Poll: Should the GC&RKBA SOP be modified to allow discussion about firearms?

[aikoaiko]

Yes or no - should the GC&RKBA Statement of Purpose be modified to allow discussion about firearms?

Choose one, but feel free to discuss in comments below

For reference, here is the Statement of Purpose:
Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

37 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	30 (81%)
	No
	7 (19%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[rrneck]

1. Yes, but

with a focus on firearms designed and used related to RKBA and self defense. It might be nice to have a protected guns group for the discussion of sporting arms.

[Atypical Liberal]

17. I think there should just be a group for "all discussion concerning firearms".

There is no reason to break firearms discussion into sub-groups.

[rrneck]

19. Everybody isnt a firearms enthusiast.

I expect "nuts and bolts" threads would come to dominate the forum - and draw a lot of "ewww" threadjacking flack from non enthusiasts.

But maybe that could be fun too...

[Atypical Liberal]

20. Most of us here are.

My impression is that only about 5 regular users in this forum are anti-gun.

[rrneck]

21. True

When traffic increases because of all the gun talk maybe we'll draw some fresh vic... um, members in here.

[Clames]

22. I doubt the usual suspects would post much.

Such a group would be purely technical and they certainly don't know enough to even entertain the idea of bring able to keep up with such discussions. One posited recently why anyone should care about technical accuracy when it comes to firearms so that should be an indication that they should have no reason to post other than to be purely disruptive.

[tularetom]

2. Not necessary - use "Outdoor Life" if you want to discuss specific firearms questions

I've posted on reloading, ballistics and gunsmithing issues there.

And I've always believed "Gun Control & RKBA" is for policy questions.

[Kaleva]

3. Agree

Cross post:

"There's a number of regulars here who have a great deal of experience with various firearms and I for one would be very interested in reading what they have to say about such.

As it is right now, one has to go to the Outdoor Life Group to discuss firearms and that place doesn't get much traffic. The folks with the knowledge, experience and interest in firearms come here. "

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. I thought...

...that it may be worth asking the admins/mods to establish "Firearms" as a top level topic with the two existing groups under it and possibly add others as appropriate.

Any thoughts?

[Kaleva]

6. Something like Justice & Public Safety is now?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Yes exactly :) n/t

[Hoyt]

5. There are plenty of right wing gun sites to discuss all things guns.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. by all means let The Right Wingers discuss it at Their Sites. I, for one, do NOT wish to go there.

Gross. Puke and Throw Up.

[NewMoonTherian]

11. Exactly. Why should we have to go to a right wing site?

That doesn't mean I disagree with you, though. I'd be wary of allowing a lot of that kind of conversation, just because it might make it more difficult to sift out the policy discussions, which are the main reason I visit GC&RKBA. Unfortunately, I can't think of a concrete guideline that would allow for "a little" non-policy discussion.

We could allow it on a probationary basis, and we could always go back to the current SOP if it doesn't work out.

[Hoyt]

14. I just don't want to read a bunch of "what kind of bullets do you use to make sure the damage

is as lethal as you can make it" kind of crud here.

We had a thread like that just a week or so ago. I'm sorry, it's something for Stormfront if that's the kind of crud one is into.

Heck, we even had the thread right before Zimmerman shot an unarmed teenager about making sure you don't leave you cell phone on when you shoot someone. You never know how it might be used against you if the situation wasn't obvious and the dead teenager turns out to be unarmed and a questionable threat.

In any event, enough gun porn is posted here already, and that is not what this site is for.

[Kaleva]

15. One can trash can such threads if you aren't interested in them.

Edit: That would leave on the 1st page only the topics you are interested in.

[Hoyt]

16. I don't think the such threads have a place here -- Free Republic, Stormfront, etc., are perfect for

such stimulating/intellectual discussions.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. Aren't those kind of threads already allowed on DU in the Outdoors Group?

The point is that THOSE KINDS OF THREADS ARE ALLOWED ON DU ....

We want to change the SOP here at GC&RKBA (the name is also up for discussion to be changed, I prefer The Gungeon, you?) to allow for more leeway in topics here.
I don't think it will get out of hand.

