Spydercos & Guns

[Reject]

- An anti-kilt-wearing Scot (in Scotland wearing kilts has a tradition, is valuable to many and means something to them) is different to an anti-kilt-wearing Austrian (where no one wants to wear a kilt anyway)

:confused: Whit ye git against sportin' a kilt. :) Ye dinnae whit ye'r missing, sportin' a kilt oan a bricht clear frosty mornin'

[Wartstein]

- An anti-kilt-wearing Scot (in Scotland wearing kilts has a tradition, is valuable to many and means something to them) is different to an anti-kilt-wearing Austrian (where no one wants to wear a kilt anyway)

:confused: Whit ye git against sportin' a kilt. :) Ye dinnae whit ye'r missing, sportin' a kilt oan a bricht clear frosty mornin'

:p :p Let´s start a NON scotsman kilt wearing club, ok?! (Would not know where to get one though...)

[ChrisinHove]

In response to Vivi’s question, my response to the bullet banner is a “conditional positive ” one, i.e. positive once I remind myself this is a predominantly American, knife forum.

I visit plenty of other places where it would not be appropriate, but that’s not the point.

Hanging around here has helped me understand gun ownership in the USA a little (ie a lot!) better.

[soc_monki]

- An anti-kilt-wearing Scot (in Scotland wearing kilts has a tradition, is valuable to many and means something to them) is different to an anti-kilt-wearing Austrian (where no one wants to wear a kilt anyway)

:confused: Whit ye git against sportin' a kilt. :) Ye dinnae whit ye'r missing, sportin' a kilt oan a bricht clear frosty mornin'

:p :p Let´s start a NON scotsman kilt wearing club, ok?! (Would not know where to get one though...)

I wore a kilt at my wedding. I have scottish and irish ancestry. However I did not go bare underneath...I guess that's the British part of me (or Czechoslovakian? LOL) Kilts are awesome. I cannot however wear a kilt at work so I go with jeans. Still, if I could wear a kilt? I probably would. They are just so comfortable...

As for guns, I think a lot of people in America think all Liberals are anti-gun. That is just not the case. I guess you could classify me as a liberal, as I want some things that Europe has that we do not. Healthcare for one. The cost you pay in a tax for it would be less than the amount you pay a month for insurance coverage. And even with insurance you still have to pay out of pocket a lot of times. It's a scam, and I have good insurance! They are, finally, going to cover Autism. FINALLY. You don't know how much of a load that is going to take off my shoulders, but it should have been covered already. Anyway...

I won't go further. Just saying I'm liberal is probably going to get a lot of people hot and bothered. But I love guns too. I believe in constitutional carry. I also believe we need more checks to make sure people who shouldn't have guns don't have them (mental health checks). Other than that, own and carry what you want. Same with knives. Own and carry what you want, even swords.

I carry my gun a lot. Not all the time, because I can't while at work (government). But if I'm outside with my kiddo playing or walking around, I am armed. Knives, a gun...and if you try something I will do everything in my power to protect my son. Like a mama bear...except I'm a papa bear LOL!

[TomAiello]

The typical "anti-gun" American just is not the same as the typical "anti gun" - European...

Most europeans are neither pro- not anti- gun. They're non- on this issue. They're not for or against. They simply do not have an opinion because it's a non-issue in their minds (and politics).

It's like the political issue of our relationship with the natives of Jupiter. No one has one, because it's not an issue.

[Wartstein]

The typical "anti-gun" American just is not the same as the typical "anti gun" - European...

Most europeans are neither pro- not anti- gun. They're non- on this issue. They're not for or against. They simply do not have an opinion because it's a non-issue in their minds (and politics).

It's like the political issue of our relationship with the natives of Jupiter. No one has one, because it's not an issue.

Well said. :)

And what I tried to transport all the time.

Many Europeans just have no idea what it means in the US to be "pro" or "anti" gun, how strongly people feel there on this issue and what implications it has to be "pro" or "anti".

They also don't get at all that being "pro" or "anti" in in an American point of view might strongly define if a person is seen as "left"/ "liberal" or "right"/"conservative".

