The Government put forward plans to ban some zombie-style* knives in August last year, but Ms Hayes said this is “insufficient” because the ban does not cover all offensive weapons, such as swords.
It turns out that just as there isn't properly a "weapon of war" there isn't really an "offensive weapon" either. All weapons can be used for defense as well as offense: even a tank can be used to deter an invasion rather than to fight one.
Likewise, just about anything can be a weapon, and therefore 'an offensive weapon' as well.
* This is a new one to me, who has spent his life around knives. It apparently means "the kind of knives one sees in Zombie TV shows," which accords with the language about banning "Rambo-style knives" as well. Is a "Rambo-style" or "Zombie-style" knife more dangerous? Absolutely not. Was it designed as a weapon of war? No, it was designed to make an impression on television or movie audiences.
In any case, I refer you as always to Havamal 38: "Never step a foot from your door/ without your weapons of war: for never sure is the knowing/ when you might be needing/ your weapons along the road."
10 comments:
Kitchen knives as weapons of war?
As peasant uprisings frequently demonstrate, pitchforks are weapons of war, so why not kitchen knives? Sledge hammers, too, as the Russians are demonstrating, using them to "execute" Ukrainian prisoners.
Baby Kim further blurs the line between "weapon of war" and "civilian tool" with his penchant for using antiaircraft guns to execute some of his prisoners.
Regarding our own Left's objection to "weapons of war" in civilian hands, it would be good if they concerned themselves with a fact that, in my augustness, I have mentioned before: a significant fraction of the artillery the Continental Army had in our Revolutionary War was privately owned, loaned, leased, or donated to the Army, and a significant fraction of our Continental Navy was privately own combat ships.
Likewise, just about anything can be a weapon....
Maybe there are no weapons of war--only tools which can be used for civilian purposes and for fighting alike.
Eric Hines
The human brain is the only weapon.
Everything else is just an extension.
The main problem with reasoning with an antigun (or weapon) zealot,
is that they cannot reason, and they operate on what they have been told.
How can one reason with someone who has no set of first principals?
Does your self, belong to you? Or are you owned by another?
If you are your own being, you have a right to protect your self, as any other creature in creation does. IF YOU ARE PROPERTY, THAT RIGHT DEVOLVES TO ANOTHER.
Then the where, the how, and the when come in, which is all parsed by the anti's to be in conflict with the above.
How, for example, is ones life suddenly less precious in a post office?
I have had conversations with people who adamantly state it is OK to defend oneself with a gun in the house, but absolutely wrong to do so in the street.
Does your self, belong to you? Or are you owned by another?
That's not a rhetorical question. According to the collectivism that many on the Left espouse, the individual belongs to the group. According to a leader of the Progressive-Democratic Party, the children belong to the community if not to the state.
Eric Hines
Yes- and if your self belongs to another,that is the definition of a slave.
I think this is all much simpler than you are making it. Weapons with dangerous names, weapons that look scary, weapons that have been used in bad circumstances...these are DANGEROUS. How do you people not get it that someone could get hurt with one of those. You could shoot your eye out with one of those things.
The Government put forward plans to ban some zombie-style* knives in August last year, but Ms Hayes said this is “insufficient” because the ban does not cover all offensive weapons, such as swords.
Yes, let's ban all the scary looking stuff. Surely spiders will be on the list somewhere.
But maybe we're misunderstanding her terms. Maybe by "offensive weapons" she means "weapons that offend her."
@ Tom - I think you are onto something with that. People eventually say what they mean, whether they want to or not. She is unlikely to be aware of the two meanings consciously in this context. But she may be mixing the two because they occupy space that is too close together in her mental filing cabinets
"Of course weapons are dangerous- they would be useless if they were not."
Apparently that was Jeff Coopers response to some do-gooder.
I had a good laugh seeing someone refer to the razor wire on the border in Texas as if it were an offensive weapon wielded against the illegal immigrants. Pretty funny for a static defensive position enhancer.
The idea seems to be to convert the entire planet into a combination prison/mental ward/airplane boarding area. Don't let anyone own anything that can be filed into a weapon.
In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Post a Comment