Counter productive posts to the Second Amendment cause - Page 2

ImChad · January 11th, 2009, 03:22 PM

Stumble on LEO in distress scenario, what to do? MERGED

this thread... read some of the strange comments. I've carried for years and I'm a bit shocked by some of the stuff I read here. Maybe its just me. Oh, I realize this is a public forum... and I also realize we've got our first amendment, which... has nothing to do with a public forum.

I'm not so much worried about the antis. They're going to stay the way they are until they need to do otherwise. I'm more worried about fence sitters. I know when my wife and I decided to get armed we read a lot of info. If I'd hit this first, I would bet my wife would have disagreed to the point of veto. Its just food for thought.

bandit383 · January 11th, 2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAT40

I agree we always need to be mindful not to give the enemy any ammo.
The Mods on this site do a great job of weeding posts that may hurt our cause.

If one does not vette both sides of the issue(s), how can one develop a rational, logical, and legal thought process to any debates/discussions about 2A? The anti's have plenty of ammo...I can assure you. They don't need a website forum to bolster their twisted logic...but we have lots of smart people that can help develop rebuttles to the negatism debates.

So, I say rock on. Education is a wonderful thing. If we don't, one would think we are hiding something.

Rick

HotGuns · January 11th, 2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

To start with, we had one this AM about someone wanting to have a shootout to protect the police. Thats a good starter.

I don't believe that anybody in their right mind WANTS to have a shootout. It's a life or death situation that no one needs.

ImChad · January 11th, 2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotGuns

I don't believe that anybody in their right mind WANTS to have a shootout. It's a life or death situation that no one needs.

lol, my argument is we potentially have a few... that are not in their right mind.

Kerbouchard · January 11th, 2009, 04:13 PM

Chad, based on the title of your post, many would think that your thoughts were counter-productive to the 2A. If the anti's see somebody participating in a gun forum thinking that other members are out of line, I would think that is much more counter-productive.

There are many of us who still believe that any restriction, even the smallest, most 'common-sense' restriction is an affront to our rights and blatantly unconstitutional.

I could just as easily say that anybody who posts that any restrictions are acceptable is an affront to our rights because an anti may see it and say, "Look, even on Defensive Carry, these guys think these regulations are reasonable."

Anything illegal is removed immediately. Anything disrespectful gets removed immediately. Everything else is pretty much fair game, and I think most of us like it that way.

rottkeeper · January 11th, 2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

Chad, based on the title of your post, many would think that your thoughts were counter-productive to the 2A. If the anti's see somebody participating in a gun forum thinking that other members are out of line, I would think that is much more counter-productive.

There are many of us who still believe that any restriction, even the smallest, most 'common-sense' restriction is an affront to our rights and blatantly unconstitutional.

I could just as easily say that anybody who posts that any restrictions are acceptable is an affront to our rights because an anti may see it and say, "Look, even on Defensive Carry, these guys think these regulations are reasonable."

Anything illegal is removed immediately. Anything disrespectful gets removed immediately. Everything else is pretty much fair game, and I think most of us like it that way.

Thanks Kerb, I was looking for a way to say the same but couldn't find a diplomatic way.

Tally XD · January 11th, 2009, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImChad

I'm not so much worried about the antis. They're going to stay the way they are until they need to do otherwise. I'm more worried about fence sitters. I know when my wife and I decided to get armed we read a lot of info. If I'd hit this first, I would bet my wife would have disagreed to the point of veto. Its jsut food for thought.

If someone is considering carrying a weapon for self defense, they should base it on their ability to live with the responsibilities and possible consequences of that lifestyle, not on what they have heard or read on some internet forum.

I believe there is great information to be found on some website/forums but my willingness and decision to preserve my own life by carrying a gun was not based on anything I read here.

I believe it to be a necessity for me and regardless of the gun toting "nuts" that are definitely out there, it had no bearing on my decision to carry.

Bumper · January 11th, 2009, 05:25 PM

We really do try to stay on top of any hint of illegality, foul language, personal attacks, "off topic" and a few other "over the top" comments. But, as long as things stay civil and "reasonable" we generally let them run.

If there are specific posts any of our members encounter that need to be considered for edit or removal, you can use the report feature on each post. The staff will look at it and if it does violate our rules or seem "too much" we will consider an edit....

ImChad · January 11th, 2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

I could just as easily say that anybody who posts that any restrictions are acceptable is an affront to our rights because an anti may see it and say, "Look, even on Defensive Carry, these guys think these regulations are reasonable."

I think you're confusing self censoring with government restriction. I'm not suggesting anyone be denied the right to make an ignorant post. I'm just saying a reminder that others are reading wouldn't be a bad idea. I cringe at seeing some of the posts here, but if others are ok with it I'm the odd man out and I'm ok with that. But please, don't confuse self censoring with restriction. Its not the same thing and one has nothing to do with the other.

HotGuns · January 11th, 2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

I think you're confusing self censoring with government restriction. I'm not suggesting anyone be denied the right to make an ignorant post. I'm just saying a reminder that others are reading wouldn't be a bad idea. I cringe at seeing some of the posts here, but if others are ok with it I'm the odd man out and I'm ok with that. But please, don't confuse self censoring with restriction. Its not the same thing and one has nothing to do with the other.

I think you are just advocating responsible posts. That is commendable.

With more and more people becoming members here, you have to understand that while some of what they post may be a bit over the top, or may even appear downright irresponsible to us, are things that they may not know or even have considered. They are here to learn, and everyone has to start somewhere.

Besides that, we get a kick out of some of the "mall ninjas", but we try not to let them get too crazy...

January 11th, 2009, 03:22 PM	#11
ImChad Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Great State of Indiana Posts: 117	Stumble on LEO in distress scenario, what to do? MERGED this thread... read some of the strange comments. I've carried for years and I'm a bit shocked by some of the stuff I read here. Maybe its just me. Oh, I realize this is a public forum... and I also realize we've got our first amendment, which... has nothing to do with a public forum. I'm not so much worried about the antis. They're going to stay the way they are until they need to do otherwise. I'm more worried about fence sitters. I know when my wife and I decided to get armed we read a lot of info. If I'd hit this first, I would bet my wife would have disagreed to the point of veto. Its just food for thought. __________________ They can't take your right to own a firearm. They can ask with force and you can answer any way you choose.

January 11th, 2009, 04:13 PM	#15
Kerbouchard VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 2,895	Chad, based on the title of your post, many would think that your thoughts were counter-productive to the 2A. If the anti's see somebody participating in a gun forum thinking that other members are out of line, I would think that is much more counter-productive. There are many of us who still believe that any restriction, even the smallest, most 'common-sense' restriction is an affront to our rights and blatantly unconstitutional. I could just as easily say that anybody who posts that any restrictions are acceptable is an affront to our rights because an anti may see it and say, "Look, even on Defensive Carry, these guys think these regulations are reasonable." Anything illegal is removed immediately. Anything disrespectful gets removed immediately. Everything else is pretty much fair game, and I think most of us like it that way. __________________ There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. http://miscmusings.townhall.com/ Who is John Galt?

January 11th, 2009, 05:25 PM	#18
Bumper Administrator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 17,355	We really do try to stay on top of any hint of illegality, foul language, personal attacks, "off topic" and a few other "over the top" comments. But, as long as things stay civil and "reasonable" we generally let them run. If there are specific posts any of our members encounter that need to be considered for edit or removal, you can use the report feature on each post. The staff will look at it and if it does violate our rules or seem "too much" we will consider an edit.... __________________ Bumper Administrator DefensiveCarry.com Forum Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode