I stopped posting on these forums quite some time ago, mainly because of posts in which certain site members seemed to advocate the violent overthrow of the government of the USA.
I came back now and again to view the site. It seemed to have changed some, tempered some, and that seemed good.
Tonight, I was just about ready to once again become a regular contributing member, then I read most of this thread. While I think the intent behind the limitations/restrictions mentioned by the site administrator(s) is one of decent intent, I have to question the methods being used to achieve the end. I agree that all the super-macho, gun-nut, GunKid, kind of BS about how you should blast first and ask questions later is immature, and quire possibly bad for responsible gun owners and those who would defend themselves from bad guys. Yet, I strongly disagree with the restriction that prevents a site user from posting something to the effect that he or she would shoot an intruder who illegally entered or attempted to enter his or her home, when it is legal to do so to protect both life, limb and property. This method was exactly the same method used by the leftists who wanted to take away our guns and our ability to defend ourselves with them in the first place. Maybe you are not old enough to remember, but I am that old. Yes it used to be legal in more states than currently, to shoot an intruder in your home, and you had no duty to retreat first. The intruder was there, you could shoot. The ownership of guns was not chipped away first; it was the ability to legally shoot an intruder simply for intruding that was chipped away at first. Then after that was gone in most states, handguns came next. Then evil assault weapons.
So what could be the effect of responsible gun owners and responsible self and property defense advocates who say - oh no you cannot talk about that here even if legal. The effect can be that those who tried for so many years to restrict our rights will point to this site as an example of how even the gun owning public agrees with they who would disarm us and destroy our rights to defense of self and property. That would be a shame, a crying shame, no matter how well intentioned you are being in, what I believe to be, your shortsightedness, and narrowmindedness.
If someone wants to discuss their legal tactical self defense and propert options, then if you truly are an advocate of the second amendment, and of a person's right to self defense and defense of property - you would allow those discussions in a civil manner. If you don't allow such discussions, as I see it, you are little more than someone who is trying to restict my rights. No not any imagined right of posting on your site, I know that is a privilege not a right because the site is your property, but rather by your agreement with those who want to take away my rights you have in essence become one of them by lending them and their argument support. A shame indeed.
Best regards,
Glenn B