News Shutting Current Events / Politics section down Oct - Dec

[CalgunsMothershipAwayTeam]

A vote here for shutting it down.
I think it's nice to have a forum where one can come and read posts specific to a certain interest, without arguments about politics, and all the current negativity of society bleeding in. We're constantly bombarded with political vitriol by all sorts of media. A refuge of sorts isn't a bad thing.
Also, these sections inevitably start degenerating into places for folks who just want to argue, have an outlet for their anger, push their extreme beliefs, etc.

 

[compulsivegungrabber]

I go on another site with no politics allowed, Home Shop Machinist. Super helpful bunch and were instrumental in getting my first lathe repaired and up and running.

For the most part, the anonymous nature of the internet will not bring people closer to working together or understanding each other. It is a socially crippling vacuum that lacks the tempering of having to come to the table face to face as it were. Yes, malignant personalities that lack restraint and civility are just as bad face-to-face, but people with a reasonable capacity for critical thinking can come to a better understanding of each other.

Is you have better things to do other than police the the virtual playground, then by all means, shut it down.

 

[ikeo1]

Is you have better things to do other than police the the virtual playground, then by all means, shut it down.

I’m glad to hear this kind of thing.

I’m trying to support local CA sport shooters as they rise through the ranks in the hopes that we can turn the mindset behind shooting. With everything going against us , we can still develop kickass shooters

Duncan will be repping CAguns at the PCSL West Coast Championship. We’re trying to add more diversity to our line up so we can cover shotgun and rifle

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

And another one of our guys was at world shoot..

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Not to mention all the backend work and other things we have going on. I’m planning and working to make 2026 a strong year for us.

 

[mblat1968]

I would like to keep it but as low priority. If it interferes with ability to improve in areas that are main reason for this site to exist - kill it

 

[vplaza96]

2A and Politics are going to be deeply intwined for most people. And for some people, politics have defined who they are, which makes it nearly impossible for them to have meaningful discussions without it inevitably devolving into the type of 'us vs them' shouting matches.

So yes, my vote is to remove it from here and let people who want to argue about politics take it to places that were meant for it.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Politics has replaced religion for many people. They are also true believers, not to be questioned.

 

[tacticalb]

Your call boss. In all honesty id rather have more about the 2a, build discussions, information, law that ties around firearms all around, etc that keeps people informed. People have fox news, rumble, etc to get the political information

 

[21SF 2.0]

I’m down, gives the few liberal gun owners (oxymoron?) less of an outlet

 

[PlinkyDinky]

I’m down, gives the few liberal gun owners (oxymoron?) less of an outlet

Yes, heaven forbid you hear about ideals other than your own.

 

[treelogger]

2A and Politics are going to be deeply intwined for most people.

And this, as I said above, is going to be the problem.

Example: Our CA state government proposes a new law that does something absurd to gun control (they do that about 10 times per year it seems). Like all barrels need to be rainbow colored, and all striker fired guns need to have "if I had a hammer" engraved on them. Here are the replies that all will need to be moderated away:

• It's all the most evil Gavin Goodhair's fault, and he's banging underage girls and feeding them wine at the French Laundry.
• No, Gavin is all our lord and savior and will fix gerrymandering for good.
• It's all Reagan's fault, he disarmed the black panthers, which started the avalanche.
• No, black people are icky and should not have civil rights.
• If only parasitic temporary gun owners (a.k.a. democrats who own guns) all died or moved to Canada, we'd be fine.
• I'm willing to help with making democrats be unalive.
• No, republicans have no chance getting elected in California, because they have this unhealthy fixation on women's bosoms and reproductive organs (that's a funny quote from "mad mad mad mad world", look up Terry Thomas).
• You suck.
• And you suck with two straws.
• But you suck mud.

If only we were able to discuss gun control politics without immediately getting into insults, blame games, and invectives, we could discuss how to improve our political situation, and how to work better within the politics that are hard to change. But for many gun people, that's not what they want. Just look above in this thread, and I find these kinds of insults already, such as "liberal gun owners (oxymoron?) less of an outlet". With members such as these, running a gun forum is just hard, and the owners / administrators / moderators need to accept that.

