Guns and politics are inextricable. So what now?

[PetrifiedWood]

As a gun owner, I empathize with other gun owners who are rightfully outraged by the constant attacks on our right to own weapons for personal protection, as a check against tyranny, and for the simple fun of sport shooting and hunting.

When the forum was founded, we were in a different political environment. Since then several high profile shootings have occurred and our rights are under attack now, more so than they have been at any time since the 1994 "assault weapon" ban.

It is understandable that gun owning forum members might wish to discuss the incessant attacks on our rights with other members. It is, after all, a discussion forum, and this is, after all, the firearms and projectile weapons sub-forum.

I want everyone reading this to stop for a moment and think about whether or not they would wish to discuss a proposed knife ban law on this Blades and Bushlore forum, and whether or not it would be relevant and appropriate to do so.

I think it would be perfectly appropriate for our members to discuss, openly, a political attack on something as integral to their outdoor experience as knives. And like it or not, guns are just as integral to the outdoor experience for many people in America and around the world.

Those who would seek to ban guns or make it more difficult for normal people to obtain and possess them are responsible for creating a situation where you cannot hope to discuss guns and gun ownership without politics entering into it.

The B&B forum does strive to keep an orderly and friendly environment for discussion. Our rule against political discussion is not intended to be used as a weapon against every thread about attempts to ban firearms ownership relegated to the private discussion forum. It is intended to avoid topics like who to vote for, why this or that candidate is bad, who should marry who, what flags should or shouldn't be banned, etc. because those topics have nothing to do with knives and the outdoors.

Guns on the other hand, are weapons or tools depending on how they are used, and knives are similarly situated. What affects gun ownership today, could and often does affect knife ownership tomorrow. Ask the British about their gun laws and knife laws over the last century.

So, with all that said I would like some suggestions from our members on how we are supposed to discuss these attacks on gun ownership without offending anyone.

I believe the following are true statements:

1) Gun ownership and gun politics are inextricable and you can't discuss one without the other.

2) Guns (and their cousins, knives) are an integral part of the outdoor experience for many of our members, and discussing attempts to restrict guns and/or knives are perfectly appropriate topics for an outdoor oriented forum.

3) Whenever we discuss attempts to ban guns, someone will inevitably point to our forum rule against political discussions, creating a conundrum where we must either censor the thread, or appear to be unfairly applying the rules.

4) Something must be done to allow discussion of guns and propositions that can affect them in the firearms sub-forum without running into the inevitable invocation of the "can't discuss politics" rule. That rule is there for good reason, but it is to prevent people from discussing war, abortion, gay marriage, welfare, health care, wealth redistribution, the confederate flag, racism, sexism, rioting, and all manner of things that have nothing to do with the outdoors. Similarly, I don't think a discussion about proposals to close federal lands to certain types of outdoor recreation would be out of place here either.

So it seems we have a bit of a choice to make. We can be the kind of place that stifles discussion and embraces censorship in the name of avoiding politics (which on this particular topic would be an unfair political advantage for those who favor gun control). Or we could act like grown-ups and understand that we can't discuss guns without discussing the seemingly incessant barrage of attempts to regulate them out of existence, and then exercise a little self control and stay out of gun threads if we are offended by gun owners expressing their dissatisfaction with politicians trying to ban them, or cheering when things go their way.

The choice is yours, B&B. Which will it be? Censorship, or self control?

[MnSportsman]

Self Control would be the vote I cast.

[crashdive123]

I would like to see those discussions take place.  Facts are facts, so naming the individuals or even the groups/political parties that are involved are germane to the discussion IMO.

What should be avoided is the adjectives and pejoratives that tend to cause food fights from opposing views.  Making fun of or belittling another's beliefs or opinions has no place IMO.

[Wilderbeast]

So it seems we have a bit of a choice to make. We can be the kind of place that stifles discussion and embraces censorship in the name of avoiding politics (which on this particular topic would be an unfair political advantage for those who favor gun control). Or we could act like grown-ups and understand that we can't discuss guns without discussing the seemingly incessant barrage of attempts to regulate them out of existence, and then exercise a little self control and stay out of gun threads if we are offended by gun owners expressing their dissatisfaction with politicians trying to ban them, or cheering when things go their way.

The choice is yours, B&B. Which will it be? Censorship, or self control?

Why does not discussing a political topic give advantage to one side or the other?

Answer: it doesn't.

You want a frank opinion Ron, you got it.

Keep the goddam politics off this forum or you will lose members, supporters, probably vendors and run it into the ground. 

If you want a soapbox for your personal political views, go for it, but don't expect support and do recognize that you will be hammering the nails in the coffin yourself.

[PetrifiedWood]

So it seems we have a bit of a choice to make. We can be the kind of place that stifles discussion and embraces censorship in the name of avoiding politics (which on this particular topic would be an unfair political advantage for those who favor gun control). Or we could act like grown-ups and understand that we can't discuss guns without discussing the seemingly incessant barrage of attempts to regulate them out of existence, and then exercise a little self control and stay out of gun threads if we are offended by gun owners expressing their dissatisfaction with politicians trying to ban them, or cheering when things go their way.

The choice is yours, B&B. Which will it be? Censorship, or self control?

Why does not discussing a political topic give advantage to one side or the other?

Answer: it doesn't.

You want a frank opinion Ron, you got it.

Keep the goddam politics off this forum or you will lose members, supporters, probably vendors and run it into the ground. 

If you want a soapbox for your personal political views, go for it, but don't expect support and do recognize that you will be hammering the nails in the coffin yourself.

You might remember that I chose to voluntarily refrain from discussions in the "Private Discussion" forum.

Would you have me censor every thread in the gun section whenever talk turns to gun control? Could that be done without also losing members and supporters?

I do not want to be forced to pick a side.