Please, Hoyt, if I have questions about guns as a Democrat, I would prefer to address my questions to fellow Democrats. What is so hard to understand about this?

[Hoyt]

27. OK - I'll change my No vote. But, then, why not just go to

Outdoor group?..... and tic off the peaceful hikers, campers, runners, rock climbers, canoers. Bird watchers, etc., with gun toting topics.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. Obviously, this is a niche topic. Where better to discuss it than under the Umbrella of 2A?

[gejohnston]

29. I do those too

OK not rock climbing and running. I'm sure many of us do. Some of the regulars have posted there. Maybe we need to take advantage of it. A place to share what we have in common and not only what we disagree on.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. yes but, thing is This is more narrower in definition and different in scope ---

we are here to discuss 2A and electing Democrats and how Pro2A Dems do better in rural red states and at the grassroots level politically.

...guns are part and parcel of that topic -- not so much camping and rock climbing......

careful not to get to broad in our scope.

[oneshooter]

72. And when do you plan to do it? Been 24hrs and no change.

Last edited Tue Jun 5, 2012, 08:41 PM - Edit history (1)

[Hoyt]

81. When are you going to Outdoor group and post about your loads, carry rig,

bores, clearing a room, and such?

[oneshooter]

84. I am not the one that has lied(so far) to another member about changing a vote.

[oneshooter]

96. Still not done. Seems you are less than honest with other DU folk. n/t

[rrneck]

36. If we van put up with

crud like what you are throwing in this thread, we can put up with anything.

[PavePusher]

47. "I just don't want to read..."

Your mouse has at leat one, possibly 5 or 6 buttons on it. I suggest you learn how to use them properly, as this will solve all your problems.

[NewMoonTherian]

63. You know, I think I agree with you.

I like that this forum is strictly for policy discussion. It's no big deal to go to another forum to ask gun questions. I would like to be able to ask the regulars here those questions too, but I might also want to ask them about green energy or education, and this isn't the place for that either. So guys, look in on Outdoor Life sometimes. Problem solved!

[Logical]

82. Great point, that is why we need to do it here. Thanks for the support!!

[Starboard Tack]

8. No. This has come up before.

This group comes under the category "Justice & Public Safety". You want to talk about guns beyond the current SOP, go to the appropriate Outdoor Life Group.

[ellisonz]

9. Where there has to be some sporting value...

...and not just sheer gun porn.

[Clames]

12. You wouldn't know the definition of "sporting value" anyway.

[ellisonz]

26. I'm pretty sure I've posted more in that group than you have...

...I'm an avid hiker. I can enjoy the outdoors without needing a gun

[gejohnston]

30. Well, he is pretty new.

You have posted more here than he has.

[ellisonz]

32. Funny how he trots around like he's been here a long time...

[gejohnston]

35. knowing about events and people

before registering is not evidence or proof of previous membership.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=42122

[ellisonz]

37. It's a very strong indicator...

...that the posters sole purpose at Democratic Underground is to attack Democrats.

[gejohnston]

40. for example?

disagreeing with part of the party platform, saying a politician is full of shit and providing evidence as to why is not "attacking Democrats". If that were the case, then you would have to go after the Blue Dog Caucus over health care. BTW, are Democrats for Life also a false flag? How far do you want the purge to go?
http://www.democratsforlife.org/

Take Diane Feinstein for example. I can count eight non-gun related issues that I disagree with her on. Those eight puts her to the right of me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein

[ellisonz]

46. I'm talking about Democrats on this site.

You are aware of the anti-Democratic Underground - "Free Republic" and its many refugee sites right?

[gejohnston]

50. I fail to see the point

and you have not provided any evidence of what you claim. What does Free Republic have to do with anything? How about you read the TOS.

[ellisonz]

52. This part:

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Example:

Pro-gun wingnut, trolling around with misogynistic sig line. "Never be upset when you see your ex with someone else. After all, you should always share your used toys with those less fortunate..."
For more information see Terms of Service
Skinner
(Administrator)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=272321&sub=trans

Unfortunately, that nasty one has rejoined us - really easy to get around the ban if you just switch from a laptop to a mobile device.

