Talk:Swordstick

I'm not sure how to add the disclaimer that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of legal advice, but it really should be added. (I'm talking about the predesigned marker thingie.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.95.23.122 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 3 December 2006

An interesting discussion on the issue of disclaimers:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_30#Template:Legal_disclaimer. John Vandenberg 07:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm confused. It's a felony to carry a swordstick in public, but it's not against most state laws? If it's against federal law then why should anyone even care about individual state laws? That's like saying, "It's a felony to shoot the president, but most states don't have laws against shooting the president."

Simply put, the swordstick is legally ambiguous in some jurisdictions. It may be a concealed weapon, hence a permit would be required to carry a concealed weapon. OR it could be a disguised weapon, most jurisdictions that I'm aware of prohibit disguised weapons being carried, hence a swordstick or a gun cane would be illegal (actually, the gun cane is classified as an AOW under US federal law) to carry. The article is fairly clear, for those acquainted with concealed weapons laws, not as clear for those who are not versed in such laws. Perhaps a link to concealed weapons or concealed carry would be in order, for in legal circles, a concealed weapon is a concealed weapon, be it a firearm or sword. As for federal law, a swordstick isn't illegal to carry or possess, save on federal property, otherwise, federal law is silent regarding it. Hence, it is a state or community matter for legality of possession or carry.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it?

Any source would improve this article; also I did the last two edits at about 9:15 PM eastern time (I wasn't logged in). There is way too much content which is based on personal opinion and not backed up by fact. If we can't fix it I think the article should be deleted.

my editions

I took the liberty of editing this page. I thought a few parts needed clarification. First, it is unknown when the invention was, but since the basic model is easy to create, we have to assume that it would have been around for quite some time. However, the popularity of such a device would have grown as decorative swords were no longer a popular fashion accessory because firearms were coming into use, although a gentleman generally did not carry a firearm loaded (his assistants may), thus the need for some other sort of protection. Second, there are several different kinds of sword cane, made in a variety of styles. Most today are meant as a collectible, or a novelty, so are not well constructed for self defense or as a weapon 9although it could easily be used as one). Furthermore, they are not designed to be as supportive as a real walking cane, so are not generally recommended for use as a supportive device. I included a link to a popular walking canes website where one might see the popular designs. I also added a disclaimer, just a text disclaimer, that people should check their local laws and statutes about regulations on concealed arms and weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mb327 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

I have removed the many cases of dead links and dead piping (internal links within Wikipedia) in this article. I have also removed the above person's disclaimer as per: Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. There is a general disclaimer link at the bottom of every page and any future additions of a disclaimer will be removed.

This article is completely unreferenced and I have added a template to that effect. bwmcmaste (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Swordstick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121220140435/http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/waffg_2002/anlage_2_82.html to http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/waffg_2002/anlage_2_82.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Dolon is disputed

The first citation in this article, van Dongen, Emanuel (2014) is distinctly dubious as the existence of the dolon as a sword cane/swordstick as per the article's description. In the source, the dolon is described as either a metaphor in reference to a whip causing pain, subsequently through second and third hand interpretations by other authors as a knife hidden in the handle of a whip, a knife hidden in the haft of a javelin, a knife concealed in a wooden sheath or about the body in said sheath, an offhand term replacing the usual word for dagger:'sica', the jib or small forward sail of a boat and only once as a swordstick, and the author (Dongen) makes absolutely no definitive reference or claim that such a device actually existed, only that these are various permutations of scholarly examination of the use of 'dolon' as a noun in the works he is analyzing. I think it should be removed, or corrected as a reference to something mythical or unconfirmed, or an authoritative source should be found.