I admit that it’s a stretch, but my point is that Benchmade is just the tool, they didn’t make the decision that the guns be destroyed. That they chose to be the tool was stupid for what are now obvious reasons, but the fact is that if they had refused, the guns would still have been destroyed.
Think about it like this. The court orders the guns destroyed and the police approach Benchmade. A smart Benchmade would have said “no thanks” and in response to the question “why not?” they would have correctly reasoned that a vocal portion of their potential customer base would view it as being anti 2a or supporting folks that are anti 2a. That wouldn’t have been the end of it, the police would have maybe gone and bought a grinder and chopped them up. So in the end the only difference is that Benchmade did the chopping, and to this action we ascribe anti 2a intention where there is no evidence that this was intended. Again, we are destroying a company over pointless outrage...a classic move from the far left’s playbook.
So Benchmade is stupid, but other than some minor campaign contributions I see no evidence that they are anti 2a.
Benchmade doing the chopping is the entire argument. Yes, someone, somewhere would have chopped these guns. Benchmade chose to be the tool, (edit: when approached) . They chose it. Them.
Imagine the responses if Benchmade announced that they were approached to chop up some guns, but they refused because of their principles. The guns would still be chopped, but guess what? Benchmade sales would probably experience an uptick.
Who buys their knives, mostly? Yep. That crowd.
Last edited: