dksuddeth

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

AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE POSSESSION OF A MACHETE
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1.

Subsection (b) of section 10 of chapter 269 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition is hereby amended by inserting after the word “inches”, in line 67, the following word:- , machete.

SECTION 2. Said subsection (b) of said section 10 of said chapter 269, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by adding the following paragraph:-

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.

Looks like Massachussets is in the lead to follow australia and the UK

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Paq

wow...even i have a machete...or thirty, seriously, they are like $5 at wallyworld adn i have a jungle in my backyard...

__________________
Live.

Chris

alpha phi

Complete with a permit and annual registration fee!
What follows machete's?
Pitchforks and torches?

__________________

dksuddeth

and probably baseball bats and hockey sticks after that.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Marvelous Marv

Perhaps now there will be fewer people who refer to the NRA as paranoid wack jobs.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of the people in Massachusetts rolled over and took this one up the pooper.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Paq

no, the NRA really is full of paranoid whackjobs, this is just something random, honestly, and not indicative of a larger scheme at work. And it may pass in mass bc honestly, how many jungles are in mass


besides, if the people vote on it....isn't that what the NRA and all right wingers say

__________________
Live.

Chris

dksuddeth

It wouldn't surprise me if this actually passes in MA. I look at Chicago and Illinois and have to wonder how I made it growing up in that state. New Jersey is just as bad and california is rising up there. Will these states ever realize that gun control/gun bans does not stop criminals, it only disarms those law abiding citizens.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington, speech of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." -- James Madison

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --- Thomas Jefferson in "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"the people have a right to keep and bear arms." -- Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Paq

i think family guy got it right last night...

The right to bear arms...

Yes, everyone has the right to hang bear arms in their living room.

That said, do you really think the Civilian population of the US could outmatch the US military, should th president ever decide to truly tyrannize the people? I'm not saying people shouldn't be armed against direct threats, but really, to fight agains thte US govt should it decide to institute martial law as a defense of the right to bear arms...it's just not really feasible, unless you want to set up a nuclear reactor in your backyard.

I just think the 2nd amendment needs some updated interpretations, that's all

__________________
Live.

Chris

Willravel

We don't have a $500 billion budget. I might have the technical expertise to build weapons of mass detruction, but the funding and access to things like plutonium limits my ability to make war. The greatest defence against an army is the sympathy of that army. If it were to come to civil war; that is the military against the civilians, our greatest defence would be the soldiers have civilian friends and family that could be hurt of killed as a direct result of their action. If I were in the military and I was given an order to attack Phoenix or Dover, I'd say hell no.

Paq

I'm with Will, that is definitely the biggest defense against the US standing army. Other than that, the average citizen would be fubar.

__________________
Live.

Chris

dksuddeth

We've had this discussion before and despite the defeatist attitude of alot of people, the civilians of this country could indeed defeat the military. WMD's would not be used against an uprising populace simply because the political ramifications of such would decimate ANY support that the government would need from the rest of the sheeple. Now, if most of you anti gunners would get rid of your craniuminanus affliction, you'd get off your duffs, realize that the people should not only be allowed to own automatic weapons but that it should be mandatory to own at least one, then we'd definitely have a government that truly fears the people and would work FOR us instead of AGAINST us.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

For an even clearer look at what an armed populace can do against a modern standing army, just take a look at the events in mogadishu (black hawk down).

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Paq

do you really fear the US gov't that much as a citizen?

at any rate, i honestly do not see a time when there will be a mass uprising of hte population against our government. almost 300,000,000 people going against a government. Sorry, not going to happen. I don't see a president or any other person turning the US army against the citizens, and if that did happen, i don't see that person caring what the rest of the world thinks.

So, long story short, i don't think arming the US populace does/would instill such fear into the government that they would turn over and just start working FOR the people, not against it. They will be doing exactly what they do now.

Now, i would fear my neighbor having an uzi bc hte idiot already shoots at cars with BB guns.

__________________
Live.

Chris

Willravel

Mogadishu is a very difference situation. We do not live in a third world country, in fact we are among the richest nations on earth. We have the most technologically advanced military in history. We are capitolist. We are consumer-centric. Speaking frankly, that is apples and oranges. If there were a civil war in the US, it would look nothing like the wars in Mogadishu.

dksuddeth

Look at some of the legislation they've passed. gun control act of 68, the so called firearm owners protection act of 86, the patriot act, the list goes on. It's called the slippery slope.

