# Why Nunchucks are not selling in certain states?



## TigerHeart (Jul 21, 2017)

I tried to purchase nunchaku, but some martial arts supplies online stores stop selling these to several states especially where I live in California.  Why is that?


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 21, 2017)

Because legislators in a knee jerk and fear driven move many years ago, made the sale and/or possession of them outside narrow circumstances illegal.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2017)

Welcome to MT!

Perhaps no one was buying them?


----------



## stonewall1350 (Jul 21, 2017)

tecboy said:


> I tried to purchase nunchaku, but some martial arts supplies online stores stop selling these to several states especially where I live in California.  Why is that?



Same reason you can't buy certain guns or knives. Stupid laws made my people with El Zilcho experience with the things they are making laws restricting...or experience with the things they are trying to stop. 

Sigh. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 21, 2017)

DAMN THAT TED KENNEDY...  dont get me started.  i will need anger management classes after just thinking about it.
yes its because in the 1980's the legislators who wanted to be tuff on crime made them illegal. nunchucks, chinese stars (fair amount of identity confusion in that name) manrikigusari or any other chain with weights on the ends were all made illegal during the ninja craze.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 21, 2017)

The thing is, here in San Francisco, you can walk through Chinatown and find these things selling openly in a lot of the stores there.  Not just the toy nunchaku with foam padding, but wooden ones, and throwing stars, and all manner of knives and swords and other random sharp paraphernalia.  Most of it is low quality, but real stuff nonetheless.

So I don't really understand the law, to be honest.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 21, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> The thing is, here in San Francisco, you can walk through Chinatown and find these things selling openly in a lot of the stores there.  Not just the toy nunchaku with foam padding, but wooden ones, and throwing stars, and all manner of knives and swords and other random sharp paraphernalia.  Most of it is low quality, but real stuff nonetheless.
> 
> So I don't really understand the law, to be honest.



The big Chinatowns seem to have their own laws as for the laws of the sates they are in, they seem  to follow those if it brings in tourists but beyond that they do not really follow them unless the police are around. Much the same as on Mainland China


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2017)

Ah well you'll have to buy them from the UK, you'll have to check postage though. Nunchaku, Nunchakus, Nunchaks Supplier UK


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 21, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Ah well you'll have to buy them from the UK, you'll have to check postage though. Nunchaku, Nunchakus, Nunchaks Supplier UK



DON'T DO THAT!
no no no...it's not only possession. It is a federal crime to have these weapons mailed to you if you live in a restriction state.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> DON'T DO THAT!
> no no no...it's not only possession. It is a federal crime to have these weapons mailed to you if you live in a restriction state.



Have the seller mark them up as 'sex toys', though I have this horrible feeling that certain places will view them worse than martial arts weapons!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 21, 2017)

tecboy said:


> I tried to purchase nunchaku, but some martial arts supplies online stores stop selling these to several states especially where I live in California.  Why is that?


 because those are very deadly weapons, that are more powerful than a gun. It's true because I saw it on youtube.





But before you can be that good you have to go through special training





Law makers make stupid laws sometimes, just google stupid laws for your state and you'll see a bunch of them.  It's like hoshin stated, people who know nothing about the weapons made laws based on what they saw in the movies and heard in mystical stories about ninjas who were unstoppable.  The reality is that you'll find more people hitting themselves in the nuts or the head with those things than taking down 15 people.
What happens at 2:30 in the video just isn't going to happen.  Good for a movie but not accurate with reality.  Just another stupid law.  Here have a gun that can hold a crap load of bullets, but the nunchaku are just too dangerous.  





Now in all seriousness after typing that stuff I looked up the real answer and here's what I found. Source http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/nunchucks-and-the-law.html

1. Nunchucks are "widely used by muggers and street gangs and ha[ve] been the cause of many serious injuries"; and

2. The bill's sponsor maintained that the nunchaku "is designed primarily as a weapon and has no purpose other than to maim or, in some instances, kill."

The court's decision meant that New York had a rational basis for banning nunchucks.

If you thought the law was stupid before then now it's even more so.   Muggers and street gangs using them?  yeah those days are gone lol.  Number 2 is just as stupid.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 21, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Have the seller mark them up as 'sex toys', though I have this horrible feeling that certain places will view them worse than martial arts weapons!


lol.. I doubt it.. They will just look at it and think WTF..  what kind of games does that person play. lol.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2017)

The Most Outrageous Sex Toy Laws in the World


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Have the seller mark them up as 'sex toys', though I have this horrible feeling that certain places will view them worse than martial arts weapons!


Phallic shaped double staffs with a chain. Urgh.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Phallic shaped double staffs with a chain. Urgh.



LOL, I didn't mean actually make them like sex toys just label them as such on the outer packaging to inform Customs officers.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> LOL, I didn't mean actually make them like sex toys just label them as such on the outer packaging to inform Customs officers.


An actual post about dildo-chuks.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2017)

I'm all for having things that are multi use.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I'm all for having things that are multi use.


I dunno. There are some uses I don't want to confuse.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I dunno. There are some uses I don't want to confuse.


lol.. there are some thing I don't want to be beaten with.   Tire iron, Wrench, and that. lol


----------



## DanT (Jul 24, 2017)

Shhhhhh....



Big Brother is watching.


----------



## Buka (Jul 25, 2017)

DanT said:


> Shhhhhh....
> 
> Big Brother is watching.



Yeah, but he only watched for three minutes. Then went into the other room.


----------



## skribs (Mar 2, 2018)

Because nunchucks are weapons, and many states believe weapons are too dangerous for people to have.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 2, 2018)

skribs said:


> Because nunchucks are weapons, and many states believe weapons are too dangerous for people to have.


Ok then riddle me this batman....why can I go to the store and by a gun but I can not buy nunchucks


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 2, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Ok then riddle me this batman....why can I go to the store and by a gun but I can not buy nunchucks



You expect laws to actually make sense?
Look at the current fury trying to ban "assault rifles" like the AR-15 - which is NOT an assault rifle. 
Rifles are used in 1% of all gun homicides. ONE percent. But let's ban them.
9 teens are killed every day in the US by using their cell phones while driving. But let's not ban cell phones or cars.


----------



## skribs (Mar 2, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Ok then riddle me this batman....why can I go to the store and by a gun but I can not buy nunchucks



Weapon laws are based on what's scary, not what works.

Plus guns require background checks and melee weapons do not.


----------



## Buka (Mar 3, 2018)

Background checks, that's a knee slapper.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 3, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> You expect laws to actually make sense?
> Look at the current fury trying to ban "assault rifles" like the AR-15 - which is NOT an assault rifle.
> Rifles are used in 1% of all gun homicides. ONE percent. But let's ban them.
> 9 teens are killed every day in the US by using their cell phones while driving. But let's not ban cell phones or cars.




Here driving while using a mobile phone will get you a big fine and points on your licence, and perhaps even banned from driving.

Why is always 'ban things' what's wrong with common sense measures. Why can't people sit together and thrash out a proper code of practice?


----------



## pdg (Mar 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Here driving while using a mobile phone will get you a big fine and points on your licence, and perhaps even banned from driving.
> 
> Why is always 'ban things' what's wrong with common sense measures. Why can't people sit together and thrash out a proper code of practice?



Well, I'd say using a mobile while driving has been fairly sensibly done...

Handheld use, as above.

Hands-free use is allowed, unless it's compromising your driving (but does it not then come under the due care and attention umbrella?) the same as two-way radio usage.

Weapons rules are confusing though - I've only skimmed them (which can't help) but age and curvature seem to come into play with swords for a start...


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 3, 2018)

skribs said:


> Weapon laws are based on what's scary, not what works.
> 
> Plus guns require background checks and melee weapons do not.


Your not thinking it through far enough. I can get a background check and a permit to carry a gun. Why do our laws  not also allow to have a background check and permit for nunchucks? 

It is because these laws are all a political dog and pony show for politicians to get votes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 3, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Your not thinking it through far enough. I can get a background check and a permit to carry a gun. Why do our laws  not also allow to have a background check and permit for nunchucks?
> 
> It is because these laws are all a political dog and pony show for politicians to get votes.


I'd argue that a fair number of silly laws were created by people who actually though the laws were a good idea.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'd argue that a fair number of silly laws were created by people who actually though the laws were a good idea.


except we are not talking about a fair number of silly laws, i am talking about the martial arts weapons law.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 3, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> except we are not talking about a fair number of silly laws, i am talking about the martial arts weapons law.


I think many of the folks who voted for those (perhaps even those who wrote them) thought they were a good idea. In many cases, lawmakers aren't much more informed than the general public, who were afraid of those things because of the MA movies.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> but age and curvature seem to come into play with swords for a start...




Whose age and curvature? I'm reckoning it's likely I'd be allowed more weapons than most of you here in that case as I have more age and curves................

Selling, buying and carrying knives - GOV.UK
Offensive Weapons, Knives, Bladed and Pointed Articles | The Crown Prosecution Service


----------



## pdg (Mar 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Whose age and curvature? I'm reckoning it's likely I'd be allowed more weapons than most of you here in that case as I have more age and curves................



I couldn't possibly judge that 

But, where it says:

"It is illegal to bring into the UK, sell, hire, lend or give anyone the following:"

Does that mean I can make anything on that list for myself - or does "bring into the UK" also cover "bring into being"?

I mean, I wouldn't be importing or otherwise trading for it


----------



## Martial D (Mar 3, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> because those are very deadly weapons, that are more powerful than a gun. It's true because I saw it on youtube.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm, learned something from that last Donnie Yen fight scene I need to try.

Apparently taking off your shirt makes your kung fu at least 3 times as effective.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 3, 2018)

pdg said:


> I couldn't possibly judge that
> 
> But, where it says:
> 
> ...




You can make what you like just don't carry it out in public without a very good reason. Selling stuff is difficult, not because of the legality or not of weapons but because HRMC are clamping down on private sellers of anything, they want the taxes, VAT and income tax. they watch all the selling sites, car boots etc to see who is selling as a business.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 3, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Hmm, learned something from that last Donnie Yen fight scene I need to try.
> 
> Apparently taking off your shirt makes your kung fu at least 3 times as effective.




Mmm I could try that, great distraction technique.


----------



## pdg (Mar 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> You can make what you like just don't carry it out in public without a very good reason. Selling stuff is difficult, not because of the legality or not of weapons but because HRMC are clamping down on private sellers of anything, they want the taxes, VAT and income tax. they watch all the selling sites, car boots etc to see who is selling as a business.



I'd only be concerned with legality if I was to make anything to sell - any income would go through the books anyway (the stuff I'm already registered to do on a self employed basis would cover it) so HMRC would know anyway.

Theoretically I could make a gun, which I'd be in the doodoo for just having it sat in a cupboard at home if it was found - but I could also make a switchblade or a "throwing star"... All I've found with regard to that sort of thing relates to import/sale/purchase/gifting with no mention of possession through other means.

Obviously if I were to carry it about I'd deserve everything I got...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 3, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Hmm, learned something from that last Donnie Yen fight scene I need to try.
> 
> Apparently taking off your shirt makes your kung fu at least 3 times as effective.


Only if you’re built like that. Doesn’t work for me.


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 3, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Hmm, learned something from that last Donnie Yen fight scene I need to try.
> 
> Apparently taking off your shirt makes your kung fu at least 3 times as effective.


It’s not just kung fu that gets more effective.  Even trailer-park style benefits...






Springer is full of examples.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 3, 2018)

Getting to the original issue -- why are various weapons illegal, with no means to get a carry nunchuk/ninja star/sap permit...

Knee jerk reactions by uninformed politicians, often who lack any real understanding as to how dangerous a weapon is, let alone how often it's used in violent attacks.  Nunchuks are deadly martial arts weapons; they've seen 'em in movies...  Ninja stars kill instantly...  and they're tiny so they're concealed deadly!  Years back, Black Belt magazine did an editorial after a 60 Minutes "expose" about deadly martial arts weapons...  60 Minutes proved the weapons were deadly by sticking them into a watermelon.  Black Belt proceeded to stick many things into a watermelon... pens, sunglasses, a stapler, various other office items, etc.  

Sometimes laws are a reaction to ongoing criminal developments; in VA, it is illegal to conceal a machete with a blade longer than 12 inches.  Why?  MS-13 and other street gangs.

Wanna change it?  Educate your legislators.  Push for legislation for carry permits for items other than guns, if you want to be able to legally carry them.  But also, learn the laws.  Thanks to a ruling (that I have issues with), in VA, unless it is one of the items specifically enumerated in 18.2-308, it must be a weapon first to be of "like kind."  So, lots of knives are legal, unless they are specifically dirks, Bowies, switchblades, gravity knives, etc, or specifically and solely intended to be a weapon (except for machetes).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 4, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> Getting to the original issue -- why are various weapons illegal, with no means to get a carry nunchuk/ninja star/sap permit...
> 
> Knee jerk reactions by uninformed politicians, often who lack any real understanding as to how dangerous a weapon is, let alone how often it's used in violent attacks.  Nunchuks are deadly martial arts weapons; they've seen 'em in movies...  Ninja stars kill instantly...  and they're tiny so they're concealed deadly!  Years back, Black Belt magazine did an editorial after a 60 Minutes "expose" about deadly martial arts weapons...  60 Minutes proved the weapons were deadly by sticking them into a watermelon.  Black Belt proceeded to stick many things into a watermelon... pens, sunglasses, a stapler, various other office items, etc.
> 
> ...


The whole idea of the enumerated knives (and that’s similar in some other states) is as silly as the watermelon test. Unfortunately we’d have to get into politics to talk about the difficulties in getting that changed.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 4, 2018)

Just re-read the title of the thread, it says why aren't the nunchukus selling in certain states which means no one is buying them, if the question is why is no one selling nunchukus that's a different thing. 

I think the fashion for them led by the popularity of the Bruce Lee films and marketing has waned an awful lot. It's all Tap out tops now ( equally offensive when not washed)

The question of why politicians ban certain things from chocolate eggs to nunchukus is easily answered...... because they can. They want to look pro active, like they are earning their money and being good servants of the State, the martial arts lobby for example isn't huge so they can ban things without too much outcry, opponents will be few because they too want to look good 'saving the public'. I would suggest that far from being ignorant the politicians know exactly what they are doing, it's not a hugely contentious issue, no enormous public outcry and it distracts from bigger weightier issues that politicians don't want to get bogged down in.

In the UK there was a big outcry against edged weapons after certain incidents, the public said they wanted some weapons banned so they were. Whether they should have been is up for debate but when there's hundreds of thousands of names on petitions, victim's families calling for bans etc it's hard for politicians to tell them they won't ban them when it's something easily done. There was little dissent that made itself heard, a lot of mumbling on martial arts sites etc but no one stood up and said they shouldn't be banned.


----------



## pdg (Mar 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> There was little dissent that made itself heard, a lot of mumbling on martial arts sites etc but no one stood up and said they shouldn't be banned.



The rest of your post, yes, easy 'win'.

Not all that many years ago (in the grand sense) things like walking stick swords and walking stick shotguns were sold here in the UK as self defence items, it was at one time a legal requirement for men to own a bow and practice, etc.

Interest waned until it was a minority pursuit.

Fast forward to the UK handgun 'ban' - there was a backlash against that but it was so hugely outnumbered (and shoved through so quickly) it didn't stand a chance.

Knife bans - same sort of thing. I do recall a few petitions against the ban, but it was so outnumbered by the handwringing sjw screeching from people who had never been affected in any way and had no real idea (but it was a nice bandwagon to jump on) it was never going to be heard - coupled with the petitions being obviously written by people who responsible practitioners wouldn't want to be associated with anyway...


So, 'nunchucks' and the like got banned in some states - easy win. Not many people used them but many people feared them - any competition was easily ignored.

Try banning handguns in those places 


(This isn't a political post, it's societal.)


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> Fast forward to the UK handgun 'ban' - there was a backlash against that but it was so hugely outnumbered (and shoved through so quickly) it didn't stand a chance.




Actually hand guns were banned here a very long time ago, not recently, the law was amended in the 1990s. Gun 'control' started in the 16th century, modified in the 17th and 19th. The The Pistols Act of 1903 banned handguns, further Acts in 1920, 1937 and 1968 codified this until the 'Dublane Amendment in 1997.








pdg said:


> Knife bans - same sort of thing. I do recall a few petitions against the ban, but it was so outnumbered by the handwringing sjw screeching from people who had never been affected in any way and had no real idea (but it was a nice bandwagon to jump on) it was never going to be heard - coupled with the petitions being obviously written by people who responsible practitioners wouldn't want to be associated with anyway...




You would be surprised how many have been affected by edged weapon crime, something that is actually very old here, it's not a new thing. What is new is children carrying knives and other edged weapons. It is actually a bigger problem than many imagine but affects certain parts of the population more than others, for those it affects the consequences are horrendous.

https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/ccjs_knife_report.pdf


----------



## pdg (Mar 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Actually hand guns were banned here a very long time ago, not recently, the law was amended in the 1990s. Gun 'control' started in the 16th century, modified in the 17th and 19th. The The Pistols Act of 1903 banned handguns, further Acts in 1920, 1937 and 1968 codified this until the 'Dublane Amendment in 1997



I think 'banned' is actually the wrong word now I consider it.

'Restricted' and 'further restricted' is far more suitable.

For instance, I used to be able to go target shooting with a handgun (a lot later than 1903), but due to further restrictions introduced in the 90s that's no longer 'good reason'.

Same with knives - yes, they should be restricted so you don't carry one down the pub. No, I shouldn't be restricted from carrying one at work (I almost had a 2" keychain lock knife confiscated - I was working at a vacant house, police got called by a neighbour "there's someone in the garden" - there was the suggestion that little knife was more dangerous than the 14" curved pullsaw I had in my hand or the 12" top handle chainsaw I had in the car...)

I'm not denying knife crime happens, but blanket bans aren't the way forward imo - when I were a lad literally everyone carried a knife of some sort - it was standard carry for a boy scout (knife, bit of string, 10p for the phone box). Loads of people got in scraps, nobody pulled a blade...

Maybe I'm too country


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> when I were a lad literally everyone carried a knife of some sort - it was standard carry for a boy scout (knife, bit of string, 10p for the phone box). Loads of people got in scraps, nobody pulled a blade...
> 
> Maybe I'm too country


That was the situation in the Southern US when I grew up. I probably never went to school a single day without a knife in my pocket, and I was far from the only one. I only ever heard of one knife incident at school, and that was secondhand (and seems apocryphal as I look back).


