Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 67

Thread: Pro-knife/Anti-knife?

  1. #1
    Senior Member fm2176's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    539
    Credits
    404
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Pro-knife/Anti-knife?

    Speaking of knives...

    Has anyone else heard about this? Seems firearms may not be the only tool some entities seek to further restrict possession of.

  2. #2
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Just because customs restricts something doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the country will follow suit. It does set a certain precedent though, and there may be some reason to display concern~

    However, on the actual issue, I feel as though if switchblades are illegal, AO might as well be too. I know there's a huge difference between the mechanical logistics of the two, but both have some sort of part in them that does most or all of the opening of the blade, and that's what made switchblades illegal in the first place. I have zero problem seeing AO knives losing their legal status. (Craftsmen/utility works can get by without AO knives, I know I never needed an assisted open knife working in the factory or on the job site)

    My dispute to legislation like this being pushed is less in what they're intended for and more in the level of vagueness some seemingly possess. Are lawmakers incapable of being specific in their laws? Do they legitimately expect us to not realize how "interpretable" or "flexible" their laws are in court? Leaving leeway in the laws can't do anything to help us, as many law abiding citizens wish to follow the laws but have trouble deciphering the exact meaning of some.
    Last edited by faesce; 06-14-2009 at 11:23 AM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member crunker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    162
    Credits
    224
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    This will give a new meaning to the word "unenforceable".

    "[T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
    -Most highest, grandest, exalted, shiny and exalted Sheikh Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.

  4. #4
    FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU Anonymous D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,624
    Credits
    2,337
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Customs also banned any laser over 5 mW.

    I have a 30 mW and you can get them as strong as you want online. You just have to know where to look.

    And the whole switchblade thing is stupid IMO. The point of a switch blade is to be able to deploy the blade fast ans easy. So they ban it. What about fixed blades? THEY ARE ALREADY "DEPLOYED"
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    roses are red,
    violets are blue,
    deathmaster numbers,
    i'm gonna rape you

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I had a dream

  5. #5
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous D View Post
    And the whole switchblade thing is stupid IMO. The point of a switch blade is to be able to deploy the blade fast ans easy. So they ban it. What about fixed blades? THEY ARE ALREADY "DEPLOYED"
    Yet another example of weapons legislation being driven by ignorant perception rather than fact. Switchblades have been perceived as being associated with gang violence and criminality, largely due to media imagery depicting them in this way and the popular image of the leather-jacketed switchblade-wielding thug, so they get regulated more heavily than other knives, without any consideration of whether they are actually more dangerous than other types of knives. It's the exact same thing that drives AWBs and similar gun legislation. People and lawmakers, with no realistic understanding of these issues, form opinions--and laws--based on what looks scary when they see it on the tee-vee. Lawmakers are not going to pass sensible laws about things that they don't understand and can't think about rationally.

  6. #6
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Yet another example of weapons legislation being driven by ignorant perception rather than fact. Switchblades have been perceived as being associated with gang violence and criminality, largely due to media imagery depicting them in this way and the popular image of the leather-jacketed switchblade-wielding thug, so they get regulated more heavily than other knives, without any consideration of whether they are actually more dangerous than other types of knives. It's the exact same thing that drives AWBs and similar gun legislation. People and lawmakers, with no realistic understanding of these issues, form opinions--and laws--based on what looks scary when they see it on the tee-vee. Lawmakers are not going to pass sensible laws about things that they don't understand and can't think about rationally.
    Does it really come as a surprise to you that publicly perceived issues are being patched up by publicly appointed politicians? Whether or not you feel (or know) a switchblade is any more dangerous than a boxcutter, or an automatic firearm is any more lethal than a pellet gun, that knowledge has zero impact on the vast majority of the public's impression. That impression is what therefore dictates some or most of the laws, and allows a pseudo sense of security to be achieved. Everybody knows this, and if somebody didn't, they're probably an idiot.

    The whole "the public doesn't know shit and politicians are dumb" thing is pretty obnoxious to read simply due to the weird patronizing tones that usually go with it~
    Last edited by faesce; 06-15-2009 at 11:32 AM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faesce View Post
    Does it really come as a surprise to you that publicly perceived issues are being patched up by publicly appointed politicians? Whether or not you feel (or know) a switchblade is any more dangerous than a boxcutter, or an automatic firearm is any more lethal than a pellet gun, that knowledge has zero impact on the vast majority of the public's impression. That impression is what therefore dictates some or most of the laws, and allows a pseudo sense of security to be achieved. Everybody knows this, and if somebody didn't, they're probably an idiot.
    Of course it doesn't come as a surprise to me; what part of my post could possibly make you think I was surprised by this, or didn't already know it, or expected my knowledge to be reflected in the views of the general public? I was expounding on Anonymous D's point about switchblade laws, which is just about the exact opposite of expressing surprise at it. No, I am not surprised that an ignorant general public elects ignorant politicians who pass stupid laws, and of course I realize that the views of knowledgeable people don't have any impact on the views of the general public. Why would you think that because I express annoyance at this fact, I must be surprised by it or ignorant of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by faesce
    The whole "the public doesn't know shit and politicians are dumb" thing is pretty obnoxious to read simply due to the weird patronizing tones that usually go with it~
    Well, when it comes to firearms (and knives), it's definitely true; the general public, and the politicians representing them, don't know shit. I don't really care whether you find it obnoxious to read. If you don't want to read posts in which gun/knife owners express exasperation at the cluelessness of the politicians passing gun/knife laws, then you shouldn't be hanging out in the gun/knife forum and going into gun/knife threads. And I wouldn't call my attitude here "patronizing"; patronization implies that I'm being indulgent. "Contemptuous" is probably a better word. I have contempt for politicians who make a point of pushing laws on issues of which they're ignorant.

  8. #8
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I was going to respond, but halfway through the reply I realized arguing with you about something in the gun/knife forum is like throwing kerosene at a wildfire. Every opinion I express is met with a hundred more semi-related ones.

    Anyway, while you're not a particularly malicious person, you're definitely ignorant in a few very annoying ways imo. I'd be lying if I said you weren't very well educated on the issues you bring up, however I feel as though there's a degree of obnoxious patronization (yes, I know you don't feel as though you're displaying it--but you do) in everything you say which sets off my douche bag radar.

  9. #9
    FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU Anonymous D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,624
    Credits
    2,337
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    People always seem to think that gun owners are ignorant when they call politicians stupid when it comes to guns. It is in fact true (for the most part), Gun owners are the most knowledgeable people there are about guns. Id beleive someone who owned something in question before Id beleive someone who didnt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    roses are red,
    violets are blue,
    deathmaster numbers,
    i'm gonna rape you

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I had a dream

  10. #10
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Like I said, I have no reason to believe he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to guns, but to claim such spite towards an elected civil servant following the demands of the (uneducated) majority screams ignorance in every sense of the word and runs parallel to the "fuck the police" motto you hear spewed from hoods all day.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What would you even argue with me about? You didn't bring up some kind of counter-point or disagree with anything I said; you just asked me whether politicians passing laws based on ignorance "comes as a surprise to me", when obviously it didn't, and obviously I was just agreeing with Anonymous D on the silliness of switchblade laws. In response your accusations, I might reply that arguing with you about this is pointless, because you don't make actual arguments, you just try to poke holes in what other people have said, by deliberate misinterpretation if necessary. So far all you have done is tried to pretend that my comments about switchblade laws betray some ignorance of how laws get made, when of course I understand perfectly well how laws get made, and was only saying that it's regrettable when the process leads to stupid laws.

    I'm genuinely interested in talking about this issue, if you feel you have something to say. If you feel that my previous post contained "semi-related" points, please identify them and I'll try to clarify anything that seemed less than pertinent. Also, if you feel that I'm ignorant of something, please explain what you mean. When you say I'm "definitely ignorant in a few very annoying ways", do you mean that there is actually something that I lack knowledge of (if so, please enlighten me), or are you just saying that I have some mannerisms that you find annoying?

    Quote Originally Posted by faesce View Post
    Like I said, I have no reason to believe he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to guns, but to claim such spite towards an elected civil servant following the demands of the (uneducated) majority screams ignorance in every sense of the word and runs parallel to the "fuck the police" motto you hear spewed from hoods all day.
    I really want you to clarify what you mean by "ignorance" here. I think you are misusing the word "ignorance". What facts am I missing out on here? What exactly are you trying to say that I'm ignorant of? And if you think that my position here is in anyway comparable to some "fuck the police" nonsense, then you are severely misunderstanding me.

    EDIT: If I had to guess, I'd guess that you are trying to say that I'm ignorant of how democracy works because I'm complaining about politicians enacting laws in response to public feeling, and that I should accept that our system is based on politicians acting in accord with public opinion. That would be a misunderstanding of my position, but I'll wait for you to clarify before I go on.
    Last edited by Syme; 06-15-2009 at 01:57 PM.

  12. #12
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    If I had to guess, I'd guess that you are trying to say that I'm ignorant of how democracy works because I'm complaining about politicians enacting laws in response to public feeling. That would be a misunderstanding of my position, but I'll wait for you to clarify before I go on.
    I'm glad you realize what I'm talking about now.

    The following quotes not only lead me to believe I've not misunderstood your position, but also reinforce the fact that I feel you're lacking enough education or knowledge (the definition of ignorant) that you place blame on politicians. I realize you've grouped the "people" and the "lawmakers" together in a few of these quotes, but my observation still stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    lawmakers, with no realistic understanding of these issues, form opinions--and laws--based on what looks scary when they see it on the tee-vee.
    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Lawmakers are not going to pass sensible laws about things that they don't understand and can't think about rationally.
    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    No, I am not surprised that an ignorant general public elects ignorant politicians who pass stupid laws
    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    the general public, and the politicians representing them, don't know shit
    If you can't find the parallels between your statements and the misplaced hate for law enforcement I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure anything I say would be able to change your mind.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faesce View Post
    I'm glad you realize what I'm talking about now.

    The following quotes not only lead me to believe I've not misunderstood your position, but also reinforce the fact that I feel you're lacking enough education or knowledge (the definition of ignorant) that you place blame on politicians. I realize you've grouped the "people" and the "lawmakers" together in a few of these quotes, but my observation still stands.

    ....

    If you can't find the parallels between your statements and the misplaced hate for law enforcement I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure anything I say would be able to change your mind.
    Alright, let me try to clarify. Firstly, no, your observation does not "still stand", insofar as you are incorrect when you assume that I place the blame squarely on lawmakers; in fact, I do place it on both the general public and the lawmakers who represent them. In three of the four quotes you give, I clearly talked about lawmakers and the public together (although your selective quoting obscures it in the first quote), so I don't think it's intellectually honest of you to dismiss that fact out-of-hand and persist in your conclusion that I'm talking mainly about lawmakers and only occasionally mentioning the public they represent. I'm perfectly well aware that public opinion is the largest driving force behind legislation in our country, and if you try to pretend that I "lack the education or knowledge" to realize that, you are simply being disingenuous, or else misreading my posts.

    Secondly, although public opinion certainly plays the largest single role, I think that you may lack the knowledge to appreciate how much of a role is also played by lobbying groups and special interests, not just pure public opinion, in driving new legislation. Let's take a perfect example from the world of gun-control legislation; the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act, which was a 2007 attempt to revive some of the prohibitions of the original federal AWB (1994-2004). This bill was introduced, sponsored, and pushed for by congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. It would have reinstated the AWB's prohibition on the sale of firearms with barrel shrouds, among many other things. When pressed to explain what exactly a "barrel shroud" was, congresswoman McCarthy had to admit she had no idea, and then wrongly guessed at it's function: .

    Now, where exactly do you think she got the idea to introduce legislation banning barrel shrouds, and a host of other firearm features that she probably doesn't understand either? I'm betting it wasn't from her constituents, the portion of the general public whom she was elected to represent; I'm betting that as she goes around her district and knocks on doors and goes to town hall meetings and talks to her constituents, she doesn't hear a lot of voters telling her, "Congresswoman McCarthy, what this community needs from you is a ban on barrel shrouds! Go back to DC and carry out the will of the voters by banning barrel shrouds!" I'm betting that in New York's 4th congressional district, barrel shrouds are not a highly important issue in the eyes of the public. Yet this woman decided that one of her top legislative priorities was going to be pushing this bill. She personally championed it; it was her 'thing'. Why? Because she was willing to work with the Brady Center and the CSGV and Stop Handgun Violence, and to introduce and sponsor this bill for them, without ever bothering to familiarize herself with the actual meaning or ramifications of it's content, in exchange for campaign support. They handed her a list of things to ban (actually just a stricter rehash of the '94 AWB), and without even really knowing what she was being asked to ban, she went out there and tried to make it happen.

