[Mike375]

I saw a thread started by Chainsaw that among other things raised the issue of censoship on sites such as this one.

My reading of the thread was that this site censors profanities and that would appear to be based on profanities could be offensive, women, children etc. and etc.

One of our left wing minor parties in Australia has been trying to get gun magazines banned or at the least hidden behind the counter or if on the counter, then in sealed bag and with no cover photo.

I assume this site has many members who support censorship of profanities.

Given that what is offensive is in the eye of the beholder (dead animals?), is banning or restricting the view of gun magazines something that members would support. Something to consider is that you can't just stumble across this site they way you can a gun magazine in the shop. In fact if this site did not censor profanites you would need to do a seacrh to find them.

So in a nutshell, could people who support censorship of profanities on these sites mount an argument against those who want gun magazines banned or restricted on the basis that they are offensive.

What say ye.

Mike

[Hkmp5sd]

Mike375,

This board is a privately owned enterprise that allows people to use it's resources IF those people agree to follow the rules set forth by the OWNER of the board. If you read the "Rules of Conduct", it is explained in plain language:


A note on FREE SPEECH:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is greatly respected here on The High Road, as are all other Amendments that the Second Amendment defends. However, The High Road is private property and requests that members adhere to all forum policies. It is a contract agreed to by all who become members of The High Road. Those who break forum rules cannot invoke censorship or freedom of speech - a contract broken is a contract broken. If you do not like the rules of conduct or the acceptable topics, seek out a new venue to frequent or start your own board.

[El Tejon]

Ban? No. Imposing standards via the free market? Yes.

End inane articles written by surfers and volleyball players in flowered shirts. End .45 v. 9mm. End imaginary goats.

[hammer4nc]

When the topic of censorship on internet forums is raised, someone usually posts what hkmp5 did...and I think its somewhat confused:


The First Amendment is greatly respected here on The High Road
So far, so good...agree.

However, The High Road is private property
Disagree. Its a privately owned electronic forum, which invites ideas and opinions from the public. Without these opinions, its not really much of a "property".

Those who break forum rules cannot invoke censorship or freedom of speech
Disagree. If you meant to say that banned posters can't bring 1st amendment lawsuits over moderators' actions, then I'd agree. However, to portray the "rules" as well defined entities from which there can be no appeal, is an oversimplification.

Exactly HOW the moderators enforced sanctions against posts or posters deemed objectionable, was one of the keys to TFL's success, IMO, and a policy I hope carries over into THR. Examples include giving warnings or IM's to folks who cross the line; giving them an opportunity to edit their own offending post, etc. Banning posters or poofing entire threads was used very rarely (I'm guessing).

If one respects free speech, censorship should be looked upon as a last resort, one to be avoided if possible, for the value of the forum in promoting dialogue and flow of ideas. I've been to other forums where entire threads are routinely deleted with no explanation, often leaving responsible posters with a brown taste in their mouth. Promoted disrespect for the site, and a general dumbing down of worthwhile dialogue. Unintended consequences type of thing. Hope it doesn't happen here.

Yet, ere are plenty of examples of "unmoderated" forums, which rarely set an example to be emulated (unless I'm missing something?.

I understand the "contract" thing, and the difference between govt., and private actions in regards to speech.

[Mike375]

Hkmp5sd,

I am not disputing what the rules are or the fact that forum is privately owned etc.

My question asked could people who support censorship of profanities on these sites mount an argument against those who want gun magazines banned or restricted on the basis those magazines are offensive to some people.

Mike

[Tamara]

I am utterly opposed to government censorship.

However, the owner of a business should be able to voluntarily say "You know, I don't want to carry any gun magazines" whereupon you, as a gun-using consumer, can say "Then I shall take my business elsewhere". I think that the store owner should be able to carry whatever magazines he wishes and display them however he wants and if people don't like it, they can shop someplace else.

Do you think you should be able to use the government to make business owners carry gun magazines?


On the subject of profanity, in order to post here, you signed a little piece of paper agreeing to four simple rules (more or less cribbed straight from TFL, hammer4nc, as was the staff). Are you the kind of person that is inclined to go back on their word? If not, you shouldn't have to worry about your posts being disappeared or edited.

[Mike375]

Tamara,

I will try again :)

If you were to debate those who want gun magazines banned or restricted because they are offensive, would your cause against banning or restricting gun magazines be helped or hindered by you being the owner of a public forum that "restricts" on the basis of something being offensive.

Mike

[GregoryTech]

However, the owner of a business should be able to voluntarily say "You know, I don't want to carry any gun magazines" whereupon you, as a gun-using consumer, can say "Then I shall take my business elsewhere". I think that the store owner should be able to carry whatever magazines he wishes and display them however he wants and if people don't like it, they can shop someplace else.

Do you think you should be able to use the government to make business owners carry gun magazines?

Tamara,

I think this is a great analogy. The owners of this site set the standards resulting in a place that parents could let their children read without worry that they might stumble upon innapropriate profanity. Just like a bookstore can choose not to display the covers of "free speech" pornography and risk losing family oriented business. Niether case is cencorship. Both are "shop owners" determining the standards for their private entities. We are free to "shop" elsewhere at a place where we like the more liberal standars set up by their owners.

[Atticus]

I think your premise is wrong. The banning of vulgarity isn't to protect women and children- it is an attempt to maintain a civil and intelligent dialogue on a public forum. Would you rather this site be more like a classroom, or more like the Jerry Springer show?

While gun magazines may be offensive to some - they, unlike certain words and phrases, are not universally accepted as offensive.

I do think it's pretty sad when society finds Guns and Ammo more offensive than it does Cosmo or Star magazines. Now that my kids can read, I find standing in the checkout line at Kroger with them to be very uncomfortable at times. I really don't want to explain to a six year old why these girls have no clothes on, or why the "G" spot is so important, or how to increase the quantity and quality of lovers in one's week.

[GregoryTech]

If you were to debate those who want gun magazines banned or restricted because they are offensive, would your cause against banning or restricting gun magazines be helped or hindered by you being the owner of a public forum that "restricts" on the basis of something being offensive.

Mike,

I wouldn't debate the right of the shops to do this, and wouldn't debate the issue on the grounds of censorship. I would debate whether gun magazines are indeed offensive or not. I would "vote" with my dollars by taking my business somewhere else.

If a shop owner feels it serves his business interests to hide gun magazines, that's his right. If the government decides it, thats entirely different.

[GregoryTech]

think your premise is wrong. The banning of vulgarity isn't to protect women and children- it is an attempt to maintain a civil and intelligent dialogue on a public forum. Would you rather this site be more like a classroom, or more like the Jerry Springer show?

Atticus,

I disagree. I think the moderators are there to keep the forums from becoming like the Jerry Springer show. There is no guarantee of intelligent dialog with or without profanity. ;) I don't have any inside information, but just it makes more sense to me that setting standards against profanity makes a place more family friendly.

[Mike375]

I would debate whether gun magazines are indeed offensive or not.

There is no debate in that area because if people find gun magazines offensive, then they find them offensive.

Mike

[GregoryTech]

[b]I would debate whether gun magazines are indeed offensive or not. [b]

There is no debate in that area because if people find gun magazines offensive, then they find them offensive.

Hey, don't make their argument any easier for them! :) :)

Seriosly, even though you're right, it doesn't change the points I made.

[Atticus]

GregoryTech: I don't think the moderators want to spend most of their time breaking up fights, warning people to behave, and suspending posting privileges. I don't blame them- there are bigger fish to fry...I mean, "there are bigger %^$%^ fish to &%$^ fry" :).

Staightforward policies help to minimize the need for moderation. I've spent enough time at other boards to know just how quickly the quality of dialogue (and the board) degenerates when no guidelines are in place.

[2dogs]

You know, I'm really at a loss to understand this idea that anyone has the right not to be "offended". Just where the h@ll did that right spring from?

