Canadian Supreme Court Decides to Allow Kirpans in School

Originally Posted by Locke

My feelings exactly. It doesn't matter if the kid never INTENDS on using it - it's still a knife - still a weapon - that we're letting him bring to school. It may be a religous symbol, but if you remove religion from it, you find a deadly weapon designed to kill.

Wrong.

"Grr.... you motherfucker! *pulls out ceremonial knife* *STAB!*"
*TINK*
"Ow, you bastard. Why the FUCK did you stab me with a dull knife?"

Or, if we actually go with the restriction that was in the compromise before the case, we get this:

"Grr... you motherfucker!" *pulls out ceremonial knife* *stab*
"...Why the FUCK didn't you unsheathe it?"
"...It's... been... sewn... shut? ....Oh, shit."
*BITCHSLAPPED*

Ceremonial =\= weapons-grade knife. What's so hard to see about this?

And let's assume that it IS a weapons-grade knife. Then we have to deal with the fact that the sheathe has been sewn shut. Somebody who would want to kill somebody will NOT be using this, for the simple fact that it is too much fucking trouble to get it free.

"Yar har har! As soon as I get this knife free with these scissors, there'll be some stabbin' tonight! ...Wait a sec. These scissors... they're sharp. And pointy. Pretty sturdy, too. What the hell was I doing?"

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by acid

So then you're telling me that a child should be allowed to bring a loaded handgun to school, provided that it's in a lock-box?

Depends. Does the kid have the key, or an adult? And what was the gun brought in for?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by acid

Are you actually being serious? If there is a valid enough reason children should be allowed to bring guns to school?

What if your father was a gun collector or a WWII vet, and you thought that was cool?

Quote:

I honestly can't tell if that was supposed to be some sort of smart-ass reply, of if you are telling me that it's ok if they bring a gun to school because it's in a case.

Wow. Congratulations on completely making a mountain out of a molehill.

"HOLY GOD HE BROUGHT IN A GUN TO SCHOOL! EXPEL HIM!"
"It's unloaded, under lock and key, the key is in the possession of an adult, and the CASE it's in is in the possession of an adult."
"...HOLY GOD HE BROUGHT A GUN TO SCHOOL! EXPEL HIM!"

Guns - ammunition = CLUB. Amd if it's an antique, it may not even work. Sometimes I wonder if you protest to the museum because they showcase medieval weaponry. =\

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Ahh, now THAT is stupid. =\

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by acid

My father does own guns. I never did bring any of them to school.

Good for you. And this naturally means that you shouldn't be allowed to bring them in at all. Right.

Quote:

And we've made the jump from bringing a loaded handgun to school to museums exhibiting Civil War rifles how exactly?

Congratulations on completely avoiding my point.

Originally Posted by Morrigan

This ruling pisses me off. What a nation of PC pussies we are, I'm slightly ashamed of my country at the moment.
If foreigners come here and are unhappy because part of their culture is forbidden by our local rules (and for good, non-arbitrary reasons), they have two choices: adapt or go back to their countries. Now, it seems they have a third choice, which is "whine to the pansy government in the name of freedom and tolerance and multiculturalism and <insert buzzword here>". Wankers.

I think I'll just quote you, since you did such an excellent job of contradicting yourself.

Quote:

That's a load of bollocks. Religions are religions, and everyone is entitled to the same freedom of religion, whether the government likes this religion or not.

Quote:

As for your whole "spirit of the law" nonsense, consider this: carrying guns in schools was already illegal. Despite freedom of religion, that never meant that you could be exempted from laws and rules to cater to your particular religion. That's why the you can't murder people because your religion requires you to kill infidels and get away with it, or do anything against the law. Why would we make an exception for the Sikhs? Because they're nice and peaceful?

Thus, we should ban the Catholics' Communion, because it is symbolic cannibalism (i.e. you're eating the body and blood of Christ), and for some years, it was believed that what you ate actually WAS the body of Christ.

Quote:

Again, there is the argument that another, non-Sikh student could steal it and use it to seriously harm another. And the presence of a visible weapon cannot be too good for atmosphere.

And in such a case, the child who stole it should be prosecuted, but that doesn't mean that the child who brought the dagger to school should be prosecuted as well. A child who is angry enough (or stupid enough) to attempt to murder somebody won't necessarily use conventional weapons like daggers. Haven't you heard of prison shanks? Hell, they don't even have to use weapons at all.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Considering it usually involved murder, I'd say so, yes.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by AtmaWeapon

This is bull and a fine example of double standards.

Funny, it would seem to me that allowing certain religious behaviors (Communion, for example, just because I love symbolic cannibalism ) and not others would be the double standard.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

I don't see why cannibals would be prosecuted for eating someone. Sure, they could get it for murder, but if you're lost with your buddy in the arctic wilderness and there's not enough food for both of you and he dies of frostbite or something, why should it be illegal to eat him?

Hmm... Well now, that would depend on the circumstances, such as possible prior agreement (If I die before you and there's no food, it's okay to eat me), the availability of other food sources, etc., etc.

And that is why a lot of these issues are so complicated, because you have to make a lot of difficult moral decisions based on the circumstances. This smilie speaks to me: :juggler:

Oh, and coincidentally, the main attraction of hard-line conservative movements such as the right-to-life is that it's an incredibly easy path to take. No moral judgements required: they're wrong, period.

Most amazing jew boots

Point conceded, RR.

Jam it back in, in the dark.