[gejohnston]

53. OK, and your evidence is what?

I don't see any similarity between writing styles.
To you anyone who disagrees with your views on guns is a "Pro gun wing nut". Fienstien was all for invading Iraq, for the death penalty, and I disagree with her. Does that make me a unDemocratic? McCarthey ran as a Dem only after losing the Republican primary and supported the Enron loophole. Besides guns, that is the biggest thing I disagree with her on. Of course when it comes to general elections, I won't support their opponents. Not being a resident of either state, I can't vote either way when it comes to either one of them.

Shall I list the anti trolls, using the correct definition? Hint iverglas was the top of the list. There are actually only a few antis, for the lack of better term, that are capable of rational discussion on this issue. Some post and say nothing, and the rest are either trolls or act like parodies.

[ellisonz]

54. Try spending some time in GD when there's a chance for such discussions...

BTW - I don't remember seeing you much in the numerous Trayvon Martin/gun threads. Hint: most of DU has deep loathing for gun nuttery.

[gejohnston]

55. not gun nuttery at all

simply correcting misinformation. If our side is going to be the side of truth and light, it must act like it when it comes to all things regardless of what the issue is. Some people had their facts wrong. Those facts are verifiable.
Since groupthink is not mentioned in the TOS, is there a reason I should care? To me a true liberal must be an independent thinker, who comes to their views by knowledge and experience instead of repeating dogma. Frankly, that is what a lot of the Martin issue is. Many people jumped on the bandwagon after the initial trial by jury started. Let's see where the real trial goes. My guess it will be another Casey Anthony, where the DA fend the media a bunch of shit, but could not even establish time or cause of death at trial. Richard Jewell is another trial by jury, although an electronic L word would be more accurate in his case. Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of murder. But, the best points have been made by a NYC liberal, hates gun nuttery, etc. makes some valid points on MSNBC. If I were an intellectually honest and independent thinking anti, I would have to look at this and question some of the assumptions I have made.

Actually I have read through the threads there. Frankly I was appalled at the lack of reasoned debate and general lack of reason and knowledge. The brightest and rational antis come here. I read others and comment on something if I have something to say.

[ileus]

70. Now Now....are you Progressive, progressive, a democrat or a Democrat?

[Clames]

62. Yeah right....

...judging by your posts one could say your sole purpose is to attack anyone who doesn't share your particular set of beliefs. That would be attacking Democrats in your case...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

85. Indeed. n/t

[Clames]

31. You should try the "quality over quantity"...

...approach...


Good for you, I hiked 8 miles through Oak Mountain without a gun. That has precisely zilch to do with sporting purpose use of firearms. Seriously, if you can't get the basic concepts right you are going to have a hard time making a point.


Not like you care anyway

[ellisonz]

34. When you insult my understanding of "sporting value"

You bring the idea of exposure to the outdoors into the debate.

Why are you on this website again?

[petronius]

44. You're way out of line here, ellisonz. Three accusations of disruptor

troll-hood in one thread against a single poster is completely out of proportion to whatever snit you feel over the crack about your understanding of sporting value.

Aside from the inappropriate personal attacks, this constant troll-hunting (by you and others) is disruptive and detrimental to DU...

[ellisonz]

45. When a poster makes his sole purpose here launching constant personal attacks...

I'll call it what it is, trolling. You can alert if you like, but I really don't care and the odds of me being banned as this poster has insinuated is just laughable. All of DU knows the Gungeon is a troll magnet.

BTW - I see you favor creating a gun board on DU. A couple of problems, the way the SOP system is set up the only place where gun control can be discussed is in this group, also the odds of that being allowed by admin is very slim. If they wanted this group to be that type of joint, it would have happened long ago. Not gonna happen.

[petronius]

48. It's clear from your posts in Hosts, Meta, here, and elsewhere that you view yourself

as a sort of Hall Monitor. That's fine - how you DU is up to you - but I'd think you'd want to know when it's your own behavior that is disruptive and inappropriate...

