UK sword ban becomes law

Cracking dual use table there Guppy!!I like it!

Its really pretty silly I think,I mean the thing is it is not the non sentient piece of forged steel that kills people is it?

Come on UK GOV lets ban human BRAINS!!!
Thats where the problem lies...

My mate who is a UK police officer and martial arts enthusiast has owned swords in the past.Even he would now struggle to buy a sword legally in the UK(even though he is a man of discipline,and would never use a sword against a fellow human.).Heck he wouldn't need to with the stuff the cops carry these days!!

However,as he said to me concerning the April 6th ban:

"Nothing is mentioned in the amendment which prohibits the ownership of samurai/curved blades.
The Law just bans the sale/import/lending of any curved blade over 50cm long."

So its not an offense to own a curved blade,only to buy one after the ban(april6).Thats according to my Buddy whos a Cop anyway.
I re read the document,and I agree with him,no mention of ownership being a criminal offense.

Read the doc. and tell me if you think i am right or wrong please folks.

www.opsi.gov.uk...


Its a small .PDF.Worth reading.

That table is pretty pointless in that even if you had a burgler intrude and you used the bat to whack him, he would get off scot-free while you get imprisoned for "excessive use of force".

Cool design though.

I agree this ban on swords is pointless, but I have a question to raise with our American friends. You seem concerned about keeping arms to protect yourselves from your government, and yet they have never been used for this purpose. This is despite things like Iran-Contra, CIA extraordinary rendition, the Patriot Act, the 2000 election fiasco (where an unelected body chose the next US President), Watergate and Nixon's subsequent pardon and the run-up to the Iraq war.

I am not advocating a revolution, or anything of the kind... but when taken together, these scandals and events seem to suggest the present US is not how the Founding Fathers intended it to be. Is it perhaps the case that the US government doesn't need to disarm its citizens because they aren't a real threat?

reply to post by Ste2652


Ever since WW2, the US has changed drastically. Far from what the founding fathers probably envisioned. Of course, that is if you believe the history books have to say about what the founding fathers envisioned.

Its all about power. Once someone becomes king of the hill, that person feels empowered and will use dirty tricks to stay on top. When the balance of power shifts from US to another country like China, that country will do the same and other countries will hate China. Its a cycle. Its in our nature. Its inevitable.

BTW, that table shindig is pretty funny. I'm sure British laws already classify it as a lethal object.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by guppy]

I'd like to make a point if I may about the difference between the US and UK regarding weapons.

I've seen before in threads about various types of arms where our venerable cousins from across the pond SEEM to have an obsession with guns, blades, knives, swords and that they SEEM to view it as some sort of necessity to own these things that us brits just don't have.

I know a lot of this is down to cultural differences, but there also seems to be an awful lot of violence in the states - but violence breeds more violence and we're no longer living in times where vigilante actions can be excused or accepted.

The difference in crime levels between canada and the US is astounding, and yet they share many cultural similarities - yes they share similarities with the UK as well, but why is there this level of violence, comparitively speaking?

There is a perception by some people that americans still see themselves as a frontier nation, with a frontier mentality when it comes to weaponry - how much truth there is in this, I don't know.

What I DO know, is that if I was living in america, I would probably want to own a weapon if only because it's such a violent country.

If I lived in canada I probably wouldn't want to own a weapon.

I live in the UK and can't see any reason to own such weapons, even though a friend of mine collects them.

reply to post by budski


The whole issue with this, is that what you have stated above is your own interpretation.

I would put forth to you the conceptual question "Who are you to decide what I may or may not own?".

I dont collect swords, but I see no reason to have this ridiculous blanket ban on them. It disrupts people's interests and hobbies, and ultimately has no impact on the crime rate.

I dismiss this sort of naive thinking which makes people believe that we can eliminate all murders and deaths by banning everything under the sun.
It was this same thinking that destroyed the passion and interest of 57000 people when the handgun ban came in... to prevent what? Isolated incidents of murder where 16 children were killed by a known paedophile, whose license was willingly renewed by the chief of police? To combat gang warfare, which has ensuingly doubled?

