TexasCHLforum.com

BTW, I have no pretensions that I'll be here in the morning. Mr. Cotton has proven himself to be stern and rather trigger happy, so I bid all of you adieu. But, whether you know it or not, you'll be poorer for it. And yes, after I'm gone there will be the deluge of put-downs and insults that usually follows these things. That's ok. I still think most of you are decent people. I think many of you remained silent even though you agreed with me because of group dynamics, just like I know many of you will employ sarcastic remarks in denying that claim.

I still think the site administration should not ban me, as I have not broken any rules, have engaged in substantive discussion respectfully, and not responded to many personal attacks on me.

pcgizzmo wrote:I could be wrong but I think Charles mentioned that you should basically change the subject and not continue in this thread. I'm not saying I agree or disagree but it's his forum. I haven't made my mind up about you yet and I honestly don't see a problem with what your discussing here except it was a trollish first post and raises suspicion that your trying to start trouble. You have conducted yourself fairly well so I'm guessing that's why your sill here.

The problem with your topic is that as you already know and I'm just stating for the sake of the post is your stepping on toes because the type of instructor you probably had in your class is very much the same audience your complaining to. Added to that it's hard to step on toes without them hurting. This being your first post, your just asking to get banned right out of the gate.

Personally I enjoy seeing people discuss both sides of the issues and hope the forum can allow that w/out people getting angry etc.. but if not then you have to respect the mods and Charles because that's just the way it is.

I totally understand every single thing you're saying to me. But I don't think that way. I didn't think: "This is a right wing forum, if I post a dissenting opinion they'll ban me immediately because they don't like dissenting opinions and prefer to remain within their safe cocoons." No, I give everybody the benefit of the doubt, assume they're fair-minded, and that they can take an honest challenge to their beliefs and/or strongly held opinions. That's what I think about every single member of this forum, except those who have already voluntarily excluded themselves from that crowd. I have common courtesy and respect for the members of this forum. Some have responded with the opposite of common courtesy and respect, as expected. But that doesn't change my opinion about the majority.

johnson0317 wrote:As I said, not impressed (seriously). Off to a more substantive thread.

Off to a safer place. No "dissenting opinions" and "opposite points of view" and other such uncomfortable things.

pcgizzmo wrote:I said "Welcome" Matrix but I think I should say "Goodbye" you won't be here tomorrow. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.

pcgizzmo, do you have a personal opinion on why you think that may be the case? Or why that should be the case? Or are you just succumbing to group dynamics and going with the flow? I'm genuinely curious. You've been one of the most fair forum members in responding honestly and fairly (again, sorry for not responding, too many to respond to). So what do you think is my cardinal sin (beyond having a different POV than most forum members)?

johnson0317 wrote:From personal experience, pull the plug on him now. Don't be nice, and don't think he can be "rehabilitated". He is taking advantage of the civility on the part of the moderators to keep pressing this garbage. The magic forum I used to direct had the same "be nice" philosophy until we realized the troll simply used that against everyone. It goes something like this, "You can ban me if you want, but you just prove what obstinate hypocrites you are in doing so. A real forum supports free speech from everyone and does not have the right to shut someone out". Um, yes the forum does. It is a private forum and Charles, et al., can pull the plug at any time. matrix defined himself early on and then has proceeded to try to linguistically overpower and impress.

"Civility on the part of the moderators..." I believe I have already pointed out that "civility." (See "Crossfire"). I've been nothing but civil, and numerous members' attempts at banning me are nothing more than suppression of a point of view they don't like. It's censorship, pure and simple. Do you have a substantive point about any of the issues I have brought up?

speedsix wrote:...this thread's kinda remindin' me of Old Yeller...it jest ain't gonna get no better...I'm out...

Oh Speed, you'll be back. I think it's getting a little better. Well, I'm trying, anyway.

Keith B wrote:

matrix wrote:y ..in light of the fact that you have "moderator" attached to your name. Aren't mods supposed to be held to a higher standard, generally speaking?

Generally speaking, yes, but not when dealing with those that are only here to troll.

Keith, I've found that many people around here, you included, are walking around Condition One, thumb safety down, finger on the trigger, and just negligently discharging "troll" accusations left and right. Do you not see how that's just a cheap personal attack? Anything to say about more substantive matters?

