Here’s the difference, as I see it.
In the first thread, the OP made some warnable insults. Ibn Warraq’s response of tu quoque thus by implication contained the same insults. I say his warning was justified.
In the second thread, FI’s post was NOT warnable, so Bricker’s tu quoque isn’t an insult either.
In my opinion the second poster did not say that. You are inferring it.
The rule is that you can’t attack the poster outside of the Pit. There is nothing saying you have to ignore who the poster is. I don’t post in GD much but I don’t think there is a rule about bringing up someone’s other posts. Tom got the report and he explained it better than I can. I’ll refer you back to post #10 and leave it at that.
You’re able to say “Republicans don’t have a grip on reality”, even though some posters here are Republicans. You’re insulting a (much) larger group that happens to contain some poster here. You would NOT be able to say “Republican posters here don’t have a grip on reality”.
The insult noted in the OP is towards the larger group (the pro-gun faction), not specific posters here. And by noting that it’s a “demographic”, the poster clearly indicated that it’s the larger group, not the posters.
That’s how I understand the rule anyway.
If anything, it’s the reply that might get moderator action as making things too personal.
It’s rather ironic, then, that your arguments that one post absolutely should not have been modded, while the other unquestionably should have been, are seen to be inconsistent by many other posters. You really can’t have it both ways.
It’s harder than it looks (to those who don’t have to do it). 
I’ve been plenty critical of some moderator decisions on this message board, but i don’t see an actionable insult in any of the material quoted in the OP.
WHich is what I am reffering to.
In any event - I’m dropping this.
I’m either not being clear or simply see it differently.
I’m dropping it.
Whoever made this thread has too much time on their hands.
Neither can you.
If you’re going to appeal to the wisdom of crowds when they support your position, maybe you moderators should pay a little more heed when the same crowd disagrees with you.
I hope that this at least demonstrates to you that it is possible to come to different interpretations based on the same information. Moderation is not, and cannot be, as cut-and-dried as you and some others imagine it might be.
I can see a mod note for:
“Says the guy who calls the cops every time he sees a non-uniformed person carrying a gun.”
Something along the lines of: dial it back, and let’s not make this discussion personal. Especially in the context of responding to a poster who talks about one side of the argument as not having a firm grip on reality.
And now that Ibn Warraq’s warning has been reduced to a mod note, that would make things consistent.
says the person who replied only to make that comment that adds nothing to the discussion.
You seem to have missed my point (especially since I just reversed a call in part due to feedback from posters). My point is that in many cases interpretations of the same posts by different people, whether mods or posters, will differ, so that some people will always perceive inconsistency in the results.
While we don’t moderate according to popular vote, saying that we don’t pay any attention to criticism doesn’t reflect the facts either. I have reversed a number of warnings before this one in response to feedback, as have many other mods.
Nothing personal, I was just trying out the non-insult insult concept. Not sure if I got it right.
as was I 
Not me. I have a perfect record!
Maybe I should quit while I’m ahead.
Hey, you’ll be called out for not issuing warnings as well, so you might as well put that truncheon to good use!
Even though simster redacted the usernames, the quotes still link to the original thread.
Yep. He cant be. I see nothing wrong with that post. In some threads, it could be worthy of a Note, depending on how much off track it had gotten.
He got a truncheon? All I got was a squid.