Recently I was looking over the laws concerning weapons that are banned for carry or possession. I had to cock an eyebrow at some of the things that are not legal to own, as opposed to what's effective. Simply put, the legislation put in place to try and hinder crime is just as worthless as the people who make the laws.

Before I begin, I want to say that I think that ANY law put in place to prevent or deter crime should be highly influenced by the professional opinion of those who have to enforce the law. After all, does it not make sense that they are the one's who can say first hand what laws are working and what aren't? The executive branch, and the judicial branch of the government seem to be out of communication with the legislative branch when it comes to crime. People who've spent more time with their face buried in the television or in video games are more likely to make their decisions based on what they've seen through that stupid little window. Those are the one's who try and pass laws banning weapons they've seen in cop shows and action movies.

In my somewhat professional opinion, I think that the most effective tools and tactics for real combat or personal defense are the one's that are the least glamorized by Hollywood, and thus are the most overlooked.

For example, a switchblade knife is tabooed by red tape, yet tactically it's not a good choice for any kind of personal protection. Sure the "shink" sound of the blade coming out can be nice and intimidating, but only to those who are unaware that it's only a noise. Very few switchblades are stable enough to be used in a full on fight since the tang doesn't always go through the handle and thus it's likely to break. Also if there's no safety and all it takes is the press of a button to get the blade out, how is it that it's safe to carry in your pocket? You're more likely to stab or cut yourself then to get into a fight and be able to use it.

Next, my favorite, the balisong, or better known as the butterfly knife. It's almost impossible to get your hands on a good one, nearly all of them you find in any shop are only about ten or twenty bucks, and the phrase "you get what you pay for" holds true. It takes a lot of skill to be able to whip the blade out like you see in many martial arts movies, and even then, that's not exactly much more then a flashy intro saying "I have a knife". Again, noise and no tang. I can't begin to count the number of balisongs I've had worn out and fall apart just because I've played with them so much. Personally, I love to flip it out and around, tossing and catching, and impressing people anyone looking on. But would I ever use it in a fight? Hell no! The tang stops at the middle of the knife, and like I mentioned above, the quality of a balisong is only "you get what you pay for." I'm not planning on cutting a paycheck in half for a good one that is suitable for combat anytime soon. Yet a lot of states banned the carry or in extreme "California" cases, possession of such a bad tactical choice.

Then, there's nunchaku. If you know better, then don't EVER call them "Numb-chucks" or "Chucka sticks" in my presence, because I will punish you for it, I'll make you get out of my car and walk, I will tell you to get out of my house, I'll take your CD out of the player, I'll cancel all plans you have with me, I'll screen your number, I will shun you if you don't correct yourself! "Nunchucks" is fine, but don't ever rely on a tongue of ignorance to speak for a voice of intelligence. Two sticks tied together with a chain, and you swing them. California and New York have actually banned the possession! I have never seen or heard of them being used to commit any kind of assault. However, there was a bank robbery involving a robber knocking himself unconscious while trying to hold up a bank and was showing off. It takes skill to use them! Even amateurs will say "I'd knock myself out with those", when I show mine to someone who I think is okay for asking. Yet because they were glamorized by Bruce Lee, retarded people who know no better went out of their way to pass a law banning them in two states, and now there's a legal gray area tacked right on. In order to use them without hurting yourself, you have to dedicate countless hours of training and bruises. Who the hell is letting these laws pass?

Then there's firearms, oh I love guns, anyone who knows me, knows I love guns, and knows I will never give mine up. Not even for the sake of any whiny anti-gun Brady slogan shouting brainless assfuck who doesn't know what they are talking about. Trying to win a debate on gun-control with me is like trying to use a garden hose to put out a forest fire, it doesn't work, and you're a retard for trying. I will kick you out of my car, even if we're out of state, and several hundred miles from home, and it's best not to test that. Anyway, in almost every action movie, there's a gun, and it wouldn't be a stereotype about America, if guns weren't brought up. People think that fully automatic firearms are illegal, here's a fact that will make you shit your pants: they aren't. People think suppressors (or silencers if you aren't particular on the term) are illegal: only in thirteen states. In order to get anything full auto, you need a special permit that cost about a month and a half's worth of paychecks that expires every year, you need to find a class 3 dealer (there three in my state) and they WILL ask you for a permit before they will sell to you, and you need about another month's worth of paychecks just to buy the damn thing. Then, there's the cost of ammo. Altogether, you're looking at no less then several thousand dollars just to take one out to shoot. Last but not least, fully automatic fire empties your magazine in just a few seconds, and is VERY inaccurate. But they sure do make a loud noise. Yet to this day, I still hear people say "I don't think that people should have automatics." Well, they're legal, just costly. So if you're on a budget, as most crooks are till they pawn your stuff, then maybe an M240 Bravo is not for you.

Now, I've mentioned all the ineffective 'tools' that are not legal. Now to bring up what's effective AND legal.

As a martial artist, I love swords, knives, and staves. But I'm also a student of warfare, so I like what will work the most in a fight. If I didn't care about inducing panic, then I'd have my K-Bar strapped to my left leg, with my tactical leg holster holding my XD45 in my right, and walk around everywhere that way. My K-bar is no less then maybe about seven or eight inches, and open carry of a firearm is perfectly legal in my state. Walking around with two deadly ordinances visible on my person will definitely get the police called, who will NOT arrest me! Yet that does make me an effective fighting system, since I have both of my tools on hand at the ready. Get it? It's legal to carry my big ass knife, and pistol on me as long as everyone can see it, but if I cover them up, then I can get arrested. Why is that? Politics, and retarded legislation. Why does it not make sense? See above answer.

Now that I've presented the problem, here's my solution: slap a judicial review on nearly every law infringing on the second amendment, don't let unqualified politicians tell experienced professionals how to enforce the law, and when a case of self defense is brought to court, don't let a hotshot lawyer who wasn't present at the time of the incident dictate the intent of the person who only wanted to protect his life or his loved ones. Last but not least, don't allow legislation of common sense.

Sarah's Humble Ninja,
Matthew

Matt: "Anyone who thinks firearms are dishonorable clearly isn't a student of the art of war."

Kain: "Legislation of common sense only feels good in theory, but it doesn't work in application."

"You shoot like old people fuck!"
-Yeager