outright banning machetes, you might have a point.

Except we're not banning anything. We're making you register them. And it's like a $12 fee. If you really need a machete for cutting vegetation, then you can swing the $12. If we were outright banning machetes, you might have a point.

Seriously? Maintaince for the machete would cost more then that on a yearly basis....unless you like it dirty, unsharpened and gritty...

So am I. Pens =/= 18 inch blades. If it can be reasonably used as a weapon, and has no mundane use for a normal person, we're just asking that you register it. We're not taking them away.

Don't forget the "appropriate annual fee" to be determined by a "local granting authority."

Next thing you know, they'll be taxing my penis 5,000 a year just because it's 20 inches and could be used as a weapon.

Do they make you register and pay annual fees for swords, bows, crossbows, axes, anything like that? Chainsaws maybe? If not then this law has all the consistency of a bag of piss.

Since when do you have to prove you need something in order for you to have a right to it?

Thats like saying its the government that gives you rights.

The government does give us rights. All the time. We don't live in this magical world where anyone can do anything they want whenever they want. We need the government's permission to drive a car, to buy a house, or broadcast something on television. It's not as though this is the first instance ever of the government requiring this sort of thing.

Don't forget the "appropriate annual fee" to be determined by a "local granting authority."

Next thing you know, they'll be taxing my penis 5,000 a year just because it's 20 inches and could be used as a weapon.

Do they make you register and pay annual fees for swords, bows, crossbows, axes, anything like that? Chainsaws maybe? If not then this law has all the consistency of a bag of piss.

No, that's not the next thing I know. Honestly, this slippery slope argument is garbage. Because we're requiring permits for 18 inch long blades does not mean we're going to tax your penis. That's an assinine argument. And yes, you would have to register most of those other things if you wanted to carry them around on your person or in your car. Probably not a chainsaw. But swords, bows, and axes I imagine I would need a permit to walk around with.

No, that's not the next thing I know. Honestly, this slippery slope argument is garbage. Because we're requiring permits for 18 inch long blades does not mean we're going to tax your penis. That's an assinine argument. And yes, you would have to register most of those other things if you wanted to carry them around on your person or in your car. Probably not a chainsaw. But swords, bows, and axes I imagine I would need a permit to walk around with.

Ones meant as tools are permitless..

Ones that are tools that could be used as weapons MAY require registration

Ones meant as weapons require a permit.

Ones that are MAJOR weapons are illegal. (Ak-47, Rocket Launcher...etc)

They aren't doing anything major. Its just common sense...

Why would anybody need a machete besides cutting vines? And you can get a permit for that.

The government does give us rights. All the time.

No. no.no.no. The government does NOT give your rights. They can only protect them or restrict them.

We don't live in this magical world where anyone can do anything they want whenever they want.

Of course we can. We just happen to agree not to. It makes for an easier society.

We need the government's permission to drive a car,

No, you need permission to drive it o na punlically built and funded road. If an unliscenced driver has a road he built on his own property, he can drive on it all he wants.

to buy a house,

Hell, no. As long as I have the money, I can buy a house.

or broadcast something on television.

No, the government is regulating the airwaves that they happen to make accessible. If I can broadcast in some other way, they can't stop me.

It's not as though this is the first instance ever of the government requiring this sort of thing.

So that makes it OK?

For clarification:

This would require a permit:

http://www.toledosword.com/im/GREW606TS.jpg

This would not:

http://images.canadiantire.ca/media/images/Workshop/WoodChoppingCutting/AxesHatchets/0575120_160_CC_1a3a.jpg

This would require a permit:

http://elitetacticalsources.com/prodimages/Cold%20Steel/97BM.jpeg

This would not:

http://www.kitchenshop.com/catalog/media/product_images_L/VCSR131312_L.jpg

This would require a permit:

http://www.gouranga.com/images/gta3/gta3_weapons_05.jpg

This would not:

http://www.tippmann.us/images/tippmanA5a.jpg

In New York State, you do need permission to carry around a paintball gun.

I forgot obout Ecky-Thump! Ban Black Puddings immediately!!;)

Well that needs doing anyway. But with sufficient proof of peaceful intent (say, a tenner a lesson) I'm willing to let true disciples of the art continue under my tutelage.

So that makes it OK?

Maybe, maybe not. But people really need to stop acting as though Massachusetts requiring a permit for machetes is the first instance where the government has restricted our rights.

In New York State, you do need permission to carry around a paintball gun.

Are you sure about that?

This would require a permit:

http://www.gouranga.com/images/gta3/gta3_weapons_05.jpg

You win this thread. LOL.

Maybe, maybe not. But people really need to stop acting as though Massachusetts requiring a permit for machetes is the first instance where the government has restricted our rights.

I'm not. But why accept it? Are you telling me to just lie down and give up when a law I don't agree with gets passed? I'm not allowed to feal outrage or frustration?


Are you sure about that?

Thats what the owner of my local field tells me

I'm not. But why accept it? Are you telling me to just lie down and give up when a law I don't agree with gets passed? I'm not allowed to feal outrage or frustration?




Thats what the owner of my local field tells me

>.>

You have a right to say it, but its not exactly unreasonable to the rest of us.

I'm not. But why accept it? Are you telling me to just lie down and give up when a law I don't agree with gets passed? I'm not allowed to feal outrage or frustration?

No, feel frustration. Go ahead. I even encourage you to move to Massachusetts so you can have your vote utterly nullified by all the people here who agree with the law. But stop acting as though Massachusetts is some fascist dictatorship that is cruelly stealing the right of the people to carry around swords when you can't even drive around without the government's say so.

No, that's not the next thing I know. Honestly, this slippery slope argument is garbage. Because we're requiring permits for 18 inch long blades does not mean we're going to tax your penis.

What if I were to say that rape shows that a disturbingly large amount of men use their penises as weapons in the commission of a crime, and that STDs, particularly fatal ones, inflict great harm on the victims and as such, it is not unreasonable to suggest that men be required to register and pay for their genital members?

That's an assinine argument. And yes, you would have to register most of those other things if you wanted to carry them around on your person or in your car. Probably not a chainsaw.

Interesting. How about the vague, "local granting authority" determined yearly fee?

Note to machete murderers: use chainsaws instead.

What if I were to say that rape shows that a disturbingly large amount of men use their penises as weapons in the commission of a crime, and that STDs, particularly fatal ones, inflict great harm on the victims and as such, it is not unreasonable to suggest that men be required to register and pay for their genital members?

That's stupid.

No, feel frustration. Go ahead. I even encourage you to move to Massachusetts so you can have your vote utterly nullified by all the people here who agree with the law. But stop acting as though Massachusetts is some fascist dictatorship that is cruelly stealing the right of the people to carry around swords when you can't even drive around without the government's say so.

Did I say it was a facsist dictatorship? Did I express a desire to carry around a broadsword?

No. I also explained the point about driver's liscences.

My main point is that your idea of what a right is could not be more off.

And don't give me that "the voters chose" crap either. Jim Crow Laws were pretty damne dpopular in certain states.

What if I were to say that rape shows that a disturbingly large amount of men use their penises as weapons in the commission of a crime, and that STDs, particularly fatal ones, inflict great harm on the victims and as such, it is not unreasonable to suggest that men be required to register and pay for their genital members?



Interesting. How about the vague, "local granting authority" determined yearly fee?

Note to machete murderers: use chainsaws instead.

I try to restrain myself from flaming...BUT

What the hell is with you an penises and raping and STD's compared to a machete? We took the 20 inch one joke, but this is just messed up.

What if I were to say that rape shows that a disturbingly large amount of men use their penises as weapons in the commission of a crime, and that STDs, particularly fatal ones, inflict great harm on the victims and as such, it is not unreasonable to suggest that men be required to register and pay for their genital members?

I'd say you were being intentionally obtuse.

My main point is that your idea of what a right is could not be more off.

I'll ignore the rest because you're playing the Corneliu card now, but in regards to this. Explain what you mean by this. Because I don't find fault with a law requiring registration of 18 inch swords, my ideas on rights are wrong?

I'd say you were being intentionally obtuse.

I wish I were.

But the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone has the right to their own penis, you know.

I'll ignore the rest because you're playing the Corneliu card now, but in regards to this.

You mean you just can't answer it?

Explain what you mean by this. Because I don't find fault with a law requiring registration of 18 inch swords, my ideas on rights are wrong?

You said the government gives you rights. Its not that you support the legislation that bugs me. Its your thinking behind it.

You've got to be kidding! Its a huge weapon and is no knife. You CAN carry it if its for vegatation, but it just has to be registered. Its not really a self-defense weapon anyways, its like saying you need a nuke or a AK-47 to blast your enemies. :rolleyes:

I should not have to register any knife, of any size, that I might have on my person, in my vechile, or in my home that I use or may use for any reason including self defense.

1. If its a part of you, you don't need a permit for it.
2. If its a deadly weapon used for violence...being a permit is fair enough
3. Its not banned.

You mean you just can't answer it?

No, I mean you're being obtuse and pretending that you're not implying the things you're implying.


You said the government gives you rights. Its not that you support the legislation that bugs me. Its your thinking behind it.

It's fine and dandy to be as idealistic as you are, but the reality is that the government is a huge, corrupt mass that regularly decides what's best for us. To act as though this is the first instance of the government deciding what we can and cannot do, when gay people aren't allowed to marry each other, is stupid.

I wish I were.

But the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone has the right to their own penis, you know.

And if gays are allowed to get married, then people will start marrying their toasters.

I should not have to register any knife, of any size, that I might have on my person, in my vechile, or in my home that I use or may use for any reason including self defense.

I assume that you do not think guns should be registered, either.

This sort of nonsense just irritates the crap outta me! Makes me wanna drive up to Massa-chew-setts and walk up and down the streets with a machete in one hand and a Glock in the other! Grrrrrr! :upyours:

Let me know when you want to go. We can stay at my sisters house for free and take the MTA into downtown Boston. :D

Hope fully he means butchering knives...last time I thought steak knives can't be used as good weapons because they will break really easily when used as a weapon.

No I mean steak knives. I don't buy the cheap kind so they can do a hell of a lot of damage before breaking. I keep my butchering knives and meat cleaver in a seperate draw in the kitchen. :)

No, I mean you're being obtuse and pretending that you're not implying the things you're implying.

What the hell am I implying? I'm a pretty straight forward individual.



It's fine and dandy to be as idealistic as you are, but the reality is that the government is a huge, corrupt mass that regularly decides what's best for us.

And you are OK with this?

To act as though this is the first instance of the government deciding what we can and cannot do, when gay people aren't allowed to marry each other, is stupid.

Did I not say that I don't think that at all? Didn't I give an example of a terrible set of laws that governments have passed?

This is why I don't "imply" things. Even why I come right out and say things directly, you are having trouble comprehending.

We should give Ted Kennedy and John Kerry what they want by throwing Massachussets out of the union and labeling it "The People's Republic of Massachussets." That's what they've been trying for for years.

So if I killed someone with an occelot, that would mean I couldn't have one?

They would have to first pass a law to make ownership of an occelot illegal, and I'll bet they would do that in Kennedy land. The Little League may be next. Those baseball bats can smash the hell out of heads, break ribs, and cause damage to internal organs. :rolleyes:

I am well aware of that...but exactly what's the point of caring a machete around on the street? Reason alone should say the answer is looking for/finding trouble.

Depends on what street you are on. Might want one for self defense.

What the hell am I implying? I'm a pretty straight forward individual.





And you are OK with this?

No. But this faux indignation is absurd. Half of the people in this thread that are so offended are only so offended because it's Massachusetts.



Did I not say that I don't think that at all? Didn't I give an example of a terrible set of laws that governments have passed?

