UK sword ban becomes law

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


A fair point, but we're dealing here with a government who fought tooth and nail to ban fox hunting.

I see a little disparity between that and banning a targeted section of the populace (for extermination) from owning a handgun.

Whilst I don't much care for our government, and despise their soundbite politics, don't confuse them with the regime in your country - which is much closer to hitler than any of ours have ever been.

Us brits don't generally kick up a fuss about the little things - if push comes to shove though, the government knows better than to test the will of the people.

This just isn't one of those times.




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


You seem to have mistaken me for an American due to my vociferous support for a right to keep and bear arms.

For your enlightenment:

en.wikipedia.org...

The principle of our natural rights are still enshrined, they have never been repealed- they have only been violated.

And you implied that you dont care what people do as long as they dont harm you - why do you think that banning swords will make this a safer country for you? If someone wants to kill you, they will find a way.

Not to mention, murder is also illegal... so if someone were following the laws you should rest assured be safe.

If I may be so bold as to posit a reason as to your hatred of weapons:

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity” Sigmund Freud

What I'm trying to say is that by holding these views, you deem me unworthy, untrustworthy and essentially criminal enough to warrant not allowing me to own arms. I, and millions of others, are perfectly capable of owning a sword or gun without harming you. And yet you insist on categorizing us as nutters who are liable to go around murdering just because we are in possession of arms.

It is this sort of blanket ban in response to the misbehaviour of a tiny minority that is disturbing...

If murderers used cars to run over their victims would you have all cars banned?

It is ridiculous to blame an inanimate object- a mere tool. Instead, you ought to blame the criminal.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


I don't hate weapons - I object to the arbitrary ownership of them, which endangers innocent people.

There's also the incidences of attacks on strangers by people using these and other weapons - I'm secure in the knowledge that I can protect myself.

and from your own source:

Although a right to have and use arms once existed in English law and Scots law, this is no longer the case and has not been so for many decades. Some argue that a general right to keep or bear arms has not existed for centuries. In any case, the modern legal situation is that the possession of firearms is effectively a privilege granted only to persons who can demonstrate both a need and that they are sufficiently responsible.

The Bill of Rights of 1689 included the provision that "the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law."[21] The words "as allowed by Law" indicate this was always a qualified rather than an absolute right. However this provision, along with many other pieces of ancient law, has been overruled by the doctrine of implied repeal, the Bill of Rights had no special legal protection as a result of parliamentary sovereignty.

wiki

So it isn't enshrined in law and never has been.

Although if I'm not mistaken, it's still a legal requirement to practice the longbow every day


As far as the inanimate object theory goes, a gun is designed to kill, so is a sword - a car is not.

[edit on 15/4/2008 by budski]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Yep, the German gun ban was conducted by the Wiemar Republic, in 1919. Interestingly enough, this was a stipulation in the Versailles Treaty. In 1928 came the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, which eased the 1919 total ban, but kept strong licensing restrictions on ownership, carrying, and selling of guns, and of ammunition.

The 1938 German Weapons Act actually relaxed the restrictions of the Law on Firearms and Ammunition.
the Nazis completely deregulated long guns and ammunition ownership and sale.
They lowered the legal age to purchase a gun from 20 to 18.
People with hunting licenses, government officials, and members of the Nazi Party were allowed to own and purchase guns without restriction.
The Nazis made firearms permits valid for three years, rather than the one year of the Wiemar Republic.
And Jews were forbidden from the manufacture of guns ore firearms - but, curoously, were not banned from owning them by this law - that occurred in November 1938, with the "Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons."

However, to clear up further myth, Hitler was never elected. He ran - and lost - twice. However, the Nazi party did make some gains in the halls of government, which resulted in Hindenburg appointing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of state as a political compromise. With Hindenburg's failing health though, "chancellor" became a position more resembling "regent" until the Nazis conducted the Reichstags fire, allowing Hitler to fully seize power and engage in a purge of political rivals.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Ah balls, I ought to have read my own source more closely! Thanks for pointing that one out to me... I was a bit hasty. Looks like we have no natural right to self defence after all



I don't hate weapons - I object to the arbitrary ownership of them, which endangers innocent people.


And I object to the arbitrary prohibition of weapons! If it isnt going to cut the crime rate (as proven by statistics involving gun crime), why do it?


As far as the inanimate object theory goes, a gun is designed to kill, so is a sword - a car is not.


So why havent we banned bows, crossbows, clubs, kitchen knives, animal killing equipment, biocides etc etc...

It is a fallacy to categorise a tool by its percieved usage. I use firearms as a target shooter on the range, it may be a tool designed to kill but I do not use it in that capacity.

Hence if we apply your logic to a kitchen knife, we MUST ban all kitchen knives immediately because they are designed to kill. It doesnt matter that our intention is only to use it in the kitchen, does it?(!)



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Do you think it's reasonable to equate a kitchen knife with a gun or a sword?

I also don't see the need for private citizens to have weapons, and yes, I'd ban crossbows.

The problem here is that the government is again guilty of being wishy-washy and engaing in knee-jerk politics to detract from more serious concerns.

Just like new labour always do.

I personally think that limiting the size of a knife that can be carried on your person to less than 3.5 inches is perfectly OK - why would you need more than that?

As for the gun crime stat - most of those have been shown to be replica's or BB guns or air pistols, but are still classes as gun crimes because of the way they were used.
i.e. in an "armed" robbery.
de-activated guns will soon join the banned list as well.

I would rather no-one had guns, crossbows, swords, hunting knives, spears, longbows, trebuchets etc etc
There is simply no need to have these things.

Can you name a legitimate NEED? (not just someone wanting them)

Edit to add:
we do have a legal right to defend ourselves - we can use force that is reasonable and consistent with the situation in order to protect ourselves.

The problem is that it may be a judge that decides what is reasonable, and for that reason I would personally take only those steps necessary to stop a person attacking me.
In other words, once they stop or are incapacitated, go no further or you'll be up on criminal charges.

[edit on 15/4/2008 by budski]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


"Need" is a pretty arbitrary term, from both angles of the discussion. Do I NEED a gun? Currently, no. If I were to go salmon fishing this year? Yes, I would, because I have no interest in being added to a bear's menu. So what's the solution here, do you legislate when I need it and when I don't? Maybe you don't think I need a gun to protect myself from a bear - or maybethere's this guy who thinks I need a gun right now to protect myself from intruders.

What the hell is the deciding factor of "need" here?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


As I'm nearly 100% sure that a bear isn't going to attack me in the UK, I don't really mind too much what you take fishing with you.

This thread is about banning swords in the UK and I don't see how american gun laws, the 2nd, or anything else american has a bearing on it



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

I would rather no-one had guns, crossbows, swords, hunting knives, spears, longbows, trebuchets etc etc
There is simply no need to have these things.

Can you name a legitimate NEED? (not just someone wanting them)


How about for preparing meat and hunting?

Perhaps intensive factory farming suits your life style more. Alternatively you could be a vegetarian, in which case ignore that.








[edit on 15-4-2008 by Spreadthetruth]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


If I may be so blunt:

You don't think that I need a sword or a gun for martial arts/ self protection, but what gives you the right to impose your will upon me either directly or indirectly through the government you vote for?

I happen to think that I need a gun for self protection. I am a responsible subject of the United Kingdom, dont have a criminal record and have been trained for 5 years by the Royal Airforce in firearms safety. How can you possibly justify witholding weapons from me? Are you so afraid that I might attack you for no reason? Do you not trust me enough as a rational individual?

What I am asking is, what is your logic in denying weapons to those who have proven their reliability, stability and competence with weapons?

And that gun crime stat: very simple. Gun murders in 1997 : 62. Gun murders in 2007 : 135. I hasten to point out that these were murders... not some pikey shooting his neighbours cat with a bb gun.

So statistically we can see that a blanket ban doesnt make this world any safer.

In light of the recent violence in the cities, the rising yob and chav culture and the rampant knife crime, I NEED to protect myself with a handgun. By denying me that right, you are in effect sentencing me to a possible attack or even death. Can you justify this stance?

I put forth the following question in philosophical terms, it is not aimed as an attack on you bud:

Regardless of whether you consider weapons to be necessary or unecessary,what gives you the right to decide what I can and cannot own?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


I say this:

Go right ahead and vote for those who will change the law in your favour.

Until the law is changed, obey the law as it stands.

There are quite a few laws that I disagree with - but I obey them because they ARE the laws of the land.

Don't like them?

Either exerise your right to vote, campaign to get the law changed or quit whining and live in a country where the laws are more to your taste.

See?
It's simple.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Spreadthetruth
 


Why is a gun needed for me to prepare meat - more importantly, what have gun laws got to do with samurai swords being banned in the UK.

To answer your other query - I'm not a veggie, but I don't eat much meat, and the meat I do eat is free range.

Now, what have samurai swords got to do with meat preparation in the UK?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


This is a discussion about the reasoning behind this ban.

It is not enough to put out an all-encompassing statement such as saying "Its the law, follow it or get the f*** out of the country".

Incidentally, I do intend to do just that. I find my beliefs and views too disparate to the rest of the british population and government. Still, its a shame I have to sacrifice my home for my natural rights but... needs must!

Final dig: There is no logical reason to ban any weapons. You may as well go ahead and ban criminals- that ought to cut crime.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


And there was me thinking you were above that.
Histrionics are never very pretty.

We've also discussed your so-called "right" to own lethal weapons - you've never had that right, so I don't know why you keep banging on about them.

The electoral process is there for a reason - we may not always like it, but that's what we've got, and until you can find a way to change the law either within the current framework or by becoming an MP and trying to get it changed yourself, that's what you're stuck with.

Meanwhile, I still await answers to my questions.

And I'll add another - why do you think it's necessary to own a gun or sword to protect yourself?
Isn't your reaction a little out of proportion to the levelof violent crime in this country?
Or do you see yourself as a charles bronson style vigilante, killing all them bad guys?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I believe you said:



I would rather no-one had guns, crossbows, swords, hunting knives, spears, longbows, trebuchets etc etc
There is simply no need to have these things.

Can you name a legitimate NEED? (not just someone wanting them)


I tried to answer that, but obviously I need to elaborate further. Hunting knives are used for skinning as well other actions needed after a fresh kill. Those big scary teeth on many hunting/survival knives are actually meant for sawing purposes where needed. An ordinary everyday kitchen knife just doesn't cut it in these cases (No pun intended), therefore there is a legitimate need.

Why do you think shotgun certificates are issued? Effective pest prevention is especially important to free range farmers.


Back onto the issue of banning reproduction samurai swords. I believe most of the opinions here lean towards the notion that this ban only serves as to con the British people into a false sense of security.

Is there a legitimate need to drink alcohol? To smoke? To ride a motorbike?

I don't see the logic in banning items due to whether they have a legitimate need or not. Flick knives (switchblades) were made for fisherman at sea with the purpose of enabling them to open a folding knife with one hand while holding onto rigging, also allowing use in wet conditions with gloves on. The design also served those with arthritis or lost limbs, enabling them to perform tasks where difficulty may be encountered with a manual folder. Another, the gravity knife was designed for one handed use when having landed, a paratrooper must cut himself free. It also had an advantage over a fixed blade in that it is unlikely to impale you upon a rough landing. These are both currently banned in the UK as a result of mass hysteria surrounding violence depicted in films like 'The Wild One' and 'Rebel without a Cause'. Another case of 'feel good' laws, not unlike the recent samurai sword ban.







[edit on 15-4-2008 by Spreadthetruth]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
To defend your home from home invasion.

When some night three thugs kick in your door and wish to rape your dog and steal your wife and children, you might wish that you only had a lousey sword to defend them with.

Once apon a time in place called the British Empire, Knights wandered the land defending the innocent. Today they would be imprisoned for sitting at home polishing their weapons.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Need? Since when do people have to show a "need" in order to own anything? Are you going to be all for it when they ban computers because pedophiles can download child porn off of the internet? Will you be happy arguing to the police department your "need" to own one?

Do you "need" any of those paintings hanging on your wall? They waste valuable resources you know. You "need" your TV? Do you REALLY "need" to have more than a few changes of clothes? Do you want to have to prove your "need" for every item you own?

Sure, banning guns may sound reasonable. Banning swords may sound reasonable. But will it stop there? What is next on the list? Baseball bats? Overly-large kitchen knives? Having too large an object on your key chain? Maglites? It's just a slippery slope that will NOT correct the problem. Just look at how banning drugs has worked out. Realise that drugs are illegal in almost every corner of the PLANET and not just in your country. Did a lot of good didn't it?

What you really "need" is to find other ways to defend yourselves. Check into things like Fighting Canes as a means of self-defense. CaneMasters makes a good one.

There are many ways to arm yourself that nobody, even in a schizophrenic society*, will look at twice.

* schizophrenia - Any of a group of psychiatric disorders characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Spreadthetruth
 


And just where is the NEED to hunt for fresh meat?

It's no longer the time of robin hood, we have butchers and supermarkets now, as well as shops that sell free range meat if that is your choice - again, it's WANTING, not needing.

And please, pray tell, where are all these hunting preserves in the UK where people are merrily butchering freshly killed game?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snap
Need? Since when do people have to show a "need" in order to own anything? Are you going to be all for it when they ban computers because pedophiles can download child porn off of the internet? Will you be happy arguing to the police department your "need" to own one?

Do you "need" any of those paintings hanging on your wall? They waste valuable resources you know. You "need" your TV? Do you REALLY "need" to have more than a few changes of clothes? Do you want to have to prove your "need" for every item you own?

Sure, banning guns may sound reasonable. Banning swords may sound reasonable.


Actually, I NEED to own everything I have, and I also have a very simple lifestyle.
No paintings,
no clothing I don't use,apart from my business suits
A small TV that's going to be gotten rid of very soon
No car

Can you say the same?

And tell me this, since the last time we heard all this rubbish, when handguns were banned, how many other things have been banned?

It appears your slippery slope is a mere figment of your seemingly over active imagination.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Whatever you people do- don't breathe a word of this to Uma Thurman!


[edit on 15-4-2008 by dk3000]





new topics
 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join