Why are shooting topics locked so quickly?
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Different views are one thing. Treason and hate speech are another. The same rhetoric the S.C. shooter had can be found on other forums. The Gabby Gifford's shooter too. And on and on. Please go there and don't ruin this one.
I mean...Nazism, fascism, and racism is a "point of view". But one that is unacceptable in a modern civilized society. Right?
It's funny you think anything negative said about the president is treasonous, but you don't seem to care about the treason the president commits almost on a daily basis...
This is the answer why threads(esp guns) according to the rules I see get shut down. People don't feel the rules apply to them and have to insert some irrelevant political comment where hey can.
A new thread asking why it was closed down appears and then like 5 year olds people cannot understand rules then continue the behavior.
PS: I am not stating I agree or disagree with any rules just that people cannot respect them. A third party view as a lurker of this site.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Different views are one thing. Treason and hate speech are another. The same rhetoric the S.C. shooter had can be found on other forums. The Gabby Gifford's shooter too. And on and on. Please go there and don't ruin this one.
I mean...Nazism, fascism, and racism is a "point of view". But one that is unacceptable in a modern civilized society. Right?
It's funny you think anything negative said about the president is treasonous, but you don't seem to care about the treason the president commits almost on a daily basis...
This is the answer why threads(esp guns) according to the rules I see get shut down. People don't feel the rules apply to them and have to insert some irrelevant political comment where hey can.
A new thread asking why it was closed down appears and then like 5 year olds people cannot understand rules then continue the behavior.
PS: I am not stating I agree or disagree with any rules just that people cannot respect them. A third party view as a lurker of this site.
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Different views are one thing. Treason and hate speech are another. The same rhetoric the S.C. shooter had can be found on other forums. The Gabby Gifford's shooter too. And on and on. Please go there and don't ruin this one.
I mean...Nazism, fascism, and racism is a "point of view". But one that is unacceptable in a modern civilized society. Right?
It's funny you think anything negative said about the president is treasonous, but you don't seem to care about the treason the president commits almost on a daily basis...
This is the answer why threads(esp guns) according to the rules I see get shut down. People don't feel the rules apply to them and have to insert some irrelevant political comment where hey can.
A new thread asking why it was closed down appears and then like 5 year olds people cannot understand rules then continue the behavior.
PS: I am not stating I agree or disagree with any rules just that people cannot respect them. A third party view as a lurker of this site.
You do realize I was simply responding to turtlevette's post who originally brought up the political comment, right? I figured this thread would have been locked by now anyway...
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Different views are one thing. Treason and hate speech are another. The same rhetoric the S.C. shooter had can be found on other forums. The Gabby Gifford's shooter too. And on and on. Please go there and don't ruin this one.
I mean...Nazism, fascism, and racism is a "point of view". But one that is unacceptable in a modern civilized society. Right?
It's funny you think anything negative said about the president is treasonous, but you don't seem to care about the treason the president commits almost on a daily basis...
This is the answer why threads(esp guns) according to the rules I see get shut down. People don't feel the rules apply to them and have to insert some irrelevant political comment where hey can.
A new thread asking why it was closed down appears and then like 5 year olds people cannot understand rules then continue the behavior.
PS: I am not stating I agree or disagree with any rules just that people cannot respect them. A third party view as a lurker of this site.
You do realize I was simply responding to turtlevette's post who originally brought up the political comment, right? I figured this thread would have been locked by now anyway...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: grampi
[
You do realize I was simply responding to turtlevette's post who originally brought up the political comment, right? I figured this thread would have been locked by now anyway...
Simply responding? Naw, you're outing yourself as an extremist. Why do the extremists not have any pictures or personal info at all on forums? Its a commonality among these types.
And to respond to the "no group has moral superiority and none should be silenced" statement. There are many groups that should be silenced and are morally reprehensible. Ever hear of the kkk, neo Nazis, white supremacists, racists biker gangs, and on and on. Many more have cropped up since we've elected a black president. What is to come if we elect a woman and/or another person of color?
[
You do realize I was simply responding to turtlevette's post who originally brought up the political comment, right? I figured this thread would have been locked by now anyway...
Simply responding? Naw, you're outing yourself as an extremist. Why do the extremists not have any pictures or personal info at all on forums? Its a commonality among these types.
And to respond to the "no group has moral superiority and none should be silenced" statement. There are many groups that should be silenced and are morally reprehensible. Ever hear of the kkk, neo Nazis, white supremacists, racists biker gangs, and on and on. Many more have cropped up since we've elected a black president. What is to come if we elect a woman and/or another person of color?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: grampi
[
You do realize I was simply responding to turtlevette's post who originally brought up the political comment, right? I figured this thread would have been locked by now anyway...
Simply responding? Naw, you're outing yourself as an extremist. Why do the extremists not have any pictures or personal info at all on forums? Its a commonality among these types.
And to respond to the "no group has moral superiority and none should be silenced" statement. There are many groups that should be silenced and are morally reprehensible. Ever hear of the kkk, neo Nazis, white supremacists, racists biker gangs, and on and on. Many more have cropped up since we've elected a black president. What is to come if we elect a woman and/or another person of color?
Funny you only seem to think of those on the right as extremists...
Originally Posted By: grampi
[
You do realize I was simply responding to turtlevette's post who originally brought up the political comment, right? I figured this thread would have been locked by now anyway...
Simply responding? Naw, you're outing yourself as an extremist. Why do the extremists not have any pictures or personal info at all on forums? Its a commonality among these types.
And to respond to the "no group has moral superiority and none should be silenced" statement. There are many groups that should be silenced and are morally reprehensible. Ever hear of the kkk, neo Nazis, white supremacists, racists biker gangs, and on and on. Many more have cropped up since we've elected a black president. What is to come if we elect a woman and/or another person of color?
Funny you only seem to think of those on the right as extremists...
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Simply responding? Naw, you're outing yourself as an extremist. Why do the extremists not have any pictures or personal info at all on forums? Its a commonality among these types.
And to respond to the "no group has moral superiority and none should be silenced" statement. There are many groups that should be silenced and are morally reprehensible. Ever hear of the kkk, neo Nazis, white supremacists, racists biker gangs, and on and on. Many more have cropped up since we've elected a black president. What is to come if we elect a woman and/or another person of color?
Speech should never be silenced. Ideas should rise and fall on their merit, not because someone is offended, repulsed, or frightened by it.
If that makes me an extremist, so be it.
Simply responding? Naw, you're outing yourself as an extremist. Why do the extremists not have any pictures or personal info at all on forums? Its a commonality among these types.
And to respond to the "no group has moral superiority and none should be silenced" statement. There are many groups that should be silenced and are morally reprehensible. Ever hear of the kkk, neo Nazis, white supremacists, racists biker gangs, and on and on. Many more have cropped up since we've elected a black president. What is to come if we elect a woman and/or another person of color?
Speech should never be silenced. Ideas should rise and fall on their merit, not because someone is offended, repulsed, or frightened by it.
If that makes me an extremist, so be it.
^^^It only makes you an extremist in the eyes of another one.
Despite the ridiculously partisan sentiments voiced above there are extremists on BOTH sides of the aisle. Both parties are guilty.
See, when you only hang with folks with the exact same viewpoints as yourself you get a bit twisted. I'm pretty tired of folks supporting the basic ideals that made this country great being labeled as extremists by extremists!
Despite the ridiculously partisan sentiments voiced above there are extremists on BOTH sides of the aisle. Both parties are guilty.
See, when you only hang with folks with the exact same viewpoints as yourself you get a bit twisted. I'm pretty tired of folks supporting the basic ideals that made this country great being labeled as extremists by extremists!