This is why I don't "imply" things. Even why I come right out and say things directly, you are having trouble comprehending.

I appreciate the attempt at an insult.

They would have to first pass a law to make ownership of an occelot illegal, and I'll bet they would do that in Kennedy land. The Little League may be next. Those baseball bats can smash the hell out of heads, break ribs, and cause damage to internal organs. :rolleyes:

Because banning baseball bats is the next logical step after banning 18 inch blades.

No. But this faux indignation is absurd. Half of the people in this thread that are so offended are only so offended because it's Massachusetts.

I don't care what state it is in. Its the reasoning behind this type of legislation that bothers me.




I appreciate the attempt at an insult.

I'd appreciate it if you actually argued the points I made instead of making some snide little injoke.

And I still want to know what I've been implying.

No, feel frustration. Go ahead. I even encourage you to move to Massachusetts so you can have your vote utterly nullified by all the people here who agree with the law. But stop acting as though Massachusetts is some fascist dictatorship that is cruelly stealing the right of the people to carry around swords when you can't even drive around without the government's say so.

It can't be a faschist dictatorship because it is prdominantly a Democratic state. Only predominantly Republican governments that restrict your rights are faschist. :D

And if gays are allowed to get married, then people will start marrying their toasters.

I know I would. I love toasted stuff.

No I mean steak knives. I don't buy the cheap kind so they can do a hell of a lot of damage before breaking. I keep my butchering knives and meat cleaver in a seperate draw in the kitchen. :)

Steak knives do not need a permit. Sorry, but I am sure on that.

I wish I were.

But the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone has the right to their own penis, you know.

It doesn't? ...pulls down pants to check package...:eek:

I assume that you do not think guns should be registered, either.

You got that right and the right to bear arms is in the Constitution.

I don't think this really makes sense at all; if someone really wanted to commit a crime using a machete, they're going to get one and use it without registering it...all this seems to be is a waste of time and money, and won't really do anything since so few crimes are committed using machetes.

Because banning baseball bats is the next logical step after banning 18 inch blades.

Yes, then we have to get those golf clubs out of the hands of the public. They are as bad as baseball bats. :eek:

I don't think this really makes sense at all; if someone really wanted to commit a crime using a machete, they're going to get one and use it without registering it...all this seems to be is a waste of time and money, and won't really do anything since so few crimes are committed using machetes.

Same with a gun....but it reduces the availibity and chance of use.

I'd appreciate it if you actually argued the points I made instead of making some snide little injoke.

And I still want to know what I've been implying.

Once you make a point, I'll address it. But your argument continues to be that the government shouldn't be able to restrict rights. Where is your indignation about having to have a driver's license? You live with the fact that the government restricts your rights all day long, and it doesn't bother you, but it somehow upsets you that Massachusetts has decided to restrict the people's right to carry around dangerous weapons unhindered?

I don't think this really makes sense at all; if someone really wanted to commit a crime using a machete, they're going to get one and use it without registering it...all this seems to be is a waste of time and money, and won't really do anything since so few crimes are committed using machetes.

Now that is a sensible argument. This law is useless.

Yes, then we have to get those golf clubs out of the hands of the public. They are as bad as baseball bats. :eek:

And then maybe they'll ban stupid arguments for the mental damage they cause to those that read them!

Same with a gun....but it reduces the availibity and chance of use.

Not with a machete; if you've got basic equipment and some suitable metal, you could pretty easily make a blade capable of functioning as well as a machete.

Now that is a sensible argument. This law is useless.

Really; they should spend that money on fighting real crime, not hassling people who want to use a machete...the money wasted could definitely be spent somewhere else with a lot more utility.

You've got to be kidding! Its a huge weapon and is no knife. You CAN carry it if its for vegatation, but it just has to be registered. Its not really a self-defense weapon anyways, its like saying you need a nuke or a AK-47 to blast your enemies. :rolleyes:

Yes, because a machete is the same as a nuke or a AK. Dumbass.

Since when do you have to prove you need something in order for you to have a right to it?

Thats like saying its the government that gives you rights.

Exactly!

I like you :)

Why would anybody need a machete besides cutting vines? And you can get a permit for that.

Maby I just want one? Maby I just think it looks nice, or I subscribe to the "better have it and not need it then need it and not have it" school of thought? Maby it's not the government's, or anyone else's damn business why I have it. As I said, you gatta prove that I am doing something, or plan on doing something wrong with it to take it away. Prove, not speculate.

I am well aware of that...but exactly what's the point of caring a machete around on the street? Reason alone should say the answer is looking for/finding trouble.

Innocent untill proven guilty, my friend. I don't have to prove a good readon to have it. You have to prove I am doing something wrong to take it away.

Yeah, if you get the right swing it's like Nunchucks that punch stples into the buggers spinal cord.

But it's an art on a par with Ecky-Thump in subtlety and skill.

Dude, a staple could not go through the spine. Eye or throat would be your best bet for killing someone with a stapler.

Although your bare hands are more effective then a stapler for killing, so why you're messing with the stapler is beyond me.


Anybody who needs to hide a machete shouldn't be carrying one.

I'm sorry, your ignorant generalizations do not a good law make.


Need of the weapon in civilized office life is non-existant.

How can you be so naive?


So am I. Pens =/= 18 inch blades. If it can be reasonably used as a weapon, and has no mundane use for a normal person, we're just asking that you register it. We're not taking them away.

You can only have it if you can prove to some burocrate that you have a "good reason" in his eyes for having it.

Most things can be reasonably used as a weapon.


No. But this faux indignation is absurd. Half of the people in this thread that are so offended are only so offended because it's Massachusetts.

I couldn't care less what state it is. Stop makeing assumptions and giving labels to those who don't agree with you.

I don't think this really makes sense at all; if someone really wanted to commit a crime using a machete, they're going to get one and use it without registering it...all this seems to be is a waste of time and money, and won't really do anything since so few crimes are committed using machetes.

No, no it makes absolute sense. Criminals don't commit crimes with guns anymore because they have to register guns. If gun registration has stopped all crime with guns, it is obvious machete registration will prevent them from committing crimes using machetes. :D

Same with a gun....but it reduces the availibity and chance of use.

Gun registration has not reduced the availability and chance of a criminal using a gun. I has only made it more time consuming and expensive for honest citizens to get one. :mad:

Once you make a point, I'll address it. But your argument continues to be that the government shouldn't be able to restrict rights. Where is your indignation about having to have a driver's license? You live with the fact that the government restricts your rights all day long, and it doesn't bother you, but it somehow upsets you that Massachusetts has decided to restrict the people's right to carry around dangerous weapons unhindered?

The courts have upheld that a drivers license is not a right, it is a privilege that is granted by the state and my be revoked by the state.

And then maybe they'll ban stupid arguments for the mental damage they cause to those that read them!

Lighten up. :rolleyes:

Hope fully he means butchering knives...last time I thought steak knives can't be used as good weapons because they will break really easily when used as a weapon.
Silly me - just that Britain has almost banned everything nowadays as a "weapon" :p

Yes, because a machete is the same as a nuke or a AK. Dumbass.

Maybe now you could flame some of the people who are saying that because we're restricting machetes we're going to start restricting staplers as well. It would be only fair.


I couldn't care less what state it is. Stop makeing assumptions and giving labels to those who don't agree with you.

I'm not making assumptions.

Well, what can you expect from a state that keeps electing Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank? Be careful as they will be after your stake knives, pens, scissors, etc. next. I'm glad I left that state in 1969.
This sort of nonsense just irritates the crap outta me! Makes me wanna drive up to Massa-chew-setts and walk up and down the streets with a machete in one hand and a Glock in the other! Grrrrrr! :upyours:
Be reasonable C. If you were Ted Kennedy or Barney Frank you'd have damn good reason to ban everything sharper than a soup spoon.
We should give Ted Kennedy and John Kerry what they want by throwing Massachussets out of the union and labeling it "The People's Republic of Massachussets." That's what they've been trying for for years.

For some people it's really just about their distaste for Massachusetts. For some people, Massachusetts was equally evil for granting rights (gay marriage) as it is now for taking them away.

Lighten up. :rolleyes:

No. Stop making stupid comparisons.

Maybe now you could flame some of the people who are saying that because we're restricting machetes we're going to start restricting staplers as well. It would be only fair.



I'm not making assumptions.






For some people it's really just about their distaste for Massachusetts. For some people, Massachusetts was equally evil for granting rights (gay marriage) as it is now for taking them away.

OK, you were right on both points. I'm sorry to Asbena for callig you a dumbass. But my point that your point was dumb still stands.

The people compaing it to staplers are for the most part joking. Asbena's post had the tone of seriousness.

As for the Mass things, it seems alot of folk just plain don't like Mass. But that doesn't weaken any of our arguments one bit. Attack the arguments, not the motivation of the poster.

Once you make a point, I'll address it. But your argument continues to be that the government shouldn't be able to restrict rights.

I didn't say it shouldn't be able to. I said it doesn't give them.

Where is your indignation about having to have a driver's license?

I need a liscence to use government built and funded roads. I wrote that very plainly. They can't stop an unliscenced driver on a private road, as long as they don't harm anyone else.

You live with the fact that the government restricts your rights all day long,

Yes, its called a social contract.

and it doesn't bother you,

In some cases, where they overstep their bounds, it does bother me. Gay marriages and being forced to register a tool are two of those instances.

but it somehow upsets you that Massachusetts has decided to restrict the people's right to carry around dangerous weapons unhindered?

No, it upsets me that you and those of the same mind accept this. Why is this legislation ok but a ban on gay marriage is wrong?

What do I have to say to get it through to you that I don't care about Massechuesettes and machetes, but instead am concerned about how people view their freedoms?

Gay marriage is a bigger issue then registering a tool. One that was set down over 200 years ago. That has legislation that has passed, already blocking it.

This sort of nonsense just irritates the crap outta me! Makes me wanna drive up to Massa-chew-setts and walk up and down the streets with a machete in one hand and a Glock in the other! Grrrrrr! :upyours:
Go for it!! :p

We can surely find someone to cover off your daily thread generation while you cool yer azz in jail.

Gay marriage is a bigger issue then registering a tool. One that was set down over 200 years ago. That has legislation that has passed, already blocking it.

Same issue, different outlets.

Why so many of you think that just because something was decided 200 years ago therefore renders it untouchable is incomprehensible.

D'you have any idea just how stupid it sounds when you read it?

Ya...umm...let's put it this way. I know there is a law against it. Cause when I went to Anime Boston the first year they sold REAL Katannas for about $40-$70 a piece. You couldn't even walk around with the wooden kendo stick without it being sealed and orange tagged.

Walking around with a three-foot Rurouni Kenshin reversed blade is illegal...so a machete should be to lol.


Not real Katanas, they will be stainless steel POS that would shatter if you hit anything vaguely hard with them.

Don't get me wrong, if they are sharp, they can kill, but they ain't 'REAL' by anyones money.

Oh and the blade you mentioned, the 'Rurouni Kenshin reversed blade', if they were marketing that as a real sword, they were blatently bullshitting you.

For some people it's really just about their distaste for Massachusetts. For some people, Massachusetts was equally evil for granting rights (gay marriage) as it is now for taking them away.

It is not about distaste for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I love the state as I was born in Brockton and raised in Belmont. It is about the politics of the state, it is about the left wing liberal agenda, and it is about the duplicitous nature of the politicians like Kennedy, Kerry, and Frank who want to force their agenda on the rest of the country.

Let’s face it gun control has not worked, yet the Commonwealth of Massachusetts wants to spend your tax dollars to set up another bureaucratic system to require people to register machetes? That is just too ludicrous.

No. Stop making stupid comparisons.

Those "stupid comparisons" were done with toung in cheek and several of them are revesals of arguements I have heard from liberals. Hey, if we can't have some fun in life, then it isn't worth living. Sorry if my attempt at some light hearted humor has upset you.

Not real Katanas, they will be stainless steel POS that would shatter if you hit anything vaguely hard with them.

Don't get me wrong, if they are sharp, they can kill, but they ain't 'REAL' by anyones money.

Oh and the blade you mentioned, the 'Rurouni Kenshin reversed blade', if they were marketing that as a real sword, they were blatently bullshitting you.


They were real Katanas.

The reversed blade katana is real to lo, but its a collector and cosplay piece really. Reversed blade can't kill...unless you switch the handle position. The swords wouldn't break either. They were real beauties, its ashamed I could not purchase them.

Here is the real reason for the ban of machetes for unqualified people:

http://www.propstore.co.uk/images/products/377/Jason-machete-dvd1.jpg

They were real Katanas.

The reversed blade katana is real to lo, but its a collector and cosplay piece really. Reversed blade can't kill...unless you switch the handle position. The swords wouldn't break either. They were real beauties, its ashamed I could not purchase them.

You will NOT get real Katanas for $40-70.

Hell, the steel to make a 'real' Kat would cost more than that. The cheapest 'real' Kats you can get are Paul Chen ones that cost $200 ish. A real Kat, made properly using the metal ore from Japan would cost you many thousands of dollars. Don't kid yourself, they were stainless ones you can get off ebay.

And no, a reverse blade is not 'real', any collector worth his salt would laugh at such a suggestion. It's an anime invention, there is not one single shred of historical evidence to prove that one existed.

Here is the real reason for the ban of machetes for unqualified people:

http://www.propstore.co.uk/images/products/377/Jason-machete-dvd1.jpg

:p Here, have some cookies.

I'm sorry, your ignorant generalizations do not a good law make.

I don't trust you. I don't like your big knife. Put down the 12 bucks and deal with it.

So if I killed someone with an occelot, that would mean I couldn't have one?


They would take your ocelot away if you allowed it to kill people.

And if gays are allowed to get married, then people will start marrying their toasters.

Toasters, maybe not... yet.

Dolphins (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/), yes.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

It doesn't? ...pulls down pants to check package...

Nope, no Constitutional right to possess wang.

Of course, it's only a danger if it's above X inches in length. Because as we all know, the longer something is, the more dangerous it is!

It's just one more example of a "feel good" law that is designed to raise money (you have to register and pay a fee for your machete? How dumb is that?) and further encroachment on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. It's the kind a law a bored legislator would come up with to prove he is doing something to protect the people from the likes of people like Jason. Besides, if there were to be any sort of threat of an uprising, the cops would need to know how to track down registered Machete users and disarm them.

It is a stupid law. To say there is no need for anyone to have a Machete misses the point entirely and reveals a lack of understanding about how our rights in the U.S. are constitutionally protected natural rights instead of government granted and explicity spelled out rights.

Toasters, maybe not... yet.

Dolphins (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/), yes.

Truth is stranger than fiction.



Nope, no Constitutional right to possess wang.

Of course, it's only a danger if it's above X inches in length. Because as we all know, the longer something is, the more dangerous it is!

...gets yardstick...pulls down pants...looks at hot toaster...:eek:

Here is the real reason for the ban of machetes for unqualified people:

http://www.propstore.co.uk/images/products/377/Jason-machete-dvd1.jpg


Damn you Jason! Ruin things for the rest of us ::shakes fist::

Same issue, different outlets.

Exactly.


I don't trust you. I don't like your big knife. Put down the 12 bucks and deal with it.

I don't care if you don't trust me, or what you don't like. I'm not shelling out one damn penny to sooth your paranoia.

You keep throwing the 12 bucks figure around, even though there was never a figure specified. Stop it.

People being scared is not a justification for the government to interfear with me life or take my money. No one has any right to take anything I own, no matter how small the amount, without good justification (such as the government building roads and hiring police).

This mechete regestration is invasion and theft. Those are my howevermany dollars. You don't like my knife, deal with it.

Well, what can you expect from a state that keeps electing Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank? Be careful as they will be after your stake knives, pens, scissors, etc. next. I'm glad I left that state in 1969.
Barney Frank any relation to Sandy Frank?

Hey, in my state it's illegal to carry around num-chucks.

I live in Minnesota. If you don't own a machete for one reason or another you're either going to starve or freeze to death. Hell, it's even legal to own a pistol here. In fact, I don't know if Minnesota even has laws...

Since when do you have to prove you need something in order for you to have a right to it?

Thats like saying its the government that gives you rights.

Great point.

This reminds me of highschool all over again...

You know, tommorow I am going to wally world and get a machette just to spite em.

Great point.

This reminds me of highschool all over again...

You know, tommorow I am going to wally world and get a machette just to smite em.

Spite*

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a public store stop selling goods once they were deemed illegal?

Spite*

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a public store stop selling goods once they were deemed illegal?

Thanks, it was my keyboard's fault for the typo.

Typically, fortunantly I do not live in that state. We still have our freedoms in tact. Of cource we still could use some work, but we aren't letting our paranoia control us.

Thanks, it was my keyboard's fault for the typo.

Typically, fortunantly I do not live in that state. We still have our freedoms in tact. Of cource we still could use some work, but we aren't letting our paranoia control us.
So do they. They just have to register their machete.

Silly Commie Liberals, machetes aren't weapons! (http://www.coldsteel.com/97thm.html)

They're *never* advertised or meant to be used as weapons AT ALL! (http://www.coldsteel.com/machetes.html)

You're all just trying to scare every Patriotic God Fearing Bush Worshipping Real American™ into giving up all their rights!

Thanks, it was my keyboard's fault for the typo.

Typically, fortunantly I do not live in that state. We still have our freedoms in tact. Of cource we still could use some work, but we aren't letting our paranoia control us.

Ah. Well, you have to abandon certain freedoms to be secure...living within walls restricts you to a confined area, yet keeps you safe from cold and predators.

So do they. They just have to register their machete.

....and I do not need to register any of my swords and knives. I do not have to ask my government mother to have any big blades. Give me one great reason to have to register them? I mean was there a machette massacre I was unaware of? Did someone go into a shoping mall and rip loose with a katana? Seriously, this is just a retarded peice of legislation.

....and I do not need to register any of my swords and knives. I do not have to ask my government mother to have any big blades. Give me one great reason to have to register them? I mean was there a machette massacre I was unaware of? Did someone go into a shoping mall and rip loose with a katana? Seriously, this is just a retarded peice of legislation.

And you want to wait until such an event is publicized? By then you'll probably bitch about how the Commie Liberals didn't pass the legislation early enough to prevent the tragedy.

Let them eat cake indeed...

And you want to wait until such an event is publicized? By then you'll probably bitch about how the Commie Liberals didn't pass the legislation early enough to prevent the tragedy.

Let them eat cake indeed...

http://peta-sucks.com/smf/Smileys/default/icon_laughabove.gif http://peta-sucks.com/smf/Smileys/default/icon_beerchug.gif

http://peta-sucks.com/smf/Smileys/default/icon_laughabove.gif http://peta-sucks.com/smf/Smileys/default/icon_beerchug.gif

Isn't it wonderful how animated GIFS make such convenient copouts?

:rolleyes:

Isn't it wonderful how animated GIFS make such convenient copouts?

:rolleyes:

Oh, sorry I thought you were joking. I figured something so proposterous would have to be. If you haven't noticed I am fully against bans based on paranoia when it is a non-issue. This has even less grounds than a gun ban.

And you want to wait until such an event is publicized? By then you'll probably bitch about how the Commie Liberals didn't pass the legislation early enough to prevent the tragedy.

Let them eat cake indeed...


Even 'twere such an event publisized, I would still be against this law. As he said, I don't need the government's permission to have a blade.

Why arn'y you calling for all metal rakes, or hedge clippers, or hatchets, or chainsaws, or any host of other tools and apliances that would make fine weapons to be regestered, restrcted, and regulated? How many more must die before the government learns to protect us from ourselves?!

Spite*

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a public store stop selling goods once they were deemed illegal?

Not the cool ones :)

Oh, sorry I thought you were joking. I figured something so proposterous would have to be. If you haven't noticed I am fully against bans based on paranoia when it is a non-issue. This has even less grounds than a gun ban.

Yet do you believe the USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed in the wake of paranoia is acceptable?

Even 'twere such an event publisized, I would still be against this law. As he said, I don't need the government's permission to have a blade.

Why arn'y you calling for all metal rakes, or hedge clippers, or hatchets, or chainsaws, or any host of other tools and apliances that would make fine weapons to be regestered, restrcted, and regulated? How many more must die before the government learns to protect us from ourselves?!

None of those things would make good weapons at all unless you're strong enough to dexterously weild a several dozen pound object. A hatchet I suppose would work, but even here in bumpkin country you have to go out of your way just to find one.

Yet do you believe the USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed in the wake of paranoia is acceptable?

I am no big fan of that either...

Even 'twere such an event publisized, I would still be against this law. As he said, I don't need the government's permission to have a blade.

Why arn'y you calling for all metal rakes, or hedge clippers, or hatchets, or chainsaws, or any host of other tools and apliances that would make fine weapons to be regestered, restrcted, and regulated? How many more must die before the government learns to protect us from ourselves?!

I can just as easily make a slippery slope argument in the opposite direction. Why do you need a permit to carry and use firearms? Rifles and pistols are clearly used for hunting and sport. How come civilians are forbidden to own explosives when it's used to clear stumps, rocks and other obstacles? Why must the government restrict or ban anything that can be used as a weapon, even if it was primarily designed for that purpose?

None of those things would make good weapons at all unless you're strong enough to dexterously weild a several dozen pound object. A hatchet I suppose would work, but even here in bumpkin country you have to go out of your way just to find one.

I am wondering when they will ban baseball bats. After all, it is easy to wield those as a weapon.

I am wondering when they will ban baseball bats. After all, it is easy to wield those as a weapon.

But they're not sharp. I guess their logic is that if it's not pointy or explosive, it's not harmful.

None of those things would make good weapons at all unless you're strong enough to dexterously weild a several dozen pound object. A hatchet I suppose would work, but even here in bumpkin country you have to go out of your way just to find one.

I have all of those items in my shed, and I live in the suburbs of DC. No one would have to go out of their way to find any of the objects I mentoned, and all can be used just as effectively, if not more so, as a mechete as a weapon.

I can just as easily make a slippery slope argument in the opposite direction. Why do you need a permit to carry and use firearms? Rifles and pistols are clearly used for hunting and sport. How come civilians are forbidden to own explosives when it's used to clear stumps, rocks and other obstacles? Why must the government restrict or ban anything that can be used as a weapon, even if it was primarily designed for that purpose?


I do not need a permit to own my firearms. Do not forget that explosives are used in celebration of Independence day. Unfortunantly we are not supposed to have those, but I can't think of one person who abides by that on the 4th.

I have all of those items in my shed, and I live in the suburbs of DC. No one would have to go out of their way to find any of the objects I mentoned, and all can be used just as effectively, if not more so, as a mechete as a weapon.
I can't imagine successfully killing anybody but a person in a coma with a 90-decibel (exaggeration) chainsaw, or a rake that would require perhaps 20 strikes to kill, or a hedge clipper which would require the victim to physically place his neck between the blades. I might be a clumsy oaf and not know it, though.

But they're not sharp. I guess their logic is that if it's not pointy or explosive, it's not harmful.

*Snickers* Anything can be used as a weapon young grasshopper. Ever heard of a little thing called Blunt Force Truama?

