NRA leadership blunder

[jeffnles1]

Again...you've made my case...be as condescending as you want...if you really want to confront me do in a PM...and against my better judgement...I'll call you a dork there too.
Actually it shouldn't have come to this....on a supposedly nonpolitical forum...this is BS hap ...if u can't see that??? Censorship...I don't think so..moderation in excess....wut the hell does that mean??? There are many venues for this stuff,,,go there!!!

nam,
Of all the posts in this thread, only one person has resorted to name calling and the use of foul language.

Nam, I'm not a moderator, but this is a family friendly forum. Heated discussion is not offensive. Name calling and the use of foul language is offensive.

It's OK to disagree. It's NOT OK to call another member names or to use offensive language in a family friendly forum. I see no place for these remarks and I believe you owe all of the people here an apology for your use of offensive language.

If you disagree, either stay out of the discussion or do so without resorting to such offensive behavior.

Honestly, you should be happy that I am not a moderator. If I were, you would no longer be a member of this forum.

Jeff

[ridgeliner]

Well said Jeff and I agree with you 110%. This is not about politics. It is about how two people differ on gun laws and The Bill of Rights. I hope that the question how sportsman feel about semi-automatic firearms being sporting has been answered. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have been around for years. I have a semi-automatic shotgun that I bought 43 years ago. I bought it at the BX the day before I was discharged from the Air Force.

[namekagon]

nam,
Of all the posts in this thread, only one person has resorted to name calling and the use of foul language.

Nam, I'm not a moderator, but this is a family friendly forum. Heated discussion is not offensive. Name calling and the use of foul language is offensive.

It's OK to disagree. It's NOT OK to call another member names or to use offensive language in a family friendly forum. I see no place for these remarks and I believe you owe all of the people here an apology for your use of offensive language.

If you disagree, either stay out of the discussion or do so without resorting to such offensive behavior.

Honestly, you should be happy that I am not a moderator. If I were, you would no longer be a member of this forum.

Jeff

Jeff...I agree that name calling is offensive and that I owe hap an apology...but I owe you nothing.
Since I'm able to respond to your critique of my behavior, apparently I'm still a member....although I suppose that could change.
At any rate, in the future I'll limit any active participation on FAOL to my blog.
Truthfully...I've never felt I offered the forum much anyway.

[jeffnles1]

Jeff...I agree that name calling is offensive and that I owe hap an apology...but I owe you nothing.
Since I'm able to respond to your critique of my behavior, apparently I'm still a member....although I suppose that could change.
At any rate, in the future I'll limit any active participation on FAOL to my blog.
Truthfully...I've never felt I offered the forum much anyway.

Sorry you feel that way, but goodbye.
Jeff

[Clay]

This web site was just announced and might help those who think that there is little difference between McCain and Obama on the gun rights issues: http://www.gunbanobama.com/

Enjoy,

Rick

[JohnScott]

Rick -

Just looking at the home page for the link you provided, it doesn't strike me as a "neutral" site, and I wonder how objective the reporting / commentary is. I'm not going to bother plowing through the site to form an opinion on that, just thought I would make the observation.

Nam did have something of a point, but someone countered it nicely by pointing out that some topics just kind of gravitate to political positions and comments because of their very nature, and this one tends to do that. Someone else pointed out that courteous discussion and respect for other's opinions and positions would soften any "political" aspect the thread might take on. Unfortunately, things just kind of devolved after Nam persisted as he did.

I think the discussion could be held without any politically oriented comments, especially considering the observations Art made about the Keller case, and a couple others made clarifying the meaning of an "assault weapon." Whatever McCain or Obama think about individual gun ownership rights doesn't really matter since the Supreme Court has decided the issue on a constitutional basis.

Injecting any information about the candidates up for election this coming November injects politics and political positions into the discussion unnecessarily, and might make a reader wonder what is the agenda, if any, of the person so doing ??

I was interested in what the Supreme Court would do in the Keller case, more as a matter of curiosity since I'm not a real "stakeholder" in the discussion. I've had guns at different periods of my life, and I might again someday. Ownership or use of guns should be guided by the law of the land, as expressed by the courts, not what politicians think or feel about such matters, unless some constitutionally valid regulation or restriction applies.

I was a bit curious why this thread got started on a fly fishing site. But when you look at the various people who regularly contribute to discussions on the BB in a positive way, its clear that a large number of them enjoy other outdoor activities such as hunting, target shooting, etc. I think these "not FF" discussions can be very enjoyable and educational, and contribute to the closeness of the group, as long as they don't run afoul of the BB guidelines.

John

[gonfishn]

Good reply,John.
I enjoy this site because it is well managed and if a topic gets out of hand it dies.
I'm so sick of politics at the national level I could scream.
Vote the issues not the party.

[Jack Hise]

Well said John. Looking forward to meeting you at the Idaho Fish-In even more.

[Clay]

Nice neutral tone to the response John. That's what we need on the site, calm and objective. The link that I provided, which was an NRA site, was to answer the man's question that he thought that there wasn't much of a difference between the two candidates on this issue. Thee Organization that focuses on these issues, the NRA, does think that there is a big difference between the two candidates and I thought that I would give someone a chance to see that information. That type of information probably isn't going to be posted on the cadidates site.

Rick

[ridgeliner]

I was interested in what the Supreme Court would do in the Keller case, more as a matter of curiosity since I'm not a real "stakeholder" in the discussion. I've had guns at different periods of my life, and I might again someday. Ownership or use of guns should be guided by the law of the land, as expressed by the courts, not what politicians think or feel about such matters, unless some constitutionally valid regulation or restriction applies

John[/quote]

It is the President who makes appointments to the Supreme Court. That is why it is so important what a politician thinks or feels about the matter.