Benchmade gun destruction

Status
Not open for further replies.
. . .conservatives will lose that fight unless we relearn as a country how to do business with people who disagree with us. . . . But if more general goods and services companies decide to vote with their wallets and stop doing business with conservatives. . . We're in trouble.
Well replied; I think I see how you got there, but I disagree with your first presupposition.

If we conservatives (correctly Classical Liberals, including some Conservatives) really are the diminishing minority it sounds like you're picturing, then we have lost. It's over, give up, move somewhere else. I don't think that's the case. I think we are somewhere around parity with the really dedicated enemy (Statists of various stripes), and with the ignorant, and that we are slowly growing as the ignorant notice the fruits of Statism.

If we are a shrinking minority. . . this is ultimately a democracy and the minority will ultimately lose any political contest, as they should. If this is the case, hiding quietly and waiting for them to come for you isn't really a useful strategy; either fight if you think you can win, or leave if you think you can't.
 
Neither BM or SF is forced to remain where they are. At the core of liberty resides mobility. Companies don’t have to stay where they are-they relocate all the time...

Exactly. Look at Magpul; when our crooked state legislature and governor chickenduper illegally rammed through magazine capacity restrictions, they followed through on their threat to take their company and the tax revenue it generates to a different state.

As for Surefire, I feel similarly about their products as I do Benchmade: Good stuff, but overpriced, and don't perform any better than less expensive products by their US competitors with similar domestic parts content. My weapon lights are Streamlight & Inforce, hand held lights are Streamlight & Maglite.

As for Surefire suppressors, they're among the heaviest and loudest in a given class, along with having the highest pricetags. I wouldn't want one for free if I actually had to use the thing.
 
The fact that BM has made contributions to their powerful senior Senator and to the Representative from their district says NOTHING about their position on guns and 2A. It says that they recognize that under US campaign finance and lobbying rules, you have to pay to play

I disagree. It’s expedient for them to do it as they have and they didn’t expect to get caught taking the easy way out. And as for boycotting, whatever companies I choose to boycott, I do so because they aren’t contributing money that drops from heaven, they choose to charge me higher prices so they can use MY money to do what I don’t agree with. So I choose not to enable them.

I will admit that my wife is getting a little weary of keeping track of stores I refuse to enter or patronize these days.
 
In any event, outrage is the preserve of the unhinged Left. Conservatives are supposed to be the grown ups.
 
In any event, outrage is the preserve of the unhinged Left. Conservatives are supposed to be the grown ups.

Well, we're not marching in front of their facility, assaulting their workers or blocking freeway on ramps. Not that I've heard of, anyway. Showing our contempt for their actions by discussing it on bulletin boards and by not giving them our money is the grown up way.
 
It doesn’t help that Benchmade contributes a good deal to antigun politicians and orgs. So while some of you can defend their actions, I wouldn’t. It’s pretty obvious they aren’t really 2A friendly for anyone that cares to look.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000047693&cycle=A

Did you even read the site you linked to?

On average, they have given $4,000 a year in TOTAL political contributions since 2010. The law allows a PAC to contribute up to $10,000 per campaign, per cycle. They have contributed almost exclusively to Oregon candidates, both Republicans and Democrats. There is no information on the site you provided about any contributions to anti gun organizations. So where did you get that information from?
 
Well replied; I think I see how you got there, but I disagree with your first presupposition.

If we conservatives (correctly Classical Liberals, including some Conservatives) really are the diminishing minority it sounds like you're picturing, then we have lost. It's over, give up, move somewhere else. I don't think that's the case. I think we are somewhere around parity with the really dedicated enemy (Statists of various stripes), and with the ignorant, and that we are slowly growing as the ignorant notice the fruits of Statism.

If we are a shrinking minority. . . this is ultimately a democracy and the minority will ultimately lose any political contest, as they should. If this is the case, hiding quietly and waiting for them to come for you isn't really a useful strategy; either fight if you think you can win, or leave if you think you can't.

