This election, users of this site and our gun rights.

[thanker92]

Would someone please tell me whom we are talking about....or would that break some unwritten rule or law. I know I'm not alone when I say that I don't have the foggiest idea about what is being discussed.

[internet troll]

Would someone please tell me whom we are talking about....or would that break some unwritten rule or law. I know I'm not alone when I say that I don't have the foggiest idea about what is being discussed.

A few people have asked privately. In a nutshell, Cyclops wrote a post last night basically praising the speakers at the DNC, Hillary's stance on gun control and why he is voting for her.

Mods feel free to delete if you do not think this is beneficial to the forum.

[scruff]

Would someone please tell me whom we are talking about....or would that break some unwritten rule or law. I know I'm not alone when I say that I don't have the foggiest idea about what is being discussed.

That's the problem about starting a discussion while leaving out key details. I didn't see the post either, but I was assuming it was PhillyD2, since he coincidentally also got an infraction.

[unclejumbo]

It's important for people to understand that he didn't just say "I'm voting for Hillary" or something similar. It was propaganda against our interests as gun owners and defenders of the 2nd Amendment. Propaganda that could sway less sophisticated voters. We're under no obligation to allow the barbarians or their sympathizers inside the walls in the interest of fair play when it's our destruction that they seek.

We can have vociferous disagreements about a host of topics, but not about our right to keep and bear arms. In that, on this forum, we must be of one mind and fight with a singularity of purpose. There is no place here for someone that's throwing open the back gate while we're defending the front.

[scruff]

OK, I see now... The Post Fairy just sent me back in time (thanks, PF). That was somewhere between willful ignorance, felony trolling, and suicide by mod.

[Carnes]

It was Hillary propoganda and when other's challenged his opinion, he made negative comments about those members' support for Trump. There was a lot of information posted to counter his opinions.

It could have gotten very ugly.

So, I begin this by saying that I have not formally been exposed to the thread in question, only the concepts of the concerns since raised.

I saw some of his anti-Trump posts, and it was hard not to just shout him down.

I heard if you put with all due respect first it's not considered snarky.

There is a massive problem in our culture with the fact that that powerful people think they can control political discourse by mandating that you can only say, 'Fuck you,' if you do it the way they prescribe.

Fuck NewSpeak.

Sort of like saying you should let the neighbors' dogs shit in your yard so you can impress them with how good you clean it up.

If I were allowed to speak freely, I would just call you a dumbass, and tell you to quit being stupid.

Or would I?

Actually, I wouldn't in most cases. (...For the sake of honesty and totality of circumstances, sometimes I would, as a result of being lazy and angry.)

More likely, though, I would point out specifically how the analogy you made has fundamental flaws in relation to the point you were trying to make... With all due respect, as opposed to all prescribed platitudes. (Which is, in fact, the case here, but not a priority subject for me at the moment.)

I was half way through reading it when it got taken down. I'm really not surprised at all about that members stance. I remember him saying a lot of border line to blatant anti stuff in the past and always wondered why he was even here in the first place. Should just be a perma ban to get it over with. At this point there is nothing of any kind of substance he can provide to this forum. His "rep" is permanently tarnished. Anything he posts from this point out will be questioned at best.

There are lots of folks here with 'tarnished' rep. They seem to manage. If, instead of the poster being silenced, I had seen the clever way you could shut down his position, I might have learned a new way to cleverly argue against one of the Hillary supporters I have to deal with on a regular basis.

If you want to hone your debating skills regarding politics & gun control, try battling regularly in the comment sections of anti-gun letters to the editor in the Post-Gazette or other liberal rags in PA.

Fair enough. However, if we can't beat them (fair and square) here, in our backyard, we need to get our shit together.

Again, to be fair, I didn't see the thread... But really, we should be learning how to out maneuver opposition, because if we rely on silencing them by brute force, we rely on a tactic that cannot be allowed to be used on a broader scale. If we can't win here the right way, how can we win at the level of the organization that is constrained by a Constitution.

There are over 65,000 members here, most of whom are not likely Hillary voters. Pennsylvania is a crucial swing state, it could make the difference the way that Florida decided Bush v Gore. Changing a few hundred votes from Trump to Hillary, or just discouraging Trump voters so they stay home, is a Democrat's wet dream. There will be DNC operatives here, putting out propaganda, hoping to confuse just a small percentage. We've all seen them.

Gore paid millions to sift the idiot piles for a few extra votes from people who couldn't separate a chad from the voting page. OF COURSE they will target gun forums for disinformation.

We don't have to allow them to run free ads for Hillary here just to prove that we like freedom. They want to take away your guns, your money, your rights. They are the people who want to make "hate speech" illegal, and they get to define what "hate speech" is, and it will include gun discussions (that already gets kids expelled from school, just the talk), it will include "climate change denial", it may include "white privilege denial" some day.

No, we don't have to be polite losers as we get on the cattle cars. We should probably try really hard to win, instead.

Yeah, there are reasonable limits. The present circumstance may be reasonable, I haven't seen the thread. If there are electronic bots auto-posting propaganda, they clearly must be deleted. Trolls cannot be allowed much toleration. But the accusation of 'troll' should not be allowed to be a cop-out to any opposition...

Someone posting an articulated anti-gun position should be allowed to be publicly butchered by superior arguments.

If you can't come up with a superior argument to anti-gun/pro-Hillary bullshit, without resorting to vulgarity/bans then you seriously need to figure out how to un-fuck yourself, or reconsider your position.

(I, once again, genuinely mean, "you," in the plural, non-specific sense. GL, you (specifically) are a very skilled rhetorician in support of guns.)

This is the last place on the interwebs that I ever expected to see someone banned for having unpopular political beliefs, even if they are as wrong-minded as supporting HRC.

One of the things that has historically attracted me to PAFOA is that it seemed that the organization supported the 2A as a result of a deeper understanding of the value of the liberty that mandated it. I don't support gun ownership because it is fun, easy, cool, or popular... I support the 2A because it is an essential component of a free society.

If ya'll gave up on the concept of us having a free society, you may as well just turn over your guns now... You can't win this by fighting for the wrong reasons.

A gun shop owner is free to refuse to sell a gun to someone who he knows plans to rob him. PAFOA can deny Hillary free advertising that helps her to destroy our rights.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and a belief in personal freedom doesn't require us to assist our enslavers.

It takes courage to meet the enemy on the battlefield. That field takes many forms, it may be a third-world desert, or a first-world forum... The battle for liberty is ever present. And, if you think I am being over-dramatic... Maybe I am, but in my experience it is more likely that you are being complacent.

[thanker92]

Normally I would defend his right to his opinion but the post fairy sent me the garbage he posted and I fully support UJ's ban. If that wasn't a troll then trolling doesn't exist.

[Emptymag]

Next up - motherfuckers who shop at Dick's.

Pack your bags, bitches!



Hey, it was funny when I posted it in the now poofed thread.

[Grey Bearded One]

I heard if you put with all due respect first it's not considered snarky.

That's like when a southern woman says, "Bless your heart."

[gdc]

I was half way through reading it when it got taken down. I'm really not surprised at all about that members stance. I remember him saying a lot of border line to blatant anti stuff in the past and always wondered why he was even here in the first place. Should just be a perma ban to get it over with. At this point there is nothing of any kind of substance he can provide to this forum. His "rep" is permanently tarnished. Anything he posts from this point out will be questioned at best.

i feel the same way. as i was reading i kept scrolling back up to make sure i wasnt reading some one else. he started out with his opinion well enough but went to the dark side pretty quick. i want to say some thing witty but not the time.