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 4, 2018)

pdg said:


> Maybe I'm too country




Probably lol.
My father is 90 and when he was growing up in Scotland, knives were common for fighting with.  A Glasgow smile was a terrible thing, a huge initiative by the Scottish parliament and Police Scotland is reducing the appalling knife violence there. Work to reduce violence and knife crime

The rest of the country isn't far behind and again it's not a new thing, I assume you've seen Peaky Blinders, based on real life gangs. Violent attacks by people with knives isn't a new thing but it is escalating, 



pdg said:


> here was the suggestion that little knife was more dangerous than the 14" curved pullsaw I had in my hand or the 12" top handle chainsaw I had in the car...)



You don't need more than an inch of blade with which to kill someone. My instructor got stabbed while tending a patient during the ambulance strikes, small blade in the back, he didn't realise until someone noticed the blood pouring out, he would have died from blood loss very quickly otherwise.

People are always citing how they carried knives, it was fine and now they can't, well the truth is they can still carry them and it is still fine for the most part. Carrying for work isn't a problem, you were checked because the police didn't know you, had a report of a suspected break in etc. Scouts ( and Guides btw) can still carry knives to camp, people can carry penknives, fishing knives etc etc etc. A lot of information the UK public get is from the tabloids which is never good.


----------



## pdg (Mar 4, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Carrying for work isn't a problem, you were checked because the police didn't know you, had a report of a suspected break in etc. Scouts ( and Guides btw) can still carry knives to camp, people can carry penknives, fishing knives etc etc etc. A lot of information the UK public get is from the tabloids which is never good



I had no problems with being checked, rather that than getting ignored.

I couldn't help but laugh when he found the penknife in my glovebox and looked worried / started saying he should take it though, considering what was in my hand (I think he was new, bless, his obvious superior who I was talking to at the time wasn't concerned in the slightest and it looked like he found it mildly humourous too).

I personally think a lot depends on where and how you're carrying as well - me as an almost middle aged kid out in the country is a totally different situation to a hooded teenager in the middle of town - it's just that the letter of the law doesn't differentiate.


----------



## taistrong (Mar 4, 2018)

It's the law that's restricting. People might use it for idiotic purposes. And nunchucks are fairly easy to get the hang of.


----------



## K Williams (Jan 5, 2019)

You can order them unstrung from USA Nunchaku. Basically a shipment of two pieces of wood and a length of paracord.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 5, 2019)




----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 5, 2019)

drop bear said:


>


If they get them on a wrist, that'd be useful - hurts like a bugger.

And they have the advantage that, if taken from you, most people will only manage to hit themselves with them.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 7, 2019)

New York ban on nunchucks ruled unconstitutional by federal court

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## wab25 (Jan 7, 2019)

Honestly curious here... Has there been a reported incident where nunchucks were used to assault someone? Did gangs use them, outside of movies, at one point?

I have found cases where knives were used to assault and kill. I have found cases where guns are used to assault and kill. I can even find the unthinkable, where guns are used successfully in self-defense. But I have never found cases where nunchucks were used to assault or kill. Just got me curious if there ever were such cases.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 7, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Honestly curious here... Has there been a reported incident where nunchucks were used to assault someone? Did gangs use them, outside of movies, at one point?
> 
> I have found cases where knives were used to assault and kill. I have found cases where guns are used to assault and kill. I can even find the unthinkable, where guns are used successfully in self-defense. But I have never found cases where nunchucks were used to assault or kill. Just got me curious if there ever were such cases.


Happened a few times in the '70s and '80s, ims.  ...not that weapons bans have EVER prevented criminals from obtaining and using weapons.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 12, 2019)

I have no idea hoe to use them, so it would just be a wall hanger piece for me.  I also  don't actually think they are banned in the U.K, i don't recall it on the banned weapons list doesn't mean they aren't though.




JowGaWolf said:


> It's true because I saw it on youtube



That first video is infuriating, only a katana and samurai can do that!



Also worthy of banning because most people are going to A) give themselves a concussion B) Sterilize themselves C) do both.


----------



## Deleted member 40306 (Jan 24, 2019)

TigerHeart said:


> I tried to purchase nunchaku, but some martial arts supplies online stores stop selling these to several states especially where I live in California.  Why is that?



Tigerheart... try craigslist. Visit martial arts supplies. Don't give up. It's a beautiful weapon and it can save your life in a multiple attacker situation. I'm in SoCal at the moment and I can walk to a swapmeet to get them. Anyway, I see people clowning for an honest question. It's a matter of will. Will this weapon into your life.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 24, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> DAMN THAT TED KENNEDY...  dont get me started.  i will need anger management classes after just thinking about it.
> yes its because in the 1980's the legislators who wanted to be tuff on crime made them illegal. nunchucks, chinese stars (fair amount of identity confusion in that name) manrikigusari or any other chain with weights on the ends were all made illegal during the ninja craze.



*Since I bought nunchucks and chinese stars in the 70's are they legal to own?
*
The only person I ever hurt with my nunchucks was myself.
I guess if you knew how to use them , they would be helpful.
I  prefer a bo staff, never  hurt myself with a bo.
Old as I am I could probably get by with a cane.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 25, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> *Since I bought nunchucks and chinese stars in the 70's are they legal to own?*



Depends. Local laws vary. Go check.



> I  prefer a bo staff



Bo *means* staff. Are you from the Department of Redundancy Department?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> *Since I bought nunchucks and chinese stars in the 70's are they legal to own?
> *
> The only person I ever hurt with my nunchucks was myself.
> I guess if you knew how to use them , they would be helpful.
> ...


You could get by with a cane, regardless. I've used them off and on (crappy knees and a very arthritic toe) since my 20's. When I want to take a stick with me on my travels, the TSA doesn't stop me from bringing a nice oak cane on the plane.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 25, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Bo *means* staff. Are you from the Department of Redundancy Department?


I suspect this usage is common because in spoken English "bo" sounds like "bow" and the speaker wants to make it clear they aren't talking about archery. As evidence for this conjecture, there is no corresponding usage of "kama sickle" or "nunchaku flail" or "hanbo stick". The disambiguation isn't necessary in those cases.

It isn't necessary in text usage either, but habits do carry over.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 25, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I suspect this usage is common because in spoken English "bo" sounds like "bow" and the speaker wants to make it clear they aren't talking about archery. As evidence for this conjecture, there is no corresponding usage of "kama sickle" or "nunchaku flail" or "hanbo stick". The disambiguation isn't necessary in those cases.
> 
> It isn't necessary in text usage either, but habits do carry over.



Given how often it's said while the person is holding a bo, it's not often necessary then, either.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 26, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Depends. Local laws vary. Go check.
> 
> 
> 
> Bo *means* staff. Are you from the Department of Redundancy Department?


Great point. I’m going to run over to the ATM machine, then I’ll be back to check how this thread’s working out.

Reminds me, I should probably change my PIN number.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Great point. I’m going to run over to the ATM machine, then I’ll be back to check how this thread’s working out.
> 
> Reminds me, I should probably change my PIN number.


You know, if you're in a hurry to get that money to someone, you could write a check and send it by FedEx Express.

(On a related note, Microsoft recently added the ability to log in to Windows 10 with a PIN, rather than a password. Your "PIN" can include letters, numbers, and special characters. SIGH.)


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 26, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You know, if you're in a hurry to get that money to someone, you could write a check and send it by FedEx Express.


You act like that’s not a thing...




Jackasses. That’s all I could think the first time I saw one of those.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 26, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I suspect this usage is common because in spoken English "bo" sounds like "bow" and the speaker wants to make it clear they aren't talking about archery. As evidence for this conjecture, there is no corresponding usage of "kama sickle" or "nunchaku flail" or "hanbo stick". The disambiguation isn't necessary in those cases.
> It isn't necessary in text usage either, but habits do carry over.



Thank you. 
You noticed by calling a bo a bo staff, I have defined the bo as a staff and later in the same sentence I call it a bo.
When I have a bo in hand, I call it a bo. 
When talking with someone unfamiliar with a bo, I call it a staff.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> You act like that’s not a thing...
> View attachment 22064
> Jackasses. That’s all I could think the first time I saw one of those.


That was my reaction the first time they put Express after it. I actually thought they were doing well when they shortened the name to FedEx, since that's what we all called it, anyway.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 26, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Great point. I’m going to run over to the ATM machine, then I’ll be back to check how this thread’s working out.
> 
> Reminds me, I should probably change my PIN number.



More silly things I hear people say. I just say PIN, or ATM.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I suspect this usage is common because in spoken English "bo" sounds like "bow"



In English English, 'bo' is said as a short word ( 1x O) and 'bow' (imagine it with 2 x O) as a longer word so there tends not to be confusion. Other English such as Scots/Welsh/irish etc tend to difficult to understand anyway.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 26, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That was my reaction the first time they put Express after it. I actually thought they were doing well when they shortened the name to FedEx, since that's what we all called it, anyway.


Funny how Federal Express got turned into FedEx, yet Pony Express didn’t do PonEx.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> In English English, 'bo' is said as a short word ( 1x O) and 'bow' (imagine it with 2 x O) as a longer word so there tends not to be confusion. Other English such as Scots/Welsh/irish etc tend to difficult to understand anyway.


In some areas of the US, you can tell the difference between the words in the local dialect. In the Southeast, EVERY word has a long vowel, usually nearly two syllables. So, both end up sounding like "bow(uh)" in the extreme version of the common dialect. And somehow they do that without moving their mouths.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 26, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> In some areas of the US, you can tell the difference between the words in the local dialect. In the Southeast, EVERY word has a long vowel, usually nearly two syllables. So, both end up sounding like "bow(uh)" in the extreme version of the common dialect. And somehow they do that without moving their mouths.



In Korean, every written word must be have least two syllables.Now, obviously not all words have two syllables, so they invented a silent character to provide the second syllable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 27, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> In Korean, every written word must be have least two syllables.Now, obviously not all words have two syllables, so they invented a silent character to provide the second syllable.


So, is it a silent second syllable? That sounds like cheating at Scrabble.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 29, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> In Korean, every written word must be have least two syllables.Now, obviously not all words have two syllables, so they invented a silent character to provide the second syllable.


Is this really true? I can think of a lot of one syllable Korean words. "Room" for example, is 방, "Bang".



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 29, 2019)

Gnarlie said:


> Is this really true? I can think of a lot of one syllable Korean words. "Room" for example, is 방, "Bang".



No, it's not. I misspoke (that happens sometimes when you post at 4AM...).

Every syllable must have at least two characters.

ㅇ is silent at the beginning of a word or syllable. At the end of a word, (specifically the example you listed) it sounds like "ng".
ㅎ is silent at the end of a word.

And at least it's consistent, unlike English rules. Like "I before E Except After C" which, weirdly (see that word?) is more of a guideline than a rule.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 29, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, it's not. I misspoke (that happens sometimes when you post at 4AM...).
> 
> Every syllable must have at least two characters.
> 
> ...


Yeah, English is a collection of loosely applied and sometimes conflicting rules, in terms of both spelling and pronunciation. Sometimes that's due to having multiple roots (Latin, Greek, Germanic, French influences), sometimes it's because of the lack of rules for spelling in the past (even proper names were often spelled phonetically, which meant they differed by region), and sometimes because we simply can't be bothered with consistency.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 29, 2019)

So let me get this straight, in the US, you cannot buy Nun chucks because they are dangerous,  but You can by a gun, shed loads of ammo, so you and your mates can go shooting beer cans after a skin full of beer?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 29, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> So let me get this straight, in the US, you cannot buy Nun chucks because they are dangerous,  but You can by a gun, shed loads of ammo, so you and your mates can go shooting beer cans after a skin full of beer?



No, that is not how it is at all.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 29, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, that is not how it is at all.


I know about the constitution, right to bear arms, and I am not against gun ownership, are you telling me, the ordinary man with a gun licence cannot go to a gun shop, buy some ammo, and shoot some targets in or on his own land.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 29, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I know about the constitution, right to bear arms, and I am not against gun ownership, are you telling me, the ordinary man with a gun licence cannot go to a gun shop, buy some ammo, and shoot some targets in or on his own land.


You’re kinda right, but you didn’t put it the right way I guess. 

I can get a pistol permit in New York State. I can relatively freely buy rifles, shotguns, etc. Ammo too, obviously. I can go to designated places and shoot targets. Depending on local ordinances, people can shoot guns on their property in a way that doesn’t endanger others. 

But I can’t legally buy nor possess nunchucku. Pretty messed up if you ask me. More like ridiculous.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 29, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I know about the constitution, right to bear arms, and I am not against gun ownership, are you telling me, the ordinary man with a gun licence cannot go to a gun shop, buy some ammo, and shoot some targets in or on his own land.



Not necessarily, no. I own enough acreage that I can, but there are certainly laws that regulate where you're allowed to shoot. 
And there are plenty of places in the US where you can buy and carry nunchaku.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 29, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> You’re kinda right, but you didn’t put it the right way I guess.
> 
> I can get a pistol permit in New York State. I can relatively freely buy rifles, shotguns, etc. Ammo too, obviously. I can go to designated places and shoot targets. Depending on local ordinances, people can shoot guns on their property in a way that doesn’t endanger others.
> 
> But I can’t legally buy nor possess nunchucku. Pretty messed up if you ask me. More like ridiculous.


That's crazy


----------



## lklawson (Jan 29, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> That's crazy


Logic and sanity doesn't apply.  From a historic perspective, without trying to comment specifically on the politics, only tracking the politics and reasons...   'chucks were banned because of Bruce Lee.  Essentially, the rise in popularity of asian martial arts, as epitomized by Bruce Lee and Shaw Bros-esque "Kung Fu" movies, heightened the public perception and fears of the nunchucks as "dangerous weapons."  Well, law makers make laws and the needed to "do something."  So many states and localities banned 'chucks.  This didn't really have anything to do with documented incidents of violence with nunchucks, though there were a few isolated cases of gang members being caught with them, but was more about managing public fears.