*Snickers* Anything can be used as a weapon young grasshopper. Ever heard of a little thing called Blunt Force Truama?

I said their logic, not mine.

*Snickers* Anything can be used as a weapon young grasshopper. Ever heard of a little thing called Blunt Force Truama?
The only sensible course of action is to ban matter!
Think of the children!

The only sensible course of action is to ban matter!
Think of the children!

Don't tempt them, they would try it.

I do not need a permit to own my firearms. Do not forget that explosives are used in celebration of Independence day. Unfortunantly we are not supposed to have those, but I can't think of one person who abides by that on the 4th.

You don't believe the government should restrict access to dangerous weapons, yet you're concerned that people are ignoring ordinances and other rules against carrying fireworks and other explosive materials.

Why? This reeks of a double standard.

I can't imagine successfully killing anybody but a person in a coma with a 90-decibel (exaggeration) chainsaw, or a rake that would require perhaps 20 strikes to kill, or a hedge clipper which would require the victim to physically place his neck between the blades. I might be a clumsy oaf and not know it, though.

Any gas powered chainsaw (which can be bought freely at any hardwere store) can easily kill someone. A metal rake can have sharp spines. The hedge clippers, you can stab with, open up and swing like a blade, or catch someone's hand/wrist in. The point wasn't the spaficic examples, it was that there are many many objects much more dangerous, and it would be stupid to try to regester them all.

Any gas powered chainsaw (which can be bought freely at any hardwere store) can easily kill someone. A metal rake can have sharp spines. The hedge clippers, you can stab with, open up and swing like a blade, or catch someone's hand/wrist in. The point wasn't the spaficic examples, it was that there are many many objects much more dangerous, and it would be stupid to try to regester them all.

All of those things can kill somebody, but you'd have to be a total moron to get killed by them as opposed to a machete. Machetes can be silent and swift. None of those other things can be both.

You don't believe the government should restrict access to dangerous weapons, yet you're concerned that people are ignoring ordinances and other rules against carrying fireworks and other explosive materials.

Why? This reeks of a double standard.

Who said I was?

Nice twisting of my words BTW ;)

Hatchet, hedge clippers.

But as I said, the specific examples were not the point.

Hatchet, hedge clippers.

But as I said, the specific examples were not the point.

There are no really good examples of a silent, deadly weapon that weights less than a pound. That's the point. Anything can be used as a weapon, but not everything can be used equally easily.

All of those things can kill somebody, but you'd have to be a total moron to get killed by them as opposed to a machete. Machetes can be silent and swift. None of those other things can be both.

Ever smacked yourself with one of those garden rakes? They are dangerous!

There are no really good examples of a silent, deadly weapon that weights less than a pound. That's the point. Anything can be used as a weapon, but not everything can be used equally easily.

Hatchet, hedgeclippers, siccors.

Hatchet, hedgeclippers, siccors.

Hatches weight several pounds, as do hedgeclippers (which CAN'T be used as a slashing weapon unless you illegally modify them), and scissors are miniscule. It would take many, many stabs with a scissors to kill somebody. And scissors aren't very sharp on their tips.

Hatchet, hedgeclippers, siccors.

Box cutters? As much as I hate to bring that up...

Hatches weight several pounds, as do hedgeclippers (which CAN'T be used as a slashing weapon unless you illegally modify them), and scissors are miniscule. It would take many, many stabs with a scissors to kill somebody. And scissors aren't very sharp on their tips.

I contest that. It only takes one or two stabs in the right places.

I contest that. It only takes one or two stabs in the right places.

But first you have to wrestle them and get them into a vulnerable position. With a machete you can just hack off their arm and they're dead.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st01384.htm

:rolleyes:
"permissible inference", I guess the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is being thrown out the window in good ol' Massachusetts

Seriously, that does seem to say, we will hold you to be guilty unless you show that you are innocent. Wow. I really hope that will not hold up. That would pretty much be time to get out the ol' passport.

Be reasonable C. If you were Ted Kennedy or Barney Frank you'd have damn good reason to ban everything sharper than a soup spoon.

I once heard you CAN kill someone with a spoon, but you have to ram it in really, really hard into the neck.

Not the fastest or cleanest way to end a life.

But first you have to wrestle them and get them into a vulnerable position. With a machete you can just hack off their arm and they're dead.

I disagree. The vast majority of Americans are not going to be able to adequately defend themselves from someone who knows what do do with a small knife, a hatchet or a pair of scissors. I'm quite certain that were I to decide to take lives with the scissors in my kitchen drawer, the majority of people would not even know I was coming before it was over. Machetes are unwieldy and I can't imagine anyone skilled in defense considering them to be advantageous to having a smaller sharp object.

But first you have to wrestle them and get them into a vulnerable position. With a machete you can just hack off their arm and they're dead.

Wrestling? I don't think so. Just use the element of surprise, or stealth, or precision.

I mean hell if the opponent is aware of you and your murderous intent anyway, a machete isn't any more dangerous than scissors as I can always just run away. In fact with a machete, I might run away and save my life, whereas with scissors I might be inclined to stand there and laugh just before I get my carotid ganked.

Hatches weight several pounds, as do hedgeclippers (which CAN'T be used as a slashing weapon unless you illegally modify them), and scissors are miniscule. It would take many, many stabs with a scissors to kill somebody. And scissors aren't very sharp on their tips.

Are you aware that mechete's weigh several pounds? You don't have to illegally modify hedgeclippers, just open them. Scissors you can cut someone's throat from behind.


But first you have to wrestle them and get them into a vulnerable position. With a machete you can just hack off their arm and they're dead.


Dude, a machete isn't a lightsaber. It's ment for hacking vines. In fact, even if the guy layed down and let you, you'd have a hell of a time hacking off an arm, if you could even get through the bone. If you could even do it, it'd take many many swings.

I once heard you CAN kill someone with a spoon, but you have to ram it in really, really hard into the neck.

Not the fastest or cleanest way to end a life.


It's also quite easy to rip out someone's throat. Very little skill or strength needed. Feel your windpipe, now get the tips of your fingers behind it. You should get my point by now.

Dude, a machete isn't a lightsaber. It's ment for hacking vines. In fact, even if the guy layed down and let you, you'd have a hell of a time hacking off an arm, if you could even get through the bone. If you could even do it, it'd take many many swings.

I think that is the problem with others in this debate. They have never been around such things and only see what is in movies. Unfortunatly this sort of ignorance costs the rest of us.

I think that is the problem with others in this debate. They have never been around such things and only see what is in movies. Unfortunatly this sort of ignorance costs the rest of us.

Yeah, that's exactly it. People don't understand there is nothing efficient about the use of a machete on a human. Weeds and bamboo don't fight back. They're made heavy like an axe to make them cut through things better but they aren't designed for wood so they aren't made to cut through something as tough as bone. Even an axe isn't likely to go through bone a leg or arm bone unless you caught it just right.

Are you aware that mechete's weigh several pounds? You don't have to illegally modify hedgeclippers, just open them. Scissors you can cut someone's throat from behind.

The heaviest machete listed weighs only 24 ounces, or two pounds. You'd have to be extremely weak to not be able to lift and swing a two pound object, much less one with aerodynamic design like a machete. (http://www.coldsteel.com/machetes.html)

Dude, a machete isn't a lightsaber. It's ment for hacking vines. In fact, even if the guy layed down and let you, you'd have a hell of a time hacking off an arm, if you could even get through the bone. If you could even do it, it'd take many many swings.

Apparently this one has little trouble severing limbs. (http://www.coldsteel.com/97thm.html)

The weapon potential of a machete all depends on the way its maintained. If you sharpen a machete enough, it would be very easy to kill people with it.

However I personally think that this is a riciulous piece of legislature, simply because a machete is not a very effective way of killing someone. There are much more effective and efficient weapons out there that are just as easy to obtain.

When you really think, just about any object you can think of could be used as a potentially lethal weapon, many people are cabable of killing others with their bare hands.

Should we have martial arts masters register their hands and feet with the local police once a year?

Should we have martial arts masters register their hands and feet with the local police once a year?
I've been told by quite a few people that some cities require that, actually, as residence is concerned. I don't know if it's true m'self, i'm not a black belt at anything.
Well, i mean i'm not a "master" at any particular martial art.

Should we also register hammers, kitchen knives, baseball bats, crowbars and cinderblocks?

What is the definition of a Knife according to them?

Makes you wish someone would go on a rampage killing with an old persons walker so they stop banning stuff. Or that there was a pencil/pen killer.

:rolleyes: I can't wait untill we change into a society that outlaws sharp edges.

I disagree. The vast majority of Americans are not going to be able to adequately defend themselves from someone who knows what do do with a small knife, a hatchet or a pair of scissors. I'm quite certain that were I to decide to take lives with the scissors in my kitchen drawer, the majority of people would not even know I was coming before it was over. Machetes are unwieldy and I can't imagine anyone skilled in defense considering them to be advantageous to having a smaller sharp object.

dude you are not going to kill some with a pair of scissors before they can land a blow with a machete. And a machete is not unwieldly or cumbersome. Its easy to swing and will go streaight through bone, even if it could be done no one in their right mind is going to charge a person with a machete while wielding a switchblade.

Are you aware that mechete's weigh several pounds? You don't have to illegally modify hedgeclippers, just open them. Scissors you can cut someone's throat from behind.





Dude, a machete isn't a lightsaber. It's ment for hacking vines. In fact, even if the guy layed down and let you, you'd have a hell of a time hacking off an arm, if you could even get through the bone. If you could even do it, it'd take many many swings.

I swear half you people hail from another dimension. Machetes do not way "several" pounds....maybe five for a normal sized machete. The effect of the weight on ones swing speed is not even noticeable, if your noticing it and swinging it is cumbersome go do some weights before you die of muscle atrophy. As for bone, it can go through it, bone is about as hard as wood and a bit more dense, most of the "going through" would be due to cracking rather than slicing though, and of course it depends on the bone. Midshaft humerus is easier than the top of the femur. Generally if you can cut a thick peice of bamboo than you can cut through an arm bone.

You've got to be kidding! Its a huge weapon and is no knife. You CAN carry it if its for vegatation, but it just has to be registered. Its not really a self-defense weapon anyways, its like saying you need a nuke or a AK-47 to blast your enemies. :rolleyes:

What is a self defense weapon then?

Banning any "weapon" is just stupid. Someone intent on doing harm isn't going to care if there is a law or not barring an act they intend to commit. I'm pretty sure most rapists and serial killers know that rape and murder isn't legal. Besides, how many people actually walk around in an urban area with a machette, sword, or similar element?

dude you are not going to kill some with a pair of scissors before they can land a blow with a machete. And a machete is not unwieldly or cumbersome. Its easy to swing and will go streaight through bone, even if it could be done no one in their right mind is going to charge a person with a machete while wielding a switchblade.

Ha. As was said earlier, it's a machete not a light saber. Machetes are heavy and slow, like a bat. I've been in fights with people who have had bats, and I'd much rather they had a bat than something smaller simply because they weight makes them so slow as to be useless if you have the slightest clue how to defend yourself. Also, it's not exactly a weapon you can't see coming.

I'll tell you what, you can keep your magic machete that slices through bone like butter and I'll stick to defending myself with things that move as fast as I can move my hands.

I swear half you people hail from another dimension. Machetes do not way "several" pounds....maybe five for a normal sized machete. The effect of the weight on ones swing speed is not even noticeable, if your noticing it and swinging it is cumbersome go do some weights before you die of muscle atrophy. As for bone, it can go through it, bone is about as hard as wood and a bit more dense, most of the "going through" would be due to cracking rather than slicing though, and of course it depends on the bone. Midshaft humerus is easier than the top of the femur. Generally if you can cut a thick peice of bamboo than you can cut through an arm bone.

Actually, a machete weighs approximately the same as a bat. Nobody trained in self-defense would choose a bat as a self-defense weapon simply because if it's weight. Bone is much denser and harder than bamboo and cutting through bamboo is not an easy action with a machete. I love that you act like you know it's affect on bone in your VAST experience with the machete and you don't know AT all what it weights. Five pounds is actually much more than a machete weighs and much more than several pounds.

The funniest part of your rant is that you say that you think it weights five pounds and then you act as if a five pound weapon would not be unweildy. That's just silly. Do you know that boxing gloves slow down your hand speed until you get used to them? Those weigh half a pound.

The heaviest machete listed weighs only 24 ounces, or two pounds. You'd have to be extremely weak to not be able to lift and swing a two pound object, much less one with aerodynamic design like a machete. (http://www.coldsteel.com/machetes.html)



Apparently this one has little trouble severing limbs. (http://www.coldsteel.com/97thm.html)

It's not about being strong enough to lift it, it's about that much weight slowing down your swing to the point of making it easy to defend against. And the second one you listed is actually slightly more ridiculous and would be easier to defend against. You want faster not slower. Killing people doesn't require something that hacks at people and does more damage, it requires something that is faster. The faster, the better. Yes, maybe you could kill someone with a machete if they stand there and don't defend themselves. However, how will you be doing if I give someone a butcher knife and while you are using a swing that bat of a machete they stab you in the armpit you exposed by making a machete swing. We're both aware that a hand with almost no weight in it is going to move faster than that machete.

It's not about being strong enough to lift it, it's about that much weight slowing down your swing to the point of making it easy to defend against.

It was 24 ounces. If that weight is going to slow you down your in serous trouble

Virtually anything can be used as a weapon if you know what you're doing. The point the OP was trying to make is that once you start banning "weapons," the process never ends.

Whats wrong with that? In Australia you can't buy steak knives unless you are over 18 (all bladed objects apart from razors). In addition, you can't carry any kind of blade (even a steak knife or a pocket knife) in public. Self defence is not an excuse. Result= disarmed public. Of course, if a copper caught you with a steak knife, he probably just let you know that you shouldn't really have it.

I thin you have to move away from "but I have the freedom to walk around massachusets with a glock and a machete" to " Why the f*ck do I want to walk around with two potentially lethal weapons in a public place?" If not for your own safety, than at least for that owf the public.

I would also ask you where the cycle of liberalisng weapons ends? or to put it your way "Once you start leagalisn 'weapons', the proccess never ends". As I understand Americans can already legally own M16's and other high calibre military assault rifles. Why not LAW's (Lightweight Artillery Weapon=form of 'bazooka)? why not grenade launchers (adds to the sport of the hunt for whitetail)? Tear gas, Flame throwers, C4 (the well defended citizen is nothing without his security-accessories)? Hell, if you can afford it why not tactical SCUD missiles, of nuclear warheads (For large scale self defence)?!

We can all play the 'slippery slope' game Eutrusca, the trick is to find a nice middle ground, where not too many regularly used practical freedoms are being infringed upon, while at the same time, public safety and well being isn't being jeopardised. Removing weapons from the market is the perfect way of doing just that.

It was 24 ounces. If that weight is going to slow you down your in serous trouble

Are you kidding. Do you know what the difference in the weight of different bats are? Do you know why that difference in weight is important? Bat speed. Most weights only vary by more than 6 ounces from the extremely light bat to the extremely heavy. A few ounces make a huge difference in hand speed and if you're fighting someone who knows how to defend him or herself you are going to be in trouble if you're slowing down by even a few tenths of second. I'll tell you what. Go to a boxing gym where they are boxing with eight ounce gloves and you put on glove that are 24 ounces and let's see how well that works out for you. You can tell us all about it when you wake up.

Quick question, anyone know why bouncers, bartenders and whatnot saw off wooden bats and use only about the first 18 in for a weapon? If 24 ounces makes no difference, why would they do so?

Quick question, anyone know why bouncers, bartenders and whatnot saw off wooden bats and use only about the first 18 in for a weapon? If 24 ounces makes no difference, why would they do so?

I think that just makes it easier to wield. You can still get some decent swings on a person with just the 18.

This is a rather ridiculous law.

How does having people register a tool and pay an annual fee make sense?
The only reason for making people pay is because it is an indirect form of taxation.

Machetes are tools, simple as that. Were I to wield a spade (pointy-nosed shovel) it could be used like a spear. Two guys fight, one with a machete and the other with a spade… my money is on the guy with the spade.

I highly doubt that anyone supporting this bill has ever used a machete in her life.
Were I living is Massachusetts, I wouldn’t bother registering my machete (actually I greatly prefer a corn knife). Are they going to start going around searching peoples tool sheds?

This is ludicrous. Why not spend some time addressing real problems rather than spending time on this garbage of adding more unnecessary and worthless regulations. I am beginning to suspect that there are a lot of Vogons masquerading as humans in government.


Oh yeah, as a side note… someone pulled a $12 figure out of their ass and said that the cost of maintenance on a machete was more than that a year… This just shows how woefully ignorant people can be. What maintenance cost? I mean really… the only ‘maintenance’ you do on a machete is to use a whetstone on it when it gets dull ($5 to purchase, lasts a lifetime) and maybe a little squirt of WD40 on the stone, or if it gets a little rusty. This is the kind of ridiculous ideas people have that are dangerous when they start to be the basis of law.

I think that just makes it easier to wield. You can still get some decent swings on a person with just the 18.

Exactly. Being easier to weild is far more important than having the extra weight or reach. Yes, if you manage to get a hit in, you can do more damage with the full bat, but that's only if you get the hit in. In the time it takes to swing the bat, you'd be lucky to be conscious if your opponent had a sawed of bat and an idea of what he needed to do with it.

It's not about being strong enough to lift it, it's about that much weight slowing down your swing to the point of making it easy to defend against. And the second one you listed is actually slightly more ridiculous and would be easier to defend against. You want faster not slower. Killing people doesn't require something that hacks at people and does more damage, it requires something that is faster. The faster, the better.
Thats obviously why people in centuries before the advent of firearms never used spears, broadswords, axes, polearms, claymores, morningstars etc. Because fast knives are the way to go, eh? :rolleyes:

Are you kidding. Do you know what the difference in the weight of different bats are? Do you know why that difference in weight is important? Bat speed. Most weights only vary by more than 6 ounces from the extremely light bat to the extremely heavy. A few ounces make a huge difference in hand speed and if you're fighting someone who knows how to defend him or herself you are going to be in trouble if you're slowing down by even a few tenths of second.

Comparing a bat to a machete is rediculous. First off a bat if made to have its balance right down at the far end of it, made for swinging. Although a machete is made for cutting, there will still be a fair amount of blade presence towards the hand grip, making it fast in the hand. You don't need to draw a massive swing to do damage with a machete.

However, how will you be doing if I give someone a butcher knife and while you are using a swing that bat of a machete they stab you in the armpit you exposed by making a machete swing. We're both aware that a hand with almost no weight in it is going to move faster than that machete.

As pointed out before, you don't need to swing to do damage, a curved blade like a machetes, when sharp, will cut with a draw cut therefore not needing a huge swing, but a simple small slash to do damage. One of those catching your wrist means bye-bye to your knife.

Thats obviously why people in centuries before the advent of firearms never used spears, broadswords, axes, polearms, claymores, morningstars etc. Because fast knives are the way to go, eh? :rolleyes:

Because those people were wearing armor, fighting in large groups and had a whole different goal in mind.

Thats obviously why people in centuries before the advent of firearms never used spears, broadswords, axes, polearms, claymores, morningstars etc. Because fast knives are the way to go, eh? :rolleyes:

Just to mention that those weapons, each and every one of them, was fast and effective when used correctly. Hell, a nice pole axe can kill you as quickly as a knife, you don't need to swing it to kill some one.

Because those people were wearing armor, fighting in large groups and had a whole different goal in mind.


Not always, unarmoured duels were common, esp, with swords, messers (kinda like machetes in size and balance), daggers, pole axes, spears and other weapons. Besides personal self defence was important too.

Comparing a bat to a machete is rediculous. First off a bat if made to have its balance right down at the far end of it, made for swinging. Although a machete is made for cutting, there will still be a fair amount of blade presence towards the hand grip, making it fast in the hand. You don't need to draw a massive swing to do damage with a machete.

Machetes are made for swinging. The weight is balanced far out for the very same reason a bat is.

As pointed out before, you don't need to swing to do damage, a curved blade like a machetes, when sharp, will cut with a draw cut therefore not needing a huge swing, but a simple small slash to do damage. One of those catching your wrist means bye-bye to your knife.
If you can catch my wrist. That's the point. Why would I expose my wrist to you? If I use a knife right you wouldn't be able to touch my wrist without hacking. You aren't actually claiming that even in slicing you can move faster with a machete than my hand can with a knife it, are you?

Seriously, I wish you guys were actually here. It's quite easy to emulate these weapons in size and wield without making them dangerous and I'm certain in about ten minutes, you'd concede the argument. It should be noted that people talked about medieval combat a minute ago and that daggers were carried frequently as an addition to other weapons, for instances when defenses allowed the use of a dagger. I don't know of any swords built like a machete is built and there is a reason for it. Machetes don't have to be weildy or fast because bamboo doesn't try to get out of the way.

Not always, unarmoured duels were common, esp, with swords, messers (kinda like machetes in size and balance), daggers, pole axes, spears and other weapons. Besides personal self defence was important too.

Unarmored duels were between people who were trained which does not include the vast majority of the populations of western countries, and it was common to have a dagger as well in those duels. Also, some of those duels had rules that specified what was and was not acceptable. I sincerely doubt that in a completely wide-open duel someone would enter it without a dagger if they had one.

And messers are nothing like machetes in balance. They are much thinner so as to allow a balancing much closer to the hand. They were similar to a short sword except that both hands could be used on it a bit easier. Messers were built for combat, machetes are not. Much like the axes used for combat are nearly the same as axes we use for chopping wood unless nothing else was available.

Machetes are made for swinging. The weight is balanced far out for the very same reason a bat is.

Not even close to a bats. A baseball bat has a point of balance far FAR in excess of that of a machetes.


If you can catch my wrist. That's the point. Why would I expose my wrist to you? If I use a knife right you wouldn't be able to touch my wrist without hacking. You aren't actually claiming that even in slicing you can move faster with a machete than my hand can with a knife it, are you?

Heh, not true. You don't need to expose a wrist. Any attack made by you can be countered. It's all about the timing of an attack and when it needs to be made. Besides, given that a machete will frequently be longer than a knife, an opponent wielding one would have the advantage of range over those with a knife.

And yes, depending on what attack/counter attack I wish to persue, I can move just as easily with a machete as with a knife, plus have more weight and impact behind it.

Seriously, I wish you guys were actually here. It's quite easy to emulate these weapons in size and wield without making them dangerous and I'm certain in about ten minutes, you'd concede the argument. It should be noted that people talked about medieval combat a minute ago and that daggers were carried frequently as an addition to other weapons, for instances when defenses allowed the use of a dagger. I don't know of any swords built like a machete is built and there is a reason for it. Machetes don't have to be weildy or fast because bamboo doesn't try to get out of the way.

No swords built like a machete eh?

Research maybe needed...

Conyers Falchion (http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/h_conyers_eng.htm)

The medieval messer.

EDIT: Pic was a little too big.

