How likely is civil discussion to occur here on THR with anti-gunners?


PDA






Vector
November 29, 2010, 01:59 PM
For that matter, how likely is it that the powers that be would allow opposing points of view from those who think differently than most of us do?

The reason I want to have this discussion is because I've noticed that people who are not in lock step with the majority here tend to be labeled trolls, or trying to stir the pot. In reality some posters are genuinely trying to guage how others feel, how strong their convictions are, and trying to understand why some have over the top and intractable views on the 2nd Amendment (i.e. private citizens owning WMD's).
For instance I consider myself very pro 2nd Amendment, have owned a gun since I was a teen, been a member of the NRA, have a CCW, etc.
Yet there have been a few times I've had a different take on a subject and started a thread to discuss the matter. In a couple of instances I've had the thread closed down and been told the thread had "run it's course". This after less than 12 hours of starting it. Funny enough in the thread I reference I had left for a few hours and when I returned a post was made that helped me see a point of view I had not considered. Yet I could not respond or delve into it more because the thread had already been locked.
I clearly had the impression that since I did not agree with the majority, my point of view was marginalized, and some considered my position to be that of a troll, so it was shut down. So if that can happen with a pro-2nd amendment guy, what chance does a luke warm pro-gun person have, or even worse, an anti-2nd Amendment poster:confused:

Now of course this thread could be considered "stirring the pot" by someone and be locked as a result. Needless to say I hope that is not the case.
The fact of the matter is I like this forum for the most part, and lurk much more than I post. However I'd like to think my point of view is just as valued as the next person regardless of how I perceive things. I'd also like to think that someone who has an opposing point of view should be allowed to come here and have a discussion with me/us without fear of having their posts/threads shut down despite being within the confines of the written rules.

So what is your take on the aforementioned?

If you enjoyed reading about "How likely is civil discussion to occur here on THR with anti-gunners?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SSN Vet
November 29, 2010, 02:13 PM
I'm sure the Zom Politz will be along shortly to offer remedial training. Good luck with it.

kaferhaus
November 29, 2010, 02:27 PM
This is obviously a pro gun, pro 2nd amendment site. I like it that way. I have little to no tolerance for anyone's view that doesn't 100% support that.

And that doesn't mean I have no tolerance for "liberals". I know several that are very liberal (some are close friends) but they're not anti 2nd amendment, anti CCW nor are they for registration or "amnesty" for illegal aliens.

THOSE people I can have friendships and political discussions with.

Now if you're talking about guys that think they should be allowed to own a M1 Abrams or rocket launcher etc..... well, we've got some nuts on our side too....

A couple years ago I got into a heated debate on this board about where CCW was appropriate.

The jist of it was they felt it was entirely appropriate to carry their piece into a home where they'd been invited for dinner. That would be the end of our friendship....

My counter to that was "if you feel you could be in danger in their home, why go there?"

I would never enter a friends home carrying a weapon. In fact in the situation mentioned above I've removed my pistol and locked it in the truck on too many occasions to remember.

So yes otherwise like minded people can agree to disagree.

King Solomon Hill
November 29, 2010, 02:31 PM
I'm Canadian...I wish we had a second amendment to argue over!

kaferhaus
November 29, 2010, 02:33 PM
I'm Canadian...I wish we had a second amendment to argue over!

Amen brother!

ServiceSoon
November 29, 2010, 02:34 PM
This board is very heavily moderated, always has been, always will be. It's the main reason why I don't visit it as frequently. This rule is especially ironic considering the RKBA's connection to freedom and liberty.

Birddog1911
November 29, 2010, 02:35 PM
Hmm, if my friends invite me over, they know that I will be carrying. If they are uncomfortable, I have no problem leaving it in the truck. But they know I carry, and no one expects me to disarm.

BeerSleeper
November 29, 2010, 02:44 PM
If I go over to my friends house for dinner, and don't have a gun, most of my friends will offer me one of theirs. I guess it depends on what sort of people you associate yourselves with.

Tim the student
November 29, 2010, 02:45 PM
Depends on the anti in question.

There was a really long thread that used to be a sticky in which a guy came with questions. It was generally very civil from all sides.

Check it out (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=27373&pp=60)

Others do come to stir the pot, and that doesn't go over well.

Tony50ae
November 29, 2010, 02:50 PM
Vector,
I would like to think that such discussuions would remain civil, but with a forum as large as ours, well I am sure you have seen some threads here get carried away and get locked. I understand your point but I think the moderators try to nip such bad potential threads before they get bad. Is that the right answer? Maybe, maybe not.

Kaferhaus,
Your take on someone bringing in a CCW in your house is interesting. Meaning you would just end a friendship that easily over it? Would you end it cause he just brought his weapon and didn't think to remove it? Is it considered rude to do so? Serious questions as since my state really has no option to CCW I wouldn't know the proper etiquette. I guess I can see that as being rude to not ask first if its ok to bring my CCW in your home.

Vector
November 29, 2010, 02:55 PM
A couple years ago I got into a heated debate on this board about where CCW was appropriate.

The jist of it was they felt it was entirely appropriate to carry their piece into a home where they'd been invited for dinner. That would be the end of our friendship....

My counter to that was "if you feel you could be in danger in their home, why go there?"

I would never enter a friends home carrying a weapon. In fact in the situation mentioned above I've removed my pistol and locked it in the truck on too many occasions to remember.

So yes otherwise like minded people can agree to disagree.

That is similar to my way of thinking also. I clearly make distinctions in my everyday life where and when to carry. That is not to say I would support laws to prohibit others from carrying to places like weddings, their child's birth in a hospital, etc., but it certainly seems unusual to me to feel the need to carry 24/7, 365 no matter where and when.

That said, I like to get a better understanding from those on our side, even if I think they are a little over the top. My discussion about not carrying in Disney World was met with heavy criticism, so to my questioning why anyone would be armed during the birth of their child in a maternity ward. The trouble is it seems as if you cannot really express your point of view without fear of it being perceived as stirring the pot. :(

I've read where some folks on this forum will not go to places where they cannot carry. So naturally it makes me wonder why they would restrict themselves from some of life's pleasures such as surfing, swimming, going on cruises and/or vacations where firearms are prohibited. The trouble is that no matter how respectful and civil you are, the discussion is more likely to be shutdown even though it is not in violation of any written rule. Don't get me wrong, I understand forums need to be moderated as I administer a forum myself(non gun related). However I always encourage opposing points of view so long as the discussion remains respectful and civil.

I just question how well a person who is not pro-gun would be able to discuss their point of view, or be given the time to be persuaded to consider our point of view here.

kingpin008
November 29, 2010, 03:03 PM
This is obviously a pro gun, pro 2nd amendment site. I like it that way. I have little to no tolerance for anyone's view that doesn't 100% support that.

That's unfortunate, because one of the biggest missions of this site is to have tolerance for those who don't support the second amendment and gun ownership.

This site exists partly to educate and advocate safe and responsible gun ownership. That means that if someone has no experience with guns or gun culture, they can come here to learn. If we all had the same "zero tolerance" attitude that you seem to have, we'd be talking into a vacuum and doing nothing worthwhile for the shooting community at large.

SuperNaut
November 29, 2010, 03:07 PM
IMHO discussions that become repetitive or devolve into Right vs. Left are actively discouraged and correctly locked here. I think that the confusion is that some people think this is a debate board instead of a discussion board. That doesn't mean that debate doesn't occur, it just means that the emphasis is on discussion.

If there were a separate sub-forum for debate that actually followed debate rules and format I'd be all over it. But as it stands, the nature of internet db's encourages gratuitous and anonymous drive-by opinion spewing, and that is not the right recipe for reasoned discourse.

kaferhaus
November 29, 2010, 03:11 PM
Your take on someone bringing in a CCW in your house is interesting. Meaning you would just end a friendship that easily over it? Would you end it cause he just brought his weapon and didn't think to remove it? Is it considered rude to do so? Serious questions as since my state really has no option to CCW I wouldn't know the proper etiquette. I guess I can see that as being rude to not ask first if its ok to bring my CCW in your home.
__________________

No, I'd ask him to take it to the truck if he forgot to remove it. If he started the whole "I carry everywhere" thing, he'd be a ex-friend real quick.

For me and my rather large circle of friends it's highly disrespectful to carry a weapon onto someone else's property without their prior consent.

it's only happened to me once and I asked my buddy if he minded leaving the pistol in the truck. He turned red faced, not because he was angry but only because he'd forgotten. In fact he was quite embarrassed.

I often have grand kids playing grab ass running all through the house, other friends over who don't even own guns etc. My home is for the enjoyment of my friends and guests and I don't need or want anyone feeling uncomfortable or a kid accidentally grabbing a gun while horsing around etc.

rattletrap1970
November 29, 2010, 03:18 PM
It will go badly because they are wrong. It's not an opinion and its not a privilege. It's a unalienable right granted in the bill of rights. It's like someone saying, in their opinion the sky is orange.. Well.. It's not.

Tony50ae
November 29, 2010, 03:20 PM
kaferhaus,

Thanks! You make good points!

oldbanjo
November 29, 2010, 03:21 PM
This week in, a 61 year old, answered her door and didn't know the person at the door so she didn't open it. The person at the door kicked it in and shot the lady in her head (killing her). They were looking for her son. What if you were eating Thanksgiving Dinner at that house? That can happen anywhere, wrong House may be. I went to Thanksgiving Dinner at my girlfriends daughters house, no one knows weather I had a couple of Guns or not. If someone had of kicked in her door they would have found out.

Robert
November 29, 2010, 03:24 PM
We have had admitted anti 2nd Amendment people come on the board and start threads before. In my experience it was the anti that became combative when confront with facts and figures that they could not refute. At that point they put their hands over their ears and shout at the top of their lungs, and the thread gets locked.

If you have had threads locked then I would say that it was not the topic but rather the discourse of those in the thread that caused it to be locked. Do you have links to your locked threads?

I'm sure the Zom Politz will be along shortly to offer remedial training. Good luck with it.
Very constructive...

I'd also like to think that someone who has an opposing point of view should be allowed to come here and have a discussion with me/us without fear of having their posts/threads shut down despite being within the confines of the written rules.
If it is within the rules then it will be left open until such time as the rules are violated. Sometimes a Mod will shut a thread down if the discussion has been had many times before and is known to end in flames.

So what is your take on the aforementioned?
People are entitled to their opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. Likewise if THR is not meeting your needs, and I am not saying that is the case just that it sounds as though you are not happy here, then start a forum where you can set the rules or frequent other boards that better meet your needs. Again I am not saying this is the case, just my opinion based on what I read.

rattletrap1970
November 29, 2010, 03:28 PM
I have only a handful of close friends (ones I would visit regularly). Now before you take your jabs at that statement, I'm relatively solitary and have more than enough hobbies and interests that I would just simply pursue them at my own speed. That said, all of my friends know that I carry. They know me well and they know how long I have been doing what I do. If any one of them said I had to disarm before entering their house they would be an ex-friend immediately. Because in their statement they would have proven to me that their views and mine do not jive. I have better things to do than spend my time with someone who is incapable of reading and understanding the 2nd Amendment.

Robert
November 29, 2010, 03:31 PM
How is all this talk about carrying on private property in anyway related to the OP?

rbernie
November 29, 2010, 03:48 PM
IMHO discussions that become repetitive or devolve into Right vs. Left are actively discouraged and correctly locked here. This is a large part of why many of these sorts of threads just get canceled - because the folk that are posting cannot find a way to follow the forum rules and leave political commentary, party affiliation, or debates about tangential (non-RKBA) social ills at the door and simply focus on the real meat of the matter. There are those who claim that we cannot have dialog about RKBA issues without also allowing tangential and/or political debates. I disagree, and so do the forum rules. It's really that simple, at least as far as site moderation is concerned.

If there are examples where civil discourse is being overrun by boorish behavior - please use the 'report a post' feature to let the Mod Squad know about it. We can often salvage a thread if it's not gone too far off the rails, instead of having to close it down as a formal loss. Once it gets beyond a certain tipping point, however, it's simply too hard to edit out the inappropriate content and the only tool that we Moderators have left is to close the thread and hope that everyone just moves along...

==

ETA:

My discussion about not carrying in Disney World was met with heavy criticism, so to my questioning why anyone would be armed during the birth of their child in a maternity ward. Yes, some folk did NOT comport themselves terribly well in that thread, and that's a door that swings both ways. If you want thoughtful and dispassionate dialog, you need to be willing to lay the appropriate groundwork for that. As far as I could tell, you were perfectly happy running the dialog around in circles while some folk took potshots at you and others tried in vain to steer the dialog in a rational direction.

Deanimator
November 29, 2010, 03:53 PM
I've got something like 20+ years of online discussions with anti-gunners.

One of three things usually happens:

The anti-gunners become pro-gunners, or at worst neutral.
The anti-gunners can't or won't back up their case and just argue in circles, even on points FACTUALLY refuted.
The anti-gunners blurt some kind of obscenity or racial or ethnic slur and run.

I can't guarantee that'll happen, but then I can't guarantee that the sun will [apparently] rise in the east and set in the west tomorrow.

Walkalong
November 29, 2010, 03:53 PM
This board is very heavily moderated, always has been, always will beI, for one, like it that way.

Threads where people are arguing get locked. Hmm. No problem there.

Threads that wander off the original topic and can't seem to stay on track get locked. Hmm. No problem there.

Many threads are kept alive with helpful suggestions by mods on how to get on track. Hmm. No problem there.

When, even after helpful advise from mods or members, a thread cannot stay on track or stop the bickering, it gets locked. No problem there.

There are many threads here discussing opposite views about guns, the 2nd Amendment, CCW, etc, etc, that stay civil and on track and go on for pages. Hmm. No problem there.

Let's see. Stay civil & stay on track. Seems easy enough (or at least clear enough) to me. :)

Now, what was the original topic?

kaferhaus
November 29, 2010, 04:02 PM
How is all this talk about carrying on private property in anyway related to the OP?

Easy if you read his entire post.

it was one of many prior topics that got way out of hand. Mostly from "rambo" types saying they'd carry where ever and when ever they liked and if it offended someone else's sense of private property or even their home that was pretty much tough. And then "name calling" when anyone else would mention that it may not be a very polite way to conduct yourself....

The OP, got it. See his reply

Vector
November 29, 2010, 04:02 PM
We have had admitted anti 2nd Amendment people come on the board and start threads before. In my experience it was the anti that became combative when confront with facts and figures that they could not refute. At that point they put their hands over their ears and shout at the top of their lungs, and the thread gets locked.

I'm sure there are some on the anti side who just will not be open minded nor even interested in discussion. However the same can be said for our side as well. The trick is finding an environment where everyones point of view can be discussed in a respectful and civil manner. I'd like to think THR can serve that purpose among other things.

If you have had threads locked then I would say that it was not the topic but rather the discourse of those in the thread that caused it to be locked. Do you have links to your locked threads?


I think you are assuming too much. I do not want this to become a bitch and moan thread as that is not it's purpose. As to locked threads, all you need to do is look up my profile and go into the stats and see the threads I've started.


If it is within the rules then it will be left open until such time as the rules are violated. Sometimes a Mod will shut a thread down if the discussion has been had many times before and is known to end in flames.

No offense, but you are giving way too much credit to all the mods here. Some forums feel like a Nazi concentration camp and others seem like it is run by hippies at Woodstock where anything goes.
Most of the mods here seem even keel and reasoned. But just like many forums there are some who inject their own person feelings into their decisions to moderate. To me, if a discussion is with the rules, and the spirit of those rules, it should be left to it's own devices and die a natural death.


People are entitled to their opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. Likewise if THR is not meeting your needs, and I am not saying that is the case just that it sounds as though you are not happy here, then start a forum where you can set the rules or frequent other boards that better meet your needs. Again I am not saying this is the case, just my opinion based on what I read.

As I started out saying, THR has more +'s than -'s. If I didn't like it I would not take the time to visit, and certainly would not post. So my observation and questions are geared to get the forum members opinions, and hopefully to raise awareness about civil discourse among other things.

hso
November 29, 2010, 04:11 PM
We have had a couple of folks show up and identify themselves as anti or RKBA-curious and the membership generally does all of us proud as long as the OP isn't accusatory and seems to be open to discussion. Mods have had to monitor those discussions closely and have been forced to delete some posts to allow the discussion to continue.

OTOH, we have had folks just show up to toss virtual gasoline around and they've been handled roughly until the thread was closed.

hso
November 29, 2010, 04:29 PM
Some forums feel like a Nazi concentration camp

With all due respect, unless you have a tattoo on your forearm that bit of hyperbole is not founded in reality.
An old friend of my family walked through these gates and offered that nothing was ever like a NAZI concentration camp when I foolishly made such a reference.
http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/photo/lc/image/02/0237.jpg

Robert
November 29, 2010, 04:30 PM
On whim I looked up your locked threads. I had assumed that their was one locked thread that would stand out as having been locked with a heavy hand.
1. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=555310&page=4
Art locked this thread, having admitted to the OP that no rules were broken (according to the OP), because after four pages of chest beating and bowing to the wishes of private property owners this thread was going around in circles with nothing to gain.
2. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=540555
hso states it was already under discussion. Pretty clear there.
3. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=433963
Seems Jorg thought the subject had been beat to death when it "was first introduced months ago". You'd have to take that up with him.
4. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=334660&page=4
Seems this was locked as it was political, intended or not politics are off topic.
5. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=332879&page=3
geekwitha45 explained that one pretty well I think. But again you'd have to talk to him.

In these 5 locked thread the reason for locking was clear, at least to my mind, in that the members taking part in the threads, except where noted, drove them off the rails as it were.

I always wonder about posters who think they know more about what is good for the forum than the mods or admin.
Interesting.

To me, if a discussion is with the rules, and the spirit of those rules, it should be left to it's own devices and die a natural death.
Even if it is to the detriment of the forum as a whole? Remember the 1st Amendment has no bearing here.

ants
November 29, 2010, 04:47 PM
Uh Oh. I hope this thread doesn't become one of those personal 'shootouts'.
We should all take a breath and get back to the original question.
I hope we're not about to answer that question negatively...

Nomad, 2nd
November 29, 2010, 04:54 PM
I have read:

When a consirvative doesn't like guns he doesn't own them

When a liberal doesn't like guns he try's to keep OTHER's from owning them.

IF your #1... that's fine

If your #2.... We have nothing to discuss, come and take them.

JohnBT
November 29, 2010, 04:58 PM
"How likely is civil discussion to occur here on THR with anti-gunners? "

Are you implying that we - the members - would be rude to a guest?

Or are you saying that you suspect the guests would be rude?

It takes two to have a civil discsussion.

I get the feeling after reading your words that you are assuming the turmoil would be caused by the members. Do you also believe that the anti-gunners are all reasonable people? Do you know any? ;)

Vector
November 29, 2010, 05:21 PM
We have had a couple of folks show up and identify themselves as anti or RKBA-curious and the membership generally does all of us proud as long as the OP isn't accusatory and seems to be open to discussion. Mods have had to monitor those discussions closely and have been forced to delete some posts to allow the discussion to continue.
OTOH, we have had folks just show up to toss virtual gasoline around and they've been handled roughly until the thread was closed.

First let me say you are not a mod I ever remembering having an issue with on this subject. I fully appreciate the need to edit/remove posts rather than allow it to derail an entire thread. That said, some threads are arbitrary locked based on personal perception without any attempt to remove an offending post.

You will also have mods who come up with unwritten rules, or pull things out of thin air like "thread necromancy" as justification of their actions.

With all due respect, unless you have a tattoo on your forearm that bit of hyperbole is not founded in reality.
An old friend of my family walked through these gates and offered that nothing was ever like a NAZI concentration camp when I foolishly made such a reference.


Let me say that on the one hand I do not like the constant comparisons to Hitler or Nazi Germany as a slippery slope argument. However I also used the other extreme of Woodstock which you did not object to. Am I to presume you might find the analogy of over moderation more objectionable than that of one that is not well regulated? ;)

In all seriousness you make a good point.

However, even with my aforementioned comment I do not try to be PC just to avoid offending those who might not like any reference to Nazi's.
I actually debated the term holocaust one time with a person who claimed to be a Jew. He insisted that no other man made extermination could be called a holocaust as Jewish people would be offended. When I pointed out that attempted genocide was not exclusive to the Jews, and other groups like Russians, Irish, Polish, etc. had all been subjected to their own historical holocaust I was called an anti-Semite. :banghead:

Now back on topic.

rozziboy18
November 29, 2010, 05:28 PM
red v blue and such aside, sometimes we as a group take offence when we

we shouldent. when people come here and ask questions that maybe against

our beliefs, they shouldent all be written off as trolls. sometimes its a person

raised different than us and and have different beliefs than us. now there

are some out there that i refer to as reactionist. people hell bent on getting

a rise out of anyone out there. im not talking about them, im talking about

someone that is just trying figure out why we believe what we do, to try

and find some common ground. when we great them with a witty retort of

why they are wrong they bounce back to you with one as well. thus fanning

the flames and getting the post canceled. we will have to learn to be tolerant

and patiant with them and answer any questions they my have, so that they

can make a informed decision on where to go form there. as long as we beat

them down with what we think is funny and hurtfull coments, we will be

looked at as republican nuts, and they will remain anti gun.


thanks for working with my poor grammer. im trying to improve my vocabulary and become better at writing my replys. i dident pay attention in school because of girls and i had better things to do and im paying for it:banghead:. im taking classes at walter state to further my learning and not seem like such a imbosol when i write.:cool:

Vector
November 29, 2010, 05:30 PM
"How likely is civil discussion to occur here on THR with anti-gunners? "

Are you implying that we - the members - would be rude to a guest?

Or are you saying that you suspect the guests would be rude?

It takes two to have a civil discsussion.

I get the feeling after reading your words that you are assuming the turmoil would be caused by the members. Do you also believe that the anti-gunners are all reasonable people? Do you know any? ;)

I know a few who are reasonable, but maybe not rational. :D
Seriously, I do know a couple of people who are anti-gun to one degree or another that I respect.

As to the subject in general, I think my experience on this board has been one of limited tolerance when I go against the grain so to speak. I've also had civil and respectful discussions locked that were in their infancy without a real opportunity to evolve and for either side to be enlightened or persuaded. So if that can happen to someone like me, I find it hard to believe that an avowed anti-gunner could come here and have a reasonable chance to articulate their position or have the time to be persuaded to our way of thinking.
That would be as to say both the forum members and certain parts of the moderation team would be the culprits. However as you point out it takes two to Tango, so I am certain some just like taking a stick to poke us with on the anti side.

Vector
November 29, 2010, 05:48 PM
If I go over to my friends house for dinner, and don't have a gun, most of my friends will offer me one of theirs. I guess it depends on what sort of people you associate yourselves with.

I cannot imagine why your friends would feel the need to arm you for dinner if you failed to bring your own gun.:rolleyes:

Presumably you said that tongue in cheek?

hso
November 29, 2010, 06:05 PM
I also used the other extreme of Woodstock which you did not object to. Am I to presume you might find the analogy of over moderation more objectionable than that of one that is not well regulated?

No, you're to presume that I agree with you to the extent that some forums here barely require any moderation or any sort because the version of "THR-hippies", members that voluntarily uphold more of the ideals of THR, are the usual participants in those Woodstock-esque forums. General, Legal and Activism (one I happen to moderate) are the toughest forums to moderate because of the constant shouting past each other and the insistence on being right (having their way) of some participants. Those forums get the heaviest moderation in reaction to this. NFW (the other I moderate) hardly requires any effort because the folks there can disagree while remaining civil and even friendly. When someone comes in and muscles their opinion around, the "regulars" pretty quickly deal with it without a lot of effort on my part.

The discussion in this thread keeps being pulled back to the topic of the particulars of a thread of your's that was closed instead of the original topic of whether an anti would be treated with civility. It is a good question, but it seems to have been reasonably answered with examples where anti's or curious folks were engaged by members who treated it as a teaching opportunity instead of a mudslinging contest.

KBintheSLC
November 29, 2010, 06:06 PM
It shouldn't be surprising that anti-2nd views on THR get "shot down" quicker than a Zero over Okinawa. Don't feel bad though... I bet you will be greeted with the same, or worse, animosity if you post a pro-2nd comment on something such as the VPC website.

Dravur
November 29, 2010, 06:32 PM
Vector..
In reply as to why I would carry in a private home, in a maternity ward...etc

the gun is safer with me than it is locked in my car. Simple as that really. If someone doesn't want me to carry in their home, they can ask me to leave or leave it in the car. I will make my decision based on that.

But... the gun is safer on me than it is locked in my unattended vehicle.

Gouranga
November 29, 2010, 07:22 PM
In my short tenure here I have seen about a dozen anti-gunners come on here. Those who are respectful and polite will find the posters here respectful and polite in return. Those who are inflammatory and rude find their thread locked and/or deleted.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my position(s). You know what they say about opinions...and we all have them. I try to be respectful and I enjoy a healthy debate.

Are them mods sometimes heavy handed? Maybe. But no matter what they do they lose. Lock it and people get ticked, allow an inflammatory or nowhere discussion to continue,they get grief for that.

Justin
November 29, 2010, 07:24 PM
First let me say you are not a mod I ever remembering having an issue with on this subject. I fully appreciate the need to edit/remove posts rather than allow it to derail an entire thread. That said, some threads are arbitrary locked based on personal perception without any attempt to remove an offending post.


Please realize that in many cases staff members have enough experience to be able to see when a thread is likely to go downhill and may close it before the whole thing crashes and burns.

Granted, this is something that often requires a judgment call on the part of the staff member. That said, if you have an issue with a thread that's been closed, there's certainly nothing wrong with dropping a message to whoever closed the thread inquiring further about it.

BeerSleeper
November 29, 2010, 07:24 PM
I cannot imagine why your friends would feel the need to arm you for dinner if you failed to bring your own gun.

Presumably you said that tongue in cheek?
Yes. It is figurative language intended to point out my friends are not offended if I carry at their place, and they are welcome to carry at mine. To use less figurative language, but an actual example of something that has happened, I have dropped in on a friend on a weekend, and some spontaneous social drinking occured. My friend was willing to put my gun with his in the safe, the evening's festivities proceeded, and I picked it up the next day. One could argue my gun was as welcome as I.

That said, if I have a friend who would be offended by it, I would in all cases except those where I would anticipate a need (unimaginable rare), respect his/her wishes in order to avoid giving offense.

Vector
November 29, 2010, 07:26 PM
That's unfortunate, because one of the biggest missions of this site is to have tolerance for those who don't support the second amendment and gun ownership.

This site exists partly to educate and advocate safe and responsible gun ownership. That means that if someone has no experience with guns or gun culture, they can come here to learn. If we all had the same "zero tolerance" attitude that you seem to have, we'd be talking into a vacuum and doing nothing worthwhile for the shooting community at large.

I think yours is one of the best posts and well thought out on the subject.

Another thing people need to keep in mind is that extreme points of view in some threads are not conducive to reasoned discussion. So while a extreme view from a pro-gun person might be more palatable to the membership and moderators, it should not be dealt with differently more than a dissenting point of view. All that will do is turn off those who might otherwise have been persuaded to a more moderate way of thinking.

smallbore
November 29, 2010, 07:35 PM
Personally, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. Just don't try to force feed me your opinions.

jdowney
November 29, 2010, 08:02 PM
Such is the problem with big, popular forums on any subject, seen it a bunch of times. Some smaller forums are better at civility, some are not. Bottom line for me is that any forum is like the owner's house. Do you want a bunch of people you hardly know hanging around and having a big pissing match in your virtual living room? If they're having a civil and informative discussion however, its all good.

The key to civil discussion is being able to see the other guy's point of view without thinking that in doing so you're agreeing with it. If I can't even comprehend someone's opinion, I generally am not interested in the discussion. Why look for pointless argument on the net? I can get that at home :D

mustang_steve
November 29, 2010, 08:36 PM
I've debated it many times, and it is the same arguments over and over.

In the end, the most common one I've seen is "What gives YOU the right to decide who dies?"

My response has been "I would only do such in defense of my own life or the life of my family, so...would you value a criminal's life over your own? Would you value their right to live over your family's solidarity and functionality? Would you put their emotions below the criminal's want to your life, and possibly bodies ( in the case of home invasion rapists)? So who has the greater rights, the criminal or the lawful citizen who had to use force to stop the threat created by the criminal's actions?"

Usually it ends with a "....well...." response. "Well...." responses as I call them have no real meat, it's just someone making a degrading opinion about your beliefs, and usually starts with "well...." and goes from there.

There's not much new ground to cover with us debating antis openly on the forum, as all their answers are right here in searchable format. Not that I wouldn't welcome a good debate on a freash angle on the RKBA, I just feel that too many people want a debate based on a dead horse.

oldbear
November 29, 2010, 09:35 PM
And that doesn't mean I have no tolerance for "liberals". I know several that are very liberal (some are close friends) but they're not anti 2nd amendment, anti CCW nor are they for registration or "amnesty" for illegal aliens.

Well there may be hope for us after all. I'm moderate to liberal in my social views, but conservative in my financial views. I carried two revolvers to work everyday for 27 years. Now retired I don't leave the house without a weapon on my person or in the car. My views on illegal aliens is simple. I don't blame then for wanting to be here, but do it the right way, and please don't demand that I learn to speak your language; you came to the country of my birth so I expect you to learn my language.

As for firearms, I don't see any need to open carry, if CCW is an option.

I don't understand the need to carry a weapon in your own home unless you have some very bad people after you or you on the run from the law. If either is the case find a better place to hide.
If a store owner does not want you to carry a weapon on his property, that is his right. If you don't like it shop somewhere else.
If you are a guest in someones home, unless they are another "gun nut" leave the gun at home or in the car.
Other than the fact they are a HOOT to shoot, I see no reason that the armed citizen needs a fully automatic weapon.
I believe that the folks who carry two or more handguns with multi reloads may have some serious paranoia problems.
I also believe that if you use a gun in the commission of a crime any sentence passed by a court should be doubled.
I believe that the armed citizen should have a duty to retreat whenever possible, unless doing so would put their life in danger.

Sir, if you disagree with some of my beliefs please let me know,as I'm always willing to consider opposing views. All I ask is we keep any discussion civil.

benEzra
November 29, 2010, 09:36 PM
I have read:

When a consirvative doesn't like guns he doesn't own them

When a liberal doesn't like guns he try's to keep OTHER's from owning them.
This is the type of generalization that IMO is not helpful. I would go into why I think it is false in both directions, but will avoid going there and simply point out that this type of stereotyping is not appropriate for THR. There are certainly other gun forums in which "Go Team" type flamewars are tolerated, even encouraged, and those forums are a more appropriate venue for such.

This board is called "The High Road" for a purpose. The raison d'etre of this site is to be a place for a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums. That does mean that posts consisting of personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are strongly discouraged here.

If someone has trouble expressing his opinion on a particular aspect of RKBA without resorting to ad hominem arguments, stereotyping, finger pointing, or losing focus, then he should work on his debate skills until he can. He will be a much more effective advocate for our side.

Erik M
November 29, 2010, 09:53 PM
I avoid attempting to convince people online because I know for a fact it is a popular pastime of 'trolls' to agitate the pro-gun community with this very argument. I'm glad this board is moderated ina fashion that keeps this behavior to a minimum because I visit other information sites who's naive management let that type of behavior run amok.

I avoid it IRL because I do not feel that I should have to explain every asinine detail of my personal convictions to convince someone to adopt beliefs similar to my own.

TrakHack
November 29, 2010, 10:12 PM
I am very new to this board and I would not consider myself to be in "lock step" with the majority here. I'm not male, I'm not Republican, and until a couple months I would probably be classified as neutral or slightly "anti" second amendement. Oh, and the new-found affection I do have for guns seems to extend only to revolvers; definitely not "typical" from what I can tell.

My personal experience is members here are generally well-educated, well-spoken (or well-written, I suppose), and are here to share their experiences and opinions in a helpful manner. I haven't gotten the impression at all that people here are incapable of independent thought and are victims of "group think", but rather that they respect the right of others to disagree with their opinions.

From what I have seen, people posting here can usually explain exactly why they believe what they do on a specific topic; they've thought about it and made an intelligent, informed decision. If someone explains why they hold a particular belief or opinion and you still choose to argue and question because you disagree with their explanation, I think that *is* stirring the pot. Either that or reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit...

Anyway, as someone completely new to firearms my experience with THR has been entirely positive. Based on this experience, I do think someone joining the board to have a genuine conversation with the intent of learning and understanding would be able to be part of a civil conversation here regardless of topic. As bulletin boards go, THR is one of the least hostile environments I've experienced, and the moderators do a nice job of keeping it that way.

Nomad, 2nd
November 29, 2010, 10:58 PM
Please take this as literal, in an attempt to learn and not an attempt to be snide etc:


This is the type of generalization that IMO is not helpful. I would go into why I think it is false in both directions, but will avoid going there and simply point out that this type of stereotyping is not appropriate for THR. There are certainly other gun forums in which "Go Team" type flamewars are tolerated, even encouraged, and those forums are a more appropriate venue for such.

This board is called "The High Road" for a purpose. The raison d'etre of this site is to be a place for a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums. That does mean that posts consisting of personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are strongly discouraged here.

If someone has trouble expressing his opinion on a particular aspect of RKBA without resorting to ad hominem arguments, stereotyping, finger pointing, or losing focus, then he should work on his debate skills until he can. He will be a much more effective advocate for our side.

I cannot find it, but that passage included the same statements concerning:
Homosexuality, chairity, and many other topics.

It would seem to me, that it is the liberals (Please note, I do NOT say Democrat and Republican) Who are doing EXACTLY that.

I have had enjoyable discussions with people with very liberal views on a variety of topics.

You do NOT have to agree with me, just be able to backup your views to have me respect you and your viewpoints.

Despite your 'tongue and cheek' insult/attack in your final paragraph (Yea, it was in a 'nice way' but that's what it was')

I was NOT 'chest thumping' or anything of the sort.

Last I checked it WAS the Liberals who wanted to take away our gun rights.
NOT the consirvatives.

I have NO issues with the 'Pink Pistols' or any other group... so long as I don't see it.;)

Oh, the reasons cops do profiling/stereotyping is because it WORKS.

I welcome your (serious) thoughts on the subject, Iam open to the possibility to the fact that we are miscomunicating, or I do not understand something you are saying...

happygeek
November 29, 2010, 11:03 PM
Other than the fact they are a HOOT to shoot, I see no reason that the armed citizen needs a fully automatic weapon.


I don't really need an auto, but then again I have yet to need any firearm and know many people who went their whole life without ever needing a gun.

Somebody said on here awhile back that he was afraid that if the registry was re-opened that his neighbor might AD with a M2 .50 BMG. What everyone seems to forget is that even ignoring the 1934 NFA and the 86 Hughes Amendment, a .50 BMG costs something like $14,000 (http://www.hk94.com/purple.html). The thing also weighs 84 lbs and is over 5 feet long. Good luck finding a range that'll let you shoot up their berm with a M2; you'd most likely have to own a good deal of land and have your own range with an impact area to shoot your M2. Of course the ammo for it is $3 or more a round. These things tend to exert a sort of control on who'll own one all on their own.

In all seriousness, how many people were being murdered a year with legal automatics between 1934 and 1986?

Carl N. Brown
November 29, 2010, 11:11 PM
Well, my answer to the question:
"If you feel you could be in danger in their home, why go there?"
would be this:
Two friends of my brother were carjacked on the way to band practice, and were killed. The story I heard was the carjacker was insulted because they only had $11 on them. Thinking about it, I wish that one of them had carried, not because they were in danger in band practice, but because they were in danger of being waylaid on the way there and back.

I look at carry to and from a place as, not because the place or the people there are dangerous, but because the way there and back may be dangerous, and unholstering a gun and leaving it in a car leaves it vulnerable to theft.

I hope I have addressed that issue civilly as an example.

Ole Coot
November 29, 2010, 11:13 PM
Interesting thread but I read the same pros & cons. I will gladly give my reasons for owning, carrying and collecting firearms, among other weapons. Simple enjoyment and self defense I used to help ensure your right to any opinion you wish. If you have never been in a combat situation I can't describe the will to live & protect your friends. I was simply drafted in the mid '60s and my previous experiences with firearms hunting and shooting served me well as I am here to write this. The choice is yours, I am glad I did my small part to give you that choice. I would never attempt to convince anyone to own a firearm yet I feel I have no need to justify my position. I enjoy any discussion based on logic not on pure emotion or belief in a utopia where violence never happens and self defense is not necessary.

BeerSleeper
November 29, 2010, 11:17 PM
Carl hit the nail on the head, right there.

Justin
November 29, 2010, 11:25 PM
FWIW, my friends are more than welcome to carry, openly or concealed, any firearm they please while at my home.



Frankly, I find the notion of demanding that my friends disarm while in my house to be utterly bizarre and more than a bit of an affront to their judgement and character.

Old krow
November 29, 2010, 11:35 PM
My answer to the OP would be; it's likely to have a civil discussion, albeit, it might be less likely than NOT having a civil discussion sometimes too. The gun community is polarized just like the political one. I don't think that it as drastic as the political climate at the moment. This forum is possibly less polarized than others that encourage/allow heated arguments.

We have people that want to have a nuke and people that think we should only own long guns and everyone calls themselves a supporter of the RBKA. However, if you look past that you'll find the common denominator in pro-gun is generally freedom (or liberty). We value it, more to the point, we do not want ours taken away. That seems to be where the proverbial line is drawn in most cases.

The real problem is that people who oppose RKBA generally do not have the same concept of freedom or liberty as its supporters. For the most part this seems true, at the end of the day, it doesn't bother me if YOU have a gun, my only concern is that I have a gun. The same could not be said for an anti. The gun that they are concerned with is your gun. It's two very conflicting and opposite points of view in many cases. In the cases where an anti can confront a pro-gun without offensively trying to make their decisions for them, and the pro-gun can not be offended when the anti doesn't, we have civilized conversation.

Larry Ashcraft
November 29, 2010, 11:40 PM
Other than the fact they are a HOOT to shoot, I see no reason that the armed citizen needs a fully automatic weapon.
As somebody here said in just the last day or two, this is not needs based society. We don't need Corvettes, or filet mignon, or any of the other niceties that freedom allows us to pursue. If you are more comfortable in a society that is based on only what you need, Cuba is a nice alternative.

As far as disarming to visit a friend's home, I'm with Justin. That's the most bizarre concept I've heard in a long time. My mom is an 81 year old widow, and if she saw me without my CCW in her home, she would ask what the problem was.

jlrhiner
November 29, 2010, 11:41 PM
I'm kind of singular in my view on this, so here goes. I don't allow any one else to make my decision for me as to when I carry. Not someone who owns property, rents property or who has a place of business. I carry my weapon to protect myself and my family, I carry it concealed unless I'm afield. Anyone who is close to me knows this. If someone is afraid to have me to their home because their children are unruly and might overpower me and go on a shooting rampage, well, I probably wouldn't go there anyway. I don't go around looking for trouble, and so far It's only found me a couple of times. I would hate to get killed because I couldn't shoot back. Just my opinion.

happygeek
November 30, 2010, 12:20 AM
We have people that want to have a nuke


Seriously, how much does a nuclear bomb cost? Even ignoring arms treaties and such, assuming a country that owned the facilities to produce an atomic bomb was willing to sell you one, well I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess it's in the tens of thousands $$$ wise, probably closer to being in the hundred thousands at least. I wasn't able to find a good answer in a few minutes of googling, but the estimates being thrown around on answers.yahoo.com were in the couple of million dollars per warhead.

I don't think there's very many people in the U.S. who could afford to own a nuclear weapon, and even less people who can afford and would want one.

Not that I'm advocating one way or the other for private ownership of nukes, just saying that average joe next door won't be owning one simply due to price.

merlinfire
November 30, 2010, 12:26 AM
Considering that even conversations among pro-gunners often gets personal on things like caliber choice....

Besides, have you seen how quickly threads go overboard when there has been an anti-gunner? I've played devil's advocate a few times and it wasn't pretty. Pro-gun and anti-gun both can lack civility.

Vector
November 30, 2010, 12:34 AM
Seriously, how much does a nuclear bomb cost? Even ignoring arms treaties and such, assuming a country that owned the facilities to produce an atomic bomb was willing to sell you one, well I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess it's in the tens of thousands $$$ wise, probably closer to being in the hundred thousands at least. I wasn't able to find a good answer in a few minutes of googling, but the estimates being thrown around on answers.yahoo.com were in the couple of million dollars per warhead.

I don't think there's very many people in the U.S. who could afford to own a nuclear weapon, and even less people who can afford and would want one.

Not that I'm advocating one way or the other for private ownership of nukes, just saying that average joe next door won't be owning one simply due to price.

Well briefly, you would be surprised how many here think private citizens should be able to own WMD's. Remember not all WMD's mean nuclear warheads or small size nuclear explosive devices. It could be a dirty bomb, chemical bomb, or even a bio WMD.

You can check this thread/poll out (that was locked for so called "thread necromancy", not in the written rules by the way)

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=324356

Now back to the discussion at hand.

JTW Jr.
November 30, 2010, 12:46 AM
In your poll , there was a choice for :
* I believe any weapons, including WMD's should be owned "by private citizens"

but not one for

I believe any weapons, Excluding WMD's should be owned "by private citizens"

so the only option that had no restrictions was the one including WMD's ... I am not surprised that 37 folks choose that... ( me I went with option : I believe any conventional firearm including machine guns should be owned ).

In you When to carry thread , you asked about the birth of a child , CoRoMo answered you , yet you still failed to accept his answer. Looking of answers is fine , discussion is fine , but to fail to even accept someone's explanation of why they carry shows you are not looking for info , or discussion , only debate and attention.

Just my opinion of course.

And I feel the mods are pretty darn fair here , they are much more even minded than many other places for sure !

happygeek
November 30, 2010, 12:51 AM
I remember that thread, Ed Ames actually made some pretty good points:


I agree there are affordable high grade weapons that can be made.

That brings us right around to one of the main arguments against gun control though.

Criminals don't obey laws. That runs right up to the edge of circular but it's true. If someone has decided to to accept the risks involved in commiting crime X, then crime x2, x3, x4, Y, and Z are basically free. They've already shifted from very low risk to very high risk and a little more won't stop them.

So... for people who are a threat... people who have decided to do harm... they've already decided to commit crime X. That means they've weighed the perceived outcome against the perceived punishment and decided that the risk of punishment is acceptable. If you've decided that the risk of life in prison, or execution, for murder is acceptable the rest of the alphabet, which means maybe a few months or years for possession of bomb making components or something, isn't such a big deal.

How realistic is that? Let's say they are a suicide bomber. If they are caught with bomb making supplies they'll face a few years in prison. If they are caught planning to blow up their bomb in a public place they'll get something longer. If they aren't caught they'll die.

How would that change if you got rid of the laws against making bombs?

If they are caught with bomb making supplies they'll walk, right? So farmer Smith with his supplies to make a bomb fit to blow up several federal buildings gets off.... unless he is caught loading those supplies into a rented van with a map to the nearest federal building of course. Then he'll get the longer sentence and his 'possession' is just evidence of the seriousness of his intent. He is punished. Justice is served.

