Spork Control
In about fifty years or so, sporks will probably be banned in Japan.
Save us, oh government, from all possible harm! We cannot be trusted with anything that could even conceivably be used to harm anyone.
Y'know, somebody might try to stuff a nerf ball down yer esophageal airway. And yet nerf balls remain legal. When will we be saved from this nightmare???
Nice to see that we're less crazy that at least some other places in at least some ways.
In about fifty years or so, sporks will probably be banned in Japan.
Save us, oh government, from all possible harm! We cannot be trusted with anything that could even conceivably be used to harm anyone.
Y'know, somebody might try to stuff a nerf ball down yer esophageal airway. And yet nerf balls remain legal. When will we be saved from this nightmare???
Nice to see that we're less crazy that at least some other places in at least some ways.
posted by Winston Smith at
6:47 AM
1 Comments:
In defense of the Japanese: They have had several recent high profile stabbings with knives of the type coming under the ban, a couple of which were political assassinations by ultra-nationalists. Also, several US states ban daggers and knives over a certain length (and switchblades are illegal all over the country). This is no less illiberal than the Japanese policy, but also wildly inconsistent. Some friends of mine liked to participate in those Society for Creative Anachronism Ren Faire type things, and needed to demonstrate to the cops that their halberds weren't sharp - this in Atlanta, where you can stride about with a Glock strapped to your thigh if you feel like it.
It's difficult to come up with a plausible interpretation of "arms", especially as written in the late 18th century, that does not include knives and swords. From a straight, constitutional perspective, the bans on various kinds of knives and swords are, if not violating the second amendment, then edging up, a la assault weapons ban, toward it. But where is the outrage, the UN black helicopter paranoia? It is puzzling to me that state legislators in Missouri, of all places, would feel perfectly comfortable banning carrying all knives over 4 inches (yes, ban the ones that are hard to hide, very sensible) but would never vote to restrict the caliber of the pistol you might carry.
The second amendment clearly applies to weapons generally, but for whatever reason people are only very interested in their second amendment rights when it comes to a rather small subset of weapons: small firearms. (I’m sure there is a swords’n’knives rights movement, and good for them, but I’ve never heard anything from them.) On the other side of it, no one, save maybe a few crazies, thinks we have a right to flamethrowers, hand grenades, A-10s (though that would be rad), or suitcase nukes. What explains this focus? An answer I think will help to answer the question of what one thinks the second amendment is for. Winston, I put it to you: Why are pistols and rifles the real meat of the right to bear arms, and what do you, a gun-toting liberal democrat, think the purpose of that right is?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home