Albion 'Meister' Messer (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-grossemesser-meister.htm)

Short history of both: Both the falchion and the messer were introduced to allow civilians to carry weapons and agricultural tools, as in many areas of europe in certain times they were not allowed to carry swords. In Germany (or the lands before it was unified) this was a common practice.

Having used both of these types of weapon before, they are damned fast, and despite the point of balance being far out, don't even think for a minute that makes them handle like a bat. Its nothing like it at all.

EDIT: just seen you mention messers, so discard the history bit, you're already well informed.

Because those people were wearing armor, fighting in large groups and had a whole different goal in mind.
Effective armour isnt as old as long, heavy weapons, a knife can penetrate fur or leather armour. Besides armour was frigging expensive and rather seldom in fullspread use in large scale battles. Which were pretty uncommon compared to smaller skirmishes or even one on one violence.
Face it, reach is an important aspect of weapons as well, as well as the ability to take out an opponent with a single hit or two. A knife doesnt give you that.

Unarmored duels were between people who were trained which does not include the vast majority of the populations of western countries, and it was common to have a dagger as well in those duels.

Of course it was common to have a dagger. It was used frequently as the coup de grace in armoured fighting and for when fighting got close to grappling when unarmoured. But as for the majority being untrained, thats false, there are many records showing that there were schools in local towns and villages open to locals, esp. in England. Indeed, there is a law in the 'Statuates of the Realm' from 1285 banning these said schools from London only, but that others around the country could remain open.

Also, some of those duels had rules that specified what was and was not acceptable. I sincerely doubt that in a completely wide-open duel someone would enter it without a dagger if they had one.

Hell, I know i certainly wouldn't. I'm not denying the fact daggers were used at all, I'm just saying I think you are doing the machete a disservice and grossly underestimating its abilities and speed.

And messers are nothing like machetes in balance. They are much thinner so as to allow a balancing much closer to the hand. They were similar to a short sword except that both hands could be used on it a bit easier. Messers were built for combat, machetes are not. Much like the axes used for combat are nearly the same as axes we use for chopping wood unless nothing else was available.

You saying machetes have no distal taper for balance?!?! Seriously?!?! Granted on some it may be limited, but that is by no means the rule. I've handled a few that are pretty close (maybe 4 in. out from the handle). They are fast and have the range over a knife.

Just as a point too, you got both single hand and double handed messers.

Whats wrong with that? In Australia you can't buy steak knives unless you are over 18 (all bladed objects apart from razors). In addition, you can't carry any kind of blade (even a steak knife or a pocket knife) in public. Self defence is not an excuse. Result= disarmed public. Of course, if a copper caught you with a steak knife, he probably just let you know that you shouldn't really have it.

I thin you have to move away from "but I have the freedom to walk around massachusets with a glock and a machete" to " Why the f*ck do I want to walk around with two potentially lethal weapons in a public place?" If not for your own safety, than at least for that owf the public.

I would also ask you where the cycle of liberalisng weapons ends? or to put it your way "Once you start leagalisn 'weapons', the proccess never ends". As I understand Americans can already legally own M16's and other high calibre military assault rifles. Why not LAW's (Lightweight Artillery Weapon=form of 'bazooka)? why not grenade launchers (adds to the sport of the hunt for whitetail)? Tear gas, Flame throwers, C4 (the well defended citizen is nothing without his security-accessories)? Hell, if you can afford it why not tactical SCUD missiles, of nuclear warheads (For large scale self defence)?!

We can all play the 'slippery slope' game Eutrusca, the trick is to find a nice middle ground, where not too many regularly used practical freedoms are being infringed upon, while at the same time, public safety and well being isn't being jeopardised. Removing weapons from the market is the perfect way of doing just that.

"I built this cruise missile to stop those damn kids from playing ZZ Top!" -Robin Williams.

:p

The weapon is not at issue. Objects that can be either lethal or utilitarian is not at issue either. The issue is that none of these objects kill people. Criminals kill people. Raging lunatics kill people. Husbands whose wifes have cheated on them(and vice-versa) kill people. And all the laws in the world, all the weapons bans in the world don't change the fact that it's the criminals killing people. It just means more people will be thrown out of windows instead. It also means that you will have little hope of protecting yourself from a maniac with an 'illegal' machete. Unless you think a stern reminder that he's not supposed to have one will keep him from robbing and killing you.

Not even close to a bats. A baseball bat has a point of balance far FAR in excess of that of a machetes.




Heh, not true. You don't need to expose a wrist. Any attack made by you can be countered. It's all about the timing of an attack and when it needs to be made. Besides, given that a machete will frequently be longer than a knife, an opponent wielding one would have the advantage of range over those with a knife.

And yes, depending on what attack/counter attack I wish to persue, I can move just as easily with a machete as with a knife, plus have more weight and impact behind it.



No swords built like a machete eh?

Research maybe needed...

Conyers Falchion (http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/h_conyers_eng.htm)

The medieval messer.

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/HW-Web_files/image022.jpg

Albion 'Meister' Messer (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-grossemesser-meister.htm)

Short history of both: Both the falchion and the messer were introduced to allow civilians to carry weapons and agricultural tools, as in many areas of europe in certain times they were not allowed to carry swords. In Germany (or the lands before it was unified) this was a common practice.

Having used both of these types of weapon before, they are damned fast, and despite the point of balance being far out, don't even think for a minute that makes them handle like a bat. Its nothing like it at all.

EDIT: just seen you mention messers, so discard the history bit, you're already well informed.

I actually engage in medieval combat of sorts, so I'm quite familiar with most traditional weaponry. I also know how to make leather and chainmail armor and have. They aren't a bad weapon if you're combatting someone with a similar weapon or with armor. A lot of those weapons were made to allow them to cut through armor or to stop a sword swing, which is necessary if the guy has a shield and hasn't giving you the ability to attack him yet. However, style of combat has changed a lot over the years. In areas where martial arts were more common in combat it was common to make weapons with the weight much more balanced and weapons that were exceedingly fast.

What weapons are most appropriate have a lot to do with what your opponent has as far as weapons and armor and their training and style. The majority of the western world is not trained in combat of any type and if they are, they generally have this goofy honor idea that results in thinking sucker punches, biting and kicking in the balls is dirty fighting. It's really hard to compare medieval combat with attacking the average westerner. However, for ease of dispatching with a person or persons, I would take a small knife over a machete every time.

Machetes are not an ideal weapon in any sense of the word. That's the point. Even in your description of why certain similar types of weapons were used, you explained that it was because some people had better weapons that were not availabe to the peasants. That's simply not the case in our world.

Of course it was common to have a dagger. It was used frequently as the coup de grace in armoured fighting and for when fighting got close to grappling when unarmoured. But as for the majority being untrained, thats false, there are many records showing that there were schools in local towns and villages open to locals, esp. in England. Indeed, there is a law in the 'Statuates of the Realm' from 1285 banning these said schools from London only, but that others around the country could remain open.

I'm talking about now. Then it was quite different. That's the point. Now the landscape is different. I didn't say the majority were not trained, I said they ARE not trained.

Effective armour isnt as old as long, heavy weapons, a knife can penetrate fur or leather armour. Besides armour was frigging expensive and rather seldom in fullspread use in large scale battles. Which were pretty uncommon compared to smaller skirmishes or even one on one violence.
Face it, reach is an important aspect of weapons as well, as well as the ability to take out an opponent with a single hit or two. A knife doesnt give you that.

You didn't mention shields. Reach is far more important in group combat than in one on one combat. When I am face a line of fights it is very useful to me to have a long weapon if I wish to cut a hole in the line or more chaotic combat to be able to create a distance between myself and the many fighter who may be around. However, for attacking a single opponent who is paying attention to only you, your style is often very different.

I own and use a blade not unlike the Conyers Falchion and would gladly challenge you to a training duell if you wielded just a knife. Even without my mail or a shield.

I own and use a blade not unlike the Conyers Falchion and would gladly challenge you to a training duell if you wielded just a knife. Even without my mail or a shield.

What? Why not a machete?

Also, out of curiosity, do you know why Falchions went out of style?

I actually engage in medieval combat of sorts, so I'm quite familiar with most traditional weaponry. I also know how to make leather and chainmail armor and have. They aren't a bad weapon if you're combatting someone with a similar weapon or with armor. A lot of those weapons were made to allow them to cut through armor or to stop a sword swing, which is necessary if the guy has a shield and hasn't giving you the ability to attack him yet. However, style of combat has changed a lot over the years. In areas where martial arts were more common in combat it was common to make weapons with the weight much more balanced and weapons that were exceedingly fast.

Which style do you train in may I ask? I train in the Lichtenauer school with the EHCG in the UK.

What weapons are most appropriate have a lot to do with what your opponent has as far as weapons and armor and their training and style. The majority of the western world is not trained in combat of any type and if they are, they generally have this goofy honor idea that results in thinking sucker punches, biting and kicking in the balls is dirty fighting. It's really hard to compare medieval combat with attacking the average westerner. However, for ease of dispatching with a person or persons, I would take a small knife over a machete every time.

Maybe, I would disagree to some extent. Either would end in the same result against an unarmoured untrained opponent. Against knife wielding person, I would take a knife.

Machetes are not an ideal weapon in any sense of the word. That's the point. Even in your description of why certain similar types of weapons were used, you explained that it was because some people had better weapons that were not availabe to the peasants. That's simply not the case in our world.

No, swords are not 'better' weapons. Just more versatile. Hell a quarter staff or half staff is a more effective weapons than a sword and is available to all.

I'm talking about now. Then it was quite different. That's the point. Now the landscape is different. I didn't say the majority were not trained, I said they ARE not trained.

Whoops!!! misread, my fault, apologies :)

Which style do you train in may I ask? I train in the Lichtenauer school with the EHCG in the UK.



Maybe, I would disagree to some extent. Either would end in the same result against an unarmoured untrained opponent. Against knife wielding person, I would take a knife.



No, swords are not 'better' weapons. Just more versatile. Hell a quarter staff or half staff is a more effective weapons than a sword and is available to all.

I'm trained in several martial arts that I've been learning for 22 years. I trained as a wrestler for thirteen years. I have 8 years of Marine combat training (although most of that is useless in hand-to-hand). I studied boxing. The martial arts were mostly chosen by those that trained me to round out my other skills, but I have experience with Judo, Jujitsu, Aikido, Karate, Taekwando and even a little Capoeira (though I suck at that one).

For medieval combat I'm involved in a sport that uses padded weapons (others use padded armor) in large battles (hundreds per side), small skirmishes and one-on-one combat. It's actually quite different from actual medieval combat in a lot of ways, mainly that we don't want anyone to die, but it does teach a lot about what works and doesn't in terms of group combat versus individual combat, with and without armor, etc. It also inspired me to learn a lot about the weapons, armor and combat of the time.

EDIT: I would like to point out that most of this training sounds more impressive than it is. Many martial arts schools teach to compete rather than protect, which I find to be fairly flawed. I learned much more about the art of combat from a select few teachers and the incredible amount of experience a kid from a poor neighborhood with a chip on his shoulder gets than I ever would have in most traditional MA schools. Mostly, the good teachers taught me how to better balance, use my weight to my advantage (as opposed to how most people use it), how to defend myself WITHOUT hurting people without which I would be rotting in jail, how to end fights quickly and such things. I would say other than simply fighting, I learned the most though from my mother's medical texts that manage to teach all of the vulnerable points of the body with amazing clarity.

I'm trained in several martial arts that I've been learning for 22 years. I trained as a wrestler for thirteen years. I have 8 years of Marine combat training (although most of that is useless in hand-to-hand). I studied boxing. The martial arts were mostly chosen by those that trained me to round out my other skills, but I have experience with Judo, Jujitsu, Aikido, Karate, Taekwando and even a little Capoeira (though I suck at that one).