I think we have always been a minority. In some part this is because 'conservatism' now includes a brand of statist nationalism... or maybe that was always part of the tent, and now it's just a bit bigger part. I believe it's a matter of persuasion rather than force. The true-blue progressive/democratic socialist wing is also a minority, and it's the squishy center that needs to be convinced one way or another. We haven't lost, but I think right now we are losing. No side ever truly loses, because inevitably the ascendant side overreaches and falls out of favor. That's not terribly reassuring, I'll admit, since sometimes it takes things like gulags and World Wars to remind people what happens when you invest too much in ideological government.

We are, as well, a republic and not a democracy, and one founded strongly on checks and balances aimed at prevented a tyranny of the majority- that's why we have a non-proportional upper legislature and the Electoral College, and why the executive and judiciary are designed to be coequal with the legislature. Protecting the rights of the minority and the rights of those whom we find distasteful and offensive is key to the system because we ourselves may (and I believe have) found ourselves to be in the minority.

I don't want the state or the dominant cultural elite to be able to destroy a baker in Colorado, a trillion-dollar tech corporation to be able to silence a conservative provocateur, or a bank to decide to stop providing services to a lawful gun company. But those things can't truly be legislated, I believe they can only arise from a culture that has agreed that it's possible and desirable to have social and business interaction with people who hold different beliefs and values. I really think that anything else is just going to make tribalism grow.
 
I’m not defending this place or saying I’ll ever do business with them. Heck, I’ve never even heard of them. I respect anyone’s decision to boycott them. But if this is your criteria for boycotting a company, I’m not sure how you buy any products or consume any entertainment in this country.
 
Last edited:
I think we have always been a minority. In some part this is because 'conservatism' now includes a brand of statist nationalism... or maybe that was always part of the tent, and now it's just a bit bigger part. I believe it's a matter of persuasion rather than force. The true-blue progressive/democratic socialist wing is also a minority, and it's the squishy center that needs to be convinced one way or another. We haven't lost, but I think right now we are losing. No side ever truly loses, because inevitably the ascendant side overreaches and falls out of favor. That's not terribly reassuring, I'll admit, since sometimes it takes things like gulags and World Wars to remind people what happens when you invest too much in ideological government.

We are, as well, a republic and not a democracy, and one founded strongly on checks and balances aimed at prevented a tyranny of the majority- that's why we have a non-proportional upper legislature and the Electoral College, and why the executive and judiciary are designed to be coequal with the legislature. Protecting the rights of the minority and the rights of those whom we find distasteful and offensive is key to the system because we ourselves may (and I believe have) found ourselves to be in the minority.

I don't want the state or the dominant cultural elite to be able to destroy a baker in Colorado, a trillion-dollar tech corporation to be able to silence a conservative provocateur, or a bank to decide to stop providing services to a lawful gun company. But those things can't truly be legislated, I believe they can only arise from a culture that has agreed that it's possible and desirable to have social and business interaction with people who hold different beliefs and values. I really think that anything else is just going to make tribalism grow.
I think you are on the right track. I'm feeling more hopeful, though, after some recent events -- a couple being the aftermath of the Covington Catholic and Smollett incidents -- the immediate, so vociferous and hateful reactions by the clueless liberal celebrities and politicians before they had real information, have put the liberal outrage on full display to all who have any critical thinking skills -- and there will be backlash .. hopefully, this sort of thing could certainly start making the folks in the middle (if there's any left) think about where we're gonna end up if the extremism and confrontational polarization of our society continues and we keep letting the extremists leap to quick judgements and frame every issue in the media according to their own ideology. Our country was founded on principles that made it okay to disagree with each other, yet still work for the common good. We've sure regressed in the past thirty years. (We need a new John Dingell in Congress)

Getting back to the thread topic, this has been very entertaining. Some here apparently can't conceive of certain realities with regard to running a large business while others ... would seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 
I know a few things about Benchmade.

They helped start the American Knife and Tool Institute (I was there) and they are one of the manufacturers providing major financial support for it (lobbying is expensive business).

The folks that are rending their garments and thrashing about over Benchmade donations to a couple of politicians aren't bothering to mine past the political party designation. Just the least bit of digging will show, to anyone that actually wants to know the facts, that the principal recipients of those direct donations are far from Anti.

Rep Kurt Schrader about 3/4 of the time votes NRA (not all D are Anti when the serve districts with rural character). https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-rep-kurt-schrader-vote-concealed-carry-gun-bill/
Oregon Congressman Kurt Schrader was one of just six Democrats in the House who voted Wednesday for a bill that would allow concealed handgun licensees to carry their weapons in all 50 states.
Republican Greg Walden also backed the bill, which passed on a 231-198 vote. It was opposed by Democrats Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne Bonamici and Peter DeFazio.
Schrader often votes with the National Rifle Association, which gave him a 71 percent positive rating in 2016.

Senator Martin Heinrich was an NRA "A" rated politician as a House member and B for the Senate.
Gun law
The National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed Heinrich during the 2010 congressional election. At that time, he received a grade of A from the NRA for his stance on Second Amendment rights.[34] He is a former member of the NRA.[35]

Heinrich opposed legislation that would have reinstated the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[36] He also supported bills to create a national standard for the concealed carrying of firearms across state lines, and co-sponsored legislation that would ease the restrictions on the sales of firearms across state lines.[37]

We need to be very careful in blindly making assumptions and splashing with too broad a brush about issues close to us. It is important to get all the facts when we're focusing down to individuals. Neither of these politicians are Antis so BM donating to them doesn't make them Anti.
 
Did you even read the site you linked to?

On average, they have given $4,000 a year in TOTAL political contributions since 2010. The law allows a PAC to contribute up to $10,000 per campaign, per cycle. They have contributed almost exclusively to Oregon candidates, both Republicans and Democrats. There is no information on the site you provided about any contributions to anti gun organizations. So where did you get that information from?

Yes, I did read it. Go and look at the individual donations. Since 2014-2018 it’s clearly been all Dems. Before that, yes you can say that they donated to both but the amounts show a clear bias towards the Dems. Frankly, I don’t care if any of the dem candidates are pro gun, most don’t act like it and as a company I wouldn’t remotely support an individual who’s party affiliation is vehemently antigun. See my response on their candidates in the next post. The only one that they’ve donated to that could remotely be considered pro gun, is Schrader and I’m not sure he is clearly one way or the other.

Regardless, its pretty clear to most people that this video was meant to serve as a antigun video, whether it was posted by the PD or not. I’m sure they had Benchmades authorization. It’s basically saying, hey look at me fellow antigun crowd, we are a company that gladly supports gun control and taking care of all those evil guns. Propaganda at its finest in my mind. Convince me otherwise. Why even post the video at all if there wasn’t some sort of agenda?

In regards to your question about anti gun org contributions, the info is out there, if one cares to look even tho I am sure it is deleted now. But one such place to look was on their social media, aka their Facebook page had some posts where they seemed happy to admit that they donated money to some antigun groups. I will see if I can find the screen shots I seen posted on another board. Like I said, I’m sure that any such post on Facebook has been deleted now but I will see what I can find.
 
Last edited:
I know a few things about Benchmade.

They helped start the American Knife and Tool Institute (I was there) and they are one of the manufacturers providing major financial support for it (lobbying is expensive business).

The folks that are rending their garments and thrashing about over Benchmade donations to a couple of politicians aren't bothering to mine past the political party designation. Just the least bit of digging will show, to anyone that actually wants to know the facts, that the principal recipients of those direct donations are far from Anti.

Rep Kurt Schrader about 3/4 of the time votes NRA (not all D are Anti when the serve districts with rural character). https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-rep-kurt-schrader-vote-concealed-carry-gun-bill/


Senator Martin Heinrich was an NRA "A" rated politician as a House member and B for the Senate.
Gun law
The National Rifle Association (NRA) endorsed Heinrich during the 2010 congressional election. At that time, he received a grade of A from the NRA for his stance on Second Amendment rights.[34] He is a former member of the NRA.[35]

Heinrich opposed legislation that would have reinstated the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[36] He also supported bills to create a national standard for the concealed carrying of firearms across state lines, and co-sponsored legislation that would ease the restrictions on the sales of firearms across state lines.[37]

We need to be very careful in blindly making assumptions and splashing with too broad a brush about issues close to us. It is important to get all the facts when we're focusing down to individuals. Neither of these politicians are Antis so BM donating to them doesn't make them Anti.

Kurt Schrader, although a Democrat, doesn’t seem to be anti-gun. In fact, he supports national CCW reciprocity.

Martin Heinrich also supported national CCW, however, he also supports more gun controllegislation and voted to ban magazines over 10 rounds in capacity and the bumpstock ban (among other gun control measures).

Ron Wyden has supported every gun control legislation he has been a part of.

Kurt Schrader is a gun-friendly Democrat. That not “pro-gun” but it’s not “anti-gun” either.

Mark Udall is an anti-gun Democrat with an F rating from the NRA And Jeff Merkley os also anti-gun.
 
It doesn’t help that Benchmade contributes a good deal to antigun politicians and orgs.

That's not supported by the site nor if you look at the two politicians that are listed as receiving the donations from Benchmade.

Since I know the money they put into lobbying is on behalf of the knife industry it isn't for some anti cause. They and a handful of other companies started the American Knife and Tool Institute. I know because I was there. I also know what their funding commitment is since I'm involved in an alternative grassroots organization working to roll back restrictive knife laws (Knife Rights) and we're all familiar with what money is given by what companies to what organization.

We can't just automatically assume that support for one party affiliation or the other means pro or Anti 2A.
 
That's not supported by the site nor if you look at the two politicians that received the donations from Benchmade.

Since I know the money they put into lobbying is on behalf of the knife industry it isn't for some anti cause.

We can't just automatically assume that support for one party affiliation or the other means pro or Anti 2A.

Again...

Kurt Schrader, although a Democrat, doesn’t seem to be anti-gun. In fact, he supports national CCW reciprocity. That just means he is pro gun for a specific type of firearm. What’s his views on semi auto rifles and AR pistols?

Martin Heinrich also supported national CCW, however, he also supports more gun controllegislation and voted to ban magazines over 10 rounds in capacity and the bumpstock ban (among other gun control measures). While I’m not a fan of bumpstocks it’s clear this guy supports some gun control measures.

Ron Wyden has supported every gun control legislation he has been a part of. Enough said.

Kurt Schrader is a gun-friendly Democrat. That not “pro-gun” but it’s not “anti-gun” either. Too much on the fence in my mind, like I said above just because he supports CCW doesn’t mean he supports people owning all kinds of firearms.

Mark Udall is an anti-gun Democrat with an F rating from the NRA And Jeff Merkley os also anti-gun. Enough said.
 
SilentStalker,

Can you explain the relevance of Udall and Wyden when the two politicians listed are Heinrich and Schrader (although I expect Wyden is relevant as an OR Senator that BM needs to influence on knife industry issues)?
 
Let’s say you guys have convinced me to think on this a little more and to walk back some of my initial anger about this. Why do you think Benchmade would have allowed themselves to be associated with whantis clearly a propaganda video at all? I mean why post the video at all, whether it was the PD or not? Clearly there was an agenda. Whether they are antigun or pro gun is really neither here nor there, in my mind, they made a bad business decision being associated with the propaganda video at all. Decisions have consequences. Now if the PD posted the video without their authorization then that is a different matter entirely.
 
SilentStalker,

Can you explain the relevance of Udall and Wyden when the two politicians listed are Heinrich and Schrader (although I expect Wyden is relevant as an OR Senator that BM needs to influence on knife industry issues)?

I’m listing them simply because Benchmade made contributions to them as well. Granted, I think most of us are not naive enough to think that companies don’t donate to both sides as that tends to level the playing field. However, it’s hard to argue against the fact that the donations seem to support one party more than the other. Is it simply because there are no good republican candidates? Could be. However, as a company I would not donate to anyone that represented a party vehemently opposed to guns and then claim I was pro2A. You either are or you aren’t. However, I’m not going to pretend to even remotely know the ins and outs of paying people to lobby for you to win over some favors from one political party or the other. But to me that is indicative of some serious problems within our system. Nobody should be paying anyone for favors, period. Yes, I realize that is what the system has become but that’s largely the problem. Anyways that’s getting off topic. All I’m saying is, if you donate largely to individual that represents a group that is antigun then don’t be afraid of the recourse of that decision when people find out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top