2012 Election and Rules for L&CR

[Rifleman1952]

Moderators Note: Read through to post #13, before you decide to reply to this thread. Al Norris.


There are many of us who are concerned about what the aftermath of last night's election means for gun owners and the Second Amendment. I've already seen two threads closed because the moderators were concerned about the direction or tone those threads were taking. I didn't see anything offensive in either of those threads and am concerned the Moderators may be a little overzealous in their approach. As long as we are discussing issues with no ad homiem attacks...isn't this the proper thread for such discussion?

Some of my fellow gun enthusiasts say that President Obama was the best thing that ever happened to the firearms industry (in terms of increased sales and the number people involved in recreational shooting). They usually follow that up by saying Obama didn't do anything to hurt us in his first term; why should we expect anything different in his second?

But the fact is Obama is now unencumbered, by having to be re-elected. Don't be surprised if we start hearing about "common sense & reasonable" gun control in the near future. Obama sincerely believes that crime can be reduced by making the public's access to firearms more difficult and expensive. I am curious as to what others may think; and if as long as the discussion is done in a civil and respectful way, will the moderators allow it to continue?

 

[Skadoosh]

I am pretty sure that most of the forum members are too stunned or depressed to discuss right now.

 

[jmortimer]

We can only have "PC" discussions which is the right of the board owner(s). They pay for it not me.

 

[Kimio]

I'm just concerned about what this means for those of us who are just getting into the sport.

I don't have the disposable income to really get into the game as much as I'd like to. However, I'm not dillusional or naive enough to not believe that the topic of gun control will come up sooner or later.

With the House still held by Reps and the Senate held by the Dem' it's going to be tough for both parties to get anything passed.

We shall see, honestly, I'll remain vigilant regardless and for better or worse, I'll just try to ride out the storm and hope things get better. If not, well, I'll at least have one rifle to help defend me and my own.

 

[Patriot86]

I agree it would be nice to have an open if separate sub-forum to discuss issues related to gun rights that are political. To pretend like politics itself is not one of the biggest things impacting anything and everything guns is refusing to see the whole picture.

On the other hand, I see the point of the mods. While a lot of us can have a rational discussion; the moderators are concerned every topic will eventually turn into an "XXXXXX is a poopy pants commie African who hates America and guns" discussion and that would become too overwhelming to moderate effectively. Ontop of that they do not want to alienate forum members who might happen to support politicians who are not very popular with the gun community in general.

 

[jmortimer]

A separate forum that lets people blow-off some steam makes sense for me. Works well over at Cast Boolits,Graybeard, Lever Guns, etc, But other sites choose not to have them and are still very popular. It is not our call. This is a good forum with or without political/religious forums.

 

[jgcoastie]

It's a single-issue forum. That's what Rich wants, and since Rich pays for it, he should get it.

I think everyone should chill for a bit, walk away for a couple of days, and let the reality sink in that they (whoever "they" are) aren't going to get another AWB or anything like it through Congress.

Once we all understand that, then we can have a rational discussion... But until everyone gets it through their heads, we'll have those that ruin otherwise productive threads/discussions.

Let's wait for the weekend, possibly Monday, shall we?

 

[Kimio]

What JG said. As I had mentioned before, the house and senate are just as they were before the elections, and regardless of who sits in the big chair, they're in for an up hill battle if they want to try and push anything through, be it gun control or otherwise unless both sides come together and agree on something, and given the state of things, that's not very likely.

 

[Nimrod2]

While the house majority may be able to run interference for us, the Prez will not hesitate to use "executive order" to achieve his agenda.
The elder Bush set the example when his order stopped the import of inexpensive rifles.
I think we can look forward to similar actions by the present administration.

 

[Patriot86]

Keep your eye on the ball; most of our "victories" have not come through legislations per say but through litigation. Be more concerned about the SCOTUS and the lower courts. The rest is just a smoke screen.

The bottom line is anti-gun states will keep trying to pass anti-gun laws until the courts do or do not stop them. Pro-gun states will keep passing pro-gun laws and as stated above the House will keep any federal anti-gun laws in check at least for another two years.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Our rules are to be NON-political. There are other forums to discuss such.

L and CR is for the practical questions about L and CR and theoretical discussions of such, not partisan politics. If there is legislative movement to do XY or Z we can discuss it.

I do say that such discussions fall apart quickly and lead to infractions and bans, as seen in the past.

Thus, as you might see this coming, I'm closing it.

The staff can discuss it.

 

[Al Norris]

Stand by.

 

[Al Norris]

I'm going to attempt to answer a few things here, not necessarily in the order they were asked (or stated).

We can only have "PC" discussions which is the right of the board owner(s).

JM, is it "PC" that we not only ask, but demand, that people post in a civil manner? Is it "PC" that we hold to a higher standard of discussion than that of a "chat room?" Is it "PC" that we require participants to utilize the best written English and grammar that they can?

If that is what you are calling, "PC," then you have a very short sighted view of the meaning of that term.

To pretend like politics itself is not one of the biggest things impacting anything and everything guns is refusing to see the whole picture.

