NRA's enemies list.

[buttfinger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
"Pointy knives" debate.

http://www.goxplore.net/guides/Knife_law_%28UK%29

Although English law insists that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to provide evidence proving a crime has been committed an individual must provide evidence to prove that they had a bona fide reason for carrying a knife (if this is the case).

[buttfinger]

I stand corrected.  Parliament is not the body at the base of the debate.  It is a university that promotes nannyism in government who are debating that.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I stand corrected.  Parliament is not the body at the base of the debate.  It is a university that promotes nannyism in government who are debating that.

I was posting my reply when I read this, but I'll post it anyway :):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
"Pointy knives" debate.

http://www.goxplore.net/guides/Knife_law_%28UK%29

Although English law insists that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to provide evidence proving a crime has been committed an individual must provide evidence to prove that they had a bona fide reason for carrying a knife (if this is the case).

Thanks, I'll look up the final URL and get back to you.

-----

Ok, it's just an appraisal of the CJA (1988), and is actually out of date. But anyway, I must say, however, that I know there's no legislation, nor is there any appetite or tabled debate to create any legislation, that either:

1. Is seeking to enforce legislative powers banning blades that are 'too pointy' (the article cited is a BBC articles that is years old, and is not, in fact, a tabled motion of parliament) or.:
2. is seeking to outlaw the carrying of knives per se (or the enforcement of one having documentation to prove that the reason you are carrying knives is valid).

To use an example:

The CJA (1988) outlaws the carrying and concealing of any blade (from your own link):

""It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches." [CJA 1988 section 139(1)]"

And further:

"The phrase "good reason" is intended to allow for "common sense" possession of knives, so that it is legal to carry a knife if there is a bona fide reason to do so. Examples of bona fide reasons which have been accepted include: a knife required for ones trade (e.g. a chefs knife), as part of a national costume (e.g. a sgian dubh), or for religious reasons (e.g. a Sikh Kirpan)."

You said in your original post that I quoted that you need documentation to carry a knife. This is false. You need a valid 'reason' (such as being a chef or a butcher to use your examples, which are good reasons). Just carrying a knife in the street for no reason is not a good reason, however, the worst that will often happen to you is that it will be confiscated and destroyed, unless it can be proven in a court of law that you have used it for nefarious means, in which case, you will end up in jail.

[buttfinger]

I never said "circle of jerks", I said "circle-jerk".  It's a term used to describe all-male bukkake that has been since converted to mean "one person posts an opinion and everyone else ego-strokes them".

[buttfinger]

You said in your original post that I quoted that you need documentation to carry a knife. This is false. You need a valid 'reason' (such as being a chef or a butcher to use your examples, which are good reasons). Just carrying a knife in the street for no reason is not a good reason, however, the worst that will often happen to you is that it will be confiscated and destroyed, unless it can be proven in a court of law that you have used it for nefarious means, in which case, you will end up in jail.

Fair enough, though I still see it as an unacceptable level of nannyism.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You said in your original post that I quoted that you need documentation to carry a knife. This is false. You need a valid 'reason' (such as being a chef or a butcher to use your examples, which are good reasons). Just carrying a knife in the street for no reason is not a good reason, however, the worst that will often happen to you is that it will be confiscated and destroyed, unless it can be proven in a court of law that you have used it for nefarious means, in which case, you will end up in jail.

Fair enough, though I still see it as an unacceptable level of nannyism.

Ok cool, guess we'll just agree to disagree.

If you ever come to the UK you need to go for a night out in Burnley...I can't really explain it, you'll understand if you do it, lol.

[buttfinger]

If you ever come to the UK you need to go for a night out in Burnley...I can't really explain it, you'll understand if you do it, lol.

Dangerous, or "Big Brother"?

