Non-Firearm Political Talk Prohibited - Discuss Here

[Norm0931]

Wow, this thing even edits links.
Replace bubblegumming with appropriate expletive.
<broken link removed>

 

[Sstrand]

First they deny you the right to say what you think . . .
Then they will tell you what to think!!!!!

Sheldon

 

[Riot]

First they deny you the right to say what you think . . .
Then they will tell you what to think!!!!!

Sheldon

For the record, Political discussions are allowed at NWFA...just in the "Off Topic" forum. NWFA's stance on politics has always been to try to keep everything gun related...especially since this is a gun forum, and not a political one. What I don't understand, however, is how you can have a "Legal & Political" forum...but the minute you get political it's automatically censored.

I think it might be a good idea to have a "Legal" forum and a "Political" forum seperate from each other rather than tied as one...the legal forum can talk about executive orders, legislation and propsed legislation relating to firearms...while the political one can be used for just that...politics.

 

[Gator Monroe]

Calguns.net (Gun forum in California that is overly sensitive the Left Leaning Democrat posters) has to deal with Blue State inhabitants/posters who may have MANY OTHER ISSUES that are as Important (If not more) than their Hobby and the tools of that hobby...

 

[Just Jim]

My suggestion would be to have a paid members only category that was pretty much no holds bared. One one of the blacksmithing forums I am a member of has a section called "This is Vegas" and in that one section there is no rules as to language or topic. There still is some moderation, personal attacks in Vegas will get you banned from the site and anything that is just down right offensive gets removed. I still think its a good solution though. It allows the rest of the site to be pretty PG rated yet has a spot where stuff can happen behind closed doors. I do think its good to debate ideas and I think we need a safe but open place to do that.

"Citizens of a free society do not preserve their freedom by pussyfooting around their fellow citizens' opinions, even their most cherished beliefs. In free societies you must have the free play of ideas, there must be an argument, and it must be impassioned and untrammeled. Free societies are dynamic, noisy, turbulent, and full of radical disagreement. You can't cry foul when your ideas are challenged" -Bill Moyer

But..... And its a big but.

In the end we are guests in Joe's house.

If I was invited over to dinner and brought up a topic that was controversial and Joe leaned over and said, "hey man, not here, not in front of my family' I would be respectful and not think twice about it, nor think any less of Joe for the request. Maybe later in the den with the boys behind closed doors he might say "Hey, Now what kind of crazy where you getting at?" and be totally open to that same discussion in a different environment.

This is a bigger gathering than dinner at Joe's but we are still guests here. I have had a few run in's with the mods here but overall this is one of the more tolerant forums that I participate in. I think too many people think that because this is the internet and they dont see the site as "owned" by anyone they just assume that any rules are arbitrary and unreasonable. How dare you tell me what I can say? I think if more people understood that our participation here is not a right, its a privilege and there are things ask of us to try and minimize a bunch of testosterone fueled chest beating and heated, polarizing arguments. Yes politics and firearms go hand in hand, but its far less likely that on a gun forum gun discussion will become problematic or ugly. The reality is if you really want to engage someone in a political debate I would bet there are forums that cater to that type of discussion.

Not sure I like that you have to pay for free speech. However they may link our scores to the use of cuss words. Certianly there are some here more involved than others and recognition for greater involvement can be worked in. Might even get some of us to turn into paying members if we get free speech.

 

[IronMonster]

Limiting it to pay member is not about excluding people who want to participate. Its about keeping people who are just poking around or google results from showing dirty laundry. We need to present a wholesome image, Allowing polarizing discussion allows the wrong people to come cherry pick incriminating statements to use against the site or the shooting community at large. You have to keep people out somehow, I cant see how there is any other choice but the paid member being used as the access. There is nothing else really I think would work
Also it would be my suggestion not to advertize there is such a forum category. You dont want folks who are searching for something to use against the site to know that by paying $20 they will have access

 

[etrain16]

Limiting it to pay member is not about excluding people who want to participate. Its about keeping people who are just poking around or google results from showing dirty laundry. We need to present a wholesome image, Allowing polarizing discussion allows the wrong people to come cherry pick incriminating statements to use against the site or the shooting community at large. You have to keep people out somehow, I cant see how there is any other choice but the paid member being used as the access. There is nothing else really I think would work
Also it would be my suggestion not to advertize there is such a forum category. You dont want folks who are searching for something to use against the site to know that by paying $20 they will have access

As I noted to Joe, I understand an appreciate that the 'higher ground' is to be civil, polite and inviting. It's a nice idea to keep discussions clean and level, with no left vs right banter. But what about the anti-gun folks - they're not exactly keeping their opinions about us or our rights quiet. Quite the opposite in fact, they are not only vocal, but get their opinions in every paper, website and news channel that will listen. They call us out, lie about us, deride us, insult us. Yet, we're the ones that get chastised for having strong opinions.

I'm not against a spot in the supporting members area that has fewer restrictions, but how can we have honest discussions about what's happening if we hide in a hole so we don't risk offending someone with our views?

Honestly, if someone on the left wanted to stand up and start defending our rights, I'd be happy to share that fight with them. I'm trying my best to keep the L vs R comments out of my discussion, but dang if it comes back day after day that it is, in reality, one side against the other. Why is it that only those on the side whose rights are being attacked are the ones expected to be 'civil'? It seems like a double-standard to me. They call us names and lie about us and we're told to keep quiet so as not to offend them. They pass laws to restrict our rights and if we return with so much as a complaint about their politics, we're in the wrong for calling them out.

I'm just very frustrated with the whole thing and I'm continuing to wait for someone to suggest a better option, but one that actually works.

 

[Gator Monroe]

If telling the truth infuriates 15% of the Regular Posters and playing nice and trying to not make them feel uncomfortable grates at and makes 65% of the other regular posters feel muzzled what are you gonna do ...

 

[IronMonster]

I dont think its unreasonable to want a open, unrestricted discussion. I just think its unreasonable to expect that it wont be used to a negative effect against the site and the shooting community. Or that it actually promotes the best interests of the site which should promote the positive and constructive aspects of firearms, at least to the public at large.

I also dont think that restricting political discussion is about keeping people muzzled, Its about keeping people from turning ugly in a public forum. Even with people on the same side political discussion is emotional and sometimes accusatory, inflaming and all around ugly. If often results in name calling, insults and all around degenerative behavior. Its kind of the nature of debating polarizing emotional viewpoints. Its not the kind of thing that you want on a forum no matter what the forum subject matter is.

 

[U201491]

Politics IS part of nearly all firearms discussions that have to do with laws and legislation. The two CANNOT be separated. And..........when attempts to separate them, ie; right and left, the entire means of fighting anti gun laws is just nullified and made ineffective. It is a simple cold brutal fact they are so intertwined that to restrict the discussions about why and who is out to disarm us all makes most of the attempts to fight back useless. The ones that complain the loudest and the most are the left leaners that are not as pro gun as they portray themselves to be. Compromisers, sympathizers or just anti plants.

THIS IS A FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS AND OUR COUNTRY AND IT'S CONSTITUTION AND HOBBLING THAT FIGHT IS SELF DEFEATING.
It is not a "nice" fight and it sometimes gets verbally bloody, but it is just the way it is.
PC is the enemy of saving our 2nd Amendment and the left uses that to their benefit. Yes there is a LEFT and a RIGHT. It is also self defeating to try and say there is not. It just IS. a fact of this war.
There is a mentality that pervades the community of the gun grabbers and that mentality is not just about guns. It is about control and sometimes to fight to save something you have to get at the roots of the weeds that are attacking it..

 

[IronMonster]

Not sure I like that you have to pay for free speech. However they may link our scores to the use of cuss words. Certianly there are some here more involved than others and recognition for greater involvement can be worked in. Might even get some of us to turn into paying members if we get free speech.

Its not free speech, You are a guest here. You agreed to a set of terms to be a member that spelled out the expectations of your involvement and set the rules, stating what was prohibited.

 

[U201491]

Its not free speech, You are a guest here. You agreed to a set of terms to be a member that spelled out the expectations of your involvement and set the rules, stating what was prohibited.

Yep that is true, but when firearms laws become so restrictive and the 2nd is destroyed there will be no need for firearms forums and with this lead ban it is also going to have an extreme effect on fishing , so it is bleeding over into other outdoor "sports" They are not a right as the 2nd is, but they are being affected just the same, and so what will a sports forum be about.... hiking and backwoods square dancing ??
I have to abide by the rules like everyone else, but if they become so restrictive as to not allow the fight to yank out the weeds attacking the 2nd, all gun forums will be very short lived in the future.

Tiddly winks and paper dolls ..................... some future......................

 

[IronMonster]

Politics IS part of nearly all firearms discussions that have to do with laws and legislation. The two CANNOT be separated. And..........when attempts to separate them, ie; right and left, the entire means of fighting anti gun laws is just nullified and made ineffective. It is a simple cold brutal fact they are so intertwined that to restrict the discussions about why and who is out to disarm us all makes most of the attempts to fight back useless. The ones that complain the loudest and the most are the left leaners that are not as pro gun as they portray themselves to be. Compromisers, sympathizers or just anti plants.

THIS IS A FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS AND OUR COUNTRY AND IT'S CONSTITUTION AND HOBBLING THAT FIGHT IS SELF DEFEATING.
It is not a "nice" fight and it sometimes gets verbally bloody, but it is just the way it is.
PC is the enemy of saving our 2nd Amendment and the left uses that to their benefit. Yes there is a LEFT and a RIGHT. It is also self defeating to try and say there is not. It just IS. a fact of this war.
There is a mentality that pervades the community of the gun grabbers and that mentality is not just about guns. It is about control and sometimes to fight to save something you have to get at the roots of the weeds that are attacking it..

There is such a thing as trying to play the long game, promoting the community. Trying to be the "better man" by not resorting to name calling and derogatory tactics. We need to be the ones who present rational arguments. We need to appear to be the voice of reason in the debate. There is a time and place for the fight, a family friendly site trying to portray the wholesome nature of the shooting sports may not be the best place for polarizing attacks. Taku you see everything as black and white. You attack those who are not willing to side with your extremism. In the way you present your views there is no room for everyone else. You advise people to break the law and call those who comply cowards. I think your heart is in the right place but I think you turn more people away than you convert to your cause. Tact and strategy (as well as control and poise) are a lot more effective in the long game than ultimatums and name calling. It takes everyone in the fight. I have as much conviction as anyone but I play a different role than you. I wouldn't ask you to change, But I would ask that rather than calling those who are fighting a different fight "Compromisers, sympathizers or just anti plants" that you understand that by doing so you are alienating allies. You represent a small percentage of vocal, passionate and politically polarized gun owners. We need you. We also need everyone else to be on the same side and not fighting amongst us. We need the fudds and the hunters. We need the collectors. We need tactical nerds and we need the folks who have no political opinion at all. We need to be united. If we fall off into factions that are isolated and bickering we will lose. We are already at a disadvantage, we cannot afford to belittle those who might not have as strong of convictions but are still on our side. I even know some gun owning lefties ( I live in Seattle after all) perhaps we need them most of all. We need people on the other side of the political spectrum standing up for firearms rights. We need a united front and support for firearms rights is support no matter where it comes from. You dont need to be a extremest to be on our side.

 

[Sstrand]

Taku
You have to understand where IronMonster is located . . He is trying to come to grips with The diminution of his rights in Washington. Don't you remember the furor over "WHY DIDN'T THE NRA DO SOMETHNG??"