OK, they don't walk... but maybe the guys who actually succeed in blowing up their makeshift bomb will walk... except if they weren't blown up with the bomb they've probably got a long list of capital murder charges or similar. So a few possession charges are probably not even going to be mentioned.

So what exactly does the law against these effective weapons do?

A few things. They increase the odds that non-outlaws will be punished for technical (vs. intentional) violations of the law. They reduce the liberty of people in areas where what you think of as WMDs are useful. I know people who have personally made large bombs... hundreds of pounds of the various ingredients. They did so legally (at the time) and (more or less) safely, on private property, for legitimate reasons (they wanted to dig a pond and that was more fun than renting earth moving equipment). They allow authorities to arrest potential bad people before they actually commit a major crime.

Hey... that last one seems pretty good, right? Except you take someone who was planning to commit a major crime, put him in prison for a few months/years so he can plan without having to work and isn't subject to normalizing social influences, you give him a chance to meet confederates, you give him one more reason to attack by branding him an 'outsider' and permenantly stripping him of civil rights and any real chance of positive reintegration into society as a productive member... and then you release him to go back and try again, this time with fewer penalties because you've already ruined his life and there isn't a lot more you can do to him except give him free room and board for a while.



If we start including inconvenience weapons suddenly anything becomes a WMD and virtually everyone is at jeopardy of prosecution in one way or another. If you own both bleach and ammonia, and know why you shouldn't mix them, you are in fact in constructive possession of chemical weapons. Same as having a semi-auto rifle, the parts to make it full auto, and the knowledge that you have both, put you in constructive possession of a machine gun. If you are aware of the results and own both chemicals you can be prosecuted for possession. If you weren't aware... well, you are now. You are, as of the moment you gained that knowledge, no longer legally allowed to own both bleach and ammonia at the same time.

"You're just being silly, nobody has ever been charged with that."

Yeah, and 60 years ago nobody had ever been charged for owning marijuana. 25 years ago nobody was charged as terrorists for mixing baking soda in vinegar in a soda bottle. The screws have been tightened.

I'm not arguing for the ownership of private WMDs. Far from it... I'd rather nobody had them. I'm arguing against a nonsensical law.


Again, I'm not advocating one way or another. It's just that I see these "what if my neighbor ADs with a M2" or "what if my neighbor has a nuclear meltdown" when the cost of such things simply puts them out of average joes reach, even if average joe wanted one and there was no law against it.

Justin
November 30, 2010, 12:51 AM
Well briefly, you would be surprised how many here think private citizens should be able to own WMD's. Remember not all WMD's mean nuclear warheads or small size nuclear explosive devices. It could be a dirty bomb, chemical bomb, or even a bio WMD.

Wow.

So, in a poll conducted three years ago, on a forum that, at last count has almost 112,000 members, you're all hot and bothered that 37 people on this board are totally cool with ownership of WMDs?

Admittedly, it is an extreme stance to take, but I hardly understand how .033% of the membership advocating that position is so shocking that it causes your monocle to drop from your eye in surprise three years later.

Vector
November 30, 2010, 12:54 AM
FWIW, my friends are more than welcome to carry, openly or concealed, any firearm they please while at my home.



Frankly, I find the notion of demanding that my friends disarm while in my house to be utterly bizarre and more than a bit of an affront to their judgement and character.
I can see where people would have a problem with others bringing firearms into their home. All it takes is one irresponsible mistake to cause an irrevocable tragedy.

For instance a recent event involving a relative who carries with her most of the time. She had her gun in her purse and placed in on the kitchen counter. A friends child asked for a stick of gum from her mother and was told to get it out of her purse. The child went into the wrong purse and asked aloud what was this gun in her purse. Of course the relative ignored her own irresponsible actions and berated the 5 year old for having "touched her purse". The bottom line is that her friends little girl could have become another statistic because she brought a gun into her home without her knowledge.

awgrizzly
November 30, 2010, 12:55 AM
I'm of the mind that the 2a exists and has been verified by the SC, so there is no argument. If some folks don't like guns and don't think we should have them, they have a right to their opinion. But it's only an opinion, so what's there to argue about?

This place should be about guns and the use of same, no place to argue the 21a.

Justin
November 30, 2010, 01:00 AM
I can see where people would have a problem with others bringing firearms into their home. All it takes is one irresponsible mistake to cause an irrevocable tragedy.

I don't make a habit of hanging around with irresponsible people. Contrary to your belief that guns are somehow more inherently dangerous when in your house as opposed to not in your house, no one has yet had an AD, nor have any children been deliberately or inadvertently perforated.

Vector
November 30, 2010, 01:00 AM
Wow.

So, in a poll conducted three years ago, on a forum that, at last count has almost 112,000 members, you're all hot and bothered that 37 people on this board are totally cool with ownership of WMDs?

Admittedly, it is an extreme stance to take, but I hardly understand how .033% of the membership advocating such a stance is so shocking that it causes your monocle to drop from your eye in surprise three years later.

:rolleyes:

You keep emphasizing the three years ago aspect, but people also recently voted in that poll until it was locked. Regardless, the age of the poll is not relevant, just the fact that 37 people voted that way.

Additionally, I would not characterize my reaction as that of "hot and bothered", nor would my monocle have dropped from my eye if I were to be wearing one. ;)

JTW Jr.
November 30, 2010, 01:01 AM
The bottom line is that her friends little girl could have become another statistic because she brought a gun into her home without her knowledge.

no , bottom line there is un-responsible gun ownership , you don't leave a loaded firearm unattended , PERIOD.... that is the bottom line on that scenario.

If you live alone , fine , but when others , especially kids are around , you don't do it.

Judging by the points you choose to debate , I am not so sure you are totally on our side.


and just an FYI , I have friends I visit , that do not know I carry concealed , some are friends that go back to when I got my permit over 20 years ago. . I see no reason to announce I am carrying when I visit anyone. Although like Justin said , I don't make it a habit of hanging around people who are unsafe gun owners or would restrict me from carrying in their homes.

Justin
November 30, 2010, 01:04 AM
You keep emphasizing the three years ago aspect, but people also recently voted in that poll until it was locked. Regardless, the age of the poll is not relevant, just the fact that 37 people voted that way.

Oh. My mistake. Those results didn't accumulate over the course of a week or two, but rather three years.

If 37 people voting in favor of a position (most likely just to mess with you) in a silly poll over the course of three years causes you enough distress to blow your top hat off, I have to wonder how much experience you've had with the wider internet world.

Seriously.

Your poll took 3 years to accumulate a grand total of 37 votes in favor of private ownership of WMDs, and this is somehow casts all of THR in a negative light?

Vector
November 30, 2010, 01:13 AM
no , bottom line there is un-responsible gun ownership , you don't leave a loaded firearm unattended , PERIOD.... that is the bottom line on that scenario.

If you live alone , fine , but when others , especially kids are around , you don't do it.

Judging by the points you choose to debate , I am not so sure you are totally on our side.


and just an FYI , I have friends I visit , that do not know I carry concealed , some are friends that go back to when I got my permit over 20 years ago. . I see no reason to announce I am carrying when I visit anyone. Although like Justin said , I don't make it a habit of hanging around people who are unsafe gun owners or would restrict me from carrying in their homes.

Well I guess that depends on how you define "our side".

My credentials in the OP are all accurate and truthful, yet that does not mean I go along with all the various beliefs of the pro-2nd amendment people who post here. Just like the anti-gun people have extremists, so to do we. If posters believe private citizens need or should be allowed to own WMD's, I can rightly draw a distinction between them and myself.

Me pointing out one scenario of how a person bringing a firearm into the home of an unsuspecting friend might lead to a tragedy does not make me one of them! ;)

Vector
November 30, 2010, 01:21 AM
Oh. My mistake. Those results didn't accumulate over the course of a week or two, but rather three years.

If 37 people voting in favor of a position (most likely just to mess with you) in a silly poll over the course of three years causes you enough distress to blow your top hat off, I have to wonder how much experience you've had with the wider internet world.

Seriously.

Your poll took 3 years to accumulate a grand total of 37 votes in favor of private ownership of WMDs, and this is somehow casts all of THR in a negative light?

No offense, but wrong again. While some of those votes were recent, the vast majority did come from 3 years ago. However when I reposted to the thread recently, more people started to vote in it that had not previously been exposed to the poll.

What I do not understand on your part is why you are trying to characterize my reaction in such an exaggerated way. With comments like "hot and bothered", "monocle falling out", and now "top hat blowing off", you make me sound like an irrational Mr. Peanut.
`

JTW Jr.
November 30, 2010, 01:24 AM
regarding your poll....
why wasn't there an option for :

I believe any weapons, Excluding WMD's should be owned "by private citizens"

perhaps those 37 might have voted differently...

shiftyer1
November 30, 2010, 01:35 AM
erased by me

788Ham
November 30, 2010, 02:22 AM
As has been explained many times on this thread, which you've chosen to ignore, you can't accept what someone else has explained to you, their feelings or freedoms about firearms or carry methods, you have to have the last say. I can now see why you've been locked out of other threads.

Frank Ettin
November 30, 2010, 03:26 AM
In any case, Vector, I carry a gun whenever I legally may. I've made the decision to do so because I'm not clairvoyant and can not know when I might or might not need a gun. While in fact the odds are overwhelming that I won't ever need a gun, I'd feel pretty dumb if I wind up needing it and don't have it, even though I could have.

Sometimes something happens that has never happened before. Sometimes rare things happen. Two, three, four, or more standard deviations from the mean is still not zero.

Now that's my choice. And since I only do what I'm legally entitled to do, I don't have to justify my choice.

You're of course free to make a different choice. I do have to acknowledge that you have the right to do so, but I don't have to agree with your choice. Indeed, I'm free to hold the opinion that your choice is unwise, and I'm free to say so. You're entitled to make your choice, but you're not entitled to my validation of your choice.

I'm also not entitled to your validation of my choice, nor do I need it.

...I'd like to think my point of view is just as valued as the next person regardless of how I perceive things....And this may be thr crux of things.

You are certainly entitled to your point of view and to express it. But you can't necessarily count on your point of view being valued. Indeed, no one can count on his point of view being valued. That's just something we all have to live with.

chaplain tom
November 30, 2010, 05:35 AM
The terms "over the top" and "rambo types" has already been used in this thread so my reference to those terms is not something I just did for the first time here.

I don't recall any threads I started being locked, however I have been posting to a few that ended up locked. I sometimes feel like vector, in that sometimes, make that many times, it seems that the "rambos" and the "over the top" members are given more leeway and allowed to go farther than someone who questions the "rambo" mentality. I don't feel like that leeway comes from the moderators as often as it comes from some of the other members here. Case in point - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=552182 on that thread I expressed serious concerns with the mentality that believes We the People should be armed with ANY ARMS the military has access to. WMD to be exact. While some posted similar concerns about such thinking and the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment allows for such ownership there were more who felt we SHOULD be able to own our own Nuclear Warhead. That thread began to get a little heated before it actually died on its own.

The OP's concern is felt by some...maybe more of us here than some might think. I personally don't think it means someone is anti 2nd Amendment for not seeing allowances of WMD by individuals in the amendment. Oh and heaven forbid someone use the term "common sense" when questioning some of the members here. Anyone who doesn't use common sense with firearms is in my book...an idiot. I've read posts not only here on THR, but on every Pro-Gun forum I've ever been on that actually do more to validate the old cliché used by anti-gun people that (all who own guns are uneducated, blood thirsty rednecks, who cannot be trusted with a gun) than ANYTHING the anti-gunners have EVER said or done. Let's face it, we all know people we wouldn't trust to go to the store by themselves let alone trust to shoot one of our guns.

For the most part we have a very level headed group of members here. But just like ALL other Pro-Gun/2nd Amendment sites, we have our share of what I call "arm chair commandos" who have NO tolerance for opposing viewpoints. (And by the way have NEVER been shot at or fired a shot at someone else, but seem to be obsessed with killing their attacker, IF THEY GET THE CHANCE) MOST of the Mods here are pretty fair to all in the way they moderate this forum though. Some have come to my defense when some member either implied or actually called me "anti" or what ever term, to indicate that he thought I was NOT the Pro-Gun/Pro- 2nd Amendment person I really am.

Some people get hung up on ONLY the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens while often ignoring the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. I personally think it's healthy to hear opposing views on most everything. How else are we going to change the minds of those who are only anti because of ignorance? We need to know what they don't know or what they are afraid of to help them get over it. Does anyone else here believe as I do, that MOST people who are anti-gun are simply ignorant or mis-informed? We should choose our words carefully when talking to them so as not to make them even more afraid than they already are. Just my 2 cents.

hso
November 30, 2010, 08:02 AM
How likely is civil discussion to occur here on THR with anti-gunners?

For that matter, how likely is it that the powers that be would allow opposing points of view from those who think differently than most of us do?


That was the title and the topic of this thread, but it is apparent that doesn't seem to have been the purpose.

oldbear
November 30, 2010, 09:29 AM
As somebody here said in just the last day or two, this is not needs based society. We don't need Corvettes, or filet mignon, or any of the other niceties that freedom allows us to pursue. If you are more comfortable in a society that is based on only what you need, Cuba is a nice alternative.

Larry thanks for the response, but both your comparisons are somewhat off. Neither the Corvette or filet migon were designed to kill, yes both can and do if not properly used. The purpose of any weapon is to inflict injury or death, and an automatic firearm is a very effective weapon.

I do find your suggestion that I might find Cuba “a nice alternative” insulting and hopefully beneath you. If the old saying is correct, “the only difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys”, I have been lucky enough to fall into the MAN status for years.

I again will ask you to explain why the armed citizen needs a fully automatic weapon, other than the fun factor. If you’re best response is because of the cool factor, just say so I can understand that.

esquare
November 30, 2010, 09:43 AM
hso - I agree. The answer (as evidenced by this thread even) is that THR members by and large go out of their way to have a reasonable discussion - MUCH more than most other sites. Vector - it seems you have an ax to grind with several mods. Why don't you take it up with them instead of starting a thread to bait people into a fight?

If you don't like it here, why do you hang around?

JShirley
November 30, 2010, 09:48 AM
Egregious mopery with intent to troll.

Couch a complaint in a question and rely on our goodwill to take a mile? This one's done.

John

If you enjoyed reading about "How likely is civil discussion to occur here on THR with anti-gunners?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!