Previous Post
Next Post

 A reader writes:

“I have often thought about writing to you about several of the extremist posters on TTAG but have backed off.  Some of the comments on the entry A Neo-Nazi Who Goes on a Shooting Spree. Who Saw That Coming pushed me over the top. I don’t think it is a good idea to allow individuals who fit a certain type of extremist profile free reign to comment. While the chances are small that someone in your community would go off and commit a similar atrocity, the consequences to you and TTAG would be quite high if they did . . .

TTAG is private property and you are not bound by the First Amendment. It seems that you are more upset about personal flames than about allowing racial supremacists from expressing their repugnant views. You can choose what you publish without severely restricting free speech or being intolerant of opposing views.

I am not suggesting a blanket ban on anybody. A political extremist can say something valuable about firearms or the right to bear arms. However, it would be in your best interests to weed out specific comments justifying or praising neo-Nazis/white supremacist ideas or groups.

It your space, your rules and your call.”

Yes. Yes it is. But I don’t own the TTAG brand. It belongs to you, our readers. My current policy is fairly clear: anything goes as long as the commentator doesn’t flame the website, its authors or fellow commentators.

That said, there are legal and ethical limits. The former are pretty straightforward. The latter not so much. Where do you think we should draw the line?


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Well, if it truly is a site “of the people” then the greater majority of your “people” will police their own ranks and even if they don’t just because someone spews hate it does not mean you have to read it, listen to it, or follow its advice.

    So if mr. censor does not “flag” it as inappropriate for this site then who are you to start pointing fingers and making your personal views and beliefs more important than anyone elses?

    The PC bullsh*t has been shoved down our collective throats for so long now, I blame YOU people for the backlash of hate-speech that is becoming more & more common all over the interweb.

    • Political correctness is a laughably inept attempt to replace accurate descriptions with presumed “more sensitive” euphemisms. I will give you that, but bigotry is what it is and embracing it because you recognize that political correctness is silly is a pretty lame excuse. Also bigotry existed long before the PC b.s. and will outlast it, so blaming the p.c. people for other people’s hate speech is false.

    • I see PC labels, especially of racial and ethnic groups as another way of labeling them. Sure, they make it sound better than the “old” derogatory terms (although I still have not the clue on why it’s okay for one ethnicity to call each other an old derogatory term, yet if uttered by someone of another ethic group, racism and hatred abounds from the speaker (and I’d go as far as to say, the recipient’s ethnic group as well.)

      PC is just a bunch of hogwash from those who have deemed any other terms are “warping” the populace and harming them. (just like kids can no longer be allowed to lose because it will harm their psyche, disciplining a kid will “warp” them, etc.) It’s all just a bunch of liberal thinking (in some cases) and wolves in sheep’s clothing ideas.

      Don’t get me wrong. What’s derogatory IS derogatory… for ANYBODY to say and I don’t think it has a place in society. Yet I also think sometimes this PC business is all about sugar-coating new labels that may just be used at some point in the future to target groups for “re-education” (if not extermination) if things don’t change for the better.

      Think: The Nazis required Jews to wear the Jewish star in everyday life to identify them (and probably doing the same with other “markers” for other non-German ethnic groups.) Then, when all the blame was placed on the group, it was easy to see who to target, eradicate, turn in to the government, etc. The job was so much easier for the sheeple to follow through on helping to get rid of like good little citizens of the government with the labels attached.

      • Mike B, Hmm, and their pals are infinitely worse than Matt (which I disagree with often, but at least has valid points from time to time). I see very few calls to ban them.

        • Toten, of course you would say that. Any pro-gun commenter, no matter how extremist, is better than any gun-control commenter, no matter how reasonable.

          But, don’t worry about Robert banning extremists. He counsels murderers to STFU in order to help them get away with their crime. That’s the name of the game around here. Pro-gun is good, gun control is bad.

  2. Flames should be deleted because they insults only, and serve no purpose but to harm.

    However, Censoring speech we may personally find distasteful is to limit debate and opposing/contrary views. As members of a free society that believes both in our right to bear arms and self defense, I would think that we would also respect those that seek to utilize their first Amendment.

    While this is a “private” domain, and not restricted by the First Amendment, so too are businesses that tell their customers “Guns are not allowed on these premises” not barred from doing so by the Second Amendment.

    All rights should, in my mind, be treated equally. How can we say we do the same if we restrict free speech, while deriding businesses that deny CCW-holders? (not in a practical or tactical sense, but a philosophical one)

    • “Flames should be deleted because they insults only, and serve no purpose but to harm.”

      Doesn’t hate speech serve no purpose but to harm. For example suggesting there is a Jewish conspiracy is an insult, and the only purpose is to harm Jews by making people suspicious and fearful of them. Why would flaming an individual commenter be handled differently than flaming the group that the commenter is part of? It is still a personal attack, just in a round about way, and really it is a much deeper and vicious insult than just calling someone a moron or something like that.

      • If I were to state that a group that culturally has contributed less to the well being of society is of less value than another group, would that be “hate speech”? The end judgement may be subjective, but if it can be empirically backed up, does it still make it “hateful”? Or merely unfortunate?

        Flames against an individual poster are just that : insults to the individual poster, typically to discourage their participation.

        Depending on the personal speaking, some “hate” speech may simply be someone speaking unfortunate facts, but lacking the mental acuity to articulate them in a more positive or neutral manner.

        If its not, and simply someone spouting ignorant nonsense, if it is not specifically targeting one individual it can simply be ignored

        Besides, attempting to marginalize or censor ignorant bigots only tends to affirm their sense of pariahism and strengthens their beliefs.

        • Good point. I had more in mind claims of Jewish conspiracy echoing those which the Nazis used to target Jews in Europe which were a big theme in the comment string which generated this post. I would set the bar at stuff like that designed to demonize a group and to mobilize others against a group. Also good point about censorship strengthening their paranoia. I think I am more in favor of labeling it and calling it out.

  3. Actually, I think you are more at legal risk if you moderate comments than if you just let anything go. Once you start to exercise editorial control over content, your liability increases sharply. Of course, ask your attorney before accepting anything I say. AIUI, IANAL, YMMV.

  4. Tough call. I am disgusted by the cavalier anti Jew, anti gay, anti minority, anti liberal spew that comes forth in the comments. This site kind of proves that conservative rural OFWGs don’t own the market on gun-love. I would look at it in terms of business, do you risk more by alienating the bigoted minority that the media vultures have unfairly and inaccurately defined as the stereotypical gun nuts or the sane non bigoted gun nuts of all ethnicities, orientations, and political philosophies? If the media stereotype is true then you risk more by censoring bigotry, if it is not then you risk more by not censoring it.

    • Maybe just flag it with something like “BIGOTED STATEMENTS SUCH AS THESE DO NOT REPRESENT THE ARMED INTELLIGENTSIA”. At least for ethnic, gender, and orientation bigotry. There is a clear line between non “politically correct” and straight up bigotry, it is not as hard as blanket anti PC people suggest. Call it what it is, let it stand as a wall of shame, and let the AI pile on.

  5. I myself have called for person’s comments to be censored in the past, but it was always when tempers were running high. Right now, sitting here calmly, I cannot abide shutting people off. People who have made obnoxiously racist posts in the past have never failed to get an answering response, or simply be treated with outright disdain. Anti-race/religion/sexuality statements are almost never allowed to stand unanswered around here. That’s spymyeyes example of the people policing themselves, and it seems to work fine.

    “While the chances are small that someone in your community would go off and commit a similar atrocity, the consequences to you and TTAG would be quite high if they did…”

    Nuh uh. That’s the same line of lawyer-written PC reasoning that leads to zero tolerance policies and the like. Try this on for size: “While the chances are small that someone you sold a gun to would go off and commit a similar atrocity, the consequences to you and TTAG would be quite high if they did…”

    To quote a line from a book I just read, “It’s dangerous being free, but most come to like the taste o’ it.”

    • Well stated, and my take as well on the self-regulation that goes on here. Yes there are comments that are out of line, but they are usually responded to or simply ignored. Some threads do degenerate into flames deleteds, but that happens pretty much everywhere on the internet, and censorship or banning seems simply to raise the ante; it cetainly does nothing to reduce the temperature.
      If you don’t like a thread, you have the freedomto stop reading it.

  6. Most of us know when we’ve seen the “line crossed”, and this site has handled those situations very well. Broader discussions of many topics here cannot occur without offending somebody, somehow (even a 1911/Glock discussion).

    That said, to tell someone they can have a certain opinion or belief, they just can’t have it here, is NOT censorship. To paraphrase an old saying: “I’m not a Crapper, but I know crap when I see it”.

    • (even a 1911/Glock discussion)

      Indeed, everyone is just insecure about the fact that the DA revolver is the perfect firearm. I can shoot aliens on mars with mine from my porch. 😉

        • There are 6 fewer aliens on mars each time I take out my DA super gun. I find the plastic vapors from my polymer guns may affect your ability to see them. 😉

        • Fyrewerx: Perhaps, but don’t you think at that point people would get mad at us for shooting at them?

        • In lamentable historical seriousness, if we found aliens on mars we’d probably be wondering what they’re doing on our new planet before having that thought 🙁

  7. Censoring bigots just hides the problem. Better to let other contributors beat them up verbally.

    A few days ago, three masked thugs broke into the home of a lesbian. They stripped her naked, tied her up and carved slurs into her skin. On the way out, they set her house on fire. I wish she’d had a gun to make them regret messing with her.

    • I don’t care how right or wrong someone’s opinion and lifestyle may be. (I for one don’t really support the lifestyle, BUT, for me to demonize the person who’s involved, is just wrong!!! I know people who are involved in that lifestyle, and as people, they are decent people. To throw them all under the bus is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)

      Such treatment as this lady got is deplorable. No human should be treated this way in this day and age. There is no reason to deny them life or cause them grievous harm.

  8. Simple solution: If one doesn’t like what is being said on ANY blog/forum/social media website, there is nothing forcing him/her to go there and read that which gets him/her all butt hurt. Go cry to your mommy and just stay off the internet.

    • The market will speak…..if you don’t like a particular establishment, then don’t go there. and vice versa, if the owner of an establishment doesn’t evolve with the requests of the market, then they won’t get any business.

      I would assume that the pro-2a community would be pro-1a for the most part.

      • I will second the market view. If too many racist / supremacist / other nonsense comments start appearing, you’ll see most of us either ignore them or we’ll go somewhere else. I don’t think that you should brake open the ban hammer just yet, but eventually if you see most of your readership driven away by idiots who spew nonsense / hatred in the comments, well, maybe you’ll have to think about doing something at that point.

  9. No censorship is needed from what I see. The secondary part of of Armed Intelligentsia means that we are for the most part smart enough to see bigotry for what it is when posted. I myself have come upon criticism for collecting Nazi guns.
    I did not know that such things were frowned upon. It was pointed out to me in a non flaming way that did not censor my words. It made me see that some took offence to it, so I do not talk about it here out of respect for my fellow commentators.
    Had my remarks been censored, I sure would not have returned to TTAG and kept contributing as I have. We here have a common cause. If you are a black woman living in fear in the city, or you are a redneck hunting pigs in Texas, your interest in guns and gun rights is what keeps this sight going.(and a pot of coffee for RF)

  10. If the “reader” is referring to matt; As far as I’m concerned, if reading what he posts, considering his points and beliefs, weighing them against your own, and then deciding which is stronger based on their merits is too scary for you, if so much as reading differing opinions and beliefs offends you, then you should probably just get off this website (in fact, it might be safer to just stay off the internet all together). There is a plethora of websites and blogs, on both sides of the aisle, where you can get comfortable in a secure echo chamber surrounded by people that think and believe exactly as you do and you won’t ever have to endure the painful mental exercise of considering new or different ideas. There’s plenty of room over at Weasel Zippers.

    As far as I’m concerned if you aren’t willing to, or capable of, defend your beliefs by arguing them against others, then you either don’t truly believe them or you’re intellectually weak.

    In response to your question; that’s going to be a big fat negatory on the censoring bit.

  11. A second for
    “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it”

    Because I don’t believe that Rights are a “pick and choose” buffet.

    Besides which, I’d really rather KNOW who the bigots and plotters are than have them hidden away.

    • “I’d really rather KNOW who the bigots and plotters are than have them hidden away.”

      This right here is how I view it myself

  12. Start banning opposing views, and we become like gun-grabbers. The only reason a person ever desires to delete a comment (aside from flames) is if he lacks the conviction in his own beliefs to counter it.

    This person’s whole argument sounds suspiciously like gun-grabber justification for “common sense” gun control (i.e. control over people he disagrees with).

    To play devil’s advocate, let’s look at how he presents the basis of censorship. He says people of a certain “extremist profile” should be censored. Well, who made him the judge on what’s extreme and what’s acceptable? To many people out there, ALL of us are extremist. Maybe to someone with certain racial views, unquestioned integration is an “extremist” notion? If we say that people like mikeb shouldn’t be censored for putting forth a different opinion, why is a racial extreme suddenly so different? The suggestions and ideas that mikeb put forth would literally destroy our Constitution, the American way of life, and put people in direct deadly harm…and yet his view is more acceptable over someone who has different views on race?

    This poster’s kind of thinking is dangerous, and reeks of the progressive hypocrisy of censoring only certain things and certain people that go against his own views. As an uncompromising libertarian, I’m sometimes torn between comments I find distasteful (like the one’s the poster speaks of) and the person’s freedom to post them. I support total, unquestioned equality and integration (not the PC bastardization of it) and as such will question things like affirmative action and the legitimacy of the hate crime tag. Does that make me extremist?

    But, the one good point he did make is that this is a private site and as such is governed by RF and crew. They can set the rules they want. I would just not like to see us take the same course as the intellectually weak-kneed antis, but rather police our own and confront comments we disagree with head on. Isn’t that what we urge every day, that we find and provide truth rather than sweep issues aside?

    • I’m not as articulate as I’d like to be. Sometimes I’ll get going on a rant, see above, and forget about half the points I wanted to make. You summed up my every thought I this subject.

      +1 to this.

      • I’m not eloquent either. Ban Matt’s ass. It’s not just his Nazi bullshit, it’s his taking over a comment section with his Internet fighting.

        • It takes two to argue. So if you don’t like comments being taken over, then why do you respond? You are as much of the problem as I.

        • I have argued with Matt on a couple occasions, and I disagree with 90% of his opinions and how he presents a lot of his arguments, but I don’t feel that Matt or anyone else should be banned or censored though. He has the right to say what he wants as much as anyone else, and you have the right to disagree with him. This sight should support the freedom of speech as much as the right to bear arms.

  13. i myself have called for censoring of rascist remarks on this sight. as i have pointed out my sole concern is preserving and restoring our gun rights. as a member of the dwindling ranks of ofwg’s i realize that we’re going to need allies of all races and faiths to carry on this fight. we’re hearing from regulars on this site but what of the person who looks in without commenting who then writes us off and goes elsewhere? having said that, this is farago’s site and if he the son of a holacaust survivor is comfortable with allowing hitler youth wannabes to spout their stuff for the sake of controversy or upping the hits on his site, who am i to argue.

  14. Contrary to what the writer said, that was NOT an extreme ad. The intended audience has a special meaning associated with the images in the ad, and it was spot on for those people. We have become so watered down we can’t see the Hitler and Nazi images without becoming emotionally overwrought. This was focused to Jews with the reminder of what happened to them without guns in the very recent past. Some of those folks are still alive that suffered that nightmare and their descendents need to be reminded of the consequences of being disarmed. Again, look at the target audience for the ad, it is entirely appropriate.

  15. Most people, including many on this site, appropriately consider “nazi sympathy” as a cardinal sin against liberty. However, most, including those same posters here, eagerly embrace and staunchly defend the statist, nazi-esque activities and policies of our government and it’s foreign and domestic enforcers.

    Racism is a form of collectivism, just as is statism. Yet, racists are, for the most part, obviously recognized and easily dismissed. Statist brainwashing, however, leads even “liberty lovers” to defend some of their tenets.

    Anyone who is open to reason and logic, which does not include many anti-gun folks, can recognize that persons with racist leanings are not representative of the gun community at large. Unfortunately, being open to logic displays the truth that many gun-owning, liberty-loving, constitutionalists are actually statists at heart, calling for strong enforcement of laws, restrictions on freedom of movement, cheerleaders of war, and loyal disciples of “democracy” (the rule of majority over the minority).

    Not that I support censoring anyone’s posts, but maybe it’s the statists who should be censored. I guess that would make for quite a paltry comments section though.

  16. The responses I read on this thread remind me once again why I like this site and visit multiple times a day (though I don’t comment as often as I would like to). Common sense is not common, but most of it seems to have ended up here. And for the record both glock’s and xdm’s can’t hold a torch to the Walther PPQ….

  17. Agree on the no admin-censorship angle.

    I would however suggest maybe some mild self-censorship might be called for in advancing the greater good of firearms ownership. There are some beliefs held by some people that may not exactly reflect the prevailing viewpoint of society. My concern is that when these beliefs are espoused on a gun forum, they simply provide fodder for the anti-gun crowd to point to and suggest that they reflect the prevailing views of gun owners. Even if there are follow-up comments from other posters that repudiate the objectionable material, chances are that these comments will be ignored and the anti 2a crowd will simply quote the stuff that furthers their agenda. The vast majority of folks will take this at face value rather than seeking out the source and seeing the counter arguments. Some may very well come to believe that such comments represent the prevailing viewpoints of gun advocates in general and can be problematic.

    Make no mistake, we are involved in a cultural war for the hearts and minds of the electorate. Only by prevailing here can we truly protect our freedoms. Comments that undermine the legitimacy of our cause do no one any good.

    That said, like taxes, censorship is a slippery slope that once started can expand well beyond the initial intent and must be avoided. However I would suggest that folks stop to consider how their comments might read if they were quoted in some anti-2a screed without further context. Doing so might make advancing our case to the electorate a bit easier.

    • the bottom line for me is that I would like my gun rights protected. There’s more than enough in the comments on this website to reinforce every stereotype the antis have. it wouldn’t bother me if the admins took out the trash once in a while for the benefit of the cause.

      The notion that this is about rights is laughable. such talk just diminishes the concept of rights, and that is not a good idea. trying to elevate the ability to post anything you want on a privately owned website to the level of RKBA is ridiculous. trying to draw any connection between the two issues is ridiculous. There is no capacity for anyone’s rights to be violated in any way regardless of what the admins decide on the issue. If you would like people to take your true rights seriously, stop trying to claim EVERYTHING is in some way somehow your right and that if you don’t honor my ability to spew hate on a website you’re just like the gun grabbers….. blah blah blah…..

      • There’s more than enough in the comments on this website to reinforce every stereotype the antis have.

        There is really only 1 anti who reads this site, MikeB.

        trying to elevate the ability to post anything you want on a privately owned website to the level of RKBA is ridiculous.

        It is not ridiculous. Rights extend to private property all the time. If they did not, we would still have segregation.

        • rights do extend to private property. segregation isn’t a right. there are all kinds of things that are illegal on private property, segregation happens to be one of them. it isn’t so much that a person’s civil rights necessarily extend to private property, it’s just a case of a government making something illegal. I’m not sure what is so complicated about that. I’m really not even sure what point you’re trying to make.

        • by my count of antis reading this site we have mikeybnumbers, hmmmm, low budget dave. and how many visit this site without posting a comment?

        • I don’t believe I’m the only only one reading, but I seem to be just about the only one commenting, at least lately.

          I appreciate not being banned for my opinions.

    • There is a danger to the process of considering “how their comments might read if they were quoted in some anti-2a screed without further context.”

      We may state something, and then immediately rip it apart to show the fallacy of it, to show the lies of it, etc. YET, if we consider how it may be misused and taken out of context too much, we may never say things that need to be said and invalidate wrong ideas. There are some things that need to be said, and even when we do tear those things apart, there will be those, as there have been through the ages on almost any subject, that will take the choice bits and ignore the tear-down and run with it.

      It’s a slippery slope of what to say and how to say it. ANYBODY can run with part of a thought, or a full thought, even the the most thought out one, and misuse it.

  18. It would be a rare case where I could support content-based censorship. Yes, there are a few TTAG commenters who are clearly — and admittedly — racists. That’s the price we pay for having an open forum, and I think we do a good job of shouting down their racist drivel in an intellectual way.

    The bottom line for me is that a pro-gun community that allows posting by anti-gun tr0lls ought to be able to handle the odd neo-Nazi numbnuts.

    • I was thinking on similar terms just now regarding that last part, but consider; anti gun trolls are instantly identifiable as opposition, and immediately get the pile on. They become a nucleus for some really solid pro gun arguments forming a useful and positive record. Racist trolls are damaging in that they are, strictly regarding guns, in our camp. they tend to get less of a uniform pile on maybe for this reason, and the pile ons are not really gun rights related. For this reason I think we “get something” out of anti trolls, and lose something due to racist ones.

  19. This web site discusses guns, according to our Govt. if it’s members also possess a Bible we are Already Extremeists and have been Officialy labeled so.
    I’m no fan of Socialism, in any form and I would have banned the Sucka, but then I am, after alll, a Govt Certified extremist.
    Our Founding Documents are quite clear in reguards to Free Speach in public places.
    The question before us; is a private web site a public place?

  20. Your JPFO banner is misleading. The Weimar Republic banned guns first. Gotta love that parliamentary democracy, huh?

    As for the poster Matt, I like his style. I can’t always agree with him but he backs up his words. There’s a lot of intelligent debate at TTAG which makes it my go to gun site. Honestly I believe people shout him down because they can’t debate him.

    Otherwise great site RF. Just please review more rifles!

      • Historians have pointed out that the preceding democratic Weimar Republic already had restrictive gun laws, which were actually liberalised by the Nazis when they came to power. According to the Weimar Republic 1928 Law on Firearms & Ammunition, firearms acquisition or carrying permits were “only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and—in the case of a firearms carry permit—only if a demonstration of need is set forth.” The Nazis replaced this law with the Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, which was very similar in structure and wording, but relaxed gun control requirements for the general population. This relaxation included the exemption from regulation of all weapons and ammunition except handguns, the extension of the range of persons exempt from the permit requirement, and the lowering of the age for acquisition of firearms from 20 to 18. It did, however, prohibit manufacturing of firearms and ammunition by Jews.[13] Shortly thereafter, in the additional Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all.[12][13]

  21. The emailer is a book burner, plain and simple. And uninformed as to the law to-boot. The First Amendment exists to protect offensive speech.

    Not that I think TTAG is offensive. But this guy apparently does, or is so worried about impressionable loons that he believes we’d better all walk on eggshells to meet their needs.

    To Hell with that.

      • “The first amendment has no application here whatsoever…”

        Agreed. The 1A is about protecting the rights of the populace from the incursions of government. Just like the 2A is about protecting the rights of the populace from the incursions of government. Just like the 3A… See a trend?

        Editing or censoring what is allowed here is no more about 1A rights than it would be if I refused to let you stand up and speak in front of my meeting of the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes. It might be unethical or impolite, but it’s not violating anyone’s rights.

        • So does that mean that restaurants can have colored only sections too? Can bus companies require that certain people sit at the back of the bus? Can land owners discriminate against who they sell their property to?

        • Yes that is what it means. Government leagalized slavery, the CW restored free man rights to slaves.
          Argue or not that we would not have evolved out of those racist practices but if you think that a reasturant owner does not have those property rights, then these comments are also only allowed by government permission.
          Quite a tough cunundrum to have to allow the racist to behaive within their rights so that we can behave within ours. Speach,assembly, privacy, RKBA. Either they are our rights or they are granted permissions.
          Recognise what you are saying when you bring up trying to fix societal ills through suppression of rights.
          BTW if a bus company takes gov money, the gov can contractualy mandate no segragation. then the company can choose by its freedoms

  22. I generally question the value of the comment system on this site to begin with.

    Why is it even needed? If it were 100% gone….Robert – I don’t believe it will hurt the readership or popularity one bit.

    • I_Like_Pie: You are flat wrong. You’re entitled to your opinion, but you are flat wrong. The comment system here is the site. I know I’m not the only one who feels this way. I learn as much, if not more from the comments under technical articles and reviews than I do from some of the reviews themselves.

      • I value the comments section as much as the articles. I’ve learned a lot from the experience of others and had more than a few laughs.

        But when the conversation degrades to personal attacks, cussing, dick measuring and other hatefulness, I move on to something more useful.

        If that becomes the norm here, I’ll just change the channel. I’ve seen that kind of writing on MBnumbers site, mostly by the grabbers, and it’s just boring as hell.

        Keep it interesting and you’ll have more readers.

        • +1 and setting reasonable standards for civility and enforcing them is what has kept t
          the truly disturbed or hate trolls from getting the attention they crave and they naturally go elsewhere.

          we need some pushback from those with opposite points of view eithout which we lose entertainment value.

          And who knows how many quietly lurking curious and reasonable former antis have been convinced by the facts, deep expertise, and experience, and wit and humor they are oft delivered, to take charge of their own families defense as a result.

          So thanks agaign to Robert and so many others for sharing that. It one of my 3-5 must read daily too.

  23. I go with Justice Brandeis on this. The cure for bad speech is more speech. I’ll add that in a free-for-all, we get exactly the comment section or nation that we deserve.

  24. The Reader wrote: “to weed out specific comments justifying or praising neo-Nazis/white supremacist ideas or groups”

    RF: “I don’t own the TTAG brand. It belongs to you, our readers.”
    “That said, there are legal and ethical limits”

    — I agree with much of the Reader’s sentiments. neo-Nazis/white supremacists, the new black panthers, gun control extremists, etc contribute little to the quality of the reading content here. It seems like their primary contribution is to raise blood pressure and multiply the critical responses to their original comments. From TTAG business growth point of view I guess it is productive since it increases the time visitors spend at TTAG and their number of comments.

  25. I’m torn…although I make comments that border on racism (I have a serious and distinct disdain for any low life, drug dealing, violent, gang-banger types…black ones the most simply because that’s what I’ve seen my whole life, around where I live), but I believe I know where the line in the sand has to be drawn. I have acceptance/respect for the good black folks out there (believe it or not TTAG racists, there are plenty), that have respect for themselves and fellow man. Although I believe the right to free speech is important, there are limits when it comes to what you can/should say in certain public forums. What is the main goal/charter of this site? Is there any such charter? If hate speech is not aligned with that charter, then it’s perfectly understandable to put limits on what is said. I for one don’t believe (if the charter here is to spread a positive opinion/word about gun ownership), that there is room for the over-the-top, blatant racism demonstrated here over the last week. This crap doesn’t fly in most other internet forums. Some of the posters here need to have their heads examined, or better yet, jump off a bridge.

    • I have acceptance/respect for the good black folks out there (believe it or not TTAG racists, there are plenty), that have respect for themselves and fellow man.

      Racists generally don’t deny there are good ones. My cousin is black (light skined) and he is fine. The argument against blacks generally is that they do things on a grossly disproportionate level compared to anyone else.

      I for one don’t believe (if the charter here is to spread a positive opinion/word about gun ownership), that there is room for the over-the-top, blatant racism demonstrated here over the last week. This crap doesn’t fly in most other internet forums.

      Since when did that become the charter? Have you noticed MikeB’s posts here? What about the IGOTD posts?

      And that crap does fly just about everywhere else. Go to that Blacks Will Lose The Race War video, look in the you tube comments, and tell me how often you see the word nigger?

      • BTW – you know it’s “nigga”, don’t you? To blacks, the term “nigger” is different than “nigga”. I don’t agree with it and think it continues to degrade themselves as a race, but for those that say it, they are two very separate and distinct words. As you know, Slavs’ aren’t supposed to say either of them. 😉

        • BTW – you know it’s “nigga”, don’t you? To blacks, the term “nigger” is different than “nigga”

          No its not, its their bastardized language, Ebonics. The same reason they say axe instead of ask.

          Nigga is a term used in Black English Vernacular that began as an eye dialect form of the word nigger…

        • The pronunciation “nigga” could not follow the spelling–the eye dialect–nigga. Eye dialect is the non-standard spelling used to represent dialect differences from the standard pronunciation. Spelling has to follow speech for it to be eye dialect.
          By the way, “axe” used to be a standard spelling and pronunciation for the modern standard “ask.” Perhaps, you should admire Ebonics as a return to Chaucerian English.

        • Then update the Wikipedia page, with a more appropriate definition. It still doesnt take away from the fact that the two words are essentially the same.

          In addition:
          “Among the black community, the slur nigger is almost always rendered as nigga, a pronunciation emphasizing the unique intra-racial dialect of black people.”

        • Because blacks are the only ones use “axe”. Racists fail to recognize that the issues are based on economy, not skin color. My wife taught in poor white schools in this area, white poor people are just as ignorant as the black/brown/yellow/red ones.

      • I wish your cousin could read everything you’ve posted here in the last week Matt. I bet you are a completely different person around black people, until they turn their backs.

      • Holy fuck matt… really?

        “Racists generally don’t deny there are good ones. My cousin is black (light skined) and he is fine. The argument against blacks generally is that they do things on a grossly disproportionate level compared to anyone else.”

        Go get therapy.

  26. RF, do more people complain to you about me than they do MikeB?

    And to anonymous, do you have the balls to come out and say you sent RF that email?

    However, it would be in your best interests to weed out specific comments justifying or praising neo-Nazis/white supremacist ideas or groups.
    Are you for censoring pro-America comments in general, since our founding fathers waged a race war against the Native Americans? How about pro-military or LE comments, since their attoricities far outweigh anything Neo-Nazis or White Supremacists have done.

    It seems that you are more upset about personal flames than about allowing racial supremacists from expressing their repugnant views.
    Plenty of personal flames are allow too if you didnt notice. Take for instances jwm’s insistence on calling me a member of the Hitler Youth over and over again, even though i’ve repeatedly mentioned i’m a Slav.

    This site is The Truth About Guns, and one of the oldest truths is that racists own guns.

    • TTAG is private property and you are not bound by the First Amendment.

      And if the owners of private property don’t have to recognize civil rights, then how did the government end segregation in private property?

      • are you honestly trying to make the argument that posts here can’t be removed because of first amendment protections on free speech? Tell me you honestly believe that to be true.

      • And if the owners of private property don’t have to recognize civil rights, then how did the government end segregation in private property?

        The G ended segregation in places of public accommodation using the ever-expanding Commerce Clause as the pretext. Yes, a pretext. While I like the outcome, the means was as illegal as Fast and Furious.

        Mrs. Murphy’s little boarding house can remain segregated under Federal law, as can small restaurants, because even the Monster out of DC recognizes that there have to be some limits on Federal power.

        As to the First Amendment rights of commenters, they are not superior to the First Amendment rights of TTAG’s editors. In other words, the G has to keep its dirty hands off both. Moreover, the Fed’s power under the Commerce Clause can’t trump the First Amendment. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to trump Federal power, which includes regulating commerce among other things.

        • Moreover, the Fed’s power under the Commerce Clause can’t trump the First Amendment. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to trump Federal power, which includes regulating commerce among other things.

          Arent guns regulated under the commerce clause as well? The commerce clause can’t trump the Second Amendment, can it? So where can I buy this post ’86 full auto rifle?

    • i’ve repeatedly mentioned i’m a Slav

      The Nazis found plenty of Slavic collaborators during WW2. Many of them were very efficient murderers. So, yeah, someone can be a Slav and a Nazi at the same time.

        • i was trying to make that point matt, only i was trying to be a little more diplomatic about it. farago, the jewish son of a holacaust survivor, is selling out his family heritage by giving voice to matt and his ilk. i think i said it plain enough that time. and just today the posts from andrew m. and lestor bangs go a long way to make my point that this blog is turning into stormfront lite.

        • I don’t believe I’m selling out my Jewish family heritage by allowing racists to post on TTAG.

          Matt and his like-minded amigos aren’t going to convince anyone to accept racist views by commenting below one of our posts. In fact, their comments alert otherwise complacent Americans to the existence of racially prejudiced gun owners.

          More philosophically, the First Amendment is a bitch. We are all exercising the same Constitutionally-protected right to free speech. I try to make this site as inclusive as possible, using an anti-flaming commenting policy that doesn’t punish a poster for his or her editorial perspective.

