Thread: British Law?

Once again, I've been misunderstood. My intent was not to belittle or gouge anyone else's country. If I came across that way it was not my intention. Believe it or not this was NOT talk radio rehashed. Although I'm a knuckle dragger old GI, I do occassionally have original thoughts. I'm always concerned when a government (American, British, Belgian, Chinese, South African or ANY government) feels compelled to "take care" of the unscrubbed masses. Across the board, in ALL countries, goverments are infringing deeper and deeper into what should be left to individual choices. Some are foolish enough to believe that these efforts are done out of concern for the individual but the truth is that these initiatives more often than not fit into one of two categories. The first is an attempt for the government to take away personal liberty and assert its control on citizens. The second, widely seen in government entitlement programs, is the government's attempt to help themselves to more of our hard earned money and redistribute it to people who have done nothing to deserve it. From where I'm sitting these types of actions amount to tyranny lurking in the carefully constructed lie that our governments gives a damn about any of us. God knows, I'm as patriotic an American as ever lived but let me point out some examples from my own government. The state of New York has decided to fine eateries serving salt. Who the hell are they to tell me how to eat my french fries? The flurry of anti-tobacco legislation is in the same category. If I own a restraunt shouldn't it be MY business if people can smoke after they eat? If others find the environment intolerable, they can take their business somewhere else. And my personally favorite, our First Lady mounts her high horse (with a back yard bigger than most any two women) and attempts to save the poor ignorant masses who still insist that tofu and arugala is NOT a hearty meal. It simply not a government's place to regulate people's lives to that degree. I find laws concerning personal defense (like this one) particularly troubling for two reasons. I promise you this law has NEVER once deterred any criminal from carrying a knife (or for that matter a gun) in recorded history. Ownership of a weapon in Chicago is illegal. So they have no gun violence right? WRONG! Anyone who carries a gun with intent to kill someone has not one concern about breaking a gun ownership law. What if I live in a bad part of London and want to carry a knife for simple self defense? Thanks to laws like this, criminals remain armed and decent people with no intent to harm anyone are required to be defenseless victims.