While I acknowledge that I haven't read each of the previous posts, I'll make a comment. In 1968 I was selling firearms at a major Minneapolis hardware store's sporting/firearms dept. After the MLK and RFK killings that year the waiting and background checks for handguns came about here. The fall of '68 hunters could buy a long gun and carry it out the door. If they wanted a handgun there was a 10 day wait for pickup after the checks. In my memory this was the start of the 'war' of gun control groups and the NRA. After the Reagan/Brady shootings it ramped up more. As I recall, a number gun control folks/groups stated pretty plainly that their ultimate goal was complete removal of firearms from private ownerships by Americans. I think the NRA took that seriously and adapted a 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile' stand on the issue. Thus nothing that some folks might consider as 'reasonable' was likely to be an end result.
Originally Posted By: Lapham3
As I recall, a number gun control folks/groups stated pretty plainly that their ultimate goal was complete removal of firearms from private ownerships by Americans. I think the NRA took that seriously and adapted a 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile' stand on the issue.
And that's exactly correct.
That's been the experience in Australia, with the anti's "now we've got this, we need to go after that"...they have stated on TV that they ultimately want to ban the "bloodsport" of fishing...later, after they stop duck hunting.
As I recall, a number gun control folks/groups stated pretty plainly that their ultimate goal was complete removal of firearms from private ownerships by Americans. I think the NRA took that seriously and adapted a 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile' stand on the issue.
And that's exactly correct.
That's been the experience in Australia, with the anti's "now we've got this, we need to go after that"...they have stated on TV that they ultimately want to ban the "bloodsport" of fishing...later, after they stop duck hunting.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Lapham3
As I recall, a number gun control folks/groups stated pretty plainly that their ultimate goal was complete removal of firearms from private ownerships by Americans. I think the NRA took that seriously and adapted a 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile' stand on the issue.
And that's exactly correct.
That's been the experience in Australia, with the anti's "now we've got this, we need to go after that"...they have stated on TV that they ultimately want to ban the "bloodsport" of fishing...later, after they stop duck hunting.
Meanwhile they'll go to the local restaurant for a nice juicy steak. People are unbelievable sometime.
While I may not agree on their stance, I respect the people who talk the talk and walk the walk. Anti hunting/ fishing and not eating any meat. Eggs and fish included. (Never understood how vegetarians got away with eating fish either..
)
Originally Posted By: Lapham3
As I recall, a number gun control folks/groups stated pretty plainly that their ultimate goal was complete removal of firearms from private ownerships by Americans. I think the NRA took that seriously and adapted a 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile' stand on the issue.
And that's exactly correct.
That's been the experience in Australia, with the anti's "now we've got this, we need to go after that"...they have stated on TV that they ultimately want to ban the "bloodsport" of fishing...later, after they stop duck hunting.
Meanwhile they'll go to the local restaurant for a nice juicy steak. People are unbelievable sometime.
While I may not agree on their stance, I respect the people who talk the talk and walk the walk. Anti hunting/ fishing and not eating any meat. Eggs and fish included. (Never understood how vegetarians got away with eating fish either..
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: grampi
I agree 100%. Best post in the thread... [/quote]
+1 [/quote] And according to the "elite" the Fort Hood shootings were "workplace violence". The hypocrisy from Washington is vast, but not fooling many people.
Originally Posted By: grampi
I agree 100%. Best post in the thread... [/quote]
+1 [/quote] And according to the "elite" the Fort Hood shootings were "workplace violence". The hypocrisy from Washington is vast, but not fooling many people.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Lapham3
As I recall, a number gun control folks/groups stated pretty plainly that their ultimate goal was complete removal of firearms from private ownerships by Americans. I think the NRA took that seriously and adapted a 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile' stand on the issue.
And that's exactly correct.
That's been the experience in Australia, with the anti's "now we've got this, we need to go after that"...they have stated on TV that they ultimately want to ban the "bloodsport" of fishing...later, after they stop duck hunting.
Yes, it is.
Q. How do you eat an elephant?
A. One bite at a time.
This is why the first bite must never be allowed.
