So "ammosexual" is a sexually offensive word now?

You should look up the “positive gun news” thread.
(And the moderation in it)

TL;DR — Yes.

Why would one need to sexualize their argument to make a valid point?

Sorry, that thread is 1900+ posts long, and it’s not a thread I’ve been following. I took a quick look and didn’t spot any moderation immediately. Note also, that thread goes back to vBulletin days, when mod notes weren’t highlighted with a yellow background. Perhaps you could point us to some cases in point?

If that was me I did it because I am very, very unclear on what is ok in this regard on this message board.

I did it to err on the safe side. I don’t need to give mods more reason to hate me.

If not me the point still stands.

Personally, I think context matters.

Yes, you, and that is very much my point too.

One facet that’s a bit non-intuitive is that ExTank, while seeming to embrace the term ammosexual as descriptive of himself, was applauding the actions of the Justice Department. Meanwhile, the sneering tone of the OP’s usage seems to suggest that the ammosexuals “having a field day” decidedly do NOT share ExTank’s view (which is why I felt that at least a few examples would have been in order).

In fact, it’s the sneering tone in and of itself that made the OP better suited for the Pit, and I would not be shocked to learn that that was what got up ExTank’s nose. His response was definitely Pit material, though.

Hey everybody, I’m shutting down for the night. So if anyone has anything more to say here, I’ll catch up with y’all on the morrow.

I hope we will get some response from some mods. I’d really like to get some clarity of just what got up the mods’ noses there.

Yup. My initial thought was to toss the thing into the pit. But then I reconsidered, and instead closed the thread and suggested posters might want to start a new thread that actually welcomed discussion, rather than just hurl sexualized invective around.

I did discuss it with another mod before doing anything more than temp-locking it.

I’m a gun enthusiast. I suppose I find the term mildly insulting. But I’m a big boy, and can take it. I see no reason for a mod to get involved.

My $0.02 is not that the initial term was too insulting to bear, but that the OP’s closing line, including the term in question, was very out of character for the forum. If it was breaking news, it felt like a political jab. If it was a debate about why the gun boards were up in arms, it should have included links and or quotes as well as being framed as a debate. It reads almost, but not quite like a rant, so it could have been in the Pit.

IANAM, but as it was, I would probably have noted it along the lines above - no political jabs in (what appears to be) breaking news. Or I would have considering the last line and the (to me, IMHO) somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment about the ‘accused’, and moved it to the Pit.

It was a sub-par OP, and invited @ExTank to consider it well and truly poisoned. Which he responded to by dropping down to it’s perceived level. Closing the thread with no direct moderation to all involved, and inviting a more nuanced thread was probably the most neutral thing to do.

ETA - as for what I think the OP meant by up in arms and ExTank’s analysis of why the arrests were, if anything, supporting the pro-gun argument, it’s ATMB, and not appropriate to argue here.

Disagree on both counts. I can’t say whether it was a good fit for that particular forum, but it was certainly not Pit worthy. And there was no sexualized invective.

Heh, the way it looks to me, as kaylasdad99 observed, nearwildheaven’s OP suffered from the greater fault of failing to express an actual opinion or commentary of their own about the news item, other than just throwing out an offhand derisive term about who were talking about it elsewhere. Heck, not even any indication of what was the “field day” about, just that “the ammosexuals” were having one. That could have merited some finger wagging on its own.

Ex-Tank’s response then bracketed a valid response to the news item in between two passages going full nuke in reaction to the OP derision.

Pit or close, I’d say – and I can see how “close” would prevail since the OP looked like it was half about the news item and half about what was going on with other people in other forums outside this board.

(And I must say… isn’t the whole “guns are a way to compensate sexual inadequacy” range of tropes just tired by now? Maybe that should be brought up in the existing threads…)

It is deeply offensive and should have been modded earlier and more often.

Implying that a hunter or a cop or a Olympic shooter or a collector gets a sexual thrill from their tools or collection is offensive.

Yes, we have had that. We also used to have racist posts, misogynist posts and posts that spread hate about trans people.

Sure. They also have “n***er”. Many offensive words are well established.

Right. Look there is no reason to insult everyone that owns a gun by implying they get sexual gratifications from it. I got mod-noted once for implying the same for people with big pickup trucks , and they were right to do so.

Car enthusiasts should not be insulted by implying they get sexual kicks from their high performance cars, etc.

Exactly.

Specifically, it was Facebook, and the “Since criminals don’t follow gun laws, let’s just eliminate all gun laws” (and they’re serious) or the people who say they’re afraid Biden’s gonna come and take their guns (never mind that Obama didn’t do it either) came out of the woodwork.

Folks, if you’re afraid someone’s going to break down your door and confiscate your firearms, you probably shouldn’t be bragging on social media that you have them.

Suggested substitute: “Gundamentalists”?

Darn, and I’ve been thinking about introducing “petrosexuals” to define the folks who are attached to fossil fuels.

You’d be wrong. If ammosexual is close to anything, it’d be metrosexual.

A gun nut. The idea is that the gun nuts get a sexual thrill from handling, owning, buying, or thinking about guns. It’s a joke, a mild put-down.

As an aside, has anybody ever seen anybody pictured holding up their Black and Decker cordless drill?

But is it really beyond the pale to suggest that (say) Thomas Massie has a gun fetish?

Waaah!! Ma religious liberty!