I do kind of understand it.  Since you guys outlawed guns, there is a TON of knife-violence.  The difference I see is that parliament is blaming the tool, rather than the criminal.  Criminals don't care about the law, so they'll still do what they want, and they've got a criminal mind, so even completely eradicating the tool will merely lead to different tools being used.  People were committing murder with rocks long before knives were invented, and they were committing murder with knives long before guns were invented.  Banning the tool doesn't stop anything.

It does make me wonder though, how do unarmed police enforce all this?

[PopeyesPappy]

Here you go.

???

Popeyes, that is a BBC article not a green or white paper published by parliament seeking to exercise a debate for the purpose of forming legislation on the banning of 'blades that are too pointy".

Again, the CJA 1988 and all subsequent legislation amendments through various papers (you can search for them all either through Hansard [debates] or through the home office) has never once done or sought to do anything similar to what was proposed. It is false until proven otherwise p.

I didn't see the first response before I posted Fidel. Never the less this article seems to support the Bobbsey Troll's assertion that 1) You have to be able to document need to have a long pointed knife in public.

The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

...

An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

2) There is a debate going on that includes talk of banning blades that are too pointy including kitchen knives.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Whether or not it is an official debate on the floor of parliament is irrelevant. It has been proposed by the scientific community and the home office (whoever that is) has at least entertained the idea. So unless you are suggesting the BBC is lying in the article I'd say the OP's assertions appear to be true.

[Colanth]

"Arms" doesn't mean something you can carry in your arms, it means armaments - including tanks, jets and SAMs.  The second, read literally, guarantees your right to bear all of them - as part of a well-regulated militia.

Then your interpretation of it is that we have the right to own a jet.

It's a poor parent who doesn't recognize its own child.

It gives us the right to be part of a well-regulated militia and, as a part of that, to bear arms.  Stop quoting half-sentences.

You only restated what I did, but in different terms and from a different angle.  I DO have the right to TRY to overthrow the government.

According to the second - which is your argument - only as part of a well-regulated militia.

I'm personally not going to get myself burned alive in a cabin on Big Bear mountain, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to TRY it.

Dorner wasn't trying to overthrow the government, he was seeking revenge against individuals by murdering them.

Bad analogy.  Parking lots are not hitching posts

Good analogy - parking lots and hitching posts are both where transportation is left when we're not using it to travel.

Their function is the same, their form is not, unlike rifles which have the same form, but with upgraded efficiency.

The ability to spray 100 bullets all over creation without the ability to aim isn't an increase in efficiency.  The ability to kill your prey at 500 yards with a single shot is.  And you can't do that with an assault rifle.

Assertions (and incorrect ones at that) aren't proof.

Assertions are not proof, but video of the forerunner of the whole thing SAYING EXACTLY that IS proof, ergo not a false assertion.

But here, let me share it again, just for you.
[spoil:3o1lnai5][youtubehd:3o1lnai5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnyc2vzgJE8[/youtubehd:3o1lnai5]

[/spoil:3o1lnai5]Oh, you mean your totally dishonest assertion that "ban all assault rifles" means "ban all firearms"?

We've seen your kind here before, misrepresenting what you post in the hope that no one actually thinks about your silly assertions.  They didn't end well.  You won't either if you keep insisting on being an idiot.

As far as banning all assault rifles, the Constitution doesn't give you an unfettered right to own one, so that's a dog that won't hunt.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Here you go.

???

Popeyes, that is a BBC article not a green or white paper published by parliament seeking to exercise a debate for the purpose of forming legislation on the banning of 'blades that are too pointy".

Again, the CJA 1988 and all subsequent legislation amendments through various papers (you can search for them all either through Hansard [debates] or through the home office) has never once done or sought to do anything similar to what was proposed. It is false until proven otherwise p.

I didn't see the first response before I posted Fidel. Never the less this article seems to support the Bobbsey Troll's assertion that 1) You have to be able to document need to have a long pointed knife in public.

The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

...

