A question.

[ThistleDown]

...may be fully legal to conceal a pistol in their sporran. But right across an invisible state line the laws may be completely different. No one set of laws were any more right or wrong than the other, but we invariably resulted with a fight over those laws.

Even more importantly than the 'state line' Steve refers to, is the many-societies nature of this forum. It would be virtually impossible to conceive of a place such as XMarks without the multi-cultural, multi-national foundation that it has as its base. What is the law in one country or place is recognised as an absence of law in another. For it to function and provide everthing that its members ask, it must be constantly seeking the perfect pathway, with all its twists and curves. That's what we are doing.

This is a six-month trial run. If you like it, say so; if you don't, tell us how it fails you. Just always remember, either way, that this is first, foremost and always a kilt forum.

[PodKiDo]

This is a six-month trial run. If you like it, say so; if you don't, tell us how it fails you. Just always remember, either way, that this is first, foremost and always a kilt forum.

I like it, but it fails me by forbidding discussions on holsters for concealed carry while wearing a kilt.

Present day kilt wear, multiculturally speaking, does include carrying firearms of modern manufacture.

Being that this is a trial run, Milquetoast criteria for discussions shouldn't be the rule. Not if you want to see if your concerns are valid. You don't have to jump in with both feet, but a toe in the water is a little too timid. That is my council.

[Dale Seago]

I like it, but it fails me by forbidding discussions on holsters for concealed carry while wearing a kilt.

Present day kilt wear, multiculturally speaking, does include carrying firearms of modern manufacture.

Being that this is a trial run, Milquetoast criteria for discussions shouldn't be the rule. Not if you want to see if your concerns are valid. You don't have to jump in with both feet, but a toe in the water is a little too timid. That is my council.

Respectfully, and as a confessed hoplophile, I appreciate the sentiment but would recommend that such things be considered -- if ever -- AFTER the 6-month trial period under the current guidelines.

[MacMillans son]

Respectfully, and as a confessed hoplophile, I appreciate the sentiment but would recommend that such things be considered -- if ever -- AFTER the 6-month trial period under the current guidelines.

Hmmm, I believe you and PodKido are having a similar debate as Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Dubois had a few years back.

[O'Searcaigh]

Rule #11 (amended 4 April, 2013)
(For the purpose of this forum, “Weapon” is defined as anything that is designed for, or is used to, injure.)
The laws governing, and/or the views surrounding, the topics: 1) The ‘right to bear arms’, 2) The ownership, possession, carry and use of weapons, 3) Hunting, and 4) Self-defense, are specific to each country or region. Any discussion of these topics will be closed or deleted.

VERY much improved. Thank you for the hard work that I am sure went into these revisions. Not only is the Rule itself much clearer now, so is the focus of its intent. Good Job!!!

[O'Searcaigh]

I think the "or is used to" part of the weapon definition leads it back to walking sticks and the like as discussed earlier in this thread. Otherwise it looks like you've picked most of the nits out of it. Bless you.

I would think that the rule is now sufficiently clear to cover what would and what would not be allowed with regard to things like walking sticks etc. (items not necessarily designed for but nevertheless used to -- injure.) For example, pictures of or discussions about using a walking stick for walking or hiking would surely be allowed; showing or discussing beating someone or something with one would not. I also like the fact that the new clarification eliminates the language of "harm to living beings." The new revision would seem to allow for censuring posts where "injury" (with malice) might be being done to property yet might allow showing/discussing the use of a sgian for cutting up vegetables.

[PodKiDo]

Hmmm, I believe you and PodKido are having a similar debate as Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Dubois had a few years back.

Similar, but foundationally different. This is a test and should therefore incorporate relevant subjects that cause the moderators concern. That way the topics that this group of people cannot civilly discuss can be rooted out.

[PodKiDo]

I would think that the rule is now sufficiently clear to cover what would and what would not be allowed with regard to things like walking sticks etc. (items not necessarily designed for but nevertheless used to -- injure.) For example, pictures of or discussions about using a walking stick for walking or hiking would surely be allowed; showing or discussing beating someone or something with one would not. I also like the fact that the new clarification eliminates the language of "harm to living beings." The new revision would seem to allow for censuring posts where "injury" (with malice) might be being done to property yet might allow showing/discussing the use of a sgian for cutting up vegetables.

You are using common sense and I was speaking to those who go by the letter. This rule is a vast improvement over the last.

[tundramanq]

It probably is not a good idea to discuss how any of these things are used. Only how they are properly and/or practically worn.
I think discussing any design issues other than ornamental may venture into the gray areas.

Thanks guys, the rule is clearer now. It has to have been "real entertaining" to word these rules in a universal English.

[AJBryant]

Well, poo.

I can see the point, but I *am* a tad frustrated that something that is legal can't be discussed in one of the few places where there are enough people familiar with the side-concept (i.e. sporrans and Scottish wear) to be able to offer useful opinions and ideas.

Sad, really. Very sad.