Its my understanding that knife length restrictions are kept to about 3.5" in a folding knife because that is the is the approximate distance from which you can reach the heart from under the ribcage, which is a one of the easiest ways to kill a person that there is.
This is why Milanese gangster royalty in the 16th Century were carrying around stilletos. You can see the gruesome effects of long, thin blades in the TV series "The Borgias". People are freaked out about handguns, but everyone carrying around a long, thin knife, and being an edgy medieval artistocrat half drunk on wine with 3 daggers in your puffy corsette and pants was among the most dangerous times in human history. It was so bad that they could have to develop these blood-feud situations, so that in the instance of a frequent knife killing, there could be some deterrance. So that is where we are coming from culturally, when we allow this in what amounts to immigrants who are for all intents and puroposes still living five hundred years ago in civilizaton.
In Canada, you can carry a wide range of what can be considered weapons, but the police have considerable leeway in using their judgment. It is context based. So if you are a rancher openly carrying a long knife in town or something, that might get a pass. I'd study the law carefully. There are lawyers on youtube who talk about this sort of thing.
Personallly, I carry a folding knife at the least most of the time. And a much more substantial one if I'm heading into a potentially dangerous situation, like the wilderness, where I would bring a survival knife like the Glock 81 Survival knife/ bayonet. My reason is that I would use it on a dog or large animal if they were to lock their jaws on one of my children. I'd be willing to go to court and argue that. I had a friend who once cut a man's seatbelt and got him out of a crashed car's seatbelt with a folding serrated knife. If you have a valid safety reason in mind to carry, I would make a habit of it. Just don't have a cheap locking knife that can open in your pants when you are jumping on a trampoline or something.
Disarming the law abiding populace is the outrage. Only the law abiding are thus made defenceless. Self defence is a right but disarmed against an armed opponent is theoretical only. The best leveller for a female against a rapist twice her weight is being trained with a hand gun or at the very least CS gas. Knives are tools and the stupid situation of not being able to carry around a lock knife (which is a safer tool) because some pampered lanyard wearer who never uses tools, has his meals prepped and carpets laid by others wrote legislation that doesn't even achieve its stated purpose of reducing knife crime is beyond farce. In history society was at its politest when everyone carried a sword. As for foreigners carrying swords and natives not - this was never the deal we signed up to with the state.
It’s amazing how many people didn’t know about the religious exemption Sikhs had, myself included.
But when you think about it, the Sikhs have been getting special privileges ever since they arrived, like their turbans for instance. Don’t they even have their very own police turban hats? All very strange.
It’s almost like they were the first wedge that created the crack that opened the floodgates.
This was very interesting to learn the law surrounding this. I have distanced myself from altmedia as I am repeatedly seeing the “It was a hoax/false flag to stir up racial tensions”. This mindset has raised questions surrounding grooming gangs and migrant rapes and basically any crime committed by a non white. I suppose this is their niche, but I appreciate these dives into the legalities of the circumstances arising and being reported on.
Now, I don’t mean to end this with an accusation so please don’t take it that way. However, you use feminine in a derogatory way or seemingly so. And I just wonder how that might work on women. What I mean is this - if feminine gets used extensively as a derogatory term in the future, might women start to turn away from such term? And therefore we see feminism unfold again to radical extremes? I ask because that crossed my mind as a woman as I read the essay. And it could be a double edged sword, excuse the unintentional pun considering the topic.
With you excepted, Millennial Woes, all commentary I see on this issue can't seem to provoke the most obvious, necessary, so-stupid-a-profoundly-retarded-frog-could-grasp-it self-preservation desire in English men:
"We need to take back the right to self-defense, including carrying implements like knives or guns to defend ourselves."
As my biology teacher scoffed when we were all asked to try to give a description of 'her' subject.. "you came up with that by yourself" [That is praise for the argument and the tone btw]
It is a never ending source of fascination— why are these people being allowed in like a tsunami— there’s national health care which is already strapped— I read that the wait is quite long to see a doctor. Why flood the system with incompatible people? If one could comprehend that rationale, and refute it, that’s a start. I’m just thinking that the incompatibility— while urgent in many ways — isn’t going to convince the powers that be.
Brits need to get back to producing Brits en masse for starters.
It's simple, if you must have barbarians inside the gates, I rather they be unarmed barbarians than armed ones. Imagine the Romans defending the Goths being armed because of some libertarian nonsense.
How has that worked out so far? Have you found a law banning weapons to be effective at deterring criminals? Do those criminals obey the laws, or do they procure weapons anyway?
Look, even if it didn't work, just the principle itself of having foreign barbarians allowed to be armed in your country when you can't is indefensible, and the mental gymnastics required to defend their right to arms in your own country is insane.
An interesting follow up to this would be an investigation of how Britain decided to make carrying small pocket knives (locking and fixed) illegal without a “good reason”. (I know a non locking blade like a penknife is still legal without justification)
From what I've heard, Italy banned the kirpan and not one single Sikh left the country. They just stopped wearing it and keep living there as little integrated as before. It makes sense, those people don't leave their s***hole countries because they have fewer freedoms. They are economic migrants who exploit the greater civilizations created by our ancestors and (still) maintained by us natives. I prefer that non-European migrants integrate as little as possible. If a few exceptions integrate to a high degree, that makes a timely preventive deportation of monsters like Rudakubana and Digwa extremely difficult. The worse they behave as a group, the easier to deport them, ideally as a group too. You don't want a lethal disease to improve only by 2% or 5%, you want a complete recovery.
The fact this comment is age restricted… I thought it was going to be a famous quote or something, or perhaps rather spicy or deranged even. Imo that’s an ordinary take, and I agree. Our own re-collectivisation effort would be much easier if there’s more to point at that sets our groups apart, and only then when we’re an organised power that can recognise our own kind can we properly dictate what is acceptable within our own borders. It takes an almost infinite amount of effort as it is to get folk to understand that Africans, the most foreign thing, aren’t English. We shouldn’t aim to blur the lines more for any future generations unfortunate enough to be born in this era. The Sacred or Holy Weapon is also probably one of the best things we can point to for showing how much of our culture has been crushed and forgotten, and it’s easier for our folk to spot if it isn’t buried by this Regime. Banning it only encourages the norm of being Atheist and wimpy. The gangs will still carry it, their cowards more likely to mix with us, and their enlightened (if they even exist) no longer in the position to help to the same effect.
Migrant violence has become a daily event across the West; every day, a new atrocity.
Every. Single. Day.
At this point, it is us or them.
The West has become a dangerous and vast slum. And this realization has gone mainstream. The average Westerner can see this with their own eyes everytime they leave their house.
It's interesting to hear the 'fact' often trotted out that 'migarnts have lower rates of crime than citizens.' Today, what passes for a 'British or German citizen' is anyone's guess. If you break down crime among ethnicities (whether they have Western passports or not), the true picture becomes very clear.
Its my understanding that knife length restrictions are kept to about 3.5" in a folding knife because that is the is the approximate distance from which you can reach the heart from under the ribcage, which is a one of the easiest ways to kill a person that there is.
This is why Milanese gangster royalty in the 16th Century were carrying around stilletos. You can see the gruesome effects of long, thin blades in the TV series "The Borgias". People are freaked out about handguns, but everyone carrying around a long, thin knife, and being an edgy medieval artistocrat half drunk on wine with 3 daggers in your puffy corsette and pants was among the most dangerous times in human history. It was so bad that they could have to develop these blood-feud situations, so that in the instance of a frequent knife killing, there could be some deterrance. So that is where we are coming from culturally, when we allow this in what amounts to immigrants who are for all intents and puroposes still living five hundred years ago in civilizaton.
In Canada, you can carry a wide range of what can be considered weapons, but the police have considerable leeway in using their judgment. It is context based. So if you are a rancher openly carrying a long knife in town or something, that might get a pass. I'd study the law carefully. There are lawyers on youtube who talk about this sort of thing.
Personallly, I carry a folding knife at the least most of the time. And a much more substantial one if I'm heading into a potentially dangerous situation, like the wilderness, where I would bring a survival knife like the Glock 81 Survival knife/ bayonet. My reason is that I would use it on a dog or large animal if they were to lock their jaws on one of my children. I'd be willing to go to court and argue that. I had a friend who once cut a man's seatbelt and got him out of a crashed car's seatbelt with a folding serrated knife. If you have a valid safety reason in mind to carry, I would make a habit of it. Just don't have a cheap locking knife that can open in your pants when you are jumping on a trampoline or something.
Disarming the law abiding populace is the outrage. Only the law abiding are thus made defenceless. Self defence is a right but disarmed against an armed opponent is theoretical only. The best leveller for a female against a rapist twice her weight is being trained with a hand gun or at the very least CS gas. Knives are tools and the stupid situation of not being able to carry around a lock knife (which is a safer tool) because some pampered lanyard wearer who never uses tools, has his meals prepped and carpets laid by others wrote legislation that doesn't even achieve its stated purpose of reducing knife crime is beyond farce. In history society was at its politest when everyone carried a sword. As for foreigners carrying swords and natives not - this was never the deal we signed up to with the state.
It’s amazing how many people didn’t know about the religious exemption Sikhs had, myself included.
But when you think about it, the Sikhs have been getting special privileges ever since they arrived, like their turbans for instance. Don’t they even have their very own police turban hats? All very strange.
It’s almost like they were the first wedge that created the crack that opened the floodgates.
Invent a Glock religion.
https://www.amazon.ca/Glock-KB17281-81-Field-Knife/dp/B000W32PIK?th=1
Maybe indigenous English and Irish people should state that their religion demands that they pack a loaded handgun 24/7. Just to make things fair.
This was very interesting to learn the law surrounding this. I have distanced myself from altmedia as I am repeatedly seeing the “It was a hoax/false flag to stir up racial tensions”. This mindset has raised questions surrounding grooming gangs and migrant rapes and basically any crime committed by a non white. I suppose this is their niche, but I appreciate these dives into the legalities of the circumstances arising and being reported on.
Now, I don’t mean to end this with an accusation so please don’t take it that way. However, you use feminine in a derogatory way or seemingly so. And I just wonder how that might work on women. What I mean is this - if feminine gets used extensively as a derogatory term in the future, might women start to turn away from such term? And therefore we see feminism unfold again to radical extremes? I ask because that crossed my mind as a woman as I read the essay. And it could be a double edged sword, excuse the unintentional pun considering the topic.
You're quite right. I have changed the wording.
With you excepted, Millennial Woes, all commentary I see on this issue can't seem to provoke the most obvious, necessary, so-stupid-a-profoundly-retarded-frog-could-grasp-it self-preservation desire in English men:
"We need to take back the right to self-defense, including carrying implements like knives or guns to defend ourselves."
No one says it.
It's *astonishing*.
I don't think Great Britain is going to make it.
I'm confident that the island called, in English, Great Britain will still be here in 500 years time.
Right here in this comments section. I'm staring at responses slack-jawed. "Ban them."
Not a peep about how that's supposed to work. Not even a soft-spoken plea to be allowed to carry pepper spray if you're white and British.
Yes. It should be banned.
Here's the petition to get it banned.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/771815
As my biology teacher scoffed when we were all asked to try to give a description of 'her' subject.. "you came up with that by yourself" [That is praise for the argument and the tone btw]
It is a never ending source of fascination— why are these people being allowed in like a tsunami— there’s national health care which is already strapped— I read that the wait is quite long to see a doctor. Why flood the system with incompatible people? If one could comprehend that rationale, and refute it, that’s a start. I’m just thinking that the incompatibility— while urgent in many ways — isn’t going to convince the powers that be.
Brits need to get back to producing Brits en masse for starters.
It's simple, if you must have barbarians inside the gates, I rather they be unarmed barbarians than armed ones. Imagine the Romans defending the Goths being armed because of some libertarian nonsense.
How has that worked out so far? Have you found a law banning weapons to be effective at deterring criminals? Do those criminals obey the laws, or do they procure weapons anyway?
Look, even if it didn't work, just the principle itself of having foreign barbarians allowed to be armed in your country when you can't is indefensible, and the mental gymnastics required to defend their right to arms in your own country is insane.
We genuinely have very, very low rates of crimes using firearms in the UK.
Ban them and their turbans and beards.
An interesting follow up to this would be an investigation of how Britain decided to make carrying small pocket knives (locking and fixed) illegal without a “good reason”. (I know a non locking blade like a penknife is still legal without justification)
From what I've heard, Italy banned the kirpan and not one single Sikh left the country. They just stopped wearing it and keep living there as little integrated as before. It makes sense, those people don't leave their s***hole countries because they have fewer freedoms. They are economic migrants who exploit the greater civilizations created by our ancestors and (still) maintained by us natives. I prefer that non-European migrants integrate as little as possible. If a few exceptions integrate to a high degree, that makes a timely preventive deportation of monsters like Rudakubana and Digwa extremely difficult. The worse they behave as a group, the easier to deport them, ideally as a group too. You don't want a lethal disease to improve only by 2% or 5%, you want a complete recovery.
The fact this comment is age restricted… I thought it was going to be a famous quote or something, or perhaps rather spicy or deranged even. Imo that’s an ordinary take, and I agree. Our own re-collectivisation effort would be much easier if there’s more to point at that sets our groups apart, and only then when we’re an organised power that can recognise our own kind can we properly dictate what is acceptable within our own borders. It takes an almost infinite amount of effort as it is to get folk to understand that Africans, the most foreign thing, aren’t English. We shouldn’t aim to blur the lines more for any future generations unfortunate enough to be born in this era. The Sacred or Holy Weapon is also probably one of the best things we can point to for showing how much of our culture has been crushed and forgotten, and it’s easier for our folk to spot if it isn’t buried by this Regime. Banning it only encourages the norm of being Atheist and wimpy. The gangs will still carry it, their cowards more likely to mix with us, and their enlightened (if they even exist) no longer in the position to help to the same effect.
Migrant violence has become a daily event across the West; every day, a new atrocity.
Every. Single. Day.
At this point, it is us or them.
The West has become a dangerous and vast slum. And this realization has gone mainstream. The average Westerner can see this with their own eyes everytime they leave their house.
It's interesting to hear the 'fact' often trotted out that 'migarnts have lower rates of crime than citizens.' Today, what passes for a 'British or German citizen' is anyone's guess. If you break down crime among ethnicities (whether they have Western passports or not), the true picture becomes very clear.
We can't live like this.
You would deport a non-white Christian but forget to deport the very tribe who caused this rot?
Don't be silly. I would deport both.