Here We Are - Discussion on Rule 11 changes

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Steve Ashton, could you explain more fully the enumerated prohibition of discussing concealed carry here? It seems odd for a weaponry subsection to have one; is it some international legal question, and if so what could it be? Not sure I grasp the thinking -- I'm a fairly weaponish sort of fellow.

[PodKiDo]

Are the weapon discussions already in progress going to be moved here? And if so will the email alerts still function for those involved once the move is done?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Right -- just found out, the dumb way, about "no modern weaponry discussion, please."

Which promptly raises a point that may be an obscure one: last I heard, the Duke of Atholl maintains or maintained a private army, duly authorized by Her Maj's Gov't. Its strength is about half a dozen uniformed kilties -- and just how modern do their half a dozen SMLE's count for, in this forum? Not exactly the state of the military art...

[Steve Ashton]

Perhaps I can answer the last two questions in one post.


PodKiDo
The effective date of Rule #11 is 4 April. We can only go by the rule in effect at the time. Posts made before the opening of this section will remain where they were originally posted. We have no intent of grandfathering anything.

If someone wishes to continue a discussion that started prior to the opening of this section, and if possible, may I ask that you start a new thread here to continue your discussion.
Any new posts to an old thread must be in accordance with the current rule.


Urbane Guerrilla,

All I can do is point you to the second item under "what can be posted".

"2) Those weapons which are items issued to kilted military units."

[PodKiDo]

Thank you Steve. I'm sure that will be the best course.

[Riverkilt]

Well, this is interesting for sure. Kudos for Steve and the mods taking the risk. I went back to rule 11 in the Forum Rules list and something is very wrong...it makes no sense in that it lacks a few words - probably the words that prohibit...so its impossible to review Rule 11 there. I did read Steve's extensive post on this subforum. That's pretty clear. For me, the great irony is I have two out of control addictions...buying kilts, and buying the items prohibited under Rule 11. Other kilt forums have allowed discussion of prohibited items under Rule 11 and there have been no negative results. Perhaps that's what is encouraging this trial. And, I'm also active on many forums that focus on the items prohibited under Rule 11 and have been surprised there are so many kilties on those boards. Once at the Prescott Highland Games there was a booth by a company that offered instruction on the items prohibited under Rule 11. They were always packed with kilties. Don't know if there's some sort of reason - but kilts and the items prohibited under Rule 11 seem to go together well....go figure. Hope this experiment works out.

[Phil]

How sad to see a development like this which serves only to alienate those to whom the possession and use of lethal weapons is nothing short of an obscenity. To encourage and empower such an inhumane obsession, particularly when the resultant carnage only increases with each new atrocity does a great disservice to humanity in general and this forum in particular. From finding little of interest here lately I now see a positive reason for shunning it altogether. I do hope that this will not prove to be the case given the generally sound values most members have shown in the past but we shall just have to wait and see.

[Steve Ashton]

Phil, I can assure you that X Marks will never, as long as I am the owner of this forum, become a weapons free-for-all zone.

I don't care what a person does legally or illegally in their own country, state or region. I don't care what anyone's personal beliefs on gun rights, hunting, concealed carry, or self defense are. I don't care what you do or post on other forums.

Here, our members may post about those weapons that have a historical precedence as accessories to the kilt.

But any member who wishes to discuss anything other than specified in the sticky to this thread, or interject their particular beliefs on the issues specified in Rule #11, I suggest they do it elsewhere.

Is that plain enough for everyone?

[Phil]

Thanks for that reassurance, Steve. I have always enjoyed this Forum, especially the lively discussions, but it has always been generally good natured, without any sinister undertones and from what you say it will continue in that way.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Indeed, I hear you, Phil. I fear, though, that I do not share your views; I cannot ever be a pacifist, and most especially not on humanitarian grounds; there are things out there I despise worse than going to war. Countervailing violence against the retail oppression of crime, or the wholesale oppression of that crime of State, genocide -- violence is too important to be left solely to the State, not when there is such need for a check and balance against its power. What I can be is peaceable. Order and orderliness is good. Things prosper.

I count it in the main a question of philosophy now, in part because sheer volume of experience in the dispute has pretty much burned out my hot-button. Been there. Got wisdom.

What makes the button hot in the first place is it speaks directly to the question of power. People grow very excited about the prospect of power or its opposite face, the prospect of power's elimination. To keep power, men will fight like dogs. Or piranhas. Or cobras. With Jeddart-staffs and Lochaber axes -- and shell-guard twahandits.