Where I live it just does not matter at all what peoples views on guns are.
If you'd ask , a vast majority would say "let's keep it like it is, no civilian should carry a gun under normal circumstances".
If you DON'T ask they will not ever even think a second about the gun-thing.

[bearfacedkiller]

The gun debate in the US largely boils down to an underlying difference between the two sides here. In oversimplified terms, half of America thinks that the government is the solution to all their problems and half thinks the government is the cause of all their problems. The side that thinks that the government is the problem values private gun ownership because they believe it will keep the government in check.

This is where the different opinions on the interpretation of the second amendment come from. It says, “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. The meaning of this is heavily debated.

[The Deacon]

Not really a fan of the new banner. First and foremost, regardless of what else is displayed in it, my eyes find the large splotch of bright red annoying. As for the ammo, I'll just say I'm not a fan of companies that have not shown unwavering support for the 2nd Amendment pandering to those of us that do by using firearm related imagery. That said, I think I understand what Spyderco was trying to convey by displaying ammo in conjunction with the Police, though that link might have been more effective if there was also a badge in it, or if they'd just used a badge and handcuffs.

[Wartstein]

.....
This is where the different opinions on the interpretation of the second amendment come from. It says, “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. The meaning of this is heavily debated.

But does the second amendment not also say "..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?
This is pretty clear and not really debatable at least in my European point of view?!

Anyway, most people in Europe have also no idea that it is an actual amendment to the US constitution that lays the groundwork for the right to carry guns.
So, as I see it: Even if an US citizen would personally be totally against gun carry for Civilians, he could still be for not touching constitutional rights.
You know, just like "well, I am actually against what a particular amendment says, but I am even more against throwing constitutional amendments out of the window carelessly.."
Or the person could think: "Well, I am against gun carry, but if they don´t respect THAT particular amendment, which one will be the next? Perhaps one I appreciate? Like the 26th (voting at the age of 18), or even the first (Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition)?! "

[Naperville]

But does the second amendment not also say "..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?

Certain people within the USA might rewrite or delete the Bill of Rights.

What they fail to understand is that those of us that know history know that the Bill of Rights are informing usurpers that these rights are given to man by God, and cannot be taken away.

Rewriting or deleting the Bill of Rights entirely achieves nothing. Only a fool would turn in the weapons.

[vivi]

.....
This is where the different opinions on the interpretation of the second amendment come from. It says, “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. The meaning of this is heavily debated.

But does the second amendment not also say "..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?
This is pretty clear and not really debatable at least in my European point of view?!

You have much tolearn, young grasshopper :p

2A has been being infringed upon for over 100 years. Even today there are millions of people in the USA that try to argue that militias = US Army and other official armed forces. They completely lack the historical context to understand the wording of the 2A. Militias, at that time, were a different thing than a regular standing army. They still are today. But, intentionally or unintentionally, many people like to argue otherwise.

[RustyIron]

This is pretty clear and not really debatable at least in my European point of view?!

Anyway, most people in Europe have also no idea that it is an actual amendment to the US constitution that lays the groundwork for the right to carry guns.

Good morning, Wartstein.
It is definitely NOT NOT NOT the Constitution of the U.S. that lays the groundwork for the right to carry a gun. It is a logical extension of Natural Law, upon which much of our law is based, and which the writers of our Constitution sought to protect from the overreaches of an oppressive governments and dictators.

Natural Law is based upon nature, god, and reason, and has been described in the writing of John Locke (European), Thomas Aquinas (European), Romans (European), and Greeks (European).

For those who base their beliefs on philosophy, rather than single issues, the right of the individual to protect himself is quite clear.

[Wartstein]

.....

Anyway, most people in Europe have also no idea that it is an actual amendment to the US constitution that lays the groundwork for the right to carry guns.

Good morning, Wartstein.
It is definitely NOT NOT NOT the Constitution of the U.S. that lays the groundwork for the right to carry a gun. It is a logical extension of Natural Law, upon which much of our law is based, and which the writers of our Constitution sought to protect from the overreaches of an oppressive governments and dictators.
...

This thread really teaches me to be (more) precise (which is a good thing!)