Originally Posted By: Lapham3
As I recall, a number gun control folks/groups stated pretty plainly that their ultimate goal was complete removal of firearms from private ownerships by Americans. I think the NRA took that seriously and adapted a 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile' stand on the issue.
And that's exactly correct.
That's been the experience in Australia, with the anti's "now we've got this, we need to go after that"...they have stated on TV that they ultimately want to ban the "bloodsport" of fishing...later, after they stop duck hunting.
Yes, it is.
Q. How do you eat an elephant?
A. One bite at a time.
This is why the first bite must never be allowed.
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Lapham3
As I recall, a number gun control folks/groups stated pretty plainly that their ultimate goal was complete removal of firearms from private ownerships by Americans. I think the NRA took that seriously and adapted a 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile' stand on the issue.
And that's exactly correct.
That's been the experience in Australia, with the anti's "now we've got this, we need to go after that"...they have stated on TV that they ultimately want to ban the "bloodsport" of fishing...later, after they stop duck hunting.
Yes, it is.
Q. How do you eat an elephant?
A. One bite at a time.
This is why the first bite must never be allowed.
Sorry to say the first bite, and successive bites, took place long ago.
They are not taking your guns away because after all there will never ever be a bringing of the Government to account by concerned citizens en masse. Your right to bear arms individually is no threat to a Government with organised military and unlimited ammunition. But if it distracts you to hold a gun while they read your emails and all the rest, fine. Don't you see?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Lapham3
As I recall, a number gun control folks/groups stated pretty plainly that their ultimate goal was complete removal of firearms from private ownerships by Americans. I think the NRA took that seriously and adapted a 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile' stand on the issue.
And that's exactly correct.
That's been the experience in Australia, with the anti's "now we've got this, we need to go after that"...they have stated on TV that they ultimately want to ban the "bloodsport" of fishing...later, after they stop duck hunting.
Yes, it is.
Q. How do you eat an elephant?
A. One bite at a time.
This is why the first bite must never be allowed.
Sorry to say the first bite, and successive bites, took place long ago.
They are not taking your guns away because after all there will never ever be a bringing of the Government to account by concerned citizens en masse. Your right to bear arms individually is no threat to a Government with organised military and unlimited ammunition. But if it distracts you to hold a gun while they read your emails and all the rest, fine. Don't you see?
IMO gun control is hitting what you are aiming for. Guns don't go to jail, PEOPLE go to jail, what they strive for is people control they just couldn't get too far if they called it PEOPLE CONTROL which is what the agenda really happens to be.
It is far easier to demonize an inanimate to get more people on board with "gun control"
About 2 cents worth
Smoky
It is far easier to demonize an inanimate to get more people on board with "gun control"
About 2 cents worth
Smoky
Originally Posted By: qweased123
Sorry to say the first bite, and successive bites, took place long ago.
They are not taking your guns away because after all there will never ever be a bringing of the Government to account by concerned citizens en masse. Your right to bear arms individually is no threat to a Government with organised military and unlimited ammunition. But if it distracts you to hold a gun while they read your emails and all the rest, fine. Don't you see?
Yup, this. And we're letting ourselves get mired in 50-plus year fights over moral panics when there are actual, structural things being ignored. Oddly those who like bringing up the moral panics never quite solve them and they're still a very loud problem 4 years later.
Sorry to say the first bite, and successive bites, took place long ago.
They are not taking your guns away because after all there will never ever be a bringing of the Government to account by concerned citizens en masse. Your right to bear arms individually is no threat to a Government with organised military and unlimited ammunition. But if it distracts you to hold a gun while they read your emails and all the rest, fine. Don't you see?
Yup, this. And we're letting ourselves get mired in 50-plus year fights over moral panics when there are actual, structural things being ignored. Oddly those who like bringing up the moral panics never quite solve them and they're still a very loud problem 4 years later.
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: grampi
[
You do realize I was simply responding to turtlevette's post who originally brought up the political comment, right? I figured this thread would have been locked by now anyway...