[Wilderbeast]

So it seems we have a bit of a choice to make. We can be the kind of place that stifles discussion and embraces censorship in the name of avoiding politics (which on this particular topic would be an unfair political advantage for those who favor gun control). Or we could act like grown-ups and understand that we can't discuss guns without discussing the seemingly incessant barrage of attempts to regulate them out of existence, and then exercise a little self control and stay out of gun threads if we are offended by gun owners expressing their dissatisfaction with politicians trying to ban them, or cheering when things go their way.

The choice is yours, B&B. Which will it be? Censorship, or self control?

Why does not discussing a political topic give advantage to one side or the other?

Answer: it doesn't.

You want a frank opinion Ron, you got it.

Keep the goddam politics off this forum or you will lose members, supporters, probably vendors and run it into the ground. 

If you want a soapbox for your personal political views, go for it, but don't expect support and do recognize that you will be hammering the nails in the coffin yourself.

You might remember that I chose to voluntarily refrain from discussions in the "Private Discussion" forum.

Would you have me censor every thread in the gun section whenever talk turns to gun control? Could that be done without also losing members and supporters?

I do not want to be forced to pick a side.

You created the political cesspool so people who just couldn't help themselves had an echo chamber to confirm their opinions.

It had a pronounced conservative slant, and those of us who didn't hold to that viewpoint opted out and are able to refrain from political discussion in the open forum.

And it keeps spilling out of that cesspool into the main forum, and you have been permitting it because it aligns with your personal viewpoint.

You already made the correct decision when you made this a politics free site.

It isn't a choice between censorship and free speech, its a choice between keeping politics away from here or letting the sh1t plug this place up.

If we have a couple of people who just can't control themselves, freaking ban them already before they bring this place crashing down.

Your choice is clear, enforce the rules regarding politics that most of us can abide by or you make a mockery of the rules and send what you have built into the sh1tter.

[Quenchcrack]

PW, you are not the first forum owner/admin to face this problem. I belong to a Classic Camp Stove site out of the UK and for a while, there was a small group that were ultra-liberal, anti-Christian, anti-gun, anti-US, ad naseum. The site struggled and the owner tried imposing member bans (temporary), censorship, aggressive Moderators and finally the conflicts abated. Seems some of the instigators just went away. Maybe they were banned for life, I don't know.  I did notice some of the very well respected members stood up and confronted those responsible in public. It seems that those who truely wanted the site to prosper were responsible, in part, for cleaning it up. You cannot legislate ethical or moral behavior.  Let the adults here take responsibility for keeping the peace. You can reserve final judgement for yourself. Banning all open discussion that may shade into politics will leave you with only one member who is satisfied. BTW, the stove site is prospering.

[PetrifiedWood]

Mike, I assure you this forum is important to me.

I am looking for a realistic solution that allows members to discuss the topics that are important to them. Whatever form that solution takes, it isn't likely to be as easy as "ban a few members".

Guns are not a dirty word, and they are most certainly not material for a "cesspool". We cannot reasonably have a firearms forum here if every time the topic turns to gun control we have to move it to the private discussion forum. That just isn't practical or realistic. So we need to decide if a firearms forum is something we all want even if that means we might *gasp* see some content about gun control, or if we would be better off without it. Because I don't see any way you can discuss guns without gun control topics inevitably creeping in.

I am not proposing a political free-for-all on the forums, so don't try to frame the discussion that way. This is simply a question I am asking the membership. Can we discuss guns, (and all that goes with it), or must we censor every thread in this section that mentions gun control?

Which is why I asked the forum membership what they would prefer. It is a bit soon after asking the question for any of us to presume to speak for the entire membership, so I propose we wait and see what our fellow members have to say before rushing into anything.

[Wilderbeast]

You are simply wrong when you say that it is inevitable to have a discussion of guns without gun control coming up.

Most of us have at least that level of control over what we type. Those who can't can be shown the door. 

Nobody wants to hear my views on politics and frankly I don't really give a damn what anyone here thinks on political issues.  That isn't why I'm here.

I'm also not here to support a forum that serves as a place that allows the spewing of propaganda and ignorance that I wish not to be associated with.

I'm here to talk about bushcraft, knives and sell a trinket or two.  That's it.

If you want to talk about divisive subjects, then be prepared for the consequences. If you want to coddle a few loud mouthed whiners who can't control themselves, go for it.

But if you do, I'll have no part in it. 

[MnSportsman]

   I tried to keep my answer simple when I first posted. Maybe that wasn't so good an idea. 


   I have been reading the posts here & thinking about scenarios of topics/subjects that might be brought up & how no politics vs politics would have an effect on the discussion(s).


  An example to me is when folks banned any magazine that holds over 10 rounds. Now to me, it wouldn't matter "who" were the ones( as in political party) that initiated the ban so much as the "why" those folks would think that would have any effect on trying to reduce someone shooting someone else? The discussion of the "why" need not involve the "who" unless someone brings it up as an overt way to clutter the discussion with a slant involving blame, rather than the the discussion sticking to the pros/cons or the how reasonable & logical a ban like that was implemented or not.


  I feel that the subject could be discussed without any political interjection(s) simply by the ones who post using "Self Control" to word their posts in a way that leaves the political part out of the discussion, but still be able to have a meaningful discussion about the "why" & other effects having such a ban would produce. Those who were unable to discuss the topic without interjecting some politics, should then just stay out of the discussion until they found a way to do so without political stuff, or just refrain from posting using that same "self control" as following the other rules of the forum.


   I abhor the thought of "censorship"being the only course of action for the forum staff, and feel that members using "self control" is the way to go. I agree with MaxEntropy in that other members might help in resolving such differences & not need the forum staff to censor the discussions. ( In the recent topic about guns here in this forum, the topic was moved, although I thought it was a reasonable topic to discuss & need not have had breaking of any forum rules in discussing that topic. Unfortunately, some rules were getting pushed to the breaking point. It was deemed necessary to move it, but I wanted to see more non political discussion as it was an interesting topic , IMO. And I think with some editing by the one(s) making the post(s) that were pushing the rules, their doing the editting could have saved the topic without it being moved... )

Anyway,
  Laying a blame on a particular group for their views doesn't need to be just political. Some people blame certain ethnic groups for things they do or don't do, or religious groups, or whatever group you want to use as an example. People who hate knives, or are scared of clowns...whatever.. .
I think that a discussion about just about anything can be done without playing some sort of "blame game" by introducing politics into the discussion. If the topic is about "blaming" someone for something, maybe the one trying to introduce the topic should use some self control before bringing it up, and find a way to broach the subject of why the blaming is happening in the first place. An example for that subject might be that the gov.t is trying to take away someones lands
the use to recreate & live on ,or use. It doesn't matter what political party is in charge of that action by the gov't., but it is the action itself that could be discussed without any politics at all being interjected into the discussion. Same with the topic that was moved. It could have been discussed without political interjection.


Also, I am not all so sure that a discussion about those who believe in the 2nd amendment rights is at all at issue with those who seek some sort of control over who can own a gun. I don't think that bringing up MADD, if there was a discussion about someone who was driving drunk would be political. I don't think that bringing up those who are against gun ownership(Gun haters/Gun control activists,etc.) vs those who are gun owners(2nd Amend advocates/etc) is political either. It doesn't matter what party or political system one is in favor of, it is the discussion of the issue that is the subject(topic), not any party affiliation. I think that pro gun vs anti gun or knife or whatever can be discussed using some Self Control without bringing up any "political" party or affiliation...

  It just takes some self control by the ones participating & shouldn't have to always come down to the forum staff stepping in to censor things.


  Crap... I don't know if I am making much sense in typing this. I know what I mean as I think about it & I would still vote self control over censorship. The rule could remain in place if the people use self control in how they post their thoughts... I am sober & so I can't blame it on some beer drinking muddling up my thoughts, LOL , but somehow I feel I am rambling & not making sense.


 So,   I am going to post this anyway, although I may just delete this in a few, if I go away & come back to see that it just came out as a jumbled mess to you folks..
 

[Dano]

I vote self control as well.

With all the different topics here, any reasonable person has to expect (and be prepared for) other members who share different views from their own.  I don't care if it's on a forum, the office break room, out to dinner with friends or whatever, but I have yet to come across a time where EVERYONE agreed with my views, perspectives and opinions.

Quite frankly, it would be quite boring if everyone did. 

What I have found and seen here is a group of people who, OVER THE LONG HAUL, are willing to let bygones be bygones, got over hurt personal feelings and move on TOGETHER.  Sure a few may leave from time to time, but that happens anyway.

I noticed way back in our earlier days that when things started to get heated, we adopted an agreement to take those topics to personal message.  It seemed to work well back then, but maybe it has gotten a bit lax over the years since.

As far as politics go- I believe having differing opinions and discussions on each viewpoint, has been considered an important part of our history and culture for quite some time now.   

[PetrifiedWood]

You are simply wrong when you say that it is inevitable to have a discussion of guns without gun control coming up.

Well, I disagree.

I am a member of a forum for discussing radio controlled cars, planes, etc. It's a fun hobby. As more and more "drones" are making the news, discussion there inevitably turns to the FAA and politics.

That particular forum is hugely successful and they do not censor political discussions in their version of a "general discussion" forum. I am not suggesting that is the way B&B should go. Just pointing out that politics is not a death sentence for a forum. Their members just care more about their common interests than they do their differences, so it works out.

Let me give you an example. If I asked, "What do I need to do in order to buy a gun?" I would get almost as many answers as there are states in the union. That is because gun ownership is so highly politicized that even discussing something so basic as how to acquire one, will inevitably lead to discussing the laws (put in place by politicians) one must comply with in order to do so. Then I might ask, "What must I do in order to bring my gun hunting in Alask?"  Well, that brings up a whole other set of rules and regulations regarding flying with guns, etc.

Do you see where this is going?

How about buying ammo? It is cheaper to reload, but not if you order the powder and primers by mail because of hazmat shipping vs. buying those same components assembled into manufactured ammo (no hazmat). Again, rules and restrictions, brought about by gun control.

How about someone looking to buy a Ruger .22 pistol? Well they can choose between a new MkIII with the ugly loaded chamber indicator that was rwequired to comply with gun control, or they could choose to buy an older, used MkII that doesn't have it.

Sure, you could discuss an old percussion rifle without mentioning gun control. But you could also mention that most antique rifles are exempt from many gun control regulations, which might be an interesting point to discuss.

I can tell you how to install an extended magazine release in a Springfield XD. But as we discussed the gun the conversation would naturally turn to how the first subcompact 9mm models only shipped with 10 round magazines since they decided to make them 50 states complaint at the time to get them on the market faster and the 13 round magazines came later. And then someone might express their opinion about such regulations, offending someone else, and then off we go...

So while it is technically possible to discuss guns without discussing gun control, I don't think it allows for topics to seek their own path. Which has always been a policy here at B&B, allowing topics to seek their own path.

[druid189]

Well, I disagree.

I am a member of a forum for discussing radio controlled cars, planes, etc. It's a fun hobby. As more and more "drones" are making the news, discussion there inevitably turns to the FAA and politics.

That particular forum is hugely successful and they do not censor political discussions in their version of a "general discussion" forum. I am not suggesting that is the way B&B should go. Just pointing out that politics is not a death sentence for a forum. Their members just care more about their common interests than they do their differences, so it works out.

