As someone who has regularly carried a variety of knives and multi tools almost every day of my life, I also can't say I'm a fan of their knife laws.

That said, as-written, I don't find them to be quite as bad as a lot of people make them out to be (how the police choose to interpret and enforce those laws is sort of a different matter)

It's not the sort of knife I normally choose to carry, but all of the reasons I normally carry and use a knife for can be done perfectly safely and effectively with something like a regular Swiss army knife with a 2.5inch non-locking blade which should generally be ok to carry for no particular reason.

It should be noted that I do not carry a knife for any self-defense purposes. I feel very little need to defend myself, and even if I did a knife would be just about my last choice after pretty much any other object in arm's reach. Even though where I am, I could pretty much walk around town carrying a halberd for self defense if I really wanted to and it would be legal, I actually do tend to choose my EDC knives to be pretty inoffensive-looking free of any unnecessary point/stabby bits and if possible.

And cases that really require more knife than that aren't exactly part of my usual everyday carry scenario, and the appropriate knives for those occasions should be covered under the lawful justification and reasonable use exemptions (again, how the police actually apply those laws can leave something to be desired, but that's often a problem here too)

Again, not a fan of their knife laws, but in the grand scheme, I'm not nearly as outraged by them as a lot of people are.

Seems like the law was meant to exclude the full-size Swiss army knife. They're great for most pocket knife purposes! But having damaged nerves on two fingertips from non-locking knives, yeah, I won't touch one. Although the "classic" is a great everyday pocket knife!

Funny enough, I was hiking today with a small "Rambo knife affixed to my backpack strap. Do I need that on a hike in the woods? LOL, hardly ever. But it's nice to have when I do need it.

Thanks for saying all that! We're clearly on the same page.

I feel like I've been pretty clear on this. Russia is the aggressor and wants Ukraine's stuff. Russia just needed to not attack. This is obvious because every deal Russia's talked about includes taking/keeping Ukrainian land they occupy.

I'm more curious why you think Russia is justified in their actions.

No, Russia did not invade "because Russia wants Ukraine's stuff." Do you have any idea about the background of the war? About the relationship between the USSR and NATO, the dissolution of the USSR and how that impacted NATO/Russian relations, the 2014 Euromaidan coup, the declaration of secession of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics and the ensuing war with Kiev? Of the NATO buildup in Ukraine over the last 2 decades? The sabotage of the Minsk agreements? The rise of Banderites and the takeover of nationalists?

Russia wants full demillitarization of Ukraine, which is why they want the 4 oblasts, where the majority of people are ethnically Russian and support the invasion, as a sort of "buffer-zone," as well as certification that Ukraine won't be allowed into NATO. This entire thing could have been avoided if NATO kept to their word and didn't continue to encircle Russia for the last few decades.

If Russia wants "Ukraine's stuff," why did they invade when they did, why do they specifically want the 4 oblasts, and why only Ukraine? Your narrative makes no coherent sense, yet it's the reason you dismiss other narratives uncritically.

Uncritically? I think you need to read between the lines of what aggressors say. And this is true about the US too. At best they give you half truths and excuses. I suppose you believe Iraq had WMDs too? After all, that's what the US said.

You can't tell me Russia doesn't want parts of Ukraine, then in the same post say that a chunk of Ukraine wants to be invaded (i.e. join Russia), when Russia has also stated that as one of the reasons for invading. Even if they want to join Russia, that doesn't give Russia the right to invade to "liberate" them.

I'm not a historical expert on any of this. I just know what is reported in the media, which is not going to be the entire history. They aren't a history class.

I do read between the lines, and you know what else I do? Study history, and the material basis behind world events, especially war. The US was lying about WMD, it was always a way to privatize oil after creating a failed state. Russia has consistently for decades opposed NATO expansion, to the point of signing the Minsk agreements that Ukraine violated and said they never intended on honoring in the first place.

In the Donbass region, where the majority is ethnically Russian, the Kiev government has been shelling and murdering the breakaway republics for a decade. The reason they broke away was because of language suppression, and the Euromaidan coup that overthrew the president they supported and installed the far-right Banderite government. Russia tried to resolve this peacefully with the Minsk agreements, which ultimately failed, and then decided to invade at the request of the LPR and DPR for foreign support.

Why does Russia want to do this? To stop NATO encirclement! Since the Cold War, NATO has had nukes pointed right at Moscow, and they never let up. Not even after the USSR dissolved and Putin tried to join NATO! How could this have been prevented? By NATO stopping its expansion! Simple as. Russia did not invade "because it wants Ukrainian stuff," it invaded because it wants a secure border, and Ukraine was the path the Nazis took when invading Russia in World War II, as its the easiest path.

You're right, you aren't an expert. Neither am I. The very fact that you only listen to the US-narrative when you admit they lied about WMD means you're in no position to immediately ignore perspectives that conflict with your current understanding.

.world lib user

🪞

The PRC and Russian Federation don't financially dominate Africa. For the PRC, it's because they don't have a domination of their econlmy by private financial capital, they have a socialist market economy. The PRC stands to gain more from mutual benefit, especially since developing others improves trade circulation and provides more customers for goods they produce. Even ignoring ideological reasons like being Marxist-Leninists, they lack the economic compulsion.

For Russia, it's because they outright lack the financial capital to participate. Russia, for all of its productive capacity, fell dramatically from their heights as the Soviet Union. Russia needs to offer more favorable trades, as they cannot rely on the sheer overwhelming financial power the west has. As a capitalist country, it has every reason to want to be imperialist, but it can't, and as such it is forced to strategically align itself with socialist countries and against western imperialism. Further, KPRF membership is skyrocketing, meaning a return to socialism is legitimately increasing.