[Boogyman]

First of all, a little about myself. I am new here, but I'm not a newbie in life.

I'm 64 years old and have been a gun enthusiast for over 50 years. I hold a Class III FFL license known as a 'Collectors' or 'Curios & Relics' (C&R) license. I currently own over 60 firearms. I've been a Concealed Weapons Permit holder for nearly 30 years. I am a Vietnam vet Purple Heart recipient. I didn't win any heroic medals in VN, but I'm proud to say I did my job and didn't let any of my buddies down.

I'm also an unashamed and outspoken liberal, a lifelong Democrat (who voted for Obama twice), and a current supporter of Bernie Sanders for POTUS.

It's tough being a liberal on a gun forum, but I wanted to get all this out front right away. Some may call me a 'troll', but I assure you my reasons for this thread have nothing to do with stirring up trouble. I simply want to know whether my right to free speech, to voice my opinions as an American, will be respected here.

My reason for concern comes from reading several threads here, one entitled "Notice from Marshall regarding political topics" in which Americans with similar political affiliations as myself are called such vulgar names as "leftist filth" and all Democrats are described as "stupid". I noticed the thread remained open for 3 pages until being closed after a left-leaning member finally returned insults.

Another thread entitled "Why I won't join the NRA...." is, IN MY OPINION, a textbook example of extreme censorship. One cannot even post in that "sticky" without first submitting one's comments to a moderator, who is free to reject anything he dislikes or 'cherry-pick' comments he feels like answering, so only his opinions and views are heard. No offense, Mike G., but this doesn't seem like an honest exercise in free discussion to me... I have some very valid, respectful, and well-thought out reasons for not joining the NRA, and I don't feel I should need your approval to post them. You know, the First Amendment and all.

Speaking of the Constitution, another Amendment that everyone here including myself holds dear, the 2nd, reads exactly as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It seems as though everyone loves to quote the second part; 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." while conveniently ignoring the first, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part. What is so taboo about the words "well regulated" that makes everyone so afraid to have an honest discussion about them?

No 'trolling'... I love guns as much as anyone here. I am just as 'real' of an American as anyone here. I just want to see if my views and opinions will be tolerated and respected before I invest too much time and energy contributing to this forum, only to be subjected to incessant insults and flaming by those who take offense to my values and opinions. I'm hoping this thread will answer this question, and should it be received with intolerance and name-calling, I will quietly take my opinions elsewhere.

Thank you all for your time.

 

[jmortimer]

I expect this will get locked in short order, but since you actively support politicians that want to kill the Second Amendment why come here and expect any right thinking person to feel good about anything related to liberals/socialists/democrats. One more liberal SCOTUS Justice and we are doomed. Remember both Heller and McDonald went down 5 to 4 with idiots like Kagan and Ginsberg and Sotomayor voting against the notion that we have a Second Amendment. Since you are committed to supporting the destruction of all that I honor and respect, I see zero common ground. I am glad that there is no political discussion here as it would get ugly/good in short order. Keep it to guns, that is what this forum is all about. Do that, and you will have a wealth of knowledge and good people to learn from. No politics.

 

[Tnhunter]

I expect this will get locked in short order, but since you actively support politicians that want to kill the Second Amendment why come here and expect any right thinking person to feel good about anything related to liberals/socialists/democrats. One more liberal SCOTUS Justice and we are doomed. Remember both Heller and McDonald went down 5 to 4 with idiots like Kagan and Ginsberg and Sotomayor voting against the notion that we have a Second Amendment. Since you are committed to supporting the destruction of all that I honor and respect, I see zero common ground. I am glad that there is no political discussion here as it would get ugly/good in short order. Keep it to guns, that is what this forum is all about. Do that, and you will have a wealth of knowledge and good people to learn from. No politics.

Yes, what this Gentleman said!

 

[Boogyman]

From Marshall Stanton, owner of this website and forum:


-----------
As far as political commentaries go on the forums, I would appreciate a focus on gun/2nd amendment/hunting issues being the limit to political orientation of the forums.
-----------

Thank you all for your cooperation.

I believe I have honored this request.

Your intolerant and judgmental attacks on my values and opinions have been noted.

 

[Cheezywan]

Speaking of the Constitution, another Amendment that everyone here including myself holds dear, the 2nd, reads exactly as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It seems as though everyone loves to quote the second part; 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." while conveniently ignoring the first, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part. What is so taboo about the words "well regulated" that makes everyone so afraid to have an honest discussion about them?

Iowaloha Boogyman. Nice to meet ya.
There are two commas in there. Therefor three parts. It is however one complete thought. Honest discussion is purdy simple after that. It say's what it say's.

Cheezywan

 

[MontyF]

I want to welcome you to the shooters forum. Other than sharing some bandwidth, dont think you and I have much in common.

 

[Boogyman]

Iowaloha Boogyman. Nice to meet ya.
There are two commas in there. Therefor three parts. It is however one complete thought. Honest discussion is purdy simple after that. It say's what it say's.

Cheezywan

You forgot the period.

Thanks for your respectful opinion. And for the welcome from MontyF.

 

[StretchNM]

I believe I have honored this request.

Your intolerant and judgmental attacks on my values and opinions have been noted.

Welcome from New Mexico, Boogyman!

I echo jmortimer's statement and your use of the words "intolerant and judgmental" are telling of your ideology and the imminent way of this thread. From my perspective alone, jmortimer was being kind and respectful, when an even more blatant and honest response could have been offered. Political parties are much bigger than the individual dreams of an ideologue - being a liberal and leftist supporter are the surest way to end your rights under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[MikeG]

The NRA thread was locked at the outset because I pretty well can assure you it would degenerate into a bunch of name-calling, etc. If you have comments please send them to me. Hey I know a few other leftist, yet gun owning people. They do exist.

Your "first amendment" reference is without meaning. You can't dictate the terms of the discussion here, any more than you could call up the local newspaper or TV station and start insisting that they broadcast to your standards (if you don't believe me, give it a try). However, you are certainly within your rights to start your own forum, etc., and make your own rules as you see fit.

We try to keep down the level of indiscriminate bashing of any political affiliation, but I simply do not have time to edit every single post on this forum. If they get out of hand, they get locked. Usually there are a few warnings issued first, and sometimes the worst of the posts get deleted, if we catch them in time. Being a moderator is a volunteer job and we aren't screening the forum 24x7, just to keep people's feelings from being hurt. If you have the time to go back and sort through thousands of posts and manually edit them, then maybe we can use your help. But we do try to maintain civil discourse on the forum, regardless. Other than having to approve every post before it gets put on the forum, I don't see a way to prevent it. Seems like you aren't in favor of getting posts approved before being public, anyway.

As long as your conscience is clear that you are voting away your gun rights, then vote for who you want. The goal here is education, and that is the only reason we allow gun-related political topics at all. So, for your education, your vote for B.O. (and Biden) put two of the most anti-gun politicians in U.S. history at the head of the executive branch. I seriously doubt Bernie will be more favorable to gun rights as either of them. It is your vote and your conscience and your priorities. Go look up Biden's record as a senator and some of the silly nonsense he has publicly said re: self defense, etc., if you don't believe me. Same for Obama.

By the way, you have a FFL 03, not Class III. Class III is for full auto, silencer, short barreled rifles and shotguns, destructive devices (I think), etc. Just FYI. It says so right on your C&R. Might want to review that.

We will leave the thread open as long as people are civil, and it stays strictly on gun-related topics.

 

[Sus Scrofa]

Speaking from the United Kingdom, so as not to take sides, this is getting far away from discussing firearms. guns, hunting, shooting in general. Either start talking about those subjects or this will be closed fast.
Mike G beat me to it and he always does talk a lot of sense

 

[Boogyman]

Welcome from New Mexico, Boogyman!

I echo jmortimer's statement and your use of the words "intolerant and judgmental" are telling of your ideology and the imminent way of this thread. From my perspective alone, jmortimer was being kind and respectful, when an even more blatant and honest response could have been offered. Political parties are much bigger than the individual dreams of an ideologue - being a liberal and leftist supporter are the surest way to end your rights under the 2nd Amendment.

Of course my words are "telling" of my ideology, I believe I've been pretty straightforward about that.

From Jmortimer's post: "you actively support politicians that want to kill the Second Amendment". I respectively disagree with the notion that these politicians "want to kill the second amendment". And I consider JM's insinuation that I want to "kill the second amendment" by association as an attack on my values. Obama has done nothing to infringe our RTKBA unless you consider insisting on background checks (which I support) as "infringing". I had to go through background checks for my FFL and my CWP, I have no problem with that. Bernie Sanders is a senator from Vermont, a state which doesn't even require a permit to carry a gun.
Also from Jmortimer's post: "you are committed to supporting the destruction of all that I honor and respect." This is another insinuation that I resent, and a totally false attack on my values. I stated before That I hold the 2nd Amendment dear. I believe that compromise towards common sense regulation is the only true way to save our 2A rights. I don't buy into all the "we are doomed" fear-mongering, it is logistically impossible for millions of so-called government thugs to forcefully seize all the guns owned by private citizens in this country. For one thing, ordering our armed forces to 'grab our guns' is illegal, if you've been in the military you may of heard that soldiers are not obligated to follow an illegal order.

Yes, these false attacks by Jmortimer are intolerant and judgmental. Disappointing but not unexpected.

Your comments, StretchNM, are respectful in contrast. Thank you for that and for the welcome.

 

[dmsbandit]

you do know that "well regulated" militia has nothing to do with licenses, permits, or any other government interference, Correct?

if not, you need to do some reading of the FOUNDING FATHERS, and not the "liberal" elitists.

 

[MikeG]

Obama has put people on the Supreme Court that don't agree we have a right to keep and bear arms. Oh and in case you missed his tear-jerking performance on TV before his "executive action" to attempt to further erode gun rights. Oh and "fast and furious" so he could attempt to blame (lawful) gun owners and (lawful) gun dealers for crimes committed by mexican drug cartels. Never ending calls for more gun control (honestly, do you even watch the news?). I could go on and on, but the Supreme Court justices were more damage to gun owners than anything else he could have done would.

As far as Bernie - the fact he was elected in Vermont does not mean he is pro-gun. Have you even checked?

 

[MikeG]

Oh and here's Bernie. Google "Bernie Sanders gun control" and see what you find....

I will take the following concrete steps to reduce gun violence: strengthen and better enforce the instant background check system; close the gun-show loophole; make 'straw man' purchases a federal crime; ban semi-automatic assault weapons which are designed strictly for killing human beings; and work to fix our broken mental health system.

Apparently Bernie doesn't know that 'straw man' purchases are already a federal crime....
Apparently Bernie thinks that criminals often volunteer for the existing 'instant check' (required by federal law).
Apparently Bernie is not aware that prosecution for attempting to purchase when legally disqualified is exceptionally rare (so why are we checking, again?).
Apparently Bernie thinks all semi-auto firearms are designed 'strictly for killing human beings'...
Apparently Bernie thinks round 11 in the magazine makes your gun a killing machine (that from his web site positions on gun control, not the quote above).

et al.

So thank you for this opportunity to educate the Shooter's Forum members that Bernie is just as anti-gun as Obama and Biden. Hey, I found the silver lining in this thread....

 

[dmsbandit]

Obama has put people on the Supreme Court that don't agree we have a right to keep and bear arm<script id="gpt-impl-0.6514029375936607" src="https://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_79.js"></script>s. Oh and in case you missed his tear-jerking performance on TV before his "executive action" to attempt to further erode gun rights. Oh and "fast and furious" so he could attempt to blame (lawful) gun owners and (lawful) gun dealers for crimes committed by mexican drug cartels. Never ending calls for more gun control (honestly, do you even watch the news?). I could go on and on, but the Supreme Court justices were more damage to gun owners than anything else he could have done would.

As far as Bernie - the fact he was elected in Vermont does not mean he is pro-gun. Have you even checked?

it isn't just the Supreme Court Judges, it's all levels of the Federal Court system that are screwed for the next 20yrs.

 

[MikeG]

Probably. I haven't looked into his appointments on the federal bench, but all someone has to do is look up the Heller and McDonald decisions to see what he appointed. The rest won't be much different, I predict.

Sadly, folks will delude themselves into thinking "it's not that bad" or such.

I predict our new member will ignore all of the mountain of evidence that Bernie extremely anti-gun in his next post.....

 

[Bong Son Buck]

Boogyman, When you're finished looking over your shoulder for enemies, let's discuss what brought you here-as in what kind of shooting you like to do, do you reload, and maybe share a hunting story or two! I'm fairly new here myself, and I can assure you that we can find PLENTY to disagree about, without getting into forbidden subjects! (I know that the hard way, too)So, tell us about your favorite firearm, or cartridge, and settle in for a pleasant and informative discussion.

 

[kdub]

Boogyman -

Please be aware we've had some very liberal members on the board and got along fine, joshing each other and never coming close to yelling and screaming. As long as folks are respectful and respond courteously to others, we have no problem.

We DO however, have problems with strictly political statements and comments meant to do nothing but stir muddy waters. Coming in with a chip on your shoulder and speaking defensively of your beliefs serve no purpose other than to rile the membership.

 

[MusgraveMan]

And way out from the southern tip of Africa where we have the Canadian replica firearms Act - meaning all firearms have to be licenced, as well as dedicated hunters. But better than Canada (or the USA) we take politicians and any government official to the High Court if he or she trangresses a single stipulation of the Act by overreach on our rights within the Act. In good time I hope to be a permanent resident of the USA, being able to cast my vote from a legal base, opposite to what liberals presently allow in the USA.

I shall have huge respect for US gun owners and pro-gun lobbies, no matter their views on a socialist versus capitalist form of government, who not only go to court to stop stupid legislation on banning the carrying and even owning firearms but also lay criminal charges against every official for every personal transgression of the US constitution and its Bill of Rights. In fact every voter who votes into office any official who even shows this leaning towards gun confiscatioand control needs to be noted as an opponent of Freedom and of the Constitution.

I have been to Russia a few times immediately after the quasi-democracy was instituted. There I learned that communist cronies ALWAYS HAD their firearms and gun shops, but the subjects were denied such freedom - particularly those individuals who opposed the Party. I learned that had you been an identifiable Party supporter you had easy access to firearms of any kind and hunting opportunities on appropriated "State Natural Conservancies", declared as such by executive order - re-zoning property that previously had been private land.

The concept of "democracy" is NOT implicit in that political party in the US with a similar sounding name. Gun ownership and usage and carrying of those is THE MOST basic expression of democracy. I challenge every individual who casts his vote on that side of the aisle to a debate on a suitable forum regarding his belief and support for democracy - particularly regarding the ownership and use and carrying of firearms.

Having said that, good sir, I bet the forum members are holding their collective breath in anticipation of the knowledge we are about to be privileged to share regarding the ease and joy of obtaining and shooting and carrying of and dealing in these matters of guns, where you are. It seems quite an arsenal to be talked about?

 

[Boogyman]

The NRA thread was locked at the outset because I pretty well can assure you it would degenerate into a bunch of name-calling, etc. If you have comments please send them to me. Hey I know a few other leftist, yet gun owning people. They do exist.

Your "first amendment" reference is without meaning. You can't dictate the terms of the discussion here, any more than you could call up the local newspaper or TV station and start insisting that they broadcast to your standards (if you don't believe me, give it a try). However, you are certainly within your rights to start your own forum, etc., and make your own rules as you see fit.

We try to keep down the level of indiscriminate bashing of any political affiliation, but I simply do not have time to edit every single post on this forum. If they get out of hand, they get locked. Usually there are a few warnings issued first, and sometimes the worst of the posts get deleted, if we catch them in time. Being a moderator is a volunteer job and we aren't screening the forum 24x7, just to keep people's feelings from being hurt. If you have the time to go back and sort through thousands of posts and manually edit them, then maybe we can use your help. But we do try to maintain civil discourse on the forum, regardless. Other than having to approve every post before it gets put on the forum, I don't see a way to prevent it. Seems like you aren't in favor of getting posts approved before being public, anyway.

As long as your conscience is clear that you are voting away your gun rights, then vote for who you want. The goal here is education, and that is the only reason we allow gun-related political topics at all. So, for your education, your vote for B.O. (and Biden) put two of the most anti-gun politicians in U.S. history at the head of the executive branch. I seriously doubt Bernie will be more favorable to gun rights as either of them. It is your vote and your conscience and your priorities. Go look up Biden's record as a senator and some of the silly nonsense he has publicly said re: self defense, etc., if you don't believe me. Same for Obama.

By the way, you have a FFL 03, not Class III. Class III is for full auto, silencer, short barreled rifles and shotguns, destructive devices (I think), etc. Just FYI. It says so right on your C&R. Might want to review that.

We will leave the thread open as long as people are civil, and it stays strictly on gun-related topics.

Thank you for the FFL 03 correction, my bad. And for the civil comments.

I realize that moderating is a tough and mostly thankless job, I've been a moderator for several years myself on a motorcycle forum. And you are just as entitled to your opinions as any member here. However, I have to take issue with setting up a 'sticky' where you can filter all comments and only your side of the issues are heard.
For instance, it's your opinion that by voting for the aforementioned politicians is effectively "voting away [my] gun rights". I respectfully disagree, as there is no evidence whatsoever that our RTKBA rights have been infringed in any way during the last 7 years of the Obama administration. And speculation that this administration would somehow 'grab our guns' in it's final year is just that; speculation. IMHO that sort of thinking is simply giving to the fear mongering that the NRA actively spreads. Every time this fear is advocated, the NRA receives vast sums of money from memberships and gun manufacturers. The spike in gun sales and the subsequent price-gouging of guns & ammo should be an indication that the NRA is in bed with the manufactures. Follow the money.

As far as any 'feelings being hurt', please give me some credit. At my age there's nothing that can be written on a computer screen that could possibly do that. I simply want to know if my opinions and values will be respected in a civil manner... just as I respect contrasting opinions I disagree with.
As I said, I am a gun enthusiast and an outspoken liberal. In order to learn here, and contribute my knowledge of guns, I have a choice; I could keep my liberal mouth shut and tolerate the bashing I see here... but in all good conscience that is not really a choice.

Education is a two way street, my friend.