First off, I'm not saying the entire populace will rise up. There are those around us now that are, or would be, perfectly comfortable with becoming subjects of the governments whim or that would support the tyrannical actions of the government, so long as it was working toward an objective that they agreed with. But, the other side of that, once it had finally had enough, would rise up. Then we would see the civil war of the century.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

And this makes a difference how? I was referring to how the citizens of mogadishu had the US on the defensive, not their civil war. The rest of your post, technologically advanced military and all, doesn't mean anything. The population CAN beat the government.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Marvelous Marv

I'm sure you're willing to back up that statement. I've heard it from a couple of people, but when I pressed them for details, all I got was a sputtered, "Well, uhhhh..."

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Marvelous Marv

Isn't that against the law? And he's doing it anyway?

Yep--making laws against Uzis is the answer.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Marvelous Marv

That third world country, being well-armed, did a very respectable job of kicking the US military's ass.

Admittedly because of massive failure at the highest levels of command.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

shakran

Give me a break. Your premise doesn't hold water. You even admit it in the next sentence.

And they did not kick the US military's ass. They kicked the ass of a handfull of special forces guys. They had a huge advantage of numbers and were up against troops that did not have the required support. Sure, they won that battle. If we'd been stupid enough to continue the fight, one B-52 would have all but destroyed them.

And might I add we've already seen a prime example of an uprising against the US government that went horribly wrong. It was called the civil war and the south got their asses handed to them.

And that was back when both sides were pretty much equal as far as armament. Hell the uprisers even had armored ships and submarines.

Now you expect to reverse that outcome even though the average person going up against the government won't have anything better than a rifle while the military has machine guns, tanks, and bombers?

That simply doesn't make sense, and nonsensical, quasi-paranoid arguments are not going to bring the general public around to your point of view.

dksuddeth

a handful of spec forces, a few armored personnel carriers, half a dozen gunships......but that huge advantage of numbers didnt seem to register with you. The US military is less than 3 million while our adult populace is over 100 million.

You must have have had a really bad history teacher because the south was winning that war for the first half so where do you get 'having their asses handed to them'?

It wouldn't be very long before the 'uprisers' were similarly armed. Do you think we'd just leave that equipment alone? The government WOULD have to face us on even terms eventually.

I find it amusing that you have to resort to the 'nonsensical, quasi-paranoid' title like all others who can't defeat the good logical argument.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

100 million who are not as well armed as those guys were, and who would face a much tougher fight than those guys did.


Well, our flag doesn't have a blue X on it. That's one big clue



Nope. Sorry, that just doesn't fly. Even if we get hold of a bomber, how are we going to fly it? And then we'll have to get hold of fighters to protect the bomber from their fighters, and we're gonna have to learn to fly those. An uprising against the government was feasible (and still didn't work) in the 17 and 1800's, but the technology is just too advanced at this point.


If you presented me with a good, logical argument, I would try to defeat it. I have not yet gotten that opportunity.

Dragonknight

Wait, wait wait. Read the book watch the movie do what ever it takes to realize that they beat ONE branches Ass, just one. That is by no comparison all branches. I know I'm biased because I'm a Marine, but the fact is good luck getting everyone in one location to up and fight against the US forces. Most of the people around each base are either the family of said members, employees of the US Govt. or by large make there living off said base. They will easily fall in with the people right next to them. IMO if you could (and you can't) get all the gun toting Texans or Californians to get together in one place at one time, to go against a full base of military members with all the support that that entails they won't stand a chance. They will be shredded by the choppers and jets before they even get close.

Now as some have said will the military branches up and go against all the people living around them, while possibly putting there loved ones in danger. From my stand point NO WAY IN HELL. I will not put the lives of my family or the lives of my brothers and sisters in arms families in danger for something like that. I have a pretty good feeling that most of us feel that way also.

Now to the original reason for this post (being the proposed laws against owning a machete). That's just crap, what is the damn point of this law. What do they plan on stopping the amount of murders and/or suicides of people by machetes? How large a number is that honestly. It's a crap law put down by some looser who wants to get his name on a law. I don't think this is going to do any damn thing important, other then make the average Jo pay X amount for a machete then have to pay more to register it with the police. It's total crap and a waste of yours and my own damn money. These guys need to try and fix something important not make up crap laws to make it seam like there working.

But hey that's just me.

__________________
Freedom is NOT Free.

The_Jazz

In the past 150 or so years where they have emerged victorious, the US has won not because of brilliant tactics or better designed weaponry but because of sheer weight of economic power. The Sherman tank is a classic example in that it wasn't the best weapon on the battlefield, but there were more of them and they were sufficiently armed to reduce the numbers of the superior German tanks. The South didn't win the Civil War because they couldn't overcome the economic dominance of the North and the sheer weight of men that the North was willing to throw into the meat grinder. Lee admitted as much before, during and after the war. The South certainly had better leadership at the outset (although that was pretty successfully countered by the latter half), but they couldn't press home their advantage in a meaningful way.

As far as any armed uprising of the American people goes, I'm willing to join the excercise, although I reject the idea that its even a remote possibility. I'll grant that its certainly possible among small groups, but a mass uprising of even 100,000 people is remote to the point of laughability.

Should such an uprising somehow occur, the rebels might start off well armed and equiped, but I think that they would find themselves running out of supplies in short order, especially if the US forces pressed the attack. Unless and until any rebel forces captured or controlled production and fuel facilities, they would run out of all the logistical supplies very quickly. Rebels would have to simulatiously seize weapons, supplies and fuel in multiple strategic areas across the country, and its highly doubtful that they could manage such an undertaking. There's also the problem as to whether or not the vox populi would follow the government or the rebels.

Sorry, but there are far too many logistical problems to ever make this any sort of reality.

EDIT - I forgot to address the actual topic of this thread. Whoops.

Just to play devil's advocate, why would someone need a machete in Massachusetts. I can understand it in Florida, and I've actually used one in Mississippi, but there's no real reason for it that I can see since it's not a very good brush cleaning tool. It's basically a one-sided short sword with an unsharpened tip. What could you possibly use it for other than as a conversation peice or to go after someone?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Pacifier

What most of you people ignore, is that not 100mio is on your side. you will always have people who support the goverment, or "law and order". So what you get is a bloody war, rebel army vs. loyal army and rebel milita vs. loyal milita. Both types of miltia will be used as cannonfodder.
I don't see how armed civillians will make a difference other that raising the number of casualties

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

dksuddeth

useless to argue with a close minded individual. Have a nice life.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Well, then there are a whole lot of "close" minded individuals in this thread alone. If by closed-minded you mean I don't believe in fairy tales. . .then yep, you've pegged me.

Marvelous Marv

Hey, I hate to argue with someone on the same side, but in Mogadishu we had Army Rangers, Navy SEALS (John Gay was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor Device), AF PJs and CCTs, and of course, the D-Boys. (I read the book and watched the movie, but the last time I mentioned my additional knowledge of the situation, I was called a liar by some of our illustrious members here).

I wasn't saying they kicked the asses of the ENTIRE US military, but in Mogadishu, we didn't win. And once the news of it hit the papers, our president at the time couldn't get us out of there fast enough.


Agreed.

I like you already.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Marvelous Marv

I guess working in TV is what gives you such an active imagination. I say nothing of the sort.

The people involved in Blackhawk Down, by and large, wanted to continue the battle. Nice to know you consider them "stupid." And, of course, one nuke would have all but destroyed Vietnam. Does that mean we didn't get run out of there, either?

This is beautiful. When I mention Teddy Kennedy, I'm told it's ancient history, but you go all the way back to the Civil war, when they were using muskets and muzzle-loaders, and relate that to today's weapons. Outstanding job!

Especially if the public makes the mistake of believing the warped viewpoint you present to them.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

shakran

Yeah, you kinda do:

And you're absolutely correct. If the highest levels of command had decided to send what was needed to do what he wanted us to do, that third world country wouldn't have stood a chance.




Well, as you're well aware (don't think we don't see through your tactics of claiming we said what we did not) I was referring to the higher levels of command. And I stand by the statement that it would have been stupid to stay there. It was not our fight. There was no reason for our guys to die for a fight that was not ours.



I don't recall ever griping at you for mentioning Kennedy. Wanna point out where I did that?




You can keep making insulting arguments or you can try to make an argument that makes sense. The civil war was the last time in history when the rebellion against the government had pretty much the same firepower as the government, and it didn't work even then. Now any rebellion against the government is going to be horrendously outgunned, outtrained, and outfunded. There is NO possible way for a rebellion to defeat the government the way you say it will.

lurkette

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France