Let me give you an example. If I asked, "What do I need to do in order to buy a gun?" I would get almost as many answers as there are states in the union. That is because gun ownership is so highly politicized that even discussing something so basic as how to acquire one, will inevitably lead to discussing the laws (put in place by politicians) one must comply with in order to do so. Then I might ask, "What must I do in order to bring my gun hunting in Alask?"  Well, that brings up a whole other set of rules and regulations regarding flying with guns, etc.

Do you see where this is going?

How about buying ammo? It is cheaper to reload, but not if you order the powder and primers by mail because of hazmat shipping vs. buying those same components assembled into manufactured ammo (no hazmat). Again, rules and restrictions, brought about by gun control.

How about someone looking to buy a Ruger .22 pistol? Well they can choose between a new MkIII with the ugly loaded chamber indicator that was rwequired to comply with gun control, or they could choose to buy an older, used MkII that doesn't have it.

Sure, you could discuss an old percussion rifle without mentioning gun control. But you could also mention that most antique rifles are exempt from many gun control regulations, which might be an interesting point to discuss.

I can tell you how to install an extended magazine release in a Springfield XD. But as we discussed the gun the conversation would naturally turn to how the first subcompact 9mm models only shipped with 10 round magazines since they decided to make them 50 states complaint at the time to get them on the market faster and the 13 round magazines came later. And then someone might express their opinion about such regulations, offending someone else, and then off we go...

So while it is technically possible to discuss guns without discussing gun control, I don't think it allows for topics to seek their own path. Which has always been a policy here at B&B, allowing topics to seek their own path.

.

I agree with PW.

I have been sitting here for 15 minutes, staring at the white reply box and breathing in through my nose/out my mouth because I "know how I get" on this topic.

The "problem" with forum 'politics', as I see it, is the fact that all too often people tend to take an otherwise "calmly dissenting" comment as some kind of personal attack on them or on all that they believe in [meaning, that which is not an obvious attack]. From that, comes a "back and forth" debate and generally speaking, starts the name calling, personal attacks, etc etc. THAT is the part of political discussions that needs to be avoided.

For illustrative purposes:

Half of an example might be the [actual] fact that I wholeheartedly believe in the Constitution of the United States....a seemingly rare happenstance from an active LEO in these current times. I have sworn an Oath not once, but twice - and I absolutely meant it both times. This in no way imparts my political affiliation, nor does it describe a "liberal or conservative" point of view. The Constitution is simply a set of Laws put in place by our Founding Fathers to guide our Government by the Will of the People. Nothing more, nothing less. The Supreme Court has ruled that the written construction of The Constitution is such that there's no real need for "in depth" interpretation. Scholars and politicians have challenged that over the years but to no avail.

In light of the previous paragraph, the 'other half' of the example being - anyone and I can have a debate on whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to knives. The Amendment, in part stating, "The RKBA shall not be infringed." The term "Arms" means any tool, device or implement I see fit to defend my Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. Anyone would be free to debate that with me because it's not really a matter of "political view" as much as it is a "matter of Law." One opinion [mine] being "knives count as Arms"....the opposing view opines "they aren't, they meant firearms." That's not politics...that's an opinion based on 1. what that person was taught; or 2. their own opinion on the matter.

And since it hasn't come up yet [or at least...I didn't see it]...."self control" goes both ways. If an opponent and I are expected to utilize a measure of self control in discussing politics, the person who absolutely cannot meter themselves in that type of conversation, should have as much [or more] self control to avoid the conversation all together.

I don't see how a political discussion will "cause a mass exodus" when we see people requesting "smoke and prayers" and no one leaves [that we know of]. The non-religious don't storm troop those threads and demand silence, do they? If they have, I haven't seen it... 

-------------

TL;DR? If you don't like the TV show, change the channel. --------> If you don't like the topic, don't read the thread. -------> If you don't like the topic but read the thread anyway, be prepared, you aren't going to like some responses.

I think the bulk of the membership here is vastly more mature than you might see on other forums. I think as adults, we can openly discuss matters even of a sensitive nature in the mature setting the majority of us seem to currently conduct ourselves in.

I vote "Self control." Why? Because I absolutely know how I get.....and yet I still managed to keep a calm and cool head when responding....the epitome of the term.

[Unknown]

Why draw a line between one subject and another? There are issues out there that could be discussed that might affect how we enjoy the outdoors. They might become political, or be controversial, but only guns deserve to be disserved?

A forum that is impolite, chock full of logical fallacies is one that goes downhill, or attracts those who thrive in such environments.

I have already seen how one member correcting another can sometimes end up. (not that it is always that way) I have no guidelines to suggest how it might be done other than to say with true concern and politeness. Sometimes PW, you have to be the boss.

Sorry I didnt read what the Private forum is specifically for. If it is for controversial or political topics and a open forum discussion needs to be moved to Private, how is that a problem?  It's not censorship as I define it.

Allowing guns a special status for political comment does sound biased. Worse than political is a foot post that says nothing substantive, but expects those in the know to read between the lines. That's just plain dull.

Issues that can be related to our hobby directly, and maybe even a little bit indirectly should be allowed as long as they remain civil. If it crosses a line you have set then move it.

[gizamo]

Years ago I learned to not get involved in heated debates on a forum. Not to even bother reading some topics that I knew would spiral out of control.

It is your own personal choice to participate in those type of discussions. If you have a tendency to get all emotionally worked up by the subject...why wind yourself up in the first place. Go find another topic that you enjoy discussing.

[Dano]

"Their members just care more about their common interests than they do their differences, so it works out."

Enough said!!

[Wood Trekker]

Well, let me start by saying that I am a gun owner, and I have been outraged by the attacks that have been leveled against gun owners and the 2nd amendment. I lean very far right on this issue.

That being said, I see no reason why political discussions about guns should be part of this forum. We can certainly discuss guns and their part in the outdoor experience, technical specifications, the effects a particular new law may have on the hunting of specific game, etc, without going into politics. We can discuss the factual impact of certain new laws on what guns we can bring into the woods; we can discuss the impact of new hunting regulations; we can discuss any technical gun information and recommendations; or any other gun related issue which directly relates to the use of guns in the outdoors or factual information regarding guns. We can do all of that without any discussion about what is under attack by who or whether that is a good or a bad thing. 

For example, appropriate gun related posts:
1. The effects of the NY SAFE Act on small game hunting rifles
2. Can I still use my Ruget 10/22 now that the NY SAFE Act has been passed
3. Should I get the Mossberg 500 in a 26 or 28 inch barrel
4. What power scope should I get for my .308 for hunting sheep in Colorado

On the other hand, inappropriate gun related posts:
1. Our rights are under attack again
2. People are realizing they were wrong about gun control
3. Another gun control law has been passed and it will not work
4. Any other version of the above

Again, within the context of bushcraft, cough, cough, excuse me, bushlore, we can easily discuss guns, gun use, and gun related information without getting into politics. Forums like Rokslide that exclusively deal with hunting and are much more centered around guns have no problem doing it. I don't see why we can't do the same.

I have no problem discussing politics and guns. I just don't want to do it here. When political discussion is allowed in a forum like this one, you will get fighting for a short period of time, and then the group that feels outnumbered will leave. It's just what happens. Just look at forums like 24 Hour Campfire.

Again, I believe guns are an integral part of the outdoor experience, at least for me. I believe we should be able to discuss guns in that context. However, I strongly believe that can be done without bringing in politics. Other forums do it. We can do it too. 

[Moe M.]

PW, you are not the first forum owner/admin to face this problem. I belong to a Classic Camp Stove site out of the UK and for a while, there was a small group that were ultra-liberal, anti-Christian, anti-gun, anti-US, ad naseum. The site struggled and the owner tried imposing member bans (temporary), censorship, aggressive Moderators and finally the conflicts abated. Seems some of the instigators just went away. Maybe they were banned for life, I don't know.  I did notice some of the very well respected members stood up and confronted those responsible in public. It seems that those who truely wanted the site to prosper were responsible, in part, for cleaning it up. You cannot legislate ethical or moral behavior.  Let the adults here take responsibility for keeping the peace. You can reserve final judgement for yourself. Banning all open discussion that may shade into politics will leave you with only one member who is satisfied. BTW, the stove site is prospering.

[quote/]
 
  Good post Max,  I believe you're right about people policing their own,  I belong to other forums also,  most do not censor topic discussions,  but they do impose limits on speech,  no personal attacks on posters,  no foul language,  and no language meant to berate or belittle,  or intended to cause arguments.
  In other words,  discuss what ever you wish,  just keep it civil and polite.
 
 For the most part B&B members (with the exception of a few trolls that were quickly banned) have been restrained,  civil, polite to one another,  and in general acted like adults,  there are a small few who can't be counted on to be civil,  but I'm sure that they will be weeded out in time by imposing a few new rules covering inflammatory language.

[Moe M.]

  If I'm hearing the sentiment right from those who would like to see a strict policy banning all speech that could be conscrude as political,  it's not so much the chance of heated debate that matters as much as the language being offensive to their specific political leanings,  or just plain offensive in other ways.
  I can understand that someone may be offended,  there are things that offend me in this life,  but I try to stay away from them,  when that's not possible I control my emotions and take myself away from it as soon as that's possible.
  However,  if what I may find offensive is information that I feel I should know in order for me to either protect myself or contribute to the process I want to know what it is,  I don't believe in sticking my fingers in my ears and burying my head in the sand in hopes that it will go away,  it generally doesn't.
  I don't believe in censorship,  I believe in transparency,  I don't believe in burning books,  or sealing someones speech by the force of law,  that goes for public media and well as the news media,  and in the spirit of free political speech and the right to assemble.
  I understand that this is a private forum and the owners rules apply,  but do we as members really need to be held by the hand like children or be constricted in our discussions because we can't control our emotions,  or do we have to keep our mouths shut simply because someone who might be offended doesn't have the self control enough not to read it or get involved,  folks,  if civil conversation about timely issues bothers you,  move along,  don't read it,  but don't force everyone else on the forum to conform to your likes or dislikes,  Political Correctness is wrong on it's face,  we can have an expectation to not be offended or insulted,  but we don't have a right not to be offended.
  Each and every one of us has the power to change the channel,  not answer the phone, not listen to a song, and not read words that might upset us,  but none of us should hold the power to stifle the ideas or speech of anyone else,  unless it's specifically intended to cause physical harm to others.
 
  Bushcraft is supposed to be about self reliance,  are we so weak kneed that we can't stand up to a little difference of opinion ?
                                                   

[OutdoorEnvy]

I usually don't comment on the political topics just because I don't think anyone is changing anyone's mind so it's pointless in a way. 

But I will say, the one thing I don't get about this kind of stuff, and our country in general, is how in the world did offending someone become the worse crime in America?  Why is it if we don't agree on everything we must be enemies then and hate the other?  I just don't get it. 

[vallehombre]

"As a gun owner, I empathize with other gun owners who are rightfully outraged by the constant attacks on our right to own weapons for personal protection, as a check against tyranny, and for the simple fun of sport shooting and hunting."

That opening establishes a point of view.  All editors have them. Human nature. As a gun owner I understand where you're coming from.

This morning the "discussion" causing so much ink (electrons?) had been moved. That seems to accord with forum guidelines, does not seem to constitute censorship and permits those who prefer to focus on blades and bushlore and related topics a pollution by politics free environment. That was an editorial decision. What editors do.