For medieval combat I'm involved in a sport that uses padded weapons (others use padded armor) in large battles (hundreds per side), small skirmishes and one-on-one combat. It's actually quite different from actual medieval combat in a lot of ways, mainly that we don't want anyone to die, but it does teach a lot about what works and doesn't in terms of group combat versus individual combat, with and without armor, etc. It also inspired me to learn a lot about the weapons, armor and combat of the time.

I suppose you might have heard of them, but if not, do a google on the Chicago Swordplay Guild. It's a group who specialise in studying the medieval martial arts and have a fair few talented martial artists and scholars there.

I've myself have been studying Lichtenauer and his school for about 5 years now and have had previous expierence with swords prior to that, but also translating the old manuals from the old german dialects into english for even longer.

I've had a go at boffer (what I know as padded weapons), and I find its a whole new ball game, esp in terms of timing and hits, as the weapons are much much lighter. At the moment we are training with modified shinai which more closely match the weight of an arming sword, with masks and a heavy padded gambeson/motor cross/ice hockey armour depending for protection. Of course we use padding for our arms and everywhere else.

Meh.

This is a reasonable law. It has nothing to do with gun control or a slippery slope.

When will the guns right people learn that crying wolf over ever regulation only consts you credibility?

I would also ask you where the cycle of liberalisng weapons ends? or to put it your way "Once you start leagalisn 'weapons', the proccess never ends". As I understand Americans can already legally own M16's and other high calibre military assault rifles.

Machine guns have been tightly controlled since 1934 (tax stamp came into effect) and essentially banned here since 1986. In '86 sales of new MGs to civilians was no longer legal. We can legally own machine guns built before 1986 after paying a tax stamp which involves a federal background check and approval of purchase from local law enforcement. The 'news sales' ban in '86 created an elite class to which most firearm enthusiasts will never attain. A full auto rifle that was 700 dollars in 1985 might be 10,000 now.


We can all play the 'slippery slope' game Eutrusca, the trick is to find a nice middle ground, where not too many regularly used practical freedoms are being infringed upon, while at the same time, public safety and well being isn't being jeopardised. Removing weapons from the market is the perfect way of doing just that.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin

Actually, a machete weighs approximately the same as a bat. Nobody trained in self-defense would choose a bat as a self-defense weapon simply because if it's weight. Bone is much denser and harder than bamboo and cutting through bamboo is not an easy action with a machete. I love that you act like you know it's affect on bone in your VAST experience with the machete and you don't know AT all what it weights. Five pounds is actually much more than a machete weighs and much more than several pounds.

The funniest part of your rant is that you say that you think it weights five pounds and then you act as if a five pound weapon would not be unweildy. That's just silly. Do you know that boxing gloves slow down your hand speed until you get used to them? Those weigh half a pound.

Ok lets change that to a really big agricultural machete might way five pounds; the typical 18" machete ways 2 lb (28oz) which, you are correct is similar to a baseball bat. But since when do baseball bats not crack bones? As for my vast experience with machetes, my family is Costa Rican, so I grew up with them about. Now as for how the density of bone compares with wood, it depends on the bone and on the wood. Typically bone has a density ranging from 1000-1900 kg/m cubed, while this is harder than oak (900kg/m cubed), varieties of wood go up to 1330 kg/m cubed. So bone is somewhere between very hard wood and extremely soft concrete. Compare this to the density of the machete's steel 7.85g/cm cubed and the minor difference is negligeble. A machete is not unwieldly, I have cleared much land and chopped through tree branches, but perhaps the perceived difference in our veiws on how hard it is to swing stem from my being a 220 lb man and you being a (insert weight here) girl. One last thing heres a link of a guy with his arms cut off by a machete:
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9902/diary6.htm
Thats not one bone but two, the radius and the ulna. As much as you seem to fancy yourself an expert on such things, I'm a radiographer and am intimately familiar with the weakness of bone. Swing your hands/scissors as much as you like, you will have to be skilled enough to hit a major blood vessel within the amount of time for one swing of the machete, which while possible, is not an event you should bet on.
Consider yourself owned.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin
There is an abuse of that quote if I ever saw one.

What? Why not a machete?
Also, out of curiosity, do you know why Falchions went out of style?
Because i dont own one? And my falchion is even heavier than a machete, which should be in your favour.
They went out of style for several reasons. Better steel allowed for slimmer designs without fear of making the blade less durable. The spread of polearms called for lighter sidearms. The renaisance saw less and less armour and thus the trend to make the cut and thrust swords ever smaller led to the rapier. More modern firearms at least drove them from the sea, the last domain where the were used. On ships they were a lot more usefull than flimsier fencing blades, because mobility is limited and brute force more important.

There is an abuse of that quote if I ever saw one.

That doesn't mean it isn't true.

Ok lets change that to a really big agricultural machete might way five pounds; the typical 18" machete ways 2 lb (28oz) which, you are correct is similar to a baseball bat. But since when do baseball bats not crack bones? As for my vast experience with machetes, my family is Costa Rican, so I grew up with them about. Now as for how the density of bone compares with wood, it depends on the bone and on the wood. Typically bone has a density ranging from 1000-1900 kg/m cubed, while this is harder than oak (900kg/m cubed), varieties of wood go up to 1330 kg/m cubed. So bone is somewhere between very hard wood and extremely soft concrete. Compare this to the density of the machete's steel 7.85g/cm cubed and the minor difference is negligeble. A machete is not unwieldly, I have cleared much land and chopped through tree branches, but perhaps the perceived difference in our veiws on how hard it is to swing stem from my being a 220 lb man and you being a (insert weight here) girl. One last thing heres a link of a guy with his arms cut off by a machete:
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9902/diary6.htm
Thats not one bone but two, the radius and the ulna. As much as you seem to fancy yourself an expert on such things, I'm a radiographer and am intimately familiar with the weakness of bone. Swing your hands/scissors as much as you like, you will have to be skilled enough to hit a major blood vessel within the amount of time for one swing of the machete, which while possible, is not an event you should bet on.
Consider yourself owned.

Ha. Color me amused. I didn't say it was impossible to cut through bone. I said it was unlikely. You keep pretending like opponents are tree branches, but when that hundredth of a second you spend swinging that machete gives me enought time to "find" that major blood vessel under your arm or in your throat, I don't think you'll have time to say, "darn, I guess these things are slow." Also, severing an arm or even breaking bones with a bat require fairly particular circumstances. Human beings are sturdy. You may see a lot of people who break bones, but there are a lot more people who suffer similar events without a single broken bones. As a kid, I actually got hit in the face at the height of the swing in softball by a friend of mine that was about 175 pounds or so when slipped while catching. Nothing broken. Does that mean a bat can't break bones? Nope. It just means it not something I would count on in a fight.

Baseball bats might crack bones, but I've been attacked with a bat before, they're slow. Using a baseball bat in a fight is like using a hammer to kill a fly when a flyswatter is so much more appropriate. Doesn't mean a hammer can't kill a fly, it just means it's not that likely that it will in practice. Go find a martial arts dojo, any dojo, and walk in and ask them if they will allow you to attack one of their masters with a baseball bat. There's a pretty good chance they will accept the challenge. Such things are among the easier things to defend against.

And, yes, I noticed your girl comment. I'm very impressed by the fact that your argument wasn't strong enough without the ad hominem. I get it. I embarassed you by pointing out that your expertise in the area of machetes was a bit questionable given your guess at the weight. Instead of simply admitting your mistake and remaining cowed you decided to compound it. It happens a lot on NS. You're forgiven.

Because i dont own one? And my falchion is even heavier than a machete, which should be in your favour.
They went out of style for several reasons. Better steel allowed for slimmer designs without fear of making the blade less durable. The spread of polearms called for lighter sidearms. The renaisance saw less and less armour and thus the trend to make the cut and thrust swords ever smaller led to the rapier. More modern firearms at least drove them from the sea, the last domain where the were used. On ships they were a lot more usefull than flimsier fencing blades, because mobility is limited and brute force more important.

Do you notice anything about all of those arguments? Anything at all? Why would a lighter sidearm be more appropriate? I mean, if weight doesn't matter? Less and less armor led to smaller weapons? Hmmmmm... how much armor is the average westerner wearing? Your own arguments betray the validity of my own.

Meh.

This is a reasonable law. It has nothing to do with gun control or a slippery slope.

When will the guns right people learn that crying wolf over ever regulation only consts you credibility?

What about the fact that it says, "we will assume you are guilty until you prove you're not?"

Do you notice anything about all of those arguments? Anything at all? Why would a lighter sidearm be more appropriate? I mean, if weight doesn't matter?
Because you already have a 4+ lbs primary weapons that cannot be carried in a sheath?

Less and less armor led to smaller weapons? Hmmmmm... how much armor is the average westerner wearing? Your own arguments betray the validity of my own.
No, otherwise there would have been no rapier. But, alas, the rapier was invented! How this, since the ultimate melee weapon according to Jocabia is the knife? May it be that reach is an important factor with melee weapons? Smaller does not mean neccesarily mean shorter.
And i did not make any "argument", i was enumerating reasons why falchions arent in use anymore.

No, otherwise there would have been no rapier. But, alas, the rapier was invented! How this, since the ultimate melee weapon according to Jocabia is the knife? May it be that reach is an important factor with melee weapons? Smaller does not mean neccesarily mean shorter.

I would contest the fact that the rapier is the 'ultimate melee weapon'. A small sword is faster and lighter, and depending on the stiffness of the blade and its cross section, it can cut too. Many rapier treatises don't even show cuts and concentrate on the angles of deflecting thrusts and counter attacking in the same move.

If I was facing someone with a rapier, my arming sword would do very nicely against it, it is a similar weight and it can cut like a hot knife through butter.

Because you already have a 4+ lbs primary weapons that cannot be carried in a sheath?


No, otherwise there would have been no rapier. But, alas, the rapier was invented! How this, since the ultimate melee weapon according to Jocabia is the knife? May it be that reach is an important factor with melee weapons? Smaller does not mean neccesarily mean shorter.
And i did not make any "argument", i was enumerating reasons why falchions arent in use anymore.

Did I say the ultimate melee weapon is a knife? Nope. I said that it is better than a machete. The benefits of a machete, reach, do not outweight the detractors, speed. I didn't say shorter was a requirement or an advantage. I said faster and lighter were. You've evidenced my claims with your own. Thank you for making my argument for me.

Now, that we've established that lighter and faster are advantages, you can abandon your argument and spend a little time looking up the term, strawman. Then you can avoid using that logical fallacy in the future. Thanks for playing.

Well, sence my post from last night was erased. I did go by Wally World and picked a machette up last night. This legislature gave me the motivation to go and do so, not because I was worrried that they would pass something like that here, but more to give a big :upyours: to the anti-knife facists.

Did I say the ultimate melee weapon is a knife? Nope. I said that it is better than a machete. The benefits of a machete, reach, do not outweight the detractors, speed. I didn't say shorter was a requirement or an advantage. I said faster and lighter were. You've evidenced my claims with your own. Thank you for making my argument for me.

Now, that we've established that lighter and faster are advantages, you can abandon your argument and spend a little time looking up the term, strawman. Then you can avoid using that logical fallacy in the future. Thanks for playing.
Oh, im pwned! Sorry, but you play salad buffet with my posts and i see no future in discussing this issue. I brought up falchion vs. knife, would you be willing to fight that? I still see no answer, instead you resort to changing topic, patronising tone and ignoring parts of my argument.