An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

2) There is a debate going on that includes talk of banning blades that are too pointy including kitchen knives.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Whether or not it is an official debate on the floor of parliament is irrelevant. It has been proposed by the scientific community and the home office (whoever that is) has at least entertained the idea. So unless you are suggesting the BBC is lying in the article I'd say the OP's assertions appear to be true.

Not to bring up old topics but the chap said that on needs documentation on you if you're travelling with a knife. The isn't true, and Whilst sure, having documentation on you to say why you're carrying a knife would probably help, the fact is the police aren't going to sling you in jail if you've got a variety of knives in a case because you're a chef or butcher travelling home.

The home office (that's the equiv of Secretary of State in the US I believe, responsible for domestic policy) has never once seriously entertained the prospect of banning knives based on a 'scale" of pointyness. It's accepted that people have proposed it, and in the years since that articles was published, it's not done anything, mainly because its a silly idea.

What is has done is forbid the sale of knives to under 18s (reasonable), the forbid the concealment of blades that have the potential to be used for nefarious intent (for example, a kid carrying a flick knife under a hoody vis a Sikh carrying a ceremonial Kirpan), which again, is reasonable. Again, a chef leaving her restaurant with her blades in a case will not land her in jail, neither will a butcher carrying his cleaver outside Whilst he has a cigarette (if that were acceptable...).

EDIT: please accept my apologies on the typos, I'm typing off my iPad and I can't be bothered to go through it and change it, sorry! :(

EDIT II: sorry, just thought I'd add, nothing of the sort has been proposed by the scientific community. The observations of knife crime in one particular hospital led researchers at West Sussex to propose a fix relative to the context of their particular study. I haven't read the study because I can't find it on PubMed or any other scholar database, but I'm willing to bet 100% that the ideas contained where not for sweeping legislation, rather for a re-think or possible debate on knife crime policy (which occurred after the article was written, incidentally, with the change in age restrictions etc).

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If you ever come to the UK you need to go for a night out in Burnley...I can't really explain it, you'll understand if you do it, lol.

Dangerous, or "Big Brother"?

I do kind of understand it.  Since you guys outlawed guns, there is a TON of knife-violence.  The difference I see is that parliament is blaming the tool, rather than the criminal.  Criminals don't care about the law, so they'll still do what they want, and they've got a criminal mind, so even completely eradicating the tool will merely lead to different tools being used.  People were committing murder with rocks long before knives were invented, and they were committing murder with knives long before guns were invented.  Banning the tool doesn't stop anything.

It does make me wonder though, how do unarmed police enforce all this?

Just the people there, really.

As to the police: quite easily, really. CS spray, normal police tactics of overwhelming aggression with numbers, and so on.

Also, not all our police are unarmed. Some have tazers, some have guns (specialised units generally), all have Cs spray and batons etc. however im not an expert on police tactics here but we've grown up with a police force that has always been unarmed, for over 150 years. It's just a given, and there's never been a need nor a desire from UK society to arm officers en masse.

The UK police ethos is attempting to engage with people and not create an 'us vs them' approach. Of course, it fails in some cases, but mostly it seems to work.

I think the idea that there are lots of knife crimes here is a bit over exaggerated sometimes too. There isn't a knife crime epidemic, it just hits the news becuase it's more news worthy, and then journalists will pick up on it and then any other crime will be viewed as a continuation.

I'm firm in my belief that greater arms isn't a deterrent. It didn't work in Northern Ireland (we sent the army in to stem the troubles and it exacerbated them), and if there was ever a massive hike in crime here, I don't think it'd be the solution. It works here, but I'm not sure it'd work there I'm the states. Everyone has a gun more or less, whereas here hardly anyone has (I only saw my first gun a few weeks ago, to put it into perspective, and I'm 26).

[mykcob4]

But sport hunting it is not about gun control, just as gun control is not about taking away hunting rifles.  The NRA and hunting are not the same thing.

