###Official change-of-SoP of the Gun Control & RKBA Group###

I've never understood why you can't talk about guns in a group called guns.

that trigger a runoff on expansion options?

Thanks for posting this!

On edit: Oops, never mind, I think your way works. I should have read more carefully...

Yeah, that would probably be a good idea. We'd have to discuss the changes in detail, though, so they can be condensed into a poll!

include, but not be limited to, hunting, target shooting, action shooting, collecting, customization, and gunsmithing, then remove from latest threads. Just like most topics such as support groups, home and family, sports and entertainment, those not interested should not have scroll thru them. It would also attract hundreds, if not thousands of gun enthusiast that have no connection progressives and the whole site could become a how to and comment site for those people. If these changes are made, which is OK with me, remove from Latest Threads to save DU.

in GD to remove RKBA, along with adding discussions about firearms not related to 2nd Amendment issues, out of Latest Threads. Putting the poll in GD would insure that all DUers get to decide what they have to read in Latest Treads.

Without the okay from Admin, a poll in GD about that wouldn't mean much.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10131560

We can now completely disappear groups from our DU experience, or just exclude them from Latest/Greatest. Seems like GC & RKBA is about to disappear from a lot of radar screens...

Although I think a bit of selective editing on the "Latest Threads" page would be nice. There are several topics that are generally banned in GD; it seems to me that the Admins could make those optional for display. Many people don't give a crap about conspiracy theories, guns, god, entertainment, sports, or whining about DU and would probably like the option to turn off some or all of those Groups from the Latest Page.



If we vote to change the SoP then it's something I can mention.

I agree with the wording of option 2, except for "shooting sports, and collecting." It'd be easy to create another group in the recreation or sports categories, and not wind up with the rest of us having to sit through unground crysanthemum emblems on a Type 99 rifle when we want to read about what's happening in the courts or legislatures.

in META to have the entire group removed. The Boss may decide that's the way he wants to go so this may all be for naught. I hope not, just sayin'

is to remove it from Latest Threads. It only serves to antagonize people on both sides. Bury it along side Coping with Divorce or Separation where those that are interested can find it. In the mean time it is tying up space for issues that Democrats and Progressives can work together on to move this country forward.

The arguments in RKBA have become endless and divisive.

The crowd that would like to see fewer guns or types of guns in the hands of law abiding folks needs saving.

It would please some here to no end if this group were to be shut down but given the fact that Gun Control & RBKA has been in existence for so long now, I doubt that's going to happen.

What would make this one relevant to DU is promoting 2A in a manner consistent with Democratic ideals. Most gun forums are hostile to that. They typically discourage the open promotion of any political position but in fact often seem to be very teabaggish and RW in nature. There are a couple liberal gun forums out there but they are pretty lame compared to some of the larger gun forums.

Anyway, the sig, berreta and walther forums are examples of very deep knowledge and information around many of the aspects of firearms mentioned in the proposed SoP.

That is, anyone who posts anti-rights sentiment ought to be kicked out on their keister. Go into ANY of the other rights forums and spout off some drivel about restricting those rights... see how long you last. The right to arms for the purpose of self defense is no different. The SOP here should be changed to disallow BIGOTED anti-rights posters. They can go form their own BIGOTED anti-rights group/forum somewhere else.

I think it's silly to have one forum for talking about gun policy and another for talking about guns in general.

Let's talk about all aspects of guns.

Would it be a good idea to pin this?

Or is it full-speed ahead on turning this just into any other gun board. If this occurs I will propose a separate group for gun control supporters and request that the hyperlinks from the GD, V&M and Good Reads forums go to not this group but to the new group for gun control supporters.

There isn't a "full speed ahead" on this as it's been discussed in considerable length not just here but in Meta too over the past few weeks.

To the point where many are now just likely to ignore the past norms of this website...

And so I'm just going to lay out what action gun control supporters (including myself) are likely to take in response to such a move.

What it looks a heckuvva lot like is irrelevant. The admins will ultimately decide and nobody here thinks differently - except maybe you.

Personally i have no problem with removing the group from the latest threads page and I certainly have no problem with you forming a gun-grabber group to play in. But I wouldn't try to stop you from talking about gun-grabbing here either.

I hope the change does go through though. I'd like to talk about guns in the guns group.

...threads dedicated to discussing firearms themselves ?

Except"Guns is BAD!!"

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

President Obama:

"The Second Amendment in this country is part of our Constitution and the president of the United States is bound by our Constitution," he said. "So I believe in the Second Amendment. It does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038924-503544.html

In your opinion, it's fine if we talk about gun policy here but not to talk about guns themselves even though ownership of such is right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Right now, this isn't one of them and if the non-answer answer above is any indication of where this conversation is going I feel safe saying I doubt it ever will be.

Many Dems own guns.

Even with the added exposure to the poll with the threads in Meta, the percentages for and against in expanding the SOP haven't changed much. Which leads me to believe that a clear majority of DUers are either in favor of the expanded SOP, or don't care one way or another and believe that the regulars of the Gun Control & RKBA ought to be able to decide how to run this group.

And I recognize that you are a stakeholder in the group.

In this new era of self determination of groups there is opportunity for change. If change happens I hope you give it a chance. Likewise I will live with no changes if that is the result.

I was approached with this idea, and members ran their own threads discussing the topic, which culminated in this thread.

Since this is a Group and not a Forum, the Group regulars have considerable input into what they want their group to be about and not be about. Some of this is stuff such as who is/are Host/Hosts, some is items such as how duplicates are treated, and some is the wording of the SoP and thus the mission of the Group.

Let me put it this way: I don't feel I have the authority to prevent either discussion of the topic, or of petitioning the Admins for a SoP change.

My opinion on the matter remains my opinion on the matter.

I thought I was getting suspiciously good gas mileage. AAA to the rescue!

So who will petition admins? Or is this whole little exercise just a circle jerk?

"My opinion on the matter remains my opinion on the matter."

And pm-ing the Admins with my opinion on the matter.

If you change the SOP to include all things gun, this group will no longer attract any discussion of 2A or Gun Control. We already have so few members who don't like to breathe the air in here, let alone participate. Many of those members are gun owners and enthusiasts who would probably enjoy talking about guns.
We are already way over weighted by the pro-carry crowd. They dominate this group, as illustrated by the poll. They do not represent Dems, let alone Liberal Progressive Dems, yet they dominate this group. Now you suggest we turn the most lively group on DU into a circle jerk for gun lovers.
If that's what you want, go ahead. I'm sure I won't be missed.

I don't know about concealed carry specific, but Dems are more diverse than you give us credit for.

Liberal and progressive are two different concepts. One can be liberal without being progressive. That does not mean one embraces all of the things classical liberals think. Progressive means move forward or change. Not all progressive ideas are good ideas, or they may be good ideas but may have negative side effects. Most things go full circle and be progressive and reactionary at the same time. Liberalized CCW is "liberal" in the classical sense. It is also simultaneously progressive and reactionary at the same time. It is progressive if you look at only the last 100 years. Prior to that, it is kind of a mixed bag.
Can one be a progressive without being liberal? Historically this has happened. Creationist and socialist William Jennings Bryant comes to mind.


It could, although I think technical information is good thing to know if you are going propose good regulation. That said, I would hate to see the place become a circle jerk for either side. The fact that it is not a circle jerk is what adds to its liveliness. I learn from the other groups I read, but I rarely have much to say there. Somethings can overlap. Why is this different than other civil liberties and not part of Civil Liberties, I already know the answer.
hunting is outdoor life
target shooting is sports
reloading is ummm Frugal and Energy Efficient Living
or some of them could overlap to rural/farm life
engraving could be in Art and Humanities like Crafts and Artists.

