Singapore Blues

[Craig Gottlieb]

Just a quick story: I recently sent a khukuri to Singapore, and customs considers it a dangerous weapon that needs to be licensed! Poor guy who bought it - imagine having to license your khukuri. Will it ever come to that here? Gosh, I hope not. I'll certainly be accused of having a "cache" or a "stockpile." And don't forget, the khukuri will be renamed by the press - probably an "assault knife" or a "flesh ripper."

------------------
Craig Gottlieb
Gurkha House
Blade Forums Sponsor

 

[X-Head]

A khukuri shall be classified as an "assault weapon" if it has any three or more of the following deadly features:

1) blade longer than 7"
2) blade shorter than 5"
3) micarta or injection molded grip
4) "tactical" or "ergonomic" grip shape
5) fuller or "curved spine"
6) cho
7) blackened, blued, or parkerized blade
8) sandblasted, beadblasted, or otherwise dull, or satin "tactical" finish
9) zone hardening
10) Rockwell hardness greater than 40
11) kydex or concealex sheath
12) angled grip
13) lanyard hole
14) bayonet lug

Any khukuri having more than two of any of the above "assault" features shall be considered an "assault weapon" and must be registered with the BATFKS (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobbacco, Firearms, Knives & Scissors) and the FBI, upon receiving approval from the Chief LEO in the owner's area and after the licensed owner has been cleared by a NICS backrgound check and his fingerprints and mug shots have been digitized and entered into the National Criminal Database as well as the United Nations International Criminal Database Computer, bka The Beast, in Brussels, Belgium.

Sounds Orwellian, but all I did was applied current federal gun laws to knives. If it sounds ridiculous, that's because it is! And it sounds just as ridiculous applied to guns as it does to knives.

Now good citizen, take your daily dosage of Ritalin, wash it down with some fluoridated water, and repeat after me: I love my government, I love my government, I love my government...

[This message has been edited by X-Head (edited 04-13-2000).]

 

[Craig Gottlieb]

Well, look at what I received via email from the customer:

I'm pleased to inform you that I've managed to
obtained a license to keep the Khukuris from the Arms
& Explosive Branch in Singapore.

However, the police officer had warned me not to
import anymore khukuris into Singapore as the khukuris
is now considered a prohibited item. Any khukuris
detained by the Customs will be immediately
confiscated and sent back to the sender. Please
conveyed this message to your customers who may
happened to be residing in Singapore. The penalty for
importing the above without a license is either
imprisonment or fine, or even both.

The reason why I'm allowed to keep this khukuris is
because I've sought permission from the Commander from
the A&E Branch prior to the import. The Commander has
made it clear that such permissions will not be given
to anyone from the Branch in the future.

However, thanks for the khukuris. Only one word can be
used to described it and that is EXCELLENT. I'll
personally make sure that the payment arrives to you
on time so as to show my gratitude for sending me such
an excellent item.

If it ever comes down to this in America, I'm quitting!

------------------
Craig Gottlieb
Gurkha House
Blade Forums Sponsor


[This message has been edited by Craig Gottlieb (edited 04-17-2000).]

 

[X-Head]

Craig, thanks for posting that--very interesting. It's amazing to me...you have to ask yourself what kind of government is it that either fears or distrusts its own citizens to such an extent that it forbids the ownership of a KNIFE, for crying out loud.

If this EVER happens here, I hope we will follow the path of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Boston Tea Party-goers, and every colonial who refused the British law to surrender their arms, and opt for CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

"…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
-- Declaration of Independence

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

Some faint-hearted Americans gasp in horror at this suggestion, but this begs the questions, Is every law good? What is the purpose of laws? Is it to benefit the government, or the people? Whom does this law benefit? Whom does it deprive?

"By far the most numerous and most flagrant violations of personal liberty and individual rights are performed by governments ... The major crimes throughout history, the ones executed on the largest scale, have been committed not by individuals or bands of individuals but by governments, as a deliberate policy of those governments -- that is, by the official representatives of governments, acting in their official capacity."
-- John Hospers

Of course, civil disobedience is only justified after all other forms of redress have been exhausted. I'm not advocating 'no government' here--just 'good government.'

Just my current opinion. Am I crazy or just stupid?




[This message has been edited by X-Head (edited 04-17-2000).]

 

[Cutler]

I just want to know where I can get a bayonet lug for my khuk

 

[2d_edge]

Craig,

How about shipping a SN1 Khuk with laser sight mounted on its spine to Singapore?

The Chief A&E should see my GH 15" Sirupati and he'll know what they're missing.

2d_edge
Genus Sebenza Terrifica

 

[Craig Gottlieb]

Yes, the worst thing I have ever heard. For me, the time for civil disobedience comes when all citizens no longer enjoy equal protection under the law. As long as I still have a voice to change things via legitimate election of representatives, I don't feel I have a moral right or obligation to practice civil disobedience. By being a person who believes in individual rights, if I become a minority for this, then I can either protest peacefully, or leave.

Basically, I feel morally obligated to operate under the system's laws so long as the problem is not one of institutional criminality or lack of equal protection under the law (call it the "rule of law"). In other words, just because the good system is being badly applied, I cannot rebel. When the system becomes bad . . . that's a different story.

So, is Singapore a good system being administered badly, or have the citizens lost their right to equal protection under the law (the rule of law).

Berkley could help on this one. . .

------------------
Craig Gottlieb
Gurkha House
Blade Forums Sponsor

 

[Berkley]

Craig,
My initial response, written in haste while on my way to represent a citizen accused assert his right to self-defense in a trial by a jury of his peers, is that the citizens of Singapore seem to have acquiesced in the notion that an orderly, clean and relatively "safe" society is preferable to one in which the individual's rights are paramount. It is a tradeoff which I fear a majority of Americans would agree with. Ever seen the surveys which show that the individual articles of the Bill of Rights, when put to people without identification as to source, would fail in a popular referendum?
Berk

 

[X-Head]

Craig: Well taken. I agree, and that is basically the same "measuring stick" I use, with the exception that abrogation or abolishment of the 2nd Amendment is most definitely grounds for civil disobedience, due to the fact that the 2nd Am is what makes the FedGov make good on the other nine--albeit grudgingly and reluctantly. Once we've lost the 2nd, the game is over, because the other nine will quickly follow.

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
-- Justice George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in, I Blackstone COMMENTARIES St. George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Berkley: That was well put. A lot of people are willing to trade their rights (most of which they don't exercise or understand) for the HOPE or PROMISE--the ILLUSION--of safety and security, which no government is able to guarantee. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement officers have no duty or obligation to protect ANYONE, yet the government wants all its citizens to go about unarmed.

This is an interesting topic for me. The natural tendencies of governments to amass more and more control is what I have been studying on my own the past year or so. I appreciate being able to bounce ideas off each other here, and I hope I don't come off to anyone like I'm arguing or trying to force my OPINIONs (that's all they are) on others, because I'm not. I'm just starving for some 2-way communication of ideas from thinking people (like you guys) on this topic. This helps me stay sane.

[This message has been edited by X-Head (edited 04-18-2000).]

 

[Craig Gottlieb]

X-Head:

Craig: Well taken. I agree, and that is basically the same "measuring stick" I use, with the exception that abrogation or abolishment of the 2nd Amendment is most definitely grounds for civil disobedience, due to the fact that the 2nd Am is what makes the FedGov make good on the other nine--albeit grudgingly and reluctantly. Once we've lost the 2nd, the game is over, because the other nine will quickly follow.

I DEFINITELY agree with you that the 2nd Amendment ensures our other rights. However, unless and until the other 9 are stripped away and I no longer have access to a democratic method of redressing my grievances (in hopes of "voting" the rights back), I am reluctant to advocate violence. Civil disobedience a la Martin Luther King, YES - certainly. Perhaps "losing" a gun or two - sure. But revolution? Not until and unless I lose the avenue for democratic redress.

As for Berk - your assessment of Singapore is EXCELLENT. I shall write my customer and ask him what he thinks.



------------------
Craig Gottlieb
Gurkha House
Blade Forums Sponsor

 

[X-Head]

I agree, Craig. Revolution is out of the question unless/until all other remedies provided by our Constitution have been exhausted to no avail. I do see a big distinction between civil disobedience and revolution. Good point you made.

Interesting footnote: Only if & when your cause SUCCEEDS is it dubbed a "revolution." Until then, or if it fails, it is called a "rebellion."

[This message has been edited by X-Head (edited 04-18-2000).]

 

[Craig Gottlieb]

Yeah, that's the way it goes . . . only the victors write the history books.

BTW: I just wanted to make a statement about political views expressed on the GH forum. They are WELCOMED! Just about the only thing we don't tolerate is a violation of our equal opportunity policy. That is, as long as you aren't maligning a group or individual's race, creed, or ethnicity, or are not tolerating another political opinion, your posts are fair game here and are wholeheartedly supported. Of course, I do say that we should have thick skin, as Blackdog and I will never try to become thought police.

Of course, if you are simply insulting someone for the sake of being naughty, we won't tolerate that either.

But good hearty discussion about politics? GO FOR IT! It's what makes things interesting around here.

------------------
Craig Gottlieb
Gurkha House
Blade Forums Sponsor