Sure it is.  A .223 is a legitimate hunting rifle, despite protests from Piers Morgan, et. al.  When they take away small caliber rifles and mass shootings stop being 3 small bullets in one victim and start being one large bullet through 3 victims, what are they going to ban next?  In fact, every criterion for something being an "assault rifle" (I use the quotation marks because an actual assault rifle needs to be fully automatic or bust-fire, and are already illegal) is cosmetic.

The military .223 is NOT a hunting round and actually does more damage than the larger caliber traditional hunting rounds. The fact is that the military .223 is all about ENERGY not the size of the projectile. Justifying a military assualt rifle for "hunting" (which no one actually does anymore) is a non starter.
The invention of the .223 round was made to save weight, to create a round that has emensly more energy allowing it to penetrate body armor, to kill effeciently and at distance, and to deliver as many rounds as possible. The key to the round is the energy not the size. Thus the round is destructive and wholly unsuitable for hunting. The best round for distance for hunting is a 30-06 delivered by a bolt action single shot long rifle. Such a rifle can be aimed at a vital area and deliver an instant killing blow. If you need an assualt weapon to "hunt" then you shouldn't hunt. Not that you or anyone actually "hunts."
If you are so sad that you need an assualt rifle to kill a semi-tamed unarmed defenseless docile animal, then you should save the money that you would spend on said rifle and spend it on the penis enlargement that you want in the first place. Better yet you should spend the money on therapy to cure your need to compensate!

[buttfinger]

It's a poor parent who doesn't recognize its own child.

And an even poorer judge of character who can't tell the difference between a parent and a bale of straw.  Keep batting at it.  The assertions you claim only exist in your own mind.

The ability to spray 100 bullets all over creation without the ability to aim isn't an increase in efficiency.  The ability to kill your prey at 500 yards with a single shot is.  And you can't do that with an assault rifle.

Both are an increase in efficiency, one example is an increase in the efficiency of the loading mechanism, the other an increase in accuracy.  Which one is more important for my purpose is and should be MY decision to make.  if you disagree, feed your own family in whatever manner you choose.

Oh, you mean your totally dishonest assertion that "ban all assault rifles" means "ban all firearms"?

Watch the video.  Read what she and her friends keep asserting.  they openly claim this is step one toward their real goal.  I never said "ban assault rifles means ban all guns" (though the way this law is written it DOES ban MOST guns), I said it was the first step to the goal of banning them all.

We've seen your kind here before, misrepresenting what you post in the hope that no one actually thinks about your silly assertions.  They didn't end well.  You won't either if you keep insisting on being an idiot.

Your strawman is none of my concern, but the misrepresentation is yours and yours alone.  Speaking of insistence on being an idiot, you should look in the mirror.  Or just read what I write instead of reading into it and adding your own garbage in hopes that I'll concede something I never said in the first place.

As far as banning all assault rifles, the Constitution doesn't give you an unfettered right to own one, so that's a dog that won't hunt.

"...shall not be abridged."  Actually, it does indeed do EXACTLY that.

[buttfinger]

Everyone has a gun more or less, whereas here hardly anyone has (I only saw my first gun a few weeks ago, to put it into perspective, and I'm 26).

Right.  And the number of illegal guns likely equals the number of legal ones, but there is no real way to differentiate between them, as so many guns are obtained illegally through legal channels due to a woefully inadequate background check system, and HIPAA (medical privacy) laws that prevent the FBI from actually verifying if a person is lying about their mental health on a gun application (the lie is a crime, making it an illegally obtained firearm).  The system needs to be fixed, but banning guns will only take them away from law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

[buttfinger]

Justifying a military assualt rifle for "hunting" (which no one actually does anymore) is a non starter.

Pages and pages of pics on the internet of various animals procured with these weapons belie your claims.

If you need an assualt weapon to "hunt" then you shouldn't hunt.

It's not for you to decide which tools I use to procure meat for my family.  I could just as easily say "if you need a bullet to hunt then you shouldn't hunt.  A bow should suffice."  The fact remains, you are doing for your family, and it's not my prerogative to abridge the method in which you feed your children.