It appears Washington gun owners turned out to be sheeple. "Please, somebody save me . . . "

Sheldon

 

[Gator Monroe]

Politics IS part of nearly all firearms discussions that have to do with laws and legislation. The two CANNOT be separated. And..........when attempts to separate them, ie; right and left, the entire means of fighting anti gun laws is just nullified and made ineffective. It is a simple cold brutal fact they are so intertwined that to restrict the discussions about why and who is out to disarm us all makes most of the attempts to fight back useless. The ones that complain the loudest and the most are the left leaners that are not as pro gun as they portray themselves to be. Compromisers, sympathizers or just anti plants.

THIS IS A FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS AND OUR COUNTRY AND IT'S CONSTITUTION AND HOBBLING THAT FIGHT IS SELF DEFEATING.
It is not a "nice" fight and it sometimes gets verbally bloody, but it is just the way it is.
PC is the enemy of saving our 2nd Amendment and the left uses that to their benefit. Yes there is a LEFT and a RIGHT. It is also self defeating to try and say there is not. It just IS. a fact of this war.
There is a mentality that pervades the community of the gun grabbers and that mentality is not just about guns. It is about control and sometimes to fight to save something you have to get at the roots of the weeds that are attacking it..

Hear Hear !

 

[Just Jim]

Its not free speech, You are a guest here. You agreed to a set of terms to be a member that spelled out the expectations of your involvement and set the rules, stating what was prohibited.

My free speech has been paid for by all those who took up the fight before me. I have to carry on the fight if I want my family to have that same freedom. Yes I am here as a guest and if they want me to stay then they will treat me as such. The rules I follow are far more strict than the rules here, but as a guest in this house I am told to shut up. If you want the house to have friends maybe you should stop telling them to shut up.

 

[IronMonster]

My free speech as been paid for by all those who took up the fight before me. I have to carry on the fight if I want my family to have that same freedom. Yes I am here as a guest and if they want me to stay then they will treat me as such. The rules I follow are far more strict than the rules here, but as a guest in this house I am told to shut up. If you want the house to have friends maybe you should stop rolling them to shut up.

l


Thing is you're not being told to shut up, your nicely being asked to be respectful of the rules

 

[Just Jim]

There is such a thing as trying to play the long game, promoting the community. Trying to be the "better man" by not resorting to name calling and derogatory tactics. We need to be the ones who present rational arguments. We need to appear to be the voice of reason in the debate. There is a time and place for the fight, a family friendly site trying to portray the wholesome nature of the shooting sports may not be the best place for polarizing attacks. Taku you see everything as black and white. You attack those who are not willing to side with your extremism. In the way you present your views there is no room for everyone else. You advise people to break the law and call those who comply cowards. I think your heart is in the right place but I think you turn more people away than you convert to your cause. Tact and strategy (as well as control and poise) are a lot more effective in the long game than ultimatums and name calling. It takes everyone in the fight. I have as much conviction as anyone but I play a different role than you. I wouldn't ask you to change, But I would ask that rather than calling those who are fighting a different fight "Compromisers, sympathizers or just anti plants" that you understand that by doing so you are alienating allies. You represent a small percentage of vocal, passionate and politically polarized gun owners. We need you. We also need everyone else to be on the same side and not fighting amongst us. We need the fudds and the hunters. We need the collectors. We need tactical nerds and we need the folks who have no political opinion at all. We need to be united. If we fall off into factions that are isolated and bickering we will lose. We are already at a disadvantage, we cannot afford to belittle those who might not have as strong of convictions but are still on our side. I even know some gun owning lefties ( I live in Seattle after all) perhaps we need them most of all. We need people on the other side of the political spectrum standing up for firearms rights. We need a united front and support for firearms rights is support no matter where it comes from. You dont need to be a extremest to be on our side.

You might want to tell us where your strategy has worked?

 

[Just Jim]

l


Thing is you're not being told to shut up, your nicely being asked to be respectful of the rules

Ya, the rule is to shut up

 

[Gator Monroe]

If telling the truth infuriates 15% of the Regular Posters and playing nice and trying to not make them feel uncomfortable grates at and makes 65% of the other regular posters feel muzzled what are you gonna do ...

BUMP FOR EFFECT ...