(courtesy troll-me.com)

Earlier today, I blogged Zack Beauchamp’s op-ed Ban the Second Amendment. Most of our commentators dissected Beauchamp’s arguments with intelligence, insight and wit. Some reacted to Beauchamp’s civilian disarmament agenda by attacking him personally, including remarks about the Brown grad’s skinny jeans and simple instructions on putting things where the sun doesn’t shine. In the past, this website has allowed these sorts of comments to stand. After Shannon Watts and the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence used some vulgar TTAG comments to pillory and mischaracterize gun rights advocates we altered our comment policy to remove ad hominem attacks from the comments section. This new, stricter policy – designed to deny the enemies of gun rights ammunition for their campaign of civilian disarmament – remains in effect. I apologize to those who feel hamstrung by the new rules but there are plenty of firearms websites that welcome unfiltered spleen venting. This is not one of them.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

301 COMMENTS

  1. 1. Get rid of the comments section.
    2. Lock the dirty comments and add a TTAG comment of “message not approved” or whatever, or “you have been warned.”

    The corrective punishment of editing comments is what Moms would do, and that smacks of paternalism and “holier than thou” attitude.

    • Wellllll. I don’t know if it’s good or bad. We are fighting for our 2A rights. What about the rest of them.

      • Private spaces have different rules than public ones – which gets tricky on the internet, since it’s private money hosting the site while allowing entirely public access.

        I’d call this a case of “For the Greater Good” – but in RF’s opinion explicitly – (to avoid various barrels of worms inherent in that phrase) and as the owner/operator of this site that is absolutely his choice to make.

      • Hell, I believe in all of our Bill of Rights … uh Rights also. But the 1st Amendment guarantees you that the Government will make no law to suppress your right to free speech; it does not guarantee you that you can use someone else’s platform for your free expression. RF and the other TTAG mods have the right to determine which speech they want to represent them, us, our ideals.

        Want to guarantee you may always express your right to free speech? Start your own blog. But you might have to start your own internet server company also. Or, stand on any street corner and talk. Invite me and I might come and listen, or not.

    • 1) Locking the comments section would make TTAG as bad as the anti-2A sites we so frequently complain about.
      2) Blocking, deleting or editing comments would stifle participation in this dialogue
      3) Either or both of the above would quickly kill what has become the Premiere pro-Second Amendment and Pro-gun web blog on the Internet.

      If a commenter cannot write a reasonable and rational thought about the topic and/or person under discussion they should probably self-censor and not post a comment at all. The point here is to make a strong counter-argument or to add some new insight into the discussion, not just throw bombs.

      • there is a difference between discussion and attacks. Since Robert is only talking about deleting/restricting childish immature attacks, I would totally agree with it. If you aren’t going to contribute to the discussion then shut up and let the adults speak.

        Hate to be the one to point out also… but ” this website has allowed these sorts of comments to stand. After Shannon Watts and the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence used some vulgar TTAG comments to pillory and mischaracterize gun rights advocates we altered our comment policy to remove ad hominem attacks from the comments section”
        I’m not sure they can mischaracterize *CERTAIN* advocates considering the ones that were/are posting those sorts of things ARE posting like children and are of a certain type of character. You can delete the messages all you want, but there are still those people that will never be helpful with the gun rights debate.

      • I disagree. Blocking, deleting or editing comments would ONLY stifle participation by those who cannot construct a respectful counter argument or response. Do we really need those to begin with? Um… no.

        • Heavily in agreement there. If the person cannot pose an argument without mentioning someone’s skinny jeans, or even mentioning his sexual preferences as some form of derogatory inference, then we need their participation like the Titanic needed the iceberg. They are more likely to sink our cause than help it.

    • If you get rid of the comment section then you make TTAG more like MDA since they never let you comment on their YouTube videos and they censor anyone who has an opposing message on their facebook or twitter or their own forums.

    • You couldn’t be more wrong. You are posting on TTAG as a guest of the site and by doing so you choose to abide by their rules. If one cannot make a point without resorting to ad hominem attacks, flaming, trolling and deviating fromt he topic one cannot take part in the discussion. There is no freedom of speech in a private forum.
      TTAG censoring specific comments is perfectly fine and much better than disallowing ALL comments.

  3. ‘Help! Help! I’m being repressed!’

    I understand the thought, but since no one cares about Shannon Whatever (except Dirk) I don’t see why that should ruin skinny-jeans comments (anything suggesting violence or something like that… or even racist\bigoted stuff- is a different story in my mind).

    I wonder how many links TTAG gets from MDA and the other way around… maybe some people come here from their site and get a little education?

      • I don’t believe I was quoted before other than noting her home address and MDA’s corporate address shared some commonality. . . . .

        • Lucas – it took me 2 min using google.. . . not that well kept a secret. And frankly, I was NOT looking for her home info – just how/where they were incorporated. then it looked like a residential address, went to google maps, and voila. . . .

      • Fair enough. I suppose it’s not worth it but I still wonder how many people came here thinking they’d see a bunch of crazy rednecks being racist gun-toting morons and instead saw that there was another side to things.

        But maybe I’m an optimist.

        • You are. When people go looking for something they find it. If you set out to prove something exists you will inevitably find only evidence that supports your assumption. Like all those “research groups” that go looking for Bigfoot, and then come back with hours of tape of trees with “strange sounds” in the background and say, “we didn’t find him this time but we think we are close.”

      • I have to wonder why their audience’s comments about us, which often include threats of violence, are not making the mainstream media.

        Seems like that’s where we should be focusing our efforts.

        Their use of our comments feels like bullying to me …

        Dennis Miller interviews Ben Shapiro, author of “Bullies: How the left’s culture of fear and intimdation silences Americans”
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz_BHbXoKM

        • “I have to wonder why their audience’s comments about us, which often include threats of violence, are not making the mainstream media.”

          You do? I don’t wonder about it for a second. I know.

        • well of course I know, but … we are better and smarter than they are!

          there is no reason we could not or should not work to find a way to get those sorts of comments, which show their poor character and lack of honor, broadcast widely.

          maybe sending those of us that are “supposed” to belong to their side out to do some “productive trolling” so that we can then get their threats and “misogyny” and “racism” documented and into the story much more often.

          obviously no one cares about threats to old fat white men with guns. but women and minorities they might listen to.

        • I’d say something about tinfoil hats, but in reality I reckon it’s mostly that revenue and outside-influenced operating budgets have very little to generating, you know, news.

          As proof I point to NPR -and no, they’re not perfect, but they’re a damn sight more informative than Faux, MSNBC and CNN put together. Why? Because they exist to provide news via facts and increased availability of impartial information and are crowd-funded (beat ya by decades, Kick-Starter!) for that explicit objective rather than to sell sh!t and french fries (and beer, and cars, and insurance, and pills, etc., etc.)

          I’d go so far as to call on Robert Farago to aim for some interviews on Talk of the Nation or even Science Friday – where our valid, data-driven arguments have the highest chance of acceptance among a group of customers/consumers that hold a somewhat outsize influence on our society (mostly due to income and intelligence demographics as related to achievement).

        • Luckily most of the people who make violent comments on the internet are nothing but basement-dwelling keyboard commandos so it’s not necessary to pay them too much heed.

        • Right, but think about it: just like they use our comments to character-assassinate us we could certainly use their far more vulger, more violent comments to character-assassinate them.

          We really do not do this enough! And worse still … it’s ~all~ they understand!! Either we stand up to their bullying or we are doormats.

        • I think you are on to something Mina.

          See my post in the Forum in General Discussion about spreading the word on TTAG.

      • …which nobody, except the involved parties, actually reads anymore.
        People saying mean things on the internet doesn’t affect policy anymore than….well, rational, well thought out blogging does, come to think of it.

        • That’s very true but when you get folks like Shannon pulling the comments out of context and wave them around in front of people sympathetic to her cause, you get outrage.

          Now, on the other hand, I have seen outrage and petitions and calls for a blog to be removed/shut down and the men there gave them all the hand wave from under the chin. It was admirable.

          However they didn’t have the outcome of any major public policy that might affect them hanging in the balance,either.

      • silly question, but how come we don’t play their game and publish screen shots of the violent threats from their members on their message boards. .. . just saying

      • I agree with you, RF. Ad Hominem Attacks should be dropped into the toilet, and flushed. We can do much, much better.

  4. I agree with the policy. I used to do those things in the past, but it’s the internet. Meh. Lol.
    It’s your blog, boss. Use it when you…I mean, you make the rules.

    of course I didn’t confuse this with a JG Wentworth commercial…

  5. We hope to be the Knights in shining copper-plated armor for Rights of the People of the Gun.

    Righteous, intelligent, and … maybe a bit less entertaining now. Ah, well, can’t have all three on this particular corner of the interbutt because of dainty sensibilities on behalf of Moms and their use of all the tools in the toolbox. Slippery slope, etc., although I’m definitely not the one figuring out how to pay for bandwidth.

    Alright, RF, I guess we should keep the pointy bits out of reach of overgrown children. But in this case it’s for our own good instead of theirs. Or something.

  7. On the one hand, good. But… on the other hand, those idiotic, hate-filled comments are, in fact, representative of a not insignificant segment of the gun owning populace, otherwise they wouldnt’t be here, nes pa?

    I prefer shaming, but I understand your POV, RF.

    • I would think we want those people to come here and read and learn from reasonable comments, not necessarily pollute the environment with flames and ad hominems. There are plenty of places on the Internet where you can go and just vent your spleen regarding someone you don’t like, but if you cannot explain in rational language WHY you don’t like them, their opinions or their policies then you are just a bigot.

      If you are not up to the task of making a cogent comment or argument, please refrain from commenting at all. JMHO.

      • Antis only come here for one reason and it’s NOT to learn about how their point of view might be wrong.
        Once they realize there are no more comments that they can use to disparage us to be found here, they won’t come here anymore…..

        • I think you’re wrong about that. If anything, they’re persistent. They’ve been at this anti-gun stuff since Prohibition was a thing.

        • They might come here more frequently because by (potentially) increasing the “politically correct” dialog, they will feel more welcome. In other words this policy has the potential (mind my word there, again – potential) to give them the feeling that they can “feel safe” … which is one of their watch phrases for oppressing free speech/truth/etc.

          Everyone knows my feelings on this point, I won’t beat the dead horse. At the end of the day only time will tell.

    • “n’est past”, unless you’re denying my existence. But then, you don’t know me well enough to word it like that.

    • I don’t think shaming is a valid technique on an anonymous internet forum.

      Also, shaming only works on people who are capable of feeling shame. People who are comfortable making nasty racist comments in public probably don’t fall into that category.

    • Keep in mind that there are millions and millions of gun owners that don’t read TTAG, and I’m sure there are many folks who read TTAG but do not make comments.

