My post poking fun at Bansalot was locked

[hack89]

why do they get to ban opposing views with impunity while continuously vilifying us while we are not able to criticize them?

I think it is time to pick sides and not worry about what others might think about gun owners.

[rrneck]

1. GCRA is a protected group.

Hosts have the power to block people and are tasked to keep discussion on track by locking threads that fall outside the SOP.

This is the SOP for this group.

Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

Krispos will lock any thread that falls outside the SOP. And as I understand it, Skinnier doesn't want any threads "whining about DU" either. I expect poking fun at basalot, fun though it might be, falls outside the SOP.


Oh, and...

IBTL

[hack89]

5. Is deliberate shit stirring and vilification of gun owners part of the SOP?

why can't we set and enforce basic standards of civility here? It is clear that there are anti-gunners whose only goal is to insult and goad gun owners. Since Skinner has given them full reign to spread their shit all over GD, why do we have to tolerate it here?

[rrneck]

6. Trolling is a community standards issue.

You can alert on it, and you will get a jury of DUers the bulk of whom have no use for guns whatsoever and not a few of whom actively seek to expunge DU of those evil gunnies. Welcome to the joys of partisan politics.

This place does not exist exclusively for rational discussion. It is also a place for like minded people to agree with one another. That's not a bad thing. Agreement yields consensus, consensus yields votes. Elections aren't won with a rational discussion of the issues and reams of facts. They are exercises in emotional motivation.

And of course there will always be a few people who confuse ideology with social plumage. Often as not those are the worst trolls. They're jut people who like to hear others agree with them, and spend a lot of time currying favor with others either by telling them what they want to hear or picking on some convenient minority that can't fight back because of the nature of the place. It's chickenshit, I know, but there will always be a few bullies in every crowd.

The standards of basic civility are set and enforced by the members of DU, a bare plurality of whom would rather the gunnies not be here. That plurality is led (and exploited) by hyperpartisans who are true believers, social dominators, double dominators and a few motley fools who just show up for their own personal entertainment. The field is tilted in their favor, that's just the nature of the beast.

[hack89]

7. Civility can be enforced in this forum but it is not.

Just because ours is a minority view does not mean we have to take personal abuse without pushing back.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Thus is the result...

...when we get to vote on rights.

[rrneck]

9. The host can't do anything about that.

I guess we could turn GCRKBA into another protected group and further balkanize the membership. What good would that do? The regulars of GCRA have sequestered themselves into irrelevancy. They have conceded the field, and they're grumpy.

Sooner or later gun posts will be blocked from GD, and if there is to be any meaningful discussion of the guns issue, it will have to happen here. It sure a hell won't happen in GCRA. They can run, but they can't hide. Even if guns are in GD forever, all you have to do is click the link and say the same thing there you would say right here. It just gets more exposure for your opinion. If you want to change people's minds exposure, not truculence, is the way to do it.

I don't think you can compel meaningful civility.

[sarisataka]

2. Because one side has to

rise up past the maturity level of a kindergarten playground.

Everyone agrees that even one child, or adult, needlessly lost is a tragedy. Most realize we will never reach that ideal because humans are major actors in the equation. That does not mean we cannot try. Sniping insults back and forth will result in gridlock as we have seen over and over and over...

There is talk about a discussion of what can be done and how to do it. One group has to step up and lead that. As we have seen, rapprochement is met with disdain and derision. Many in our companion group have given up on their goal instead settling for McCarthy-esque ideological purity crusades and predictions of 'victory' based on wishes rather than reality. This is sad, I had great hopes that the other group would be more. There are a few I do still have respect for even if I disagree on the path that should be followed. Most have shown themselves to be bullies, ideologues or authoritarians.

Out of respect for the few worthy of it and more to respect those who have tragically had their lives cut short, I have disengaged from the second group of posters. While giving a moment's pleasure at tweaking the nose of someone who is self assured they are absolutely correct, in the end it drives the goal farther away.

Despite what is assumed I, and many other gun owners, feel no sense of victory in the lack of action we have seen post-Sandyhook. A window of opportunity opened but it was slammed shut by those who sought their own agenda with no possibility of compromise. Political capital was spent in vain and the opposition, centered around the NRA, is stronger than before.

There is a end result that balances Right and Responsibility. The longer it takes to get on that road, the more innocent blood will spill. I do not want more spilled than has already passed so I am willing to ignore the petty insults. I am willing to work, with our elected representatives, with Americans United for Change, with liberal gun owners, conservative gun owners, non-gun owners, even to try and change the NRA to reach the balance between right and responsibility. I believe this is what the great majority of citizens, gun owning or not, would like to see come to pass.


*I will now give Teddy his soap box back.*

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. well said

Thank you

[Duckhunter935]

4. I do not mind it at all

Proves our point that we allow the posting of all viewpoints and just shows them for what they are.The only thing that is a little annoying is when they ask for a gun owner to post and gloat when they do not but many of us have been banned like me on one post with no warning. I am glad that is not the case in GD or RKBA.

[krispos42]

10. Because they have a different SoP and a different set of Hosts

Their Group has a partisan slant built into their SoP. The gun-related viewpoints of the Hosts are in line with the partisan slant of their SoP.


This Group does not have a partisan slant; I do not enforce which side is allowed to post here, despite accusations in the past about such things.


You can criticize them all you want. But this is not the Group for that purpose, and I don't see how cross-Group sniping is in any way productive or useful.

[sarisataka]

11. Agreed

There is no need to change to a fundamentally flawed model because another group chooses to be hypersensitive.
Go there and read the posts. Occasionally a good idea is put forth. But, assuming you are not already blocked, bring the topic here where the merits and flaws may be discussed freely. It is what makes this forum unique on the internet. It is not limited to one viewpoint.

There are plenty of progun forums. In general they are boring echo chambers with a very RW slant

[hack89]

12. So let's change our SOP to ban blatant broadbrush attacks

on gun owners and start enforcing it. Direct the smears against gun owners to GD since it is clear that is where they belong.

[spin]

13. When the gun control advocates start insulting me, I know I've won the debate. ...

Therefore insults don't bother me in the least.

The truly sad part is that gun control advocates do have some good factual arguments to present. Unfortunately they tend to rely on emotional arguments and get very upset when faced with facts and statistics.

If we took away the gun control advocates right to insult gun rights advocates, we would end up with a group that resembles most other pro-gun forums on the internet. Boring.

[NYC_SKP]

15. I like it the way it is. The irony is absolutely delicious:

A group that fancies itself most representative of progressives can't survive on a progressive board without special protected status and bans anyone at the drop of a hat, even as some among them stalk other members and rope them into a controversy, leading to banishment.

And it reveals the paranoia and fear and irrationality of some on the other side of the issue.

I welcome the discussion and I'm glad we don't ban any but the very disruptive (one member).

On the matter of guns, the DU2 model was much preferable: keep it out of GD and follow the rules lest the moderators remove your post.

[ileus]

14. 2A regressives have tender feelings I've found.

I was alerted on a post because someone can't read the obvious earlier today. Yesterday someone elses feeling were hurt and their alert was slapped down.

We just have to keep fighting the good fight and know beyond question we are right on this right.