I agree about the liberal and progressive labels. Then we have that other dreaded label "socialist" label, which I definitely have some affinity towards in certain areas, like public health and safety. That's where it gets a little tricky, especially when one identifies, as I do, as a liberal-progressive-socialist with some conservative tendencies mixed in with a dash of libertarianism.
I loathe any kinds of government restrictions on individual liberty except when demonstrated to be to the general good of the public, and then only when the greater good far outweighs individual rights.
Regarding the "Gungeon", though, I think it should remain focused on policy and public safety and how they relate to rights, be they individual, collective, constitutional or basic human rights. It's a SOP that fits in a politically oriented message board. There are many sites where gun enthusiasts can talk technically, or they can go to "Outdoor Life" or "EBay, Collectore, Flea Markets and Antiques". Gun safety is already discussed here and that is fine. The odd picture is fine, but we both know that opening it up to the usual "gun porn" found on the wingnut sites will just turn the place into a spamfest of gun nuttery and NRA propaganda.
I think we have made progress in recent months and the atmosphere is far more cordial than it was on DU2. We actually manage to have some constructive conversations between reasonable people. I don't mind being yelled at occasionally, or yelling at others from time to time, but I've never felt unwelcome here.

As long as one could post a link to a site where the pic may be such as photobucket.

Frankly, I don't think there's going to be much of a change here if the expanded SOP is adopted. If there was a huge interest in "gun porn" and discussions about individual guns, the Outdoor Life group would already be flooded with such threads.

I'm not suggesting anything, by the way.

Although since the political winds change more frequently than gun technology (ooo, look, ANOTHER new 1911...) the Group would probably still be dominated by politics than technical issues.



The Admins will look at this thread, as well as the others linked in the OP, and make a determination. Your suggestion is certainly viable.

I believe the difficulty is that guns are a tool, a specific kind of tool, and are used in many situations that are broader in context than the kind of tool being used. For example, with hunting, you can do it with a gun, or with archery. Yet the core of hunting is the same regardless of the tool used.

Deer stands, clothing, calls, bait, areas to hunt, tips and tricks and techniques, camping gear, game regulations, latest equipment, and such are generally independent of whether you're hunting with the latest uber-magnum from Expensive Firearms, Inc., or a kitchen knife duct-taped to a broomstick. And the basic gear you carry hunting also works well for fishing, hiking, and camping.

Similarly, self-defense has many fundamentals that are independent of the weapon carried: situational awareness, exercise and training, clothing, tactics and strategy of the violent criminal, force-training, and the survivor mindset are all independent of whether you carry a pistol, a knife, or a roll of quarters.



The Admins may well decide to leave things as they stand in light of these questions. Or maybe they'll make a new Topic called "Guns" and put in a Group for "Gun Control & RKBA" and a Group for "Recreational Firearms". Maybe a "Firearm Collector's" Group, too.

The pro-RKBA pro-carry crowd does represent Democrats much more than you care to admit.

Technical discussions inform policy discussions.

Most Dems support RKBA, but are not pro-carry. Most of us do not interpret 2A as a license to carry a loaded handgun everywhere. I support 2A, as it was written and intended, not how a RW SCOTUS interprets it. That's one of the basic differences between being a progressive liberal and a right-wing libertarian. One puts society and the greater good first and the second puts the individual first, regardless of any societal damage. The first is progressive and the second is regressive and reactionary.
I understand the struggle of Dems who have bought into this belief that we are somehow better off with an armed populace. It can't be easy. I know lots of Dems who own guns, love to hunt, keep one handy for home defense. I don't know one who would carry a gun to church or the mall.

RW libertarians basically want to go back to feudal Europe, or the East India Company. Classical liberalism, which is what the enlightenment and the country was founded on, puts the individual above the Crown and Corporation.
The problem with your definition of "greater good" anything can be justified as "greater good". RW libertarians think what they are doing is for the "greater good". Or at least, so they claim. Europe and Australia and Canada certainly did not do it for a "saner safer society", it was to protect the monarchs and oligarchs from the Red menace.

This is why your side is losing so badly these days. Few people buy into your hyperbolic distortions anymore.

I'm a right of center Democrat who has a license to carry a firearm and sometimes I do.

You are wrong about what a progressive liberal is. They do not place society over the individual, they balance the interests of society as a whole with the interests of individuals. At the root of any liberal position is individual liberty.

Those who place society over the individual are something else.

I don't have a side, BTW. I don't support any legislation I've seen so far. I am not a banner. I think people should be responsible for their actions. I consider carry a concealed firearm to be extremely foolish, extremely dangerous and I encourage those who do it, to rethink. Guns have no place on the streets of our cities.
I am a left of center Democrat, who places public safety in front of personal preferences any day. I prefer that people see the common sense of not being armed in public, rather than passing draconian laws that fuck things up for everyone. Those who carry on a routine basis are the ones who will ultimately be responsible for those laws being passed.

But I'll let it stand.

If you're not a banner then are you for lifting all the current bans?

You can't partially ban something. That creates division and discontent. Like medical marijuana, it allows only sick people to circumvent the ban.
Now, when it comes to use in public, then local laws should apply. Same as smoking, drinking. I'm all for gun free zones, where NO guns are allowed, including cops with guns.
But if something is available to one person, it should be available to all.

I don't want you to go away, but pouting and storming off is your option if a change in SOP occurs.

firearms in law and society makes the most sense. It's a small topic in the grand scheme of DU, and various DUers have a range of partly-overlapping interests on the subject. Keeping everything together at the most natural point of intersection (i.e., firearms), will give the best chance that threads will be seen by those who want to see them. And it will still be a slow-moving Groups, so we'll all be able to filter out (Trash) the threads that don't interest us.

I doubt expanding the SoP as described really would change the flavor of the Group much, if at all. I certainly don't see much chance of a porn-fueled circle jerk (or whatever other carefully prejudicial language you want to use)...

We all remember how Rep McCarthy humiliated herself by not knowing what a barrel shroud was when she wanted to ban them on some firearms.

Both sides on this issue benefit from understanding the objects we discuss.

And I remind you this is a group and not a forum.

If the law is about some technical aspect of guns, then its merits, or lack there of, need to be discussed to clarify the law.

What I want to avoid is purely technical discussions like the pros / cons of aluminum case CCI Blazers versus brass case Remington ammunition, for example.

...or people supporting silly laws if people on both sides have an accurate base knowledge.

Its true that aluminum versus brass cases may not be relevant to law, but not so long ago Rachel Maddow was talking about the Glock threat of all plastic guns out of pure ignorance.

Good information informs both sides of the gun control and RKBA debate.

It does not take much imagination to foresee "Post your derringer pics" thread where there is a flood of people showing off their favorite snake guns.

There were many stories about police not being sure if a gun was legal or not when the AWB was in effect.

Discussion about the way the law was worded with respect to actual features and operation of guns was, and still is, needed because the law directly affects gun ownership.

I do not want to see this group degrade to discussions about the way after market cleaning products remove copper from a barrel.

which is the topic this group is listed under. I think this shows that the expansion is really taking in a completely separate topic - that is, gun-related hobbies, rather than public policy.

The suggestion for a new 'Gun Enthusiasts' group sounds much more logical to me. It would go under 'Recreation'. This is like the separation of, for instance, the groups under 'Media' and 'Entertainment'.

of the group will remain policy, which is appropriate for a political discussion board. (I actually don't think the change will have much effect - look at the small number of relevant threads in Outdoor Life or that have been hidden here - but I support the idea of a more open group to allow the possibility of more diverse conversations.)

My take on it is that there are a lot of different firearms-related topics that individual DUers are interested in, and we all have partly-overlapping interests among these topics. Keeping all the topics that intersect at 'firearms' together in one group makes it most likely that threads will be seen and conversations will occur. Given the ways we can all tailor our individual DU experiences (ignore, trash thread, trash group, just don't read), I think an inclusive group is more logical than compartmentalizing. We all do that sort of filtering anyway, I imagine, in every group/forum we browse...

I'm in favor of one group with an expanded SOP but failing that, would certainly then support the two group option.

using terms like "circle jerk of gun nuttery" and "gun porn."

Read up on your Dale Carnegie, fellas.

The SOP will change as proposed.

vote (or switch to) Option #3, or Pass, to give a more representative result...

I'd like to see a top level topic added named "Firearms" and two groups within that topic named "Firearms Policy" and "Firearms Enthusiasts".

Had you gotten more support and commentary then from those who oppose expanding the current SOP, it might have gotten some legs.

Edit: Others, such as DanTex did voice support for it but that didn't happen until this, the official poll, already had begun.

NewMoon: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45929

DanTex: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45809