Previous Post
Next Post

FN FiveseveN (courtesy

TTAG’s posting policy: no flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators. I’ve noticed an increasing number of flame wars in our comments sections. In some posts, readers ripped TTAG a new one re: our editorial stance and style. In others, they called each other names. These interchanges are unacceptable. Where and when Dan, Nick, Matt or I discover them, they are – and will continue to be – deleted. TTAG’s size makes it difficult to douse all the flames. If you encounter an ad hominem or personal attack please email a link to [email protected] with the word FLAME in caps in the subject field. Meanwhile, I am now officially extending this policy to the subjects of our posts. In other words . . .

No more calling Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Josh Horwitz “the biggest turd in the Huffington Post punchbowl,” for example. Or telling the world that you want to have sex with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense jefe Shannon Watts.

Horwitz, Watts and others have taken to trolling TTAG and other pro-gun internet outlets for comments that cast the pro-gun position in a deeply unfavorable light. (Click here for Horwitz’s HuffPo character assassination piece.) There is no need to provide the antis with ammunition in this ongoing battle for the hearts and minds of 2A fence sitters.

So, from this point forward, commentators can tear apart anyone’s logic or opinions but not in a personally disrespectful way. We are going to take the high road here. And why not? We don’t need to resort to low-brow “humor” to skewer those who would deny our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. To quote America’s Gun-Grabber-in-Chief, we’re better than that. Really.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • TTAG, you are playing into the hands of the progressive gun grabbers. By being politically correct and censoring some of the more colorful comments you have given them the satisfaction of disrupting every day life. They already hate us and it wouldn’t matter if we talked about rainbows and lollipops, they would find a way to turn it. What you have done is infringe on the people that support you and come here regularly by censoring foul language like a pressing mommy. I am a grown man and having people telling me to watch my mouth because I might offend others that hate me anyway rubs me the wrong way.

      • Ok then, if not to avoid offending others sensibilities, how about just because I (and I know I’m not alone) get tired of reading flame wars and yet another person thinking he’s clever when he calls Shannon Watts (or some random female legislator) a stupid whore (or some variation). It’s not all about them, some of it’s about keeping this an enjoyable place to be.

      • Chad, since when did common decency and courtesy become political correctness? If I was one of the uneducated masses and I read some of the posts on many pro 2A sites, I would think that a good percentage of gun owners are right wing extremist nut cases. Some of the posts are really over the line. We have the hi ground already, why give it up by posting obscene, sexist or racist material. (Yes, I have seen all three) As an example, when you drop the N bomb when discussing Obama, you have provided ammo to the left who loves to claim that anyone who disagrees with his policies, is “racist”. Some of our fellow 2A supporters are our worst enemies when it comes to PR. Education and logic will win this fight, not childish name calling.

  1. When I read “Click here for Horwitz’s HuffPo character assassination piece” I was worried that I’d click over there and find my words repeated. Ending up on MDA’s twitter feed was amusing, but I don’t really want to make a habit of it.

  2. Mr. Farago,

    I agree by and large with your stance.

    That said, please do not implement a brainless “zero tolerance policy”. By all means I encourage the site administrators to exercise good judgment and delete ad hominem attacks as they see fit.

    Just realize that there are times when it is necessary and appropriate to call a spade a spade. Furthermore, we need to be able to express passion on our side. Being passionate in a constructive way is a positive character trait. Passion also shows that we are not pushovers. The last thing you want to do is present us as intellectual wimps. After all, what do the gun grabbers have to fear from our positions of truth if we come across as lacking the intestinal fortitude to enforce those truths?

    • Often, it’s been easy to discern, because those that left inappropriate comments did that alone, absent any constructive conversation to even accompany it. But lately, the tenor of the conversation has often changed, with people jumping straight to namecalling and vitriol at the first sign of disagreement. (Even I’ve been guilty of that on occasion.) We’re just trying to correct the course before it goes too far off baseline.

    • “The last thing you want to do is present us as intellectual wimps. After all, what do the gun grabbers have to fear from our positions of truth if we come across as lacking the intestinal fortitude to enforce those truths?”

      Enforce, root word force. The truth does not need to be forced. The truth just is. Anything you force on to anyone will have the opposite effect that you intended.

      • Rambeast,

        Here is one example of a truth, a moral truth at that: I have no obligation to give anything to a stranger who walks up to me and demands my money. So where does enforcing that truth come into play? When I tell the stranger, “NO” and the stranger refuses to accept my moral and truthful response. While you may be content to let scumbags abuse you, the rest of us are not.

        Along the same lines, when we tell the gun grabbers that it is our inalienable right to keep and bear arms (the truth), we are morally justified to enforce that truth when a gun grabber proceeds to use force to disarm us.

        Gasp! But the gun grabbers will jump up and down and scream and yell! And they will promise to use government goons with guns to take away our guns because we refuse to let them take away our guns! Newsflash: that has been the gun grabbers’ plan for the last 100 years. Being nice brought us to the brink of losing our entire right to keep and bear arms. No more.

        Passionate and truthful responses to threats — and sometimes even force — are necessary to defend our rights and liberties. The sooner you can accept that, the better for everyone.

    • Bingo… !!!

      “Spade is a spade” “Say what you mean mean what you say”, “no brag just fact”..

      If ya mute the an author for the words of opinion, fact, and subject, your no better than Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, the Party Line, and so many others. But the fence still gets PC white washed! Purty fence ain’t it.don’t mind the weeds.

      Being super duper overly zealot like PC is whats kicking US in the Zipper today. To quote a few words of a song lyric “They smile in your face” but there’s always that hind thought they have.

      • I am astonished that you just drew a corollary between a stupid internet blog and Stalin, Lenin, and Pol Pot. I mean, I’m literally dumbfounded. That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve read in memory. Unless you expect Robert to send minions to your house to “disappear” you and possibly put a bullet in the back of your skull for what you said on this site, I suggest you recalibrate the living shit out of your hyperbole meter, because that thing is flat broke.

      • Matt, I have to agree with Denny. If I have to have ” a reason “, to carry, it is another fence to hurdle . Also being nice doesn’t mean squat to Progressives, read communist . I was raised in St Louis, and a baseball bat, was a good way to stop bulling, believe me it worked. If everyone on this blog, can’t see Pol Pot, at work in the U.S then we are in deep ” Shit “.

        • Actually… I’m not surprised at all given how long it’s been since civics was a central curriculum element.

        • @John L. I have no doubt that if civics were to make a comeback, it would be taught with such a progressive slant it would essentially be just a different packaging of the same garbage they teach now.

          Imagine if you will a civics class based on the (unstated) proposition that a big corporation has government-like power and the BOR needs to be enforced on it. Or that the 2A is for militias only. etc.

      • The real problem seems to be that the other side doesn’t really censor their own. Liberals will be free to tear us down with rule 5, we will be “gagged.” Not that I agree with the sentiment, but there it is.

      • Correct, a private entity that makes a living off boasting the second amendment, can absolutely censor the populace of which they make coin off of. Thats the American way!

    • I believe “flaming the website” means insulting the website for no other reason than to insult the website.

      An example would be a post where someone says “The TTAG website is garbage and the contributors are all (insert slur here)!”

    • I’m guilty of this, so maybe I can help. I used to do it all the time (just ask RF). Flaming the website kinda goes hand in hand with the “questions about editorial stance/style” thing. Like me saying that we give MDA way too much press, or pointing out that a particular post is undeniably clickbait with no redeeming value, etc. Basically, if you have a problem with the type of stories being run, send an email, don’t blow up the comments section.

      • “Basically, if you have a problem with the type of stories being run, send an email, don’t blow up the comments section.”

        Because if it’s in the comment section, then others might see when TTAG does something bad, so let’s keep everything hush hush where no one can see it.

        Come on Rob, I thought you grew up and got over this “NO CRITICISM ALLOWED!” BS. It’s been several months (probably a year or more, actually) since you’ve acted like that. I guess the complaints about the flaws in the R51 review really got to you.

        • As I said in response to your first comment, to my knowledge, not a single comment about the R51 got edited or deleted due to the comments about any perceived bias.

          Was there something you didn’t like that didn’t get addressed, or are you just bitching to bitch? You have a lot of complaints, but I don’t see a lot of substance. That is, if I wanted to fix whatever it is that bothers you, I wouldn’t know what to do, because it’s just a lot of noise without signal.

        • I already answered the first part below. As to what to fix? How about not having a policy of “no criticism allowed”, such as the one Rob put front and center in this very post?

        • The criticism that this is mainly focused on is things like the guys who have to insert a comment in every single post about Kirsten that her shots aren’t that big a deal, and that RF must have a thing for her, and the like. Even if someone is pointing out a perceived bias on the part of a reviewer, there are ways to do that without calling them a “1911-hating jackass” or something like that, and the problem is, that’s apparently the only way a few folks around here can express themselves. I really don’t recall seeing any of your comments get nailed, so I’m still not sure what your issue is. You’ve been posting here for quite a while, and this policy is really no different than it’s ever been, and it’s not something you’ve ever really run afoul of. But having been here that much, you have to have noticed the change in the tenor of the conversations, and it’s not a good thing.

        • “I really don’t recall seeing any of your comments get nailed, so I’m still not sure what your issue is.”

          Apparently you don’t get why someone would be against poor behavior, even if they’re not the target of it. Robert did not say anything about “insulting” TTAG contributors, he flat out said that no criticism will be allowed. THAT is the problem, because Nick and Rob deserved all of the complaints they got about that R51 review and attacking your readers in response to it is NOT the way to run a business. Fix the problems with the people who caused the complaints, don’t attack the people who pointed out the flaws.

        • I believe the “no criticism at all, ever” is an oversimplification. At least I would hope it is in practice, anyway. I agree with the rest of your comment. Problems should get fixed. If there are material errors in an article or review, by all means point them out. But if the “problem” is more along the lines of “I just don’t like his style” or “I don’t like the way this was done,” then those are the kind of comments that ought to go to email. If for no other reason, then because if you’re trying to influence the decisionmakers, emails get read, but comments don’t always. RF doesn’t see all the comments. When I see one directed at him, I’ll bring it to his attention, but I also don’t see all the comments. So a comment left in an effort to bring about change may or may not do any good at all. Emails always get read.

        • I hope but it sounds like Toetenglocke has a point… and if it’s actually carried out that way they’ll be a lot of deleting going on.

        • I think Totenglocke has a point too.

          I am self aware. I know I’ve had my hand slapped for flaming before, but I think I’ve contributed a good number of informative/interesting responses as well.