Other topics are inherently much less political. For example home shop machining: there is very little government regulation of it, and therefore few ties to politics. But just go to another hobby of mine, which is professional-grade tree working machines (such as chippers, bucket trucks, chainsaws), and you'll the continuous drone of complaints about CARB, because CARB is trying to regulate things like diesel and two-stroke engines out of existence, and without those engines, it's hard to cut trees and grind them up. So again, those forums are chock full of insults and fights.

 

[ikeo1]

With members such as these, running a gun forum is just hard, and the owners / administrators / moderators need to accept that.

I’ve known that for awhile. I try different things but they haven’t worked. When there’s a problem, I choose to look and try different things. I have some potential outcomes. This is why choosing to focus on the site itself.

I kinda refuse to give up on people. I’ll keep trying as a moderator to moderate but when time allows. If no one tries, you get no where. I can see some folks who are more moderate so there has been a positive effect IMO, but it takes a lot to get there.

For now we’ll focus on 2A.

I appreciate all the comments. I’ve read them all!

 

[cali_jazz]

I’m down, gives the few liberal gun owners (oxymoron?) less of an outlet

THIS is why we can't have nice things. Nothing like gun owners
showing hostility towards other gun-owners to help grow the pro-2A movement.

You're either part of the solution or part of the problem brother.

 

[Hit Factor]

THIS is why we can't have nice things. Nothing like gun owners
showing hostility towards other gun-owners to help grow the pro-2A movement.

You're either part of the solution or part of the problem brother.

Save the shaming and the virtue signaling. Liberal gun owners who vote for liberal politicians create the very problem that exists in this state in regard to the destruction of gun rights for everyone, regardless of political persuasion. Regardless of where you stand on any other issues, if you vote for Democrats today, you are voting for gun control and the unconstitutional infringement of gun rights. Unless Democrats who own guns can somehow convince their own party to stop the never-ending assault on our rights, there is nothing “pro-2A” about supporting the Democrat party.

In today’s world, saying that a Democrat who owns a gun makes them part of the “pro-2A movement” is like saying an axe with a wooden handle makes it a tree.



To quote yourself, “You're either part of the solution or part of the problem, brother.”

 

[socalgunowner909]

Save the shaming and the virtue signaling. Liberal gun owners who vote for liberal politicians create the very problem that exists in this state in regard to the destruction of gun rights for everyone, regardless of political persuasion. Regardless of where you stand on any other issues, if you vote for Democrats today, you are voting for gun control and the unconstitutional infringement of gun rights. Unless Democrats who own guns can somehow convince their own party to stop the never-ending assault on our rights, there is nothing “pro-2A” about supporting the Democrat party.

In today’s world, saying that a Democrat who owns a gun makes them part of the “pro-2A movement” is like saying an axe with a wooden handle makes it a tree.

View attachment 99443

To quote yourself, “You're either part of the solution or part of the problem, brother.”

EXACTLY! Well said.

I was thinking the exact thing just maybe not as nicely as you put it.

 

[ikeo1]

Save the shaming and the virtue signaling. Liberal gun owners who vote for liberal politicians create the very problem that exists in this state in regard to the destruction of gun rights for everyone, regardless of political persuasion. Regardless of where you stand on any other issues, if you vote for Democrats today, you are voting for gun control and the unconstitutional infringement of gun rights. Unless Democrats who own guns can somehow convince their own party to stop the never-ending assault on our rights, there is nothing “pro-2A” about supporting the Democrat party.

In today’s world, saying that a Democrat who owns a gun makes them part of the “pro-2A movement” is like saying an axe with a wooden handle makes it a tree.

View attachment 99443

To quote yourself, “You're either part of the solution or part of the problem, brother.”

This would presume that Republicans are working in your favor. As I’ve pointed out several times that many people seem to ignore. They still attack 2A but limit the scope to appeal to their base. A ban on 2A is a ban on 2A but so many people support a ban when it’s a marginal group. You also have POTUS on record saying to take guns first without due process and I think it’s evidently clear they will do things without due process and test the limits of what’s legal and bring it to the courts.

