You don't take a knife to a gun fight, and you can't choose what someone will attack you with. The general rule is that an attacker within 21ft. armed with a knife is considered a lethal threat. A motivated/well trained attacker can still connect with a lethal blow from this distance, unless hit in the central nervous system.

This is all beside the point though. The purpose of the second amendment, here in the US, is to defend liberty and to give the general population a method to overcome any government that tries to take away those liberties. 2A is not a privilege to be controlled, but an inalienable right. nothing more needs to be said than that.

I don't mean to be harsh to any other posters, but it is time for everyone to wise up and do something about the nanny state before we reach a point of no return. I wonder what most of the Democratic candidates would think about the knives discussed everyday on this forum. I bet they look evil and deadly. Be sure to go out and vote this year, but if you do, think long and hard about what is important.

added

We must have been posting at the same time.

Nearly every gun ban has started with a simple registration policy. Once the gun grabbers know who has certain firearms, they are easier to take away. Except for the firearms in illegal hands... Canada had a lot of firearms "lost" right before their registration deadline - which lead to a confiscation of certain firearms.

As far as leading people down a slippery slope:
A person should not risk any of their rights to compromise. Eventually you will find yourself offering more of you rights in trade or risking your life when too many are taken away. You can't compromise with a right, if you do, is it really a right?

What kind of compromises are you willing to make with your knives for the sheeple?