Where are the demands for knife control?

She wasn’t playing with a full deck and had thousands of bladed weapons:

A Florida woman was arrested Tuesday night after she tried to stab a deputy with a large sword or machete inside a mobile home filled with thousands of other bladed weapons, authorities said.

You really should watch the video provided at the link above. Her collection and nuttiness was impressive:


Of course there won’t be any demands for knife control. That would demonstrate the crazy of the anti-freedom people as much as the nuttiness of the knife collector.


11 thoughts on “Where are the demands for knife control?

  1. No demands /yet./

    Just imagine if this had happened in the UK. It doesn’t take much to imagine such a situation being used for knife congrol now does it?

    • Don’t they already have that?

      Note also that we do have knife control in the USA. Switchblades are illegal in many places. New Hampshire used to outlaw dirks, though it never defined them. For that matter, it still lists dirks, along with other undefined things like daggers, stilettos, and sword canes, as objects a convicted felon can’t own. (Nor can a felon own any “other deadly weapon” which given the definition would seem to include box cutters, 2×4’s, baseball bats, and the like.)

      • Texas, likewise, forbids public carry of pretty much those same things. They fall into the category of double-bladed weapons (sharp on both sides of the blade) which for some reason are more stabbier and slashier than a regular old Ginsu or a K-Bar (which, having a double sharpened point, might also be illegal to have in public in Texas; I’ve never asked).

        Just last Monday I was driving on Hwy 79 in Round Rock, TX, when I saw a fully armored knight riding down the side of the highway on his steed, a fine bay destrier, or maybe a plow horse reassigned for the Renaissance Festival. The knight had full armor, even a helm, but no sword, no lance, no mace, no dirk, dagger or stilletto, that I could see. He might have had a 1911 concealed under his breastplate, legally, but I could not tell.

  2. There are already some pretty insane knife laws in the U.S., including WA State. The classic Nazi with the measuring tape accosted my brother at an airport years ago and measured his knife, which was just under the 3″ limit. If it’d been another eighth inch longer they’d have confiscated it, and THAT was back before 9/11, when you could take your knife on a plane. Point being that we’re well on our way down that road to Crazytown already.

    You have a good point but it’s only a good point in a sane society.

    Maybe that would be an interesting study; when have Progressives been stopped and turned around by having it pointed out to them that what they’re proposing is simply crazy? I do not believe there is any limit to the amount of crazy they’re willing to embrace (and with relish and enthusiasm too). To them it’s just “thinking outside the box” or being “innovative” and so on, and if it irritates their opposition to the point of incredulity and even hysteria, so much the better.

    They’ve successfully politicized the weather, for example, and It is right now, widely considered racist to say that “all lives matter”, demonstrating that the meanings of the simplest words no longer penetrate the filtering mechanisms of the Progressive mind.

    For the Progressive authoritarian movement then, crazy is a feature, not a bug.

    That’s just a long-winded way of saying; “Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.”

    If a Republican can get away with banning large soft drinks rather than having his sanity called into question for even suggesting it, is there anything too crazy for a Democrat?

    • It seems to me what we have here is Ayn Rand’s observation that the purpose of many laws is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something, because that gives the bad guys power over you.

    • There’s also a big dollop of “Laws are for the little people” and “Oh sure it’s a crazy law but it’ll only be used agaisnt bad people.”

      • As if there weren’t already laws against things like aggravated assault, and so on.

        No; this is something more insidious. It’s not about catching or hindering criminals, it’s about frustrating and otherwise hindering honest people.

      • In California the mandatory use of seatbelt law was sold as being not something the cops could stop you for in the absence of some other violation, but in short order it has become something that could be used as the reason for the stop.

        Read the law, you can’t rely on the blather of the salesmen for what the law does. I always voted against the propositions after too many were revealed in the week after the election that they accomplished the exact opposite of the claims.

        And of course, the cure for a crazy law has always been more crazy law.

  3. There will not be any attempt to have knife control unless the National Knife Association becomes a significant force and then aligns itself with the Republican Party. Gun control is an effort, by Democrats, to punish their political enemies and to make it less attractive for otherwise Democrat-leaning constituencies to get into the gun world, which might cause them to start voting Republican.

  4. After knife control is successful – stick control. And because SJWs believe tree ownership is slavery, humans will have to be rounded up and caged to keep them away from easy access to sticks.

Comments are closed.