Value of the 2A Sub Forum on 6.5 Grendel Forum

[PAsasquatch]

I picked somewhat because I like getting my gun law news from here. *Looks up at previous posts* Never mind.

[pinetreebbs]

"Not Very" for me.

I cannot imagine anyone posting here that does not believe in and support The Second Amendment. Having that discussion here, other than perhaps giving a heads up about an important or impending issue is pretty much preaching to the choir. Too often that devolves into an argument over who is 'holier' about The Second Amendment than the other guy(s) and a complete waste of time. Better to go to non or even anti gun venues and make your arguments.

On the positive side, if you do add a 2A discussion participation is optional so I'll not complain, I can mind my own business.

[brian y]

Get rid of it as it does not add anything good to a great site.

[Redomen]

I like to learn and I try to see things with an open mind. I don’t get on here and go directly to the 2A spot but often find it an interesting read. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I don’t which is the way of the world. Whether I agree with something or not doesn’t make me feel like I need to throw my 2 cents in. If it stays or goes I will still enjoy the site and get out of it what I come here for.

[Klem]

I stopped reading it a while back. There is a certain poster who pollutes every thread with tedious intransigence.

[bwaites]

Although I have had MANY other distractions, I decreased my visits to the forum partially because every time I checked in I felt like I was seeing 2A posts that had little real relevance to 2A, and even less to the Grendel.

Many years ago, in an extended conversation with Bill Alexander, he said something that I am beginning to believe was gospel truth. His statement was “The Anti gun people have no reason to fear. The gun community is determined to destroy itself without outside help.” At the time, I found it a bit over wrought, but in the ensuing years I have come to believe that he might be entirely right. The Fudds bicker with the AR guys, who bicker with each other over “the best caliber for an AR” and the 1911 guys hate the Glock guys, who think that the wheelgunners are 100 years too late. Everyone still is arguing over whether the 2A means what it says or there should be another interpretation.

Defending the 2A against anti-gunners is hard enough, the war within the ranks is unwinnable unless we simply refuse to fight.

SO.....here is my proposition:

STOP arguing semantics and become an active AMBASSADOR of the shooting community. EVERYTIME you go to the range, invite someone to go with you, preferably someone who has never shot a gun, but if that fails, invite someone else and encourage THEM to invite someone. My goal is to take 12 new shooters to the range this year, I’m a little behind on my 1/month goal, but maybe I can catch up.

STOP arguing and START acting.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

. . . Defending the 2A against anti-gunners is hard enough, the war within the ranks is unwinnable unless we simply refuse to fight.

SO.....here is my proposition:

STOP arguing semantics and become an active AMBASSADOR of the shooting community. EVERYTIME you go to the range, invite someone to go with you, preferably someone who has never shot a gun, but if that fails, invite someone else and encourage THEM to invite someone. My goal is to take 12 new shooters to the range this year, I’m a little behind on my 1/month goal, but maybe I can catch up.

STOP arguing and START acting.

[B]Amen ![/B]

[41bear]

Although I have had MANY other distractions, I decreased my visits to the forum partially because every time I checked in I felt like I was seeing 2A posts that had little real relevance to 2A, and even less to the Grendel.

Many years ago, in an extended conversation with Bill Alexander, he said something that I am beginning to believe was gospel truth. His statement was “The Anti gun people have no reason to fear. The gun community is determined to destroy itself without outside help.” At the time, I found it a bit over wrought, but in the ensuing years I have come to believe that he might be entirely right. The Fudds bicker with the AR guys, who bicker with each other over “the best caliber for an AR” and the 1911 guys hate the Glock guys, who think that the wheelgunners are 100 years too late. Everyone still is arguing over whether the 2A means what it says or there should be another interpretation.

Defending the 2A against anti-gunners is hard enough, the war within the ranks is unwinnable unless we simply refuse to fight.

SO.....here is my proposition:

STOP arguing semantics and become an active AMBASSADOR of the shooting community. EVERYTIME you go to the range, invite someone to go with you, preferably someone who has never shot a gun, but if that fails, invite someone else and encourage THEM to invite someone. My goal is to take 12 new shooters to the range this year, I’m a little behind on my 1/month goal, but maybe I can catch up.

STOP arguing and START acting.

And AMEN again!

[JASmith]

That's a superb idea, Joe. But, instead of just hoping it happens, why don't you start a thread and lead the way?

Stan, you could do the forum a great service by doing just that and post supporting comments to help build a concensus.

[LR1955]

And guys.

Only the leftists demand that others march to their tune. I can not believe anyone here would demand that Stan or anyone else here must think or comment a specific way. That is what the Communists demand. Not what we as conservatives, Libertarians, or anyone else who believes in freedom, are like.

Another thing I can not comprehend is how most folks here think Stan is anti gun because he makes valid points about the 2A. Stan has always been a proponent that you should be able to own any sort of firearm you want. He has said it over and over again and throughout the years, I have not seen him change his opinion.

Also, Stan has not presented a single 2A argument that he has not backed up with solid evidence. All he has said is that it is not an absolute right and he has backed his statements with facts. After that, the arguments degenerate into bickering over words and semantics.

Accusing Stan of being anti gun or anti 2A is blatantly wrong and it ought to cease. I guarantee you that if Stan thinks a specific firearm should be banned from public use, he would be very specific about the type and reasons.

LR55

[cory]

And guys.

Only the leftists demand that others march to their tune. I can not believe anyone here would demand that Stan or anyone else here must think or comment a specific way. That is what the Communists demand. Not what we as conservatives, Libertarians, or anyone else who believes in freedom, are like.

Another thing I can not comprehend is how most folks here think Stan is anti gun because he makes valid points about the 2A. Stan has always been a proponent that you should be able to own any sort of firearm you want. He has said it over and over again and throughout the years, I have not seen him change his opinion.

Also, Stan has not presented a single 2A argument that he has not backed up with solid evidence. All he has said is that it is not an absolute right and he has backed his statements with facts. After that, the arguments degenerate into bickering over words and semantics.

Accusing Stan of being anti gun or anti 2A is blatantly wrong and it ought to cease. I guarantee you that if Stan thinks a specific firearm should be banned from public use, he would be very specific about the type and reasons.

LR55

Since I've been back I haven't seen any of that. I haven't seen any facts cited. And using one word or a short phrase out of context isn't citing.

My only problem with him and others when they do it in this sub forum, is when they are no longer debating in good faith. We're all, well most, are here to learn and expand our intellectual views. When someone begins taking small bits out of context just to make an argument they can win, we all lose. When someone starts trying to win for winnings sake we all lose.

I voted for need because these conversations are needed. Everytime someone calls this country a democracy or they reference "Constitutional Rights" our protection against Government infringement takes a hit.

I don't know if you've been watching the news lately, but there's a very vocal socialist movement on the left that would not hesitate to enact gun confiscation. History demonstrates that a vocal minority can quickly become very dangerous. These types have become very dangerous in South Africa and isn't looking like it'll get better.

Social conglomerates have gone from secretly censoring conservatives to outwardly working in concert to purge a dissenting opinion. Mark my words he will not be the last.

It's important that we talk this issues and work to find a common ground. If someone demonstrates no interest in finding common ground ban them from that sub forum.

Personally I think the more pressing issues is making this a secured site (https) so more people can visit the forum.

[JASmith]

L1955, I view you as one of the good guys.

Nonetheless, your post opens the door for a direct discussion of online behavior and, in particular, forum member responses to Stan's posts.

Yes, Stan does cause some of to think.

Nonetheless, we see a pattern of contrarian posts that give an appearance of being anti (whatever is being discussed). Some new information is usually brought to light in the first few posts of the ensuing debates and arguments. Sadly, Stan's dogged unwillingness to compromise leads to reflected hard positions on other's parts and the added information content rapidly diminishes.

I concur with the view that the debate is needed. But the patterns suggest that we need to see these 2A -- and some technical topics -- get shut down before about 50 posts. Why 50? Personally, I'd rather see it done at 25 before the untoward bickering fully develops. The pattern suggests that 50 is enough to demonstrate that no new information or insight is being developed in almost every case.

So, yes, we need to keep the 2A forum going. Yes we need to encourage pro-active discussion on what we can do individually and collectively to strengthen the Bill of Rights. BUT, we do need to more aggressively shut down threads that become repetitive arguments.

[grayfox]

It is indeed sad and unfortunate to have to come to a conclusion such as this, but if a single person somehow ruins and poisons a portion of this forum to the loss of all other members, I would agree maybe Cory's suggestion is the way to go, first admonish that member (blow the whistle- throw the flag if you will), then ban him or her from that part of the forum. "Locking" that thread only serves to reinforce his belief that he won another one.

Meaningful discussions come from informed and documentable facts and counterfacts... (I too have not seen much of facts from Stan here in 2A, merely plain statements of his belief; now from others such as Montana and Bjorn et al, they offer plenty of fact and history that you can look up if desired) if it's your belief then state it so and don't argue just because someone else doesn't have that same belief -- o, and in addition, that other person is just as entitled to the contrary belief as you are to yours; it does not follow that your belief is simply "right" and the other's is simply "wrong", as some individuals are wont to say.

Minutia and quibbling over jots and tittles usually leads to nowhere. As the Judge in "Matlock" would say, "get to the point!"

[StoneHendge]

As I've said before, if "Room 2A" was actually a room, one individual wouldn't last more than a couple of minutes in it.

Blaming forum members for degenerating threads is like blaming the participants at a Patriot Prayer rally for fighting back when Antifa shows up. Insinuating that the the sub forum might get shut down is like banning Patriot Prayer rallies because Antifa says they are going to show up.

We all know why threads degenerate here. Viewing comments above, I'm certainly not the only who generally avoids this sub forum because every thread gets hijacked. If the rationale for this poll / thread is "play nice with stanc or we'll shut it down", then I could care less since I rarely come here anymore anyways. Might as well rename it Stanc's Room. Which is unfortunate because it could be a very valuable sub forum.

[Sixoeight]

I have avoided the 2A forum while lurking and almost always as a member. I come here for Grendel.

[LR1955]

L1955, I view you as one of the good guys.

Nonetheless, your post opens the door for a direct discussion of online behavior and, in particular, forum member responses to Stan's posts.

Yes, Stan does cause some of to think.

Nonetheless, we see a pattern of contrarian posts that give an appearance of being anti (whatever is being discussed). Some new information is usually brought to light in the first few posts of the ensuing debates and arguments. Sadly, Stan's dogged unwillingness to compromise leads to reflected hard positions on other's parts and the added information content rapidly diminishes.

I concur with the view that the debate is needed. But the patterns suggest that we need to see these 2A -- and some technical topics -- get shut down before about 50 posts. Why 50? Personally, I'd rather see it done at 25 before the untoward bickering fully develops. The pattern suggests that 50 is enough to demonstrate that no new information or insight is being developed in almost every case.

So, yes, we need to keep the 2A forum going. Yes we need to encourage pro-active discussion on what we can do individually and collectively to strengthen the Bill of Rights. BUT, we do need to more aggressively shut down threads that become repetitive arguments.

JAS:

We agree mostly.

I will continue to shut down threads that turn into inane bickering or stupid accusations.

One thing anyone can learn from this experience with the 2A thread is that it truly does represent freedom and that freedom is only possible with conflicting views and the ability to express them without fear of retribution. It ain't 'free'.

I will defend anyone who has a decent argument to make, even if I don't agree. I will not defend someone who makes a accusation, is insulting to someone, or disagrees without backing up their statement. Fair game to me. If someone has the gumption to post a disagreement over something, they can take the time to say why.

I am not going to shut down a 2A thread because of a quota. I view that as an act of censorship and I don't go for it one bit. If John wants such control over the 2A Forum he can set something up that will lock the thread at a certain number of posts, I am sure.

I have no solution. I refuse to ban or censor anyone with a differing opinion -- unless they become abusive or use profane and vulgar language. I guess both sides better deal with it, just like Americans have dealt with it for a couple hundred years.

LR55

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

. . . I don't know if you've been watching the news lately, but there's a very vocal socialist movement on the left that would not hesitate to enact gun confiscation. . . .

Case in point:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/08/ca...ra-t-shirt

[bj139]

I have thought for a while that Stan was training us in arguing tactics of the left.
I fully support Stan in this endeavour. It does not really matter whether he believes what he is saying or not.
This is what debating is about, point/ counterpoint.
When everyone has freedom of speech you will hear many things you do not like. That is the cost of freedom.

[cory]

I have thought for a while that Stan was training us in arguing tactics of the left.
I fully support Stan in this endeavour. It does not really matter whether he believes what he is saying or not.
This is what debating is about, point/ counterpoint.
When everyone has freedom of speech you will hear many things you do not like. That is the cost of freedom.

Fair point and I thoroughly appreciate someone sharpening my argument on the idea and intent not the trivial potato or potahto arguments.

[StoneHendge]

I have thought for a while that Stan was training us in arguing tactics of the left.
I fully support Stan in this endeavour. It does not really matter whether he believes what he is saying or not.

Yes, but there is no need to hijack every thread. Which is what he does. And it gets in the way of everyone interacting and debating with everyone else. And therefore sends away a lot of people who would otherwise participate. Including myself.