On a site with folks from many different backgrounds and living in so many different areas there will be markedly differing views from time to time. On the same day the whole recent mess was started there was also a great video on making a bucksaw in the field, pics and histories of antique firearms, truly accomplished blade smiths showing their wares, outdoor photos, how to info on a whole bunch of stuff and on and on. All without any political commentary added.

Similarly, if one has a question concerning the differences between a 30.06 and a .308 or the best old time hand load workup for a .44 spcl or which powder is best when there are very knowledgeable folks who can chime right in, maybe with differing opinions, without making it political.

If the intent is an open forum about blades and bushlore the guidelines seem reasonable and adequate. In that case there are many folks who have been and will be pleased to find this site.

If the goal is a political echo chamber that can far too easily be accomplished.

There are a whole lot more of the latter than the former.

[Wood Trekker]

Well, there are two separate issues here:

1. Can we have a forum where we discuss guns as they relate to the outdoors without getting into political discussions?

2. Do we want to be able to discuss politics in this forum, and should this political discussion be limited to guns related politics?

The OP started from the premise that we do not want to discuss politics in this forum, but we must do it when it comes to guns because the two are inextricably connected.

I don't believe that to be the case. I think we are perfectly capable of discussing guns without discussing politics.

Now, if we just want to open up the forum to political discussion, that's a different thing. I don't want to see that, but I understand if others do.

Lastly, I would like to point out that some of the same people who right now are discussing how there should be no censorship and people should have thicker skin are some of the first to start calling for threads to be closed when their feelings get hurt or their favorite TV survival expert is challenged. Just food for thought.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Wilderbeast]

I love it when people intentionally misstate other peoples positions to make an erroneous point.

I also love how someone too cheap to pay a membership fee thinks he should have a say in how this goes, especially when he is the instigator of most of this crap.

Ron, you recently posted how you thought that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't get a vote, so why should a non-supporter have a say in how this forum should be run?

Especially when he is still an active sycophant at the place that inspired this site to be formed.

"As a gun owner, I empathize with other gun owners who are rightfully outraged by the constant attacks on our right to own weapons for personal protection, as a check against tyranny, and for the simple fun of sport shooting and hunting."

That opening establishes a point of view.  All editors have them. Human nature. As a gun owner I understand where you're coming from.

This morning the "discussion" causing so much ink (electrons?) had been moved. That seems to accord with forum guidelines, does not seem to constitute censorship and permits those who prefer to focus on blades and bushlore and related topics a pollution by politics free environment. That was an editorial decision. What editors do.

On a site with folks from many different backgrounds and living in so many different areas there will be markedly differing views from time to time. On the same day the whole recent mess was started there was also a great video on making a bucksaw in the field, pics and histories of antique firearms, truly accomplished blade smiths showing their wares, outdoor photos, how to info on a whole bunch of stuff and on and on. All without any political commentary added.

Similarly, if one has a question concerning the differences between a 30.06 and a .308 or the best old time hand load workup for a .44 spcl or which powder is best when there are very knowledgeable folks who can chime right in, maybe with differing opinions, without making it political.

If the intent is an open forum about blades and bushlore the guidelines seem reasonable and adequate. In that case there are many folks who have been and will be pleased to find this site.

If the goal is a political echo chamber that can far too easily be accomplished.

There are a whole lot more of the latter than the former.

Well stated 

Well, there are two separate issues here:

1. Can we have a forum where we discuss guns as they relate to the outdoors without getting into political discussions?

2. Do we want to be able to discuss politics in this forum, and should this political discussion be limited to guns related politics?

The OP started from the premise that we do not want to discuss politics in this forum, but we must do it when it comes to guns because the two are inextricably connected.

I don't believe that to be the case. I think we are perfectly capable of discussing guns without discussing politics.

Now, if we just want to open up the forum to political discussion, that's a different thing. I don't want to see that, but I understand if others do.

Lastly, I would like to point out that some of the same people who right now are discussing how there should be no censorship and people should have thicker skin are some of the first to start calling for threads to be closed when their feelings get hurt or their favorite TV survival expert is challenged. Just food for thought.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

yup ^ what he said too.

 

[Dano]

There is a lot of good remarks coming in on this thread, and I hope they continue.

One example of how politics does enter certain threads could be firearms-specific ones.  Such an example was a year or so back with mention of a fairly new chambering and uppers available for the AR platform for deer sized game.  Magazines were going to be made to allow limited rounds for areas that require such.  The chambering seems to have great performance, the AR platform is proven and it sounds like a great deal.

Then enter the issue of more "assault weapon" wording, and the whole thing could have the potential of going south in a heart beat.

There are other semi-auto firearms that have been chambered for hunting cartridges, and many of them have existed for a number of years.  They simply don't have an "image" associated with them, so they aren't as heavily watched/controlled/banned/restricted/whatever.

Certain of our following embrace multi-use items, such as a poncho can be used as rain gear and/or a shelter, so it's cool.  But an AR that can have different uppers and different chamberings is not looked at in the same light.

So when/if a certain member or group within the political arena takes aim (no pun intended) at certain firearms specifically, some members MAY want to know that information so they can be best informed when it comes to things like perhaps, an election.

For ME, I agree  with PW and the intention of his original post.   The two can be separate things, but they can also be associated whether you want them to or not.

Open discussions have been around for a lot longer than any of us are old.  They have been used to settle business decisions, family issues, political differences, world issues, etc.  Without them, too many things would never move forward.  And that my friends, would suck.

[upthecreek]

I'll stick with our original mission. No Politics period.

Creek

[Wood Trekker]

I guess I just don't see why we can't discuss the use of AR platforms for hunting without talking politics. It is either legal or it's not in your arrea, and it's either an effective tool or it's not. I don't see why anyone would have an issue with such a thread, or how politics would be a part of it.