.. people will start marrying their toasters.I know I would. I love toasted stuff.when you have sex with your toaster.. leave the webcam on... *ahhh.. electric sex* :D :D :p :D

Oh, im pwned! Sorry, but you play salad buffet with my posts and i see no future in discussing this issue. I brought up falchion vs. knife, would you be willing to fight that? I still see no answer, instead you resort to changing topic, patronising tone and ignoring parts of my argument.

That's not the topic. We were talking about the fact that a machete is not an ideal weapon and the reasons why. I never said the knife was the ideal weapon. I didn't answer you because it doesn't address the point. Machetes are a poor melee weapon. Falchions have nothing to do with it. That's why I asked you why you wouldn't use a machete instead. I have one. You can borrow it.

And i mentioned that a falchion is a comparable, even heavier and slower, weapon, which should give you even more of an advantage. It relies on a top-heavy blade and a hacking/slashing combat style like a machete.

And my falchion is even heavier than a machete, which should be in your favour.
They went out of style for several reasons. Better steel allowed for slimmer designs without fear of making the blade less durable. The spread of polearms called for lighter sidearms. The renaisance saw less and less armour and thus the trend to make the cut and thrust swords ever smaller led to the rapier. More modern firearms at least drove them from the sea, the last domain where the were used. On ships they were a lot more usefull than flimsier fencing blades, because mobility is limited and brute force more important.The benefits of a machete, reach, do not outweight the detractors, speed. I didn't say shorter was a requirement or an advantage. I said faster and lighter were. You've evidenced my claims with your own. Thank you for making my argument for me.

Now, that we've established that lighter and faster are advantages, you can abandon your argument and spend a little time looking up the term, strawman. Then you can avoid using that logical fallacy in the future. Thanks for playing.OH yeah?

Well.. I own an (5/5 Speed) (zero friction) Armageddon Sword of light.. and it gives a +5 phoenix bonus.

http://www.texasbesthomes.com/pix/daily/crocodile_dundee.jpg
"You call that a knife?" :D

And i mentioned that a falchion is a comparable, even heavier and slower, weapon, which should give you even more of an advantage. It relies on a top-heavy blade and a hacking/slashing combat style like a machete.

I still answered your question. Are you actually suggested we spar, because I'm fairly certain you don't want to do that?

You gave the answer that evidences exactly my point. In the absense of armor a lighter and faster weapon is more advantageous. A knife is an example I used but the point is that a machete is not a good melee weapon. Falchions are much more effective weapons in terms of cutting humans. Machetes are not made for that. And yes there is a difference. The same reason why an axe used in war is not the same as an axe used to cut wood. I thought we were discussing a topic, not setting up training sessions.

You are absolutely right with that one. I'd really like to spar, but am very unwilling to shell out 1000 or more euros to prove a point. Or edge. ;)

You are absolutely right with that one. I'd really like to spar, but am very unwilling to shell out 1000 or more euros to prove a point. Or edge. ;)

By the way, I had a combat instructor challenge me to an illegal fight in the orient if we were ever there at the same time. I told him my mother would kick his ass at which point he extended her the same offer ;) The day I met him he was teaching us knife combat and told me that if I could strike him with the knife (it was a rubber knife but fairly accurately weighted) before he struck me with it that I could have a call home. I accepted and put my hand and the knife behind my back and told him I was ready when he was. They told us to go and I threw the knife and hit him so hard in the throat that he dropped to a knee. I got the call home, but I got bent pretty bad for laughing. I also won the unique honor of being the recruit on which he demonstrated all of the wrist and arm locks. That instructor lost to his own inability to see that his expectations were not in-line with the possiblities.

In sparring, and even in actual fights, the flaw most people fall to is to expect a certain style of fighting. The most effective combatants are those that are most flexible in style and expectations. Machetes other than not being designed for combat also limit style in offense and defense. This presents a disadvantage that other readily available weapons do not have. That is my point. The machete is an odd bird to choose for legislating.

It all comes down to a balance. Politics is the art of the possible. We all know that it would be absurd for the government to let us have any and all weapons, but on the other hand it would be absurd for them to take away everything that can be used as a weapon. So you have to draw lines, make choices. In my mind a machette is a tool if it used for cutting hedges. You shouldnt need one in public beyond that. Anything above that it is a weapon. In the same way a gun is only a tool if its used for hunting animals or in rifle ranges for sport. Anything above that it is a weapon. So to all those who whine about the weapons being taken from them, I would say this regulation seems fair.

Yes, as we all know only governments use weapons correctly. Jean Kambanda's government handed out the machetes in Rwanda, Pol Pot was no slouch in regards to melee weapons; to save bullets, the Khmer Rouge soldiers would decapitate or beat the prisoners to death.

No, feel frustration. Go ahead. I even encourage you to move to Massachusetts so you can have your vote utterly nullified by all the people here who agree with the law. But stop acting as though Massachusetts is some fascist dictatorship that is cruelly stealing the right of the people to carry around swords when you can't even drive around without the government's say so.
Actually, you can drive around as much as you want as long as you do not drive on public roads. This is saying that you can't have one, period.

The full text of subsection b is as follows:


(b) Whoever, except as provided by law, carries on his person, or carries on his person or under his control in a vehicle, any stiletto, dagger or a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position, any ballistic knife, or any knife with a detachable blade capable of being propelled by any mechanism, dirk knife, any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches, or a slung shot, blowgun, blackjack, metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles, nunchaku, zoobow, also known as klackers or kung fu sticks, or any similar weapon consisting of two sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather, a shuriken or any similar pointed starlike object intended to injure a person when thrown, or any armband, made with leather which has metallic spikes, points or studs or any similar device made from any other substance or a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand, or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends; or whoever, when arrested upon a warrant for an alleged crime, or when arrested while committing a breach or disturbance of the public peace, is armed with or has on his person, or has on his person or under his control in a vehicle, a billy or other dangerous weapon other than those herein mentioned and those mentioned in paragraph (a), shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years in the state prison, or for not less than six months nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction, except that, if the court finds that the defendant has not been previously convicted of a felony, he may be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction.


Y'know, I never hear of your neighbors to the north having these problems and feel such a need to enact these silly laws in their states, I wonder why that is.

Y'know, I never hear of your neighbors to the north having these problems and feel such a need to enact these silly laws in their states, I wonder why that is.
They have a Ninja problem, plain and simple. (Or a bunch of Nanny Statists.)

Well.. I own an (5/5 Speed) (zero friction) Armageddon Sword of light.. and it gives a +5 phoenix bonus.][/B]

Oh yeah? Well, I cast antimagic field on Nationstates...you sir, are pwned!

-snip blah blah blah-

I get it. I embarassed you by pointing out that your expertise in the area of machetes was a bit questionable given your guess at the weight. Instead of simply admitting your mistake and remaining cowed you decided to compound it. It happens a lot on NS. You're forgiven.

Whatever O'Riley.

I also train in a dojo. A dojo is not real life. I was not off in my prior weight estimates for a really large agricultural machete, which I have used to chop down trees. I only brought up this heavy machete as you were trying to imagine one that weighed several pounds, several is not 2 pounds, several is not 3 pounds (a few). Several is more than a few. Otherwise, I also provided the weight of a standard machete in my second post, but wtf, did you even look at the picture I put up? Did you comprehend the meaning of the provided densities? As for the comment that we may have different veiws on the ease of wielding due to sexual dimorphism (or just plain old size differences), it is a legitimate observance; you may be stronger than me, but probably not.

Second thing, while a machete is comparable in some ways to a bat, it is NOT a bat. The impact PSI will be much greater. My sensei would probably except my challenge with a bat, and then procede to kick my ass, but I expect he would shy away from a machete; bad luck could simply make a much more severe situation. Machete have quite a bit of intimidation, and that slows an enemy down.

Another thing, when its mentioned that even if it couldn't cut through bone, that it could cut off your hand at the wrist, you respond that you would simply not expose your wrist. You then go on to explain how you would target an artery in either the arm or neck. HOW ABOUT I DON"T EXPOSE MY FUCKING NECK. Now isn't that easier then not exposing your wrist? As for targeting the brachial artery, how small are you willing to make your knife?

The only thing cowed are your bullshit notions.

By the way, I had a combat instructor challenge me to an illegal fight in the orient if we were ever there at the same time. I told him my mother would kick his ass at which point he extended her the same offer ;) The day I met him he was teaching us knife combat and told me that if I could strike him with the knife (it was a rubber knife but fairly accurately weighted) before he struck me with it that I could have a call home. I accepted and put my hand and the knife behind my back and told him I was ready when he was. They told us to go and I threw the knife and hit him so hard in the throat that he dropped to a knee. I got the call home, but I got bent pretty bad for laughing. I also won the unique honor of being the recruit on which he demonstrated all of the wrist and arm locks. That instructor lost to his own inability to see that his expectations were not in-line with the possiblities.

In sparring, and even in actual fights, the flaw most people fall to is to expect a certain style of fighting. The most effective combatants are those that are most flexible in style and expectations. Machetes other than not being designed for combat also limit style in offense and defense. This presents a disadvantage that other readily available weapons do not have. That is my point. The machete is an odd bird to choose for legislating.

Well yah, you could of pulled out a gun shot him and then walked over and prodded him, but I think you missed the point of the excercise (which was probably for the instructor to gloat).

Whatever O'Riley.

I also train in a dojo. A dojo is not real life. I was not off in my prior weight estimates for a really large agricultural machete, which I have used to chop down trees. I only brought up this heavy machete as you were trying to imagine one that weighed several pounds, several is not 2 pounds, several is not 3 pounds (a few). Several is more than a few. Otherwise, I also provided the weight of a standard machete in my second post, but wtf, did you even look at the picture I put up? Did you comprehend the meaning of the provided densities? As for the comment that we may have different veiws on the ease of wielding due to sexual dimorphism (or just plain old size differences), it is a legitimate observance; you may be stronger than me, but probably not.

Second thing, while a machete is comparable in some ways to a bat, it is NOT a bat. The impact PSI will be much greater. My sensei would probably except my challenge with a bat, and then procede to kick my ass, but I expect he would shy away from a machete; bad luck could simply make a much more severe situation. Machete have quite a bit of intimidation, and that slows an enemy down.

Another thing, when its mentioned that even if it couldn't cut through bone, that it could cut off your hand at the wrist, you respond that you would simply not expose your wrist. You then go on to explain how you would target an artery in either the arm or neck. HOW ABOUT I DON"T EXPOSE MY FUCKING NECK. Now isn't that easier then not exposing your wrist? As for targeting the brachial artery, how small are you willing to make your knife?

The only thing cowed are your bullshit notions.

Wow. A little upset. You do realize that your neck is to some degree always exposed. You must defend your necks. You can actual conceal your wrists. But you knew that since you're so experienced in such things. And of course, in your vast experience, you've learned that it's MUCH easier to protect your wrists, arms and neck when you're using something large and unwieldy than when you're not. Much easier. Why don't you head over to your dojo and ask your teacher if he thinks it would be easier to keep your arms, wrists and neck from being a target with or without SEVERAL pounds in his hands.

I'm sorry that you don't know the meaning of the word several and in confused you. Here it is so that you won't have to get so upset in the future.

Several - 2 a : more than one <several pleas> b : more than two but fewer than many <moved several inches> c chiefly dialect : being a great many
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/several

Several can be used, as I used it, to mean more than one. As the weight of machetes vary, I was being intentionally inspecific.

I'm glad I could help you learn a few things. The other day you learned that the common machete does not weigh five pounds. And today you learned what several means. Glad to here it. Write me an angry and abusive post tomorrow and we'll see what I can teach you. Have a nice day, friend.

EDIT: And I thought you were just being an ass when you called me a girl before. My name is a nation name, like America, Liberia, etc. I am a 220-pound, 31-year-old male.