Announcement The Atmosphere of Northwest Firearms - Changes

[mike633]

I'm not sure how to go about this, but there has to be a population of "fence sitters" out there that have not made up their minds as to being for or against gun ownership. Offering them an opportunity to discuss their questions and fears, introducing them to firearms through safety and training programs, may be a way to counteract the Any Town, Bloomberg BS.

 

[Brutus57]

i think i vomited a little in my mouth!

I know I did.

Brutus Out

 

[ob1]

I'm not sure how to go about this, but there has to be a population of "fence sitters" out there that have not made up their minds as to being for or against gun ownership. Offering them an opportunity to discuss their questions and fears, introducing them to firearms through safety and training programs, may be a way to counteract the Any Town, Bloomberg BS.

As I see it Mike, while we certainly need to continue our efforts on the national anti-gun agenda, we for the moment are more threatened at the state level. Yes, this includes you guys up North as well. If there is one thing that we have learned since the last couple years, it is that all three left coast states are now linked against gun owner rights through the Governor's mansions.....

California law to Washington..Washington law to Oregon...and now California magazine bans to Oregon with Kates latest declaration. Get ready Washington, your turn is coming up again soon.

The most biting problem is that the executive order / "emergency" has now been adopted as a way to circumvent the usual (proper) way of enacting state law. This gives us very little time to mount an effective opposition (by design), especially with the lack luster performance of the organizations supposedly in "our court".
We no longer have the time to simply engage in "discussion" the way it used to be done. Governor makes announcement, Governor declares emergency, 30 days later......zippo change-oh..it's a law! And we are still starting a civil discourse.

This time we can't wait for help that never materializes, or it's over before it started. If they want to join US, so much the better. We are being forced to think out of the box now and we better get our collective keister's started on it.

 

[WWShooter]

It's interesting that members of this site seem to support any and every assertion of 2nd Amendment rights, while condemning the assertion of first amendment rights by Colin Kaepernick.

Do members of this site support the exercise of Constitutional rights, or only those Constitutional rights expressed in the 2nd Amendment?

One could seem noble; the other self-serving.

 

[etrain16]

It's interesting that members of this site seem to support any and every assertion of 2nd Amendment rights, while condemning the assertion of first amendment rights by Colin Kaepernick.

Do members of this site support the exercise of Constitutional rights, or only those Constitutional rights expressed in the 2nd Amendment?

One could seem noble; the other self-serving.

No, I would say most folks here support his right to do what he's doing. BUT, that doesn't mean we need to like it or agree with it. He can have his rights and still be a hypocritical POS. That doesn't mean we don't support the first. In fact, exercising the first is in many cases going to piss certain people off. Choose to express it and just know that you also earn the right to earn the scorn of others for doing so.

I support his right to his view, and I reserve the right to say it makes him a hypocritical POS. Everybody is happy.

By the way, many of us believe there are times when exercising the 2nd can make you a POS too, such as the a-holes that go out shooting on public lands, destroying property and leave a damn mess behind.

Exercising a right doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for your actions, rather it gives you the right to make certain choices, even if they're bad ones. I think most folks here would agree with that sentiment. What Colin chose to do is disrespectful to many folks, including those who have served - they have the right to disagree with his choice.

 

[Mikej]

@WWShooter, you said......

It's interesting that members of this site seem to support any and every assertion of 2nd Amendment rights, while condemning the assertion of first amendment rights by Colin Kaepernick.

Do members of this site support the exercise of Constitutional rights, or only those Constitutional rights expressed in the 2nd Amendment?

One could seem noble; the other self-serving.

Then @etrain16 said......

No, I would say most folks here support his right to do what he's doing. BUT, that doesn't mean we need to like it or agree with it. He can have his rights and still be a hypocritical POS. That doesn't mean we don't support the first. In fact, exercising the first is in many cases going to piss certain people off. Choose to express it and just know that you also earn the right to earn the scorn of others for doing so.

I support his right to his view, and I reserve the right to say it makes him a hypocritical POS. Everybody is happy.

By the way, many of us believe there are times when exercising the 2nd can make you a POS too, such as the a-holes that go out shooting on public lands, destroying property and leaving a damn mess behind.

