Anti-Ivory Groups Take Aim at WA, IA & CA (Mammoth Included) + Fed Update

[stabman]

That's a shame, Stab. No common ground was reached?

Nope.
I was calm, because I don't see it as a big deal.
He was emotional, probably because the topic just did not fit into his world view.

He's also younger, at the age where many university students think they're going to change the world.
I've already been out there, and found out that such lofty goals and idealism rarely survive outside the classroom.

 

[stabman]

This is no different than saying that murder should be legal because it impossible to prevent.

Whaling example, chemical dumping, blah, blah, blah. No one needs all poaching to 100% end. We just need the extreme amount of poaching to end.

See, you're jumping to emotional hyperdrive.
We've gone from talking about mammoths, to child pornography, and now the always popular murder.

All we need is for people on both "sides" to start bringing the Hitler comparisons into play, and this thread will be complete.

 

[RedLynx]

Gotcha. He'll grow up soon enough.

Nope.
I was calm, because I don't see it as a big deal.
He was emotional, probably because the topic just did not fit into his world view.

He's also younger, at the age where many university students think they're going to change the world.
I've already been out there, and found out that such lofty goals and idealism rarely survive outside the classroom.

 

[stabman]

Gotcha. He'll grow up soon enough.

His first post-graduation minimum wage job should do that for him.

 

[RedLynx]

See, you're jumping to emotional hyperdrive.
We've gone from talking about mammoths, to child pornography, and now the always popular murder.

All we need is for people on both "sides" to start bringing the Hitler comparisons into play, and this thread will be complete.

If you use ivory you support elephantine genocide which is like human genocide which is like Hitler. Boom. Done in three.

 

[Mark Knapp]

OK, a few things. First, I don't remember saying I would do anything, as of now I am just an individual voice on this matter. If I did, please refresh my memory. Anyway, this is a long thread, so no worries.

You posted your ivory ban thread (well, DR did) in a public knife discussion forum informing knife enthusiasts that Knife rights will be advocating for this cause. Then, the vast majority of people said they were against it, and explained that they didn't understand why knife rights is spending their time, and more importantly, putting their rep on the line with this "cause" that most knife owners are showing they disagree w in the first place. Knife rights, you are polarizing yourself from your OWN people, let alone the people that want peoples real knife rights to diminish. Knife rights, IMO, has shown they do not care about the populace opinion of who they represent as long as a select few are giving them money, they will throw down in the fight. Even when those they represent are telling them en mass it doesn't represent the knife community.

It seems to me that a few elite folks are using knife rights for their personal lawyer/representative. If that is the case, then Knife Rights, do what you may, but know you are jeopardizing a LOT in the process. For those poor, unfortunate souls who ivory collections are going to be worth less. Or worthless. That's business, you played into a taboo market and lost money. The people here seem to understand what a real cause is and what problems truly curse the world. If you need examples of the true tragedies people are facing in the world today, let me know, I'll provide them.

If "knife rights" decides to turn their back on the masses of knife lovers and enthusiasts to represent an arbitrary cause then they should think about changing their name.

But don't get mad because you took something public and were met with staunch disagreement.

In summary, "knife rights", you are making a terrible political move with this cause. I hope the voices in this thread help you re-think that.

I am not mad. If I got you mixed up with some one else, sorry about that. That was Doug Ritter's thread, I was not involved with that thread, and did not know about it. If you guys told him how you felt, he must have weighed all the variables and made a decision.

You are talking like the ivory issue is a done deal, I am here and we are here because we believe it is not a done deal. It's my opinion that the knife guys and the gun guys and the ivory guys should all work together to fight the battles that we see eye to eye on. Some day, you may need my help. That day may already be here.

 

[stabman]

If you use ivory you support elephantine genocide which is like human genocide which is like Hitler. Boom. Done in three.

Nicely done.

Or, if you support the ban, you're an authoritarian tyrant who hates freedom, just like Hitler.

It works both ways. :thumbup:

 

[craytab]

Do you happen to know if there is any logical reason for this? I mean to say, did some event or events happen, wherein city government deemed it appropriate to say that no one living or visiting that city cannot carry a knife of any kind, unlike the rest of the state and most other U.S. cities? It's a very curious thing.

Not to derail the delightful argument going on but I thought I would respond to this. No, I know of no instance or reason for this, but I haven't really looked into it. Heck, I didn't even know there was a ban in Philly until I was looking into my CCW. I had broken the Philly knife law several times unbenounced to me.

When I look on my Knife Rights LegalBlade™ App (shameless plug: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-to-Knife-Rights-LegalBlade™-App-Download-Now!) it does say that if the knife is being used for work it is Okay. Everything else, no no. Like I said earlier in this thread, I can legally carry my glock with my CCW because of our preemption law but a SAK? Nope.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Except you pretty explicitly stated that you got a bigger say in how he does business because of the money you raised.

No, I did not say that, if it came out that way it was a misunderstanding. I did say in a later post that maybe some of my money would be used on other causes, and I do not begrudge that.

 

[RX-79G]

See, you're jumping to emotional hyperdrive.
We've gone from talking about mammoths, to child pornography, and now the always popular murder.

