Well, I'll be the first to inquire of the 2 gun control groups...

[Eleanors38]

Is there a history as to how the "activism" group came about?

Can there be postings by control "activists" in this group and vice versa?

Are there restrictions as to the above-mentioned cross-postings which apply to both parties, or will those of one group be held to a lesser standard or smear & invective?

On a related note, since BOTH groups have "gun control" as part of their titles, can this group act to change its title and purpose?

If a change in title & purpose can be made, can the discussion of firearms types, qualities, uses, etc. be included here and not be bifurcated into "Outdoors?"

Thanks to Krispos for service.

[ManiacJoe]

1. The "activism" forum ...

is a "safe haven" for pro-control discussions.

This RKBA forum has no such restrictions.

Previous thoughts at broadening the RKBA forum did not meet with enthusiasm from the admins.

[Eleanors38]

2. So, they will enjoy the same high level of smear & and accusation...

when posting in BOTH groups, but a pro-2A person posting in "activism" can be shut out for not "activating?"

What was the reason for not, presumably, allowing expansion/change if this "gun control" group to include... oh, say "activism"... as in the other "gun control" group?

BTW, where did the discussion on how 2 gun control groups came about come about? In Meta? I thought it was dead?

[ManiacJoe]

3. I presume that the new group's discussion took place in Meta a while back,

but I never saw it. That is what the two threads in ATA suggest.

Previous discussions about amending the RKBA SOP had to do mostly with (1) moving guns out of Outdoor Life and (2) making law discussions explicit in the SOP. #1 did not make it.

I have some guesses about the antis' desire for a safe haven, but my guesses would not be PC with the pro-control crowd.

[Eleanors38]

4. Sounds like the "activism" has been going on a while.

It would appear they want a safe haven to promulgate their side -- and be protected from anyone who does not share their singular viewpoint -- yet be able to venture over the border using the same slash & burn attacks the jury system seems to have bred, over in this "gun control" group.

It would be nice if there was a little mire transparency about this change to 2 gun control groups.

[av8r1998]

17. thank you eleanor

[Clames]

12. Now they shouldn't be so well protected here.

Since they have their own group that is a safe haven that changes a few things now. I think the host here should have more freedom to ban those who come here just to shit stir.

[Eleanors38]

14. Only if the "jury" system is subject to override.

We've both seen the garbage dumped in here, with little chance a "jury" will hide it; I quit alerting some weeks ago. If a proposal is made to formalize a practice to hide/can this enabled & promoted routine of baiting-then-hiding, I'm willing to consider it.

Some may recall when a few yrs. ago I predicted a strategy whereby gun-controllers would garbage-dump this site, then equate the result with an "unprogressive" or "RW" forum, and seek to ban or isolate it. It didn't work completely, but with the "jury" system and their safe-haven status, they are free to resume their "activism," which seems limited to stigmatizing fellow DUers.

[Clames]

21. I'd say the host can simply ban them from this group.

They'd have nothing to whine about now that they have a safe haven. Now they don't even have Meta to whine in... They can shit in their own house and leave others alone.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

77. That would be a step in the right direction.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Actually both are "groups" and technically safe havens

As such some of the worst offenders can be banned from here if the host(s) decide.

[pipoman]

62. LOL

The term "safe haven" makes me laugh. Why do people come to a discussion board? To agree on everything? To not hear the problems with their beliefs? In a way, the whole site is a safe haven. Beyond that, the only groups which need to be "safe havens" (LOL), are disagreements within the party, and the "safe haven" seekers are consistently on the loosing side. "Safe Haven"..the antithesis of 'Democratic' IMHO..

[Robb]

6. Almost 200 active DUers are trashing this forum.

180 last I looked. And yes, it's a DU record.

The Meta discussion on the subject indicated this group has become so toxic to most DUers, they neither wish to post nor read what Team NRA has to say within it. To say this slanted the jury pool is an understatement; but more importantly it stifled the conversation.

A group that accurately represents the majority view on gun control was as inevitable as the legislation we're watching unfold. My understanding is Team NRA will be "welcome" if they adhere to the SOP, but should probably also note that with a wider pool of jurors, the guns-guns-rah-rah may not swing your way as often as you'd like.

I'm not in charge of anything, of course, just calling it like I see it.

