You know, it has always struck me as amusing how scam artists, hoplophobes, and other people afraid of the truth being exposed have made use of this new, digital media age around us.

For instance, after writing my post last night about the scam of trying to run your car with water, I did a quick Google search, and tried to leave a few comments on all of the patently fake, Potemkin-village-style weblogs out there supporting this fallacious technology. You can probably guess what happened at every single one of those fake weblogs... "Your comment is awaiting moderation." And now, looking back at those same weblogs, not a single one of my comments has made it through that "moderation" process... no great surprise there. Of interesting note, however, some of those weblogs are still monitored by their administrators, as evinced by the visit documented below:

*waves*

Apparently, the administrator even poked around my previous post, though declined to leave a comment. Again, no great surprise, especially considering just how much damage it does to the specious concept he is supporting.

However, unfortunately for him, he cannot hold that post in moderation forever, he cannot supress it, he cannot even edit it. You see, folks, whether you allow comments on your weblogs or not, whether you moderate those comments and use that moderation to weed out comments you do not agree with or just let anyone comment, whether you do your best to suppress an opposing viewpoint or just let them thrive, someone is always going to be able to speak out against you on the internet, whether you like it or not. Just because you do not allow the comments on your own weblogs does not mean we cannot go back to our weblogs and write up even larger, more damaging posts than the initial comments might have been (like I have done in the past). People's opinions, the truth, and opposing viewpoints always have a way of surfacing, especially in this newfound era of easy access to the digital media... Obviously, this is something the people supporting this whole water-based-scam have not yet come to terms with...

Sadly, they are not the only ones. Yesterday, I got directed (by Snowflakes in Hell) to a wonderfully ludicrous weblog by the name of "Disarming Britain". In short, this mouthpiece weblog serves as nothing more than an activism hub supporting the growing trend in Great Britain to disarm the law-abiding citizens of that once-great country of all possible weapons of every variety. And, unsurprisingly yet again, they do not like having their viewpoint challenged - I left a few comments on a variety of their posts, and came back this morning to find that none of them had been posted... though I did receive a visit by the site's administrator:

*waves again* Any time you want to stop by for an unedited and unstymied conversation, feel free to let me know.

But you and I both know that is not what they want... They want an unchallenged echo chamber where the can put forward their ideas, their beliefs, their desires as Word From God On High Passed Down By The Hands of Angels. Sorry folks, but that just ain't gonna happen, because obnoxious people like me have been given keys to a tiny sliver of the internet, and we are going to drive this thing into the ground. Unfortunately, I was an idiot yesterday, and did not save all of my comments when I posted them... the bad news of that is that I am going to have to reconstruct them all from memory. The good news, however, is I now have the time and inclination to make them even more problematic for the Disarming Britain than before.

Take, for instance, what was their leading post yesterday:

Self-confessed knife-carrier Peter Smith got in touch to share his thoughts.

As a law abiding knife carrier I feel like a Jew in Nazi Germany. Carrying a pocket knife for everyday tasks (modern packaging requires a knife, especially if you have arthritis) could soon land me in jail if I happen to come into contact with one of these 1984 police state checkpoints manned by a couple of ignorant officers.
I’d like everyone to know YOU CAN carry a knife legally. It has to have a blade under 3" and no safety lock.

That may be, but how often do you actually need a knife nowadays? Boy Scouts going camping with a Swiss Army Knife perhaps, but in modern, civilised society they should be near-enough completely unnecessary.

In answer to the question, I find I use my knife on a daily basis, for all manner of random applications. And, on those days where I do not use it, I am now comforted by the fact that it not only has a seatbelt cutter integrated into the handle, but also a glassbreaking tip, should I ever find myself in a disastrous car accident. After all, I (and probably most people) keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen should my attempts at cooking ever get out of control, why should we not then prepare for other possible accidents and emergencies? Finally and lastly, should the situation ever call for it, the knife might prove to be useful in a self-defense scenario - but that is honestly one of the last reasons I carry it. Oh, and by the way, the blade on that knife is a little over 3.5 inches (thus illegal in Britain, though just fine here in Kalifornistan)... and, yet, I have somehow managed not to assault anyone with it, not to use it in an offensive manner, and it has spilled absolutely no one's blood (which is rather surprising, really... more often than not, my knives tend to nip me in their first few days of use).

However, we are approaching this from the wrong angle, and that is the fault of the weblog's author - I should not have to justify my carrying a basic tool that has been around for millenia and I could probably make in my kitchen on my spare time if I wanted to. Instead, he, and all the rest of the people out there whose lives are governed by fear, should justify why they want to disarm me, a law-abiding, unassuming individual, of what could possibly be a valuable implement in a self-defense situation, and, in a more general sense, is a daily-useful tool. After all, I have done absolutely nothing, in my entire history (I do not even have a bloody speeding ticket to my name), that would indicate I would be a threat carrying a knife... why should I therefore not be allowed to do so?

Oh, right. The "crime" excuse - after all, if we get all the knives off the streets, that will reduce crime, right? Wrong, and, amusingly enough, the author even has the ironic nerve to admit it:

And let’s face it, with the number of stabbings going on in the current climate, even these laws don’t seem to be the answer.

Unfortunately, the author is probably using the continuing knife crime in England as leverage for more laws, even as he simultaneously admits that the current laws are doing nothing. Well, I hate to break it to you, bucko, but that is because laws only affect the law-abiding. I am not 100% familiar with English law, but I am fairly certain it is illegal to unlawfully kill someone, assault someone, rape someone, or rob someone... and yet criminals continue to do so, do they not? With or without the assistance of a knife, or even worse, a firearm? Funny how that happens. So, please, explain to me how yet another law is going to change that in the slightest, especially when your judges seem unwilling to enforce the laws already on the books? Please - any rational, logical, and reasoned explanation would be greatly beneficial to me understanding your position, because, right now, it just does not make sense.

Speaking of not making sense, though, the English people as a whole seem to have a pretty good grasp on that. I really have to wonder why the author felt such disjointed, rife-with-errors, discombobulated, incoherent rantings and ravings could help his position, but there they are. Honestly, I am not even going to bother fisking them... they stand for themselves.

However, while there are obviously some pretty daft folks in Great Britain, there are also some surprisingly reasonable ones yet, as shown by a poll which is obviously not going the way its authors intended. Discounting option three, there is an obviously overwhelming majority (80% is pretty bloody decisive) of people taking the poll who believe that carrying a weapon (of any variety - the poll is non-specific) for self-defense should be permitted. Some of those votes may be skewed by foreigners stumbling on it and making their own opinion known, but I would imagine that most of this site's traffic is still native. Eighty percent. And I bet the fear-driven, anti-rights folks like the weblog's author are still all for taking those same people's weapons and tools away, whether they are law-abiding or not. Kind of hard to keep up the "for the good of the people" canard, though...

The moral of this long and meandering story? Well, simply put, "moderating" comments on your weblogs (unless they are valid spam, or simply not useful to the conversation at hand) is only bound to cause you more problems than it is worth. If these websites had simply left my comments in place, or allowed them to post, I would not have been inclined to write this particular post, which will now attract attention from my 50+ daily hits (sad, I know), the Google and other search engine spiders that regularly prowl my website, and any of my active readers. If, however, the authors of the weblogs I addressed today would like to come over here and have a little conversation about what I and they wrote, well, they would be more than welcome to - unlike them, I know that it is only by challenging and questioning one's own ideas that one can weed out the wrong/false ones and strengthen the correct/accurate ones.