[ellisonz]

49. DU is eminently customizable...

...put me on ignore and you don't have to read my posts anymore. In fact, I'm considering doing that myself, I mean you keep trying to interject yourself into the fray while pretending you're neutral when really you're clearly on the gun nut side. I didn't respond to Clames in this thread, but he tried to take a swipe at me nonetheless. I think you're a lousy Hall Monitor. BTW - I'm no longer a GD Host and I never really make a point of discussing anything but hosting matters there so I don't see our point on that matter. I've always viewed that as a work space and not a place for personal opinions. The Gungeon and Meta are another story. I will, I do, and I will always speak my mind.

Frankly, I detest all this gun nuttery, I'm not willing to pretend that our failed gun control policies don't do tremendous damage when articles like this are in my morning paper:

Kenesha McRoyal, left, one of Ken McRoyal’s sisters, and his girlfriend, Latrese Williams, hug during a service at Mission Ebenezer Family Church in Carson. (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times / May 23, 2012)
Slaying of Idaho football's Ken McRoyal a sad end to a turnaround story
Carson High grad Ken McRoyal's future was looking bright after some difficult years. A gunshot ended it all.
By Sam Quinones, Los Angeles Times
June 3, 2012

-------

A kid known to be hilarious and loud, as well as angry and quick to fight, McRoyal was obsessed with football and desperately dreamed of a pro career in a sport that, at 5-feet-9 and 185 pounds, he seemed too small for.

"He always told my mom, 'I'm gonna get you out the 'hood,'" said his sister Keahsha McRoyal. "He was going to make it to the NFL, and we was all gonna be straight and never have to worry. There was no doubt about that. We just knew."

Nurtured by an extended Samoan family filled with athletes, Ken McRoyal earned a walk-on spot on the University of Idaho football team and was named a starting receiver for the upcoming season with a full scholarship.

His friends say the anger that had defined the kid who waded out of Katrina floodwaters was starting to fade.

On May 11, he returned to Carson for the summer. Two days later, McRoyal, 22, was gunned down in East Los Angeles. Police don't know who did it — or why.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-adv-mcroyal-20120603,0,6233897.story

If stories like that don't make you think there's something seriously wrong with our gun control policies, I don't know what possibly could...

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. Well, that's part of the cultural divide here- we prefer statistics to lurid anecdotes.

You might take a look at the last two sentences of the excerpt you posted for an example:

Two days later, McRoyal, 22, was gunned down in East Los Angeles. Police don't know who did it — or why.

Implying that a singular, albeit tragic, incident with no other information about it is evidence that "there's something seriously wrong with our gun control policies"
is quite the reach. Given the information as quoted, the same could be said about any shooting, anywhere- and be just as evidence-free in those cases.

[Meiko]

95. I don't see it as a gun control issue

any more than I see car deaths as an automobile issue. We have serious social problems in this country. We have rampant gang problems that causes thousands of gun related deaths every year. We have a totally out of control drug problem in this country and instead of dealing with it as a social/medical issue we deal with it using law enforcement, it's like beating someone with a nightstick because they have cancer.

We have a racism problem in this country as well, the cops are no help with some of the brain dead things they do. We have multiple generations living in government housing with no real hope in sight. Many of these homes have no adult male leadership living with the family. There are limited or no real educational opportunities available to kids so they turn to gang bangin' and selling drugs. Gun use is a symptom of a much larger problem

[ellisonz]

98. "Gun use" doesn't happen without readily available guns. n/t

[oneshooter]

99. And how would you propose to lessen the availability of firearms to those who would abuse the right

[ellisonz]

100. There is a poster who I have on ignore replying to this post.

Hint: You're ignored.

[gejohnston]

51. If you use the word troll

use it correctly, or at least learn what it means.

Web definitions

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, , or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+troll+internet&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs#hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=tFT&channel=fs&q=troll+internet&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=Pp_NT8zWJ4TW2AWRyoDqAg&ved=0CF8QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e0899d372f9accf4&biw=1024&bih=635
or we can use Urban Dictionary's
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

Iverglas' picture is next to it. Using this definition, the correct one, all of the trolls are on your side.
Either way, neither definition fits what you are talking about.

[Clames]

101. You insult everyone in this group that doesn't hold precisely to you ideas.

Too bad. And how precisely did I bring the idea of exposure of the outdoors to this debate? If you knew about sporting value then you wouldn't even try to pin that on me. Maybe if you had more care to learn the technical aspects you wouldn't have such trouble keeping up with the discussion...



I'm here because I like this forum. You?


Not that I care really.

[ellisonz]

102. That's a damn lie. Since when do you speak for everyone in the group?

I'm here because I like this forum. You?

In other words, you're here to discuss guns and guns alone. I'm here to support Democrats, not to kiss the NRA's ass and try to piss off liberals.

[Clames]

103. No lies.

Also I said I like this forum. Forum, not group. Meaning DU in general. You don't possess the skill at misrepresenting posts that iverglas had. Doesn't keep you from trying though

[petronius]

13. This is a relatively slow-moving Group, with a smallish number of regular posters,

Last edited Tue Jun 5, 2012, 01:46 PM - Edit history (2)

and the front page lists almost two weeks worth of OPs. Given that, I don't think there is much danger that crime and policy threads will be pushed out of sight. And a less-restrictive SoP would not exclude or bar any of the topics currently discussed.

On the other hand, there are clearly people here interested in firearms from a variety of perspectives beyond policy: recreational and competitive shooting, collecting, hunting, investing. Not all of those fit into Outdoor Life any more than they currently do here. So, a revised SoP here opens opportunities for more diverse conversation.

I'd also see a benefit to DU: this forum has a reputation as a somewhat disputatious den where the same points seem to arise again and again. A broader SoP might sweeten the mix, and provide a more nuanced and comprehensive perspective on the role of firearms in USAmerican life. Regular readers and casual drop-ins might have a more educational experience than the forum currently provides.

So my vote is for a broader SoP, and a name change: "Firearms", or just back to "Guns".

The SoP could read something like: "Discuss all aspects of firearms use and ownership, including but not limited to gun control laws and policies, the Second Amendment, self-defense, crime and violence, safety and education, shooting sports, and collecting."

[Atypical Liberal]

18. I agree.

When I heard in DU3 that anyone could make a group, my first inclination was to make a new group called simply "Guns", where all discussion of firearms and firearms policy would be valid.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. Guns or Firearms .... thinking....

while better than The Gungeon or The Cesspool ....

I would like to see The Second Amendment recognized somehow.....

[DanTex]

60. What about people who want to discuss gun policy...

...in a forum not littered with gun porn?

As an analogy, a forum where government policy towards prostitution is discussed is not the appropriate place for people to be posting accounts of their sex tourism exploits.

I'm not saying you can't have a separate board for swapping sex tourism stories, discussing the merits of different brothels and destinations, even posting pictures. Just not in the same place as government policy towards prostitution is being discussed.

[Kaleva]

61. Why do you think the group will be littered with "gun porn"?

You could do what I do in GD and use the "trash can" feature on threads I'm not interested in. That way you'll only see topics here that you are interested in.

[ileus]

23. I'd hate to see a new cat that was limited.

What I think most of us want is a place to chat all things firearms, reloading, shooting. Maybe even some hunting discussion would be a nice change of pace. I don't know why but the "outdoor life" group is a snooze fest.


Wouldn't it be great to share pics of our families shooting, great days at the bench, and our newest babies?

[Hoyt]

38. Go liven it up with "gun talk. "

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. An idea:

I don't know all of the implications but perhaps their could be written a petition to the admins/mods asking that a "Firearms" topic be established as a top level topic between "Environment & Energy" and "Foreign Affairs & National Security". This new umbrella topic could then cover the GC&RKBA group, a sporting group and perhaps others such as a relic/collector's group, etc.

...or perhaps it could be named the "Gungeon" as some have suggested.

