Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I get the feeling you are purposefully mismanaging comprehension to fuel an argument.
Let me spell it out cleanly for you this time, just so we can future proof any desire you may have to further mismanage comprehension:
This thread is an EXAMPLE of a reason. It is not THE example, it is not A reason, nor is it THE reason. It is AN example.
I keep arms either at home, or in my truck. I carry large amounts of cash and feel better having protection while I am making bank runs (daily) for
This thread is about eroding rights.
This thread is about ending discussion on a privately owned website. What rights are being eroded?
The First Amendment is squarely on the side of the website being able to dictate what it allows to be published under it's banner. Even if what they
are discussing is changing the Constitution, which they aren't. This is what this boils down to, an issue of First Amendment rights.
50 years ago it would have been unthinkable that discussion on various gun models would be stifled because of a shooting. In the last 50
years, our rights have been eroded to a point where people think it is a logical next step that, because someone may or may not be offended about a
discussion, that the discussion should be removed.
Not to get into the logic of the claim that this happened because of a single shooting, but this type of thing DID happen before. Come on, man. Gun
control discussions were HUGE in the 60s. It is actually when modern gun control got its first big push. People protested not only private ownership
of guns, but also the military's use of guns on public land against the citizenry.
In the part of the world I live in, we are far away from cities. Our culture is nothing even remotely close to the larger cities, Europe, or
Australia. When you are dealing with a multicultural environment like various websites something to consider is that if you start limiting what
people can do in the name of protecting the cultural sensitivities of one group, you end up stifling the cultural sensitivities of another group. In
short, your desire to curtail certain aspects of forum speech to address your own cultural sensitivities is, itself, offensive to my own cultural
Actually, what one has to consider is that by becoming part of an online community, you are creating a new culture, a culture specific to this
website. If you are offended, threatened, or resistant to the way your online community is behaving, the rational response is discourse, not making
veiled threats about people exercising THEIR rights (First Amendment) making you feel threatened enough to exercise YOUR rights (Second Amendment).
You don't even see that you are stifling the First Amendment by telling other people what they should or shouldn't censor on a private forum.
Perhaps, then, the best bet is to ask folks to grow thicker skin, use some common sense, and try to understand the cultures that you so
With all due respect, sir, this is talk about limiting chat on a forum. We are not talking about coming to your house and arresting you for liking
guns. See the very subtle difference?
Aside from that, who do you think you are to tell me that I have no idea about your culture? Do you know me? Do you know my background? Do you know
that I have fired more guns than at LEAST 98% of the world? Do you know that I have both lived in and traveled extensively through Texas, Arizona, New
Mexico, California, and Baja California?
No, you don't. You didn't care, you still don't. Because it doesn't matter. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that I don't agree with you
because I don't understand you. That isn't the case. I understand you perfectly. You are just incorrect.