All we need is for people on both "sides" to start bringing the Hitler comparisons into play, and this thread will be complete.

It isn't emotional to try and spell out the obvious conclusion to a blanket statement.

Your statement is essentially "Legal limitations are impossible to police, therefore there should be no legal limitations."

Does that strike anyone as a logical, unemotional statement?


Legal limitations can and do greatly decrease the amount of anything that they govern. I apologize if I felt the need to resort to the blatantly obvious to make this point to you. Would you prefer the whaling example, the pollution example or some other non-Hitler way of explaining this to you? Not every law is a failure like Prohibition.

 

[Lycosa]

All this, for the teeth of an animal.
Mein Gott! I mean, my gosh.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

No, I did not say that, if it came out that way it was a misunderstanding. I did say in a later post that maybe some of my money would be used on other causes, and I do not begrudge that.

Fair enough. You and the principal subject seem to have cleared it up.

 

[stabman]

Would you prefer the whaling example, the pollution example or some other non-Hitler way of explaining this to you? Not every law is a failure like Prohibition.

I prefer the extinct animals don't need to be protected from extinction because they are already extinct example.

I don't want any elephant ivory, because to me it looks boring as hell (all white is really boring...I know because I'm white ).
Mammoth ivory of the sort I want has all sorts of cool colours, so it sure won't be mistaken for elephant ivory by anyone.

 

[BenchCo Spydermade]

I am not mad. If I got you mixed up with some one else, sorry about that. That was Doug Ritter's thread, I was not involved with that thread, and did not know about it. If you guys told him how you felt, he must have weighed all the variables and made a decision.

You are talking like the ivory issue is a done deal, I am here and we are here because we believe it is not a done deal. It's my opinion that the knife guys and the gun guys and the ivory guys should all work together to fight the battles that we see eye to eye on. Some day, you may need my help. That day may already be here.

Mark, just wanted to say, regardless of my disagreeing with you, you are doing a great job fielding this thread. Its an issue that's easy to get hot about on either side I guess. As many people as you've been responding to and heated as it is I'd eventually flip on someone! Lol.

I stand where I stand, but still think knife rights is a great organization. I just feel representing this particular cause would not further the overall mission they were created to address.

 

[stabman]

Of course, my opinion may not count to many here.
I live in Canada, so Knife Rights does nothing for me.
And we aren't banning any mammoths around here either.

Heck, I can get Narwhal tusks if I have the cash.

 

[22-rimfire]

This thread goes round and round. Mark Knapp made some good contributions actually trying to pursuade the pro-banning group. There have been other threads over in political on ivory and I have come to the conclusion that saving the African Elephant is all about enforcement in country and enforcement on the US and other western nation side at the point things come into the country (imports legal or illegal). When the Chinese ban ivory, then maybe a dent can be made into the poaching issue if they truly enforced importation bans.

I personally can live without ivory handled knives, but I don't believe the small amount of ivory used in knife making makes any real difference in the big picture in terms of the African Elephant or the elephant ivory source. I also strongly believe that banning the sale of something already legally in the US is a crime. Some have used the term tyranny. That might be a bit strong, but one of the triggers in the Revolutionary War was taxing tea.... The ivory banners here would simply say... substitute something else... you know get a life.... I dissagree.

 

[Mark Knapp]

This is the bit I'm referencing, in case you ask.

That was probably poorly written. I wrote it when someone said "Doug is defending poachers" Wow. I did not tell him what he should do with the money. In many organizations, people think that, for the price of membership they should be able to dictate how the organization works. That is not the case. But that's a whole other issue.

 

[craytab]

Fair enough. You and the principal subject seem to have cleared it up.

Mark, just wanted to say, regardless of my disagreeing with you, you are doing a great job fielding this thread. Its an issue that's easy to get hot about on either side I guess. As many people as you've been responding to and heated as it is I'd eventually flip on someone! Lol.

I stand where I stand, but still think knife rights is a great organization. I just feel representing this particular cause would not further the overall mission they were created to address.

See! We can all get that warm fuzzy feeling. We may not totally agree but there is no need to be nasty!

 

[RedLynx]

Very interesting, thanks.

I would be less surprised to find something like this in, say, Boston, with its long and storied mob history, etc.

Not to derail the delightful argument going on but I thought I would respond to this. No, I know of no instance or reason for this, but I haven't really looked into it. Heck, I didn't even know there was a ban in Philly until I was looking into my CCW. I had broken the Philly knife law several times unbenounced to me.

When I look on my Knife Rights LegalBlade™ App (shameless plug: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-to-Knife-Rights-LegalBlade™-App-Download-Now!) it does say that if the knife is being used for work it is Okay. Everything else, no no. Like I said earlier in this thread, I can legally carry my glock with my CCW because of our preemption law but a SAK? Nope.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

That was probably poorly written. I wrote it when someone said "Doug is defending poachers" Wow. I did not tell him what he should do with the money. In many organizations, people think that, for the price of membership they should be able to dictate how the organization works. That is not the case. But that's a whole other issue.

I can understand how that would get you worked up, and it's easy to misinterpret over the wubz. Apologies for the accusation.