Double Standards

Weer’d has discovered one of our opponents in the Gun Control movement is into swordsmanship. A perfectly fine hobby, as far as I’m concerned, but Weer’d notes:

Don’t see a lot of swords around these days. One reason is many places restrict the carry of them. Another big reason is they’re really good for only one thing, killing. Back in the day swords in a similar design to his were issued to ARMIES!

Worth noting that the entirely of the Western world, and a good part of the Eastern world, was largely conquered with this:

This was the most sophisticated killing machine known to man up until he dawn of the gunpowder age. It is as much meant to kill as any firearm, and it is unambiguously a weapon of war. I find it amazing that an advocate of gun control, who practices swordsmanship, can’t understand why people who practice another martial art, shooting, get a little upset when you demean them, ridicule them, and try to limit their access and freedom to exercise their chosen hobby.

19 thoughts on “Double Standards”

  1. Oh the irony was real thick with that. He seems real proud of the skill he’s worked for, and good for him, but unfortunately he can’t see the appeal of a weapon that doesn’t require as much physical strength or practice to be proficient in its use.

  2. I’ve dabbled in Renaissance Longsword myself. Good exercise and fun, but in the end you’re either doing forms, doing cutting tests, or sparring/competing.

    There’s no sword equivalent of just “plinking” and they aren’t particularly useful (or legal in most states I assume) for hunting; which makes it even more a “tool only good for killing” than is a gun.

    Heck, given there’s no good “need” to have a sword, they have the potential to be used for violence, and they are only owned by a minority, they should probably be banned. Unless he thinks they should be protected under some sort of individual right to keep and bear arms as acknowledged in the Second Amendment that is…

    1. There’s no sword equivalent of just “plinking”…

      Backyard bottle cutting. Set up a wood post the back yard, put a bottle on it, cut it in half. Thin 20 oz water bottles and milk jugs are easy. 2 liter soda bottles are harder. Once it get’s too easy you slice it as thinly as your skill allows.

      I did this with a bunch of guys in my bible study like 8 years ago and they all still talk about it.

      1. That’s still test cutting. I suppose one could use the same old sword to cut the same old stuff, plastic bottles, bamboo and free-swinging hemp, etc. in half for years on end and not get bored, especially if you get to wow new people with it once in a while, but for me it doesn’t seem to have the unlimited possible variation and continuing novelty of plinking.

        You’ve got a sword with the same edge on it it will always have. Test cutting seems like going to the driving range to work on your swing, it’s all about the mechanics. Plinking feels more like play, using the mechanics to actually play a quick nine holes or down to the park to work on useless but cool trick shots.

        1. You mean ‘test killing’! He’s only practicing for MURDER! He’s only law abiding until he isn’t!

          /Am I doing it right?

  3. It’s simple: Baldr is a little boy who wants to feel like a man. Since firearms put everyone on the same level, it means he no longer has the advantage over the elderly, young girls and the crippled if they’re armed with a firearm. That makes him feel impotent, because if firearms were banned he could at least feel superior to those groups.

  4. I own two assault spears, one replica Roman pilum and a replica Spartan hoplite spear. They are un-registered and have only limited utility for hunting purposes. The WWII Imperial Army katana, the 19th century Prussian cavalry saber and the Scottish Highland claymore are not stored seperately from their hand grips and are within easy reach of children.

    I aim to misbehave.

  5. Has he ever said that gun owners were ‘compensating’ for some ‘shortcoming’ by owning a firearm? That would be classic irony…

  6. I recall a New-Age person who was also a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, who made the case that New-Agers should accept guns. He talked about having a necklace with a bullet on it, and when a fellow New-Ager tried to call him on it, he pointed to a necklace with an arrowhead on it, and said, “How is a bullet any different than that?”

    For some reason, this reminds me of that. :-)

  7. Carrying a Gladius is just his way of making up for having an otherwise small dagger.

  8. Back when I was playing in the SCA I ran into this attitude a lot. People who despised firearms and didn’t trust people who owned them had no problem with swords and spears and axes and bows. There were a number of stories of people using swords or whatever to chase off burglars, repeated with great delight; but “Guns aren’t honorable” and such idiocy.

    I actually heard people talking about it being ‘dishonorable’ to use a gun on a burglar/rapist/robber who BREAKS INTO YOUR HOME. Apparently it’s fine to shove a length of steel into someones’ chest, or to slice their belly open, or try to brain them with a club, but shoot them? Ugh! I’m including someone I used to think intelligent who states flatly that ‘most people who want a gun are scared of a black guy breaking into their house’, and insists the wood practice sword she has is all anyone needs to protect themselves in their home…

    Lather, rinse, repeat: the failure to be realistic in this is amazing.

    1. LOL is supposed to be a sporting event or something? I don’t give a damn if it’s supposed to be fair, I’m playing to win when my life is in danger. I don’t care if that makes me uncivilized or a cheater or whatever.

      1. It’s a bunch of people in a mindset of “I am supposed to be chivalrous and honorable, even in the worst circumstances.” Which has its good points, except when it becomes a contributor to getting someone killed or raped- or both- because of what boils down to idiocy.

        One of the memories of that time: various discussion around a fire of the above-mentioned stories, leading to a ‘what do you have by the bed?’ question. Got to me: “A pistol.” A couple of people agreed, the others were upset. I wasn’t as hard on this as should have been(still had a lot of growing up to do) but stuck with “Someone comes into my home in the night, I’m going to protect my wife and myself, and I don’t give a damn about ‘honorable combat’.”

        I think that got me a reputation for ‘not being of the right mindset’ for the group.

        Don’t get me wrong, there were others who liked the game but when it came to real-life SD had no sense of humor whatever; but I’d say they were outnumbered, at least at that time in that area, by those who actually believed that crap on ‘honorable combat’, even in self-defense.

        1. The idea of “Honorable Combat” is rather silly, if you ask me. If someone is angry at me, and challenging me to a fight, the most honorable thing I can do is to back down, disengage, and walk away, even when all sorts of insults are being flung at me. If someone breaks into my home, or attempts to catch me by surprise, or threatens the lives of me and my loved ones, without any decent and safe way we can just “walk away”, then the instigators of such action have proven completely dishonorable, and need to be dealt with immediately, in the best way possible, to prevent them from harming innocent lives–and it would be dishonorable not to use a gun in that case, if using a gun is what’s necessary to preserve innocent lives!

          1. That’s my point, these aren’t examples of mutual combat, like a duel. Burglars/robbers/rapists aren’t looking for a fair fight and won’t hesitate to get the upper hand, and losing doesn’t mean losing a match but rather your life. They must be completely oblivious to what the risks really are in reality, you might not get a second chance, there isn’t always a ‘next time’.

  9. The Wu-Shu Dao sword, with its thin blade and curved blade profile, bears a striking resemblence to the “weapon of choice” of Third-world drug cartels and genocidal killers, the machete.

    In fact I recently discovered they can be bought over the internet or privately, with no background check, even by people living in states where they are restricted.

    Based on that physical resemblence and ease of accessibility we should probably ban them, after all they’re only good for killing, and robbing Supreme Court Justices.

Comments are closed.