• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New ‘pro-gun’ group backs gun show 'gun control', ending WOD. Codrea scare quotes H/T

  • Thread starter Herr Heckler Koch
  • Start date
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
https://www.examiner.com/article/new-pro-gun-group-backs-more-gun-show-gun-control
Codrea said:
“Does that mean you would support a federal law ending private sales and requiring all firearms transfers to go through an FFL/NICS?” Gun Rights Examiner asked via their contact form. President Feldman responded personally, by email: "Thanks for asking the question. ... At gunshows we support NRA's position as outlined by Wayne LaPierre as he stated before Congress; ... We believe that sellers at gunshows should enjoy the same protection from liability that that the firearm industry enjoys under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act giving further encouragement to and additional protection for gun shows, buyers and sellers." In other words, yes, they would.

[ ... ]

Gun owners who believe the war on drugs and the war on guns provide common areas of concern/opportunities for strategic alliances share much incentive to join together to promote mutual interests. The concern here is whether a leadership, with a history of gaining no real benefit by ceding ground to an insatiable foe, is the right one to follow.[my emphasis]
Click to expand...
Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly with an implacable foe - gun control. Divide and conquer.
 
Dreamer

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
This post is a violation of Forum Rule #12.


  • (12) NO BASHING OF OTHER GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS: Regardless of how convinced you are that another gun rights organization is not doing their job, this is not the place to air those concerns unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization. All other rants against other gun rights groups will be deleted or the thread locked.


Moderators, PLEASE apply this rule equally to ALL posters, on ALL threads. Either legitimate criticism of other "gun rights organizations" is OK, or it is NOT.

How about a little "equal protection" here folks...
 
Dreamer

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
It is in some state-specific threads, if you specifically name a pro-2A organization by name, and then criticize their tactics.

And also, it appears that the PERSON making the post seems to be some sort of determining factor in whether such posts are censored or not.

I'm just saying that if the moderators are going to apply "Rule 12" in SOME instances, they need to apply it in ALL instances of similar context.

I don't agree with "Rule 12" and I think it should be removed from the "Forum Rules" because it stifles creative discussion and legitimate critique of the tactics and policies of national and local gun-rights groups.

But if were going to apply this rule in SOME instances, we should be applying it EQUALLY to ALL instances of "criticism of pro-2A organizations".

It's only fair, after all...
 
Last edited:
A

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Dreamer said:
It is in some state-specific threads, if you specifically name a pro-2A organization by name, and then criticize their tactics.

And also, it appears that the PERSON making the post seems to be some sort of determining factor in whether such posts are censored or not.

I'm just saying that if the moderators are going to apply "Rule 12" in SOME instances, they need to apply it in ALL instances of similar context.

I don't agree with "Rule 12" and I think it should be removed from the "Forum Rules" because it stifles creative discussion and legitimate critique of the tactics and policies of national and local gun-rights groups.

But if were going to apply this rule in SOME instances, we should be applying it EQUALLY to ALL instances of "criticism of pro-2A organizations".

It's only fair, after all...
Click to expand...

I have not seen other posts/threads that have been locked/deleted but part of it could have to do with how "Rule 12" states that it is alright to discuss/criticize such things only when they have taken a specific stance against OCing. As for this specific thread, it seems to be more informative about a new group claiming to support the Second Amendment and as such it doesn't violate rule 12 imo.

Now if Rule 12 has been unfairly applied to other threads/posts that's a different issue. But if that is the case that also doesn't mean that we need a tit-for-tat and locking of other legitimate threads just because it happened before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top