Would you be in favor of DU banning all positive posting about guns?

[coldmountain]

No more Gungeon, no more happy dances when guns are used to kill bad guys, no more NRA/ALEC trolling

[Scuba]

1. As a firearms owner, yes.

[PragmaticLiberal]

145. As a non firearms owner, No.

[Mojorabbit]

169. No from me also. nt

[Tanuki]

2. No, but I would be in favor of banning trolls. nt

[GentryDixon]

154. I agree.

Talk about a leading, ridiculous question.

[tammywammy]

3. No. n/t

[Lurker Deluxe]

4. What?

What is a "positive posting" about guns?

Attempted robbery thwarted by local police ... did he have a gun? Positive gun post!!!!

Foolish to attempt to ban one side of a debate, unless you are on the losing side of it.

[peace13]

8. Good quesiton! n/t

[Orsino]

75. Phony framing, indeed.

We can be glad that more good guys showed up with guns than bad, but such a tale can be used to dodge the question of whether private gun ownership ought to be regulated.

[el_bryanto]

5. Why stop there - frankly I am tired of seeing any posts by anybody who disagrees with me.

Let's face it; I'm obviously right. If you disagree with me, you are wrong. That's all there is to it. So why display your ignorance by disagreeing with me? Frankly I think it's a little mean that people are allowed to embarrass themselves by disagreeing with me.

Delusions of grandeur? No I don't have any of those - but if I did I'm sure they would be the best delusions of grandeur this world has ever known.

Bryant

[Yo_Mama]

16. You are magnificent

In a confusing and dangerous world, you have have an overarching clarity of mind.

Regrettably, of course, you are wrong in all the details, and DU rules should enforce whatever I think they should be. That day. I reserve the right to change my mind about acceptable postings without notice.

[treestar]

120. Exactly ny

[MrNJ]

152. very well stated

Although the sarcasm smiley is missing.

I, for one, prefer to read / listen / converse with those who disagree with me.
Otherwise it's going to become an echo chamber.

[Bay Boy]

153. Why would you think there was sarcasm?

His post was the best on DU today!

[el_bryanto]

155. I very rarely put the sarcasm smiley - if you have to explain the joke you are better off not making

it in my opinion.

Bryant

[sibelian]

181. UGH.

YOU AGAIN, you and your "opinions". I'm paging Skittles.

[DetlefK]

6. No, f**king way.

And I'm one of the guys thinking that the 2nd Amendment is a problem.

[peace13]

7. Mom ...is that you?

Why throw the baby out with the bath water. If something upsets you, don't read it. Ignore is your friend.

[MrMickeysMom]

9. NO, I would NOT

Regardless of how I feel, the debate always starts in the Democratic Party, where plenty of cats can be seen j u s t TRYING to be herded! Ha!

[onehandle]

10. Yes, but the sport of matching sockpuppets to trolls would be over. nt

[Scuba]

34. Well, except for all the other "issue trolls".

[maddezmom]

11. You can do on your own if you want

Just go here and trash the forum.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=myaccount&sub=trash&trashforum=1172

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. suits me fine. can't happen soon enough to suit me.

[rrneck]

13. Some DUers love to hate guns.

Would that make a negative post a positive post if the poster hated guns and said so?

[hughee99]

81. Others love to hate free speech, when they don't agree with the message. n/t

[oneshooter]

163. There seems to be quite a few who let their bigotry against

legal gun owners show. But squeal loudly when it is pointed out.

[Yo_Mama]

14. Huh?

I haven't seen much happy dancing about shootings on DU. Maybe I am too selective in my reading here, but....

Let's say that someone posted a remark that they are glad yesterday's shooter was ultimately stopped, or that the Fort Hood shooter was ultimately stopped. Would that be a "positive posting about guns"?

[Katashi_itto]

15. As a gun owner...yep very much so. I havent seen one pro-gun post that

didnt used cherry picked data. If any at all.

[former9thward]

48. Have you ever seen a anti-2nd amendment post

that didn't use cherry picked data? If any at all? I never have.

[Katashi_itto]

123. Reading Gun magazines all day I doubt you would.

[GalaxyHunter]

17. not a chance.

