Knife Ban question for you all.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

I would also appreciate critter's understanding on this:

It is actually a two part question. And please answer it to the best of your ability without getting into political debate.

Why should society and law abiding individuals who are not violently attacking people with knives have to suffer because of the abuses of violent attackers and be inconvenienced because of such abuses? As an example, the TSA no knife airline policy. You and I cannot carry a knife onboard the air plane either in our carry-on bag or on our person because of evil people who abused this ability and attacked others. Why should we have to suffer and be inconvenienced because of their abuse? That does not seem fair and just.

Are there any bi-partisan constructive answers and solutions to this and related problems that are NOT political in nature or does it all boil down to that because legislation is involved?

Second:

I hate to ask this but is there truth to this as some on the forum have hinted at: That we knife users and enthusiasts have suffered because some knife sellers and marketers have sought to make knife ads that show the knife to be a "super killing machine" instead of taking the other end of things and portraying the knife they are selling with all the euphemisms of safety they can imagine?

Example: What if knife makers and sellers called knives "Pocket Pruning Tools" and "Pen Knives", and NEVER EVER used words like "tactical" and related imagry that conjures up death, violence, and killing? If all of the knife makers and sellers went out of their way to portray the knives as harmless tools instead of lethal killing weapons? Would that go a long way to preventing politicians and everyday people from going to the extreme and calling these dangerous weapons?

[Bodog]

I would also appreciate critter's understanding on this:

It is actually a two part question. And please answer it to the best of your ability without getting into political debate.

Why should society and law abiding individuals who are not violently attacking people with knives have to suffer because of the abuses of violent attackers and be inconvenienced because of such abuses? As an example, the TSA no knife airline policy. You and I cannot carry a knife onboard the air plane either in our carry-on bag or on our person because of evil people who abused this ability and attacked others. Why should we have to suffer and be inconvenienced because of their abuse? That does not seem fair and just.

Are there any bi-partisan constructive answers and solutions to this and related problems that are NOT political in nature or does it all boil down to that because legislation is involved?

Second:

I hate to ask this but is there truth to this as some on the forum have hinted at: That we knife users and enthusiasts have suffered because some knife sellers and marketers have sought to make knife ads that show the knife to be a "super killing machine" instead of taking the other end of things and portraying the knife they are selling with all the euphemisms of safety they can imagine?

Example: What if knife makers and sellers called knives "Pocket Pruning Tools" and "Pen Knives", and NEVER EVER used words like "tactical" and related imagry that conjures up death, violence, and killing? If all of the knife makers and sellers went out of their way to portray the knives as harmless tools instead of lethal killing weapons? Would that go a long way to preventing politicians and everyday people from going to the extreme and calling these dangerous weapons?

It's inherently political. It is the right of the individual to live freely vs the right of society to dictate your life choices. Freedom vs tyranny. I don't believe the society we live in is the one envisioned by the people who created this country but they knew deep down we'd give up our rights to remain free and sovereign because that's what people always do. Banning knives is a symptom of the greater disease. People don't want the responsibility of living as their own ruler within a civil society, so we give that responsibility to others. It invariably leads to corruption and removal of your sovereignty for one reason or another, to the point where they've removed your ability to carry fairly harmless pocket tools.

You should ask yourself if you believe in freedom (that doesn't actually infringe on the rights of others) for all or not. If you don't, then you can't complain when that same tyranny afflicts your life in ways with which you don't agree. Support laws against prostitution and drugs? Then don't complain when that same principle of laws comes to take your guns and religion because when you pave the way for one, you pave the way for the other.

The founders were very careful to ensure unenumerated rights were protected and enshrined the enumerated rights as examples that we the people have natural rights that cannot be infringed without due process and if taken without good cause, we the people have the right to physically fight to keep those rights.

We've long ago abandoned our right to fight so we've abandoned our rights as natural. Now we're dealing only with enumerated privileges that can be changed at the whim of leaders elected by those seeking to control you one way or the other and you can not and will not say otherwise. It's supposed to be anathema to the spirit of this country but we allowed it and continue to allow it so it is what it is. The boot is on top of you and you live with it, as do i.

[Crux]

Banning knives is like banning oxygen. No sane person would do it nor would I live in a land that did so.

[The Mastiff]

To the real dedicated knife banners the tactical advertising and names are tools to use to further their argument but no matter what you called it they would want it banned. We have people so control oriented they want to dictate to you how much soft drink can be in the cup you buy and if your hand soap can be "antibacterial" or not. No rational argument can sway someone like that because they don't care about logic. Only control. Is it any wonder people like that find their ways into positions they can control everything they can by force of law?

With some of the gun/knife banners it's not the item itself they hate but the people carrying them because by and large these types resist the control of others. Removing their guns, knives, whatever is more than a way to stop people from having and carrying them it's part of their effort to order and control their world .

Joe

[The Deacon]

The answer is political. Not in the "It's all the <insert party name>'s fault." sense but rather in the fact that in most democracies, including ours, laws are written and passed by elected officials who are, by definition, politicians. Pretty much every elected official, regardless or party, has one primary goal, to either get themselves re-elected or to insure the person replacing them is a member of their party.

One way of doing that is to make it look like they've "done something" about an issue their constituents consider important. Crime is always one of those issues. Increasing the penalty for specific crimes is one option but, for someone needing the approval of their voters, it has a fatal flaw -it's expensive. Increasing prison sentences means more prisons and more staff will be needed. That means higher taxes, and raising taxes does not make one popular with the voters. It also risks alienating voters in districts where a high percentage of them have at least one family member or close friend who has "done time"" or is "doing time".

Banning or restricting "potential weapons" may do little or nothing to reduce crime, but it costs nothing and will sound good when you're campaigning for re-election. It allows voters with incarcerated relatives to transfer the blame from the criminal to the weapon. In the case of knives, it's also acceptable to a large percentage of the public who, even if they carry a pocket knife, don't see any particular need for switchblades, or balisongs, or knives with blades over n inches long.

The fact that banning "things" has never succeeded in keeping that thing out of the hands of those who want it does not seem to matter, either to the politicians or to most of their constituents.

[me2]

Bodog pretty well nailed it. In a free society, banning of weapons is a presumption of guilt without trial on anyone who does or will own them. 99.99% of knives will never be used for a crime.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Deacon, what can be done across the board, ie, what measure can people get placed in as a check and balance, that would prevent politicians from doing the above bans? Basically that was what the Second Ammendment was?

[tvenuto]

Yes the second amendment does that, and then it gives us a recourse when they try to do it anyway (which they always do, because they must to stay in power once the kleptocracy train gets rolling).