          I have an adverse reaction to censorship. If this policy of no publicly pointing out errors is enforced, I will stop coming to the site. ::shrug::

      • Is that like when you guys would be days if not a week behind on news stories and would call you out on it and then Matt would say some smartass comment. Those were the days.

        • That’s because you’d point it out like because you’d already read about it a few days or a week before, we shouldn’t bother to talk about it. Nevermind that probably 90% of those who read it here had not seen it before it was published here, and even some of those that had were still taking part in the comment conversation here. But oh no, if shawn’s seen it, we can’t ever talk about it again. My snide comments were in direct response to your sneering arrogance that you shouldn’t be made to read something twice.

        • And you missed the point entirely. You guys are the pros as such be leading and be in the forefront and not be late to the party. Nothing about me having to read the news twice. That is petty and shallow. And, just having fun as stated “those were the days.” You personally told me to back off and did as such.

        • Point taken. For what it’s worth, stories sometimes get written, and then get pushed, and pushed again by more “pressing” stories and so sometimes they don’t publish a day or two after they’re written. Sometimes they just get pushed right into the Trash. If they were time-sensitive, they go away, but if they’re not, and they’re interesting, they’ll go live. And sometimes, it doesn’t show up on our radar ’til a week later. Again, if it’s interesting, even if it’s a few days old, we’ll write it. I don’t like reading stuff twice, either, to be honest, but I read so many different outlets that it happens a lot. Many people who read here don’t read anywhere else.

  3. By the way anyone who wants to continue to comment however they please is more them welcome in GD at arfcom. That place is no holds barred.

        • Toten,

          It’s just that many of your comments and ideas seem to feel more important in your own mind than when they are read. I rarely see you having anything substantial to say, despite your thoughts to the contrary.

      • toten- I have to agree with a couple others- there was a time there early on, when you had a lot to contribute- then it got a bit off track, and here again you seem to be missing the point.

        You are certainly entitled to say what you like, but when it gets pointed at other people here, personally, as opposed to debating ideas and facts, thats when it starts to stink the place up.

        And I’ve sensed a change and applaud the reminder from Robert, lets all try to do better- I have probably stepped across the line, and apologize if so-
        and if we help one another, without becoming the speech nanny, as peers, then that takes a bit of work off the editors who have better things to do than point out the obvious.

        Now, lets be clear- there can be plenty of snark and non-PC fun here- if we just stick to the Truth, and avoid the personal insults.

        And remember, half the fun and utility of the site like this is the folks who have a lot of experience or insight to offer- and those are most often busy people- they dont have time to wade thru the boring back and forth of juvenile insults – and
        conversely, those who engage in the petty insults dont have much else to offer, usually, IMHO.

        We are all adults and can tell the difference. Those who continue to repeat juvenile insults, are likely not adults, or worse, trolling- and just need to be banned, if a couple polite warnings dont suffice.

        Clean and well-lit room…. Hemingway

  4. How will this rule apply to heated discussions over the serial comma and proper use of the possessive with nouns ending in -s? Can I flame someone for blind adherence to Strunk & White? (Seriously, the policy seems fine.)

  5. Good.

    Some of the hateful comment I see here make me cringe when I see them through a fence-sitter or an anti’s eyes.

    No point reinforcing negative stereotypes.

    If that’s the way you really feel, go play on Stormfront or /b.

    • You ever considered a job as a RINO in Congress? Seems we’ve heard the exact words you use from folks up in D.C. who are afraid of their own shadow as well.

  6. And all of this inspired because people pointed out Nick’s biases in your response to the R51 review. Sounds like this will be the beginning of the end of TTAG if you’re going to ban criticism.

    • No, it’s inspired because, as I said above, people are getting in the habit of jumping straight to namecalling and vomiting obnoxious vitriol all over the page at the first sign of disagreement. The most minor version would be the couple folks around here that call anyone who disagrees with them a libtard or a leftard or the like. That’s the fairly tame end of the scale.

      To my knowledge, not a single comment referencing Nick’s biases (or lack thereof) got edited or deleted.

      • “To my knowledge, not a single comment referencing Nick’s biases (or lack thereof) got edited or deleted.”

        Not what I’m talking about.

        In some posts, readers ripped TTAG a new one re: our editorial stance and style. In others, they called each other names. These interchanges are unacceptable. ”

        That’s what inspired the crackdown on people being able to state their opinions without being censored, and it’s what’s going to drive readers away. Be an adult and accept criticism when you do something wrong, don’t scream “I CAN DO NO WRONG!” and delete comments pointing out your flaws.

        • I don’t think it is that complicated, really. If someone comes into my house, and calls me names, I ask them to leave and don’t invite them back. It is, after all, my house. If they don’t like my rules, don’t visit. That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t be open to criticism or comments, but there are ways to do it and ways not to. Someone doesn’t like something, drop Dan or RF an email. Taking potshots in public is cheap grandstanding designed to inflate the public opinion of the commenter and not to elicit corrective action on the part of the writer of a post in question.

          Civility and mutual respect for differences of opinion is not being PC, weak, or any other silly thing. Granted, I am older than many of the people on this site, but I’ve always considered those two things a sign of being an adult.

          I do recognize that the anti-gunners would not follow these rules, but so what. Since when did it become normal for strong people, firm in their convictions, to regularly resort of defensive, ad hominem attacks, particularly when the facts are on our side?

          Just my opinion, not the truth of the ages.

  7. I’ve never flamed the website, I think it’s fine. I do need to tone down my fein(stein) type stuff though. I hope this doesn’t get too serious here.

  8. I, for one, think this is overall a good policy. And the reminder is timely. I’ve noticed a recent slide in the civility of the comments around here, and hope this corrects the course before things get too unpleasant.

    Also, you guys doing the moderating (Matt in FL, do you even have a day job?) are greatly appreciated. It’s not a fun job, but it’s very necessary. Thanks!

  9. I can see why we should mind our p&q’s with the anti ‘s and such, but does mean we can’t make fun of the “FFL Nazi”? The guy writes articles crying about his customers and we can’t complain about him? I realize pricing is hard and all.

    • I think that the only comments that got cleaned up (deleted, edited, whatever) under his posts are those that offered only a flame, but nothing constructive. If it says nothing other than “You’re an obnoxious douchebag,” it probably went away. That said, he seems to revel in others disdain, so I think there’s a little more latitude there.

  10. I have a question about what y’all consider a flame; An example; some one said that when I say that gun grabbers are statist; that they despise personal freedom; that when they promote GFZ they are being delusional and in denial; and that the end game for most of these gun- grabbing statists that worship big government is citizen dis-armament that almost invariably leads to tyranny and mass death.

    I can’t remember who, but this person said I was “hurling epithets”, ie (flaming) when I was saying I was simply telling the truth

    So how about it; do you moderators say I’m flaming or just being factual?

    • Facts are facts, and are on your side. Let them say what they say. I personally believe that most ant-gun activists are cowards, unwilling to accept personal responsibility for the safety of themselves and their families. I don’t think that’s an ad hominem attack, though they might disagree. Calling someone a hag is probably flaming. I hope that I am interpreting things correctly in terms of the difference.

      • I find there is no need to resort to personal attacks; partly because; for me; when I feel the need to do that it’s because I’m feeling defensive at what someone said about me I don’t like to hear; (the truth hurts) or because the other person made a better argument and I’m losing the debate. The other point is that very fact; when you can say like I did in the post above about most gun-grabbers as simple fact; the truth does hurt! Why resort to name calling when the truth works so much better.

  11. So, if someone acts like an ass you can’t call them out on it?

    We can talk about shooting people, but saying Horwitz is a turd, Watts is being an ass, or whatever is where we draw the line?

    I think Yeager said this one best, paraphrasing, if you can’t handle some cursing or someone messing with you probably can’t handle a fight for your life with a gun.

    • +42

      I also love how they’re using “gun grabbers will get angry!” as their reason for censoring, yet everyone here knows that no matter how polite we are, the grabbers will be furious and attack us.

      • There’s a difference between “get angry” and “giving them ammunition” that they can use to tar the whole movement. I laughed as hard as anyone else at Dirk’s amorous pursuit of Shannon Watts, but there’s no denying that when she got hold of that one particular post that was way over the top, she got a lot of mileage out of pointing out what misogynistic jerks we ALL were, by association.

        • “she got a lot of mileage out of pointing out what misogynistic jerks we ALL were, by association.”

          Yes, because grabbers never called gun owners that before he made that comment. Like I said, making excuses for a “rule with an iron fist” policy.

    • Define being an ass. If they’re being an ass, they’re probably running on the wrong side of the rule themselves. If their arguments are stupid or misguided, then argue the arguments. If they’re really stupid or misguided, my normal comment goes something like, “There’s so much wrong with that I don’t know where to start, so I’m not gonna bother.” Other people’s first comment would be something like “You’re a stupid ass and you can FOAD.” The former is fine, the latter is an attack on the person, not the argument, and contributes nothing to the conversation. See the difference?

      As far as Yeager goes, he’s not wrong, but at the same time there’s a reason that quite a few people think he’s an ass, or an egotistical jerk, or a detriment to the gun community. Think of how his words have gotten used to make either him, or all of us, or both look bad in the past. The idea is to deny the other side that ammunition.

      • “As far as Yeager goes, he’s not wrong, but at the same time there’s a reason that quite a few people think he’s an ass, or an egotistical jerk, or a detriment to the gun community.”

        I believe the scientific term for those people is “effeminate”. I could come up with other words that you’d delete, but the point remains the same. If you’re going to cry over which words someone used, you don’t have the stomach to be debating / fighting in the first place.

        • So wait. Because I think Yeager can be an egotistical jackass who often causes more harm than good, that makes me a fag, or a girly-man, or something? Those are basically what you were going for, right?

          If I’m correct in that conclusion, then I’m done with you. I’ll spar with you all night, but that’s just rank bullshit, and precisely what we’re talking about here. That’s obnoxious, and I don’t have time for it.

        • No, I said complaining about the WORDS someone uses. I think Yeager is a jerk and an idiot, but I don’t cry over him cussing or using racial slurs. If you want to say you think someone is harming the cause, go right ahead. However, if the only charge you can bring against them is “MOMMY! HE SAID A BAD WORD!”, then you’re not enough of an adult to be in the conversation.

          Also, there was at least one flame in that response, two depending on exactly how you want to define it. 🙂

      • For instance, I think it was jwm that was called a baby killer by someone for talking crap about Berry the ‘Bama…

        Are we breaking any hearts for calling that guy (either the commenter or the Bama) a dbag?

        And, I was flame deleted for calling some guy a putz for a writing an article trashing gun owners, putz is crossing the line?

        I am not saying we should constantly revert to something of that nature, names and such, but damn, I hope yall are not going to take the piss out of everything.

        Like I said, we are talking about fighting and shooing people at times, are we not?

        • The baby killer thing probably should have gone away before anyone had a chance to call the person who said it a dbag. Not just because it’s a flame, but because it’s nonsensically non-related to the topic at hand, I’m sure.

          The putz thing probably would have flown right under my radar, but like I’ve said elsewhere, that’s just me. I’ve had my own comments deleted by other people here, and I’ve gotten quite upset about it, but in the end, live by the sword, die by the sword.

        • I just hope y’all don’t go all National Football League on us, start making too many “unnecessary roughness” calls, and say breathing too hard on the wideout is pass interference…

          Fighting (self defense with a weapon) is a full contact sport, it can get rowdy, let’s not get too sensitive about how we talk about it…

          And, if you think I’m going to wear pink shoes you can kiss my ass.

      • Well, for example, FC recently posted an article about firearms dealers lowering prices and equated it with “lowering the bar.” The article recalled an understandably frustrating and time-consuming matter involving a felon attempting to purchase a gun. Since this apparently took place during some kind of promotion / sale, FC seems to have taken the baffling leap of logic that offering promotions or sales attracts unsavory or problematic customers (as opposed to the more rational observation that lower prices increases demand and simply attracts more customers, and that in the course of business it’s inevitable to run into the occasional bad apple).

        I found FC’s conclusion to be contemptuous of his customers in general, and because I have purchased the majority of my own firearms collection by careful bargain hunting, I felt a little personally insulted as well, being cast in with the “lowered bar” crowd by association of habit. I commented on that article, stating my position (in not so many words), and, yeah, I called FC an ass.

        Now, that comment was not meant to disparage FC as a person, nor to devalue his contributions to the site in general (I have enjoyed reading about the industry from his perspective). However, in that instance, and in that conclusion, I’d say FC was being “uncharitable” and I felt obliged to call him out for it. Perhaps I could have used nicer language, or spent more time carefully constructing my complaint as I’ve done here, but, well, sometimes it’s simpler to just call a guy an ass (for the record, if/when I’m being an ass, I prefer to be called out as such; I find it simple and to the point). 🙂

        Anyway, my comment was meant as genuine constructive criticism, but could easily be taken as ad hominem because of my choice of words. If it needs striking, please strike it.

        Meanwhile, this seemed like a pretty germane example to the original question.

    • I will give you a plus one on calling someone a dick when they are obviously spewing hate and ignorance. Sometimes nothing else needs saying. But that’s reserved for the flagrantly close-minded. I like to try to articulate why someone is wrong when they seem open minded. As to Paul being a condescending type, ya I’m right on board with that one. Toten seems angry about being censored. He’s not all wrong. But ad hominem attacks should be reserved for the bottom of the barrel posters we sometimes get here. Not for someone who disagrees with post or comment with a thoughtful response.

  12. I guess I’m mostly on board, but I hope I can still call someone a douchebag. That would be a little over the top.

    • Incessant flame wars between commenters are bad mostly because they’re boring. There are plenty of other places people can rip each other new ones over insufficient fealty to the 1911 or the GLOCK or whatever perceived shortcoming they’ve revealed. It just gets old.

  13. I told Robert years ago that I would speak my mind in my own way and if he objected to any of my comments, he could take them down, with absolutely no hard feelings on my part.

    So what are y’all complaining about? RF created this site and put his heart, soul and capital into it. He’s entitled to set the ground rules, no?

    • “So what are y’all complaining about? RF created this site and put his heart, soul and capital into it. He’s entitled to set the ground rules, no?”

      So by that reasoning, you continue to support Recoil from their “machine guns don’t belong in the hands of peasants” or Guns and Ammo after their “The Second Amendment needs to be infringed” articles? Or did you call them out on their BS and stop reading?

      TTAG is no different from gun magazines – either produce a product that your readers like or they WILL go elsewhere and you’ll be in the unemployment line.

      • I am frankly not concerned about giving the antis any ammunition; I recognize the possibility and I accept that RF has a very large personal stake in keeping this site running. My problem is that while I can accept someone calling an anti a hag – I don’t like it – it really ticks me off that some people are so hard on each other. WTF? The thing that unites all of the regular commenters on this site is HUGE and any differences of opinion on the details are pretty insignificant in that.

        Hell, if we can’t even treat each other with respect and courtesy – disagreeing completely in our various arguments, as families and friends often do – what the hell does that say about our “community?”

      • So by that reasoning, you continue to support Recoil

        Even for you, this is a massive non sequitur. First of all, I never supported Recoil. Second, if I had, I would have stopped reading it. Just as you should stop reading TTAG if you feel strongly about the policy.


      • I think they are aware of that fact. So if you feel that way, then go. If enough readers agree with you then Robert will be in a world of trouble. I’m sure they have done the cost benefit analysis. As long as one uses intellect to make comments on this site, it’s really not a difficult policy to deal with at all, and it would be quite difficult to get a comment deleted.

  14. I managed a FB page for a little while and struggled with this as well. MDA and their ilk are silently monitoring pro2a entities looking for useful screenshots to push their propaganda that all people of the gun are foul mouthed, temperamental hotheads. We must be as tactical with our communications as we are with our weapons. That gray matter between your ears is your primary weapon and should always be in condition 1. And for those that make the ridiculous accusation that those that show civility and restraint can’t effectively use a weapon. How about I flip that fallacious logic back on you and state if you can’t be controlling and tactful with your words you probably can’t show restraint and be trusted carrying a firearm? I say good on ya TTAG.

  15. How are any of us supposed to respond to Firearm Concierge’s stories? It gonna be rough not being able to call him a feminine hygiene product that weve all taken to doing

    • The policy should be suspended for FC’s copypasta.

      He revels in it like a pig in **** anyway and giving him hell when he deserves it (which is a lot of the time) does no harm to the pro-second amendment cause.

  16. It seems that the concept of treat others as you would want to be treated has gone by the wayside, as has the concept of thick skin.

  17. Never knew of the policy before. I don’t think I have gone over the line, but knowing myself and my disdain for PC I very well could have. If I have offended some one, it was not intentional. I do agree we do not need to give the anti’s any help. I much rather use their words against them. It is hard to win a debate when your opponent uses your own words to prove his case.

    I will miss Dirk’s comments about MDA, though I do not know what he has against Jerry Lewis.

  18. We should be allowed to openly debate what the writer says in a review or how the review is perceived or written. That is why there is a comment section. I had to go back and read the R51 review and clearly Nick had problems and was called out on it. So what…can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Feedback is expected. I believe felons lose their rights when they commit a crime that constitutes as a felony and should not be allowed to own a gun, ever. Call me out on it…don’t care. My belief.

    • There is a line between pointing out problems with a review and flaming. I prefer to receive comments about TTAG’s editorial stance or style out of the comments section because experience has shown that those sorts of comments multiply and dominate the comments section, crowding out other, more salient points.

      When I see that a particular review or editorial slant offends a significant number of people, I create a housekeeping post – with loosened flaming rules – so that people can vent, publicly, about the site. That’s exactly what I did for Nick’s review. Which, by the way, we edited to reflect some of the valid concerns raised by readers.

      All I’m asking for here is civility. A safe place where people can discuss firearms-related issues without fear of being personally attacked for their opinions. I don’t want TTAG to become what Autoblog became: a garden over a sewer.

      I appreciate ALL your comments. I used to read all your comments. Every single one. Now that’s not possible. But I do believe it’s possible for all of us to treat each other with respect. To take responsibility for our words and the words of others. We must be the bigger person than the antis.

      • RF, I think you guys should work your comment here up into a standard “comment policy” note and make it prominent on the home paqe of this site.

        You nailed it, brother.

        And, as one guilty of needlessly flaming from time to time, I resolve to do better.

        Thanks, and keep up the great work.

      • RF – thank you for the clarification.

        I was a bit angsty until I came to your post, but I think what you’re asking for sounds more than reasonable.

  19. Toten is really flipping out about this. He is actually contemplating the removal of his attacking and trolling comments. …so upset about not being able to leave personal attacks. Lol.

  20. One more, if you guys do not want comments, get rid of that section. Gun owners have been insulted from being called whimps to pepophiles and everything in between including the insults to the length of our penises.

  21. Private property rights. Every time I say a store or a business can’t keep out gun carriers as it violates their civil rights I get the whole private property rights take precedent over my civil rights. This site is private property. If you don’t like the rules, go to another site. Vote with your keyboard. If enough leave the site will change or shut down.

    Personally, I don’t think that will happen. Classless, tasteless sites are a dime a dozen on the interwebz thingie.

  22. Oh, man. Here we go.

    The Brady Bill passed, in no small part, due to the failure of our side to deny Sarah Brady’s moral authority. She rode her husbands injury all the way to a real Federal infringement of our “shall not be infringed” rights. Our side backed down, because we didn’t want to look mean. After all, Sarah’s husband was crippled.

    Today, the left believes it has Sarah Brady 2.0 in Gabby and Mark.

    MAIG has largely been discredited, MDA seems to have the same recruitment ceiling as the Ring Wraiths (only 8 or 9 ever show up). But Gabby and Mark are special.

    Americans are big-hearted people. If you speak to their sympathy, they will listen. Giffords condition offers her credibility, that she could never buy any other way. We see it for what it is: an ill woman who should be in therapy being used by powerful people to white-out the Bill of Rights. We get it.

    We see it for the joke it is. Our job is to tell the joke to everyone, everywhere.

    If we allow Buzz Lightyear and Mrs. Potatohead to go unchallenged, they will play hell with the Constitution that she, herself, took an oath to preserve and defend. Mocking them is a neccessary and proper work of citizenship.

    I hope we are allowed to do so. Thank you RF for this forum.

  23. I’ve only begun posting here recently, and several of my posts have been on this very subject. We are in the very fortunate position of being in a debate where the facts favor us. Why, then, would we want to let the opposition reframe the debate as a “virtuous gun safety advocates vs. racist, sexist gun crazies” crusade? God knows I like a good verbal altercation, and there’s nothing wrong with beginning a response with “You’re a jackass” or the equivalent. BUT, and here’s the important part, it needs to be followed up: “You’re a jackass, AND HERE’S WHY…” with an explanation of why the anti-2A argument is invalid or poorly reasoned. Just saying “Hur, hur, your a douche, blow me, hur hur” REALLY DOES make us look like what the antis want us to look like. Seriously, this is why I hate Ann Coulter. As much as I may agree with her on a particular issue, she makes me look like a bitchy %&#* by association.

