How public are you with your knives?

[DocJD]

When in public , I carry a utility (non tactical looking ) folder 4" or less blade - nondescript . I don't seek to garner notice . Use If and when needed only . Businesslike use and put away .

My SD weapons , carry CONCEALED . I was taught that exposing one's weapons in public is only slightly ruder and more foolish than flashing your private parts .

Carry concealed as if you aren't . Don't talk , tell or fondle them under your clothes . Don't act different when armed . Nor dress different .

If you MUST pull 'em - let it be a surprise ! If you carry it , you'd best be absolutely ready to use it . Never bluff .

Be alert , see trouble coming and avoid . Don't cause trouble . And you had better NOT SCARE the wrong "sheeple" because it's the scared ones who'll see you destroyed while the brave will let you be.

 

[sabre cat]

Hi! The more I read here, the better I appreciate the underlying principle of the legislations we have in many EU countries, the so called “justified reason to carry” . In Italy, under this principle, basically there are no restrictions or limitations whatsoever to buy and carry knives, besides those considered weapons (daggers, bayonets, OTF, etc.) for which one needs a gun permit and they are never allowed outside one’s premises.

For as fluffy and discretionary the “justified reason to carry” might be (basically it’s up to the Officers to evaluate and decide what’s proper and not proper), it ends up working - mostly - well . The principle basically says one is always allowed to carry a knife (and any other tool) when a “justifiable reason” is evident. It boils down to the simple question: “why are you carrying a knife/tool here and now?”. This translates in having both the context/scenarios and the users’ behaviors somehow regulated. So, while it’s perfectly fine to walk around in a mountain village with walking boots, checkered shirt and knickerbockers, having a huge billhook and a 30 cm long fixed blade hanging from the belt, it is questionable to sport the same in the financial district of downtown Milano . The “justified reason to carry” principle grants all professionals (like carpenters, electricians, cooks, plumbers, etc.) their needs/wants for carrying knives, so it is for hikers, campers, fishing enthusiasts and hobbyist horticulturists . What is not always granted is the individual right to carry whatsoever tool out of a context without a “justifiable reason”. Officers are, generally, reasonable and responsible people, so the German tourist with the family peeling an apple in Duomo square with a SAK will never be bothered, while a bunch of semi or fully drunk Feyenoord supporters can be arrested and charged only for the possession of a blunt screwdriver.

I need to point out that EDC is not, by default, considered among the “justifiable reasons” to carry, at least in Italy. Self-defense carry is a big no-no and here legislation it’s quite explicit about this so, even if defending from thugs, a citizen can get into serious trouble in case he/she gets a blade out of the pocket . Fair to say it’s very uncommon for regular, urban people to get into trouble for carrying a EDC folder or a small fixed blade and, when they do, it’s because either the context or their behaviors were "inappropriate".

Yes, I know on your side of the pond the “pursuit of individual happiness” it’s somehow sacred but, frankly speaking, I personally don’t consider my relative impossibility of making a show of carrying this or that, in a flaunted way, in an improper context, something that is impairing my happiness . Same goes for cars. Surely I am not the one campaigning for outlawing this or that trucks/SUVs, etc. but, in the same way, I don’t consider such vehicles a “proper” smart choice for a city dweller, especially in most Italian cities/town where we have ancient, narrow, cobble stones streets, centuries old monuments, lack of parking places, small shops and high density of pedestrians. Living in a mountain village? Have a farm in the countryside? Well, then a Toyota Prius is probably a very bad choice also. Latins had a say: “in medio stat virtus” and I buy this one. Take care.

Wow. As I read this I can't help but feel that all of your rights and privileges are granted to you by the state. Also seems that you are considered guilty unless you can justify your actions.

If true, That is pretty sad. The state giveth and the state taketh away.

 

[pinnah]

Look at it from a public safety standpoint? Why would I want to do that?

Ask me to look at something from a "personal responsibility first" standpoint and then we will have something to build on. I will go so far as to agree that some things can be more dangerous than others. Worthy of tighter regulations?