Of course, I'm sure someone will come along in such a thread and bring in politics about how so and so is destroying the country by not allowing AR platform rifles for hunting in a particular state, but that person can be instructed that the thread is not the place for politics.

I suppose my issue here is that I just don't see why we can't talk about guns as related to the outdoors without talking politics.

If on the other hand people just want to be able to talk politics here, that's a different issue. I think that would certainly shift the focus of the forum.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[imnukensc]

Politics seem to creep into many conversations here and not just ones about guns, so I'm uncertain why "poltics and guns" has it's own thread.  To my way of thinking it isn't any different than any other thread.  The mods can step in at any time when things seem to be going south whether it's politics, name calling, or any other forum rule and "right the ship."

[PetrifiedWood]

It looks like the results are a mix.

Let me explain what I am trying to avoid here.

If we are going to continue on as we have been, then I don't want to hear any complaining that a thread was locked, moved or deleted for political content. I have in the past, and it is tiresome.

I also do not want any self appointed hall monitors demanding that action be taken due to their ideas as to what constitutes "political content" in a thread. We have moderators who are fully capable of determining if content is acceptable on their own.

It seems that the general consensus among members so far is that we can discuss guns without getting into politics, and we can discuss gun politics without causing a breakdown in order around here.

With that in mind, we will continue to restrict discussion about political parties, candidates, events and issues, bearing in mind that we do have a private discussion forum set aside for the open discussion of such topics, and anyone may join it by request. It was set up for this reason and it is there for anyone to use.

I don't want members to keep pushing the limits of what is permissible in the open forums, and I also don't want members making it their personal mission to seek out possible rules violations. Again, we already have moderators capable of making these determinations on their own. If you feel like something is an egregious violation of the rules and has somehow been overlooked, then go ahead and report the post. But don't complain about it if you aren't going to report it.

For those of you wishing to post a topic that might fall under the umbrella of "political discussion", use the Private Discussion forum. It was created for that purpose. If you feel that your thread will not get enough traffic in there, then chances are that the topic just isn't something your fellow members care to discuss enough to join the Private Discussion group.

If your gun related topic is, "Look at my pretty new 1911", that's fine. If it's, "Anyone else have trouble field stripping a MkIII" that's fine too. If it's, "Senate pushes new gun control regulations" then you should start it in the Private Discussion forum, and if it's here in the open forums it will be moved there. B&B staff shouldn't have to keep moving posts from the same members over and over again, so consider where it would be best located before starting a thread.


So to summarize:

We have a place for these types of discussions already, the Private Discussion forum.
If you must have these discussions, have them in there.
Anyone may join that group by request.
If you think a discussion should be moved there, don't complain about it in the thread, report it.
Don't complain if a topic isn't moved after reporting it.
Don't complain if a topic is moved, since you can continue the discussion elsewhere.

 

[MnSportsman]

   PW, it seems to me that you could just as well place this last post you made before this one in with the Administrative announcements along with the forum rules, & do away with the OP & the rest of the comments.


   Nothing has really changed since this topic was opened, except that you explained in more detail what will likely happen should anyone stray from the rules that were in place yesterday morning.


  Having this topic now, with its conclusion as it is, only in the Sportsmans corner & not in the Administrative forum, would make anyone who decides to visit the forum, possibly unaware of your latest post here  & how you all will be interpreting the rules regarding political content in topics/posts that are in the Rules of the Forum topic.


     Also... don't you think that putting any topic that turns political from its original intent into the Private discussion forum will effectively stifle much of any discussion because it will reduce the ones that see it (& opt to even participate as some just read & don't post at all) to the number of members of that Private forum? That means the introducing of political post(s) then can can negate the whole rest of the subject being discussed in the Main forum without political post(s), by forcing the move to the Private forum with less participants. People could actually sabotage topics another created if they were of that mind( pretty petty, but there are crappy people everywhere)
Basically it could only take "one apple (or two +) to spoil the barrel" and basically what happened yesterday with the topic that spawned this topic. That to me, is not very fair to the membership, where one person/two people can ruin the whole thing for the rest. That sort of thing happens in a forum I am quite familiar with from the past, as well as most others here know, including you, that it is censorship, & just about at its worst... That is why many early members are here, I think... Escaping that type of thing... All it takes is a bit of self control to not introduce any political BS & everything would be fine... If a person doesn't have that self control, then perhaps THEY should get moved & not the topic.


   And , I also am wondering just where the line is ,as far as what is considered political... Mention party affiliations or current/past administrations is pretty easy to figure out, but what about discussing a Fla. city government banning gardens in front yards, any change in US Nat. Park regulations put into US law, or even a law that restricts sales from the US to another country because of a treaty /treaty change, that could concern some of the vendors here? Some clarification, a little more describing things, or an example, might be a help to some, including me...


   Anyway, to me, nothing has changed but a further stifling of the main forum, due to the actions of one/two or a few that could easily be self controlled, before it had to be moderated or staff controlled.. The barrel has already started to get ruined, when now, rather than dealing with the bad apples alone, it is the rest of the apples who have to be concerned that a topic gets dealt with for no other reason than some one/people decided to ruin it due to a lack of self control. That is BS to me. It makes me a bit angry to be honest because of a bad memory of the same stuff a few years ago somewhere else.


  I Know it is your forum, but just commenting as a member & supporting member, I think that if the moderation here goes to the extent of other place that discusses similar subjects, the there very well might be an exodus of members, of all types. Not just ones who don't have self control that were sent down the road....


Edit: some syntax I think....

& PS for CrashDive... I had to look up up "Pejorative", since I didn't recall or know the definition. There was certainly some of that going on in this topic after your post & some of it was overt & some not so much, but it was obvious & it kind of stinks, just like ya said...

[Unknown]

 

[PetrifiedWood]

JB, I agree with much of what you said.

I am going to give this one more try as it is, and if it remains a problem into the future I am going to make some drastic policy changes and let the chips fall where they may.

I do not want to let forum policy be guided by problems caused by a few grudges among members that keep recurring. And ultimately I am of the mind that more freedom to discuss whatever members want to discuss is better than less freedom.

You are correct that the system has the potential to be abused by people with an agenda. However, I don't expect people to report every little thread that doesn't go their way. As I mentioned, we don't need any hall monitors popping into every discussion to make sure everyone is following every rule to a "t" like some kind of busybody homeowners association president measuring everyone's grass with a ruler.

B&B is supposed to have a relaxed atmosphere. Frivolous invocation of the forum rules where the discussion is not causing a problem runs counter to the goal of maintaining that relaxed atmosphere. The rules are there to be used in the event we have someone causing a problem. They are not intended to be used by members in the pursuit of personal grudges.

If members have problems with one another, they should settle them via PM, and do so respectfully. Members have the option to report abusive PMs via the same mechanism as reporting posts. A PM that hasn't been reported is as useless as if it doesn't exist because I can't take action if there isn't proof.

In any case, we will give it another go and see how it turns out. If we still have people bickering about politics and rules I will make a change for better or worse and then anyone who is dissatisfied with the outcome can stay or go, and the forum will carry on or fail. But one thing is certain, forum policy won't be manipulated by a few members in pursuit of personal agendas.

[upthecreek]

Ya see, now would be a good time for everyone who cares about our forum to say to themselves... "I like our forum so much I'm going outside right now and create something worthy of posting in the outdoors section.  Sounds easy.

Creek

[Wilderbeast]

Ya see, now would be a good time for everyone who cares about our forum to say to themselves... "I like our forum so much I'm going outside right now and create something worthy of posting in the outdoors section.  Sounds easy.

Creek

That sounds all fine and dandy, but its raining outside and a person would have to be crazy to risk his life in these conditions 

You could get wet and moldy.

[wsdstan]

I went out with good intentions but the motorcycle was out in the driveway and it was yelling at me to ride it.  So I did.

[Mannlicher]

Obviously, there are a number of 'solutions' to the conundrum.  None are really going to satisfy both sides of the argument.   Gun control is always going to be about political control.  There has yet to be a gun law, that had public safety as it's goal.  It is always about political control. Simple as that.
I'd like to see the site remain free from discussion on the merits, or demerits, of gun control/gun politics.  I see no issue with the firearms sub forum continuing to be used to display, discuss and review firearms.  There is no reason why this can't be done, and done to (most) everyone's satisfaction.
Politically, I am to the right of Atilla the Hun.  I have  long, and deeply  held beliefs, and am capable of going toe to toe with anyone on political subjects.  Just don't see any reason to in this forum.  I gave up looking for tolerance and and expecting others to respect my beliefs if I just respect theirs.   So, that's where I stand PW.  Keep the site as free of political dissent as possible.

[Wood Trekker]

Ya see, now would be a good time for everyone who cares about our forum to say to themselves... "I like our forum so much I'm going outside right now and create something worthy of posting in the outdoors section.  Sounds easy.

Creek

Here's my last trip: http://bladesandbushlore.com/index.php?topic=11550.0

[Draco]

I am 100% with Wilderbeast on this one.  I asked to be taken out of the private group because personal attacks were common when the other side did not have logic or facts to back their premise. 

Truth is I have considered dropping out entirely again.  I did it once and was encouraged to come back by some of the other users.  What I find amazing is how users who are regulars in bushbullyusa seem to be able to be civil and not insult fellow users there but here they feel free to insult and belittle with impunity.  Wonder why that is? 

[Unknown]

I wrote a reply but set it aside. Most of what it contained seems smashed by what you just said Draco.

I have access to the private forum but never looked into much.

here it is:
I have not been here long so there may be a great deal I dont know about the forum dynamic. Nevertheless i have never seen where any of this has been a large problem. Sure, I dont know anyone on a personal basis, but from reading the posts I get gist of where most everyone who post is coming from. If a thread was being manipulated in some way, or just started to veer into the verboten who wouldn't respect a correction post from PW, another moderator-either by PM or just a general "ok guys........" ?

My cool campfire sign was given because it sounds to me that things will remain as they are, and that sounds good to me. There are cures for hiccups, but usually go away on their own if you ignore them. If it is a more significant aliment then I'm sure it could be dealt with at the source cause, surgically if necessary.

[PetrifiedWood]

I am 100% with Wilderbeast on this one.  I asked to be taken out of the private group because personal attacks were common when the other side did not have logic or facts to back their premise. 

Truth is I have considered dropping out entirely again.  I did it once and was encouraged to come back by some of the other users.  What I find amazing is how users who are regulars in bushbullyusa seem to be able to be civil and not insult fellow users there but here they feel free to insult and belittle with impunity.  Wonder why that is?

If you see members insulting one another, please report those posts so that our moderators can be made aware of them.

[BigHat]

Seems like things are getting a bit off topic. People arguing about who is ruder than another. There's considerate, and then there's inconsiderate. This place is supposed to be populated with considerate individuals, even if they disagree. Heated subjects don't justify lack of civility in responses.

That being said, people are people, so we do need guidelines, from time to time. One of those very clear guidelines is that politics have no place in this forum. I think it should stay that way. Period.

Now, a caveat. If this forum decides to allow political discussion with regards to guns, i think it should open up all political topics. Make a subforum that is for discussing politics that relate to our hobby. Guns, knives, camping laws, fishng laws, etc....

Only opening up a few things seems as though the forum has a slant... should be blades and bushlore related, if allowed at all. I vote for not at all.


No matter what, let's stay civil.