  24. I used to help manage message boards as a hobby. It got to the point that I hated even going there, since it meant having to parse so much mental refuse before I could actually participate in actual discussions. I don’t spend much time going through blog comments for the same reason, unless it’s something on which I feel compelled to insert my two cents. Given the rapid-fire nature of comments here, posting one of my own is usually more trouble than it’s worth.

    And lately I’ve found that it’s not worth wading through the flotsam to do so, either. Keyboard courage being what it is, there has to be some sort of order established. And that’s not to effectively combat MDA or MAIG or any of those other poor pathetic people, nor to muzzle or control the readership. It’s to better serve the mission of the blog itself: “to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.”

    “But it’s my opinion!” Nobody’s here to read your opinions. Be glad you can say anything. If it were my blog, there’d be IP bans in place for comments.

    • It’s not just that. They took a lot of heat from people for the unnecessary umpteenth 1911 post and the Remington R51 review.

      I didn’t have a problem with the R51 review since I’m as picky as Nick is. The 1911 thing seemed like obvious pudding-stirring, though. They could’ve asked Nick what his opinion of the platform is since he carries one, instead of poking people.

      • Nick wasn’t exactly being “picky”, he was looking for things to pick AT. It seemed more like he was blowing up problems to justify a pre-existing bias, a bias whose roots Nick hinted at last month when he wrote:

        “Needless to say, we were all a bit miffed that Remington would hold a coming out party for their new R51 handgun and not invite us.”

        Then, in his “review”, Nick said that there was no way to function test the gun for proper reassembly, when in truth there is. In fact, Nick even encountered the tell-tale function test at SHOT:

        “I couldn’t reliably dry fire the thing. When I went to rack the slide, the gun would occasionally not return to battery.”

        That *IS* the function test!!–rack the slide and see if it locks w/o a magazine. So, for Nick to say in his “review” that improper reassembly cannot be assessed w/o firing the gun was misleading, and y motivated a pre-existing case of sour grapes.

  25. Thanks for posting this.

    I know I’ll keep reading and posting. I appreciate civility and think that better discussions lead to better outcomes. Name-calling accomplishes nothing, other than helping the name-caller to blow off steam and/or have an inflated ego. I know I’m certainly not perfect (I don’t think anyone is) but I enjoy the intelligent discussion without the ad hominem stuff.

    Gun owners already have a bad reputation in the world, and simply adding fuel to the fire (with petty comments) does NOT help us persuade others about why gun owners are in the right. It also makes it harder to reach the folks who could be persuaded to join our side IF they are properly educated about firearms.

    For those who are incapable of self-filtering and are simply unable to engage in dialogue without throwing insults around, the entire rest of the internet awaits you. There’s plenty of trash talk out there. But I don’t think it’s necessary or appropriate, and I think it is counterproductive when you’re attempting to fight a political fight.

    We have the truth on our side. We don’t need to fight with childish insults. The gun prohibitionists do.

  26. Well, I’m glad TTAG is here. I like most of the article topics and try to view 10-20 comments on most of the articles. Running down a hundred or so “you suck”, “you statist”, “you anarchist”, “bootlicker”, “your 9 is weak/my .45 is awesome” comments just get tiring…I move on, there are usually several articles to review. The helicopter videos are fine but I’ll never have one so largely I skip them.

    I like the legislation and court ruling articles and I find much of the legal analysis in the comments to be enlightening. I don’t study the gun reviews but do glance over most of them. I never read the comments section after a gun review. There’s too much “mine is better”.

    Its good to keep an eye on police militarization and their Chief’s justifications are both hilarious and sad…you know the Italian mafia is running rampant in Edgeley, ND pop. 515. I find many of the derisive comments aimed toward the local PD in question can be humorous and applicable.

    Articles about good/bad shoots and circumstances can make one think how might I have handled that situation. Comments from people who “know somebody and how it went down for them” = good

    Ammo a ballistic tests = winner in my book. Comments on real experience -FTF/FTE per gun are useful too.

    I’d like to see more articles about ammo loading/reloading, when it can save money and where it isn’t worth the investment. Articles about the reloading setup, real world prices on equipment and supplies are a big plus and with the “your mileage may very” disclaimer of course. Comments related to real experience would be valuable to me.

    I’d like to see more about gun lockers and safes, fire ratings, security features and how some are better than others from somebody who can blow through the hype and focus on what features matter in a safe.

    Some folks carry a small trauma kit to the range with them. I’ve seen kits at the store but have no idea what would make a good “gun shot” kit that could save my or someone’s life.
    Far as I know: 1) Hole = stuff gauze in it. 2) spewing blood or missing limb = tourniquet
    I’m sure there is more to it and what should be included in a kit. An article on the topic would be useful to me along with perhaps a video. Again comments from people who have lived it = good knowledge.

    I realize this is TTAG but point of a firearm as a defensive weapon is staying alive. Reloading cheaply for more practice, keeping your stash away from criminals and not bleeding out are all part of it.

    I’m through rambling…thanks for a great site.

  27. FYI: I used to be ‘miserylovescompany.’ However, I left employ at Hellmart last December, and have moved to Georgia to be closer to family and go back to school starting this summer. So, in honor of that other Tom fella in Oregon, I’m henceforth posting as ‘Tom from Georgia.’

    Now, about this flaming policy and such….I don’t worry about it. I’ll say what I want, when I want, where I want, and if Robert and/or one of the mods see fit to delete it, then so be it. I only ask a brief explanation.

    My personal concern is this – the haters that like to characterize themselves as ‘progressives’ will sink to any level imaginable in order to make themselves look like the victim, and do so in the complete expectation that the liberal press will defend them, because they worship the ground they walk on.

    While I am all for taking the high road and will make every effort to do so, I offer this grave warning: There is going to be a war. I am not kidding or joking about this. If the progressives (or statists, if you prefer – same species of snake, either way) continue to attack, attack, and attack, and the press continues to aid and abet this sort of sedition, then at some point it will be too late and a whole lot of people – me, Robert, Ralph, Dirk, Totenglocke, ensitue, just about anyone involved with TTAG to any extent whether as a contributor, administrator, troll, or lurker, are more than likely going to die. Probably you, the reader, too. In fact, more than a whole lot of people. And why? because these sad excuses for humanity have forsaken their very own consciences and ethics to satisfy their own raw, base hatreds of guns, the people who own guns, and the documents that affirm that God-given right to keep and bear arms, a right that was paid for in blood time and again, and will continue to be paid for in blood. Nothing, and but nothing, will dissuade them, except probably their own deaths. That is how it is in a civil war, and that civil war is coming all too damn soon. There is simply no other fully comprehensive explanation for so many people buying so many guns and so much ammunition over the past several years.

    It’s not too late to turn back from the abyss, if only the haters would simply leave others alone and stop attempting to impose their wills upon others. That’s all it would take – simple as 1, 2, 3. But I do not think they well, and so I’m sad to say that I will keep my cartridges clean and dry, my weapons in working order, and when the inevitable comes, place my sights on center mass and pull the trigger, if indeed that’s what it will take. Or maybe something much more low-key, yet equally deadly. This sort of thing really doesn’t bear even thinking, much less talking about.

    So, Shannon, Josh, Mark, et al – you and your kind have been warned. Twist my words around to suit your pet hates all you wish. It will not change reality, and the reality is this – cease and desist, and this country just might recover. Fail to do so, and we will all die. Decide! For I will be your friend and countryman in peace, but God’s most terrible swift sword in war.

    That is all.


  28. Apparently the answer to the old housekeeping article about whether or not TTAG should delete flames was “yes.”

    I said it in that thread, I’ll say it again: the dude that pays the light bill gets to call the shots.

    No problem here.

  29. I’m glad to see this posted. I was seriously about to stop visiting here at all. There is absolutely no reason to talk like middle schoolers once you are an adult. If you can’t act like an adult, don’t expect to be treated as one. Harsh rules shouldn’t have to exist; but they do when people refuse to speak in a civil way.

  30. Wait.

    “Horwitz, Watts and others have taken to trolling TTAG and other pro-gun internet outlets for comments that cast the pro-gun position in a deeply unfavorable light. … There is no need to provide the antis with ammunition in this ongoing battle for the hearts and minds of 2A fence sitters.”

    “Listen, I’m not saying I want to see Sandy Hook II but another 20 or 30 dead kids would really dress out my balance sheet.”

    How can you say what I quote above with a straight face, when your own contributors are desperately trying to paint us in as unfavorable a light as humanly possible? Granted, that was on his twitter feed, but even some of the stuff he posts on TTAG isn’t helpful.

    Do you not see a contradiction?

    • I see the contradiction, and I acknowledge that humans are capricious, nonsensical creatures. I also acknowledge that while it’s impolitic as hell, he’s not wrong. The stuff that he posts here is informative (mostly), and factual (virtually always), even if it’s presented in a fashion that some find objectionable. His opinions are his own, like yours are your own, and further, his opinions (the one you quoted excepted) won’t provide nearly as much grist for the anti-gun agitprop mill as a commenter discussing the purported sexual proclivities of some random female legislator or public figure. His stuff is obnoxious, but the other stuff is titillating, and that moves papers.

      I also see that it’s very helpful that you keep bringing this particular item up, complete with convenient links and quotes for anyone who might want to go looking for it. While the rest of us are content to let it die (especially since it didn’t even happen on this site), as you continue to bring it up, you’ll forgive me if I start to wonder just exactly what your motivation is in doing so.

      • “you’ll forgive me if I start to wonder just exactly what your motivation is in doing so”

        My motivation? Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I’d like to see my children have the same gun rights as me now – and then some. You’ve already seen the links in my previous comment. The guy is actively working against us, and for some reason TTAG gives him a platform to do it from. Folks who undermine gun rights from our side.. are still undermining gun rights.

        And FWIW, when those anti-gunners come here trolling for negativity, it’s not a bad thing that some of us try to police our own instead of turning a blind eye to it.

        • I like the sentiment on your FWIW but I think it’s naive to believe that any anti would give is credit for policing our own.

        • Well, it’s a lot better than the antis saying “And nobody said ANYTHING”, which is what they’d be able to do if we all just look the other way. We need to shame shameful behavior on *all* sides. Making folks who spout this stuff TTAG contributors doesn’t exactly do that. But TTAG then saying that you and I need to watch our behavior is the height of hypocrisy. IMHO.

      • Perhaps his motivation is to prevent TTAG from publishing articles by FC that have little gems like that in them?

        To be honist I don’t even read articles by FC anymore. He may well be right, but I have better things to be depressed by.

        • He writes them for Reddit first, then crossposts them here. If TTAG’s really wanting to take the high road from now on they’d leave his stuff on Reddit where it belongs.

          But, he gets clicks and his friends on the TTAG staff think his obnoxiousness is cute.

  31. My summary judgement:
    1) Since the site exploded in size after Sandy Hook, I’ve basically quit commenting because there have been too many jerks trolling around here. Before I’d drop a comment or two a day, now it’s less than 1/week.
    2) I don’t care if something has been floating around the intertubes a couple of days. I barely have time to read TTAG, much less the other 9K sites out there.
    3) To all the flame happy, mostly newb, commentators out here, go back to the months before Newtown and look at the comments section then. We actually had adult, enlightening, albeit mostly lighthearted discussions. I used to LEARN things from other people here. I don’t hold it against the staff at all. It’s the nature of the beast. I just wish there was more civility here.
    4) The phrase kill them with kindness has a meaning. I always used this place to practice arguing with antis. Stay frosty and on point. Remember, you aren’t trying to change their minds, you’re trying to change your audience’s minds. Our audience is fence sitters. We won’t do that by spitting vitriol everywhere.

  32. mmmm censorship. the same kind found by anti-gun types? perfect example. writers here will bitch and moan about MDA and all the other anti groups disabling comments, but if a critical word is posted in TTAG we now delete them? any criticisms I’ve had have been accompanied with suggestions to not alienate potential newcomers. I firmly stand by my thoughts which will no longer be heard. no 1st amendment on the interwebs, I suppose?

    • Taking the last line first, hooray for another person who doesn’t understand that the First Amendment has no application in this instance.

      As far as the rest of your comments, the difference is it’s not every critical word. MDA and their ilk delete every single comment that isn’t exactly to their party line. The only things we care about are the inflammatory, off-topic, and obnoxiously personal ones. The vast majority of people know where the line of civil behavior is and they stay on the right side of it. For my part, if I’m in doubt, I let it stand. If I have to think about it, I let it stand. The only things that draw my attention are things that I can tell, at a glance, are over the line.

      • a bit of irony here. my annoyance with TTAG writers has yet to apply to you. and you just happen to be the one to respond. I completely understand as far as flaming goes, but criticism towards TTAG and it’s writers being edited and/or deleted is absurd.

  33. If you really aren’t against freedom of speech, then practice what you preach and don’t hide behind technicalities like “The 1st Amendament is just about the govt not being allowed to censor speech”.

    Secondly, it’s vastly more important WHAT it is being said than HOW it is being said. OK, so somebody’s feelings get hurt on the Internet. News at 11! People should learn how to deal with opposing views, even when they’re expressed in colorful language. If they don’t, then they’re not really equipped to handle freedom of speech, and if they’re not equipped to handle freedom of speech, then all is already lost.

    • We have no problem with opposing views. But if the only way someone knows how to express their opposing view is “You’re an idiot and people like you shouldn’t own guns,” they’re really not bringing anything to the table, conversationally. The only “fact” their comment is exposing is that they’ve really got nothing of value to say. There’s nothign wrong with expressing a difference of opinion, but if you follow up (or precede) that difference of opinion with “and that’s why you’re a piece of shit and I hope you die,” well, that’s where we draw the line.

  34. When people can post anonymously, they tend to forget their manners quicker. I see this policy as an attempt to curb that. It’s too bad that Mr. Farago has to do so, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be done and that we won’t all benefit from it.

  35. I can dig it. Policy acknowledged.

    I have to admit, I flamed out pretty good on that post where the cop shot that dog in cold blood. That was the only time I became uncivil (and used expletives) on this blog. My apologies. This is a pretty open blog that allows for good commentary from all points of view (and I’ve never had a comment deleted that I know of), so I’m not crying ‘censorship’. It’s your show. You make the rules. Blog commentaries/conversations can degrade pretty quickly if left completely unchecked. This group tends to be pretty civil (and extremely knowledgeable) most of the time, so I don’t see any ‘sea change’ with this anyway.

    I don’t necessarily agree with the part about Grabbers ‘picking’ comments to use against us though. All they do is lie and fabricate anyway, whether they make their own false Facebook posting and then do a story on it, or reference other lies, or completely fabricate from thin air, they are propaganda spewers regardless of what we post. But again, I’m not running a blog and have the viz that you guys do… so I’ll respect your call on that.

    I remember before I was a Manager, it was so easy to cry and complain about how everything should be, and how I could have made every decision better than my Manager. Then I became one. And realized pretty quickly that it was only because I had no responsibility for anyone other than myself – and not the visibility and information available at that level, that I could be so free to criticize and think I could do everything better. I tend to reference that life lesson before I start ‘talking out of school’.

    Glad I caught this post, btw. I was a little tied up on Valentines day at 7:00 pm

  36. +1. Im in favor of being respectful of each other and even those that oppose our views. This doesn’t mean that we have to be politically correct as some seem concerned with. Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. Lowering ourselves into negative, demeaning, or vulgar conversation will eventually create not only a less credible site, but less enjoyable experience for readers. My two cents.

  37. And so, here we are, it’s Saturday morning at 8:12, my local time, and we are up to nearly 200 comments on a post about comments.

    TTAG conversation, you got to love it.

    It never ceases both to amuse and amaze me how people who pay nothing for the intellectual property being provided on a site like this whine when the providers of the IP indicate what their policy is regarding comments on a web site that they own, operate, manage and run.

    Their site, their rules.

    Everyone in the good old USA is free to say whatever they want, wherever they want to, but there are consequences at times and if you actually are having heartburn over TTAG’s comment policy you can always start your own firearms blog site and comment to your heart’s content.

    It’s just that simple.

    • I find it funny that when I use your own words against you on your site you delete my comments. So you’ll say things on a gun blog that you would hide from your religious community. That’s just lovely.

    • Paul, it really is amusing to read your repeated admonishments of others for raising questions about the new policy.

      In your own comments over the months when someone questions your criticism or advice you almost immediately turn to calling them “immature little boys,” “misinformed,” or similar. Then, when you can’t explain, or can’t be bothered to explain, why you believe in a certain training method or firearm, you simply say something like “you can’t fix stupid.” In other words you yourself turn with extreme frequency to ad hominem attacks. You are even doing it in this thread, today. It is hardly a reasoned defense of the stated policy to repeatedly comment that “people who don’t like it can just go away. It isn’t their site.” That clearly isn’t Farago’s point which is to reduce ad hominem and content-free replies that antagonize rather than inform on a topic of interest related to “the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.” I doubt he just wants people to go away. I think he wants them to understand the benefit of comments that add information or a point of view, rather than a gratuitous and anonymous insult. I laud the effort.

      You seem to feel absolved simply because you use a schoolmarm’s vocabulary of insult, rather than that of, say, a typical SEAL, whom you so much worship. Your defense of all things military would carry a bit more credibility if you’d actual soldiered at some point in your life, wouldn’t it? For an example of your own ad hominem attacks I offer your comments in the following TTAG thread: “Does Every Gun Owner Have to Train Like a SEAL?” –you never did explain what in your 16 training adventures was invaluable. You did, instead, repeatedly turn to name-calling repeatedly of the schoolmarm variety.

  38. I agree. The invective, name calling and abuse comes primarily from anti-gun people. Fact is we are, or should be, better than that. Stick to principle and fact and we will be good.

    • Actually, no, that’s not true. As with any gun forum, TTAG has had its share of immature little boys who can not contribute much more than the typical puerile ad-hominem to any conversation.

  39. Hmm, everytime I go to the HuffPro Horowitz piece it locks up the browser on my iPad. I had to restart my device last time. Anyone else have this problem?

  40. I’m as cool with now as I was 6 months ago or so when it was first announced. The only time I will resort to name calling is when certain people denigrate the efforts of those in the armed forces. Especially when it is aimed those of us whose sole mission was CASEVAC. Feel free to delete anything I say that is offensive. I’ll try to be a good boy. Some things just ruffle my feathers. I’ll call out anyone who calls a service member, active duty or prior service a baby killer.

      • You breath heavy in your videos just standing still looking at guns, so I doubt that you were in the military. Guys like you who go on worshipping “the troops” typically weren’t.

    • What do you call the ones – no matter how small a percentage that may be – who literally have earned that title? Wake up and stop the “hero”-worship.

      • No hero worship here. Few of my associates even know I was in the army. Never met anyone who killed a baby when I was in. In this case a bad apple does not spoil the bunch. Especially when you consider the atrocities of the enemy. Stand behind our troops or stand in front of them. I don’t care, killing was never my business. Just rescue.

        People who hate on the military obviously have no idea what it means to serve. Such peoples’ opinion mean nothing to me. No one is saying that the military deserves your heartfelt adoration. Just don’t get in the way or dis people who did something that most refuse to do. Would America be America without young men willing to die for her? I think not buddy.

        I reserve the right to call anyone a douche who says that my brothers are complicate in any wrong doing. Period. TTAG can reserve the right to delete my comment.

        • Stand behind them or stand in front of them, implying get shot by them. That gets more clever every time that I read it.

          I don’t know any murderers either, does that mean that they don’t exist? It was a simple question and has nothing to do with who you know, or the percentage of people in the military who are bad.

          Let’s say that there are a dozen (I’m sure much more, but making a point) people in the military who deserve that title; what would you rather call them?

        • Also, “buddy”, work on your reading comprehension. The only people being “dissed”, would be those who are complicit (ftfy) in wrongdoing. Shouting slogans and jingoism is clouding your thinking/understanding and making you sound rather ridiculous.

        • Alright, I get it. Sorry my iPad auto corrected one word. I have no doubt that there are bad people in the military. Does that make them all bad? Did you serve “buddy”? Have you ever been shot at? Have you ever seen an 18 year old boy die for something he doesn’t even understand? I repeat, no one wants you to grovel at the feet of the armed services. No one wants your adoration or gratitude. But if you call a service member a baby killer without good reason, I reserve the right to call you out. And TTAG can reserve the right to delete my flame. That’s all I’m saying.

        • *Yawn* For the last time, Jared: I, personally, did not say anything about all people in the military. I don’t make blanket statements – good or bad – about anyone/any profession.

          I did not say anything about calling anyone anything without good reason. You sound like the people who accuse everyone here of being “anti-cop” when specific cops are called out for their behavior.

          I hope that clears it up.

        • Refer to my original post. It wasn’t directed at you. It was directed at those who DO make blanket statements. I absolutely agree that when one person commits an atrocity they should be held accountable. I am all for personal accountability. *yawn* I’m also tiring of this discussion. Agree to disagree or whatever. Even though I think we are in agreement.

    • Like someone who posts here incessantly, getting up first thing in the morning to do so? (After putting on their weird-looking gloves)

    • There’s plenty of room for debate. What do you want to debate about? I’ll debate you about anything with little or no fear of my comment being deleted. 9mm vs .40? Glock vs 1911? Nick has a pudgy face or Robert used to run a blog on Cars? I’ve seen posters absolutely tear these guys up without being deleted. I personally think they strike a pretty good balance on not being uptight vs allowing open dialogue – and honestly think they must have pretty thick skin with all the savaging they get on their own blog. Some people get pretty vicious over the silliest shit too. And other people choose to use irrelevant vulgar one-liners like oh… something about naturally occurring granular material composed of finely divided rock and mineral particles perhaps residing in a female body part, which have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, let alone the price of tea in China.

      For full disclosure, I kinda look like Nick a little myself, and have always liked Cars…

      Oh, and that part about debating you about anything? I take it back. Instead I make a mental note to disregard and/or skip past any comments you ever post. Sorry. No time for silliness and don’t need to be feeding the trolls. These guys do some damn good reviews for us, and lots of good postings about what’s going on… Oh, and all for free. I aint paid a dime yet for all the good info and entertainment and conversation I’ve enjoyed here and I can pretty much openly spout my opinions and share in some friendly grabber-bashing, or get some good feedback, or be put in my place, or share info back in forth with my fellow 2A’ers – without any fear or trepidation, as long as I don’t act like an ass or endanger the cause.

      Too easy to complain about who is steering the ship when you’re not the one in the wheelhouse…

      I kinda dig this site and happily check it every day. As it seem you may too…. So ‘don’t let your Dad get punched over a can of soup’… get DirecTV

    • I’m leaving this here as an example. I’m sorry if you (any of you) consider it censorship, but this exactly the kind of comment I would zap without a second thought. I don’t even know who it’s directed at, whether it’s Robert for writing this post, or if it’s a misdirected reply to ValleyForge77 just above it, but either way, this offers nothing to the conversation, it’s (mildly) vulgar, and just… yeah. <Delete>

      I’m not done. Why delete? Because it’s just friggin’ stupid. I have a very low tolerance for stupidity (I’m sure that most of you are completely unsurprised by that). So when I’m reading comments, I actually have to hold back from deleting everything I want to delete simply because it’s stupid. Because stupidity is just fine here. Luckily, that comment passes both my “stupid bar” and the site’s bar, so normally, yeah, “Delete.”

        • You’ve really got a hard-on for me, don’t you? That’s the second or third time you’ve tried to get personal with me. I don’t know you like that, and I don’t like you in that way. Please stop. No means no.

      • Matt – Yup, I don’t think any value would be lost on TTAG with a post like that being deleted. Btw, my comment above was after his post below it, referencing his previously posted ‘comment’ (but not replying directly to it) and making much the same point as you do here – it’s just stupid and devoid of content

      • I think it’s right on point.

        If TTAG is going to become with guns I’m out.

        Estrogen sweeping into a man’s world and eroding away patriarchial values leads to no where anyone who values freedom and truth wants to be.

        • Front row seat to the spectacle that is the fall of modern civilization.

          This was one place I thought might be one of the columns that would stand the test of time and remain to hold up the roof … apparently not.

        • Yeah, that’s it! …we’re all a bunch of effeminate Sally’s on this site! 😉 hahaha

          I knew I was a dominant male when I stopped having to try to assert so. So you’re little trolly testosterone-baiting is quite easily recognized… Glad to go hack down some trees with you using a dull axe if that makes you feel better lol

        • When you cow-tow to the will of those who wish for you to be more politically correct you are being a Sally. Yes.

          Attempting to dismiss valid discussion by calling names happens to be a leftist tactic. Also very unbecoming if you consider yourself a man.

          So I guess in summary: If the shoe fits, enjoy wearing it, Sally.

  41. I understand deleting posts that are total trolling or obvious verbal abuse and/or threats toward another poster here but I think you should allow cursing and name-calling when someone is venting about anti-gun folks or a certain gun issue. Even to some degree at each other here. At what point will this censoring be upgraded to other talk, and we are already at the point here of maybe saying something that will get a post deleted that truly doesn’t warrant it. How about quit your moderation and control of comments and allow the users, us, to flag and dictate what is right and wrong here. The few in power telling us what we can and cannot say here with threat of deleted comment is not how this or any site about freedoms should be run. And when do personal agendas start filtering into this new rule, or words or phrases taken out of context? I’ve had a comment or two removed in the past and it was solely because I was challenging something said by Robert or Matt. Just stop and allow the people to moderate here.

    • +1 This! Especially the part about not respecting freedom of speech not being the most sensible way to run a site about defending freedoms.

  42. opening up and draining all of the ball sacks on TTAG won’t really result in anything good … witness the men at Return of King’s response to the huge herd of feminists protesting their “5 reasons to date a girl with an eating disorder” article recently.

    they not only kept their ball sacks intact, but they dared anyone to challenge their right to keep them.

    that is how men win fights with leftists.

    how do men lose fights with leftists? by allowing the leftists to decide when and how men get to keep their ball sacks. because guess when that will be? NEVER, that’s when.

    • Yep, it’s all about Leftists:

      “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,”
      Ronald Reagan

      “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” —Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

    • Mina, much love, but I think you’re missing the point. I think it is simply that the level of discourse at TTAG has dropped to a level where people are just calling each other poopy heads and leaving it at that. It adds nothing to the discourse and makes us all look like troglodytes. No one at TTAG is trying to immaculate the commenters; they are just trying to keep things civil. Again, I truly appreciate everything you contribute. We will not win this culture war by eating our own young.

      • Believe it if you may, as a person who spends the front lines fighting the feminists and their leftist dogma I know better.

        “Cleaning up” people’s interactions with each other using a heavy 3rd party hand is step #1.

        And whoever the other person is: For the 1 righty you can show who might have supported some version of some gun control some of the time, the lefties are all on board with you having all of your gun rights taken away all of the time.

        Pick your spots – You gonna focus on the 1-2 outliers on the right or try take out huge swaths on the left? To me, there is no discussion but do what you like. You enjoy picking nits off wayward righties – more power to you. Have at it.

      • The problem is that 100% of you, all, miss the real culture war. It is not a war against your right to keep your guns it is a war against your right to keep your balls.

        The war is against masculinity and it is the root of everything that is moving this country ever closer to socialism. Moving the masses toward socialism requires the emasculation of men to succeed.

        Moving TTAG in a politically correct direction is a battle won for feminism and therefore socialism. It will be all downhill from there, depending on how heavy the hands actually get. My guess is they start small and tighten as they go along – if anyone thinks that these men from TTAG are immune to that sort of creeping crud …guess again.

        • Mina, as a kindred spirit, I have to ask; how does someone calling another person a vulgar name advance our cause? I agree that censorship is the first step towards defeat for our cause. We must also keep in mind that we are better than the leftists and our level of discourse should be held to a higher standard. We should be a shining beacon to those who are lost and undecided rather than a melee of idiocy.

        • Mina, it’s a worrying sign when you believe that you are the only one that see’s the truth. Or you are the only one capable of telling what’s true or not. Very worrying.

        • “My guess is they start small and tighten as they go along…”

          Then you’d be mistaken. The problem, going back for the nearly three years I’ve been reading here, is that the standards slide the opposite way, and this is just a course correction. There have been about 3 cycles in that time where it’s gotten worse to a point that something had to be said, similar to this, accompanied by similar cries of censorship and gnashing of teeth. Within a few days it dies down, and things stay on an even keel for a bit. The only difference in this time is that it’s a little sooner in coming and a little stronger of a response because of the healthy increase in traffic over the last year. With that increase has come a larger number of people who don’t know how to act civilly. I assure you this is not the first step on the road to thought police and censorship. Just righting the ship a bit.

        • Why do I believe I am the only one who sees the problem? Because of things like this. one day you’re all manly and doing man stuff the next day you’re waffling and considering that political correctness isn’t all bad and why can’t we get along with the lefties and the feminists … You seem to forget that they are intent on destroying us by any means necessary. You also seem to believe that taking some moral high ground and behaving like people of character in the face of their lying, fabricating, posturing and cowardly preening is going to get us anywhere. You couldn’t be more wrong – and there is plenty of evidence to support that position, witness this little ditty from Oct 13th (and supported by Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, etc etc)

          It is very frustrating to me being a woman and counting on men to be like the oaks I expect them to be and find out instead they are weeping willows. Frankly between the upright, good moral character and integrity of the men here and the slimy, smarmy, slippery men of Return of Kings at this point I have to say Roosh and his crew are more on the right track to keep their masculinity than you guys are. THAT’S what is really sad.

        • Mina, reading your comments here today caused me to flash to the Sarah Silverman character in Way of the Gun.

        • Politically correct? hahahaha. I don’t think these guys could be politically correct if they wanted to 🙂 (Sorry, that not meant as an insult or course). This is one of the few places I DON’T have to politically correct. Sheesh.

        • Mina –
          a) i think you watch too much TV
          b) you’ve been hanging around with the wrong men
          c) you wanna get dominated by a man, come on down… We have plenty of oak in PA.

          Over and out on this post. it’s a dead horse.

        • So what should we do then Mina? Resort to the same tactics they use? Shoot them? The truth will always out. We have to have faith in that. Right is right. A will always equal A. By disallowing useless comments that only serve to lower our level of discussion, we are not capitulating. I for one do not want to lose my ball sack. Does it make me less of a man that I refuse to participate in infantile arguments? How is being the better person effeminate?

        • Jared-Tampa: The solution if you watch the video is obvious. The solution is to punch first, to do whatever is necessary to frame the debate with Liberals and destroy them. We don’t do that by hiding behind political correctness. We do that by owning the facts and data and using the emotions of Liberals against them. We get in their face. We apologize for nothing. We expose them for the bullies they are by refusing to be bullied by them.

          IMO Polictical correctness is the phase I of shutting down discussions that Liberals don’t like. This is the feminist’s modus operandi and they have been incredibly effective with it. The longer it has gone on, the more power over the narrative they have to the point that most everything in our culture is geared to the advancement of women at the expense of men. The feminists are just a part of Liberalism but they are a subset of it and the male LIberals,too, use feminism to advance their aims. Sexism (feminism) is one vector, racism is another…now you have bodyism and beautyism – the list keeps getting longer and longer.

          I have posted a video quite a few times called “Agenda: Grinding America Down” (on vimeo) which shows how the left uses “-isms” and many of the “social constructs” vis a vis the political correctness we see all around us to move our society closer to socialism.

          It’s insidious and based on all of the research I have done, I don’t believe that I am simply being paranoid. Look around, it’s not just about guns.

          I have done everything I can here to wave the flag and show people what is happening before their very eyes. I also think the solutions are out there (Ben’s video is one aspect, the Return of Kings/Game blogs are another.) The problem is that this blog in focusing on the small picture of just the guns is missing the fact that the big picture is what’s really closing in around them. The threats are much worse today than they have ever been I am unsure why everyone here isn’t jumping up to fight them; I can only surmise that I have done something wrong communicating what I think I know.

        • You (and others) keep mentioning political correctness. I would submit to you that there’s a difference between political correctness and just good old fashioned civility. What we’re going for is the latter. If some people here can’t tell the difference between those two things, I’d say that’s part of the problem right there.

        • I am droning on, my apologies. If the focus isn’t on avoiding offending people and creating a politically correct set of commentary then that’s different. I just fail to see how censorship of any kind doesn’t ultimately lead to deleting comments that might offend someone and thereby institute a policy of political correctness.

          I notice already that a tongue in cheek conversation about digging up old comments about racism and sexism have already been deleted … IMO not a good sign.

          And point taken, other commenters: If I don’t like it I will leave. Absolutely. No need to get all Liberal on me and insist that if I don’t like the rules, I can leave. I can and I will.

        • That “conversation” that was deleted was a tip about another (racist) comment that needed to go away, and your response to that tip. The racist comment was deleted, therefore the tip leading to it was deleted, and your reply got picked up in the process, because if only the first one had been removed, yours would have fallen all the way to the bottom of the post, orphaned and nonsensical. Since your comment was nothing but a humorous response to a comment being deleted and had no individual informational value of its own, it went away too. Make sense? It wasn’t censorship, it was housekeeping.

        • Logic math:

          “Censorship leads to polictical correctness” AS “Registration leads to confiscation”

          I truly don’t see how you have censorship and not eventually find yourself with political correctness.

          Prove me wrong; prove that all history that has proven the correllary is wrong. I would like nothing better.

        • I was willing to give you the benefit of a doubt, even with the one questionable conversation removed. But then while doing horse chores tonight I decided my observation from today should not be left off the table.

          Earlier today, in reply to my comment about Patriarchy, JWM made a comment that basically said “if you love patriarchy so much what are you doing here, why aren’t you in the kitchen making your husband a sandwich?” Fair enough question, on topic to my comment and I did respond to it as a fair question.

          My question, to you Matt then in the context of censorship does not lead to political correctness, is this: Where did that comment go and why did it go away? Did it go away because it was Sexist? Since there was no cursing, it was on topic to my post, and JWMs other comments to me are still evident I assume that 1. JWM didn’t voluntarily delete it himself (which is fine) 2. It didn’t fall below some random “raunch” criteria for vulgarity, etc so therefore 3. It was deleted in order to prevent offense to women. Which is a politically correct motivation for censorship.

          Correct me if I am wrong here.

        • I didn’t delete it, but I do see it in the trash. I can’t argue with your reasoning. I remember seeing it and, knowing jwm’s style, interpreted it as tongue in cheek. I can only suppose that whoever removed it didn’t see it that way.

        • Mina, I also just finished with horse and dog chores. I watched the video and I get it. What TTAG is trying to do here is not cow towing to liberals though. In my honest opinion, RF et al are doing all they can to strike first and expose liberal hypocrisy. The comments policy I think merely exists to filter out the white noise, the contributions that do nothing to advance our cause and make us seem like an infantile bunch of little bitches: the very thing that you so vehemently oppose. I very much appreciated reading your input. Thank you. Sincerely 🙂

          Edit: wow, my comment is pending moderation…never seen that here before. Maybe I’m wrong after all.

        • *kowtow, one word, starts with a k. I had to do it, sorry.

          Moderation was for “bitches.” You’d be surprised how often it shows up in spam. Unfortunately, people around here like to use it a lot, too. I moved it to “requires moderation” instead of just spamming it out so I can choose, rather than having you all disappear into a black hole.

        • I didn’t find the comment insulting, I replied to it as an honest question with an honest answer.

          Are we to assume then that talking about the elevation of women and feminism is “good talk, not insulting” but any talking about patriarchy is “bad talk, insulting”?

          Smells like politically correct censoring to me. Matter of fact I’d say it’s textbook.

          Sorry Robert. The truth hurts.

        • Since when did having a conversation/debate, without resorting to obscene remarks, become less “manly”. I would wager that the men from our greatest generation would never use the language I have seen on some pro 2A sites. I don’t believe (and I don’t think they did either) that calling a woman who disagrees with you a c**t or B***h makes be more manly. I was raised to treat women (and men) with respect. Not because of who they are, or aren’t, but because of who I am.

          I would love to have someone explain to me the benefits of that type of language. Do you think it makes your point more valid? If it’s someone on the far left, nothing you can say will change their mind. If it’s someone on the wall about our 2A rights, is that really what you want them to see when they come to this site to see what it’s about?

        • I have never defended vulgarity and disrespect. I merely remind people here that allowing the leftists and the feminists to define the bar for vulgarity and disrespect is a slippery slope.

          Honor, good character and integrity are all hallmarks of people on the right and therefore by association, people on TTAG. Of course these are characteristics to defend and support at all times.

          What I personally am very concerned about is that we have in this thread a discussion / disagreement about what constitutes censorship leading to political correctness – that political correctness leads down the slippery slope to our collective enemy having the opportunity to dictate the terms of our discourse.

          While some of us were voicing opposition to the new policy and warning about the creeping crud of “polite, in-offensive discourse” leading to the oppression of truth and freedom, the very thing we warned of has actually already happened. Ironically on the very thread in which we were arguing and discussing it.

          If that doesn’t concern everyone here I don’t know what would.

      • If you take nothing else away from your reading at Return of Kings note that those men, low lifes though they may be, never waver, never compromise and they always win.

        • For the record, I don’t agree with everything they said, but it did give me a window into a world and thought-process that I was previously unaware of.

        • I feel that the fact that ttag does waver, does compromise speaks to the morals and ethics of this site in a positive manner. It shows humility. Which I dare say is a more masculine trait than hard-headedness.

        • It does look like that a lot of TTAGers are woefully ignorant of the PUA/MRA scene and it it is true that a crash diet of PUA/MRA would heal the gun community of some, if not most, of their foibles when it comes to effectively dealing with leftist attacks of all sorts. I would liken TTAG and similar organizatons with the the old school hornorable army that needs to see the white of the enemies’ eyes before they strike, and they lose gloriously doing their thing, while PUAs are like a guerilla/urban warfare resistance group than gives no chance to their enemy to defend itself and wins, even if dirtily.

        • The difference between those men and the type of men here is huge: Men here are naturals. They haven’t had to learn and observe and be taught how to behave to make things happen for them as men. Men on the PUA/MRA scene didn’t have these abilities or traits. They have had to learn them … The problem that comes with being natural is they don’t realize the traits they have that are critical to pushing back on leftist/feminine attacks. The MRA/PUA men are aware of those traits because they have observed them in field study, they have learned how to use techniques that implement the traits. In short they have learned how to control and push back on leftists and feminists in the only way the leftists and feminists understand. And that is the critical aspect.

        • See, and that’s exactly the sort of snide, condescending bullshit that makes you such a treat to have around here. That is precisely the type of thing that this whole conversation is about. An ad hominem attack that contributes precisely jack shit to the furtherance of the conversation, and furthermore, is offered by itself, without even bothering to try to cloak it in something worthwhile. Just naked obnoxiousness for all the world to see, serving no purpose except the furtherance of your ego.

        • The question is: Would I ask you to censor his bullying to protect me? Not really, no.

          The reason it doesn’t bother me is because I understand what happens when one debates with an opposition that is used to being able to bully his/her adversary into submission. They get frantic, they get desperate and they resort to low-level, low-brow attacks searching for a weak spot (i.e. something that will cause the adversary to show a desired, uncontrolled emotion.)

          So what it means to me when someone starts doing what this guy is doing to me is: I won and this has caused him to lose control of his emotions. So he can go ahead and follow me around and pick nits from my armpits but everyone, including me, can see exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it. In short: At that point it becomes good old fashioned entertainment at someone else’s expense.

          I spend a lot of time (I don’t want to scare you with how much time; but suffice it to say I am in the computer business and so I spend most waking hours online) studying and practicing debate tactics to use against Liberals. I go into the Liberal strongholds, the feminist strongholds and I practice. It isn’t always pleasant and I don’t always win but I do learn an enormous amount about the enemy: how they think, how they react to things and how to beat them.

          I visit the Return of Kings for a related but different reason. They fight the feminists and by association Liberals with their own brand of in-your-face, right-back-at-ya debate strategy. Plus since much of what they write is inflammatory to feminists they get a lot of them coming to the site to comment which is of course just more fresh fish for me to practice on.

          One of the pillars of Sun Tsu’s Art of War is the necessity to understand the enemy and learn his weak spots.
          In my opinion, many people here don’t spend anywhere near enough time in the field, battling it out against the enemy in any kind of real way. We talk about them here, you all post articles about them but what are the boots on the ground doing about engaging them on a regular basis? Not enough IMO.

          I don’t want to wait until I am standing in front of my democratically controlled city board in a room full of Liberals to have to come up with my strategy for defending my right to keep and carry my guns (or any other right I have they might try to infringe upon.) It is in my better interest to go out now and practice and practice until I have my strategy tuned to a fine point and can dispense with any defense they may mount with quick efficiency. That’s my motivation. I won’t tell you what people should be doing with their time but if you ask me this is a good strategy, a can’t-lose plan and a good investment in time for anyone interested in help defending our rights against the onslaught of the left.

          As I always like say : Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Works just as well when you are talking about strategy as anything else.

      • Matt: This came up in my news feed just today and I think you will find it interesting.

        “Those are the questions that the manosphere is all about. It is basically a worldwide discussion on issues affecting men. The impetus for this is of course feminism and the break-up of the age-old stabilizing marriage bond.

        While there exist three different groups within the sphere, all agree that feminism has been so completely successful in changing the culture and taking over all of our social institutions that opposing feminism has become one of the great taboos of our society. Making this worse, very few are even aware of this because the lion’s share of feminist thinking is no longer thought of as feminist thinking; it is simply thought of as normal thinking, or more accurately right thinking. Opposing feminism has become the heresy of our age, a thought crime few dare to even contemplate.”

        See more at:

        I would compare “right thinking” to “politically correct thinking” just to put this article into the context of our discussion here. 🙂

        • sorry I couldn’t resist, this one just came up today,too … Must be something in the air.

          The problem of “naturals” (which I would use to describe you guys)

          What I have been trying to say and maybe saying it poorly is that the good and valuable attributes of “masculine men” are the very same tools to that can be used to fend off the Liberals and feminists.

          The problem is that naturals don’t understand the tools they have nor would they necessarily understand intrinsically how to use them against someone who is not their wife or family. An MRA or a PUA though does know; he knows what the tools are, he identifies them, he practices with them. In essence he fakes it (masculinity) until he makes it. He does it primarily to win with women but then he finds it works with Liberal men, too. Viola! Suddenly the information from the Anonymous Conservative all seems to make sense … Ben Shapiro’s bullying theory makes sense … Agenda: Grinding America Down, the documentatry, makes sense …

          That’s why MRAs and PUAs know when to say “No” and how to be a rock … and why sometimes naturals don’t – because naturals think they are taking the high road, being honorable, displaying their good character by being inclusive and affable at the exact same moment a an MRA or PUA would know it was the moment time to say “No” and to push back, twice as hard.

          Even I, as a woman, have been learning and practicing in the use of these same tools. They are the same tools that I use in debate. They work. It does seem to confuse people when the techniques come from a woman but they still work.

          Anyway I don’t know if you’re still reading this, you seemed interested and this stuff popped up today. I figured it was a sign.

        • I’m still reading, though I will admit that the more I read, the less I “read” and the more I “skim.” These guys spend (in my opinion) way too much time trying to figure out how to get laid. I like sex as much as the next guy, but if she likes me, she likes me. If she doesn’t, my self-esteem can handle it. I’m not real interested in “gaming the system” to get laid, because that’s simply not a goal I have. I like women, and I like spending time with them, and a potential positive offshoot of that is sex, but I’m not outright pursuing sex. Are they getting more tail than me? Most likely. And I’ve had my share of one-and-dones. But the ones I remember aren’t those. So if I don’t even really remember the experience with any clarity (and I’m not a substance abuser), what’s the point? To say I did? A tickmark on the list? That’s fine if it works for them, but that’s just not something that motivates me.

  43. Here is my advice from a long time reader. Don’t forget or lose the character that made you so famous in the first place. TTAG never used to care what other people thought, were never politically correct, and had no problem exposing people’s dirty laundry. It was refreshing and made sense because the word “truth” was in the title of the blog. I am not saying the character of the writers has changed, however it is easy to when you become so big. This is a friendly call for introspection.

  44. Wahhh Wahh Wahhh you might delete my comment! Nazi-ism, Stalinism,Totalitarianism! I’m being violated. TTAG is going feminist. Wahh Wahhh!

    LOL these posts always seem to drag em out of the woodwork on any blog. If I had a dime…

    This is one of the most open blogs there is. I’ve posted all kindsa shit. As long as you’re not a TOTAL ass, they won’t delete you. But apparently that is just too much for some people…

    ughhhh… oh well, onwards and upwards. I’m out.

    • Need I point out, that allowing the discussion and subsequently finding out that some people disagree with a new policy is something that might not happen should censorship go too far.

      God forbid that some of those people have the cojones to stand up and not simply say they disagree but go to the trouble to try to explain why they disagree.

      It would be so much easier if everyone just went along with the rules, minded their own business and behaved and thought like everyone else, huh?

      Yep, that’s how wars are won. Just follow the rules, do what you’re told, do what everyone else is doing.

        • it just did! yet another gun owner turned Liberal in the face of having someone present who disagrees with him.

          classic Liberal debate tactic: Tell your adversary he/she has a mental health issue and to get better soon. Not only have I seen it hundreds of times personally but it’s well documented.

          Google “Liberal debate tactics” It’s one of the Top 5.

      • Mina, let me start by saying I really appreciate your comments, and point of view, and your frankness. I’ve gone to a couple of your links and read a bit about the PUA stuff, and find it interesting- thanks for the insights.

        But to the point of a couple of your assertions- I think you might be missing the point Robert is making- stick to the facts, and dont descend to personal insults towards other commentors, or flaming the editorial policy of the blog. Thats all it is- he is not asking that we become PC or censor free speech.

        Avoiding vulgarity or name-calling doesnt un-man anyone, or mean we have to avoid certain topics, to be politically correct. It just means we do so without resorting to middle school taunting.

        If anything, a certain amount of dignity seems more manly, whether as a natural, or a student of PUA, in order to refrain from childish tricks to win the argument.

        And it by no means gives the advantage to the liberals that do stoop to such tricks, as it refuses to go to the gutter to meet their level. Sticking to the facts, and mocking them gently, for their inability to debate the facts is far different than using epithets. In fact, it highlights the obvious, when thats all they got.

        And I think thats whats making some liberals- MDA and Evolve and HuffPo, MSNBC, etc so desperate- they know they are losing on the facts, and many of those folks who might have once casually agreed with them on meme’s or agreed group positions, are straying away as they re-examine the facts, and coming to places like TTAg for more, ESPECIALLY if they see we dont get sucked into the trap of out-shouting one another like you see on the worst reality tv shows with faux dysfunctional families, or the fakey panels on MSNBC or The View, with one token conservative, where who ever shouts loudest wins.

        At TTAG we can have both- truth, and rollicking fun with non-pc disrespect for those who cant debate the truth- without resorting to name calling.

  45. Ok, well, this has been fun, but I’ve had about all I can take for today of collective butt-hurt. The sky is not falling, the site is not going to hell, but the comments have gotten exhausting. Time for me to move on to other, happier thoughts, like how my FFL will be receiving another toy next week, and I’m taking a bunch of newbies from work to the range next weekend.

    Meanwhile, here’s a quick video that pretty much sums up my interpretation of the entirety of the importance of today’s PSA:

    Have a good weekend, everyone. 🙂

  46. How about we all agree not to use pejoratives at specific people? Can we agree to that?

    ::walks backwards slowly away from the computer::

    • ::googles the word pejorative::

      How would you call out and describe a gun grabber, someone who wants to to take away your right, without using a pejorative? Isn’t the term “gun grabber” itself a pejorative?

      By the way, thanks for expanding my vocabulary. (No sarcasm)

    • What all these comments tell me is that people like this blog. Maybe even love it. Even if they are disagreeing with the post and it’s intent, it’s most likely because they care about this place and want to see it remain the best damn example of a gun media outlet/community. Yes I’m optimistic.

  47. Demanding civility in one’s own sandbox had nothing to do with censorship. Would you say something in that person’s home? Would your comments give you concern of getting punched if they were given face to face?

    Neither of those questions have anything to do with censorship or political correctness. Political correctness controls what you say – and think – this anout how.

    I spend a lot of time engaging in Christian apologetics. In that discipline there is an adage. “In essentials unity. In non-essentials liberty. In all things charity.”

  48. No, I did not read all 314 comments on my way down here to the leave-a-comment box. I don’t give a rat’s ass what anyone has to say about TTAG’s comments policy (although I have noticed that the dickhead quotient has gone up sharply in the last few weeks, so the no-fighting-no-biting admonition wasn’t surprising).

    What I really wanted to do — and have taken my sweet time doing, because I wanted to do it well — was to be the lucky reader to leave the 315th useless comment on this article.

    And now I have done it. I provide this valuable service for free, but you’re welcome to thank me (I look forward to seeing this comment section swell to 400+ when my deserved kudos roll in).

  49. On a more serious note:

    After reading the OP and all the comments, it should probably be said that attempting to moderate comments on a popular blog site like TTAG is very difficult.

    You can either hold every comment for moderation, requiring somebody to read every last comment before it is approved for posting, or … you can go at it in an “after the fact” manner, which appears to be what the TTAG guys are trying to do. When you see a comment deemed delete worthy, you delete it, after the fact.

    I think it is a huge chore for three guys to try to handle this kind of thing, particularly when there is no “alert” system by which users can flag a comment.

    Bottom line, the TTAG guys are simply asking people commenting here to try to act like rationale adults instead of teenagers in mom’s basement.

    There are a lot of gun forums where you can flame and go full stoopid on, like’s general discussion area. The guys whining and moaning about TTAG’s request to avoid that kind of nonsense just need to find another gun forum to troll on, er, I mean…comment on.

  50. I gotta say, so far this new policy isn’t off to a great start. I’m not even mad about having an inoffensive non-flame deleted as a flame, I’m just downright disappointed in the person who made that poor decision and then went on to purge an entire comment thread where I calmly provided evidence that destroyed the guy’s assertion that S&W revolver internal locks unintentionally locking up guns is a myth.

    How can you expect to have decent conversations and back-and-forths when you just up and Big Brother them out of existence without saying a damn thing about it?

    Your rules are not clearly defined, Robert, and because of that, I believe that some of your people take liberties with the power you’ve given them. Do you know what that does to the confidence your readers and commenters have in this site? People see that and they remember.

    If I insult someone or the site, call them names, etc. by all means go after it. I wouldn’t blame you for deleting flames. Although admittedly fun sometimes (I’m trying to do better), they don’t add much to the conversation. But if I tell a guy who’s arrogantly spreading falsehoods to “get over yourself” while hammering him with facts and you delete that as flaming, that makes me question your judgment.

    And if you screw up, the honorable thing to say is “sorry about that” like a man instead of acting like it never happened.

    I enjoy TTAG but you need to make sure you don’t go too far in the opposite direction with this stuff.

  51. A tactic of the left, is to generate a flame war, by posting as a troll, or sockpuppet, even to the extent of creating two false characters and a false fight…

    and those words can then be used to generate cash contributions, see here:

    “Theres a sucker born every minute.” ~ P.T. Barnum

    Don’t be a sucker…

  52. I happen to agree with this TTAG policy. We should maintain a modicum of decorum around here. After all, we’re on the side of angels. There’s no call to sound like foul mouthed heathens. Nor do we need every self-appointed grammar gendarme decrying every straying from the Chicago Manual of Style as some kind of crime against humanity. Good grief.

    All that said, we are adults and this is a place to explore difficult and weighty topics. It can get a little heated and the occasional swipe is not only to be expected, it’s part of the fun. Just try not to go into titty baby mode with an enfilade of vitriol because someone called you out. No one needs to go home beaten up and bloodied from here, but it is full contact. Wear a cup.

    On the risque remarks, that’s par for the course, too. True, I don’t need to see “stupid whore!” in the posts, as that adds exactly zero to the discussion. However, if a dozen hall monitors get their sashes in a twist and are poised to pounce because of someone’s double entendre about moms and the action they’re demanding, then zero tolerance will beget zero interest in visiting the site. TTAG will have jumped the pop tart.

    So far, I’m not seeing that happen, though. Act like an adult and you’ll be treated like an adult. Treat me like a child, and I’ll go find different adults to hang out with.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here