I can say whatever I want; as long as I am not threatening someone else's life or liberty. These things are well defined. Nobody is going to knock on my door tomorrow.
The same is not true for you if you live under their laws, you couldn't agree with me if you wanted to.
The system you defend is banning sharp objects. We have sharp objects to prevent exactly what I pointed out is wrong. We can defend ourselves and others around us.
The US is a wonderful amazing place. I welcome you to visit or immigrate and make a life here. Heck, hit me up.
I was with you until the last paragraph. The notion that the people of the US can rise up against the US army and last more than two seconds is ridiculous. You have sharp objects and all you do with them is kill yourselves and each other.
I find the parent poster's wholesale purchase of American exceptionalism... optimistic, to be kind. But I also think you're over optimistic thinking it is a forgone conclusion that any military, regardless of any bill of rights, would be able to easily crush a popular revolt. That depends upon a lot of factors.
Of course, and the counterpoint is that there have been revolts that toppled governments. The issue is that pro-gun people take it as a given that the US army, a body of people with both vastly more training and more firepower than the population, will have trouble with it.
(a) Enlistment Oath.—Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
These are the people that care about our way of life the most. Your assumption is incorrect even if you assume that the US Mil has the ability to suppress the US population en mass without destroying it's self. They are not robots.
Oh man, if only other countries that became military dictatorships had the foresight to make the soldiers swear an oath, they could have avoided the whole thing.
cqc is the most deadly form of combat, and america has something like 4 guns per resident. if Ukraine is any indication, pacifying a well armed citizenry is not an easy feat.
The US Military is heavily dependent on reservists. There are tons of veterans with military training. The US military has a terrible record against insurgents. Soliders ordered to attack their friends and family go awol. The US military does bot train to suppress a wide scale domestic insurrection.
America is blissfully far from a civil war, bit our heavily armed populace could give the military a run for its money.
> I can say whatever I want; as long as I am not threatening someone else's life or liberty.
The people who are in jail for, as you claim "offending others online" were threatening people's lives.
> The system you defend is banning sharp objects
Again, not true. I can buy as many sharp objects as I want. I can even take them out in public if I want. The law even allows me to use them for self defence. We've had a problem with some people buying weaponry - and it is weaponry which has been banned. You can go into any DIY store and buy all the knives, machetes, and chainsaws that you want.
> The US is a wonderful amazing place.
I would encourage you to join the 40% of your fellow citizens who have passports and go explore the world rather than reading about it.
Assuming that the rules enumerated at that link are the complete rules, I have a Japanese bread knife that I use every day for its exquisite sharpness, and which would become forbidden by these rules.
The reason is that it has a 9-inch serrated blade, which is a very frequently encountered size for bread knives, and the angle at the tip of the blade is slightly smaller than the 90 degree angle mandated by the new rules.
The slightly acute blade tip is very handy when cutting some big hard vegetables, like water melons or pumpkins, or some very big breads, which have a diameter greater than the 9-inch blade length.
The rules as written on that site are ambiguous, because they could be also interpreted as only forbidding the 2-edged blades, where one edge is plain and one edge is serrated (a kind of knife that I have never seen). However this interpretation of the rules is contradicted by "other than a serrated cutting edge of up to two inches next to the handle", which is a typical feature of single-edged blades and which would not make sense on a 2-edged blade.
The rules still allow the possession of a fighting/utility knife, like the classic KA-BAR, whose blade is only 7-in long and which has a small serrated edge that satisfies the rules.
You may think that's unreasonable, but most people here don't. I encourage you to visit other countries and talk to people about their lived experiences.
The context comments you replied to is weapons. In the US (and many other places) we can carry them without a hall pass, and it's a good thing.
You don't agree; but pretending that you can carry a pointy object in this context "legally" as long as it's "not a weapon" is like saying you can protect your life as long as the other person agrees with you; it's newspeak.
Every country has a difference tolerance for risk. You may think that your weaponry allows you to live free - but for lots of us, it is an unacceptable risk.
We think people should be allowed to eat chocolate and not get shot. You think that is an unacceptable risk.
The new rules linked by another poster do not say anything about "carrying" knives.
They are rules about "owning" knives and the current owners of such knives are pressured to deposit them at the police or risk criminal charges if caught later, presumably during a home search done for any reason.
I live in London and carry a knife with me at almost all times. It's admittedly a Swiss army knife, I wouldn't be allowed to do that with a machete. In practice, I don't see the situation as a problem.
Honestly, this is just kind of shallow conversation if you don’t engage honestly with it.
Both US and UK societies have the general concept of freedom on speech - you are free to say what you want for the most part, subject to some specific limits on that right where the speech infringes on someone else’s rights.
These rights are codified, came about, and are implemented slightly differently - but in practice the difference you’re identifying is really more about what the respective societies define as acceptable.
In recent cases, the people who’ve been jailed have been done so for (among other things) incitement to racial hatred - things like public posts encouraging people to commit specific acts. The UK considers this outside the bounds of acceptable free speech.
The US maybe considers this boundary elsewhere, but it is clear that some forms of expression can constitute harassment or other criminality even in the US.
The interesting discussion is the bit in the middle - how do we build a messy consensus that deals with our differences and protects as many people’s rights to live peacefully as possible, while still allowing others to speak freely and without fear. A discussion from the starting point of “I can say whatever I want” when it is demonstrably not true doesn’t really engage with that.
The US is indeed a wonderful and amazing place full of incredible people. It would be even more wonderful and amazing with occasional bouts of self-reflection.
You banned Kinder surprise eggs and have more school shootings per month than others in a decade.
You had the January 6 United States Capitol attack because field by the former president which led to the death of five people.
Somehow Americans fear to become a tyranny (maybe because of all the armed people) and at the same time ignore all the people already dying like they were already living in a tyranny.
I'm from a country that was turned in a tyranny but I fear people with guns more than my government.
The same is not true for you if you live under their laws, you couldn't agree with me if you wanted to.
The system you defend is banning sharp objects. We have sharp objects to prevent exactly what I pointed out is wrong. We can defend ourselves and others around us.
The US is a wonderful amazing place. I welcome you to visit or immigrate and make a life here. Heck, hit me up.