Posted on 03/08/2005 11:38:00 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
Scotland has long been thought of as a wild land, peopled by independent-minded warriors, herdsmen and farmers. For centuries, its remoteness has fostered the spirit of self-sufficiency and independence that brooked little interference from the outside world.
Scots fought many wars to safeguard their freedom. Who can forget Mel Gibson’s William Wallace shouting out the word "freedom" as he was being tortured to death in the closing scene of the movie, "Braveheart"?
Modern Scots, however, are seeing that spirit of freedom legislated away in favor of more state control of their lives.
Many Americans are aware of the strict gun-control laws in the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part. It’s nearly impossible for the average U.K. citizen to own a firearm, much less carry it for self-defense.
A couple of indicators seem to show the ban is doing its job but having unforeseen effects: violent home invasions are increasing because felons know the odds of encountering an armed homeowner are nil; and the number of knife murders are rising.
That last one is of particular concern to Scotland’s first minister, Jack McConnell. He’s trying to get legislation passed that would slap restrictions on knives and swords.
According to The Scotsman online newspaper, McConnell’s proposal would license shops selling non-household knives, ban the sale of swords, make it illegal to carry a knife or sword and double the sentence for carrying a knife to four years. Proponents of the measures point out that carrying a sgian dubh, a small knife tucked into the top of a stocking as part of traditional garb, would be exempt from the ban. Carrying most other knives, however, would be illegal.
Although it’s tempting to dismiss the proposal as a goofy response to a serious problem — violence — it must be taken seriously by defenders of an individual’s right to self-defense. Thomas Jefferson summed up that right in the Declaration of Independence: that men (and women) are born with "certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Implicit in those rights is the right to defend oneself from outside attack by other people or the government. It is that natural right of all men that McConnell’s idea attacks.
The Scotsman quoted McConnell as saying, "The sale of swords in Scotland today is fundamentally wrong. There can be no reason for people buying swords off the street for use or to have in their homes."
Sound familiar? It’s nearly word for word the same argument used in this country by those who would ban the sale and possession of firearms.
Will these people ever learn that the way to address violent crime is by taking and keeping felons off the street, not simply restricting the tools of their trade?
The United Kingdom’s experience with gun control shows that felons will simply change weapons when their favorite is outlawed. We wouldn’t be surprised to learn, should McConnell’s proposal become law, that Scottish thugs were carrying clubs and brass knuckles. What then?
Having been threatened with a samuri sword by a de-ranged freak I might have to move to Scotland to avoid any other further contact with swords. Wait a minute do Highlander's get to keep their swords?
The British criminals didn't have to give up anything since it was illegal for them to have guns before the gun ban was enacted. Only the law abiding Brit citizens were disarmed by the ban. If the stats I have seen are right, and I have no reason to think they aren't, there is much more crime being committed with guns in the UK now than before handguns were banned.
How stupid do you have to be to believe that a law banning guns will be the one single law that will be obeyed by criminals? Did the lawmakers forget that criminals are people who by definition don't obey laws? Sheesh, we're ruled by morons. In the UK at least, they aren't quite that stupid over here ....yet.
or...
1st linked photo should have been:
Sshhhhhhhh! .... ;)
And, probably, lots of other things.
Even the slimy Brits are not going to get a look under those kilts until it is too late.
Just don't give up those kilts.
You're right. Next thing you know they'll be forcing me to use a $3.99 Wal-Mart knife instead -- yuck! Sorry, I have a thing for quality kitchen knives since they make cooking so much more fun and easy.
Got pulled aside once taking a sgian dubh ("black knife") aboard on a trip where the band was going in uniform. But it was short enough; I was allowed to take it. (This was pre-9/11.) 
The Scots are Brits. I suppose you mean that perfidious tribe of effete fascists called the English?
Michael Palin. And I didn't have to look it up. :)
I meant the sword. The explosive device might be effective, but not much use in close-quarters combat. Plus, it doesn't look as cool over the mantle...
I have long since (lang syne?) concluded that efforts such as these are not intended to reduce crime but to increase it, both by expanding the definition and by supplying fresh opportunities to existing criminals.
As with everything, tactics have to be adjusted to fit the tools. What the robber would do is grab a teller, hold the knife to her throat, and say. "Get me all the money, any wrong moves and I cut the B***h.".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.