BF2S Forums Ban on samurai swords becomes law

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. ya mean swords, or Samurai sword attacks in Scotland?

All manner of knives and swords.

lowing wrote:

2. His treatment of citizens in his country? maybe??

You have laws in your country that extend to how people conduct themselves in other countries? What has Ahmadinejad actually done himself exactly and again why wasn't he arrested when he set foot on US soil for his speech recently?


I can appreciate that but it doesn't go against what I said in my last post. I don't support security services having the right to invade the rights and privacies of anyone they like whenever they feel like it...but if you've been a bad boy and the powers that be can put forward a good case to get warrants and whatnot to follow you then dry your eyes and deal with it.

1. Soooooo is there a reason why Celtic swords and knives are not banned? After all we need to do all we can to be as safe as possible. We should ban all swords and knives if only to save 1 life.

2. I refer to his treatment in his own country. If he did those things here he would be arrested.

3. They don't do it "when they feel like it" they do it if they have a hunch, or a theory. They have no reason to waste time listening in on your phone sex calls with your ole' lady.

1. Exemptions to the ban on sword sales include swords that are to be used for Highland dancing, museum displays, historical re-enactments, fencing and martial arts (that would be the exception allowed for collectors). I don't think a little Glasgow 'ned' is going to be allowed to stroll in and buy a claymore after this new law comes into effect to be honest.

2. What specifically has he done himself in his own country to his own people?

3. I don't mind that and if it turns out the dude is innocent they stop or scale back operations, I don't think we actually disagree on this point lowing.

PureFodder wrote:

In that case I want my nuke, I've got a nice clean record and promise to use it only for paperweight use.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Cam I find nothing inconvenient about your argument in fact other than saying we should not be allowed to own this or that, you haven't MADE an argument.  You want the govt. to take away all of our guns, just like Hitler did? Just exactly how is not that relevant, considering what followed the removal of the armed citizen? If anything is inconvenient it is trying to deny that.

I don't care what you guys do about guns in America. You have to live with a far more dangerous reality than we do. Hitler did what now? You think that if you had a pistol you would have been able to do anything about Hitler? You would have been sent straight to the shower, he didn't mess around.

lowing wrote:

2. Just like drugs huh Cam, Drug addicts just can't seem to find a fix nowa days can they. Your conclusions are wrong and parallel examples pretty much shows it.

There will always be crime, there will always be drugs, there will always be terrorism. Measures taken to make it more difficult to engage in those activities can only be good. It's quite simple really.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2008-04-13 15:43:04)

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Cam I find nothing inconvenient about your argument in fact other than saying we should not be allowed to own this or that, you haven't MADE an argument.  You want the govt. to take away all of our guns, just like Hitler did? Just exactly how is not that relevant, considering what followed the removal of the armed citizen? If anything is inconvenient it is trying to deny that.

I don't care what you guys do about guns in America. You have to live with a far more dangerous reality than we do. Hitler did what now? You think that if you had a pistol you would have been able to do anything about Hitler? You would have been sent straight to the shower, he didn't mess around.

lowing wrote:

2. Just like drugs huh Cam, Drug addicts just can't seem to find a fix nowa days can they. Your conclusions are wrong and parallel examples pretty much shows it.

There will always be crime, there will always be drugs, there will always be terrorism. Measures taken to make it more difficult to engage in those activities can only be good. It's quite simple really.

- - -  :  It's quite simple really : - - -


This Measure Banning samurai Swords will " make it more difficult to engage in those activities, crime, drugs and  terrorism,  and Banning samurai Swords  " can only be good "


               Anyone feel free to weigh in and Tell me you are Dead Certain it will have a positive effect on curbing any one or all of the three.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-13 15:35:17)

The_Mac wrote:

1) Controlling the sales of weapons to people who actually follow the law will decrease weapons sales and saturation...but criminals can access firearms as easily as drugs. Drugs are smuggled across the border...what about gu-oh wait I remembered.

The_Mac wrote:

2) Typing caps lock will not make me any more favored to your argument

The_Mac wrote:

3) If law abiding citizens follow these restrictions...why would they commit a crime?

The_Mac wrote:

4) Criminals don't follow laws/restrictions, hence their name. So this a given, they would still be able to access firearms/weapons, and ordinary citizens would not be able to defend themselves. So it depends I suppose on how you measure a weapons related crimes. I have seen several statistics over 2006-2007 that suggests weapons related crime in Britain is increasing more steadily.

The_Mac wrote:

5) I'm not sure you quite understand what you're saying because rhetorically speaking, you're dealing absolutes, and secondly, you assume criminals will follow these regulations/restrictions.

The_Mac wrote:

I didn't know the average tool could draw anything, I have a feeling if you did, my guess wouldn't be disapointed.

lowing wrote:

dayarath wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

yes, you contributed nothing to this thread.

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb28 … d-owls.jpg

Look over here, noone really cares about bans on weapons. Weapons are there for violent purposes, they belong in the hands of people who were trained to use them responsibly (police, military. You get the idea.) That's the mindset with which people grow up. Now, the ban on swords does, to some extent make sure some people don't start hacking into eachother because of some escalating events.

This ban has no effect on our freedom whatsoever, and 99% of the population will agree with me on that one. Criminals do have their methods to get their hands on weapons, but it will be somewhat harder now; and I guess the import of these weapons will be a tad harder aswell. That's a fact you cannot deny.

It decreases the act of violence with the use of these weapons a little bit, not spectacularily but a little bit - that's it (that's not a bad thing.). And I don't think you see alot of people in England complain about the ban (hell, very few actually.) That's where Europeans and Americans differ.

We care about our freedoms, Europeans obviously do not.  They have taken away all your toys in an effort to keep you safe, European govt. has even been so kind as to remove your right to self defense and placed it in the hands of the govt. How so very Iron Curtain of them.

Next they will ban sharp scissors, because there is no need for sharp pointy ones. Why?? Because your liberqal govt. said so that is why.

CameronPoe wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

High on insult, low on substance. The CamPoe side step... evades the qeustions...every time

Do you want to apologise for incorrectly insinuating I thought a ban on Samurai swords would lead to a decline in terrorism/drugs? Perhaps if you hadn't interpreted the post incorrectly your post might have been of substance, eh?

The_Mac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

High on insult, low on substance. The CamPoe side step... evades the qeustions...every time

Do you want to apologise for incorrectly insinuating I thought a ban on Samurai swords would lead to a decline in terrorism/drugs? Perhaps if you hadn't interpreted the post incorrectly your post might have been of substance, eh?

That is the message I have heard from you and your sidekick Brattock