VMI77 wrote:You're snide, smug, and condescending. My first response to you was quite civil . . .

Without excerpting and specifically quoting every individual statement, I will agree with you here. After re-reading our initial posts, I find that you were much more respectful than I was, and that I was indeed condescending, snide, and even smug in my initial response to you. I can definitely see how a fair-minded person would pick up that vibe from me (and just for the record, I assume everybody here is fair-minded until proven otherwise). Therefore, I apologize. No if's, and's or but's. Now, let's continue, and I'll do my best not to fall into my previous mode:

My real point about labels was that everybody engages in labeling, because it comes natural to us. You label people, just like I do. I try to make a conscious effort to stay away from that activity, because I've found out how wrong I was on numerous occasions. I had labeled people various things and expected them to conform to my labels, but they didn't. And when they didn't, it was weird. But I learned a valuable lesson. That lesson is the reason why I would even attempt to post something on a predominantly right-wing forum. People aren't what I think they are. Many are much more open-minded, and some are even more prejudiced than I thought. My phrasing of labels as "simplistic" and assigning that to you was disrespectful. I don't think you're a simplistic individual, and your response to me proves that. However, I do have several problems with your response, mainly based on different worldviews, but some just factual.

VMI77 wrote:You spout Brady Bunch propaganda (blue) and use hyperbolic rhetoric when it suits you (green) while telling me that I'm "reflexively going on" about things, and then smugly tell me to "calm down." You talk about "common sense" solutions, and when asked for some, tell us that it's too complicated for you, and you'll just leave it up to "experts."

Saying "totalitarian craziness" does have the whiff of hyperbole. But let's look at the facts. What is the "gun show loophole?" It is the ability of anyone, convicted violent felons included, to purchase a firearm at a gun show because nobody is going to run their background check. So, are you in favor of convicted violent felons purchasing firearms? If you are, fine, that's a rather anarchist way to approach this serious issue. But if you are not, than what is wrong with the "common sense solution" of closing the gun show loophole and requiring everyone everywhere who wants to purchase a firearm to pass a basic background check? All that would do is bring gunshows in line with gunstores. I see nothing confiscatory or anti-2nd amendment about that. I see common sense. If we have a set of rules for people purchasing firearms, let's apply them evenly and universally. If that keeps even 1 gun out of a felon's murderous hands, it's worth it. What is this taboo on this forum about this "Brady Bunch" stuff? I honestly did not know anything about the "Brady Bunch" until this morning when I looked them up. I don't, how do I say this, give a flying care what they say, nor did I pick up anything I say from them. Is it Brady Bunch propaganda to suggest that felons should not own guns? If it is, fine, I'm just a "Brady Bunch" propagandist. But you are also an extremist. I don't see how checking everybody's background, no matter the location, when they are purchasing a firearm is an infringement on anybody's rights. I consider closing the "gun show loophole" a, yes, common sense thing to do. If you don't, what is the reason? Honestly. Do you want violent felons to be able to walk into a gun show and purchase a firearm? If not, why do you oppose the common sense regulation of closing the gun show loophole? You'll still have your guns, just like I'll have mine. But maybe that 1 felon who was gonna shoot that one innocent guy won't be able to legally purchase a firearm. What's wrong with that?

VMI77 wrote:In addition to your tone, your statements are full of straw men, another typical liberal "debating" tactic. For instance, your contention that someone who owns a gun can't be "anti-gun" and your request for specific actions Obama has taken "as president" to take your guns. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

"Someone who owns a gun can't be anti-gun." Why, you're right. That is a straw man. But not mine, yours. I never said anything like that. Not to be condescending (I learned my lesson on that), but I seriously think you should re-read the definition of straw man, because your second example doesn't meet the criteria either: my request for specific actions of Obama as president... A straw man is building up a false argument that is easily refutable so that I can knock it down... Requesting specific actions from the president does not fall into that category. If you are able to actually provide some, my whole argument falls apart. That's not a straw man, that's a genuine quest for information.

Well, if that doesn't fit the definition of deluge, I don't know what does. I'm sorry, but I will not be able to respond to all, there are simply too many. VMI77, I am working on a full response to you and I believe I owe you an apology; but first, just a couple of housekeeping matters:

Shinesintx wrote:I took my CHL class about 6 months ago...and did not have to pay until it was over. Once we paid, the instructor signed our paperwork. Next time, find one who does this....problem solved.

I didn't even know that was an option. Thanks Shine.

speedsix wrote:...have you been married before???

Is that directed to me? If so, major points for randomness. Answer: N to the O. I am in a long term relationship though, so what's the difference?

wgoforth wrote:Matrix.... some of your style and wording sounds very familiar.... have you been on here before under another name??

I assure you yesterday was the first time I posted on TX CHL forums. And should Mr. Cotton find it necessary to extinguish my contributions here, that will be the last you'll hear of me. I have better things to do than play games like that.

Crossfire wrote:While we are all so very sorry that your CHL class was not a pleasant experience for you, we are now a bit tired of hearing about it. We got it. You made your point.

Perhaps you should have asked your friends for a class recommendation before plunking down your hard earned dollars. But I suppose that would have been difficult, given that birds of a feather tend to flock together. Probably not too many of your Obama loving, Democrat, "common-sense gun control law" supporting friends have taken a CHL class. Or, perhaps, given your rather abrasive demeanor, you have no friends at all. Again, how unfortunate for you.

We also apologize that your initial experience here has been less than you had hoped for. Once again, a little prior research might have served you well. Yes, we ARE a bunch of gun-toting, conservative Republicans, with a few libertarians thrown in, as well as a couple of well behaved liberals. (But every family has a few black sheep. )

If you came just to stir up trouble, then you will not find a happy welcome here. We discuss issues that are important to the CHL community. We try not to whine, complain, argue, and pout. That is just counter-productive. If that is not your cup of tea, then you should go drink the kool-aid elsewhere.

So, we do wish you the best. Happy trails to you. Adios, amigo. Syanara. Auf wiedersehen. Good night.

While your entire post basically constitutes a long, petty, personal attack on me, that is not what I find worst about it. Neither is the fact that it is in clear violation of forum rule #2 (as another forum member helpfully pointed out). What I find really bad about your post is that it reflects badly on this entire forum. Especially in light of the fact that you have "moderator" attached to your name. Aren't mods supposed to be held to a higher standard, generally speaking?

TxLobo wrote:1. did you pass?
2. did you garner the information you need to comfortably carry a concealed handgun?

if the answer is yes to the above, don't sweat it.. in 5 years, when you take your renewal class, shop around a bit. Hang out here and get information, ask questions if you still seek answers.

Hey, if I can put up with my 'L' family during the holidays, I can sit in a 10 hour class filled with propaganda.. especially if the outcome is positive for me

Yes and yes. And sit through it is exactly what I did. Like I said earlier, it wasn't that big of a deal but I just found it distasteful. Imagine if you had to sit through a CHL class peppered with random put-downs of Republicans/conservatives and praise for the president... Like I said, interesting experience.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

matrix wrote:Thomas, what's your point? I just followed where the posts led. Don't forget, it takes 2 (or in this case, upwards of 6 to tango). Also, sanctimony doesn't look good on anyone.

You joined about 14 hours ago and at this point you have made 21 posts. You complain about something you claim is inappropriate, then you later admit that the instructor's comments were very short and didn't impact his presenting of the class material. Numerous times throughout your posts you have used Brady style comments on gun issues.

In short, you are clearly a troll. Stop now or you're gone. You aren't here to ask legitimate questions or to discuss issues; you are here to start an argument and pitch anti-gun rhetoric. Don't respond with yet another argument or a denial, just stop.

Chas.

Let me quote the esteemed Mr. Cotton himself:

"This is a "G" rated "family" forum, so please keep this in mind when choosing the subject matter of your post, as well as the language you choose. Additional specific rules are as follows:

TexasCHLforum Rules:

1. No profanity, pseudo-profanity, or abbreviated profanity. If you are in doubt about a word, don't use it. Any profanity substitute that gets the profane message across is prohibited!

2. No personal attacks on other members - NONE! We can be respectful even in disagreement. If you're talking about the person rather than the issue, then the post will be deleted.

3. No racial or ethnic slurs. Descriptions of persons in actual events are fine, so long as it doesn't constitute stereotyping.

4. No posting of messages promoting illegal conduct.

5. Posts with racist, anarchist, or antisocial comments or content are not allowed and links to sites with such content are not allowed.

6. Porn, nudity, and sex-related material and links are forbidden.

7. Only firearms and firearms-related items can be posted for sale in the Market section. Offers to trade non-firearms or firearms-related items for guns is fine.

8. Sexually suggestive or provocative posts or images are forbidden..

9. Blatant, global, or rampant law enforcement bashing is prohibited. Discussions of specific identifiable events presented factually are fine.

10. Do not hijack threads. If a post gives you an idea for a new or different discussion, start a new thread.

11. Off-topic posts/threads: Since they tend to cause the most problems for other boards, our "off-topic" sub-forum is not an "anything goes" area. Absolutely no discussions of religion, immigration/border security, abortion, race matters, or any other hot-button political issues. (Gun-related political issues can be discussed in other areas.)

12. Photos in signature lines Photos in the signature line can be no larger that 128 x 256. If you would like to keep the same image ratio as the original, it is acceptable to make it 128 pixels high with an appropriate width not exceeding 384 pixels. No animated .gif's in signature lines.

13. Posting items for sale/trade in the Market Section Except for the FFL subsection, the Market is intended solely for participating members (posts, not money) of TexasCHLforum.com. It was created as a courtesy to, and for the convenience of, our members, not as an open forum for marketing. Members must reach "Member" status, i.e. 45 posts, before posting anything for sale in the Market Section. (The transition from "Junior Member" to "Member" is done automatically.) Further, "for sale" posts cannot have a link to an auction website or any other website. All purchasers are strongly encouraged to get the full name, address and telephone number of a seller before purchasing an item and to verify that information. Refusal to provide that information to a purchaser will result in the seller being banned. If your signature line or the post contains a link to your website or any commercial website, a backlink to TexasCHLforum.com must be included in the linked site.

To avoid "for sale' threads from becoming stale, all threads will be locked and moved to the Closed section one month after the first post. Sellers, please edit the subject line to add "CLOSED" if the item is sold or withdrawn.

14. Posting classes in the Instructors, Classes & Training section. All posts in the Instructors, Classes & Training section must meet the requirements of Forum Rule 13. Post only one class at a time.

15. Cheesecake/beefcake threads and posts are not allowed here. If you want to look at or post pictures of scantily-clad women (or men) please do so elsewhere. This isn't the place for it.

16. Avatars area allowed but they are subject to all of the Forum Rules. If it wouldn't be allowed as a photo in a post, or if it sends a message that would violate forum rules, then it is not appropriate as an avatar. The default size limit is 80X80 and a maximum file size of 6144 kb. http://www.shrinkpictures.com/create-avatar/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is one of numerous websites that allow you to create an avatar from an exiting photo.

17. Links to LiveLeak.com prohibited. LiveLeak.com has a number of videos that would be appropriate for posting on TexasCHLforum. Unfortunately, it also has advertising/links to porn sites on most if not all of its video. Therefore, links to LiveLeak.com are prohibited.

18. Business logos are prohibited in signature lines, as an avatar, or in the body of posts. (Logos can be included in the body of a post, if it is germane to the subject matter of a post that is not commercial in nature.) This rule does not prohibit placing a link to your business website in your signature line once you have 45 meaningful posts, but such links must be in default font size.

19. Posting material from other sources - When quoting material from other websites or sources, the following rules apply:
a. Give credit to the author and publication either at the beginning of the quote, or at the end. When the format allows, put the title of the article at the beginning;
b. Do not post the entire article, post no more than 200 words or 10% of the article, whichever is less;
c. Enclose the material in quotation marks or use italic font to clearly identify the material as a quote;Pld. Include a link to the website that contains the material or, if the material is not from a website, fully identify the source including the author.

20. Temporary or disposable email addresses. It is necessary to use legitimate email addresses. Most disposable or temporary email domains have been put on the banned list and others will be added as they are identified."

