Utah Guns Forum banner

Lets be Fair...

15K views 37 replies 15 participants last post by  Jeff Johnson 
#1 ·
Hi all,
I would like to start off by saying I love this forum. It is a great resource for CCW/OC information,personal opinion and most importantly the preservation of our rights. Sometimes it seems to me that the forum can lack consistency. I will explain below.

Generally most topics on this forum are focused on the second amendment as this is a CCW forum. What I do not understand, is the tenacious dedication of some individuals to protect our 2a rights (which I agree there should be) on this forum, and the casual/ "business as usually" attitude the very same individuals take of this very forums' restrictions on free speech. I am playing devil's advocate here, but this is still a valid concern. I in no way implying that members should post anything that is distasteful or not associated with the subject/discussion at hand. I am simply trying to start a conversation and understand how one is different from the other.

This section of the forum is a perfect example of my point. Many are willing to boycott an individual business due to the businesses policy/outlook on firearms. A business has every right to refuse service to an individual whenever/why ever they choose to do so, just as this forum does. Most individuals have the right to bear arms, just as most individuals have the right to free speech. A business may not prevent an individual from exercising their rights, but a business may request an individual to exercise those rights in a local other then that businesses property. The same is true for this forum. A business general makes policies that they feel are appropriate for their needs as well as their clientele's. The same is true of this forum. A business may decide to create a anti-gun policy if it chooses just as this forum may create anti-free speech policy if it chooses. So I guess that I am a little confused on why it is so inappropriate for a business to implement such restrictive/controlling (cannot think of the word) policy in relation to guns when this very forum is practicing similar policies in regards to free speech.

I understand that the forum strives to maintain a "family friendly" atmosphere. I am all for that and support whole-heartedly. I believe that restricting/controlling an individuals right for the sake of the "overall good" is generally not a good way to do business. It contradicts the very essence/spirit of the forum. Claiming that restricting free speech promotes a "family friendly" atmosphere is attune to a business claiming anti gun policy promotes safety.

I feel that the forum can have a "family friendly" atmosphere while not purposefully limiting an individuals right to free speech. Why not have the ability for members to rate/give feedback on posts/individuals so we can police ourselves. Maybe have a rating for content and vulgarity pertaining to what the forum defines as "family friendly". This way the members of the forum can see if an individual poster uses less than "family friendly" tendencies and have the membership decide for ourselves if we wish to view that particular individual's posts.

I am not trying to cause trouble but instead open a dialogue. What is the difference? Why is one action acceptable while the other action insufferable? What can we do to change this perceived inconsistency?

I just do not see how we can tolerate one restriction of our rights while fighting so hard to protect another.
 
See less See more
#29 ·
Digigdawg said:
Thank you for everyone for your responses and input. I do not know why so many people think I am trying to promote cursing or attacking people or the such. I strongly disagree with the notion that you cannot have a family friendly forum and free speech.
I guess I don't understand your point then.

What are you arguing should be allowed that is not presently allowed? The only restrictions on your speech on UCC are that you can't curse or say other non family-friendly things, you can't attack people and you have to stay on topic -- but the last isn't a restriction, really, because you can always start a new topic.

So, if the only restrictions are those you agree with, why the concern about restrictions?
 
#31 ·
Really becuase I thought the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. :beathorse: I was looking for a bus but I guess a horse will do.

I could swear even though divergeeks comments are always better stated then my own, they contain the same pretenses. Its kind of like the conversation is starting back at square 1. But since the OP still approaches the problem with the wrong equation and that divegeek is here to save the day. I can gracefully bow out and go :fishing:
 
#32 ·
The point of the discussion was not to change any rules. That was not my argument at all, just an example I feel has many correlations to the discussion at hand. I am just trying to understand why/how one policy is fundamentally different then the other, and why some will react negatively to one set of circumstances and not care about others. As in my mind there is no difference (hence the title "Lets be fair..." ). This is how I see it...

-business=individual
-Individual has the right to make appropriate rules/policies in their home/property/business/forums
-Individual/Businesses have the right to refuse service to anybody for whatever reason they choose and can request that you leave their property/space/home/domain/whatever for whatever reason

An example would be if I am OCing on someones property/store and they ask me to leave. The business may feel this action promotes a "customer friendly" atmosphere or because they are jerks, the reason really does not matter, they are simply exercising their rights, not restricting mine. I do not have a fundamental problem with that though it seems pretty silly to me. I will quietly leave and may or may not ever return depending on how the situation unfolded.

Just as if I am posting on this forum and the moderator deems my content inappropriate/vulgar/whatever reason really, he can edit/restrict my post and even ask me to leave(erase my account). Again, I do not have a fundamental problem with that as this is his "house" and as the forum strives to promote/maintain a "family friendly" atmosphere.

I understand that this is a very simplistic example but feel it is a fair comparison. The best argument I can come up to why they may not be the same (with some help) is that I entered/joined this forum with pre-existing knowledge of the rules and essentially signed an service agreement acknowledging such rules. This generally does not the case in most businesses. I do see a comparison when a business posting legal signs pertaining the weapons policy on their property. Though many anti-gun signs businesses post carry no weight in the eyes of the law, I feel that they do communicate (or at least attempt to) the businesses policy allowing me to have pre-existing knowledge of their policies when entering their property.

And to those who feel I bring this up to demonstrate that we are all hypocrites that was not the intention either. Boycotting and punishing a potentially antigun business only agitates said business and solidifies their beliefs on guns/gun owners are bad/evil/scary/whatever they feel. I am certain with perseverance and some time, the CCW and OC community can show that guns and gun ownership is not a bad thing but essential to the well being of the community (a little naive I know). Also punishing local American businesses while we are getting our tails kicked in by foreign entities is a little counter intuitive to me. If a business deserves to be boycotted, I am all for it. I just do not see how the example above is grounds for a boycott.

Just to let you know...
I am not a business owner, just a guy with too many loose thoughts rattling around my head and obviously too much time available. Look at this post!! I wonder if I ramble on like this when I actually speak? I friggin' hope not...

I was also looking for why my perspective may be flawed/skewed as I really do not see a difference. If someone can enlighten me I am all for it.
 
#34 ·
#37 ·
Digigdawg said:
... I am just trying to understand why/how one policy is fundamentally different then the other, and why some will react negatively to one set of circumstances and not care about others. As in my mind there is no difference (hence the title "Lets be fair..." ). This is how I see it...
You see no difference... that makes no sense to me. People make rules, and we chose to support or not support them. And we exercise our right to whine and moan about the rules. Some we agree with some we don't... That is so simple, I know you understand it. So... could you try to state your issue more concisely? Maybe someone else understands your point. But right now... I really don't see your point, or question, or statement. :|
 
#38 ·
Digigdawg said:
...I feel that the forum can have a "family friendly" atmosphere while not purposefully limiting an individuals right to free speech. Why not have the ability for members to rate/give feedback on posts/individuals so we can police ourselves. Maybe have a rating for content and vulgarity pertaining to what the forum defines as "family friendly".
...
Yeah, about that. You might not remember Packing.org (PDO), which was a very popular and influential pro-carry web site a number of years ago. I was a member there and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a great site. Then the owner switched from a system of moderators to a rating system so that we members could 'police ourselves'. It was a disaster. The site went rapidly downhill. That change ultimately contributed (in my opinion) to the demise of the site.

PDO - RIP. :angel:

I believe that we have the best system in place now. We have a very good and dedicated group of moderators. They are all unpaid volunteers, just like the owner and site administrator. They do this as a labor of love to promote the lawful right to self-defense. I know that some people chafe at some of the rules that we have in place, but most people seem to agree that they help make this a better place.

As for your original post, I'm not quite understanding your argument. I'll just pipe in with this: The fact that the owner of a store has the right to establish his own rules does not remove my right to choose whether or not to support his store with my hard-earned cash. It also does not remove my right of free speech to complain to my friends about his store.

In much the same way, you have the right to choose whether or not to support our forum. However, DiveGeek's Costco analogy is a very good one. Everyone who joins our forum agrees to the rules up front.

lmj301 said:
My only issues with the "family friendly" posting rules is that it also means that we cannot correctly (at times) quote government employees....
Well, we do enjoy the convenience of an automatic word filter. It makes our job much easier, but sometimes results in automatic edits that don't seem to make sense. Sorry about that, but I certainly don't want to disable the automatic filter.

At other times, when it isn't done by the automatic filter, there is normally a good reason for the manual edit by a Posse member. Moderation is not an exact science, and it is often a thankless job. But it is a vital one.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top