    THAT is the kind of politician that I'm saying that I have contempt for; THAT is why you can't lay all the blame at the feet of public ignorance and say that the actual legislators are just civil servants doing their job and democratically responding to public opinion. The fact that there are politicians who will so fervently push for something without even really understanding what it is they're pushing for, without even bothering to make the minimal effort to do a little background research and find out what their own legislation would do, is disgusting to me. They aren't just faithfully representing the views of their constituents, they are advancing the causes of special interest groups even if that means passing laws that they themselves do not understand. It disturbs me that we are represented by politicians who are willing to ban and restrict and regulate and prohibit things that they can't even define. That's a brand of ignorance that goes beyond simple reflection of public ignorance; it all politicians did was reflect public ignorance, we wouldn't see things like bans on barrel shrouds, because public ignorance of guns in no way creates pressure for lawmakers to pass that sort of legislation. And Carolyn McCarthy isn't the only one, this type of behavior is commonplace when it comes to firearms laws.

    And of course it doesn't just apply to firearms laws, and it doesn't just come from Democrats. The problem is much broader than that. On numerous issues, there are politicians on both sides who are willing to fervently push for legislative agendas that they don't really understand and that their constituents may not really care about that strongly. Agricultural subsidies, both sides of the pharma regulation issue, various environmental and scientific issues, and many other issues are subject to this kind of thing; I'm only talking about it specifically in the context of gun control because that's what this forum is for. At any rate, I feel that lawmakers have a responsibility to make at least some effort to understand the issues they are passing laws on (they should abstain from voting on a bill if they really don't understand it's content), and if it's an issue that they are going to personally champion and introduce the bills on, then they should really know the issue quite well. I feel that it's part of the job, and I have contempt towards lawmakers who abrogate that responsibility, as many do when it comes to gun laws (and knife laws, to a lesser extent). I'm not anti-lobbying or anti-interest group either, I'm fine with that stuff in principle. I just don't like to see politicians push for laws that they obviously don't understand. So that's what I'm talking about when I shit-talk politicians in particular and not just the general public who elected them, because as I said: The ignorance of the general public obviously plays a huge role in driving stupid legislation, but it is not the only factor at work. Sorry if I wasn't entirely clear before in my criticisms of politicians.

    This post has turned into a bit of a text-wall, but I genuinely hope you'll read it all, and that it will clarify what I meant a bit. Hopefully it will at least make it clear that there is really no parallel between my views and this "fuck tha police" business. I also hope that you, too, find it at least a little disturbing that we have politicians who can be told "ban these things and we'll support your campaign" and will actually try to do it without even bothering to find out what they're being asked to ban. You may not care about barrel shrouds in particular, but it's not like these politicians have some strict personal conviction that legislating from ignorance is only okay for gun laws, and not for any other type of laws.
    Last edited by Syme; 06-15-2009 at 03:20 PM.

  14. #14
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,882
    Credits
    1,615
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    This thread makes me want to stab myself but I can't because knives are illegal here.

  15. #15
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I don't like how you pieced that reply together and I don't much like how you admitted you may have been unclear in your original criticisms of politicians after five giant paragraphs. The ENTIRE purpose of my original replies were in that you were misplacing blame.

    You can't blame the politician for doing what the public or the Lobbyist groups tell them to, because as you've stated it yourself, they're being funded & supported by them. They exist politically solely because of them. That's basically the point I've been illustrating from the start--the politicians are puppets for the public, and to blame the public and what influences the lobbyists/public instead of the politicians. While I agree it's somewhat ridiculous to push for something you know little to nothing about, that doesn't change the fact that they're in the public eye ONLY to represent another entity or group.