Every single last fair minded person reading this will clearly see that I have not broken a single forum rule. You're making up new rules Mr. Cotton (why does it matter how many posts I posted? I had some time last night). Also, I had to google this "Brady" stuff. Now I know what it is, and I have never read them before. If you'll notice, I was having a decent discussion with several members. Actual ideas are being exchanged. Must you really have unanimity of thought in the forum? There's a word for what you're doing: censorship.

Also, did you notice the posts directed at me by member VMI77? They were vitriolic, personal, dismissive of me, mean-spirited, and uncalled for. Yet, I still didn't bite and engage in that. Discernible, fair-minded readers will clearly gather that by going over the thread. But he happens to agree with you on everything you care about, so he/she did not receive any stern posts calling him a "troll" and threatening expulsion.

Judging by your tone and general drift, I assume you'll "ban" me now (because I had the audacity to actually respond like a human being). That's a shame because I think that I could be a productive member of this forum/community and contribute to the discussions taking place here.

G26, you're getting a little too deep into it now for my level of understanding that issue. I guess i just don't know for sure what would happen, but neither do you. I find it a little hard to believe that the 2nd amendment has had more challenges than Roe v. Wade. The anti-abortion crowd is nothing if not...let's say dedicated. But either way, I wouldn't base my political opinions on a quote from a single former SCOTUS justice. There are other issues that I care about as much or more. Anyway, just from a practical standpoint, how exactly would the government go about banning guns in this country? There are upwards of a hundred million guns/gunowners in this country. I'm just not too worried that somebody's gonna come and take them all. Logistics and all.

Thomas, what's your point? I just followed where the posts led. Don't forget, it takes 2 (or in this case, upwards of 6 to tango). Also, sanctimony doesn't look good on anyone.

G26ster wrote:On a different track related to the political side:

In a recent interview with Time magazine, retired Justice John Paul Stevens was asked to name the most important majority opinion he disagreed with. His answer - "I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court got that quite wrong." It will take just ONE more judicial appointment like Justice Stevens, and you can kiss your CHL and Second Amendment rights goodbye. That's enough for me.

I don't think that's necessarily true. SCOTUS is big on precedents. A precedent has been set now. Let me give you an example. The same argument you're using about the 2nd amendment could have been used by a liberal regarding Roe v. Wade. Imagine back before there was a 5-4 conservative majority on the SCOTUS and imagine that you're a liberal fellow (I know, horrifying). You would be making the argument that we can never allow a conservative majority on the court because the moment there is one, Roe v. Wade is out the window and bye-bye reproductive rights. Well, we've had a 5-4 conservative majority for some time now, and last time I checked Roe v. Wade was still on the books. Just like the 2nd amendment decision would be if there was a liberal majority.

VMI77 wrote:

matrix wrote:A clinically depressed person should not be allowed to buy a firearm, but I see no reason to take away their other constitutional right, the right to vote.

So depressed people give up their right to self-defense? Very generous of you not to take away their right to vote --probably because you think depressed people are more likely to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

You've obviously not given a wit of thought to your "common sense" regulations. Just what do you think depressed people are going to do if they know getting treatment is going to result in stigmatization and denial of their right to self-defense? Did it occur to you that taking away basic rights based on vague psychological concepts might cause people to avoid treatment? That makes the denial of gun and self-defense rights self-selective. So obviously, treatment will have to be coerced, and just as obviously, anyone who displays anything that might be considered signs of depression will have to be coerced into treatment, or everyone buying a guy will have to have a psychiatric evaluation --otherwise, depressed people will still be able to buy guns.

VM, your vitriol and obvious attempts to get personal with me make it hard for me to respond to you. Unless you cool off a little bit, this will be my last response to you. I'm not sure what the exact definition of a troll is on this forum, but I'm pretty sure you're trolling me. Let's calm down and talk, OK?

Clinical depression is not a "vague psychological concept." It is a real disease with real symptoms. Depressed people are much more likely to commit suicide or at least have suicidal ideation, so I would submit to you that it's probably not a good idea to put a gun in their hands. They are also much more likely than the general population to go on murder-suicide sprees (a la Grapevine, TX yesterday, or any number of other such incidents). And no, it's not "obvious" that treatment will be coerced. What is obvious is that clinical depression should be a disqualifier from buying a firearm.