Simply responding? Naw, you're outing yourself as an extremist. Why do the extremists not have any pictures or personal info at all on forums? Its a commonality among these types.
And to respond to the "no group has moral superiority and none should be silenced" statement. There are many groups that should be silenced and are morally reprehensible. Ever hear of the kkk, neo Nazis, white supremacists, racists biker gangs, and on and on. Many more have cropped up since we've elected a black president. What is to come if we elect a woman and/or another person of color?
Funny you only seem to think of those on the right as extremists...
Funnier that you associate racist groups as right-winged. turtlevette never mentioned political belief, only racist-based groups.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: grampi
[
You do realize I was simply responding to turtlevette's post who originally brought up the political comment, right? I figured this thread would have been locked by now anyway...
Simply responding? Naw, you're outing yourself as an extremist. Why do the extremists not have any pictures or personal info at all on forums? Its a commonality among these types.
And to respond to the "no group has moral superiority and none should be silenced" statement. There are many groups that should be silenced and are morally reprehensible. Ever hear of the kkk, neo Nazis, white supremacists, racists biker gangs, and on and on. Many more have cropped up since we've elected a black president. What is to come if we elect a woman and/or another person of color?
Funny you only seem to think of those on the right as extremists...
Funnier that you associate racist groups as right-winged. turtlevette never mentioned political belief, only racist-based groups.
Originally Posted By: Smoky14
IMO gun control is hitting what you are aiming for. Guns don't go to jail, PEOPLE go to jail, what they strive for is people control they just couldn't get too far if they called it PEOPLE CONTROL which is what the agenda really happens to be.
It is far easier to demonize an inanimate to get more people on board with "gun control"
About 2 cents worth
Smoky
I think this concept of People Control is far far more valid when you talk about drug law and enforcement.
IMO gun control is hitting what you are aiming for. Guns don't go to jail, PEOPLE go to jail, what they strive for is people control they just couldn't get too far if they called it PEOPLE CONTROL which is what the agenda really happens to be.
It is far easier to demonize an inanimate to get more people on board with "gun control"
About 2 cents worth
Smoky
I think this concept of People Control is far far more valid when you talk about drug law and enforcement.
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: grampi
[
You do realize I was simply responding to turtlevette's post who originally brought up the political comment, right? I figured this thread would have been locked by now anyway...
Simply responding? Naw, you're outing yourself as an extremist. Why do the extremists not have any pictures or personal info at all on forums? Its a commonality among these types.
And to respond to the "no group has moral superiority and none should be silenced" statement. There are many groups that should be silenced and are morally reprehensible. Ever hear of the kkk, neo Nazis, white supremacists, racists biker gangs, and on and on. Many more have cropped up since we've elected a black president. What is to come if we elect a woman and/or another person of color?
Funny you only seem to think of those on the right as extremists...
Funnier that you associate racist groups as right-winged. turtlevette never mentioned political belief, only racist-based groups.
The racist groups he mentioned are considered right wing groups...he conveniently left out all of the left wing racist groups...I wonder why?
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: grampi
[
You do realize I was simply responding to turtlevette's post who originally brought up the political comment, right? I figured this thread would have been locked by now anyway...
Simply responding? Naw, you're outing yourself as an extremist. Why do the extremists not have any pictures or personal info at all on forums? Its a commonality among these types.
And to respond to the "no group has moral superiority and none should be silenced" statement. There are many groups that should be silenced and are morally reprehensible. Ever hear of the kkk, neo Nazis, white supremacists, racists biker gangs, and on and on. Many more have cropped up since we've elected a black president. What is to come if we elect a woman and/or another person of color?
Funny you only seem to think of those on the right as extremists...
Funnier that you associate racist groups as right-winged. turtlevette never mentioned political belief, only racist-based groups.
The racist groups he mentioned are considered right wing groups...he conveniently left out all of the left wing racist groups...I wonder why?
- Status