My statement was made related to differences between Europe and the US concerning legal foundations for the right to carry guns, not to the general groundwork (like a deeper lying natural law that then should be true for everyone, not only certain states).
So what I tried to say is that many Europeans have no idea that differently to Europe, in the US it is an explicit and well known amendment to the constitution that grants the right to carry guns legal - wise.
Plus that many Americans see it in such a way, that their whole democracy and how it works is partly related to the right of the population to carry guns, in order to not being totally controllable by the government and not being completely dependend on the government when it comes to protection of their own, loved ones and property.
And so taking away the right to carry guns means a lot more than "just" that to many Americans (differently to most Europeans - though there could not be a real "take away" of guns anyway, since most don´t own one).

So giving up or attacking the right to carry guns in the US also means giving up or attacking a

[Wartstein]

But does the second amendment not also say "..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?
This is pretty clear and not really debatable at least in my European point of view?!

You have much tolearn, young grasshopper :p

2A has been being infringed upon for over 100 years. Even today there are millions of people in the USA that try to argue that militias = US Army and other official armed forces. They completely lack the historical context to understand the wording of the 2A. Militias, at that time, were a different thing than a regular standing army. They still are today. But, intentionally or unintentionally, many people like to argue otherwise.

I still don´t understand (as an European that stands on the sidelines).

Purely logically (not even ideologically): While the part about "militia" at least can be argued about technically, the term "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" really can´t, right? "The people" just means "the people of the USA", so in this case every citizen that is, I don´t know, older than 16 or 18 or whatever?
Even if one would not like the right to carry guns at all, and would hate what the amendment says about it, they still could not deny WHAT that amendment says? I mean "right of the people..." should be pretty clear, logically and legally?

[vivi]

But does the second amendment not also say "..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?
This is pretty clear and not really debatable at least in my European point of view?!

You have much tolearn, young grasshopper :p

2A has been being infringed upon for over 100 years. Even today there are millions of people in the USA that try to argue that militias = US Army and other official armed forces. They completely lack the historical context to understand the wording of the 2A. Militias, at that time, were a different thing than a regular standing army. They still are today. But, intentionally or unintentionally, many people like to argue otherwise.

I still don´t understand (as an European that stands on the sidelines).

Purely logically (not even ideologically): While the part about "militia" at least can be argued about technically, the term "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" really can´t, right? "The people" just means "the people of the USA", so in this case every citizen that is, I don´t know, older than 16 or 18 or whatever?
Even if one would not like the right to carry guns at all, and would hate what the amendment says about it, they still could not deny WHAT that amendment says? I mean "right of the people..." should be pretty clear, logically and legally?

It seems illogical to you because it is, but that doesn't stop people from trying to chip away at the 2A.

These days there are TONS of restrictions that, in my opinion, the founding fathers would not have been willing to accept.

What many fail to realize is that when the 2A was penned there were repeating rifles and hanguns. IIRC repeating rifles had been in use since the early 1500's.

A lot of folks with poor firearms knowledge seem to think the 2A was meant to apply to single shot muskets, not "military grade" "weapons of war."

What these people fail to realize is that when the 2A was written, you could legally have not only repeating small arms like we do today, but swords, bayonets, cannons....****, you could even legally own a warship with 20 mounted cannons and go patrol the coastal US if you were inclined.

Now fast forward to today, where some states effectively won't give common citizens CCW permits. Where many states artificially restrict the number of bullets you're allowed to carry in a magazine. Where the cost of purchasing a silencer is absurd due to taxes and restrictive laws. Where open carry of handguns is allowed for anyone over 21 in some states, but hop a border to a neighboring state and risk being thrown in jail for the same thing.

We went from being able to own cannons and warships to not even being able to legally carry a Delica in all major cities.

People today will try to disingenuously argue that AR15's and similar guns should be banned in the USA because they are "military grade," while completely ignoring that the founding fathers intended for every day people to own "military grade" small arms if they so chose.

The Minutemen were not a regular standing army. They were every day people that owned weapons and decided to form a militia to help defend their way of life.

They sound an awful lot like modern US militias that want to band together, practice marksmanship, and defend their way of life.