[gejohnston]

7. juries are chosen from across DU

AFAIK, so we have the same jury pool.
How does it stifle conversation? Being an echo chamber, the conversation is more stifled there because there is no real conversation. That is why I don't see the value in them.

if they adhere to the SOP, but should probably also note that with a wider pool of jurors, the guns-guns-rah-rah may not swing your way as often as you'd like.

Same jury pool. Out of the many juries I've been on, I have yet to serve in the gungeon. Meta, GD, and Middle East, yeah. Are you saying that if I stick to pointing out and explaining the many logical fallacies, I would be welcome with open arms? Let's face it, most of if not all gun control arguments are based on logical fallacies (mostly gentic and ad hoc) and among the seven major propaganda techniques. Mostly Card Stacking, name calling, and glittering generalities.

[Bjorn Against]

9. People who trash a forum are not included in the jury pool for posts made in that forum

200 people trashing the forum is a very significant number and no doubt does have a major impact on the jury pool.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. if they want to be on juries for this group then they should not trash the group or am I

misunderstanding something?

I subscribed to both groups and will sit in juries for either one.

[Bjorn Against]

28. No you are not misunderstanding, I never suggested they did not have means to participate

What I was saying is a lot of people have trashed this forum which means the potential jury pool for this group is smaller than it is anywhere else on DU. I personally don't have any forum trashed nor do I have anybody on ignore, I tried ignore in the past but hated not being able to see what was happening. I wish no one used the trash forum feature, but the reality is some people do so what Robb was saying is accurate.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. well, that is their choice. Meta created drama and enhanced the toxicity for this group. I, for one

am glad Meta is dead and that Skinner allowed a new echo chamber to be created for those that wanted it.

Skinner is a benevolent, skillful and masterful overlord and I salute his cunning ways.

[Clames]

8. Yeah right.

A group that accurately represents the majority view on gun control was as inevitable as the legislation we're watching unfold.

Echo chamber for those who can't stick to the facts and honestly debate the topic.

[Eleanors38]

10. What concerns me is the new gun control group will

be allowed to use SOP as a means to hide comments, but will continue to employ the usual denigration & smear in this gun control group.

Were any arguments proffered that this group should adopt the same safe haven/activist aporoach?

[DonP]

13. There does appear to be a double standard at work

It concerns me that they are already coming here to snipe at posts but disallowing any difference of opinion in the new group.

But ... like other gun control web sites out there, I'm guessing that, after an initial rush of mutual back slapping by the handful of them, they'll all either drift away, or come down here to get their jollies from poking 2nd amendment supporters with what they think is a sharp stick.

I expect a lot of gloating when a state here or there passes some restrictions, (but no acknowledgement when it's tossed by the courts). But ... when none of the big Federal legislation they are all having fantasies about gets passed, they'll come back and blame all of us.

There's a reason they have to flock here. Skinner et. al. offers the only website I've ever found that has allowed both sides of the issue to be discussed. The gun controllers don't see it that way of course, they think of it as a "right wing echo chamber", because they rely heavily on emotion and cooked numbers from places funded by the Joyce Foundation and their ilk. But it hasn't been a hard core gun or gun control site either, until the new forum opened up.

That active coverage of both sides of the issue with passion and supporting facts has made this forum one of the busiest on DU. If some members have trashed it, fine. If they want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "LA LA LA, I can't hear you so the issue doesn't exist", that's their choice.

But the fact is, there are no gun control websites that allow participation ever last more than a few months when the supporting money runs out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. I've no doubt the gun Prohis will be back here in force when the Feds don't do what they want.

[Hangingon]

53. I share your concern

I have been away for a few weeks and came back to find the new group. It sounds like the new group will only repeat anti-gun talking points and allow no contrary discussion. This is no way to form realistic legislative proposals. Thanks Eleanors38.

[Eleanors38]

55. I don't object to their my way-or-the-highway group...

My concern is on-going: The persistent campaign if stigmatization and smear may continue unchecked in this group, under current conditions. I think that is an explicit goal for controllers, here and out of DU.

And it is "unwelcoming" and "disruptive," yet core to culture war. Let them have their little fortress. I merely want closer scrutiny of the kind of behavior more closely associated with inquisitors, not liberals.

No one can deny this behavior has been tolerated, even promoted, when it comes to this group.

I also call for a new group title: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Let it continue to be an OPEN forum for debate, but not a proving ground for culture war tactics.

[rrneck]

11. Well, this is DemocraticUnderground

a website that is designed to winnow out right of center political views. The most vociferous majority of DUers are pro most gun control. That attitude is shared by the bulk of the left in the country at large. Each member has the option of removing any member, thread, or group from view.

Yeah, I can totally see why pro gun control activism would need to be protected here.

[Eleanors38]

15. ^^ noted.

[DonP]

16. It has such broad based support ... they just never seem to ever vote that way though

When I point that out it seems to really annoy some folks.

If gun control has such broad support, why have 49, going on 50, states passed CCW?

The typical gun controller answer is "the GOP forced it through".

Is the Dem party so weak in every state that they can't rally the "majority" of voters that support gun control to stop something as obviously "dangerous" as concealed carry? And why has almost every CCW bill had bi-partisan sponsors?

It has to be a plot by the Elders of the NRA and the Koch brothers meeting at the Bohemian Grove with the Knights Templar to force more guns down the throats of America.

[rrneck]

18. But for a few nouns

GCRKBA and Religion are indistinguishable.

[holdencaufield]

24. "trashing this forum"

Definition -- Saying things I don't like, but can't factually refute.

Have fun playing by yourselves

[Paul E Ester]

79. +1

I was thinking circle jerk but maybe they are alone.

[krispos42]

42. The majority view on anything...

...needs to be based on facts.

We know the majority of Americans want more gun control; the question is what kind, and under what basis.

A large chunk of the pro-gun-control side wants to wage a cultural war through restrictive laws designed to deny to the "problem people" the guns that they generally buy. More want gun ownership to be reduced to European levels, and to do that through intensive but very-slow-moving bureaucracy: put in a bunch of regulations and forms that take 6 months to process, then understaff the department that handles all that stuff. Still others want there to be a social stigma to owning guns.


People here don't generally spew the typical NRA lines about "the 2nd Amendment is America's first freedom", or "we need guns to keep the government in check", or whatever line LaPierre is flogging on a particular week, so calling gun owners "Team NRA" is not really accurate.

But there are facts... objective facts that should be part of any discussion. The NRA has objective facts, as does MAIG, and dismissing a fact solely because one side mentions it is not good for discussion or for lawmaking.

For example, it is an objective fact that, even if Feinstein's 2013 AWB had been passed into law, new semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines of arbitrary limit would still be sold to the general public and used ones sold privately between parties.

This is not an NRA fantasy; it's an objective fact that comes from reading her own bill on her own Senate website, which includes a 2-page list of semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines of arbitrary limit that would specifically be exempted from being called an "assault weapon".

[kudzu22]

19. I think the new group should be Gun Control and RBAWDL

Right to Ban Anything We Don't Like

[petronius]

22. The discussion last year about expanding the GC & RKBA SoP came down to

an Admin decision that they preferred the split (this and Outdoors) - I don't think anything has or will change on that front.

For this Group, I really don't think the existence of a new group should change anything here at all: GC & RKBA should continue to be open to any/all threads that touch on the topic. My feeling is that this should be a wide-open group, and my preferred hosting style would be 'never block/rarely lock.' I know I'm an outlier on the former, but on the latter I'd certainly encourage Krispos to be light on the lock button, and as creative and imaginative as humanly possible in finding reasons not to lock...

[Pullo]

23. I think its telling many anti's here shun open debate on gun control

and felt the need to create their little echo chamber. Not very democratic, IMO.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. Re your question, "Is there a history as to how the 'activism' group came about?," there is.

There are millions of Democrats who own firearms.

The original group on DU had and still has members who do not hold themselves out as being the exclusive interpreters of what is and what is not "the liberal" position with respect to gun ownership.

The original group on DU had and still has members who do not hold themselves out as being superior to all others in knowing what is a "good" Democrat, and what is a good "liberal," and what position they must take with respect to firearms and gun ownership in order to continue to be viewed as good Democrats and good liberals.

The original group on DU had and still has members who remember the Congressional elections in 1994 and the loss of the House of Representatives to the Republicans after Feinstein and some other Democrats from safe districts pushed heavily, against what most voters wanted, for the "assault" weapons ban. According to Bill Clinton in his autobiography, such unwanted legislation was a major factor in the loss of Congress in 1994.

The original group on DU had and still has members who do not rely heavily upon authoritarianism, group think, and logical fallacies.

Some people apparently came to believe that a second group was needed.

[rdharma]

30. Why are you guys screaming before you're hurt?

This is a group meant to discuss issues of current and future firearms regulations and legislation to cut down on gun violence.

If you don't have any ideas or suggestions concerning that topic,......... well then, maybe you should post elsewhere.

The preemptive whining is embarrassing!

[gejohnston]

31. we have

many that are actually logical and workable. The problem is when those ideas don't involve culture wars.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. asking questions in small print is not Screaming ...

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ??

[derby378]

33. I think it's an unsuccessful attempt at framing us

There's quite a few gun-control supporters who like to project on our kind. A lot.

[rdharma]

35. You define yourselves.

Preemptively whining?

No. I don't believe you are responsible gun owning progressives or Democrats.

Nobody else here does either.

You said, "Quite a few gun-control supporters who like to project on our kind? Huh?"

How would we know what "your kind" is unless you showed us by defining your views?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. posting information with one question. draw your own conclusions:

About derby378
Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 28,303
Number of posts, last 90 days: 861
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 689 posts in the last 90 days (80% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 18 posts in the last 90 days (2% of total posts)


About rdharma
Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Sun Feb 3, 2013, 01:59 PM
Number of posts: 807
Number of posts, last 90 days: 809
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 306 posts in the last 90 days (38% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 364 posts in the last 90 days (45% of total posts)

How can your 90-day post count be higher than your total # of posts? looks like a glitch ...

[krispos42]

43. Might be a glitch from when Meta got locked away.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. Yes, good supposition. I like that theory.

[derby378]

67. Game, set, match

Thank you.

[Marengo]

51. Who is not a Democrat?

"No. I don't believe you are responsible gun owning progressives or Democrats."

Who is the "you" in this statement?

"Nobody else here does either."

No one, at all? Do you have some sort of proof?

[Eleanors38]

60. You are seeing the spurrious issue, "New Gun Control:"

All-out culture war with all the hatefulness, shaming, and double-talk which accompanies any full-throated campaign against large populations of "Others," which we have seen repeatedly in this country's history.

Only, there is nothing new about it.

You selected just the quotes I would have chosen. I recommend any DU member read them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Good point, and ample reason to bookmark this thread.

[Eleanors38]

64. There have been a number ample ones.

[derby378]

68. I think Elvis has left the building

[derby378]

66. That's your problem

Since you're obviously an expert on me, maybe you should talk to some of the DUers who have known me on-line since 2003 and my activism in the Democratic Party instead of tripping over yourself. Kisses!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. yes, there are.

guns kill people, yanno ... all by their little old selves.

[Eleanors38]

34. HA! ^^

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. You should have seen the gnashing of teeth and tears previously

Some posters were positively distraught when their anti gun threads were brutalized by a nasty bunch of facts. That is what started the original call for it. It was before your time...

I will be interested to see how the hosts handle things there. Krispos has always been pretty gentle here, perhaps to a fault.

I have joined and posted there.

[gejohnston]

47. my guess is that we will by locked out within a week

part of the SoP is that you have to support the goals of Brady et al.

[rdharma]

49. "locked out within a week"

Would that mean that the rightie trolls would have to go back to the Freeper and gun nut sites to spew?

[gejohnston]

54. it means not wanting their assumptions challenged.

with anything that resembles logical or rational arguments. That is why I like to point out the fallacies. If you look up the dictionary definition of "internet troll" few if any gun rights posters are, and they land up on Boot Hill Pizza Parlor very quickly. The anti gun trolls, not so much. While I don't expect the emotional ranters and trolls to come by now they have their echo chamber, I do hope those "antis" and fence sitters continue to come by for honest dialog. If they don't, it would turn this into an echo chamber as well. That would suck because all echo chambers suck.

