ARS on Twitter
RSS
Natural Progression…
Posted by Duncan on July 26th, 2008
See, if the nanny statists here in the U.S. have their way like they do in the England, then you can bet your little hairy butt that after they ban the Evil Handguns, and the Evil Scary Looking Weapons… they’ll be after your KNIVES TOO! And then when they’re done with those… CRICKET BASEBALL BATS! CHAINSAWS!! We’ll all be dressed in bubble wrap.
A British judge trying a knife-crime case stunned the court by pulling out a blade.
Campaign groups blasted Judge Roger Connor after he brandished a knife in front of a teenage defendant charged with wounding someone with a blade.
The 16-year-old’s lawyer asked Connor if he was committing an offense — and was told it was acceptable because the blade was less than 3 inches long.
Connor got out the folding black-handled knife at Oxford Crown Court to show how it worked. The boy, who denies wounding with intent and assault, had admitted using a knife and claimed he needed only one hand to open it.
Connor asked: “It happens I have a folding knife in my pocket. You need two hands to open it, don’t you?”
Under English and Welsh law it is an offense to carry in public a blade longer than 3 inches without good reason.
FURIOUS ANTI-KNIFE CRIME CAMPAIGNERS called last night for the judge to be fired.
“He should lose his job. One teenager a week is being murdered on the streets of Britain and here he is brandishing a knife,” Lyn Costello, co-founder of the Mothers Against Murder and Aggression campaign group, said.
“Enough is enough – WE NEED TO GET TOUGH ON KNIVES in this country and our judges should be handing out tough sentences, not brandishing their own.”
All emphasis is mine.
Ofcourse, the judge was just pulling out his knife to make a point. But don’t worry, there are enough irrational people out there to be offended and outraged that a KNIFE! A KNIFE OH THE HUMANITY! was brought out into the open virgin eyes of the courtroom, or more appropriately, like he was bringing out a bottle of Wild Turkey at an AA meeting or something. Britain, you were a good and strong people once…
Just put the word “guns” in the place of “knives” and you get to see the natural progression and the erosion of rights in front of your very eyes. Pretty soon you won’t be able to carry pens or pencils because they can be used as stabbing utensils. Or wrenches, as they can be used to bludgeon a person to death. Unless ofcourse you have a mechanics license from the Department of Motor Vehicles…
Go check out the Link-Fest at The Pirate’s Cove 
July 26th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
So this post is about the people’s rights to carry a weapon, the judge using a knife to make a point, being allowed to carry a weapon in government buildings, or all of the above? Just to throw it out there, I definitely think people should be allowed to arm themselves all the time. Especially in schools, public areas, churches, and definitely in government buildings. I don’t know about what’s going on across the pond, but in America we have a right to a well regulated militia. A militia that many people believe is necessary to maintain a state free from government oppression. What better way to free yourself from potential government oppression then to be pack’n when you enter a federal building?
July 26th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Actually DJ, it was more about how ridiculous people are on the banning of weapons. They got rid of guns, for the most part, in Britain, and now there is a crusade on knives there as people choose other methods to kill each other.
And the well-regulated militia of the 2nd Amendment. Actually if I read the 2nd Amendment correctly, the “right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” because a “well-regulated militia” was\is “necessary for the security of a free state.”
And packing in a federal building? What is the point of that statement other than to be the beginning of some sort of strawman argument?
July 26th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
ohfercryinoutloud.
Next it’ll be pens. Then pencils. Then roll on deodorants. Soon everything will be banned and we humans will have to kill ourselves off to be better safer people. (bwahaha)
Dumb ass Brits…and their senseless stupidity is coming our way…BTW I heard Obama was with the Brit PM ….
July 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Define “Obama was WITH the Brit PM”…. :twisted:
July 26th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
To me a right with exceptions isn’t a right, it’s a privilege granted by someone with power over you. For example, no one says you have a right to life except in the case of….. Saying this would mean that your right to life really isn’t a right, it’s a privilege granted by whoever created the exception. A recent real-world example over the right to arm yourself is the overturning of the DC handgun ban. The law was overturned because a ban on gun ownership, no matter what the reason in DC, violated your right to arm yourself. What I would like to know is if any infringement on your right to arm yourself constitutional, or does it turn your right into a privilege? If any infringement turns your right into a privilege then it should be legal to carry a weapon anywhere (schools, public areas, churches, and in government buildings). Naturally, it should also be legal to carry any type of weapon for the same infringement reasons (ANY type of weapon).