[nevergiveup]

18. Yes

There, I said it. I also understand and respect those who are pro-gun reform and still place a high value on the importance of the debate but I am just being honest. When I saw the question my impulse was to say "yes" so I said it.

[countingbluecars]

19. Yes

I am sure there are plenty of other websites where gun lovers can worship their guns.

[Upton]

20. No...of course not..

Do you wish to throw all Democratic gun owners out of the party too? It'll sure be tough to win elections that way..

[Daniel537]

45. I'm sure the purists wouldn't care either way. n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

21. No, but I'd like to see them out of LBN and GD

since so frequently such posts are simple anecdotes or worse yet are really bad citations of statistics.

[hack89]

23. I would be happy to see no gun threads in GD. nt

[Eleanors38]

108. Agreed. We have TWO (2) groups AND one forum (GD) for gun posts...

It seems there are those who can't get their way with an embarassment of riches, now they want to dictate the proper posts.

[Robb]

110. I bet you would. If only people would stop shooting each other.

Poor maligned guns.

[hack89]

113. Perhaps we can make it illegal.

that's the ticket.

[TacoD]

24. We set the community standards.

If enough people decide that pro-gun posts do not meet community standards, then pro-gun posts will be hidden by juries. If you're waiting for the administrators to ban pro-gun posts, that is highly unlikely. This is how the admins want DU3 to be run, they want us to decide what our community standards are.

[gopiscrap]

26. yes

[1-Old-Man]

27. No

[Brainstormy]

28. I hate guns, but

I'm not in favor of banning any subject on DU

[DanTex]

29. Maybe we should have more NRA/ALEC trolling.

How about creating a second gungeon where people can rail about "death panels" and the "gay agenda" and "makers versus takers." The way it is now, too many trolls end up get banned because they make the mistake of talking about something other than guns. Are the Ayn Rand trolls less human than the NRA trolls?

[Romulox]

30. This site is the single largest destination for "conservative" Democrats...We advocate for drone

killing, NSA spying, and "free trade" here.

[leftstreet]

36. All positive Free Trade posts should have a separate forum

Ditto for spying and pro-military intervention

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. because anyone that disagrees with you...MUST be a conservative Democrat who supports

drone killing, NSA spying and free trade right?

[Romulox]

56. Those are LITERAL examples, taken from actual posts and posters. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. Oh of course....sure....yeah..."Literally".

[Romulox]

59. Lame. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. Yes...Lame is the exact word I was looking for!

[treestar]

121. Not only that

A positive post is one that disagrees in any aspect and does not silly ditto the concept that there should be no trade treaties whatsoever. They are evil and there is no discussion to be had.

[Romulox]

130. Word salad, much? nt

[backscatter712]

69. I thought the term was conservative "Democrats", not "conservative" Democrats. n/t

[Romulox]

131. Excellent point. nt

[jwirr]

31. No.

[snooper2]

32. Only if DU'er Robb promises 50% of his OP will be about cool things like Fusion power

[aikoaiko]

33. No, all the anti-gun trolls would die of starvation.

[tularetom]

35. I'm not sure what a "positive posting about guns" is

If you are in favor of strict gun control, a positive posting about guns would be one where all guns would be banned.

[closeupready]

37. What would nanny state authoritarians do then?

I think this is a bad idea.

[pintobean]

38. Happy Constitution Day everybody.

[beevul]

139. Seriousy.

Today is in fact, my birthday as well.

[pintobean]

140. Happy birthday, beevul

[beevul]

148. Thanks!

I told my SO I was gonna keep resetting the date on my PC to sept 15, and not have one this year...She laughed.

[pintobean]

150. That doesn't work.

The only thing that works is crossing the international date line at midnight.

[beevul]

151. ROFL.

Have a good day.

[badtoworse]

39. Absolutely not

[Lizzie Poppet]

40. Absolutely not.

If pro-gun-rights posts annoy you, use the damn "trash thread" and Ignore features.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. Remember -- anyone who says the 2A protects the rest of their rights is just being paranoid

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. Better to have gun nut shitheads out in the open: lets me know who NOT to take seriously

on any issue whatsoever.

[marions ghost]

43. right

know the enemy.