Exercising a right doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for your actions, rather it gives you the right to make certain choices, even if they're bad ones. I think most folks here would agree with that sentiment. What Colin chose to do is disrespectful to many folks, including those who have served - they have the right to disagree with his choice.

You do understand the difference, correct? If the people that want nothing to do with fire arms were only speaking of their dislike for fire arms that would be the same as what Collin Kaepernick is doing. On the other hand if we firearms enthusiasts were trying to pass laws that would SILENCE Collin Kaepernick THEN we would be doing what anti gun people are trying to do.

We are NOT "Condemning the assertion of first amendment right by Collin Kaepernick". Some people are offended by the meaning of the words, not the speaking of them. You do understand this, correct?

 

[Norm0931]

It's interesting that members of this site seem to support any and every assertion of 2nd Amendment rights, while condemning the assertion of first amendment rights by Colin Kaepernick.

Do members of this site support the exercise of Constitutional rights, or only those Constitutional rights expressed in the 2nd Amendment?

One could seem noble; the other self-serving.

Unrelated to firearms. Obviously, someone has not read the forum rules. Go to the top of the page, hover over "Help," then click "Community Rules."

2. Religious and non-firearm political content is prohibited
We are a single-issue organization, focused solely on bringing people together in support of the 2nd Amendment. Religious and political content is inherently divisive, working against the very goals of our organization. This includes news-related content that our staff believes may cause division. This rule applies to the site in its entirety, including the Off Topic section.

It is important to note that firearm-related political content is not prohibited. However, clear attempts to fabricate this relation may be considered a rule violation.

 

[Goosebrown]

It's interesting that members of this site seem to support any and every assertion of 2nd Amendment rights, while condemning the assertion of first amendment rights by Colin Kaepernick.

Do members of this site support the exercise of Constitutional rights, or only those Constitutional rights expressed in the 2nd Amendment?

One could seem noble; the other self-serving.

I think he's a bubblegumhat, but I support him 100%. When we criticize BLM for violence and tell them to protest peacefully CKs actions are exactly what we want. He is making a powerful, consistent statement that he believes in. I am all for that. I wouldn't hesitate to fire him of course if I owned the team, but this is a great protest as far as I am concerned.

FWIW, I think he is making more waves than BLM does.

 

[mike633]

I have seen this before. I was in the Navy, 66-70, 3 WESPAC Deployments, including Vietnam. During those 4 years, one of my brothers in law flew 346 missions in an F4, and my wife's brother, an E6 Special Forces died in Vietnam. We came home to those "Americans" demonstrating against the war, yelling and spitting on us as we walked down the streets. They were expressing their 1st Amendment rights also but I don't think the spitting and name calling was what the founders of America had in mind. Hanoi Jane Fonda expressed her rights also...
I also don't believe our forefathers expected our flag and pledge of allegiance were to be disrespected by those hiding behind First Amendment Rights.

 

[PiratePast40]

Unrelated to firearms. Obviously, someone has not read the forum rules. Go to the top of the page, hover over "Help," then click "Community Rules."

2. Religious and non-firearm political content is prohibited
We are a single-issue organization, focused solely on bringing people together in support of the 2nd Amendment. Religious and political content is inherently divisive, working against the very goals of our organization. This includes news-related content that our staff believes may cause division. This rule applies to the site in its entirety, including the Off Topic section.

It is important to note that firearm-related political content is not prohibited. However, clear attempts to fabricate this relation may be considered a rule violation.

That looks like censorship in it's ugliest form. We're free to block other members or disagree with them. We may even think that they're total jerks and twisting facts. But I believe that it's completely and totally wrong to take the line of censoring them when others are discussing the same topic.

 

[Joe Link]

That looks like censorship in it's ugliest form. We're free to block other members or disagree with them. We may even think that they're total jerks and twisting facts. But I believe that it's completely and totally wrong to take the line of censoring them when others are discussing the same topic.

So we should be able to talk about anything, anywhere (private property in this case), regardless of the context (firearms in this case)? This format is particularly vulnerable to both pro and anti-gun folks alienating potential allies (at best) and completely sabotaging our goals (at worst). These aren't make-believe issues, and both have a direct affect on the very reason this site exists. Most people have no idea what it took for us to get the partnerships we have, nor what it takes to maintain them. Through these partnerships we're actually out there, offline, doing good things for gun owners. There are thousands of other places online for people to discuss what they want without the burden of the maintenance of our image or our pro-firearm goals.

 

[Mark Torrence]

Seems to me the only way to keep politics out is to keep them out altogether? Why do we have politically oriented content here at all? Just sayin. I am sure as you say there are those that will cry about it but if they don't like it they can go elsewhere. I applaud your efforts to unite the populace. EVERY DAY I see many examples of our society being purposely divided and if we never reverse that we are doomed. Thank you for your efforts.

 

[ob1]

Why do we have politically oriented content here at all? Just sayin. I am sure as you say there are those that will cry about it but if they don't like it they can go elsewhere.

I totally recognize the tightrope that Joe Link walks with this consideration.
On one hand he faces the repercussions of not controlling content at all and letting the forum run as it will. This obviously invites a marginal few to take this and run to the point of alienating those with opposing views.
Yet on the other hand, prohibiting all firearms related discussions that may have a political tinge to it, is akin to "cutting off the nose to spite it's face". If there was ever a time to allow such discussions as that, it is now. The reason is obvious, the very core value of NWFA is now threatened as never before. If we loose this time, NWFA will become a forum of the "used to be" and "remember when" ? How about a thread entitled "Show us a photo of the guns you used to have"
The fact is, there are precious few organizations providing tangible support (yes I am referring to those entities with "Rifle" or "Firearms" in their names, asking for your money) in fighting what is headed for us locally. If we have a chance at all in stopping this lunacy, there will need to be a "grass roots" group for the push-back, and that IS what NWFA has and is capable of providing, there is no alternate venue for it. That means encouraging civil discourse with the intent of developing a consensus, but also recognizing that there will always be a percentage of those who will never agree to anything but their specific values.

As to a discussion of what some athlete did at some game that has absolutely nothing to do with firearms ? I don't see any point of bringing that up here, leave that for the twitty or whatever-books, it's just a distraction here.

 

[RB87]

Seems to me the only way to keep politics out is to keep them out altogether? Why do we have politically oriented content here at all? Just sayin. I am sure as you say there are those that will cry about it but if they don't like it they can go elsewhere. I applaud your efforts to unite the populace. EVERY DAY I see many examples of our society being purposely divided and if we never reverse that we are doomed. Thank you for your efforts.

You can't keep politics out of it. The "personal is political" is the mantra of the day. The anti-gunners use it all the time. For some, the best route is to hit back twice as hard using their own tactics. Point out their hypocrisy directly. Go after their corporate sponsors, etc..

That said, for others the best route is to go through the culture just promoting your values and educate. You will win over some moderates (not most) directly but the most important part is promoting your values and standing strong on them. You don't need to get all screamin-mimi about it but you do not negotiate with the opposition at this stage. You do not let them define you and yours. Fight in the culture, and the politics will follow. Two steps forward, one step back is still one step forward. The moderate will follow the strong horse, not the one constantly backpedaling, offering compromises (Manchin-Toomey bill etc.).

This has been the main problem for those various big name gun-rights groups. We're losing on the political front in various states while treading water nationally. We cannot fight solely on the legislative/judicial/political grounds as in the past and expect to win or get a win that means anything in the long run. Gun culture has been pushing back and winning mostly via the culture thanks to the internet among other means, not direct political action (see how worthless heller/mcdonald rulings have been in the long run or how 594 was fought horribly).

 

[HuckleberryFun]

I think what Joe Link is trying to do is tamp down the phenomenon that Freud called "the narcissism of small differences." That's when a community sharing core fundamental beliefs starts tearing itself apart by needlessly quarreling over tiny differences of approach, style, methods, or minor deviations from orthodoxy. We are all 2A supporters here, so I wish Joe good luck in his perhaps Quixotic quest tilting against the windmills of human nature. Remember, no matter how X you think you are, there is always someone out there who thinks you are not X enough!

Narcissism of small differences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Seems to me the only way to keep politics out is to keep them out altogether

This is it.

I have thought about this a lot. If the forum allows certain leeway in threads, whether legal, political, gun-related, etc, it becomes a task of discerning degree, intent, splitting hairs, nuance, humor disguised as serious, and the reverse.
Flip a coin.

I believe it is impossible. After Joe's effort awhile back to reign in the political rhetoric and biased "humor" we re back to where we started last Spring.

No amount of moderation is gonna fix this, (for example the irrelevant "Obama Back From Vacation" golfing thread. It should have been killed immediately but it lives on. For what purpose? To alienate people?

We are back to anarchy and it draws 1000mm of mercury.

Tell you what. Stop all political content forever and I will become at least a silver supporter of the forum.

How is it done? Go look at rimfirecentral.com. They have done it and we can, too.

 

[Sstrand]

YES, SILENCE POLITICS in the discussion . . . Just give it up . . . Act like everything is fine . . . Ignore the liberal anti-2nd amendment bottom feeders . . . AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT get your firearms packed so that the governorette's minions can easily transport them to the crusher!

Sheldon

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Politics should and can be discussed.
Just avoid using general or blanket statements which can be insulting to those with different views.
Also remember to back up what you are saying with fact not a tired old slogan or sound-bite.
Andy

 

[etrain16]

This is it.

I have thought about this a lot. If the forum allows certain leeway in threads, whether legal, political, gun-related, etc, it becomes a task of discerning degree, intent, splitting hairs, nuance, humor disguised as serious, and the reverse.
Flip a coin.

I believe it is impossible. After Joe's effort awhile back to reign in the political rhetoric and biased "humor" we re back to where we started last Spring.

No amount of moderation is gonna fix this, (for example the irrelevant "Obama Back From Vacation" golfing thread. It should have been killed immediately but it lives on. For what purpose? To alienate people?

We are back to anarchy and it draws 1000mm of mercury.

Tell you what. Stop all political content forever and I will become at least a silver supporter of the forum.

How is it done? Go look at rimfirecentral.com. They have done it and we can, too.

The stated mission/purpose of this site is:

We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

At its core, this is a political site, because the 2nd amendment and related causes are political in nature. If this site is to live up to the mission statement, then politics must be discussed. Otherwise how can folks work on "grass-roots organization, education and advocacy" if they aren't informed of the ongoing political attacks on our rights?

You reference Rimfire Central, but is their mission to help foster 2nd amendment advocacy? To make a place for pro-gun people to come together and be informed about how to fight? Where to fight? What to fight? And who to fight? NWFA's mission is political in nature. And like it or not, our continued efforts to protect our 2nd amendment rights is also irrevocably tied to political efforts.

I get that some people cross the line and some folks are offended by that. What I don't get is why adults can't simply filter that out themselves and move on? People say things here that are offensive to my religious beliefs, I don't ask that they be silenced. People say things here that are offensive to my political beliefs, I don't ask that they be silenced. I believe in the right of people to express their opinions (so long as they are not threatening, overtly demeaning, vulgar or really nasty) even if I don't agree with them or I may even be offended by it. I don't see the big deal, personally.

I just don't see how politics can be banned from a site that is, pretty much by definition, a political related site. If we're going to talk about the 2nd amendment, then we're talking politics. No two ways around that.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Because there is a divide between legal issues and political ones. The site is intended to promote legal efforts that further the 2A cause, not to promote one party over the other.

To say they are inseparable is in my view, and in that of the site owner, a mistake.

Here are the essential ideas Joe presented at the beginning of this thread. I think it would be good to review them:

"
REITERATION OF OUR GOALS
Promote a positive image of gun owners and gun ownership.
Increase the overall number of gun owners in the Pacific Northwest.
Educate gun owners to increase knowledge and safety. Educate non-gun owners to increase knowledge and dispel common myths.
Provide resources useful to Northwest gun owners, both online and offline.
Provide a medium for members to organize pro-2A activist efforts on the grassroots level.

I'm not sure who came up with the flawed theory that gun ownership and gun politics cannot be separated - they absolutely can.

Us trying to serve as yet another 2A political organization does nothing to help our cause, it further divides our resources and organization."