Tamara's point about the owner of private property being able to decide what he/she will or will not allow is a good one. I also think that said property owner is a complete idiot if he/she decides to conduct business based on what may offend someone- because everything has the potential to offend someone.

I would think that mature adults can decide for themselves whether or not they are acting in a responsible manner- if they are cursing or personally attacking others and that is not allowed on a site like this, and they can't figure that out, then boot them. If however one member is attacking another member's views, and that member is "offended" by having his views attacked (or the style in which they are attacked)- why should he/she not be the one booted? Again, it is up to the "owners" of the site to decide who stays and who goes- I just hope they do so wisely, and with a mind toward what will make this a freer site and still allow a wide range of opinions and styles without diminishing the enjoyable experience of being here.

End of moderately toned down rant.

As for gun mags- I have no problem with a store owner selling/displaying or not, as he wishes.:)

[chas_martel]

Would you be for banning the Bible from being sold in book stores.

It is terribly offensive to alot of people and the state certainly hates the fact it teaches one to seek liberty........................

Just a thought. And perhaps why we have a 1st Amendment in the good ole US of A.

PS: Is there a tangential reason for posting this question???????

[OF]

Apples and oranges. The gov't banning magazines from display in stores vs. each individual shop deciding which magazines they, as private businesses, wish to carry are two vastly different things.

A private forum, which this most certainly is as each and every member not only signed on to the rules of conduct but is here only by the leave of the owners, is free to restrict or censor in any way the owners and their agents see fit. Period. If someone doesn't care for the rules of conduct, they are free to start their own forum or 'shop' at a forum that has rules they feel more comfortable with. If the owners here decided that you would be banned from the board if you used the letter 'E' twice in the same post, there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it. And it sure as heck wouldn't be a free-speech issue, in the constitutional sense.

It's a free country, after all. THR is free to impose any rule they wish within the confines of this private enterprise, and people are free to go somewhere else or start their own enterprise with their own rules without gov't interference.

That's freedom from censorship. To confuse a private organization with the gov't is to misunderstand a basic tenent of freedom. The 1st Amendment does not give you the right to go down to the local pharmacy, stand in from of the magazine rack and start yelling profanities without consequence. If the shop owner wants you out, out you go.

You can yell fire in a crowded theater...if there's a fire, or you're the only one in there. If there isn't, you are held responsible for your actions: causing panic, robbing the owner of their revenues, etc. That's what is meant be 'you can't yell fire in a crowded theater'. It's not a prior restraint, it's that you are going to be held responsible for your actions re: how they affect others. It's not a 1st Amendment issue at all, and I think the fact that it is couched as one so often does a diservice as it confuses people to the nature of a right in a free society.

- Gabe

[Don Gwinn]

The two arguments are not relevant. THR is private property. A book store is private property.

So far, so good.

Now, you want to create an analogy between censoring bad words on THR and banning the sale of gun magazines in the shops because both are considered "offensive" by some people. Well and good.

But your analogy breaks down and can't get back up because two very different classes of people are doing the censoring. The owner of THR (that would be Oleg) is allowed to decide what to do with his property. A bunch of yayhoos who don't own that book store (that would be the government) are not allowed to decide what to do with the bookstore owner's property. In Australia, your rules may be somewhat different, further clouding the issue. I know your government censors web sites and the like based on your "hate speech" laws, for instance, which would be unConstitutional in the U.S.

A fair comparison would be comparing what we practice here to a decision by the owner of the bookstore to stop carrying gun magazines. Would you scream that such a move constituted censorship? Or would you respect his right to sell only what he wishes to sell in his own store and simply spend your money elsewhere?

[GregoryTech]

Would you be for banning the Bible from being sold in book stores.

It is terribly offensive to alot of people and the state certainly hates the fact it teaches one to seek liberty........................

Just a thought. And perhaps why we have a 1st Amendment in the good ole US of A.

PS: Is there a tangential reason for posting this question???????

Not sure you were aking me, but I'll answer anyway. :)

Banning, implying government? I would absolutely not support that. Nor do I support banning gun mags or girlie mags. However, I have no problem with the idea that a store owner may choose to hide, or not sell, any of the above. If I disagree with the choice, I'll take my business somewhere else.

[Mike375]

Don Gwinn,

No argument from me on privately run forum Vs gov't control or the fact that your 1st Amendment does not require the forum owner to provide a platform for free speech.

However, my point is that if gun owners support censoring what is offensive to some people, then they are supporting in principle the views put forward by the minor left wing party.

I also see a similar situation with having to "register" for different sites.

Mike

[Mike375]

Would you be for banning the Bible from being sold in book stores.

I am for banning nothing. To me, whatever disadvantages may come from not banning something is totally offset by the disadvantages of having a system that will ban something.

Mike

[Tamara]

However, my point is that if gun owners support censoring what is offensive to some people, then they are supporting in principle the views put forward by the minor left wing party.

Flawed logic. Nobody here has stated that they are in favor of allowing the government to censor anything. (Yet, at least. I'm sure there are some, and I disagree with them.)

Your statement above is akin to saying that if someone came along and posted a sign in my yard saying something that was obscene or otherwise offensive or annoying to me, and I took that sign down, then I am somehow "censoring" the sign-poster's right to free speech. Am I right?

[Mike375]

Tamara

These sites are not like a sign in your back yard as these forums are open to the public, just like a shop.

If these sites restrict what the "public" can read then it will be for one of three basic reasons or all three.

1) Without restriction some postings will offend some people.

This will mean that site owners support "restriction" is of value and posters who would be offended need to be protected against being offended.

2) Children might get to read the postings.

The chances of a child seeing the "offensive" magazine in the shop is 100s of times higher than seeing someting on one of these sites that parents might regard as undesirable.

3) Posting quality might go down or go into disarray.

Any difficulties caused by trolls or different styles of posting only develop because others respond and become involved. By placing restrictions on posting style site owners are really saying that members can't deal with these issues themselves so some type of control or restriction must be applied.

About 18 months ago I was involved in giving a talk to a group of people who ranged from extreme anti gun to just on the anti side of centre with the majority being the latter. The antis in fact brought up the issue of gun forums and in particular the requirement to register. In essence they said gun owners already agreed that the registration process both works and is needed and this was only for talk boards and so if gun owners thought you needed registration for something as light weight as talk forums then.......etc.

Mike

[Chris Rhines]

Mike -

Please, quit using the term censorship. If the owner(s) of this board decide to eliminate one or more postings, for whatever reason, that would not be 'censorship.' Censorship can only be carried out by the government.

"The beginning of wisdom is to call a thing by it's right name." - Ancient Chinese proverb.

This forum is not open to the public any more than your own home is. This forum is the exclusive property of Oleg Volk, and probably other individuals as well. Every individual who posts here does so at their pleasure.

A similar analogy - Would you forbid a guest in your house from using profanity or obscenity in the hearing of your wife and children? Would your actions regarding speech in your own home have anything to do with your support (or lack thereof) for government censorship?

- Chris

[KP95DAO]

What a subject! I was subjected to censorship on TFL. I abided by the powers that were and refrained from trying to educate the masses with what I knew to be true. It was not my loss. That someone chose for others what they were exposed to didn't seem right to me; but, that sits on their conscience, not mine.

There is all kind of censorship. Firearm manufacturers have restricted their advertisement to non-massmedia means for the last 35 years that I know of. To the best of my knowledge they did this voluntarily.

We have laws which restrict items due to their content when that content falls outside of the "community's" values. So, there could very well be restrictions placed on gun magazines if that community decides it violates their values.

Of course a magazine is very much like a firearm; neither is dangerous in and of it's self. It take a person to misuse the firearm or the (not necessarily true) information in the magazine for harm to come from the object.

As far as profanity on this site it mostly is a matter of bad form unless it is related to an incident that has ocurred and even then it should be modified as there are folks who would find it very objectionable in true form.

Bottom line is we all make choices on what we expose ourselves to. It's just that I like to make those choices myself and do not like it when others choose for me.

[Tamara]

...but I'm beginning to sense an agenda, here. ;)

These sites are not like a sign in your back yard as these forums are open to the public, just like a shop.

Okay, fine, they're like a shop, then. If you owned a store, do you think you reserve the right to decide what gets posted on the store's walls? Especially if you asked the patrons to sign a voluntary agreement before entering?

If these sites restrict what the "public" can read then it will be for one of three basic reasons or all three.

There are many places on the internet offering pictures of nekkid folks, the opportunity to display one's mastery of profanity, or whatever. This isn't one of them. Why is that so hard to understand?

Is a car dealership condoning the banning of children's clothing by not selling it? Must a Pepsi-owned restaurant offer Coke for sale or risk being seen as condoning the banning of the free market?

Just what are you trying to drive at, here?

[Mike375]

Chris,

The forum is totally different to your house. You can enter the forum without invitation. Like going to super market. As with the supermarket the forum owner can remove you.

In some parts of the world, entry to your house without invitation and by a stranger might be considered a crime :D

But the forums are open to the public in the same manner as a shop.

I thought I had started using "control" and "restriction" instead of censorship.

Mike

[DeltaElite]

If you need profanity to express your feelings in writing, then you are a pretty sad person.

THR is just like my house, if I don't want you acting a certain way and you continue to, I will show you the door.
Don't like it, then don't come visiting.
BTW, I apply this rule to my in laws, heck I invoked it, because of them. :neener:

[Tamara]

The forum is totally different to your house. You can enter the forum without invitation. Like going to super market.

Maybe supermarkets are different in Australia, but here they don't make me "sign" to indicate my agreement with store policies before entering. ;)

Think of this place more as a private club than the corner market, and you'd be closer to the truth.

Out of curiousity, do you feel that clubs or restaurants that enforce a dress code infringe on your rights to be barefoot and bare-chested?

[DeltaElite]

Out of curiousity, do you feel that clubs or restaurants that enforce a dress code infringe on your rights to be barefoot and bare-chested?

I like the "bare-chested" clubs, so I do feel it is wrong to force shirts to be worn.:neener:

Business owners have the right to require a dress code, IMHO.

[Hkmp5sd]

How about looking at this from a different angle. This board belongs to Oleg. Oleg has decided that HE does not want to see any profanity on the board that HE owns. If that restriction also happens to block profanity that some THR members find offensive, good for them.

This is not any different than if Oleg invited you to his home and asked that you not use profanity while you are there. You can either not use profanity and have a nice visit with Oleg and Runt OR you can leave and go visit someone else.

This board is not "open to the public." In order to post messages, you must become a member of THR. As part of becoming a member, you agree to abide by Oleg's Rules of Conduct. By becoming a member, you are now a member of the club and no longer have a "public" status.

[Art Eatman]

There are myriad small but noisy groups which seem to work at being offended by one thing or another. In this case, it's anti-gun people.

There are many, many people who are offended by strong language. For some, there is no acceptable context; for others, the dislike extends to a loss of repect for those who use certain words because of a lack of adequate vocabulary. Regardless, polite discourse is impossible in a "Jerry Springer" atmosphere. And in this case, "My Grammaw rules," when I'm moderatin'. This website is samee-samee as Oleg's house, and the Rifle Country and Hunting forums are my rooms in it. :D

So I'm uninterested in "fair", when it comes to the sensibilities of small groups. I use the word "tolerance" for my own reaction to rock music; I don't like it, but I don't fuss if I hear it in public. And for those who object to the sight of a gunzine in a store, well, tough stuff. As I ignore rock music, let them ignore gunzines.

It's neither a Constitutional Law nor a Rights issue: It's an issue of courtesy, politeness and tolerance for others. Again, the old Hank Williams song, "If you mind your own business, you won't be minding mine."

Art

[Mike375]

Tamara,

I believe that at least 95% of the population favours control or restriction for at least 95% of the time, including gun owners but gun owners make the exception when it comes to guns. People with other interests also make exceptions when it comes to their interests.

Because the huge majority of people favour control most of the time this both creates and maintains the political environment for ever increasing control and gun owners contribute as much as anyone else to this political environment.

I think you would agree with me that restrictions placed on posting style and having to register represent control and it would be deemed that this control is necessary for the functioning of the forum as the gun owner can't be left to his own devices.

In the case of a forum that was for subject matter that catered for the lefties, then restrictions of posting style and registration goes hand in hand with their general activities and desires.

Imagine an anti gun site that boasted of applying no restrictions at all to posting styles and no requirement to register. In the moderator column they have a sign that says we do not believe in having moderators since control is counter productive. You could have some fun with that :) In other words it would be the total opposite of what they are about.

Mike

[Mike375]

Tamara,

From your post:

Out of curiousity, do you feel that clubs or restaurants that enforce a dress code infringe on your rights to be barefoot and bare-chested?

I feel the club, restaurant and this forum can do what they like.

But there is a big difference between the club and these gun forums. These gun forums, especially the political forums are saturated with postings that decry control.

Think about it. You want no registration of guns and no shooter's licence. You push for anonymous gun ownership.

Mike

[Tamara]

These gun forums, especially the political forums are saturated with postings that decry control.

You'd be correct if you said "...that decry government control".

Most everybody here, on the other hand, is all about self-control, control of their own property, et cetera, ad nauseum.


Apparently, though, for some, this concept is very, very, very difficult to grasp.

:banghead:

I'd hate to be your rangemaster.

"We run a cold range here, Mr. 375"
"Don't you feel that that's playing into the left wing control-types hands? How can you advocate freedom?"
"Because the owner wants it that way, sir. There's a range down the street that runs a hot range; we can give you their phone number if you'd like."
"...I mean, this isn't like it's your private home! It's a public range! You're supporting the philosophy of gun control!"

;)

[4v50 Gary]

Can't stop porn, can't start banning gun magazines.

[Mike375]

Tamara,

Do think gun registration is required or do you think gun ownership should be anonymous.

Mike

[Tamara]

I think I should be able to sell you a gun with a blinfold on if I want.

I also think I should be able to ask for a DNA sample if I want.

Whether you buy under either circumstance is up to you.

The government has no business getting involved int the first place.

Is this concept that hard to understand?

[Mike375]

Tamara,

Let us assume no gov't involvement and also you own a gun shop.

Would your gun shop "rules" mean guns would be sold on an anonymous basis or would your require some form of "registration"?

Mike

[jimpeel]

The issue of censorship should reside with the person who posts to the boards. There are ways to convey one's thoughts without getting censored.

Example:

If some a-- hole SOB wants to f---ing censor my posts he can just go sit in s--- and die.

You get the point? One does not have to actually place the expletive in its full context for all to see.

The same thing can be conveyed without resorting to such things, though.

Example:

If some motherless son wants to durn well censor my posts he can just go sit in a dung pile and die.

There is never anything wrong with attempting to post as ladies and gentlemen and the presence or absence of a moderator will not make you more or less of one.

[chas_martel]

Mike375,

I noticed a point you seem to be trying to make is that gun owners are hypocrites. You implied above that we "censor" here but we don't want the censorhip of gun rags.

I think the fine line you are missing is that most gun owners have a problem with the govt and not private individuals. Most individuals here in Texas would put their life on the line for your "right" to ban guns in your house and/or your property.

In a similar vein Oleg can make any rule he wants here and I will support his right to do so.

I am gonna go out on a limb here and propose the reason might be due to your vantage point. Most non Americans have a hard time understanding people like those whom you argue with here. Have you noticed how we all "get it" and are kinda at a lose why you don't. I noticed the thread has developed in the sense that some of us did not get your point early on in the thread........... just a thought.......

[Mike375]

chas_martel,

The point I am trying to make is that if site owners would argue for "registration" to participate on their sites, then that is not a good position from which to argue in favour of anonymous gun ownership.

Equally, site owners that have cesnorship on their sites don't have a good platform to argue from on gun magazine restrictions.

Mike

[chas_martel]

You just don't get it - do you????

[Mike375]

Let me ask you the question I asked Tamara.

Let us assume no gov't involvement and also you own a gun shop.

Would your gun shop "rules" mean guns would be sold on an anonymous basis or would your require some form of "registration"?

Mike

[chas_martel]

That depends.

Do you mean when payment is in cash or with a check? If by check I would want some form of id.

Also, what are the precedents set by others selling to criminals. Will I stand a chance of being sued? If so I might check their record.

Record who owns the weapons, not likely..................except to track weapons for warranty work.

Of course, in my world there are no prohibited persons on the street likely to walk into my store...........another issue to be sure.

[chas_martel]

Mike,

Here are a couple of links to gun msg boards where you can post without registering and say almost anything you want.

www.subguns.com

and

http://4gunshop.com/cgi-local/ffa.cgi

There is that better..............

Oh, and you are not welcome in my house, I don't like the things you say.............

[Mike375]

Assume you can't get sued and payment is either cash or if by cheque the gun can't be collected until the cheque clears.

Mike

[chas_martel]

>Assume you can't get sued and payment is either cash or if by cheque the gun can't be collected until the cheque clears.

I don't see what the problem is???

How is it any different than selling anything else?????

[Mike375]

Do you think someone should have to register and give true email addresses etc to participate in a site like this.

[Betty]

What part of signed contract isn't understood here?

I suppose I'll go stroll onto someone's lawn (it's in public view, right?) stand right outside their window, crank up my guitar to insane volumes (gotta love battery operated amps), and tell them it's my freedom of expression. Oh, wait.... isn't there something about private property and trespassing?

Our virtual home (THR) is private property. Everyone is free to read the forums, but signs a contract in order to become a member to post. No cursing. Don't abide by forum rules, as you have agreed to when entering, good-bye. We didn't drag anyone into these forums and force them to sign up.

There is no hypocrisy - it's a bad comparison to try to relate private property/house rules and a voluntarily signed contract to forced government control.

[Betty]

Do you think someone should have to register and give true email addresses etc to participate in a site like this.

Well, if that's what the owner wants, than that's fine with me. If I have an issue with it, I won't sign up. Why should I have the say in what someone wants to do with their private property?

[chas_martel]

>Do you think someone should have to register and give true email addresses etc to participate in a site like this.

Why do you have such a hard time with the concept of private property?

I gave you a couple of links to sites that require no registration at all.

Do you know about the Boy Scouts of America? Do you think they should be "forced" to accept homosexuals into their organization?

Have you ever read our 1st Amendment?

Oleg can make any rule he wants re this site.

What is wrong with that? You are comparing Apples and Potatoes...........

Do you let anyone that wants to come into your house? Into your church?

Tell ya what if, heaven forbid, I ever visit you country I want to show up at your house uninvited and waltz right in, use your john, eat your food and I expect for you to say not one word!

[Mike375]

Tell ya what if, heaven forbid, I ever visit you country I want to show up at your house uninvited and waltz right in, use your john, eat your food and I expect for you to say not one word!

Coming in uninvited could be a criminal act :)

Entry to these sites is not by invitation.

You say I don't get it. Can't you see that advocating registration to be on one of these sites is not a good platform from which to mount an argument in favour of anonymous gun ownership.

Ask yourself. Why is registration required to participate. Why are genuine email addresses required.

Mike

[chas_martel]

>Ask yourself. Why is registration required to participate. Why are genuine email addresses required.

Because Oleg wants it that way????

I dunno seems kinda easy to me............

You never answered my question about the Boy Scouts? Did you ever read our 1st Amendment, the part about "freedom of association"? If you understand that you will have a much easier time understanding the points I am trying to make to you.

Another thing, in America, we seek to restrict the govt. not the individual............I don't care if Oleg asked for my SS# to join, not that I would but he can if he wants...........

[Mike375]

I have no argument with boy scouts not having queers in the troop and I think the site owners (not just this site as most require registration/censorship) should be able to request whatever they want from a member.

However, we both know why registration is required along with true email addresses. You will find it aligns very much with gun registration in principle. As I have said, the requirement to be be registered to participate on a gun site is a poor platform from which to agrue in favour of anonymous gun ownership.

Mike

[chas_martel]

>However, we both know why registration is required along with true email addresses.

Well I am not sure, but, I think it is to keep people from acting like they do on the non-register sites. See FUBAR's site , one of the links above, for an example. See people act differently when they are not anonymous.

If this is not the reason someone please set me straight.

OK, I now sit here waiting for you to tell me how this is somehow related to gun registration............

---------------------------------------
Editied to add a question/thought.

Do you somehow believe Oleg is asking for peoples info so they are somehow registered as gun owners???

Ain't gonna work for me as the Feds know about my Title 2 weapons and I am also a "registered" CHL instructor in Texas. And Yes, if I had it my way I would not have registered for either of the above. But, I am not afraid, I want the govt to know there exist many people like myself...............................

[Mike375]

The fundamental thing about gun registertration or a shooters licence is that it (in theory) allows you to be tracked and it attaches a gun to you.

You will notice than when you register for a site like this one that you require an email that is going to work. ome sites like HuntAmerica will not accept the Hotmail type email addresses.

You mentioned people who are anonymous behave differently on the forums. Of course the reason they do that is that they believe the postings can't be attched to them. In theory an owner of a registered gun and shooter's licence behaves differently to an anonymous gun owner.

I think if you try to register on this site under another handle you would need to supply another email address.

In short, the owners of the sites are trying within the limits of the software and internet to basically duplicate the counterpart of the principles of gun registration and/or a shooter's licence.

As I have already said a few times on this thread the site owners should be free to impose whatever rules/restrictions they like.

But some of those rules like registration and true email addresses don't make it any easier to argue against anonymous gun ownership or other gun law issues. I can't really say much more.

It is 8.20am Sunday down here in Sydney Australia and I have been up all night working and I am about to head to bed.

Mike

[Mike375]

Do you somehow believe Oleg is asking for peoples info so they are somehow registered as gun owners???

Missed that one.

No, not at all.

[OF]

However, we both know why registration is required along with true email addresses. You will find it aligns very much with gun registration in principle.It is becoming clear what you are driving at. I think you will find, if you approach this topic with an open mind and a willingness to learn, that you are incorrect. The reasons why are, obviously, alien to you. So it may take some time before you figure it all out, but if you stick around long enough, you will.

- Gabe

[cordex]

I think I'm starting to see what you're trying to say, Mike.

Let me know if I'm not getting it correct, but something like this:
1. Some gun owners require or submit to private registration on online forums.
2. The spirit of "control" that implied by point one is the same spirit of "control" felt by those who dislike guns.
3. Because gun owners require or submit to registration on web-sites, they should also support governmental registration of their firearms.
4. Unless a gun owner pushes for an as-yet unnamed chaotic anti-system with no "registration" (public or private), and no controls over anything (again, public or private), they're a hypocrite.

Is that pretty much what you're driving at?

Let me try to turn this around, okay? Because anti-gun people support registration of firearms, AND registration on online forums, they also support registration to purchase food, and anyone who fails to pass the registration process must starve. Or that they support registration of books, or pens, or anything else.

Senseless, no? You can't say "because you support this, you must also support this completely unrelated issue". Not logical. Does not follow.

Here, we believe in the ability for individuals to control (yes, control) their private property. However, we dislike the idea of an outside entity (read: the Government) choosing to control our property. Thus, we allow Oleg & Friends to require certain information about ourselves to register to join this site, but would be opposed to Fed.gov requiring the same information to join the same site. Not their property, therefore they have no right to require it.

I'm completely failing to make the connection between our registering to post messages on a forum and complete registration of firearms. Very different things.

Is big difference between me asking you to do something while you're in my home or in my business, and Fed.gov sending armed police to make me do something on my own property.

[Steve Smith]

Site is Private Property. Nuff said.