This part is more for fun:
And I consider any city, state, or country that forbids a Free Man (and this isn't a sexist remark, I an old fart who learned to use Man to refer to all of humanity, not just one gender, and I refuse to change with the times) the right of self defense to be in a mighty sad state of affairs.
First, I'm fifty but I'm learning not to say "army refers to all armed forces, not just one service, and I refuse to change with the times." Obviously, you've changed to the age of computers from the era of pencils. Something to think about.

Second, Freeman is a title, a rank, and specifically did not include women, so there's no need for a disclaimer anyway.

Swords and I, I started fencing in Edinburgh when I was eight. Foolishly declined the Canadian Olympic team at 16 having just discovered girls and motorcycles. Refused entry into the states at 17 for carrying fencing swords, to a competition, go figure. Routinely use a katana and bokken to trim hedges and bushes and sober up hungover neighbours (long story). All this to say that, unless you have a second to carry it most of the time, a sword is as James described it.

Legal stuff, usual disclaimers, but I understand British and Canadian laws are more similar. A cane would be legally safer but it would still be a weapon if the police chose to call it that. Usually it comes down to one more whack than legally necessary (my students learn the difference between the two defence laws: "to stop and attack" and "to stop a continuing attack".)

Having said all that, I still find myself quite aware when I see swords at Celtic festival that they're out of place. They're not toys.

May I ask, Doc, if your statement regarding rapiers and small swords represents a slippage from your usual stance on carrying firearms?