One party wants to ban American citizens from 2A. The other puts roadblocks. So the question if you make things black and white like that is:

Do you support the party that’s looking to ban US citizens from 2A altogether? Because one party is trying to ban the other wants restrictions…

You put keep putting a things on my group is better than them. It’s really not. Zoom out we’re the same group because we’re all here. Zoom out some more we’re all Americans. Zoom out some more.. etc etc tribalism is a marketing strategy.

The group label that you keep repeating “liberal gun owners” “s” is algorithmic programming continuously fed to you by your social and video viewing preferences. Search personal algorithm training so you can see, you are what you consume…

The only reason I’m closing it down is because people are no longer open minded. It’s a repetition of the same thing just like you’ve used this same image before. You’re convinced you have an enemy when they are not. It’s just a difference in opinions, which we should be able to have, respectfully.

 

[Jimi Jah]

^This^ is why I'm independent. Both parties are guilty of legislating away our gun rights here.

The democrats say they support the 2nd amendment and then do everything they can to remove it.

Republicans say they support the 2nd amendment yet do little to support it (at least here in Cubafornia).

The courts are afraid of it as well. That's why the SC won't define previous rulings and ignore so many gun cases.

 

[socalgunowner909]

This would presume that Republicans are working in your favor. As I’ve pointed out several times that many people seem to ignore. They still attack 2A but limit the scope to appeal to their base. A ban on 2A is a ban on 2A but so many people support a ban when it’s a marginal group. You also have POTUS on record saying to take guns first without due process and I think it’s evidently clear they will do things without due process and test the limits of what’s legal and bring it to the courts.

One party wants to ban American citizens from 2A. The other puts roadblocks. So the question if you make things black and white like that is:

Do you support the party that’s looking to ban US citizens from 2A altogether? Because one party is trying to ban the other wants restrictions…

You put keep putting a things on my group is better than them. It’s really not. Zoom out we’re the same group because we’re all here. Zoom out some more we’re all Americans. Zoom out some more.. etc etc tribalism is a marketing strategy.

The group label that you keep repeating “liberal gun owners” “s” is algorithmic programming continuously fed to you by your social and video viewing preferences. Search personal algorithm training so you can see, you are what you consume…

The only reason I’m closing it down is because people are no longer open minded. It’s a repetition of the same thing just like you’ve used this same image before. You’re convinced you have an enemy when they are not. It’s just a difference in opinions, which we should be able to have, respectfully.

I know Ikeo will get mad because I used AI but here are the facts of the matter..... And you sir always repeat your talking points also. (Like the POTUS wants to take our guns lol)

Trump’s “take the guns first” comment:
Yes, Trump said that in a meeting in 2018, but it never became policy. No such law was enacted during his administration. In fact, the most significant federal action under Trump was the DOJ’s ban on bump stocks, which is being challenged in the courts. Contrast that with the Biden administration, which has pushed multiple federal rules (pistol brace reclassification, “ghost gun” kit regulation) and openly supports an assault weapons ban.

Republican vs. Democrat platforms:
The official Democratic Party platform (2020) calls for:

Banning “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines.”

Universal background checks.

Holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed with firearms.

The official Republican Party platform (2016, reaffirmed in 2020) explicitly states opposition to new gun restrictions and support for constitutional carry and national reciprocity.

Judicial appointments:
Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett), creating the current majority that decided Bruen v. NYSRPA (2022) — a landmark pro-2A ruling that struck down “may issue” carry laws. Without those appointments, that case likely would have gone the other way.

Legislative records:

Under Democratic governors and legislatures (e.g., California, New York, Illinois), we’ve seen repeated bans, magazine limits, and expanding “sensitive places” where carry is prohibited.

Republican-controlled states have largely moved in the opposite direction, passing permitless/constitutional carry (over 25 states as of 2023).

So while it’s true no party is flawless on gun rights, the record shows that Democrats consistently push broad restrictions and bans, while Republicans—despite occasional missteps—have expanded gun rights at the state level and secured long-term judicial wins at the federal level.

 

[ikeo1]

Trump’s “take the guns first” comment:
Yes, Trump said that in a meeting in 2018, but it never became policy.