[Kaleva]

41. That would be a possiblity.

Have a Gungeon, or some other name, which is divided into a Gun Control & RKBA group and Firearms group.

Personally though, I'd like to at least try it being all in one topic.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. I'm okay either way n/t

[Kaleva]

43. Your idea would be a very good one if...

say the nuts and bolts thread seem to overwhelm any other subject. Then it may be best to break it up under one Topic umbrella.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

78. suggestion: The Umbrella could be The Second Ammendment....which brings me to another thought

DU could add Other Ammendment Umbrellas as need arises. I can see possibilites, perhaps there could be a whole section: The Constitution....

maybe I am rambling......

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. I like the idea.

[ileus]

57. This could give us a opportunity to gather around what unites us...

instead of what divides us...

Imagine a place where we could discuss the wonderful shooting ability of the Walther p22, or the beauty of a Sako 22-250. Maybe figure out why that Taurus is jamming.

Share pics of the fam out at the range enjoying one of America's greatest family sports.

[Remmah2]

58. The reason I voted no.

I'd like to keep it as two separate forums.

There are plenty of forums to discuss tech issues. The DU political aspect is unique. Although I do not agree with all opinions, I certainly appreciate them being presented. This is Free Speech in a pure format.

[DanTex]

59. No. This forum is about gun policy.

Guns and gun policy are different discussion. One is about public safety and individual rights. The other is about a hobby.

If guns are a hobby of yours, there's already Outdoor Life. If the problem is that it doesn't get much traffic, here's an idea: give it more traffic!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

87. If the SOP was expanded...

...would you be posting here less? As much as we may differ in our points of view, I'm not in favor a change that would discourage any current regulars, such as yourself, from participating.

[CreekDog]

64. never include "safety" in the list of discussion topics

clearly an afterthought.

[petronius]

65. You know, you're right - I tend to think of safety as fundamentally included

in the topics I listed in my suggested SoP in post 13, but certainly an expanded SoP could allow for safety-related topics - training, storage, transportation, etc - that aren't covered by the current SoP. It should be explicitly listed in a broader group purpose. Good suggestion!

[Kaleva]

66. Yes. I pretty much assumed it was a given...

but it'd be an excellent idea to include it in your proposed SOP.

[petronius]

67. I added it...

[Renew Deal]

68. I never understood why pictures weren't permitted.

I guess that people think it may taint the discussion about policy, but I think the crime reporting in this group does the same thing. If crime reports are OK, gun photos should be OK too.

Overall, I don't think the photos or detailed discussion about usage, accessories, etc. will throw the discussion out of balance.

[ileus]

69. all they have to do is ignore non-policy threads.

And let people who have a interest in the 2A besides getting it shit canned, talk about all things firearms.

pretty easy.....

[ellisonz]

73. It's against the Terms of Service to post "shock content"

i.e. photographs of the victims of gun violence.

Don't post "shock content" or porn.

Do not post or link to extreme images of violence, gore, bodily functions, pain, or human suffering for no purpose other than to shock and disgust. Do not post or link to pornography.

[Renew Deal]

86. You're kidding right?

Do you think that "Gun Porn" means "extreme images of violence" or "the human toll of gun crimes?"

[ellisonz]

89. No I think photos of bullet ridden corpses is shock content...

Gun porn in some contexts can be used as shock content and there was actually a troll banned for doing so in GD in a thread about a child being shot.

You misread dude.

[Renew Deal]

90. I read it correctly

And asked you a question. You're brought up "shock content", not me.

[ellisonz]

91. I wrote:

"It's against the Terms of Service to post "shock content" i.e. photographs of the victims of gun violence." - Not that merely posting a picture of a gun was shock content.

[Renew Deal]

92. Right

It's out of context for the discussion. I was talking about "gun photos", not anything else.

[ileus]

93. When I think gun porn I think pics of great firearms

not to be confused with humans that are bleeding.

I've always hated war footage and pictures. Maybe I'm just not cut out to be a gunner...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. Regarding the pro-control posters

I can't help but notice that the "No" side of this poll is also predominantly pro-control with some exceptions. I wanted to recognize and suggest discussion about the fact that the current SOP "Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence." is focused on the legal, political and social aspects of firearms rights.