          That said, I will not allow Matt or his cohorts to hijack threads with racist rants. I’ve gone back and deleted several of these off-topic comment streams. If anyone sees one, please ping [email protected].

          Also, when the on-topic racism becomes tiresome it will end. I know some of you think it’s tiresome NOW, but I’m not ready to pull the plug just yet.

        • jwm,

          No matter how much you despise Matt and his comments, I surely don’t think you have the right to say “Farago, the jewish son of a holacaust survivor, is selling out his family heritage”…kind-of crossing the line IMO.

          I really don’t think any of this has to do with Robert’s family heritage.

        • farago, my apologies. i get wound up sometimes. in my defense i have “shared my canteen” with men of different races and religions. they watched my back and more importantly they trusted me to watch theirs. to see these statements made by a non hacker does tend to rile me up.

    • matt, i believe i use the term”hitler youth wannabe” not hitler youth. tou are in spirit a nazi. but since your heros would have classed you as a sub human because you’re a slav you would never have been allowed in the front door of the club.

      • Damn you spam filter!

        Cause you know, the first thing a ana rchist wants is nation alism and soci alism…

        You do realize that the Nazi’s aren’t the only ones who engaged in race wars, right?

      • N.T.E. you’re never gonna believe this. Until i found ttag i had never posted on a site before. Unless these posts to ttag count, i’ve never even sent an e-mail. I type with 2 fingers and they trip over each other quite a bit. I do the best i can, but you’ll have to bear with me. You’re not the first to comment on my typing skills but this may be as good as it gets for me.

    • Another one of the oldest truths is that over-the-top, can’t stop their ‘effin mouths/hateful-rhetoric racists are some of the most idiotic, uneducated, emotionally-inept, worthless, inbred-pond-scum humans to ever scar human history.

        • How about you read some more. Take for instance Abe Lincoln’s speech from Sept. 18th 1858

          I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with while people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

          Was the great emancipator a “idiotic, uneducated, emotionally-inept, worthless, inbred-pond-scum humans to ever scar human history”?

        • Matt, that was 1858…we’re in 2012. Also, this is the USA, not some tribal region in Ghana (or some savage Slovak region).

          I am 100% confident (given the very, very unfavorable position he took back then, because it was the right thing to do), that Abe Lincoln would have grown with the times and general consciousness, unlike yourself.

          Unfortunately during that time, Abe Lincoln was also well known as being inconsistent, that is, altering his message and position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in order to appeal to the audience before him.

          Abe Lincoln also wrote;

          “As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty— to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

          BTW – the “Know-Nothings” he refers to is you.

        • Matt, that was 1858…we’re in 2012

          “A few years ago, this guy [Obama] would have been getting us coffee… the only reason you are endorsing him is because he’s black. Let’s just be clear.”
          -Bill Clinton

          “You fu cking Jew bastard!”
          -Hillary Clinton

          “[Mahatma Gandhi] ran a gas station down in Saint Louis.”
          -Hillary Clinton

          “I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
          -Ron Paul

          “You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.” -Joe Biden

          “Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.”
          -Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights

          “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
          – Lyndon B. Johnson

          Are you sure Lincoln was referring to me? You omitted the part of the letter in which he said “I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain.”

        • …I don’t care what lingering “racist” jokes or comments grace the lips of current politicians. I don’t need your quotes supporting why you think it’s ok to act/think so foolishly. I was referring to your original post around Lincoln’s speech and claimed ideology around the equality of blacks/whites. Times have changed Matt – racism will always be there, it’s a product of the universal split in all of us, our struggle to find truth, and the fact that we’re imperfect humans. If you look for evil and unhappiness, you’ll find it. The goal is to not lose yourself to the hatred within…unfortunately, you’re acting like you want to lose the battle. That’s why you project so much hatred outwardly. The good part of all of this, is that your sickening display of depravity is helping me to examine parts of my own. I’m just sad to see where you’re at man. That must suck. If you want something different just keep asking…it’ll find you. If not, best of luck on your journey.

        • Damn you disappearing edit button! Anyways my last sentence doesn’t make sense, please disregard it.

          The Know-Nothings was a anti German/Irish immigrant political party. Its membership was limited to Americans born of British decent; as I’ve mentioned in the past i’m of Ukrainian/Polish decent. And when have I ever been against immigrants of European decent? So I would like to ask you, how could I possibly be a member of the Know Nothings? Or did you just assume Lincoln was using the words literally?

  27. I say go the other way, and get rid of all censorship on the site, including the FLAME DELETEDs. The fact is, from experience I know that the mildest of needling can get the FLAME DELETED tag applied to it, and it seems ridiculous to me that this site would censor trivial personal insults while allowing the disparaging of entire religious, ethnic, racial, or whatever subgroups.

    To put it another way, why would it not be okay to insult matt individually with some slur directed specifically at him, but it would be okay to insult all Slavs ever, including matt, with slurs directed at that ethnicity?

    • agreed, the censorship cat is already out of the bag. all we’re debating now is what should and shouldn’t be censored.

    • CarlosT, some of the funniest stuff I’ve ever written never saw the light of day because it was “flame deleted.” Oh, well. The deal we all make with TTAG is that we can post what we want, and the editors can take down what they want. That’s a fair policy. We may not like it, but it’s fair, and we can’t ask for more.

      • “some of the funniest stuff I’ve ever written never saw the light of day because it was “flame deleted.””

        Agreed. You truly liven the place up, Ralph.

    • I’ve asked RF to stop this as well, even at least for people flaming me. To be honest, i’m surprised at some of the things i’ve said he has considered to be flames, and others which he thought were ok (or overlooked?)

  28. Censoring if done by a government entity is tyranny; if a private entity such as this blog choose to edit/censor so be it, it is their property and they can decide what is acceptable usage of THEIR property and what is not. There are plenty of outlets on the net where you can spout off….JMHO

  29. Hey, matt, while we’re on the subject of your posts, can you do me a favor? Stop posting one or two sentence comments, and then hitting edit and turning them into 3-4 paragraphs? You do it all the time. I get an email with a short response, and when I click over, BLAM, hit by a text wall. A few days ago you responded with (if I recall correctly) five short comments within about 10 minutes, and when I clicked over, four of them had turned into at least 3 paragraphs.

    Just take a moment and think if you’ve covered everything before you hit that button. Kthanks.

  30. I have seen some repugnant comments here. Some have been criticized by other posters, and some have not. Comments cannot help but characterize a website like this one. If enough mouth-breathing, yearning-toward-Cro-Magnon-but-still-not-quite-there-yet comments are made here, your site will become known as the sort of site that attracts said cretins. Yes, I know, first amendment this, free speech that… but in the end, this is a private site, and RF can do what he wishes with it. He has to ask himself, is this the sort of readership I want? Is this the reputation I want for this site?

    But, here’s the thing. This site is billed as, “The Truth About Guns.” A lot of the s__t that gets posted here is not about guns, or is not the truth about them. When white supremacist, racist, and frankly fascist comments are made here, are you saying those comments are the truth about guns that you wish to illuminate and promulgate?

    Is this a playground or virtual man-cave for OFWGs or a site that believes it has a mission to promote the 2nd Amendment? Is this a site that promotes certain kinds of people and the culture those people are comfortable with, or is it about the support of the 2nd Amendment? Because there is nothing inherent in that amendment that should deem people of any race, color, belief, or sexual orientation as being not worthy of respect.

    • But, here’s the thing. This site is billed as, “The Truth About Guns.” A lot of the s__t that gets posted here is not about guns…

      If you want a firearm only blog go to

    • @Phil H

      I agree with your comments. The comments posted here are sometimes  very disappointing to me. Too many “Mensa wannabes” say things like some certain group “always” is/does/acts/wants a certain thing. Absolutes and intellectuals don’t mix. Truly smart people understand nuance and know that gray areas exist.

      I also find it interesting that many regular posters say very little about guns, instead being what I’d call political or social issue (ranters) posters. Unfortunately, most of what they say is not informative or educational and certainly not worthy of being called the speech of any Intelligentsia. Often times it is simply crass, ranting vitriol–of the kind that can chase away the earnest, interesting posters from whom we could learn and would encourage to keep visiting the site. I’d also think that advertisers would be concerned about this as well.

      • After reading Phil H.‘s and LeftShooter‘s comments above, and thinking a lot about it, here’s an abbreviated version of the email I sent to RF:

        I can see some definite value in “topic moderation.” It’s not censorship, it’s an attempt to keep the discussion semi-focused. Some posts lend themselves to discussions on race and racism, but most don’t. I’m also not sure where you draw the line. Obviously the incendiary stuff that you deleted from the pig hunting post is over the line.

        The problem, as I see it, is that the racist stuff is a drag on what you’re trying to do here. It brings the tone of the whole site down, and is completely not what this site is supposed to be about. Nobody who comes here looking for gun related information is expecting to have to wade through a comments section that is half filled with racist vitriol and the attendant anti-racism screeds. If you have a post that is race-related, you sort of expect some of it, and maybe those posts should get a little more latitude. But in no way do you expect to find it, nor in my opinion should you, in posts about pig hunting, or for that matter, about Housekeeping.

        I think the solution is to make clear that unless the topic can be reasonably linked to race or race relations, comments along that line will simply be quietly deleted, because they’re off-topic and will do nothing but drag the subject into the mud. If it’s a post like Blacks Will Lose Race War. Or Not. [NSFW], then let the fur fly. Otherwise, keep it germane to the topic or conversation at hand.

        • @ Matt in FL

          Thanks for sending your thoughts directly to Robert. I would also add that I also find very distasteful the (sometimes predictable) misogynistic comments of some regular posters. I can’t be sure why they have left, but I know that some of the women who formerly posted with some regularity don’t seem to be around any more. I lament that.

          As they say in my business: “bad money drives out good.”  (Gresham’s Law)

  31. The good ol’ hate speech charge. What is hate speech? What is a hate crime? Are not all crimes hate crimes? Are some more equal than others under the law?

    Those darn bitter clingers.

  32. Well, this thread has gone into the circular, pear shaped, Pie vs Cake mode.
    I doubt anything of merit shall come from this other than the airing of various and sundry laundry items.
    It’s a sad state of affairs when Oboy and his minions can have such an effect on the otherwise wise PPL here.

    • Right!: Wrong! What the hell does “Oboy” have to do with this thread?

      One of the things I hate most about the gun community, above almost anything else, is the necessity some feel to drag Obama’s name into anything related to guns, no matter how tenuous (or nonexistent) the connection to the topic at hand.

        • matt: I’ll tell you who I voted for. You may have heard of him, he’s pretty famous. His name is Noneofyour Goddamn Business.

          I realize that my answer will make you assume I voted for Obama, and I’m OK with that, FLAME DELETED

        • lol RF, seriously… FLAME DELETED makes it look much worse than it was, like I called him an obscene name or insulted his familial heritage or something.

          All I did was observe that his opinion was of very little value to me, by comparing the power of breaking wind to a large cyclonic storm. That’s hardly a flame. I’m not even sure it’s a Zippo.

  33. Mosey on over to the pig hunting post and see someone out of no where purporting to believe the outrageous and provably false claim that Islam is a religion full of pig and child f*kers and tell me you want to be associated with that. Tell me you want someone whipping that example out on you when you are trying to sell them on the idea of “The Armed Intelligentsia” vs. the idea of ignorant bigotry. Where is the self-policing pile on defending the AI brand?

    • Tell me you want someone whipping that example out on you when you are trying to sell them on the idea of “The Armed Intelligentsia” vs. the idea of ignorant bigotry.

      Can you cite a single example of this ever happening? And in this hypothetical situation, why would you be trying to sell someone on something who has clearly all ready made up their mind?

      • I was hoping you would get on this! my on the fence coworker who I have taken shooting and told to check out ttag asked me if this site was the best argument I could make that the AI existed in contrast to bigoted neo Nazi gun nuts presumably after reading some Hitler defending crap you wrote that same day!

        Remember when I asked you directly if you believe in the “Jewish conspiracy” nonsense which was used by Hitler and modern day antisemitics to sew seeds of distrust and fear of Jews and ultimately mobilize people to commit genocide? All you did was attempt to provide piss poor anecdotal bull shit to support such a belief, stopping short of answering yes directly. You are a racist. If you are not stop acting like one, if you are just admit it and quit dancing around the fact trying to support or defend racism.

        • Yes, i’m sure that happened, just as you said it did…

          So can you cite a single instance of the ADL going after other Jews? I provided you a instance of them going after vegetarians, which you thought never happened.

          You must be new here. I’ve said on numerous occasions i’m a racist, this isnt news.

        • Also, you don’t understand an analogy and they Jews don’t dislike Hitler because he ate sprouts, racist.

        • You must not be paying attention, I’ve never denied the holocaust. In fact if you go thru the past few articles, you’ll see me talk about all the Slavs lost in the holocaust.

          You (or was jwm?) said that the ADL never went after vegetarians, Hitler was a vegetarian and the ADL has gone after him. And I ask you, when did the ADL ever go after a Jew? Not because they were Jewish, but just someone who happened to be one.