      The portion of gun owners who make comments on this site is bound to be relatively small, and not necessarily representative of gun owners as a whole. Unfortunately, a relatively high percentage of the folks who comment on the internet (not just regarding guns, but regarding everything) resort to name-calling on a regular basis.

      And as already mentioned, shaming doesn’t seem to work on the relatively anonymous internet.

  8. And I thought our parents told us never to care what others think of us. Now we care what people who despise us think of us? lol.

    • Yes, we do, because those who despise is are trying to influence those who don’t. Or don’t yet.

      They can’t win based on the merits of their argument? So all they can do is try to turn people against us personally by painting us all as racist misogynists.

      Problem is, sometimes they’re right.

      • I’m going to run for office next election requiring a license (and substantial fees) for the privilege of exercising significant stupidity.

        Or maybe that’s not a good idea …

        It’s unfortunate that the Moms use comments that for the most part are ignored here due to obvious trolling or bigotry. Seeing as this is a very high traffic site (relatively speaking), I reckon it’s about due for increased moderation if the hands-on approach has been deemed the mo betta way.

        P.S.
        I’ll miss your loving interludes, Dirk.

      • They might have said something like that, but I was a rebellious child.

        RF and crew are free to edit things as they see fit. I think some humor helps, though. After all, we don’t want to end up like those assholes, do we?

    • I said get rid of the comments section because one of the mods said that he’s annoyed because he has to read and moderate impolite comments.

      If the mods don’t want to deal with it, then I would relieve them of their responsibilities in some manner.

      • You misunderstood. I wasn’t annoyed that I have to moderate impolite comments. I was annoyed (as a reader) that I had to read impolite comments. If the comment sections end up consisting of just a bunch of ad hominems about (in the thread linked above, for instance) stupid hipsters with stupid glasses and stupid skinny jeans, then people who have actual opinions and things to say are going to be less interested in reading and contributing, and are eventually going to go away, and be replaced by more people who have nothing to say but to make fun of stupid hipsters in stupid glasses and stupid skinny jeans.

        Do you read/visit ar15.com? Do you know that there’s an entire population over there who don’t ever enter General Discussion? I’m one of them. I might hit GD once or twice a year. The reason is that anything goes there, and so the stupid bullshit generally far outweighs anything of value. That’s great for some people, but I don’t have time for that. I do not want the comments here to turn into Facebook or arfcom GD.

        • Blasting hipsters isn’t very productive, I’ll give you that, but in turn you must concede that they are kinda asking for it. I never understood why bullies do what they do, until I saw a guy with a handlebar mustache tattooed on his finger and realized a simple wedgie could have solved both of our problems in an instant.

        • yah they are a bunch of poopy heads over there.
          Nyaaah nyahhh. 45 caliber poopyheads, to be precise.

          PS Glocks rule. 1911s drool.

        • You only hit ar15.com a few times a year. Bro, you’ve got some catching up to do. Let me help you out. Somebody distilled the last 42 month’s worth into relatively compact form. Since electrons are free and we all agree with RF’s policy, and with complete copywrite and credit to RobbAllen.com: And NOBODY could blame me for interjecting useful information in the middle of a thread about ‘flaming.’ Really.

          Your gun sucks and you’re holding it wrong.
          That caliber is ineffective. You would do better to pick something bigger.
          That caliber is too big / expensive. You would do better with a smaller caliber that is cheaper and gives you higher capacity.
          I am not a lawyer, I have never argued a case, and in fact I tend to get confused when watching Matlock, but if you do not follow my legal advice to the T you will spend the rest of your life behind bars and that’s after you get the lethal injection while sitting on the chair.
          Unless a cop hands you the ammunition from his gun, you will go to prison forever should you be forced to shoot someone in self-defense.
          Your gun sucks because it’s not the same gun that every cop in the tri-state area uses and cops only use the best.
          You have the same gun as the cops? No wonder it sucks. They only have that gun because they got them in a bulk discount, not because it was a good gun.
          The difference in grip angles between your gun and mine, which can only be measured using a protractor that uses scientific notation to denote the degrees, shows why you gun sucks and is probably why you’re holding it wrong.
          The instructor for that gun class you took wasn’t in Iraq and didn’t operate with the operatingest operators and thus any training you got was worthless.
          The instructor for that gun class you took was in Iraq and the techniques he taught you are not valid for civilians and thus you wasted your money.
          Your gun sucks and you’re holding it wrong.
          You’re holding your head too high.
          You’re not holding your head high enough.
          You shoot like a girl.
          You wish you could shoot like a girl.
          My degree is in office management and the closest I have ever come to any sort of formal, physics training was that one time I lost the remote and had to watch an episode of Nova, but let me explain in nauseating detail why a 1:9 twist rate on an 18” barrel is insufficient for the bullet weight you have selected.
          Shot placement is everything. Unless you’re shooting what I shoot, which kills instantly even if it’s just a graze across the thigh.
          Shooting USPSA / IDPA will get you killed in a real gun fight.
          Not shooting competition means you don’t have what it takes to survive a gun fight because you won’t be accustomed to shooting under pressure.
          The best way to survive a gun fight is to either not get in a gun fight, or follow the 18 paragraphs of advice I just doled out.
          The length of your guide rod is wrong.
          Unless you use this exact lubricant, made of purified fat from virgin baby seals, your gun will rust between shots and that’s if it doesn’t seize up on you first.
          My father’s next door neighbor’s son knew a guy who thought about going to Police Academy, plus I’ve been pulled over numerous times; thus I know the law inside and out and you can’t do what you’ve already done a hundred times before and here’s the law, 706.2 HB Subsection D paragraph 4 that is about penalties for failing to pick up after your dog.
          Let me deduce your every problem by the one blurry picture you posted along with your description which suffered a dangling participle and several typos. Don’t argue with me because I am using the vast physics knowledge I obtained by reviewing MacGyver reruns frame by frame.
          The way you carry your gun is wrong.
          The way you do your politics about guns is wrong.
          I took my AR out to the range, hit the edge of the target at 100 yards TWICE and thus the only accurate configuration is mine. Unless you have the exact hand guard, butt stock, front sight post and each and every aftermarket accoutrement that I do, you will not achieve the same accuracy. Plus, you’re holding the rifle wrong.
          Your trigger, in a configuration that would make both Heisenberg and Schrödinger cry, is simultaneously too light for a carry gun and too heavy to be accurate.
          Lab tests using Jell-O prove that this particular bullet, with a round flat hollow point low-ogive nose is better than yours, which doesn’t have the low-ogive. Plus, shooting Jell-O is as close to real life as you can get.

          And finally
          Your gun sucks. An you’re holding it wrong.

          • I believe that sums it up pretty well.

            To be clear, I’m on arfcom all the time. I just spend all my time in the Florida Hometown forum and the Spike’s Tactical forum, with occasional sojourns to the Springfield Armory, SIG Sauer, and a couple other manufacturer fora.

        • ropingdown, that was entertaining. And strange.

          Matt, I absolutely agree. The impolite comments are not just a waste of bandwidth and time, but they are detrimental to a site in the long term. The more crap like that appears at a site, the less likely people who have something useful to contribute will post, resulting in an even worse signal-to-noise ratio that simply drives good folks away.

          P.S. Thanks for the work you do moderating here.

        • thanks roping- too funny!

          and ++ to Matt in FL.

          Thanks for the unsung hero work here in comments,
          and the Daily Digest too.

    • Moving the comments to Disqus would probably help a lot, on all fronts.

      TTAG can distance themselves from the commentary, because it’s third party, and the moderating is much easier using that system.

        • It could be useful for providing some separation between TTAG and the commenting body, though. Maybe re-look at it given that context and what you’re trying to accomplish with the “censoring” (whatever you want to call it … moderation.)

          Remember that a typical tactic of the left, and one we could leverage ourselves is “Disqus is a separate community and separate system – we are not responsible for the commentary from that system”. We all know it’s BS but it’s what they do … and doing what they do means we do it to them in a way they understand. Just thinking out loud here.

          • Personally, I’d rather own it than blame it on someone else. If someone doesn’t like the way things are done, I’d want them to take it up with me. If that resulted in them leaving, so be it, but I’d still prefer that to blaming it on a third party.

            An analogy that just occurred to me is the businesses that have free wifi, but block certain sites like TTAG. The vast majority of them (I’d bet upwards of 98%) do so because someone “somewhere else” set the policy, or they pay someone to administer their system. What that means to me, as a consumer who can’t read TTAG while eating in their restaurant, is that there’s no one for me to really complain to, and thus no chance of getting the system changed. If it was the store manager (or even a regional or district manager) making the call, I’d feel like I could plead my case and maybe get the restriction lifted.

            I want someone to be able to complain to the management. Just the other day, someone wrote Robert an angry email about his comment getting moderated. (It was one that ran afoul of the “questioning TTAG’s editorial stance or style” thing.) Robert explained exactly why he did it in response, and the guy came back with, “OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.” See how much better that worked than if Robert had just said “Disqus thought it was bad” ?

        • yeah, I agree. it does go both ways. one of the essential differences between the left and the right: the left loves institutions and faceless, 3rd party assistance the right appreciates the simple one on one interaction of real people.

          I do get it. it’s a tough call. this is a major crossroad, I think in general.

        • OK guys, I really do need to weigh in on this blocking thing. One of my sundry duties in a former life was blocking email based on filtering keywords and terms. Granted, I did this to try to keep sensitive information off the Internet as well as keeping Susie the Secretary down the hall from seeing an unfortunate/inadvertent turn of phrase and wetting her chair.

          We tried looking at canned filters (i.e., word lists) and found they were too restrictive for our line of work, which also involved guns and airplanes and stuff at times. Most filters come with anything gun- or weapon- or violence-related blocked out of the box so, as I’m sure is the case here, a LOT of “eyeballs on it” and “hand work” is required.

          I think RF and the other mods are doing a good job of keeping things from getting out of hand. Keep the filters as they are. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

        • The other thing to consider would be 3rd party applications that allow other users to mark users’ comments as offensive.

          Then you wouldn’t need to monitor quite so closely, just respond to the offense of the readers as needed.

          Best of both worlds.

        • One other minor point about Disqus that I dont recall coming up last go-round-
          if you end up porting all your commenters info to a third party, they own it, and if someone like Google or Fakebook decides to buy Disqus, which is the exit strategy for a lot of these various apps, then-

          any trust (?) and content, and all your personal info goes someplace else.

          I know I know- anyone can really figure out what is where, who said this or that if you have Google or NSAs capability, but so far I trust Robert and Nick and Matt are too busy to bother and by the way, we have nothing to hide anyway*…

          Its just that I hate being aggregated and cross referenced and spammed more than I already am, and I get nothing from Disqus now, that I need, but occasional aggravation when I cant log on at other sites, which tends to lead me to blow them off in disgust.

          YMMV.

          * ” These are not the droids you are looking for…Move along. “

      • Ha! Disqus. AKA “Dis Sucks”.

        As I recall, when that idea was floated by the management last year, a lot of long-time commenters here basically said “Hey, it’s your site, but I think I’ll find somewhere else to play.”

      • Disqus is a bad idea. It has many problems but my biggest beef with it is the privacy issue. When I come to TTAG and I want to say something, if TTAG has its own comment system, I can be relatively confident that apart from some exigent circumstances, my privacy will be relatively well cared for. If TTAG would use Disqus, then anything that I might say on TTAG via Disqus will be tracked and crossreferenced with anything I might have said using Disqus on other sites. That’s when third parties aren’t exploiting Disqus to compromise the privacy of the commenters using Disqus: http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/36125/disqus-may-not-have-been-hacked-but-it-was-certainly-exploited/

        If you think Disqus is awesome, it’s your choice, but I think Disqus is a bad idea that has little to no upside whatsoever.

        • Note that my specific suggestion was to use in order to provide separate between TTAG and the commenting content. This is a trick of the left and they understand it. It was just an idea offset of course by the loss of personal interaction between the site mods and the commenters which would probably be a net negative.

          The other thing will note vis avis Disqus: I myself maintain a Facebook, Disqus and Google+ account in my alias, Mina Smith. They are totally separated from my real person for a lot of reasons, not the least of which it is how my husband wants it due to the nature of his business, the time I spend online and the type of content that I pay attention to and comment on. Everyone should have an alias they keep seperate from their real person, IMO.

        • @Mina (I don’t know why your post didn’t have the reply link)
          I get the insulation angle, but I don’t think it would make much of a diffrence for people wanting to find faults even where there are none. Moreover, it would remove a lot of control from the site’s admins. I consider it to be a lose-lose choice even when taking only this aspect into consideration.

          But the privacy aspect is more important anyway. Using an alias is the only sane option, of course. But that’s not enough. You would need a different alias on each Disqus-enabled site. How many people do you think have the discipline to do that? Secondly, even if you have an alias for each site, are you careful with the browser cookies when moving among the various Disqus-enabled sites that you comment on? How many people are technically-savvy enoough and anal-retentive enough to do that? I would venture a guess that instead of going through all the trouble of doing that, they either give up on their privacy (which is a bad personal choice) or they give up on commenting (which is a bad choice for the communities that could gain something from more debate).

        • I don’t have different Disqus accounts for all of my various places I post but there is no identifying information in my Disqus account to link to me personally … having a different account for every system would be totally unwieldy although secure. I am not quite that paraoid.

          Interesting idea though.

          Big picture is righties like a personal interaction with other people … lefties like to interact with institutions. The admins here seem to like having the intimate one and one and the commenters seem to like it too. It was just an idea I was throwing out there.

  10. Gosh and golly-gee, I just want to say that I’m so glad we’re allowing Shannon Watts and her organization to set the precedence for our behavior here. A simple “no bigoted/lewd/sexual comments or blatant profanity” rule usually gets it done, but then we wouldn’t be sucking up to our sworn enemies quite so obsequiously, now would we?

    • “A simple “no bigoted/lewd/sexual comments or blatant profanity” rule usually gets it done”

      That’s effectively the same thing, and really the thrust of things, I think. I’m certainly not going to take the time to moderate/edit every skinny jeans comment.

      • I think you should loosen up on the skinny jeans. Or drop them entirely.

        Now that’s some seriously funny stuff right there.

      • Oh. RF’s wording makes it sound like anything other than well-researched critiques and properly annotated, academic rebuttals will be zapped. I can understand doing away with comments that are nothing more than crudely and artlessly flaming people, but some of the wordplay that gets tossed around against clowns like Pierce Morgan and Michael Moore is frankly rather hilarious, and I’d hate to see it get flushed down the same commode as the flatly insulting stuff.

        • I don’t think you’ll see that being an issue. Subjective rules are subjective, of course, and humans are prone to variability, but I think questionable things would be decided in the favor of permissiveness. At least they would for me.

        • I think it goes like this-

          you cant say you ARE a Pierced Organ.
          You can say, you are acting like a typical Pierced Organ.

          Without being repressed- wait-
          isnt there some Monty Python line that applies, to Brits?

  11. A blog without comments is like a meal without salt. I think we are quite capable of meaningful comment without resorting to schoolyard insults.

  13. kind of a shame. one of the best parts of this place in the past has been the ridiculous a$$-hattery circus in the comments section on some of the stories here. most of the time it’s more entertaining than the blog post.

    • ya, I kinda miss MikeBnumbers – but to be fair, it was so easy…
      we need to attract a higher class of Troll/SockPuppet to make it more challenging.

  14. My apologies Robert for some of my postings to individuals in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns thread.

  15. Robert, your website – your rules. End of conversation.

    I don’t see this being a big deal. It leaves commenting on TTAG pretty much still wide open.

  16. I’ll do my part to keep things sophisticated and educational. From now on, all my ad hominems will be written in classical Greek and heavily footnoted.

      • The Romans borrowed most of the sophisticated parts of their culture from the Greeks. Educated Romans spoke Greek, though some felt it was diluting their own heritage.

