Obama Wants Your Pocket Knife

Beware! That folding knife in your pocket may turn you into a criminal if the Obama administration gets its way. Although there has been a lot of fear and speculation that the new administration wants to take your guns, the most pressing threat now is actually to your pocket knives. With the changing of the guard at U.S. Customs, that agency has now embarked on redefining "switchblades" under federal law to include a wide variety of one hand opening knives that never were intended to be prohibited. In fact, many of the knives U.S. Customs now seek to prohibit under the Federal Switchblade Law had not even been invented at the time of its enactment! Furthermore, four previous U.S. Customs ruling letters (prior administrations) specifically determined "assisted opening" knives not to be defined as switchblades.

This new proposed U.S. Customs regulation is so broad that thousands of pocket knives will fall under its sweep and millions of knife owners will be affected. The problem is not simply that imports will be banned (which is bad enough), but that the "agency determination" will be used by domestic courts and law enforcement to determine what a "switchblade" is under both federal and state laws. Many states, including New Hampshire, fail to define switchblades and simply rely on the federal definition.

Oh, and I'm not an anarchist.

>>31
real conservatives are against bailouts

It's been my experience that real conservatives are akin to real christians in their elusivity.

>>43
Well that might seem true to someone who only views conservatives and christians through Michael Moore documentaries or books entitled "RELIGION IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL *troll face*", however there is a whole world outside San Francisco full of good people who actually go out there and help others instead of just demand the government do so.

>>44
You're probably a troll, but as I have said before, trolling is irrelevant, and aside from knee jerk emotional responses, trolls generally serve to facilitate positive exchange, so thanks for the set up.
Once again I'm faced with someone who's incapable of seeing anything outside the boundaries of the current political framework.  If you criticize the conservatives, and the christians they assume you must be a gluttonous naive liberal like Mr. Moore.  If you criticize the liberals and the "godless" they brand you a gluttonous hypocritical fascist like Mr. Limbaugh.  They're both just media whoring clowns, but as archetypes they do provide an insight into the fundamental weaknesses in the way people have divided themselves up.  Most liberals are naive.  And most conservatives are hypocrites. Of course there are hypocritical liberals and naive conservatives.  Your post places you in the latter category, so that's what I'll address.  Is there something wrong with expecting the government do good.  Isn't that the job of the government, to create, support, and facilitate a positive, peaceful, cohesive society?  Do you believe that this is the job of the churches, and if so, which?  The catholics, the mormons, the baptists, the jews?  Thanks, but I have yet to see an effective ecumenical framework that pursues these goals, and the individual organizations may claim pure altruism, but come on.  The strings attached there are pretty thick.  Sure, little things like canned food drives during the holiday season are nice, but the more help that's offered, the higher the price, and that price is always the same.  They want your soul. 
    I want freedom.  Just like everybody else.  Yet somehow people fail to see that all of these social systems demand that freedom is the first thing gutted on the sacrificial altar.  Is there an answer?  I think so.  And it's a simple one that asks only a simple choice.  Do you wish to be taken care of, or do you wish to be free.  We may have a government that is self sustaining, that serves a noble purpose, and whose primary responsibility is to facilitate and protect smaller organic societies of free people, but it's members must admit to themselves that the only freedom they will have, is the freedom to leave it, to take responsibility for themselves.  And now, as we enter into the information society, the free have instant access to enough knowledge to take hat tresponsibility for themselves.  Any question can be answered in an instant, but the free must accept that freedom also means the freedom to fail, suffer, and die.  But the liberals don't want to admit that the only thing that builds character is that suffering and failure, and the conservatives don't really have the balls to stand on their own.  So we're left with this mess.  Like every society in history, built by great people who said "No, that is an infringement on my freedom that I would rather die than tolerate", but sustained by the unethical and power hungry, and populated with ignorant, hypocritical, usually willfully naive, cowards who know nothing of freedom, because every thought they have was placed there by others.

Laws like this are not intended to allow law enforcement to seize any old knife you have lying around at home. It does however give them one more reason to call you a criminal.

Given the number of, often vague and contradictory laws, I wonder if there is anyone on the face of the planet who is not a criminal under some jurisdiction.