Feedback Should we limit political posts

[Ryan Gosling]

As if firearms and politics are separate issues. They are not. Also, just what do you think the 2nd amendment is all about if not to counter tyranny? If this is a 2A space, if this is a bash democrats space then it would be unAmerican to restrict political discussion just because it "bothers" you.

Also, from what I can tell, Calguns disintegrated not because of political discussions but because the owner and operator of the site allowed it to decompose from a technical perspective.

Let's be honest with ourselves if not with each other and admit that the truth and facts of what is happening to this country are too uncomfortable for some people and they nearly strangle themselves whilst clutching their pearls when their firmly held beliefs and hatreds are deconstructed by facts or put on display for all to see.

This is, word for word, the consensus we had last year when it was initially discussed lol. time is cyclical

 

[USMC06RET]

My other passion is muscle cars. Should I be allowed to post about those here?

That's just silly. This is a firearms/second amendment forum and should be limited to that.

This is a completely specious argument. There are a maximal number of intersects between firearms (2A) and current events / politics. You cannot say the same about muscle cars.

And to answer your question, I have seen people posting motorcycles for sale in these classified and the posts about dogs have been wildly popular in "General Discussion"

 

[Wolkenflieger]

I think I disagree with most of USMC06RET’s posts the vast majority of the time but here… I think I find myself in agreement with the intent of this response.

In an increasingly litigious and bureaucratic society, the 2nd Amendment is rarely (if ever) apolitical. That is to say “you cannot discuss it without involving politics”. The challenge in maintaining “civility” amongst forum users (and society) is that the faces, names and labels we organize ourselves around have (by design) injected themselves so deeply into the conversation that the mere mention of any becomes a red herring for the topic, distracting all in the audience from the important points of topic at hand.

If you want to have an engaged community, you can’t ban any speech, except that which is, by definition of US law, considered illegal.

I don't think the concern is free speech so much as a very divisive mechanism that undermines much of what the forum is meant to foster, not the least of which is the classified section. Then, there's the sheer cost of it all for the site owners. Someone's gotta pay for all that bandwidth. Is it worth it? I don't think so.

There's Reddit, but Reddit banned me permanently for agreeing that men should be allowed to compete in women's sports. I know, I'm a monster. Yet, that's where that debate got me....permabanned (account, not one sub).

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Politics will destroy a gun forum through slow rot. Those who argue/name call on the political section will continue to argue name call each other outside of the political space on the regular gun topics.

This e doesn’t stay in just the political posts. Never does, Calguns was a prime example of this. Post that happened in the OT section bleed out into regular posts because people couldn’t let e go.

arfcom, or ar15.com laughs.

In fact, I would think Brownells would be laughing with them at people who try and assert politics and gun forum don't mix.

 

[Makoman]

Politics as they relate to 2A updates only. Anything else quickly leads to a -show of vitriol and bashing. I get enough of that every day from mainstream media. Don't need it when I'm trying to enjoy my hobbies, and share with others who enjoy the same hobbies as me.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

I don't think the concern is free speech so much as a very divisive mechanism that undermines much of what the forum is meant to foster, not the least of which is the classified section. Then, there's the sheer cost of it all for the site owners. Someone's gotta pay for all that bandwidth. Is it worth it? I don't think so.

There's Reddit, but Reddit banned me permanently for agreeing that men should be allowed to compete in women's sports. I know, I'm a monster. Yet, that's where that debate got me....permabanned (account, not one sub).

Reddit banned me permanently for similar reasons, but I was the ever so lucky 1 in a million users who appealed it and was overturned within 12 hours. (Maybe its cus I am also within 1 million reddit users grabbing the consecutive days achievement lol. Im almost at 400 days, only 665k users have 400 out of supposedly 1.1 billion active users.)

I'm banned from r/caguns for defending myself from a perverted user who can use every profanity in the dictionary and not catch a ban, but me, perma ban for 1 or 2 words. (Thinking the people who had out to get me banned on calguns are the mods of r/caguns lol, maybe the extreme liberal 2A lawyer Cal.Bar for one.)

 

[NeilDown]

Sites to discuss politics are dime a dozen.
There are only very few for geniune 2A discussions and I'd rather not risk this site that has been a much needed place to replace Calguns.

I vote to keep it 2A related.
However, I've gotten really good at ignoring politics, so doesn't bother me as much.

 

[SilverEndless]

I don't think the concern is free speech so much as a very divisive mechanism that undermines much of what the forum is meant to foster, not the least of which is the classified section. Then, there's the sheer cost of it all for the site owners. Someone's gotta pay for all that bandwidth. Is it worth it? I don't think so.

There's Reddit, but Reddit banned me permanently for agreeing that men should be allowed to compete in women's sports. I know, I'm a monster. Yet, that's where that debate got me....permabanned (account, not one sub).

Thats fair. I have to laugh at myself as my own post demonstrates the difficulty of staying on topic. Appreciate the gentle redirect.

In that case, I would agree. Until the law of unintended consequences comes to bite me in the arse, I’d say… If it’s not directly related to 2A and 2A topics, the topic should either find a different location for its spiral OR at the very least should not find its way to the front page of the forum.

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

As if firearms and politics are separate issues. They are not. Also, just what do you think the 2nd amendment is all about if not to counter tyranny? If this is a 2A space, if this is a bash democrats space then it would be unAmerican to restrict political discussion just because it "bothers" you.

Also, from what I can tell, Calguns disintegrated not because of political discussions but because the owner and operator of the site allowed it to decompose from a technical perspective.

Let's be honest with ourselves if not with each other and admit that the truth and facts of what is happening to this country are too uncomfortable for some people and they nearly strangle themselves whilst clutching their pearls when their firmly held beliefs and hatreds are deconstructed by facts or put on display for all to see.

They are in this context. I’m just here for gun discussions, buy/sell, and current California gun laws and challenges to said laws.

 

[SoCal326]

Just changed my vote.. I always want free speech but hot damn its nothing but agitators pushing anti trump here when 99% of us should be in trumps camp (regardless of all the stupid stuff he says)

Just BAN it all please

So you dont always want free speech....

Let the conversations happen but make it opt in so folks don't have to see it.

 

[sklepych]

Though political debates can be amusing in their own right, I’ve found—time and again—that some people simply cannot cope with facts or reality. Instead, they either spiral into personal attacks or perform mental gymnastics so elaborate they might well qualify for Olympic distinction. I once found such matters worth my concern, alas, I no longer do. These days, I simply avoid both the conversations—and the company.

I generally don’t mind in theory, but more often than not, it ends up turning into a flood of pointless arguments and low-effort jabs.

PS: You are, of course, at liberty to speak your mind — though one would do well to recall that the vigilant gaze of institutional oversight seldom wavers. It is hardly conceivable that Palantir amassed its vast array of government contracts by coincidence alone — or at least, that is what I am inclined to believe.

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

As if firearms and politics are separate issues. They are not. Also, just what do you think the 2nd amendment is all about if not to counter tyranny? If this is a 2A space, if this is a bash democrats space then it would be unAmerican to restrict political discussion just because it "bothers" you.

Also, from what I can tell, Calguns disintegrated not because of political discussions but because the owner and operator of the site allowed it to decompose from a technical perspective.

Let's be honest with ourselves if not with each other and admit that the truth and facts of what is happening to this country are too uncomfortable for some people and they nearly strangle themselves whilst clutching their pearls when their firmly held beliefs and hatreds are deconstructed by facts or put on display for all to see.

Are you really going to tell me every piece of anti Trump posts you have made are in your selfless pursuit of 2nd Amendment rights.

I think it’s fair to say that by now everyone here knows you hate Trump and what he does, or what you think he stands for.

I myself am not a Trump lover, you and I have spoken about that in PMs before. Trump is not, and has not ever been a Republican in my eyes. Most here would never know that because I do not make 4 out 5 of my threads about Trump. In fact, except for just now I do not bring him up because I know it is just a decisive subject and I would rather talk here with people about guns in general and California specific gun laws.

I think all the political topics about Gov and America in general are left for actual political websites. That is my only point here.

Gun site, talk about guns and how state laws effect us.

 

[H. Bowman]

 

[CalgunsMothershipAwayTeam]

There are posts in this thread that illustrate the issues of a political forum.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Debating politics online is like telling your fat girlfriend she's fat. You might be right, but she's just going to get defensive and think you are an . No one has ever been swayed by your confrontational banter, if anything social media has made society worse.

 

[jhsd20]

I understand not wanting to "censor" anything and there are ignore features... but I just don't want this site to end up a congregating place for people with too much time on their hands who are utterly convinced that winning an argument on the internet against a mostly anonymous opponent is going to save our 2a / democracy /constitutional republic.

If political talk is banned maybe those users can actually be useful on legitimately political website and use this one to talk about guns.

 

[Seeed]

Keep it in topics designed for it, keep it out of threads otherwise. The new tools that hide it from me has worked great for me. Don't care about it, don't see it. Just leave the bull out of the 2A topics.

Any anyone claiming free speech blah blah blah don't really understand what it means and its own limitations of it.

 

[BobGBA]

I don't like seeing argumentative posts

More importantly (to me anyway), I don't like banning things just because I don't like them.

That's why I suggested walling them off and requiring an opt-in.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

I don't like seeing argumentative posts

More importantly (to me anyway), I don't like banning things just because I don't like them.

That's why I suggested walling them off and requiring an opt-in.

But you see, that's not the full list of reasons. There are lots of things I don't like for myself that I support for others; marriage, having kids, religion, eating durian, shiatsu massage at 5a, and spending time in large crowds.

The trouble here is not just that someone doesn't like certain speech, it's that these arguments have a cost to this forum and its members.

They cost money for bandwidth, money better spent on keeping up the site in more productive ways. People can argue on Reddit all day long if they choose, but that doesn't need to be here. Quora is another good place to argue, but their mods are censor-happy.

It's speech that we don't like that we must protect in the U.S., but this forum is not a Free-Speech zone. It's a forum paid-for and hosted by a small group of people who have skin (and money) in the game, and this forum is more like their home. It's not incumbent upon them to host political (or other) squabbles which can devolve into full-on rages.

Classifieds and general camaraderie; do we really want to have ongoing arguments (and there will be arguments) that sow division? I don't think it's good for the forum. You may be ultra stoic (as am I) but not everyone else is. I'm an artist, and I cannot tell you how many times other artists freaked out when correcting or commenting on something that was objectively and demonstrably wrong. Not everyone handles disagreement well.

Really, this question about hosting political debates (and arguments) is about cost/benefit as it affects the forum and users as a whole. Some of us don't want politics (especially divisive politics) mixed in with gun discussion. Sure, laws affecting gun ownership I suppose are fair game, and it's easier to be stoic when discussing these topics from an evidence-based perspective only.

 

[Robdog1]

Why bother to have forums at all then? Riddle me that. And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of the California politics too, because they go hand in hand. If you ban one, then you have to ban the other, it’s only fair. I’ve ignored my share of people here, and I’m sure they’ve ignored me, but that shouldn’t mean we do away with discussions just because you don’t like the direction they go or because someone likes someone you don’t.