Many of those posting here on the pro-control side have brought to light concepts I consider vital to the discussion. Regardless of their place along the spectrum preferences for degree of control, it seems they have a decided preference to maintain the focus of this forum in its current state. Maybe I'm wrong in my assessment but I prefer to do nothing that would limit the participation of the minority.

I am quite supportive of the nature of the Bill of Rights to specifically protect the rights therein enumerated. I don't think that those rights are open to a vote to change their scope or focus. It is my preference to find a consensus that all can accept rather than implement a vote that may alienate a few.

Perhaps there is another way to enhance the pro-gun side in further discussion without chancing that some will leave or limit their participation.

For this reason I'm voting "No" for now.

[ileus]

74. And about 15 of the 25 were reeled over with a DU this poll post.

But in all fairness it looks like the DU this poll thread also brought a fair share of Yes replies from non-regulars.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

76. I'm not sure of your point.

I'm resisting change that may dilute what has been a very positive thing. If the expanded SOP would cut the participation of the existing folks I'm not in favor it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

79. never mind. found it. gross. --

despoicable. the terminology in that thread is inflammatory and disruptive to DU. How on earth does he get by with such tone and rhetoric?

[Kaleva]

80. Yes. The votes of the non-regulars didn't change the gap much.

[Kaleva]

75. You'll also notice that some of those who voted "No" want Gun Control & RKBA shut down completely

The people who are voting "Yes" to this are not arguing for a restriction on arguing for greater gun control laws. Everything in the current SOP is in the proposed SOP.

Here is the proposed SOP as written by petronius:

"Discuss all aspects of firearms use and ownership, including but not limited to gun control laws and policies, the Second Amendment, self-defense, crime and violence, safety and education, shooting sports, and collecting."

Here is the current SOP:

"Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

77. I realize that "yes" doesn't mean more gun control laws.

Thanks for saying.

[ileus]

83. That sounds like a great description.

I don't really think they're be a large influx of gun hobby posts, but it would be nice to chat with like minded individuals (progressives like myself) about the fun aspects of collecting and shooting.

[sarisataka]

94. I had to think this one over a few days

and chose to vote No.

I think there is a big difference between talking about RKBA and the technical aspects of guns and their uses.
I would rather the change be this forum limited to GC, RBKA and the second Amendment with another group, which I believe could be under justice and Public Safety, concerning firearms and self-defense. Depending on the context,crime and violence could fall into either category.
The advantage would be for those with a strong interest in only one side could avoid discussions with those who are into the other, though I would expect a lot of overlap among the subscribers.
Outdoor life would be available for those whose interest only extends to hunting and target shooting.

My $.02

[Tejas]

97. Yes: knowledge promotes safety

[era veteran]

104. Yes, It makes good sense.

or Have a gun porn site so the antis can exercise their need for voyeurism.

[G26]

105. Although new to DU, I voted in this poll...

and voted Yes. I started reading this group because of the policy discussions, and not really to learn anything about guns themselves. However, as a long-time gun owner and regular shooter, I already have a working knowledge of common firearms.

Unfortunately, I think that much bad gun policy is based on a lack of knowledge about how guns actually operate. Therefore, I think it is necessary to allow technical discussions about the hardware in order to inform the larger discussion.

[oneshooter]

106. There is one here that claims that all he needs to know about firearms he can get on the net.

He still don't know nothing about firearms.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[aikoaiko]

107. After nearly 100 votes and 1 week, the 70 - 30 split is clearly stable.

This is true even after all of DU was invited to participate in the poll in meta forum posts. Most people apparently declined and preferred to let the usual GC&RKBA participants decide for themselves.

I'm not sure what can happen at this point, but the data are the data.

If there is partial self-determination in this group, then I think a change in SOP can be justified.

[Kaleva]

108. I believe what comes next is the official poll. Or maybe not.

The percentages for and against have remained rather stable since the poll was first posted.