SabreCat,

I'm glad you asked to frame the discussion in terms of personal responsibility, as I think that is the central point.

I suspect that despite all the rhetoric, we actually agree on the basic philosophy of society's need, moral requirement even, to regulate dangerous items. Specifically, I think we will agree that:
1) Some items are so dangerous that their sale should be regulated.
2) Some items are so dangerous that who can purchase, own and use them should be regulated.
3) Some items are so dangerous that where and how they get used should be regulated.
4) Some items are so dangerous that it's rational for people to be afraid of both the item and the person who possesses it if it is used out of context.

That is, I think we will agree that society should and in fact must draw lines.

Where we may disagree is where those lines should be drawn. And we may disagree on what this all means in terms of personal responsibility in terms of legal use of dangerous items.

Agreement on principles is sometimes easiest to establish by considering extraordinary cases. Only the most radical libertarians and anarchists will deny the extreme cases.
1) I suspect you agree that stores like Walmart should not be allowed to sell fully automatic M16s with high capacity banana clips. Nor should they be allowed to sell shrapnel grenades or C4 plastic explosive. These things can be legally purchased in the US, but they shouldn't be sold to general public.

2) I suspect you agree that my teen son, who is a nice trustworthy kid (you'll need to take my word) who owns no firearm or explosives license should not be allowed to purchase an M16 with a high capacity mag, grenades nor C4. These things are so dangerous, only people with the proper licenses should be able to purchase them and possess them.

3) I suspect you agree that a person in the general public should not be allowed to carry an M16 with high capacity magazines, grenades or C4 into a school full of children, or into a crowded stadium. Members of the SWAT teams or the military might do this, but I think you would agree that the even appropriately licensed people shouldn't be allowed to even posses these items in these contexts.

4) I suspect that if a person out of uniform showed up on your doorstep or if you passed a person sitting on a park bench and they had an M16 with a high capacity magazines, grenades and explosives, you would be wary and would take steps to protect yourself and your family and you would do this because it would be rational because these items are that dangerous and because you wouldn't trust the motives of any person wielding them in public without any context such as a SWAT team or military uniform.

Now, if you agree with these things, and I can't believe you are so radical in your thinking that you don't, then we both agree that there are items that are so dangerous that society has a moral obligation to regulate their sale, ownership, and use and that seeing these things used out of an expected context, is a rational reason to be on guard.

That is, we agree that society must draw lines and our disagreement may only be on where those lines should be.

For the record, I think some regulations are ridiculous. It's nuts that a knife like the Victorinox Classic or Leatherman Micra shouldn't be allowed on commercial airplane flights. This sort of ban is "security theatre" designed to placate a frightened nation in the wake of 9/11.

But other regulations seem reasonable to me. I live near a city full of colleges and universities and I know cops who serve there and know how many drunken brawls end up violently. Add to this active gang and drug related crime. That city has banned knives with blades over 3" and while this certainly doesn't stop all knife related crimes, I see this as a reasonable way to reduce the number of knife related fatalities and injuries.

Now, we might disagree on where to draw these lines. Perhaps you think the TSA ban on all blades is reasonable but the city's 3" limit on blades is not. <shrug> That's the thing with democracy. We can agree to disagree.

Now, on personal responsibility... I don't know of any definition of personal responsibility that doesn't involve a willingness to restrain one's actions for the common good. Personal responsibility without restraint is just unrestrained personal liberty and personal liberty and personal responsibility shouldn't be confused as the same thing.

IMO, and you are free to disagree with this, is that whenever we as knife lovers use a knife that has a fixed or locking blade that is 3" or bigger we have the RESPONSIBILITY to recognize that not only are we holding a tool but something that is a weapon. IMO, to deny that such a knife is a weapon is nothing other than an attempt to shirk responsibility. Knives are frequently used in violent crimes and people are rationally afraid of both the knife itself but also of people who wield them in ways that are unexpected and out of context. IMO, when knife owners fail to exercise self-restraint and judgement on where and when they deploy their knife, they needlessly incite fear and invite society to make irrational over regulations.

 

[9Nine]

1) I suspect you agree that stores like Walmart should not be allowed to sell fully automatic M16s with high capacity banana clips. Nor should they be allowed to sell shrapnel grenades or C4 plastic explosive. These things can be legally purchased in the US, but they shouldn't be sold to general public.

Do you understand how difficult it is for the average citizen to purchase fully automatic weapons and explosives? You have mentioned "Fully automatic M-16 with banana clips", as well as "grenades and C4" repeatedly in your last post. I understand the argument you are trying to make, but to compare this to carrying a fixed blade knife in public is absurd.

But other regulations seem reasonable to me. I live near a city full of colleges and universities and I know cops who serve there and know how many drunken brawls end up violently. Add to this active gang and drug related crime. That city has banned knives with blades over 3" and while this certainly doesn't stop all knife related crimes, I see this as a reasonable way to reduce the number of knife related fatalities and injuries.

Call me crazy, but I have serious doubts that somebody who intends on committing a violent crime with a knife is going to care at all about laws that dictate how long the blade of a knife can be.

 

[aicolainen]

Herlock, we have the same principle in Norway, and also here it works very well for most people. Unlike you however, I'm not comfortable with the way it is.
I mostly carry a knife, EDC or other, I can most likely continue to do this for the rest of my life without any problem. Should I however get in a situation where I attract the attention of an eager police officer, my knife could get me charged even if I was guilty of nothing else than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Like you mentioned in your post, if you look or appear as a hooligan, you can be charged for only carrying a screw driver. These are the laws of a police state, and allow the police to discriminate between the appearantly good citizen and the more unfortunate ones. These kind of laws does not provide the necessary legal protection and really does not belong in a free and democratic society.
Again, like you said, in real life it has worked quite well, because the police mostly choose not to enforce the law to the full extent of their authorized powers. But society is changing. Refugees and other immigrants with different cultural background have different knife cultures, and there has been an apparent raise in knife crimes following this. There is no doubt in my mind, this has and will further tighten police enforcement of our knife privileges.
There is a long tradition here, in scandinavia at least, that if you act responsible, you can do what you want. So much so, that it has found its way into our legislation. Being raised in this culture, I really like this concept, but it only works if everybody plays along, and it is very easy to exploit this very fragile house of cards.
I guess the better solution would be to adapt the best of both worlds, and have some fundamental rights as the base (like in the US), and then you can go beyond those written rights if you atc responsible and have justifiable reason.

 

[boy&hisdogs]

Where we may disagree is where those lines should be drawn. And we may disagree on what this all means in terms of personal responsibility in terms of legal use of dangerous items.

Agreement on principles is sometimes easiest to establish by considering extraordinary cases. Only the most radical libertarians and anarchists will deny the extreme cases.
1) I suspect you agree that stores like Walmart should not be allowed to sell fully automatic M16s with high capacity banana clips. Nor should they be allowed to sell shrapnel grenades or C4 plastic explosive. These things can be legally purchased in the US, but they shouldn't be sold to general public.

2) I suspect you agree that my teen son, who is a nice trustworthy kid (you'll need to take my word) who owns no firearm or explosives license should not be allowed to purchase an M16 with a high capacity mag, grenades nor C4. These things are so dangerous, only people with the proper licenses should be able to purchase them and possess them.

3) I suspect you agree that a person in the general public should not be allowed to carry an M16 with high capacity magazines, grenades or C4 into a school full of children, or into a crowded stadium. Members of the SWAT teams or the military might do this, but I think you would agree that the even appropriately licensed people shouldn't be allowed to even posses these items in these contexts.

4) I suspect that if a person out of uniform showed up on your doorstep or if you passed a person sitting on a park bench and they had an M16 with a high capacity magazines, grenades and explosives, you would be wary and would take steps to protect yourself and your family and you would do this because it would be rational because these items are that dangerous and because you wouldn't trust the motives of any person wielding them in public without any context such as a SWAT team or military uniform.

Now, if you agree with these things, and I can't believe you are so radical in your thinking that you don't, then we both agree that there are items that are so dangerous that society has a moral obligation to regulate their sale, ownership, and use and that seeing these things used out of an expected context, is a rational reason to be on guard.

That is, we agree that society must draw lines and our disagreement may only be on where those lines should be.

For the record, I think some regulations are ridiculous. It's nuts that a knife like the Victorinox Classic or Leatherman Micra shouldn't be allowed on commercial airplane flights. This sort of ban is "security theatre" designed to placate a frightened nation in the wake of 9/11.

But other regulations seem reasonable to me. I live near a city full of colleges and universities and I know cops who serve there and know how many drunken brawls end up violently. Add to this active gang and drug related crime. That city has banned knives with blades over 3" and while this certainly doesn't stop all knife related crimes, I see this as a reasonable way to reduce the number of knife related fatalities and injuries.

Now, we might disagree on where to draw these lines. Perhaps you think the TSA ban on all blades is reasonable but the city's 3" limit on blades is not. <shrug> That's the thing with democracy. We can agree to disagree.

Now, on personal responsibility... I don't know of any definition of personal responsibility that doesn't involve a willingness to restrain one's actions for the common good. Personal responsibility without restraint is just unrestrained personal liberty and personal liberty and personal responsibility shouldn't be confused as the same thing.

IMO, and you are free to disagree with this, is that whenever we as knife lovers use a knife that has a fixed or locking blade that is 3" or bigger we have the RESPONSIBILITY to recognize that not only are we holding a tool but something that is a weapon. IMO, to deny that such a knife is a weapon is nothing other than an attempt to shirk responsibility. Knives are frequently used in violent crimes and people are rationally afraid of both the knife itself but also of people who wield them in ways that are unexpected and out of context. IMO, when knife owners fail to exercise self-restraint and judgement on where and when they deploy their knife, they needlessly incite fear and invite society to make irrational over regulations.

One big mistake you make is lumping guns and explosives together. A bullet only goes where you point it, but explosives just destroy everything within a certain radius and are far harder to predict and control than a gun. Now that I've made that point...

1) Don't assume so much. I for one think Walmart should be able to sell whatever kinds of guns they want. Just because the gun holds a few extra bullets or shoots them a little faster doesn't mean it goes from "grandpappy's hunting rifle" to "killing machine" overnight, nor will it suddenly posses it's user and brainwash a regular person into a murderer. If you have no history of violence or mental illness then you should be able to own any gun, be it rifle, shotgun, handgun or machine gun. If you cannot be trusted with one gun, you cannot be trusted with any of them, and if you can, then you can with all of them.

2) Teens in America have had their own guns for the past few hundred years. Gun violence among young people, especially school shootings has only been around for the past couple decades, about the time that teens stopped having guns. This is because kids were no longer being taught the proper handling and respect for guns. We all know that "abstinence only" education for sex and drugs doesn't work, what makes you think it will work for other potentially dangerous things like guns and knives?

3) We can and do. Millions of people have concealed carry permits and carry a gun to the movies, to the grocery store, out to dinner, and pretty much everywhere else that doesn't have metal detectors at the door. But do you ever hear about normal people getting into shootouts in public? No, almost never, because the only people who commit gun crimes are gangsters and murderers, who already get, carry and use their weapons illegally anyway regardless of what the law says.

4) I see people with visible knives (on a pocket clip or belt) all the time, I don't even notice or care. I've also noticed people with guns before (poorly concealed), but as a rational person I understand that if he's grocery shopping in Walmart then he's probably not going to start trouble. You can usually spot bad/crazy people when you see them. Again, the bad people already have guns, sometimes even openly. There's neighborhoods in parts of our country where there's men with rifles all along the rooftops that will take shots at policemen and rival gang members just for the fun of it. None of these men bought these guns legally, nor are they legally allowed to have or shoot these guns because of who they are and what they do, but they get them anyway, and commit the crimes anyway.

As for the tool vs weapon thing, it's only a weapon if you use it as such. None of my knives are weapons because I only cut things with them, not people. A screwdriver or a saw or a brick or a hammer could be a weapon if you wanted it too. Do we need to start regulating hammers and screwdrivers too? According to the FBI Crime stats, more than twice as many people are killed every year with bare hands and feet than with rifles, including the super scary, high capacity "M16" that you keep bringing up.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

So yes, it is a personal responsibility issue. Only when we gave up focusing on personal responsibility and instead chose to hide behind laws and bans did gun violence and school shootings and stabbings become a big issue. When you just try to ban something like that all you're doing is sticking your head in the sand.

 

[pinnah]

Do you understand how difficult it is for the average citizen to purchase fully automatic weapons and explosives? You have mentioned "Fully automatic M-16 with banana clips", as well as "grenades and C4" repeatedly in your last post. I understand the argument you are trying to make, but to compare this to carrying a fixed blade knife in public is absurd.

No. What is absurd is the extreme libertarian argument that we, as a society, don't have the right to restrict personal freedoms for the common good by regulating dangerous items. Of course we do. We regulate guns, explosives, vehicles, airplanes and yes, knives.

Society informally and correctly considers knives to be weapons. Certain knives are formally and legally defined as weapons.

We have the responsibility of accepting the fact that when we use a knife in public we are using a weapon, particularly when it is a fixed or locking blade. This demands that we use discretion and judgement to constrain our behavior to fit the norm of the context we're in.

Can you stand in a grocery store and deploy a fixed blade? Sure, if you're working the produce or meat sections. But not as a customer while checking out. Context matters. People who fail to accept the personal responsibility to use judgment in using discretion on when and how they use their knives make the problem worse for the rest of us. They needlessly incite fear that drives over-regulation. The last thing I want is over-regulation of knives. And people who stamp their feet demanding that the government doesn't have the right to regulate knives make the problem worse, making knife people appear to be lunatics. Of course the government can regulate knives.

 

[Pomsbz]

So... what you are saying is that a violent criminal's life is worth more than an innocent victim's? I thought living in California was bad, but jeez. I mean I knew this idiocy existed in Europe, but what's sad is that regular people think that this is the proper way to live.

Also, in regards to the bold text, I think you misspelled "proletariat."

There is no more fundamental right of a person nor more basic and natural instinct of any living thing than to protect it's own life.

I have a feeling that European law recognises that a knife is such a poor self defence weapon that claiming that it is carried as such can be automatically discounted. Please note that I disagree strongly with the concept that any self defence tool is illegal and self defence as a concept questionable as it is in the UK for example.

 

[9Nine]

No. What is absurd is the extreme libertarian argument that we, as a society, don't have the right to restrict personal freedoms for the common good by regulating dangerous items.

Yes. You are turning the argument towards politics again and ignoring pretty much everything I said. I have seen you targeting "libertarians" in this thread repeatedly. Again, I understand what you are saying. I understand your argument. And yes, the government has the authority to regulate dangerous items, to include knives. I may not necessarily agree with it, but I am not disputing the fact.

But you are putting fixed blade and folding knives on a pedestal along with fully automatic weapons and explosives. The purchase and possession of fully automatic weapons and explosives is heavily, heavily restricted and monitored. The purchase and possession of most knives is not.

Additionally, explosives and fully automatic weapons are designed for one purpose, and that is to kill people and break things. Most knives are primarily a tool. Can they be used to kill people break things? Of course. But they are not even in the same ballpark.

 

[benchwarmer380]

Society informally and correctly considers knives to be weapons. Certain knives are formally and legally defined as weapons.

We have the responsibility of accepting the fact that when we use a knife in public we are using a weapon, particularly when it is a fixed or locking blade. This demands that we use discretion and judgement to constrain our behavior to fit the norm of the context we're in.

I'm going to disagree with this based on the definition of weapon per the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weapon

A weapon, is used to inflict harm. A knife peeling an apple or cutting a box is not a weapon it is a tool. A brick is just material used in construction. Now if one chooses to smash another's head in with a brick or stab them with a knife then those are weapons. Same thing with a hammer or screw driver. Context of use matters. No one here disagrees that knives can be used as weapons. The issue is when that idea is pushed to the forefront and is the only quality that is now recognized in that tool.

Per the definition of weapon, I'd even be hard pressed to call the rifles, shotguns, and handguns that I may or may not own weapons. They have never once been used to harm another person. 1000s of rounds fired have torn apart paper targets sure, but that is purely recreational. A sporting gun if you will. Luckily, we live in a country that as a law abiding citizen I can own these if I chose to and there are a plethora of styles and designs to fit a variety of tastes and needs. I can keep these in my home for sport and for personal protection if the need arises. I can also get a carry permit to have a handgun on my persons if the day ever occurs that I need to protect my life from another that wants to take it. If that day ever occurs, I might just call my tools for sport and defense a weapon.

 

[shinyedges]

Utterly appalling, some people live scared sheltered lives and then want to dictate to the rest of us. Luckily those, impotent folks are the minority.

 

[Ironbut]

Utterly appalling, some people live scared sheltered lives and then want to dictate to the rest of us. Luckily those, impotent folks are the minority.

I come from a time when every boy carried a knife to school. Those of us who were hunters routinely had our shotguns or deer rifles in our vehicles, in plain sight, because we went hunting after school. Interestingly enough, there was no blood running in the school hallways or in the parking lot. No knife fights or gunbattles.

It was also a time before ladders needed to have warning labels on then warning of fall danger. Everyone knew gas could explode, so they didn't play with matches around it & nobody needed to be told that coffee was hot. People took responsibility for their actions then, instead of blaming a manufacturer or others for their stupidity. Those who violated rules of common sense either learned from their mistakes, or never survived to the age where they could reproduce.

We've short circuited Darwin's theory & the world is a much more dangerous place because of it.

 

[Quiet]

Hi! The more I read here, the better I appreciate the underlying principle of the legislations we have in many EU countries, the so called “justified reason to carry” . In Italy, under this principle, basically there are no restrictions or limitations whatsoever to buy and carry knives, besides those considered weapons (daggers, bayonets, OTF, etc.) for which one needs a gun permit and they are never allowed outside one’s premises.

For as fluffy and discretionary the “justified reason to carry” might be (basically it’s up to the Officers to evaluate and decide what’s proper and not proper), it ends up working - mostly - well . The principle basically says one is always allowed to carry a knife (and any other tool) when a “justifiable reason” is evident. It boils down to the simple question: “why are you carrying a knife/tool here and now?”. This translates in having both the context/scenarios and the users’ behaviors somehow regulated. So, while it’s perfectly fine to walk around in a mountain village with walking boots, checkered shirt and knickerbockers, having a huge billhook and a 30 cm long fixed blade hanging from the belt, it is questionable to sport the same in the financial district of downtown Milano . The “justified reason to carry” principle grants all professionals (like carpenters, electricians, cooks, plumbers, etc.) their needs/wants for carrying knives, so it is for hikers, campers, fishing enthusiasts and hobbyist horticulturists . What is not always granted is the individual right to carry whatsoever tool out of a context without a “justifiable reason”. Officers are, generally, reasonable and responsible people, so the German tourist with the family peeling an apple in Duomo square with a SAK will never be bothered, while a bunch of semi or fully drunk Feyenoord supporters can be arrested and charged only for the possession of a blunt screwdriver.

I need to point out that EDC is not, by default, considered among the “justifiable reasons” to carry, at least in Italy. Self-defense carry is a big no-no and here legislation it’s quite explicit about this so, even if defending from thugs, a citizen can get into serious trouble in case he/she gets a blade out of the pocket . Fair to say it’s very uncommon for regular, urban people to get into trouble for carrying a EDC folder or a small fixed blade and, when they do, it’s because either the context or their behaviors were "inappropriate".

Yes, I know on your side of the pond the “pursuit of individual happiness” it’s somehow sacred but, frankly speaking, I personally don’t consider my relative impossibility of making a show of carrying this or that, in a flaunted way, in an improper context, something that is impairing my happiness . Same goes for cars. Surely I am not the one campaigning for outlawing this or that trucks/SUVs, etc. but, in the same way, I don’t consider such vehicles a “proper” smart choice for a city dweller, especially in most Italian cities/town where we have ancient, narrow, cobble stones streets, centuries old monuments, lack of parking places, small shops and high density of pedestrians. Living in a mountain village? Have a farm in the countryside? Well, then a Toyota Prius is probably a very bad choice also. Latins had a say: “in medio stat virtus” and I buy this one. Take care.

I am super glad I don't live in the EU. Wow.

 

[Quiet]

No. What is absurd is the extreme libertarian argument that we, as a society, don't have the right to restrict personal freedoms for the common good by regulating dangerous items. Of course we do. We regulate guns, explosives, vehicles, airplanes and yes, knives.

Society informally and correctly considers knives to be weapons. Certain knives are formally and legally defined as weapons.

We have the responsibility of accepting the fact that when we use a knife in public we are using a weapon, particularly when it is a fixed or locking blade. This demands that we use discretion and judgement to constrain our behavior to fit the norm of the context we're in.

Can you stand in a grocery store and deploy a fixed blade? Sure, if you're working the produce or meat sections. But not as a customer while checking out. Context matters. People who fail to accept the personal responsibility to use judgment in using discretion on when and how they use their knives make the problem worse for the rest of us. They needlessly incite fear that drives over-regulation. The last thing I want is over-regulation of knives. And people who stamp their feet demanding that the government doesn't have the right to regulate knives make the problem worse, making knife people appear to be lunatics. Of course the government can regulate knives.

Says the guy who has essentially written a Manifesto declaring that the Government should be able to regulate your personal feelings against Americans being able to enjoy their rights into reality. Absurd. You are ridiculous, and at this point, you frankly disgust me with your nanny handringing and "Well the Government should be able to restrict personal freedoms because it's all "contextual". Yeah, that's smart. Let's let the Government decide for us, and enforce what they think is best. Disgusting and absurd.

The absolute cowardly way in which you live your live is vile to anyone who believes in personal freedom. It's apparent that you certainly don't. By the way, comrade? Good work. I've heard tell that your posts here will earn you extra food vouchers. You can pick them up at the next Party meeting. FOR THE GLORY OF THE STATE!

 

[22-rimfire]

Our Constitution recognizes inalienable rights. Most countries do not have a constitution like ours. It is part of what makes the USA so special in today's world.

As for Pinnah mentioning the Libertarian philosophy, that is not particularly political unless it becomes the specific topic of discussion.

 

[Quiet]

Frankly, I'm not completely sure how this thread hasn't been locked yet.

 

[22-rimfire]

Frankly Quiet, considering your last post #474, I agree with you as you focus almost entirely on the person and not the topic to the point of attacking him personally. This needs to quiet down or this thread will get locked.

 

[Quiet]

Frankly Quiet, considering your last post #474, I agree with you as you focus almost entirely on the person and not the topic to the point of attacking him personally. This needs to quiet down or this thread will get locked.

What is the point worthy of consideration? That we should accept that there should be more stringent laws on knives because people like Pinnah think they are primarily weapons and should be regulated as such? That is both wrong and insulting to anyone who actually appreciates knives as the tools they are. Also, please don't attempt to dress me down, that's not going to go well for you. Pinnah is the one who decided to bring Government into this, not me. Get it right, thanks.

 

[shinyedges]

What is the point worthy of consideration? That we should accept that there should be more stringent laws on knives because people like Pinnah think they are primarily weapons and should be regulated as such? That is both wrong and insulting to anyone who actually appreciates knives as the tools they are. Also, please don't attempt to dress me down, that's not going to go well for you. Pinnah is the one who decided to bring Government into this, not me. Get it right, thanks.

Agreed

 

[Pomsbz]

Frankly Quiet, considering your last post #474, I agree with you as you focus almost entirely on the person and not the topic to the point of attacking him personally. This needs to quiet down or this thread will get locked.

I'll agree with that. That post is an embarrassment to the concept of debate.