Everything that is of a legal or Civil Rights nature is in fact, political at its roots. This cannot be denied. There is no pretense that political discussions cannot be made, here. Just that the topics must be primarily a legal or civil rights discussion.

There have been some purely political discussion threads here, in the past 4 years. Yes, they have been very few and far between. That will remain to be the way things are. As Glenn wrote when he initially closed this thread:

Our rules are to be NON-political. There are other forums to discuss such.

L and CR is for the practical questions about L and CR and theoretical discussions of such, not partisan politics. If there is legislative movement to do XY or Z we can discuss it.

Ninety-nine per cent of the last 4 years discussions have been that way and they will continue to be that way.

Will politics intrude? Of course! Yet we hope to keep it as minimal as we can. I simply will not stand for the rancor that caused the closing of the old Legal and Political forum, and its self-destruction.

Those of you that were here at that time, know exactly what I'm saying... Which s a good time to address the OP:

There are many of us who are concerned about what the aftermath of last night's election means for gun owners and the Second Amendment. I've already seen two threads closed because the moderators were concerned about the direction or tone those threads were taking. I didn't see anything offensive in either of those threads and am concerned the Moderators may be a little overzealous in their approach. As long as we are discussing issues with no ad homiem attacks...isn't this the proper thread for such discussion?

Yes, we are concerned. Some to a greater extent than others.

As for the other thread closures, I can only speak to the one I closed here. The voting thread. That was closed as a pre-emptory move, since the polls were (essentially) closed, and the discussion began to turn towards the strickly political "chicken little" side... Yup. I closed it.

Now I try to be fair and open minded. But my experience as a moderator comes into play, here. It is just that experience that causes me to frown on certain threads and to close them when I can see a clear direction that they are headed. The "Get Out and Vote" thread was clearly headed in that direction.

Do valid topics get shut down? Yes, they do. If they weren't, then even more members would get banned, simply because they let their emotions get the better of their good sense. Hence, there is no "Free for All" at the Firing Line.

With all of this being said, I'm going to reopen this thread. It will be the only thread at TFL to discuss the results of this election cycle.

This is going to mean that if you cannot restrain your comments so as not to attack your fellow members, simply because they don't agree with you or that they don't hold to your beliefs, then you will be banned. No recourse. No second chance.

 

[1-DAB]

interesting.

was watching Fox yesterday midday, and judge napolatono (sp?) noted that if congress and the president didn't change (and they didn't), there would be no new laws passed affecting guns, the house simply wouldn't go with it, but the president may try to enact his policy via rule making. the example he gave was of the EPA finding that lead was a dangerous substance, and because most ammo has lead, ta da, no more ammo.

we'll have to keep a close eye on 'rule making', but it wouldn't surprise me that either by rule or by executive order the president tries to clamp down on guns and ammo.

 

[Rifleman1952]

Al Norris:

Thank you for your response. I'm fairly new to TFL and was not here to witness some of the problems you may have had to deal with in the past. I do hope that as long as members take the high road of civility, that we can responsibly discuss matters of law regarding firearms as these issues come up.

 

[Al Norris]

1-DAB, in that respect, there can be no such rule making. Lead, for use in ammo, is explicitly protected by law: Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition.

The EPA can do nothing if the Congress does not repel that section of the law.

 

[1-DAB]

perhaps the judge picked a poor example, but nonetheless, the only route left to the president is rule making and executive orders. and with a split congress, nothing will get thru the senate, thus, congress cannot undo whatever they may object to.

i won't put it past this president to assemble some clever people and find something in the law that gives him an opening. he did it with work for welfare, and that was against the way the law was written. he will make rules and issue orders and let those who oppose take the action to court, where it will take years to reach a decision about whether the president exceeded his authority or not. meanwhile, the rule or order will stand and we all will get to have it apply to our lives.

 

[zxcvbob]

The danger is, the president only needs the Senate to sign treaties and to appoint judges.

Our rules are to be NON-political. There are other forums to discuss such.

I know it's poor form to suggest a different forum, but this is a strange thread already. Back before the Great Unpleasantness, theHighRoad banished all (almost all) political discussion and general tomfoolery to armedPoliteSociety.com.

THR and TFL and APS still share a lot of membership, and even moderators. So it would be a good place to spillover to when this thread eventually gets closed. Come back here to talk gunz and stuff.

 

[Patriot86]

1-DAB, in that respect, there can be no such rule making. Lead, for use in ammo, is explicitly protected by law: Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition.

The EPA can do nothing if the Congress does not repel that section of the law.

@AL
The president established a long gun registry specifically in violation of the law in certain SW states via EO did he not? This would appear to violate the FOPA.
We cannot rely on the letter of the law alone to stop EO's. I am not really sure what we do about EO's actually, besides punish the offending party in the midterm elections. What judicial recourse do we have for EO's that violate the law? I think we need to take a wait and see attitude because nothing is going to stop EO's. Its pointless to fret about what could be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition

 

[steveno]

the thing that concerns me most as Obama will probably have a chance to nominate at least one if not two supreme court judges which are lifetime appointments. that scares me a lot