And as for taking gun threads out of GD, that would also be just another way of not looking at what is a serious affliction in our society.

[ananda]

42. No.

As much as I abhor gun populism, I
love free speech more.

[ColesCountyDem]

44. No! DU should not become an echo chamber.

There are many subjects about which liberal and progressive disagree. So long as any given opinion does not clearly cross the line into 'troll-ism', those who disagree with that opinion are free to combat it with the logic and strength of their counter-opinion.

Liberals and progressive support vigorous debate, or so I was taught from childhood on.

[baldguy]

46. Ban the RW trolls who use deceitful NRA talking points.

Why should RWers who support guns be immune from DU's rules?

[Daniel537]

47. Absolutely not.

When did owning a gun or supporting the 2nd amendment make one a right-winger?

[stklurker]

49. ^^^^^^^

this....

[closeupready]

55. Yes. The 2nd Amendment is a triumph of 18th Century liberalism.

But on the other hand as authoritarians tell us here, you know, the 18th Century was so long ago...

[tridim]

51. There is nothing positive about guns. nt

[NM_Birder]

74. Stewie would disagree with you, and so would I.

[tridim]

76. I'm not my avatar. Name one postive. nt

[NM_Birder]

95. Responsibility.

Sport clay shooting and hunting have been a part of my life since I was 9 years old, I hunt everything that has a season whenever at all possible. There is no greater day spent than with family/friends sport shooting or hunting. Enjoying, or more clearly LOVING something that demands a high degree of responsibility raises the bar in not just how a person handles themselves in the field but also in everyday life. It is a pattern of respect to ask permission to hunt somebody's land, prove to them that you are responsible enough to be trusted to shoot on their property. Respect, responsibility and maturity are all requirements of firearm sports, those qualities are not just there during firearm's use, those qualities are ingrained. It is a proud moment in parent (or Uncle's) life when you watch a youngster show the maturity and responsibility required to participate in firearm sports. That level of maturity and responsibility carry on to all aspects of interactions in life. Not every person is responsible nor mature enough to drive a car, drink alcohol, or even raise kids yet these are all things that are not called to be banned. The vast majority, I would guess high 90% of firearms enthusiasts, are safe and responsible members of the shooting sports community, and the obvious truth that "anti" people won't acknowledge is that firearm enthusiasts overwhelmingly support reasonable regulation.

What we don't agree with is a closed minded, self centered ignorant stance that "guns are bad, guns kill people,...guns are bad and people who love guns are bad people" as I have read many many times on DU.

[tridim]

162. IMO hunting is not a positive, unless you're starving.

Sport Shooting is just an activity, it can be done non-lethally. An AR-15 is not necessary for either.

My dad taught me and my brothers to shoot, which I did enjoy when I was a kid, but by age 16 I had outgrown the "it-goes-boom" appeal and moved on to more important things, like girls.

[NM_Birder]

166. Good try, A for effort.

But I'm surprised...no small penis joke ?

Why is the AR-15 always the gun used in an anti gun argument ?..because it's "scary" looking, it's not even the most commonly used firearm to commit a crime, pistols are the most commonly used firearm to commit a crime. the demonization of the AR-15 is to drum-up popular support for un-passable legislation.

Luckily, yours is the kind of logic that most "anti gunners" use,..... so while you make my hobbies a little more expensive in the short term, I'm not worried about any real legislation being passed that will affect me. Nothing tastes better than something you've killed yourself, but I would probably starve if I had to rely on hunting for all my meat.

Sure you did.

[NM_Birder]

142. no response,.....not surprised. take care.

[GreenStormCloud]

171. They give me, a 67 yr old with a disability the ability to defend myself...

...if attacked by a street criminal or if my home is invaded. I consider that a good, although I am confident that you think I should be a good victim, take my injuries, and if alive file a police report.

[redstatebluegirl]

52. I dislike guns as much as most people here but

I am not in favor of any kind of censorship here. Trolls yes, but I respect many of the gun rights people who post here. I vigorously disagree with them on this issue.

[Aristus]

53. I don't know. What constitutes a positive posting about guns?

"23 Children Massacred In Sandy Hook. 34 Children Survive!"? - maybe?

Guns are a scourge on our society. And so is gun-humping...

[etherealtruth]

175. "A-M-E-N"

[ann---]

58. Absolutely!

There is nothing "positive" about something whose sole purpose is to destroy, kill or maim.

[DragonBorn]

73. Sure about that?

Tell that to the woman who shoots her attempted rapist that there was nothing positive about that, or the 15 year old kid that shot the burglar who was attempting to break in to his home where he and his little sister where. You do know that even Obama admitted there are about 100k defensive uses of firearms per year.

What would have happened in those 100k situations without firearms? Would some of those people have been killed, robbed, raped?

[madokie]

61. As a not firearms owner, YES

[Iggo]

62. Back to the Gungeon where they belong.

That'd be good enough.

[Paladin]

67. Agreed.

Let's get most if not all the gun threads back into the two DU gun groups where they belong, clean up the big forums, and press on with other issues. The gun situation is beyond any point of useful discussion or mutual compromise---it's been that way for years, and there's no indication that it's going to change. Enough, already.

[Eleanors38]

111. And I agree with you!

[Paladin]

124. Glad to hear it. (nt)

[Lizzie Poppet]

126. Gun posts in GD have proven to be a horrible idea.

[Iggo]

128. An idea that's run its course, at the very least.

[nolabear]

63. No, but your list is exclusionary.

ALL positive posts about guns would include quite a few more things. I hate guns myself, but trolls and actual talks and information exchange are two different things.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. yes, if by that you mean "advocating against gun control".

And IBTL as there is already an alert in the hosts forum and, despite a recent reminder from Skinner that discussions about gun control are allowed, there will be an effort from the gungeoneer gd hosts to lock this up.

[cbdo2007]

65. No but I'm in favor of people not responding to those posts.

That's the best way to make them go away is to not play into it. If they are getting a reaction they know they are doing something right and it feeds them.

[reflection]

66. Somebody would.

I've served on two juries from the same alerter in the last 24 hours where the alert was wholly without merit. Just someone upset with what they perceived to be pro-NRA talking points. The collective response from the two juries was 11 of 12 voted to leave the posts.

If I've been on two such juries, I assume there are several more I haven't been on.

[backscatter712]

68. The gungeon's always been a petri-dish for DU trolls. I say fumigate the place. n/t

[Whisp]

70. silliness looking for some action. n/t

[wildeyed]

71. No

[Orsino]

72. Just Gungeon them.

I consider private gun ownership to be more a problem to be dealt with than a right to be defended. Hearing tales of happy outings in which no alcohol was involved, no one was accidentally or intentionally shot, targets (or even meals) were bagged...do any of these things advance a debate worth having? If the brandishing or firing of a gun helped prevent loss of life or property, would this exception to the rule outweigh the tens of thousands killed annually?

I think not. Some enthusiasts--the mutters--are still clinging to the notion of an absolute right to private gun ownership, or are struggling to frame the debate as an "issue" to which there are only two sides, and that owning firearms is a higher purpose than regulating them.

A collection of happy stories, however, wouldn't be relevant to any debate on terms other than the gun lobbyists'. If DU continues to allow such discussion, why need it be prominent on the site.

To the Gungeon.

[tritsofme]

77. This authoritarian desire to censor speech is scary

Whether on the left or right. It is Skinner's site and he can do as he pleases, but this automatic reaction to censor the things we disagree with is not healthy.

[NYC_SKP]

137. Well stated, tritsofme.

It's restrictive enough, IMO, as it is.

I've always appreciated the admin's willingness to allow progressive second amendment supporters to contribute to their site.

[Half-Century Man]

78. No, we can not discuss something without both sides represented

If we reject the other sides arguments without taking their opinion into consideration, we become the the Leftover tea party.

Is the problem just firearms or something more? I suspect a more complex problem, one which can't be wished away with a boilerplate legislation.

[sarisataka]

79. Which party favors

censorship, suppression of dissent and absolute adherence to what is "right"? Is it the more progressive party or the conservative one?

[krispos42]

80. There's a Group for that already

Gun Control Reform Activism.

The Hosts there do what you describe, both with original posts and with members.

[aikoaiko]

103. Bazinga!

[Bazinga]

184. Yes? n/t

[aikoaiko]

187. LOL

[MicaelS]

82. Absolutely not.

The 2nd Amendment is still part of the Constitution, and is it an INDIVIDUAL right.

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. Nnnnnnope.

[Shrike47]

84. No. I can choose not to read or engage if I don't want to.

[Loudly]

85. Makes as much sense as banning all positive posts about racism.

The values of a board are reflected by its filters.

[dipsydoodle]

86. No.

Because I am anti censorship of any news or discussion

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Ignore is your friend

If that is how you feel. I collectively plunked the gungeon. And have put plenty of individuals there. We can't talk o each other, so why pretend? The same applies to the BOGers. It makes DU usable and enjoyable again. I realize we live n different realities. So that's that.

[ileus]

88. Not a very progressive idea.

[hlthe2b]

89. On a "gut" level, yes... On a "rational" level, no. And, yes, I do let rationality guide me.

That said, there are a handful here, who NEVER post on anything but guns and then it is constant repetition of NRA memes. I am not sure what they add to DU.

Still, I don't advocate to diminish those honestly held and sincere beliefs among those who at least profess to support Democrats/Progressives. BUT, it is long past time to send most of the discussion back to the gungeon.

[geomon666]

90. No n/t

[Uben]

91. No, I don't like senseless censorship.....

Gun arguments are just like dem/rep arguments...you can talk till you are blue in the face, but you're not gonna sway one person!

[pipi_k]

93. As was so well put

in post #5...

Not unless we all get to ask for banning whatever offends us.

[cordelia]

94. No

[Enthusiast]

96. No way!

If I was healthy enough I would still be hunting. But fuck the NRA.

[bigwillq]

97. NO (nt)

[LittleBlue]

98. No. The push for censorship has to be stopped

How did so many people get by in life unable to tolerate opposing viewpoints? This is the internet ffs

[Warpy]

99. No. First, it's not possible. Second, it will annoy rural Democrats.

If you ban the gungeon, then all the gun posts will be on GD. No thanks, that's why the gungeon was created.

I hate guns as much as any pacifist, but I also live in bear and cougar country. People outside the city need them. Most gun owners in this state will fire warning shots at wildlife in the trash and very few bears and cougars are killed--so few that it makes the news when they are. Rural gun owners generally aren't the problem.

Urban and suburban gunloons are the problem. Unfortunately, it's difficult to weed them out. Maintaining the gungeon is the best policy at this point.

[warrant46]

168. Rural Democrats take an electoral ass kicking on this subject

Its amazing how many poor rural residents have only 3 items to hate on the radar, gays, guns and god.

Every time Pelosi says something about guns we are treated to non stop mocking by the Koch brothers and their allies. In certain parts of blue states they have become 80% red because of this phenomenon.

Nothing else seems to matter

[Zorra]

100. no. nt

[upaloopa]

101. Why not just make a list of accepted beliefs

then alert on anyone with the apposing view?

[hunter]

102. Is this a positive post about guns or a negative post...

[Iggo]

105. It is both.

[Kelvin Mace]

104. You would have a massive argument about what constitued a positive post

And while I am VERY much in favor of hard guns laws, I oppose complete banning.

[warrior1]

106. as a gun owner yes I would be in favor

[fathom5]

107. I don't think so.

I signed up on DemocraticUnderground.com because of the wide ranging topics and the robust debates here.

If you start banning topics you don't like, where does it end?

My philosophy is, if you don't like a certain topic, don't read or reply to it.

[gopiscrap]

115. Welcome to DU

[fathom5]

117. Thank you.

Interesting place here.

[spin]

109. No. (n/t)

[The Straight Story]

112. Only if I loved bias and bigotry.what are we on guns, the rw version of freepers on islam?

Only paint with negative colors! Endorse my hatred based on what less than 1% do and how they behave.

[Robb]

114. I think we should stick to banning right-wing assholes.

The rest will sort itself.

[etherealtruth]

176. Best answer

[treestar]

116. Impossible

It is up to the jurors so anything goes as long as there are enough to hide or not hide. If gun lovers get numerous enough they win.

[Eleanors38]

118. Gun-control elitism relies on prohibition of more than guns. nt

[Chan790]

119. No, but I think after the current story dies down...

it's time for the GD exception to end.

6+ months and every time it's just about out of the news, another shooting. I'd rather that when shootings happened...RKBA got flooded...unless it's a major story in which case such an GD-exception needs to be tightly-scoped and time-ranged.

[Brigid]

122. No. No need to be so extreme.

I hate guns myself, but I have relatives who own rifles and shotguns for hunting and do so without being stupid about it. But it wouldn't hurt to send the topic back to the gungeon.

[Hoyt]

125. As one banned from Gungeon, I think it's good to see how they really feel about guns vs. humanity/

society. When it comes to gunz, some Democrats are as cold/callous as right wingers.

I'm not in favor of banning Gungeoneers, but I am in favor of banning most guns in public, and restricting possessing of more than a limited number of guns for hunting, target shooting, and home defense. This is not a war zone, not matter how much some get off pretending that it is.

Someday we will have the guts to pass laws like Australia enacted in 1996. The Gungeon can them become a whining chamber.

[Iggo]

129. Yep. And I'd never have known if they hadn't come spilling out after Newtown.

[Eddie Haskell]

127. When they come for your guns, it's time to use them.

[valerief]

132. Oh, my, yes!!!! That's like talking about what's good about rape.

Jeezus H., guns kill people!!!

[Kaleva]

133. No.

[stevenleser]

134. I'd settle for banning positive postings about guns from GD.

When we have a gun death rate 25 times that of most other first world countries, I don't see much positive about guns here.

[Uncle Joe]

135. No I have too much respect for the principles of the 1st Amendment

in enlightening the people via public debate.

Narrowing down the discussion will only serve to dumb down D.U. just as the corporate media has dumbed itself and to a large extent its' viewers down by curtailing discussion of any topic it deems unsavory.

Thanks for the thread, coldmountain.

[coldmountain]

136. THE ATTENTION THIS POST HAS GOTTEN IS THE POINT I'M MAKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just put "guns" and "banned" in a heading and they come like flies to feces. Heck some just signed up to tell us what DU is supposed to be. Here's someone with 1 post at the time, "I signed up on DemocraticUnderground.com because of the wide ranging topics and the robust debates here. "

As far the idea of censorship, well that already happens when more blatant rightwingers show up or someone violates community standards of decency. Maybe at this point, advocating for guns isn't decent anymore. Getting rid of pro gun talk would get rid of a bunch of stealth rightwingers on this site while allowing the majority to vent about the unfairness of the present gun carnage situation without listening to NRA/ALEC astroturfers or apologists.

BTW, the first amendment has nothing to do with a privately owned website.

[Uncle Joe]

138. 1. That's why I said the "principles" of the First Amendment.

2. Your own post speaks to the merits of mine, nothing prevents the majority from venting and in doing so, marginal supporters of gun rights may be shifted on the debate, that's how democracy works.

It can be messy and it's not easy, but it's essential to any society determined to evolve via debate and the rule of law vs that of radicalized violence.

As far the idea of censorship, well that already happens when more blatant rightwingers show up or someone violates community standards of decency. Maybe at this point, advocating for guns isn't decent anymore. Getting rid of pro gun talk would get rid of a bunch of stealth rightwingers on this site while allowing the majority to vent about the unfairness of the present gun carnage situation without listening to NRA/ALEC astroturfers or apologists.

Yes by all means we can retreat behind our walls and they can retreat behind their's because our sensitivities are too endangered, that's the corporate media's excuse for not accurately depicting to the American People the true cost of war.

As a result, to millions of Americans war is a video game.

The corporate media has also kept the American People behind a wall in general knowledge of how the rest of the world works, keeping us further ignorant on issues as diverse as global warming climate change, gun control, health care, education and drug reform among others.

[coldmountain]

141. Unfortunately,the rightwingAstroturf leads to misunderstandings about what progressives are thinking

They distort the website. If I put up a post to say cancer was cured or someone had the secret to world peace, it would get less hits than putting the words "guns" and "banned" in a post.

[Uncle Joe]

143. I have faith in the people of D.U. to work out the issue

despite any "rightwingAstroturfers."

[Paladin]

144. Well stated. Thanks for this thread. (nt)

[stevenleser]

186. So we should open the forum up to freepers and other RWNJ's then? Why bother to have DU

why not just have an open forum when everyone can post anything they want? Let's flood GD with messages about which WWE wrestler we like.

The 1st amendment argument makes no sense at all.

[Uncle Joe]

189. D.U. has tens of thousands of members and its' growing everyday.

The vast majority are Democrats from one end of the political spectrum to the other.

If you truly believe in the merits of your argument, you won't be afraid of contention and open debate.

Again as I posted above the keyword was "principles" of the First Amendment.

The Founders weren't afraid of open debate in regards to government's power and they damn sure had their own contentious issues of the time, the only people; who who didn't believe in the merits of their own argument and lost faith in debate were the slave owners so they left.

The same holds true for the people of D.U. if you want to change the world, you must have the courage and tenacity to confront and debate those who don't believe as you, remaining in a safe echo chamber serves little purpose.

The corporate media even uses the propaganda of people on the Internet gravitating only to sites and stories which they already agree with, that's actually the corporate media model.

No doubt freepers, would be trolls or just lurkers come to this site hoping to confirm or reinforce their pre-conceptions and no doubt some of them are converted despite their original intent.

[stevenleser]

190. You didn't answer any of my questions, because you can't. Your position is untenable. nt

[Uncle Joe]

191. If you actually read my post, you would know I most clearly stated that I wasn't afraid of debate

no matter who came.

I also stated people can change their point of view when they remain open to countering ideas and information.

If my "position is untenable" then obviously you believe debate is untenable and perhaps you lack faith in your own argument or ability to influence and persuade.

All I can suggest is keep trying, don't give up and remain tenacious regardless of the discomfort.

[stevenleser]

192. That is a nonsensical response. It has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with being drowned out.

If people have to wade through 50,000 messages on WWE, Major League Baseball, Knitting, Cooking, Jai-Alai, Carpentry, Zymurgy, etc. to get to the single political OP they might want to discuss, they are going to give up.

Skinner/EarlG/Elad deciding they want to have discussion forums only regarding certain brands of left wing politics is not censure-ship, and it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

And I still maintain you are avoiding the question.

[Uncle Joe]

194. General Discussion is a "general discussion board" about the issues of the day, but I haven't noticed

a plethora of WWE, Major League Baseball, Knitting, Cooking, Jai-Alai, Carpentry, Zymurgy cluttering the board.

The issue of guns in our society, whether you're for or against is most certainly a pressing issue of our time.

But if your main concern is lack of politics or political discussion we have a board; "Politics 2013" devoted exclusively or almost exclusively to that issue alone and it's one of the major boards!

There are plenty of "political" discussion threads on the General Discussion board and I never felt like I busted a nut to find them.

[stevenleser]

195. You haven't noticed it because the GD hosts would be all over it and would lock them.

Which, according to you, would be wrong of them.

[Uncle Joe]

197. You're posing a hypothetical that hasn't happened when it does get back to me.

To my knowledge those "issues," or examples that you posted aren't critical issues of the day.

[stevenleser]

199. It's not a hypothetical. It happens semi-regularly.

If you were the host of any group or forum and had access to the area where this is discussed, you would know that.

[Uncle Joe]

200. Again as I posted those aren't critical issues of the day, you're comparing fluff to substance

and you should know that.

[stevenleser]

201. You are now moving the goal posts, and you know you are. You werent talking about critical issues of

the day, you were responding to my point about WWE, Zymurgy, etc.

[Uncle Joe]

205. From my very first post to which you responded, I was speaking of substance and the importance of

keeping open debate pro or con re: guns in our society and having faith in the merits of your own argument to win out.

I spoke of the power of the "principles" behind the First Amendment in regards to open debate and you tried to turn that around insinuating that I didn't know D.U. wasn't a government entity.

I have news for you open debate in a democracy and the gun issue in the U.S. are critical issues.

I posted at least once if not twice up-thread that guns in the U.S. were a critical issue.

My original post was in response to the OP's assertion that we should hide debate re: the gun issue if the OP didn't favor that side of the argument instead of debating it head-on.

Anyone with a lick of common sense could tell that I was speaking of critical issues (debate, changing the world and guns) on my very first couple of posts, but I had to spell that out for you because you threw up a bunch of B.S.

If people have to wade through 50,000 messages on WWE, Major League Baseball, Knitting, Cooking, Jai-Alai, Carpentry, Zymurgy, etc. to get to the single political OP they might want to discuss, they are going to give up.

and then claim that "I was moving the goalpost."

Your lack of reading comprehension or willful ignorance would be be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[grahamhgreen]

146. No. Not a gun fan, but I feel this issue is far less important than others we have on our plate,

certain issues like ending the costly trade agreements have support across the board, and I don't want the gun issue getting in the way of doing things like:

Ending the costly trade agreements
increasing taxes on the hoarding class
getting a public option
Ending the war economy
etc.

[quinnox]

147. Honestly? At this point I would be in favor of banning any and all discussion about guns whatsoever

Pro or Con. Yep, I'm sick of the whole issue.

[HappyMe]

149. No.

[derby378]

156. What pintobean said back in #38

Which means that, in reference to your question...

[Agnosticsherbet]

157. No more than I would favor all positive postings about Dungeons and Dragons or Republicans.

My problem has been that most real discussion of gun control policy must take place there.

Domestic political policy should be open for discussion in places where people can discuss real issues. I think the Gungeon, Dungeon, and the Republicungeon has its place among hobbyists, fans, and in the last case anthropologists studying mythological subspecies.

[Skittles]

158. absolutely not

they make me sick but they have a right to be here

[MFM008]

159. as a gunowner

I dont believe any topic should be off limits. Guns yea or nay.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

160. yes, i would. nt

[Blue_Tires]

161. nope....

[bbinacan]

164. Since I believe in the First Amendment, I say

fuck no.

[Vashta Nerada]

165. All talk about guns should be limited in that dark, cold basement known as the gungeon.

And "positive posting about guns" is an oxymoron. There's nothing positive about guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

174. My wife is alive because she was armed when she needed to be.

I think that is a strong positive. It appears that you would be happier if she we just another crime statistic.

[coldmountain]

177. The whole country is a lottery of crime statistics

[Duckhunter935]

167. No

I do not care to censor

[HereSince1628]

170. No

[etherealtruth]

172. I would

There are elements of the culture that engage in "gun love" ... I could do without it here.

I feel the same way I do about anti choice... yes there are democrats that feel that way ... but I don't need to read about it here (I actually don't read about it here since few post 'antichoice" garbage)

[Douglas Carpenter]

173. no - I think they are full of shit- but so are a lot of other postings

[bettyellen]

178. fuck yes, make it go away.

[Laffy Kat]

179. Put me down as a "Hell Yes" please.

[Gothmog]

180. As a firearm owner, no

I own two shotguns and I want to discuss gun control

[PowerToThePeople]

182. Add gun control as a stance DU supports in TOS?

Similar to supporting electing dems in the election cycle?

Sure, I would support doing that.

[LWolf]

183. No. nt

[BainsBane]

185. Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No more NRA swill. It would also take care of the flood of right-wingers who are able to use the gungeon loophole to join the site, serve on juries, or even worse.

[Egalitarian Thug]

188. I'd be happy if you all went back to your respective gungeons. n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

196. So. Fucking. THIS.

Gun threads in GD: a candidate for admission to the Bad Ideas Hall of Fame.

[Demo_Chris]

193. No. If I want lockstep echo chamber conformity I would be Republican. nt

[PlanetaryOrbit]

198. Why? Afraid of free speech?

That would be censorship.

[Niceguy1]

202. no.

If a person can't tolerate opposing viepoints in a web forum then they bigger issues.

[bluestate10]

203. I don't own a gun or want to own a gun. But I oppose shutting down a particular point of

view about gun ownership. I have confidence that most people on DU can read opposing views and come to a correct conclusion.

[donco]

204. "DU banning all positive posting about guns "

Hmmm...that would be akin to throwing darts at a wall five foot from where you're standing.Kinda easy to hit the target but REALLY,REALLY boring.

[AngryOldDem]

206. No.

Sorry, can't get behind censorship.