I'll let the reader, privately, draw comparisons with other aspects of culture and the success of regulation thereon, in reference to actual statistical dangers.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 12, 2019)

Just read today, a land mark judgement in new york, a judge strikes down this old law as unconstitutional after a 37 year battle.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 12, 2019)

Just got this.
Four decades later, that formerly young man, James M Maloney, now 60, was in court battling New York’s ban on the weapon — and winning.


A federal judge struck the prohibition down, calling it unconstitutional. In her ruling, Judge Pamela K Chen, of US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, said nunchucks were protected under the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 12, 2019)

Three cheers for Mr. Maloney!!!   
It took a dedicated lawyer being charged, who fought back to change the law.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Just got this.
> Four decades later, that formerly young man, James M Maloney, now 60, was in court battling New York’s ban on the weapon — and winning.
> 
> 
> A federal judge struck the prohibition down, calling it unconstitutional. In her ruling, Judge Pamela K Chen, of US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, said nunchucks were protected under the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.


If that ruling holds (it's counter to a lot of laws, and presumably some precedent), then there's likely to be a change in a lot of areas.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If that ruling holds (it's counter to a lot of laws, and presumably some precedent), then there's likely to be a change in a lot of areas.


I suspect it will hold because similar "stun gun" laws have been traveling the same path already and being struck down over and over.  But it takes time.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If that ruling holds (it's counter to a lot of laws, and presumably some precedent), then there's likely to be a change in a lot of areas.


If people have the money and energy to fight nonsensical laws that don’t really do much.

Honestly, what’s the point in fighting a nunchucku ban? Retailers aren’t going to lose a ton of money because of it. MAists aren’t going to care that much. People who want them definitely have them and aren’t afraid of prosecution. If a cop saw me carrying nunchucku, I doubt he’d care at all. The only way he’d care is if I was being an idiot and he’d tack that onto a list of charges. Kind of like a license plate light being out.

What’s next, reverse laws on blade length? Butterfly knives? They don’t care much about that either, so long as you’re not acting like a moron. Or you’re a kid who’s somewhere he shouldn’t be at a time he shouldn’t be there.

Cops have better things to do than enforce what they know are stupid laws. These laws are the ones they tack onto a list of charges; I don’t think any judge wants to waste his time trying nunchucku cases either, unless it’s part of a bigger and significant crime.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for stupidity going by the wayside and allowing people to do as they wish. I’m glad someone fought it and seems like they’re winning. I just question the amount of money and energy spent on something so trivial. Glad it was him, because I certainly don’t have the motivation.

It’s like people crossing the border with Cuban cigars. Customs doesn’t care as long as you’re not being an idiot and you’re not bringing cases of it in. Coming back from Mexico one time, I had half a dozen Cuban Upmanns and Romeo y Juliettas in my bag. Customs guy saw them and couldn’t be bothered. If I was acting like an idiot, he’d have confiscated them just to be a jerk. If I was committing a crime and they really wanted to press every charge they could because I was being an even bigger idiot, they’d tack that on too. And a judge would probably throw that and the other stupid charges out and go after what’s really important.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 12, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> If people have the money and energy to fight nonsensical laws that don’t really do much.
> 
> Honestly, what’s the point in fighting a nunchucku ban? Retailers aren’t going to lose a ton of money because of it. MAists aren’t going to care that much. People who want them definitely have them and aren’t afraid of prosecution. If a cop saw me carrying nunchucku, I doubt he’d care at all. The only way he’d care is if I was being an idiot and he’d tack that onto a list of charges. Kind of like a license plate light being out.
> 
> ...


If this ruling on 2nd Amendment grounds stands, then general prohibitions on collapsible batons would likely also be unconstitutional (currently, in many locations, I could get a permit to carry a gun, but can under no circumstances legally carry a baton). That'd be a significant change.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If this ruling on 2nd Amendment grounds stands, then general prohibitions on collapsible batons would likely also be unconstitutional (currently, in many locations, I could get a permit to carry a gun, but can under no circumstances legally carry a baton). That'd be a significant change.


I wonder what’ll happen to brass knuckles. I wouldn’t mind keeping those around in my car.


----------



## JR 137 (Feb 12, 2019)

Link to NY Times article. No mention of any other weapons. But yes, I see precedent being set leading to the lifting of other ridiculous bans. Finally, a judge using common sense. And in NY of all places. 

New Yorkers Have a Constitutional Right to Nunchucks, Judge Rules


----------