One group is considered sacred to our founding as a nation.

The other is villified as a group of racist rednecks intent on violently overthrowing our elected officials.

The question isn't "Shouldn't the 2A be easy to interpret?" The question is "Why are certain groups in the USA hellbent on eroding the 2A until its nothint but a memory?"

[ChrisinHove]

As a Brit I am deeply admiring - and envious - of the U.S. constitution. I even wonder whether there can ever be true democracy without such an express statement of citizen rights (and necessarily, therefore, the means of upholding them).

[bearfacedkiller]

Freedom seeds.

[TenGrainBread]

I tend to take a very utilitarian approach to these political issues. We already live in a society in which pretty much everyone besides libertarians and anarchists agree that a "social contract" is necessary. That includes liberals and conservatives. We all agree that certain laws curtailing natural freedoms are good for society (think assault laws, property laws, rules of the road, seatbelt, etc...), so starting at that common point is the best way to approach. From there, a utilitarian perspective is the best way to go. To me, banning certain kinds of guns doesn't make much sense. Let people buy or build what they want. Treating it more like a drivers license where you verify that the person has good intentions and safety training is more sensible to me (basically, the background check + some sort of training requirement). Everyone, conservatives and liberals, already agree to that kind of model when it comes to other freedoms (like driving). Focus on common sense instead of knee-jerk reactions and culture wars.

Again, just my opinion as someone who is pro-2A but also a utilitarian and doesn't identify with "right" or "left" *shrug*
And said as someone currently shopping for a stainless 6-shot (S&W, probably). :D

[TomAiello]

It is definitely NOT NOT NOT the Constitution of the U.S. that lays the groundwork for the right to carry a gun. It is a logical extension of Natural Law, upon which much of our law is based, and which the writers of our Constitution sought to protect from the overreaches of an oppressive governments and dictators.

The idea of the Constitution was to codify and explain the new system of government, and specify exactly what powers it would possess. It did not really occur to the drafters of the document to explicitly state that it didn't have any other powers, because they thought it was clear that it only had the powers that were stated. The Bill of Rights was a compromise attempt to clarify that question, especially the 9th and 10th Amendments (which have largely been ignored ever since).

This idea of a government of specific powers (and no others) is the fundamental difference between European and American conceptions of democracy. The European nations began from the principle that the King had _all_ power, and that he might choose to grant some privileges or powers to his vassals. When the kings were deposed and democracy became the general rule, the European conception still held that the government held _all_ power. Now it held that power due to the divine right of majority rule, rather than the divine right of kings--but the basic power structure was the same. That meant that the majority rule was absolute. Minorities had only those rights that were granted to them by the majority (previously the king), since the majority/king was all powerful by divine decree.

The American conception of democracy worked the other way. It began with the idea that the individual held all power, and that the individual could delegate some few (and specific) powers to the government (but certainly not all powers--there were limits, which were described as 'inalienable' rights, meaning they could not be delegated). In this conception, the majority does not rule absolutely--it's power is limited to the specified powers that have been delegated to it.

Natural Law is based upon nature, god, and reason, and has been described in the writing of John Locke (European), Thomas Aquinas (European), Romans (European), and Greeks (European).

For those who base their beliefs on philosophy, rather than single issues, the right of the individual to protect himself is quite clear.

I suspect we agree on 99% of this, but philosophically I would put the basis of Natural Law in the principle of Self Ownership. Individuals own themselves, and therefore they own their work product, and therefore they have a right to defend both themselves and their work product...and so forth. The 'American' view is that people own themselves--the 'European' view is that people are the property of the 'King' (now the democratically elected majority rulers), and therefore their work product is also the product of the 'King', and they have no right to defend that product from it's true owner, who is also their owner. I'm happy to start another thread to discuss at length, although that discussion probably doesn't belong in this thread. :)

[TomAiello]

I tend to take a very utilitarian approach to these political issues. We already live in a society in which pretty much everyone besides libertarians and anarchists agree that a "social contract" is necessary.

< raises hand >

I'd love to introduce you to an old friend of mine by the name of Lysander Spooner.