    This post has turned into a bit of a text-wall, but I genuinely hope you'll read it all, and that it will clarify what I meant a bit. Hopefully it will at least make it clear that there is really no parallel between my views and this "fuck tha police" business. I also hope that you, too, find it at least a little disturbing that we have politicians who can be told "ban these things and we'll support your campaign" and will actually try to do it without even bothering to find out what they're being asked to ban. You may not care about barrel shrouds in particular, but it's not like these politicians have some strict personal conviction that legislating from ignorance is only okay for gun laws, and not for any other type of laws.
    I don't feel disturbed that we have politicians who act as puppets, as this has been going on since the conception of government. It's scummy, granted, but it's reality and is a large part of how government works if not on such an obvious scale as the example you posted. If anything, you and me both should place our concern into the public's interest.

    I will concede that after your elaboration, you don't share the same "f da p" mentality as mentioned earlier.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faesce
    I don't like how you pieced that reply together and I don't much like how you admitted you may have been unclear in your original criticisms of politicians after five giant paragraphs. The ENTIRE purpose of my original replies were in that you were misplacing blame.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "how I pieced it together", but no, I am not admitting that I may have been unclear initially. If you look at the very first part of those five giant paragraphs, you will find that I pointed out that I had already been clear about blaming the public as well as the politicians, even in the statements you quoted to illustrate that I was allegedly overlooking the public's share of the blame. I said I hoped that my long post would clarify my meaning because you seemed to have misunderstood my meaning, not because I thought my meaning was unclear before that post.

    Quote Originally Posted by faesce
    You can't blame the politician for doing what the public or the Lobbyist groups tell them to, because as you've stated it yourself, they're being funded & supported by them. They exist politically solely because of them. That's basically the point I've been illustrating from the start--the politicians are puppets for the public, and to blame the public and what influences the lobbyists/public instead of the politicians. While I agree it's somewhat ridiculous to push for something you know little to nothing about, that doesn't change the fact that they're in the public eye ONLY to represent another entity or group.
    I can't blame the politician for doing what the public tells them to do, but what the lobbyist tells them to do is another matter. As I said, I'm not anti-lobby, but there are degrees of receptiveness to lobby pressure, and I feel that at a certain point it's possible for a politician to cross a line in that spectrum and behave in an unprincipled fashion. To me, a politician who introduces and strongly advocates legislation that he himself does not understand has crossed that line. The fact that they hold their office in order to represent their constituents does not make that kind of behavior any less unprincipled or reprehensible. A politician cannot excuse outrageously unprincipled behavior by saying "Hey I'm just here to represent my constituents", especially when the behavior in question is obviously not driven by the demands of their constituents. Again, I feel that elected lawmakers do have a few responsibilities beyond just voting in accord with the views of their constituents, and one of those responsibilities is the responsibility to understand the issues they are voting on, especially the issues that they themselves are personally pushing. I think that failure to do so is a failure to behave in a principled fashion, and I find it reprehensible. If you think that they have no such responsibilities and that this behavior is therefore not reprehensible, then that's your own business; you are, of course, free to have whatever opinions you like about the responsibilities of lawmakers.

    Quote Originally Posted by faesce
    I don't feel disturbed that we have politicians who act as puppets, as this has been going on since the conception of government. It's scummy, granted, but it's reality and is a large part of how government works if not on such an obvious scale as the example you posted. If anything, you and me both should place our concern into the public's interest.
    Well, you call it "scummy" and I call it "disturbing"--these terms actually aren't too far apart, I think. Again, I'm not saying it surprises me, or that I'm shocked that it goes on. I agree that it's definitely been going on for as long as humans have been organizing governments. But that doesn't mean we have to like it, and it doesn't mean that no-one should point out especially egregious examples of it.
    Last edited by Syme; 06-15-2009 at 05:14 PM.

  17. #17
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    I can't blame the politician for doing what the public tells them to do, but what the lobbyist tells them to do is another matter. As I said, I'm not anti-lobby, but there are degrees of receptiveness to lobby pressure, and I feel that at a certain point it's possible for a politician to cross a line in that spectrum and behave in an unprincipled fashion. To me, a politician who introduces and strongly advocates legislation that he himself does not understand has crossed that line. The fact that they hold their office in order to represent their constituents does not make that kind of behavior any less unprincipled or reprehensible. A politician cannot excuse outrageously unprincipled behavior by saying "Hey I'm just here to represent my constituents", especially when the behavior in question is obviously not driven by the demands of their constituents. Again, I feel that elected lawmakers do have a few responsibilities beyond just voting in accord with the views of their constituents, and one of those responsibilities is the responsibility to understand the issues they are voting on, especially the issues that they themselves are personally pushing. I think that failure to do so is a failure to behave in a principled fashion, and I find it reprehensible. If you think that they have no such responsibilities and that this behavior is therefore not reprehensible, then that's your own business; you are, of course, free to have whatever opinions you like about the responsibilities of lawmakers.
    I don't condone a politician acting on any other behalf other than the people who elected and supported them including lobbyists. I do condone (with slight disdain) a politician being a feeble puppet beneath them, even if they're forced to give the "hey look faggot i'm just here to represent my people" line. The constituents are being represented by the politician, much like the relationship between a client and a defense attorney. I know I wouldn't vote for anybody who either gave me the impression they wouldn't do as they said during the campaign, or wouldn't do things that aligned with my views.

    Your ideals and opinions are your own, however, and as long as you don't truly believe that an average politician is supposed to be some magical personality with outstanding morals and a vision for a better America, I have no problem supporting your view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Well, you call it "scummy" and I call it "disturbing"--these terms actually aren't too far apart, I think. Again, I'm not saying it surprises me, or that I'm shocked that it goes on. I agree that it's definitely been going on for as long as humans have been organizing governments. But that doesn't mean we have to like it, and it doesn't mean that no-one should point out especially egregious examples of it.
    I guess you can look at a firetruck and announce that it's red, if you're really bored. You can't expect everybody to want to hear about it though.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faesce View Post
    Your ideals and opinions are your own, however, and as long as you don't truly believe that an average politician is supposed to be some magical personality with outstanding morals and a vision for a better America, I have no problem supporting your view.
    Of course not... I'd say that most politicians, even the above-average ones, are essentially opportunistic people. All systems of political organization are based around the activities that keep the leadership in power, which in our system means winning elections; actually doing good things for the body politic comes second.

    Quote Originally Posted by faesce
    I guess you can look at a firetruck and announce that it's red, if you're really bored. You can't expect everybody to want to hear about it though.
    This is a good point.. but at the same time, if you're really bored, then you can come into gun forums and announce how pointless it is for the posters in that forum to gripe about anti-gun politicians. You can't expect any of them to care that you think it's pointless, though.

  19. #19
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Well, if you noticed, I had replied legitimately to FM. That gave me the reason to check back on the thread, which gave me the reason to start trouble in the first place. However, if you're REALLY MEGA FUCKING BORED you can try to spin a sarcastic analogy around back at the person who proposed it in the first place.


  20. #20
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    If you're even MORE bored, you can try to insinuate that the person turning around the analogy is the bored one.

    I think we're done here.

    And yeah, on the subject of actually replying to fm, I agree with what you said at the beginning; just because Customs defines auto-openers as switchblades doesn't mean that they will be treated as such in any other context, because CBP's definition of a "switchblade" is set internally, not by statute. I don't think switchblade owners have anything to worry about.

  21. #21
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    41,214
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Hello, Americans. It's time for another installment of 'Europeans are fascists, and you guys have it good!'

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8101032.stm

    Just waiting for this knife to be required by law for kitchen applications.
    well i mean

    Quote Originally Posted by Mang View Post
    I need to see a girl getting penetrated in 4 orifices

  22. #22
    I killed Tupac Shinysides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,139
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I am pro-knife as my food often needs to be made smaller before I am able to digest it.

  23. #23
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    jesus christ that looks absurd

  24. #24
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Yes, I'm sure the UK will enjoy success in it's attempts to make pointed objects unavailable to civilians. That sounds entirely possible and practical.

  25. #25
    FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU Anonymous D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,624
    Credits
    2,337
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I saw that stab proof knife on another forum. That is fucking ridiculous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    roses are red,
    violets are blue,
    deathmaster numbers,
    i'm gonna rape you

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I had a dream

  26. #26
    Senior Member fm2176's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    539
    Credits
    404
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm going to lobby Benchmade to make an automatic anti-stab knife. That way I don't have to keep the safety on.

  27. #27
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    41,214
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    It's a systematic emasculation of our ability to defend ourselves. If I walk around with a knife on the streets of east London, I'm just as liable for prosecution as somebody who actually intended to use it. Currently, I have to rely on my fists and my wits vs a knife/gun, and am utterly at the mercy of the police turning up right on time while I'm being mugged or assaulted.