It didn’t because of the outage in the first term, but look at the acceptance here to ban it for a minority group in CA.

As I’ve said, one does restrictions the other is calling for an outright ban.

Address that with your own words.

You point to the SC appointments but don’t appoint to the lack of addressing the 2A issue that @Jimi Jah whos honest with his assessments. He can acknowledge that the SC has the power to overturn ANY of the restrictions in place but they don’t.

I repeat the point for people to study how they consume information so they can see how they are fed information. Many people don’t know or realize you train your algorithm.

Otherwise, what points am I repeating that isnt worth it?

Treat others respectfully.
We’re all 2A advocates here
We’re all Americans
Be more open minded
Pay attention to your algorithm training
Get some digital assets
Take some classes - we bring literally the best here

The main difference is as a mod we try to set the culture here where you treat each other well. At work, mall, military or any other social setting. Political leanings shouldn’t interfere with being social.

I’d like to know what officers think of ghost guns. From my right leaning LEO friends they say it’s the number 1 problem they have in their area in CA. They approve of the restriction for ghost guns in particular

 

[GoldensRule]

Shutting it down will certainly pander to the people on the right because their side is currently in charge and whenever their confirmation bias is challenged, they lose it.

In reality, just shutting down this section is not going to eliminate political discussion. You are still going to have political comments being made in threads and as long as they are right wing, you will (based on observation) probably allow those to slide. The comments opposed to authoritarianism will likely be deleted.

When the roles are reversed and when the left is in charge again, the right wingers and the "neutrals" will desperately want to discuss and attack how horrible things are and more than likely, they will be pandered to again.

The CE / Pol sections would probably be more manageable if none of the mods / owners participated but simply policed the forum without interjecting comments but instead conducted the policing by sending DMs to participants who actually violate established rules. This means you would actually have to establish and publish rules at least rules that adhere to your sensitivities, e.g. no strident comments, etc. Seriously, just how many referees play in the game they are actually officiating? Hint, the answer is "None".

If you really want to "shut this down" you should consider making a rule that completely forbids all derogatory political remarks, period. Anyone calling names like Newscum or ler or lefties or s (among dozens of other kinds of comments) is simply going to ignite the fuel, once again.

You cannot expect to run a site devoted to firearms, in California, and not create a highly charged political environment unless you establish firm, not wishy-washy rules and stick to them. You seem to think you can be all things to all people and run this like a kindergarten where everyone keeps their mouths shut for the sake of peace and harmony. You can't possibly do that without a huge investment in time and you've made it clear, you want to grow your web business, not manage the people who frequent it.

PS. You should also implement strict rules against direct and indirect personal attacks and abusive comments to and about other users. All these rules should apply to users, mods and owners alike.

 

[ikeo1]

you want to grow your web business, not manage the people who frequent it.

How do you think businesses grow? You have to listen to the people who use it. I’ve been in business long enough to know the best business solve a problem for their audience.

In this case it happens to be my interest Action Shooting, and my expertise scalability and security. I expanded quite a bit listening to the audience for a number of things but you in particular like to antagonize people and then come out the other guys who I've had to ban. If you were here from the beginning you’d know we didn’t have a political section. I’m completely content with a niche 2A site that caters to enthusiasts.

You’re right I’m not super strict, I’m not from the military. I come from tech, where we try things and see how it works or if it breaks and make adjustments.

I’ve adapted and let things grow because I think you can see big tech puts a lot of restrictions and CGN isn’t what it used to be. We have our little spot. I don’t need a lot, I’m just doing what I do which I try to do the best I can and learn along the way.

You want a place to fight, look what you’re asking for. That’s not what my goal. You also don’t know my background or the types of community service I’ve done my entire life. So I understand why you’d think it’s a purely business thing. Keep in mind, I work in tech, this site makes very little money in comparison. It’s a hobby that pays for itself and some barely profitable. If you paid attention, you’d see I’m taking it down for the holidays to focus on sponsoring athletes, events, and build out the site.

I also think it would be a dream job if it were to build the 2A awareness and support a lot of people along the way.

You seem focused on other things then trying to come at me for slowing you down. This is why there’s a poll and commentary. I think you should read the comments.