In the 21st century, it is becoming more and more difficult to ignore the political banter surrounding the place of firearms in modern society. Even recent debates concerning concealed weapons on our own campus have stoked tensions at the Capitol downtown.
However, a certain type of rights has been overlooked entirely and, in this century of progressive liberalism, they just may come back into view in the near future.
I am, of course, referring to sword rights.
Although our state’s politicians are frantically scrambling to put any law on the books making it easier to carry guns, Louisiana’s die-hard weapon lovers may want to cast their gaze in a new direction.
Thanks to the outstanding amount of legal ambiguity when it comes to knife laws in Louisiana, it appears as though anyone who brandishes a sword in public should be guilty of nothing more than embarrassing themselves. This law, however, does not apply to concealment. If you try to hide your sword in any way, you will be put in jail — but for no more than six months.
Apart from historical re-enactors and a few latent nerds, there is hardly any demographic that is keen to wield such a futile — or feudal — weapon in the open. However, where gaping legal loopholes exist, limits will be tested.
In 2009, John Pontolillo, a Johns Hopkins University student, defended himself with a samurai sword when a burglar entered his home in the early morning. Pontolillo proceeded to nearly sever the assailant’s hand and felled him with a second and final “spear laceration,” according to The Baltimore Sun.
This case sticks out among other crimes that pervade college campuses these days not so much because of why a man was killed, but rather how he was killed.
Now, there is no legal argument to be made against the possession of a sword in the state of Louisiana. The law clearly states that, as long as it does not contain a switchblade mechanism, you’re good to go.
However, when I now think of some utopian society where guns exist only to kill foreigners, it only horrifies me at the prospect of Excalibur-laden criminals climbing in your windows and snatching your people up.
Perhaps the gun debate has not been entirely thought through. After all, history has shown us that some people are crazy, and they are bound to use the ingenuity and resources available in this country to carry out sadistic acts on the rest of us.
When guns are gone, what does that leave us with?
I’m not sure of the answer to that question, but chances are people would continue to die.
I have nothing against ownership of any kind of weaponry. So, when we break it down to pure human instinct, arbitrary concerns like the number of shots in a gun’s clip tend to replace actual problems like mental health and gang membership.
People are bound to have the urge to inflict violence on each other, while the method of doing so may change, the end result will always be the same.
Just ask the burglar who broke into John Pontillilo’s home back in 2009 — if he were alive.
So while the debate rages on about AR-15’s and extended ammo clips, let this serve as a reminder to just how convoluted this — and other political debates — have become because of the unprecedented lack of logic that goes into our legislation.
And conservatives, you may want to snatch up the swords while you still can. I believe Obama is coming after them, too.
Eli Haddow is a 21-year-old English and history junior from New Orleans.