    I'd like to know what thought process our dear legislators went through to reach the conclusion that disarming law-abiding citizens in areas of high crime would actually work. They seem to forget that violent criminals are hardly going to be put off by a law which says they can't carry a sharp implement. The only ones who will be are the ones who want to legitimately protect themselves.

    Bastards.

    Anyway, rant over.
    well i mean

    Quote Originally Posted by Mang View Post
    I need to see a girl getting penetrated in 4 orifices

  28. #28
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm doubtful as to how many people would really be able to effectively defend themselves even if they were allowed to carry knives; as I said in the other knife threads, self-defense with a knife is a pretty bad idea unless you are thoroughly trained. The right to carry a gun, not a knife, is really the key to effective self-defense. But, I feel for you. British weapons laws are the stupidest shit ever.

  29. #29
    λεγιων ονομα μοι sycld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,580
    Credits
    2,136
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fm2176 View Post
    From this thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Killuminati View Post
    Kabars are nice, here is the one we have at the house as part of our home security system.

    death to crackheads

    Please note the glass dildo in the upper right hand corner.


    PANDAS
    If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    Atheists are quite right

  30. #30
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    i hope to god you are joking

  31. #31
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Ironic that in the same post, he proclaims death to a certain group of people based on their drug usage.

  32. #32
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I don't think it's a stretch to assume he meant the people who live the "crack addict" lifestyle, not the fact that they use crack. Huge difference.

    Either way, sycld that's a bowl and if you weren't joking you've successfully flabbergasted me.

  33. #33
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Yeah I know, I just find it vaguely amusing that he posted a pic of his crackhead-killing weapon with his own drug paraphernalia in the background (not to say that smoking pot is comparable to being a crackhead, of course).

  34. #34
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    oh i get it

    i thought you were just being obtuse

  35. #35
    Senior Member srsinternets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    864
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faesce View Post
    Either way, sycld that's a bowl and if you weren't joking you've successfully flabbergasted me.
    Sycld is the resident homosexual. Its not beyond him to turn everything into a phallic reference.

    I'm sure he knew what it really is.

  36. #36
    λεγιων ονομα μοι sycld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,580
    Credits
    2,136
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    i'm kidding.

    still, you can't tell me that isn't one phallic-looking bowl there.


    PANDAS
    If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    Atheists are quite right

  37. #37
    Senior Member srsinternets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    864
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sycld View Post
    i'm kidding.

    still, you can't tell me that isn't one phallic-looking bowl there.
    I whole-heartedly agree.

  38. #38
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Space.
    Posts
    249
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I think knife play is hot.

  39. #39
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,407
    Credits
    1,347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    i guess it does have penis traits

    however that's honestly one of the most commonly used bowls around where i live (and he used to live) so i guess i take it for granted now

  40. #40
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    41,214
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    I'm doubtful as to how many people would really be able to effectively defend themselves even if they were allowed to carry knives; as I said in the other knife threads, self-defense with a knife is a pretty bad idea unless you are thoroughly trained. The right to carry a gun, not a knife, is really the key to effective self-defense. But, I feel for you. British weapons laws are the stupidest shit ever.
    Course a knife isn't a brilliant defensive tool, but my point is that it's up to the person to decide.

    And yeah it's wank. But you know, I'm in a minority. When I try to argue otherwise, everyone points to America and says "well we don't want to be like that do we?"

    shrug
    well i mean

    Quote Originally Posted by Mang View Post
    I need to see a girl getting penetrated in 4 orifices

Similar Threads

  1. Need a Knife
    By crunker in forum The Great Outdoors
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 01-20-2010, 11:10 PM
  2. Defending against knife attacks... Redux
    By bacon ops in forum The Great Outdoors
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-08-2009, 09:28 PM
  3. Another New Swiss Army Knife
    By smith357 in forum The Great Outdoors
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-28-2009, 02:06 PM
  4. My new Knife
    By smith357 in forum The Great Outdoors
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 09:01 PM
  5. Mother Kills 5 Children With Butchers Knife
    By Killuminati in forum WTF News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-14-2008, 06:20 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •