Gun Grabber 2: Semi-automatic bugaloo

[kidchameleon]

5. Insert phallic reference here, just to beat Der Trihs to the punch.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by rowrrbazzle

Do you really expect us to believe that RJ lawyered it as finely as you do?

I'm discussing what he wrote, not how he "lawyered it." I understand why people objected to the post, of course, but he didn't call any person a name. He said something about a model of gun that was used to kill a bunch of children.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Marley23

He said something about a model of gun that was used to kill a bunch of children.

It was deliberately inflammatory.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Marley23

He said something about a model of gun that was used to kill a bunch of children.

And he strongly implied that anyone that owns or is trying to buy an AR 15 condones the massacre of children.

[Jack Batty]

He didn't strongly imply anything but that an AR-15 was used in the latest massacre of children.

"Stop making fun of my guns!" Really? I never pegged Oakminster as a member of the offenderatti.

[PlainJain]

Originally Posted by Marley23

He said something about a model of gun that was used to kill a bunch of children.

But not in a vacuum. I'm curious why you mods of all people continue to argue that non-valid viewpoint. So what he didn't directly insult another poster? Not many are arguing that he did. But what he did do was make a mean spirited political jab in a MPSIMS thread that strongly contributed to the derailment of that thread.

Again, the comment itself didn't bother me personally but you continuing to act as if is was fine and dandy is a bit silly, IMO (your comment is silly, not you).

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

And he strongly implied that anyone that owns or is trying to buy an AR 15 condones the massacre of children.

I don't think that's the implication. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Originally Posted by PlainJain

But what he did do was make a mean spirited political jab in a MPSIMS thread that strongly contributed to the derailment of that thread.

I agree the comment contributed to the thread going off course and the mods should be careful about doing that. It was an inflammatory comment for sure. I don't think it means much that the comment was political because the thread was bound to be political based on its subject matter. Perhaps it would've been a better fit in Great Debates even if the OP was making a one-off observation.

[PlainJain]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I agree the comment contributed to the thread going off course and the mods should be careful about doing that. It was an inflammatory comment for sure. I don't think it means much that the comment was political because the thread was bound to be political based on its subject matter. Perhaps it would've been a better fit in Great Debates even if the OP was making a one-off observation.

Thank you for your response.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Perhaps it would've been a better fit in Great Debates even if the OP was making a one-off observation.

I thought the article was fairly balanced, and helped to explain how the AR-15 became more popular than it was. And the popularity had nothing to do with people wanting the same gun a mass-murderer used (as was stated by one poster). The thread could have been a discussion about the attributes of the firearm, and could have allowed people familiar with it to explain why they like it. Instead, it was hijacked almost immediately by someone claiming, through the application of a moniker, that it is the preferred weapon of child killers; and by someone claiming that people who want one want to use it to kill people.

[Marley23]

I'm not faulting you for doing anything wrong, but I think a gun control discussion was the likely result even though it did not have to be that particular argument.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

I never pegged Oakminster as a member of the offenderatti.

I can't tell if you're joking.

[PlainJain]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'm not faulting you for doing anything wrong, but I think a gun control discussion was the likely result even though it did not have to be that particular argument.

A mod came into the discussion, she could have told the offenders to knock off the hijack. I've seen it work time and time again.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by PlainJain

A mod came into the discussion, she could have told the offenders to knock off the hijack. I've seen it work time and time again.

Yes, she could have. I think she made an equally logical choice since the thread was a mess by that point. It went pretty far off course in a short time.

[PlainJain]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Yes, she could have. I think she made an equally logical choice since the thread was a mess by that point. It went pretty far off course in a short time.

Granted.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I don't think that's the implication. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

I think we must disagree. I don't see how you could sensibly read the statement as anything but an accusation that those who want the gun want it to shoot children. Further supported by his arguing that exact point.

Originally Posted by Marley23

Yes, she could have. I think she made an equally logical choice since the thread was a mess by that point. It went pretty far off course in a short time.

Note that Ellen Cherry came in much sooner (according to her post in this thread) but didn't do anything. She might have been early enough to mod the comment for being a political hijack and a threadshit. But of course then we'd have had to endure the ATMB thread on why Ellen is such a jackbooted thug that she doesn't allow humor, or whatever.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Irishman

But of course then we'd have had to endure the ATMB thread on why Ellen is such a jackbooted thug that she doesn't allow humor, or whatever.

I doubt it. Ellen Cherry is one of the better moderators who does a good job of explaining herself while she moderates (instead of only when someone calls her on it) and making reasonable decisions. She also will admit when she makes a mistake, and actually polices what she says so she doesn't wind up contradicting herself later. She therefore does not get nearly as many ATMB threads.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Irishman

I don't see how you could sensibly read the statement as anything but an accusation that those who want the gun want it to shoot children. Further supported by his arguing that exact point.

He never argued that anyone wanted the gun so they could shoot children. He said the opposite in both post #34 and post #44.

Originally Posted by RickJay

Whether that's because of the proposed assault weapons ban or not, the weapon is now famous and cmmercially popular in large part for its use in shooting children, even though your personal motive for buying one isn't to go shoot children. If you don't like that, well, that's life.

Originally Posted by RickJay

No, which is why, you'll note, I never said that.

Originally Posted by Irishman

Note that Ellen Cherry came in much sooner (according to her post in this thread) but didn't do anything. She might have been early enough to mod the comment for being a political hijack and a threadshit.

Yes, it's possible that the thread would not have gone so badly if she had told everybody to cool down or had given a note in response to a couple of posts. But the post wasn't a political hijack - the use of the gun in that massacre isn't political - and I don't think it was a threadshit.

[Irishman]

You're saying gun control isn't political? I'll concede it doesn't fit the notion of threadshit.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Irishman

You're saying gun control isn't political? I'll concede it doesn't fit the notion of threadshit.

Yes, of course gun control is political. But RickJay's comment wasn't about gun control, and the thread is about the fact that sales of the AR-15 are up because of the proposed assault weapons ban. I think it would be futile to try to keep a discussion of gun control out of that thread.

[John Mace]

I think we're ready for Gun Grabber 3-D; Is the Horse Dead Yet?

[artemis]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think we're ready for Gun Grabber 3-D; Is the Horse Dead Yet?

I dunno. We'd better shoot it to be sure.

[John Mace]

And what is a "bug"aloo? Is that a white guy trying to boogaloo?

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Oh Marley? A word please.

Remember the whole gun grabber thing, where you felt absolutely compelled to moderate my heinous use of provocative language in Great Debates?

How, then, does this post, by a moderator, in MPSIMS, get a free pass?

For those that don't wish to click the link to a post in a now closed thread, Rickjay, noted moderator, dropped this little gem:

You have to admit it's curious that a proposed general ban on many weapons results, specifically, in a huge rush on the AR-15 Gradeschooler.

Now if a moderator, trusted guardian of the sacred civility of this noble board, is allowed to comment in this manner in the fluffy-fucking-bunny forum, tell me again why I shouldn't use "gun grabber" in the more rough and tumble Great Debates?

I was gonna start this exact same bitch thread last night but got sidetracked. In post #2 Der Trihs shits all over the thread, and not only isn't modded, but a MOD joins in and says something worse.

And you get nailed for "gun grabbers." The left leaning ideology of this board has blinded it to any semblance of fairness. It seems like left wing shots are simply "the truth" whereas conservative arguments are "being a jerk."

IMHO, both of those posts are absolute personal attacks to any gun owner who buys an AR-15 and implies that they want children to die. That's the epitome of a personal attack.

ETA: Then a third mod comes in and closes the thread (which was a legitimate and very good GQ) because the thread was so off course. It was off course because two posters including a mod destroyed the thread. Instead of moderating the posters, the thread is simply closed. That happens too much to a handful of posters on this board.

[Marley23]

jtgain, please read some of the 70-odd posts that came after the OP.

[PlainJain]

Originally Posted by artemis

I dunno. We'd better shoot it to be sure.

That'd be way too quick. The best way is the current course - excruciatingly beating it slowly to death thread after thread after thread...


.

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by Marley23

jtgain, please read some of the 70-odd posts that came after the OP.

Give me a break. I have read them. It sure sounds to me like RickJay was endorsing Der Trihs' ridiculous, inflammatory hijack. Here is the relevant subthread, each a reply to the previous post:

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

It helps show how twisted gun owners are. "Someone committed a massacre? I want a gun like his!" It's like someone watching a documentary on World War II and then going out and getting a Hitler mustache.

Originally Posted by Johnny LA

Your perception is completely off-base.

Originally Posted by RickJay

You have to admit it's curious that a proposed general ban on many weapons results, specifically, in a huge rush on the AR-15 Gradeschooler.

His later backpedaling in the thread does not change the implication. Even if that's not what he meant, it certainly reads that way.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Marley23

jtgain, please read some of the 70-odd posts that came after the OP.

I read them all and have yet to see a clear answer.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Absolute

Give me a break. I have read them. It sure sounds to me like RickJay was endorsing Der Trihs' ridiculous, inflammatory hijack.

Pretty sure Marley was only referring to jtgain's backing up of Oak's opinion that the whole "gun-grabber" thing was bad/biased moderation, not talking about anything that went on in the MPSIMS thread that he had nothing to do with.

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by voltaire

Pretty sure Marley was only referring to jtgain's backing up of Oak's opinion that the whole "gun-grabber" thing was bad/biased moderation, not talking about anything that went on in the MPSIMS thread that he had nothing to do with.

Oh. Well, it seemed to me that jtgain was talking about the bad behavior in the MPSIMS thread exclusively. But, whatever.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Absolute

Oh. Well, it seemed to me that jtgain was talking about the bad behavior in the MPSIMS thread exclusively. But, whatever.

Well, it's probably more accurate to say that it's about comparing and contrasting the two quite different incidents, and that's what has been done in quite a few of the preceding posts that Marley referred to. So, I don't think his comment was as narrowly focused on the MPSIMS thread as you seemed to take it.

Just sayin'.