        • None of this is about the ADL, racist. If they have or have not run into an antisemitic Jew to go after, that does not in any way prove or suggest your imagined Jewish conspiracy. Your entire debate technique consists of false equivalency, red herring, and straw man fallacies. People learn to identify these formal fallacies in high school. Do you realize your arguments are invalid by form alone regardless of content when they are based on these fallacious techniques?

        • Your entire debate technique consists of false equivalency, red herring, and straw man fallacies.

          I see, so what is my Red Herring? What false equivalence did I make? What is my straw man? And most importantly, what do I believe the Jews are conspiring to do?

    • I would like to amend my previous statements on this subject. RF, when it comes to the type bullshit that Don refers to in the pig thread, like from Viper26 and Right! from here on down, you may feel free to flush that shit as soon as you see it. I will not make a peep about it being unreasonable censorship.

      To be clear, it’s not because it’s because it’s inaccurate BS that I disagree with, it’s because it’s inaccurate BS that I disagree with AND it’s completely off-topic. Much like the flame war over motorbike brands that you deleted a few days ago. Off-topic is fine, off-topic purposeful trolling is not, in my opinion. There have been a few posts lately that have devolved into an off-topic flame war and completely lost the thread of the original post in the process.

  34. I don’t like the content of some of the things posted here, but I believe I learn from some of them, if nothing else to “know my enemy” better. I cannot support censorship of those words despite their personally offensive nature. Sometimes the side-tracks get a little tedious, so I just move along the posts. I choose to avoid personal insults to other posters as I find them pointless.
    It is a discussion forum after all, and I learn from the comments posted almost everyday, especially the ones I do not like. I say no censorship, except possibly vulgar language, which some people may not wish their children under age 18 to be exposed to (this out of respect to the tough job parents face these days anyway, but I don’t think it makes any pragmatic difference). I don’t support banning any particular persons, either. The most offensive will prove themselves wrong to the right-minded, and maybe, just maybe, they will repent of their wrong-mindedness and come into the light when confronted by the right-minded. I think you have to both support and, at times, indulge the Right to Freedom of Speech. It can be unpleasant, but is necessary.

  35. Simple…….no blanket hatred . No put downs of anyone based on their skin color or religion. If one has something negative to say make it about ideas.

    • ……and Matt, my little cuddly racist friend,please never again start a posting with you have a black friend……that gives you no cache.
      There is so much more racial harmony now than ever before. The, man that trained me for my east coast LTC. Was a wonderful Jewish man. I am an AfAm and he trained my white wife too. I hate the vitriol. Keep it clean ,keep it safe.

      • please never again start a posting with you have a black friend

        When did I ever claim this? I don’t have any black friends…

        There is so much more racial harmony now than ever before.

        As the Zimmerman protests demonstrated so eloquently.

  36. One more thing….certain cymbals really hurt people. I have been around TTAG for 3 years. When I tell my black, brown and red bros about the sight they laugh. When I speak to trainer who is Jewish. They put us down…..but I get here and know itis the right forum for me…..and most of us.

  37. Folks,
    Has anyone thought of bringing us all together.
    I would bet that the regulars would get aong quite well.
    Now I a m not saying Matt and I would be roasting marshmallows together, but maybe a little liquid libation and we can find some common ground. After all we all want our guns.

  38. TTAG …let’s do it a multicultural gun lobby….WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE.
    Listen I am not just blowing smoke.
    Let’s do it.

      • You certainly deserve it Matt…seems like you either missed a couple healthy and needed backhands from Dad, or he was a Nazi and took the boot to you too often. One or the other. With your attitude, life (or someone) is going to sure kick you in the ass at some point. Good luck.

  39. Hey, guys, I don’t know if you noticed, but while we weren’t looking, matt, by action or reaction, has turned this post into another racism vs anti-racism conversation/argument. He has about 30 posts, as of this writing, of which about 5 are actually on the Housekeeping topic. The remainder are him espousing his racist ideals, and then arguing with those who dispute them. Add his ~25 comments to the >25 comments of other people arguing with him (a couple of which are mine, I’m not blameless), and that’s at least 50-60 of the 138 current comments that are completely off the Housekeeping topic and arguing, yet again, about racism.

    Just thought I’d point that out.

    • M.I.F. I’ve come to the conclusion that ttag must be the only social interaction matt has. Sad that may be, it explains his near round the clock ability to respond to posts here. He must be exhausting to deal with in person and most people would’ve stepped out of his life at the first chance.

  40. Ask yourself what would have happened to TTAG had Jared Loughner been a regular poster here instead of at the Daily Kos. Does anyone think that TTAG would be taken seriously after he shot Gabby Giffords? His presence would have undermined the credibility of this enterprise. One of the problems with an open forum is that it provides an outlet for social misfits, extremists and sociopaths to shop their ideas. While it is a noble goal to provide an anything goes atmosphere there can be serious consequences for a firearms blog if an oddball poster goes on shooting spree. The publisher has an ethical responsibility to control what is said in his space.

    The First Amendment applies to the publisher and not those who are allowed to publish in it. There are several Supreme Court decisions affirming the publishers right to control the content of his publication even if they are a public institution. While it also a noble sentiment that TTAG is the community’s publication it is really a private space. It is the property of the “Armed Intelligentsia” until Robert decides it isn’t which has he done on several occasions.

    Everybody is entitled to speak their mind but there are some things that you don’t speak of in polite company. The internet provides an open avenue for anybody to speak their mind regardless of how repugnant an idea is. If you have the urge to discuss the subtle differences between White Nationalism versus neo-Nazism have at it at Stormfront. I find it odd that we allow all sorts of extremist postings while at the same time you can’t call someone a Mustela (you can look that one up on Google or Bing).

    If you haven’t figured out by now,, I wrote Robert about my concerns. I didn’t feel that I had to name names nor did I want it personalized. However, given the flack, I will own up to it.

  41. Holy cow batman this is one long thread. I think RF might have hit a cord here.
    All I can say is I don’t agree with Matt and a few others on their views, but I certainly don’t think they should be banned.
    As RF, and other moderators have done in the past, if posts are off topic, derogatory to others, the it gets deleted. They have a right to contribute, and put in their ideas just like everyone else.
    I don’t know how many times I have replied to MikeB and had to bite my lip to try and piece together a well thought out reply. If we don’t agree on something there is no reason why we can’t have a legitimate discussion on it.

  42. Matt you need to keep on topic and shorten your posts by at least 2/3rds or i’ll just skip on by anything w/ your name on it in future. Not to mention your comments about race stink up the place, but thats more a reflection on you, personally.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here