Mike and others make the point perfectly why partisan politics should not be in this forum. Citizens rarely are one-issue voters. The GOP primaries seem otherwise with voters preferring making a point to electability---for now.
I hope I can respond to all who disagree with me and not forget anyone. But I'd first like to point out... again... ad nauseum..., that it makes no problems at all when there is a subject you don't like if you simply don't click on it or don't read it. As for gun rights subjects sometimes devolving into heated disagreements, I would point out that there are also heated disagreements over lead shot, minimum barrel thickness, stockmakers' talents, shotgun dealers' integrity, case hardening techniques, etc. Some of these disagreements get fairly heated. Some that have nothing to do with politics or gun rights get so heated that our host has decided to lock them down and end the bickering. Most run their course without any lectures on civility from Nova Scotia.
AmarilloMike, you had a thread right here on page one back in November about a certain guy who began posting a bunch of crazy, but definitely gun related threads. Your thread was not gun related. It was intended to prod Dave into banishing this certain individual. It was a repetitive drumbeat with other members, myself included, piling on. It went on for days and I don't recall even one person who posted in it talking about double guns. By your own definition of what belongs here, it did not belong here. You certainly knew the rules because you have repeated them several times. But you did exactly what Jim did and went ahead and bent the rules. I agreed with your topic, and told you so at the time, but technically, according to you, it should have been in Misfires.
That was the only thread here I have ever seen that went beyond being moved or simply locked down. The entire thing was unceremoniously purged from the system. I note that while this piling on was occurring, King Brown did not once post anything about civility... Last Dollar or Gunflint Charlie did not post anything about lack of brevity or repetition on your part. No one was calling for an end to the festivities or crying that it was off topic. None of my present critics was defending the subject of your thread or feigning disgust or disappointment over the the perjoratives or name calling he endured.
I find this lack of consistency somewhat hypocritical. Actually, it is very hypocritical. It is Hypocritical with a capital H. We'll just call it the H word. In fact, that is what got me started on this current thread in the first place. So one more time with feeling... A thousand off topic topics get posted here with zero problems, but Jim's Starbucks post gets bounced. He asks our host, in a polite manner, "why?". Then he gets stampeded for having the gall to publicly ask the question. Many of those who stampeded over him are just as guilty of starting off topic threads, contributing to off topic threads, or straying off topic within threads that started out on topic. Most have participated in political or gun rights threads both here and in Misfires. They say they don't like these types of topics, yet they are drawn like a Moth to a flame no matter where they are posted, here or in Misfires. I know I shouldn't call names, but if this is not hypocritical, what the hell is it? When lectures on civility are very selective in whom they are heaped upon, isn't that a hypocritical backdoor approach and a thinly veiled insult?
Most of the folks who insist that the politics and gun rights threads are devisive and do not belong here routinely participate in those threads when they are in Misfires. If they are offensive when they are on page one, how are they OK on the back page? You've said yourself that they are still readily accessible. What difference does it make then? Does anyone bleed less when they feel offended in Misfires? Does anyone bleed anywhere? Of course, some others try to censor these threads or end them no matter where they land. I am trying hard not to use that H word.
I have no problem that you feel compelled to return to this topic after saying you were done. I will not question your credibility for doing so as Last Dollar did when Jim left the topic and then returned. One does wonder why Last Dollar made a big whining issue about Jim's return, but is silent about your return. I hate to use that H word again... but geez! Do you think I should call Last Dollar your Parrot because he agrees with you? I would probably be accused of devisive name calling and lacking in civility. Only certain people named Last Dollar are allowed to do those things. I would probably be pushing folks away. Maybe I should just be nice and call folks WOPS. Damn, I keep wanting to use that H word.
Chuck H, to explain the statement I made about voting for Obama... what I meant was that he won by a legitimate majority vote. We are stuck with him at least until Jan. 2013. Yet probably 95% of the members here would say (publicly at least, though some appear to be closet Obama supporters )that his presence in the White House is not a good result for gun owners or Second Amendment security. I guess I could have worded that a bit differently. I was trying to tell Mike that a vote on keeping gun rights topics in the DoubleGun BBS would be similar to that. It might not be a majority position at the time of the balloting, but it wouldn't necessarily be good for the board or the security of the Second Amendment. To answer Mike about whether or not I believe in voting... yes I do think free and fair elections are a good thing. But Obamas' election is proof that maybe voters should meet some I.Q. requirement before they can vote. At very least, they should pay taxes and have some skin in the game. Same here. Actually, what I got from Dave Weber's reply was that HE wished to let this go and then make a decision. So it is Mike who is pushing for balloting... not Dave or me. I have been misquoted and mis-characterized and accused of spreading absolute falsehoods about threats to gun rights, so I'm not so sure about the I.Q. level of some of the would be voters.
Mike, Jim said that he would continue to post gun rights threads in this forum UNLESS DAVE WEBER INSTRUCTS HIM TO DO OTHERWISE. You conveniently left out that qualifier which I emphasized. Please don't lecture me about the printed rules. Almost all of us have in some way, shape, or form, gone or strayed off topic, and thus, violated the printed rules. This includes you. So you can chill on the oft repeated, "this is a forum for gunowners, and it is about firearms. We are Zealous. We are vigilant. We are NRA members."
To be accurate, you should say, "Mostly, this is a DoubleGun BBS. But sometimes we talk about dogs and trucks and pump guns, and game recipes and lots of other stuff. Most of the time, this is OK, but sometimes, we must act deeply offended and get all bent out of shape. Some of us are zealous. Some are vigilant, but many admittedly are not and they just let the chips fall where they may when it come to gun rights, again, by their own admission... not because Keith put them in some ficticious box. And statistically, about 1 out of 8 or 9 of us are NRA Members." Not the 4 out of 11 that Last Dollar cited. He didn't say if he was one of those 4 of 11, did he? He did say one of the four was not a gun owner, so it's down to a 3 out of 11 chance. I'm not about to ask. None of my business. I just know that 4.5 million NRA members have been shouldering the load for well over 40 million gun owners. Just saying you support the Second Amendment is little more than lip service. We're probably all against Breast Cancer, but just saying so will never fund a cure. Saying you support the Second Amendment and then voting for candidates who are out to destroy that right is irresponsible crazy talk. And for a "supporter of the Second Amendment" to say he doesn't give a shit who George Soros is... well, that is about like hearing Franklin Roosevelt say he doesn't give a shit who Adolf Hitler or Emporer Hirohito is. Just Brilliant! Just what I'd expect.
