politics not permitted = hide stance on guncontrol?


PDA






akodo
April 30, 2008, 12:48 AM
I got to ask.

I understand that there is to be no pollitical discussion here, and I actually agree with that.

however, when a person states a candidate's name (or a person who is in-office) and then restricts his comments to that person's record (votes, sponsorships, and statements) regarding firearm ownership, is that still political? I'd say that keeping the discussion on that person's gun control stance should be allowed.

Every time we have a post about "Call your Congressman/woman to tell them to vote NO on XYZ silly gun law" isn't that also political?

If you enjoyed reading about "politics not permitted = hide stance on guncontrol?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zundfolge
April 30, 2008, 01:05 AM
Every time we have a post about "Call your Congressman/woman to tell them to vote NO on XYZ silly gun law" isn't that also political?
Actually that's Activism ... and we do have a special forum here (http://www.thehighroad.org/forumdisplay.php?f=46) for that. :D

As long as anything political you bring up is A) specifically about firearms/RKBA/2nd Amendment and B)is a discussion of action, not just a complaint fest then it falls within the scope of THR's Activism forum and is very welcome.

Just complaining about a politician is no longer part of THR.

GhostlyKarliion
April 30, 2008, 01:49 AM
Bingo Zundo,

yea, as long as it's firearm related, and not just a rant but a meaningfull discussion, then it's fine.

but we have a policy to keep offensive comments off the fourms, as well as political statements (ie. "XYZ party is a bunch of $^@#heads", or "XYZ are idiots")
and bickering, it just isn't good for discussion.

bogie
April 30, 2008, 02:20 AM
And since it seems, from the participant numbers, that not a lot of folks have ever actually SEEN the activism forum, we need to bother a few of y'all.

Vote for who you think will hurt the least.

Jdude
April 30, 2008, 06:39 AM
Some of the activism participants, while not posting, are involved in writing letters and calling the governator and such... hopefully actual activism is much greater than what that sub forum shows.

Dismantler
April 30, 2008, 07:36 AM
I left a different forum because there was no control of the conversations. Insults flew between members, and political rants that had nothing to do with gun politics were commomplace. I like it a lot better here.

brighamr
April 30, 2008, 12:07 PM
I'd say that keeping the discussion on that person's gun control stance should be allowed.


This aint a democracy. You can talk about anything you want at APS. IBTL and all that

kingpin008
April 30, 2008, 12:38 PM
I'd say that keeping the discussion on that person's gun control stance should be allowed.

That's precisely the problem, though. Keeping the discussion on that subject has proven impossible, and insults and divisive arguments are not soon behind.

Justin
April 30, 2008, 01:36 PM
Disallowing political threads has nothing whatsoever to do with hiding a politician's stance on gun control, and everything to do with reducing the amount of useless grumping and chest-thumping so many people seem to get off on.

If you feel compelled to spend the effort to talk about something political on an internet forum, you really ought to spend a slight amount of extra time to make your voice heard not just on a forum in one microscopic corner of the web, but also with your elected officials.

Zundfolge
April 30, 2008, 01:59 PM
Like brighamr said, you can talk about whatever you want over on APS (link in the top right corner of every window on THR).

If you enjoyed reading about "politics not permitted = hide stance on guncontrol?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!