In short, banning is not the solution. The facts of gun crime statistics show this plainly.

It is moral cowardice not to stand up for the truth, and it is intellectual surrender to not question the effects of a ban. Doubtless to say, we all know that the politicos are pandering for the vote of scared suburban mothers who fear their child will be gunned/ slashed down by the loonatic target shooter/ sword collector, contrary to all statistical findings.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


The whole issue is that everyone states their own interpretation - you included, which doesn't make anyone else's point any less valid.

Banning people from owning a samurai sword, except under certain circumstances is not a restriction of freedom - it's common sense.

Where's the NEED for anyone except a samurai to own a samurai sword?
(Seppuku? - first on the left, one sword each)

As usual this is not about need, it's about people WANTING something that they have no particular use for - like a spoiled kid in a sweet shop who just points to everything saying "I WANT, I WANT, I WANT"

Originally posted by budski
except under certain circumstances is not a restriction of freedom - it's common sense.

I strongly suggest you rethink that. "Certain circumstances" and "common sense" have been uses to excuse everything from slavery, genocide, torture right up to going around and taking the guns out of little old ladies hands who happen to live in terrible neighborhoods overrun with crime.

The phrase "except under certain circumstances is not a restriction of freedom - it's common sense" is something I have nightmares about.

There is no "common sense" here. Just lies, paranoia and if anything ignorance.

My mistake. Fear and ignorance have become "common sense", haven't they.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I strongly suggest you stop quoting people out of context, whilst trying to drum up hysteria by comparing the banning of a potentially lethal weapon with some of the worst civil and human rights violations of the last fewhundred years.

reply to post by budski


There is absolutely no difference between the two and your quote was right in context. You said removing a natural right is perfectly acceptable due to "common sense." The context you are referring to is your own. Your "common sense" says that a piece of metal should be feared and anyone who doesn't share your same fear should have their liberty destroyed to fit into the parameters set up by your "common sense."

There is no difference between your "common sense" fearing a piece of metal and WWII Americas "common sense" tossing the Japanese-Americans into concentration camps.

"Common sense" of this variety needs to be snuffed out immediately. You give in even a centimeter to anyone wishing to enact such "common sense" and you start a train rolling that only a crash into a brick wall with all passengers dying can hope to stop.

This whole package right here. The self-righteous "context" the "common sense" label the "for your own good" sort of crap will the be the end of liberty across the globe.

reply to post by dave420


A sword today is purely decorative. It's a piece of poor-quality steel that you hang on the wall or keep in a closet or whatever because it's "cool." Could you kill someone with it? Sure. You can kill a person with pretty much anything, though. It's remarkable exactly how fragile we are.

This law, to me, looks like it's just an excuse for lazy police. I know that, here in America, if you walk around with a sword, you're going to get cops on you like nothing else - Even if you're fifteen, the sword is plastic, and it's halloween.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Maybe it works like that in your vision of the world, mine is slightly different - I fail to see how putting people in camps and not allowing them to own a lethal weapon are even in the same ballpark.

I also fail to see how owning a sword in the UK is some sort of inalienable right, on a par with locking people up.

And yes - you cherrypicked and used a small part of a phrase out of context to suit your agenda.

reply to post by budski


Here's the whole damn thing:

The whole issue is that everyone states their own interpretation - you included, which doesn't make anyone else's point any less valid.

Banning people from owning a samurai sword, except under certain circumstances is not a restriction of freedom - it's common sense.

Where's the NEED for anyone except a samurai to own a samurai sword?
(Seppuku? - first on the left, one sword each)

As usual this is not about need, it's about people WANTING something that they have no particular use for - like a spoiled kid in a sweet shop who just points to everything saying "I WANT, I WANT, I WANT"

Does it change anything I've said? Do you suddenly not want to limit the liberty of those around you for the cause of "common sense?"

Your vision of the world is obviously not reality. I have yet to see one "ban" that has actually done what the proponents of said ban has claimed it would and I haven't seen any of these bans lifted with the exception of those enacted with expiration dates from the get-go. The only exception would be alcohol prohibition in the U.S. but if they didn't repeal that there would have been civil war. The same goes for taxes. How many "temporary" taxes are reaching into our wallets today? Every last one of them for the U.S.. All promised temporary. All promised to solve this and that and not one ever has.

You might be right that this is all selfish. I'm being entirely selfish in my desire to not be controlled. My dislike for government "allowing" me to do this or that is completely selfish. Conversely I have absolutely no desire to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do. It sounds like you might really like giving orders and watching people shape their lives to fit your "common sense." Maybe you even get some pleasure out of watching something somebody enjoys be ripped out of their life? If so you should be in politics. They always end up in politics.

who needs a samurai sword anyway...just a few clicks of the mouse and I can order legally a crossbow with a 200,b draw that will punch holes through a police stab-vest like a knife through, er, a stab vest...an insane piece of legislation!

[edit on 15-4-2008 by citizen smith]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


There's a difference between ME telling someone what to do, and an elected representative of the people passing a law for the protection of the people.

If they don't like it, they can elect someone else who'll get it thrown out - happens all the time,or at least it does here.

I think you may be projecting your distrust of your government and their motivations onto the brits - what you should really worry about is the homeland security act and the patriot act.
Those really were harmfull,and nothing that has happened in the UK can even begin to compare.

reply to post by budski


What if i say there is no need for you to drink alcohol, tobacco or drive cars? Those 3 things kill far more than samurai swords have ever done.

Or what if I say that fatty food is dangerous and we need to ban it all to "save lives" because its "common sense"?

Bollocks to democracy. Some rights are inalienable. It doesnt matter if the person is an elected official, they have no power to strip a citizen/subject of their natural rights. Being elected into power doesnt give them authority to act on whimsy.

Need I remind you that Hitler was elected into power... and he started by banning guns from Jewish ownership in order to "protect lives". In fact it was one of his first acts upon becoming President.

This is an issue of principle here. Im usually moderate and temperate, and I can acknowledge that there are two sides to the coin. But when fundamental freedoms are being stripped off citizens for no reason whatsoever, it is beyond me how one can condone such actions.

Originally posted by budski

There's a difference between ME telling someone what to do, and an elected representative of the people passing a law for the protection of the people.

Where do you think the "representative" gets the idea? Front page story + fearful peons sprinkled with some fabricated statistics = votes. Votes = money + power.

It all starts with YOU telling someone what to do.

Consequently this is where the tyranny of democracy comes into play. Democracy is a sure fire way to get mob rule and a representative democracy with elected officials just gives a way for popular personable people with ambitions to power to get really rich by manipulating the lowest common denominator of the voting mass.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by thisguyrighthere]

reply to post by 44soulslayer


If I see someone walking down the road smoking, eating a burger or even drinking a beer, I don't bat an eyelid.

If I see someone walking down the road with a SWORD I get out of the way pretty quick.

Don't confuse our political process with yours.

BTW, how, in the UK is having a sword an inalienable right?

Do you know what arms we are entitled to?



[edit on 15/4/2008 by budski]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Ya think?

Again, and this seems to be a common trait here - don't confuse our political process with yours.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

Need I remind you that Hitler was elected into power... and he started by banning guns from Jewish ownership in order to "protect lives". In fact it was one of his first acts upon becoming President.

In the interest of battling myth:

Hitler was indeed elected but he didn't start the gun ban at the time. He renewed it. The gun ban came into affect before Hitler was elected. It was an attempt to prevent violent coups in Germany at the time since the politicos then were essentially roaming thugs. A violent coup was a real possibility.

So to prevent a revolt they banned guns. Hitler won in election.

Also, not many Jews before the ban were armed to begin with. They never felt much of a need to arm themselves. The Jews have a long history of not taking their self-preservation seriously.

So he didn't ban them but he most likely would have since he thought it was a great idea to renew the ban once elected.