[Eleanors38]

56. And there you have it, Administrators. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. Be interesting to see if that ends up being reciprocal

[Eleanors38]

57. I noticed how once again the system worked on you down thread.

[BainsBane]

72. Why would you enter in the first place?

When you don't support further gun control? You can discuss what you want in this forum to your heart's content. You seem incredibly threatened by the fact that people here are acting on Democratic proposals. This is a Democratic website. You have your own corner of the world here that is anti-gun control. You guys are happy as clams. You don't need to feel so threatened by the fact a few people are exercising their democratic rights.

As for the facts meme recounted above, that's hysterical. It's sweet that members here are so enamored with positivism, but disinformation is not factual.

[gejohnston]

73. advise on technical matters

point out what current federal laws are, correct logical fallacies and misinformation etc.
The only disinformation I see is over there.
How long before someone starts talking about plastic guns, being able to buy unregulated machine guns at gun shows and Wal Mart?

[BainsBane]

74. we've been through this many times

and that you continually repost false information has been brought to your attention by many posters.

The group depends on participation from gun owners, and since we now have 77 subscribers, I'm sure some of those are gun owners. A number of gun owners expressed interest when I first posted the thread proposing the group. They will be able to contribute that technical information. Others are former gun owners. Disinformation and interference by those opposing further gun control, however, violates the SOP of the group.

You still have a forum here, where you are perfectly free to post as much as you like. Since you have already concluded our little group is ineffectual and unimportant, you have no reason to concern yourself with what goes on there.

Enjoy RKBA.

[apocalypsehow]

76. In other words, post the same kind of pro-NRA memes and talking points in the new group that you

do here. That's not what is wanted over in gun control activism, your desire to give us input on "logical fallacies," "misinformation," etc notwithstanding. Because what that amounts to is posting the same "RKBA enthusiast" propaganda (see sig line) that you do here in the Gungeon; the new group was set up to be a safe haven away from all that right-wing noise, and the SOP explicitly defines that.

Best you stay here in the NRA playpen and continue to "correct" whatever "misinformation" you happen to spot here, doncha think?

[gejohnston]

78. I had a good time pointing out the logical fallacies

and propaganda technique examples. Besides, I detest echo chambers especially when I get alerted on for a civil and accurate post. BTW, the jury voted 6-0 in my favor.

Best you stay here in the NRA playpen and continue to "correct" whatever "misinformation" you happen to spot here, doncha think?

Naww, most of the pro gun folks have a pretty good handle on it. I would say most of the folks here are more IFOA than NRA.

[rdharma]

36. How are those temper tantrums working out for y'all? nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

37. looks like yours were more successful as you got your group while this group was not allowed

to expand the SoP.

of course, we asked politely, while you guys were in Meta daily stomping your feet and holding your breath.

I know. I saw a couple of you turn purple.

pretty color, btw.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. Purple is a pretty color for flowers

I too will be interested to see how they control things there.

[Eleanors38]

48. They will control with a hand of ordnance grade steel! nt

[gejohnston]

58. basically, they want an echo chamber

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=158

[premium]

59. Ridiculous attempt to stifle an opposing view

which was done without any insults at all.
Jury got it right, and a 6-0 decision at that, pretty telling.

[Common Sense Party]

63. I find it hilarious that a quick glance at their current threads reveals precious little of

"activism".

It seems like more of the same old "guns are bad and evil and gun owners are NRA poopyheads" whining that they like to do here.

I'll be interested to see how much actual ACTION these "activists" engage in.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. This is a discussion board. All that happens in here is "we discuss".

But nevermind that, not long ago you all were demanding a safe haven in which do chant "GUnZ" without interruption from pesky liberals, you are just upset that you didn't get your way.

[Common Sense Party]

69. Then don't name your exclusive club "Activism." Name it "Pesky Bitching About Scary

Penis-Guns."

At least be honest.

[apocalypsehow]

75. It's name is just fine and quite descriptive, and it's not an "exclusive club": it has a SOP,

and posters who abide by it are welcome to post and participate there as much as they wish. Want to post in the new gun control activism group? Abide by the SOP, just like you would be expected to do in any other group.

The problem is, our "RKBA enthusiasts" (see sig line) don't want to abide by the new groups SOP: they want to go right on posting pro-NRA memes and talking points, and basically convert the new group into a Gungeon II. That's why there is so much whining and gnashing of teeth by Gungeon regulars about it: being prohibited from disrupting the new safe haven group drives our "pro gun progressives" right up the wall.


*( )