July 26th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Dj,
True about rights vs. priviledges. However there are exceptions as rights come with responsibilities. For instance, the best example, and probably most obvious, would be the 1st Amendment and Freedom of Speech. Screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theater, in the absence of fire, would not be covered as free speech, we can both agree. And if I don’t want you carrying a firearm on my property or my private establishment, you can’t and shouldn’t be able to. And I believe the states, and yes the federal government, can say that on federal or state property, through the elected representatives, can limit carry on such property, similar to private property. And in such cases such as courthouses and jails, it would make sense. Other places, such as national and state parks… not so much. Because while we do have our God-given rights, regardless of what the government says or does, I don’t believe in anarchy either…
July 27th, 2008 at 2:59 am
Except that by screaming “FIRE” you become an agent provocateur where as owning a gun is passive. Not to bust out the old cliché, but weapons don’t kill people, people kill people. I also tend to believe that private property is a privilege more then it is a right. Aside from laws like eminent domain, or martial law that just flat out allow the government to annex someone’s property, the U.S Constitution is the law of the land that trumps all American citizens “rights and privileges”. Should the 2nd amendment truly be carried out to its fullest then it overrides someone’s control over land. So yes, my right to carry a weapon should trump your desire to keep your private property gun-free.
I’m not saying that I want to arm everyone to the teeth and I do recognize the need for a right to bear arms (look at countries that have fallen apart where citizens owning guns could have helped: Zimbabwe, Cambodia, East Timor, Nicaragua…). However, gun enthusiasts need to see just how absurd the 2nd amendment can be.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Dj, I think you’re making some valid points. But a problem with all this is when people give up certain parts of rights, it opens up the tide to remove ALL rights.
Why can’t I carry my concealed weapon into a public building? Who is being harmed? If some nut case comes along determined to kill public officials, I might be able to save lives. Including those of a Judge or other officer of courts. Yet if my right to carry that weapon is removed based upon the building I enter, I could be the victim of that nut case.
No thanks. And don’t ask me to depend upon the police. Seconds count when you’re being shot at. Police take minutes to get there.
Out in the public parks, I NEED to carry my weapon to defend myself and anyone with me.
On the other hand I see NO need to allow people to arm themselves with big military style rifles with all the fancy fittings. A pistol works wonders.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Freedom of Speech is not a solely passive or active freedom, whether it be screaming “FIRE” or standing on the street corner or protesting at the mall in D.C and Neither is owning and BEARING a firearm. In fact, much like talking to yourself in a closet could be considered a passive expression of the Freedom of Speech and like that owning of a firearm and concealing it, when it comes time to use the firearm it is anything but passive.
And private property is a right, and the Constitution has certain exceptions for eminent domain and just compensation, which were to be used sparingly and for the public welfare. Ofcourse, the Supreme Court stepped all over their puds with the Kelo Decision and did not uphold the Constitution in the face of the abuse of the governments power of eminent domain. And we have rights, and the Constitution is supposed to be a guarantee from the government’s abuse of those rights. Unfortunately, all three branches of government have forgotten the roots from which they sprang.
If you mean that the Constitution trumps all American citizens’ “right and privileges” because it doesn’t mention every single right that exists… well… that was what the Tenth Amendment was for… and if you mean that Constitution doesn’t allow anarchy… well.. I look at that as a good thing…
Are you kidding me? Private property is my property. If I don’t want you there, with or without a gun, then you leave. And if you have a gun that you think trumps my rights over my private property… then you’ll get to see mine.. and by “mine” I mean my Mossberg 12 gauge…
Lets go back to the 1st Amendment. Freedom of Religion. Lets make an argument equally absurd. If you take Freedom of Religion to the fullest, then if I want to worship as the ancient Aztecs and conduct human sacrifices, with willing participants, at my home.. then I should be able to do so free of government interference. We can take this to absurd lengths with ANY right. And I have never argued that there could not be certain constraints on the 2nd Amendment. For instance, felons or crazy people shouldn’t be able to own and bear firearms. Doing background checks to determine eligibility to own a firearm is fine. But I have problem when government starts passing laws that make the ownership and the ability to bear them so restrictive as to make the 2nd Amendment a moot point, like Washington D.C., or like San Francisco who flat out banned ownership in the face of the Constitution.