        • Don’t dismiss the Romans so much. First of all, the Romans had plenty of their own culture, amazing gladiator games, aqueducts, and a military far superior to the pissant Greeks. Secondly, some of the worst emperors were greek lovers (Nero, Caligula). A civilization cannot be ruled by poetry, art and theater alone. The Greeks have always been too proud of themselves, even today when their country is a financial mess, but they’re not the center of the university, and it would be unjust to ignore amazing Roman minds like Cato and Seneca. I do give the greeks credit for Socrates (but not Plato) who influenced Ayn Rand which allowed her to create objectivism. But beyond that, I’m a bigger fan of the Romans, Even today military schools study the tactics of Julius Caesar during his war in Galia (France), that goes to show the staying power of their ideas.

        • I also admire the Romans far above the Greeks. Their achievements in engineering, government, military tactics and strategy, and pretty much every practical matter they turned their minds to are staggering. They laid the foundations for the modern world. There are a great many parallels between the history of the Roman Republic and the American Republic, including what looks suspiciously like a gradual change to an empire.

          I don’t admire the gladiators that much, though. Not for their courage, which I would never deny, but for the use of the games as a means to distract the public from the problems of the day. Combine the modern welfare state with a combination of reality TV shows and the NFL, and you have another parallel, bread and circuses.

          And just since I find myself commenting right next to Hannibal about the Romans… we’re not actually brothers.

        • I’m not taking sides here, but the architects of the most famous buildings in classical Rome were Greeks. The emperor Claudius wrote his history of the Romans in Greek. The emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote his well-known works in Greek. Anthony conversed with Cleopatra in Greek. In the history of the Roman Empire, and after it split, the Western Roman Empire, Rome produced not a single mathematician of note.

          Now on the positive side Romans entrenched the cultural value of getting away to one’s country villa as often as possible, thus influencing the British. And while Rome, Italians, still take after Greeks financially, the Italians produce better cars, clothing, and bunga bunga parties, or so it is said.

  17. How’s that saying go…better to close our mouths and let them think we are a bunch of misogynistic racists than open the comment section and prove it?

    • Pointing out logical or factual inaccuracies of writers or commenter? Awesome.

      Taking issue with someone’s opinion in a constructive and / or polite manner? Absolutely.

      Only text of the comment is “Your mother was a hampster and your father smells of elderberries!” ? Deleted.

      Take issue with comments. Take issue with TTAG’s writers and staff. Question everything. But don’t resort to ad homenim attacks.

      • Quoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail long after it stopped being amusing is cause enough for deletion, to be honest.

        And quoting Austin Powers demands nothing less than a public flogging.

        • In all seriousness, Monty Python humor is kinda hard to pull of. Americans generally dislike Brits and more than half of the internets users are too young to have heard about it.

          So if you try it with an American audience or an audience born after 1970 you are most likely to get puzzled looks.

        • Oh, no, no, no, don’t get me wrong; I love me some Monty Python, but like you say, once it gets turned into a meme, even the funniest joke on the planet start to taste like ashes in the mouth because it keeps getting repeated by people who don’t understand why it’s funny.

          But Austin Powers, on the other hand, wasn’t even that great before it got quoted to death. There, I said it, and I’ll say it again.

        • You like to insult Austin Powers?

          I, too, like to live dangerously.

          Also, Monty Python is timeless, especially when you do your civic duty to pass on knowledge of firearms and Monty Python to the younger generation.

    • As long as we’re allowed to mock the trolls I’m good.

      Okay, but don’t say a word about their pants.

  19. Feel free to delete any of my comments, anytime, without hard feeling.

    I have a sick sense of humor, a problem with authority, and I like running my mouth off, it won’t be the first time I’ve been told to STFU.

  21. I agree with the TTAG policy. If we can not show the falsies, illogical, and out right unconstitutional points by our appoints without stooping to their level, then we are not doing our jobs. We have logic, history, truth and the constitution on our side. What do they?

  22. I appreciate what TTAG’s doing. Adults should be able to leave comments without using rude/crude/profane/destructive words but as it can be seen, some can’t. A year or 2 ago it was common to see comments debasing women and serious profanity along with sexual ads to the right. Although I loved this site and there was so much good information on it I felt I couldn’t share TTAG as a resource to my female students due to the fact that not many women would look past the comments to the information. Fortunately more than just I had complained (women are the fastest growing demographic in the world of guns) and TTAG requested that comments be cleaner and more respectful of women and it happened. I tell every CCW class I teach about this website. It’s full of information and witty as all get out! I love TTAG. This will benefit TTAG’s readers (as well as frustrate some) and ultimately help the 2A gain supporters.

  23. A bit of a double edged sword isn’t it? I mean we dislike the fact that anti-rights groups disable/delete comments on their own posts/videos and we call them out on it. How are we any better if we start doing it ourselves?

    On the other hand getting rid of some stupid/ignorant comments isn’t bad either.

    • Antis disable comments because they know that their statements and beliefs aren’t capable of standing up to any actual analysis or application of facts, and they’d lose in any fact based debate. That’s the one thing we want to encourage here: analysis, application of facts, and thorough debate.

      We aren’t shutting off the comments. We’re just trimming off the comments that make gun owners look bad while adding nothing to the discussion. You’re free to voice your opinion as long as you do it in a respectful manner.

      It’s a slippery slope, I agree, but I think if we keep that purpose of encouraging open debate in mind we’ll stay in the right.

      • As a group of conciensous keepers and bearers of arms in our society, often viewed by those of misunderstanding as arbitrary and concave in regard, we must realize we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than their name calling and deleting of “Articulate” debate and victory.

        I have been banned from sites because they can not rebut my facts, and then they make stuff up then ban you and delete your comments.

        What the editors of this site hope, surely, is that we realize the importance of the image we portray and that we should rememeber to portray ourselves in a genuine and possitive way. Not out of dishonesty and subversion, but that of genuine uprightness.

        When you are truely a good person, even your enemies will shake your hand when they can find no fault in you..

      • Well my neighbour usually told me “if you are shaking hands with your enemy you either messed up or are going to mess him up”. I do agree though, we do need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.I was just playing Devils Advocate.

        • Sometimes those who are in the dark about a good life lived can only be ledto a good life by those possessing the light.

          If the light that is in you is darkness, then your life is Darkness.

          When I light a candle, I do not put it in the cubboard or closet.

        • That was…good. Philosophical and demanding that the reader thinks, instead of just showing everything.

          Hat is off to you.

        • Thank you very much.

          It’s not how many books you read, it’s how well you understand the most important one. ; )

          When I speak, those who understand, well… understand.

          (tipping my hat in return)

      • When I was a kid there were some fellas from the Old Country(R)who would sometimes shake your hand. Trouble was that there was sometimes a .38 in the other one. Later you went for a dip in Canarsie or Fresh Kill.

  24. We are the Armed Intelligentsia. We can win these battles when we present articulate arguments but I must admit, sometimes FOAD is the first response I come up with when presented with some of the imbecilic arguments presented by out opponents.

  26. For the folks upset by the new policy…is it really that hard to contradict anti-gun beliefs with intelligence and decorum? We get angry when they come on our page with disparaging remarks about what kind of mindless neanderthals we must be to cling to our God and our guns. Should we not hold ourselves to the standards we are asking of them? If not, we sink ourselves to the level of name calling and vitriol we bash them for everyday. Is it too much to ask to put thought into why you disagree and express it intelligently? I for one, am proud of TTAG for this new policy, and wish more pages would do the same,along with proper spelling and grammar, further showing that we are an intelligent, thoughtful group of people, and not cavemen who don’t know how to form a complete sentence.

    • In show business, decorum is what closes on Friday night. This site didn’t become what it is by being decorous.

    • You hit on something.

      There is the simple fact that some of us who are supporters of the 2A are of a Godly mindset and demeaner. Others are not.

      Those who have issue with name calling and arbitrary insults are often, unfortuantely, from the latter.

      Those who do not portray themselves in such a way, in person, or on the internet, are often of the prior.

      Not because we are told not to, but because it is who we choose to be.

      The Rule has no bearing on me because it has no bearing; Because my words bear no whitness in opposition.

      • It’s hard to talk about decorum and moral highroads when you just got done quoting Austin Powers. Now go to your room and think about what you did.

      • gtfoxy, you are deeply philosophical this evening. Metaphysical perhaps. Transcendental even.

        No offense, but are you commenting from one of the newly legal pass the bong states? 🙂

        • Too funny. Just me as I am all the time. Just not always do those moments arise when it is deamingly appropriate as it pertains to the subject matter.

          But no, Not legal here. I read in the paper recently a Dem. was trying to introduce it into the assembly. Medical purposes were tried a year or so ago and it failed miserably. it didn’t make it out of commitee if i remember correctly.

          I don’t have a problem with people doing it what they do. Each to their own.

          As a founding father said, “Some of my fondest memories were out on my meranda with my Hemp.”

          If my life in this country stemmed from such and individuals actions, and I am thankful for it, How condicending would I be if I were to judge them through space and time?

          Many of the Fathers had Hemp plantations. It was the third largest cash crop at the turn of the 20th century as well.

          Tobacco is legal in all 50 states yet Nicotine has a 100K x greater toxicity, in relation to overdose mass/ body weight, than THC.

        • I support full pot legalization. Reefer is no more (and certainly less, if you believe the data) harmful than either alcohol and cigarettes. It is hypocritcal that the latter two are legal and available widely and the former is not.

          Having said that I would never assume to comment here after indulging. I have a tough enough time coloring inside the lines here as it is.

  27. I personally have no problem with that policy.

    as someone who has been coming here for over a year now, please tell me what code you added to your site that auto directs to google.com on Internet Explorer 11 on Windows 7? If I load an article, after about 30seconds it redirects to google.com automatically. Hopefully someone running the site will see this.

    • Wouldn’t that be an interesting DSL attack…

      I recently noticed similar goings on, but because of some frame issue.

      It is interesting none the less.

    • When I have seen that before it’s because the web site in question had a file called an errant .htaccess file in its root.

      I manage a bunch of web sites and that has happened to me a few times. The TTAG guys have to look in their web root for the file and either edit it or delete it

      (they show up there for weird reasons, one of the reasons I ended up with that file was when I upgraded to a new host, new server, etc. … the control panel software for the host put it there automatically.)

      • .htaccess is an apache config file that can do a bunch of things, one of them is “redirection” so when someone requests test.html you can send them to http://www.yahoo.com/some_great_photo_of_kate_upton.html …

        I had one show up in my web roots when I moved a bunch of web sites to a new host. the control panel system on the unix host I was using just put them there automatically.

        they directed every request to my files to http://www.google.com

        sounds like the same problem.

        • Of course, you’re completely ignoring the fact that The Mighty Midget had the NYC IT Department doing his bidding on company time, and that there are ??? other mayors (and electoral has-beens) on the MAIGDA rolls that may have similar avenues of skulduggery available. The three letter agencies do it, the Chinese do it, the Russians do it, the Germans do it, the birds do it, the bees do it… Oh never mind.

        • Mina, yes Anonymous- hmmm lets do talk.

          We had a security consciousness type conversation here awhile back- I’m guessing six months ago, and cant remember the guys name- seemed pretty knowledgeable- and there was some discussion of TTAG emails/password policy then, that seems to have relaxed since.

          The reason I ask, is it *might* be interesting to refresh that, in ref to simple best practices here – and one thing I am slightly uneasy about is how info could be scraped by unethical folks then used to discredit someone later- “look, he reads a gun site!!!”.

          I’m thinking what if if Robert got a court order to offer up email addresses, and logs for someone who said something impolite about skinny jeans someday,
          then it might help to understand how to put a layer or two between yourself and that online id.

          Anyway- to your earlier comment- I’m with your husband on the “dont let kids post pics on line” idea in general, and thats my policy too with my kids-
          along with “dont use your real name if you are going to say something really stupid”, again, not out of some paranoid “gotta stay in witsec” kinda way,

          just common sense in general, as per that old saying “on the internet everyone knows you are a dog”, and “dont drink and drive”.

          and now reading how employers are doing background checks, just googling your name and old Facebook posts…all I can say is, boy there are going to be some teenagers embarrassed at some point in near future,…

          so, OT and sorry for wordiness here- maybe a post to the Forum would be easier to reference later, as this scrolls out of memory, like the last one…

          I’m def interested in your webmistress perspective. I’ve been reading some stuff of Bruce Schneiers stuff- thats way over my head on tech side, but interesting philosophically- http://blog.ted.com/2013/07/17/security-experts-on-the-nsas-real-problems/

        • I would recommend that anyone with any concern about the security of their personal information use an alias and a free gmail or other anonymous email account. Period.

          I love your reference to ‘webmistress’ – I had my own company for a long while and that was my title. Even had it printed on my business cards. That turned a few heads back in the last 1/2 of the 90s!

          • You are smoking crack if you think you are anonymous on the web. Far from it. No matter how you set up your email account.

        • No need to get so excited. It’s really not like I have any bodies to hide or child molestation to cover up.

          I’m just commenting on gun sites and a few other topics in which I have interest. I am not hacking into the mainframe Morpheus.

  28. This your house Robert.
    You make the rules.
    I don’t feel my comment asking who the writer is as described by me was out of line.
    I think Ill just read here.
    No more commenting from me positive or negatively.

    • Don’t give up like that. You win some you lose some. Sometimes you have to troll/say your opinion smarter not harder and sometimes you get blocked or deleted. The important part is you keep on going.

      • This.

        Giving up something you feel is valuable because of whatever RF/Daddy/Teacher/Authority Figure said about it and disagreed with how you said it is partly why ‘Merica is messed up.

        You want something, even if it’s just your opinion to be heard – gotta go fuckin’ get it.

        And if I get delay moderated for that last sentence I don’t care because it’s the damned truth.

    • Just think, you could be the one who drops the one pearl of wisdom that stops the antis in their tracks.

      Or not.

  29. I think this rule does put the discourse here on a level far above the typical comments section that one sees all too often at other politically-oriented websites…on the Left and the Right. After a certain point, personal insult after personal insults (even when directed at those with whom I disagree or even feel contempt towards) simply becomes tedious.

    Well done.

  30. That is certainly an agitated look of disdain across the brow of that one.

    Certainly the portrayal of an individual left reeling from having his contemptual view of pixie dust and unicorn fairytail of a perfect and wholesome government, guided by peoples errogance and apathy, and his ignorant support there-of, become vaporware before his very eyes.

    So good.

  31. Folks, we all know there’s a double standard here. We see it in the antis’ public statements, their bloody shirt waving, the endless personal attacks on everyone who disagrees even in the slightest. We see it in the comments policies on their websites, in their contrived outrage when we call them out in any but the most polite of terms, and we certainly see it in how the media treats both sides.

    It’s not fair. It’s not right. But it’s the truth. And it will continute to be the truth as long as some of the participants and most of the audience (the general public) in this great debate and struggle are ill informed and don’t trouble themselves to think logically.

    So, we can either complain about it and get mad at each other, or we can work within the framework of reality and educate anyone who cares to ask, and just flat out be better human beings than the other side.

  32. Don’t apologize amigo.

    It was only a matter of time until someone used some of the ignorance that some pro-gun people spout off against us. I’m surprised it took that long. You gents are doing the right thing.

  33. I support this:
    a. Its Roberts BBQ and I trust his, Deans, Nicks, Ralphs, Chris’ judgement.

    b. The most interesting blogs where serious knowledge about the subject is very helpful, tend to post TOS that dont tolerate personal attacks, juvenile insults, and this also helps to reduce the trollery, by some of nuts out there, right and left, who cant help themselves it seems. It also serves notice, as we can continue to expect sockpuppets from the left who would stoop to ad hominems and FUD to stir things up. Thats classic Alinsky tactics descended from Soviet disinformatzia. So this policy simply sends them all away, someplace else.

    c. This is still anonymous, and I prefer it that way, especially if I goof and step over the line and say something stoopid, as I am quite sure I have more than once!

    One alternative to moderating/deleting the exception to the rule is requiring real names- like WSJ and some others. I don’t think its paranoid to be careful online, in re; sharing tips and questions about my weaponry, personal self defense thinking and so on, in public with my real name-

    just think back to the situation where that regional paper published permit holders names, including retired cops. That was a REALLY bad idea, for the criminals who do know how to read on the innertubes and look up your address, can simply wait for you to go to work and leave house to be empty…how do you think they get their guns- at the LGS? heh.

    d. I don’t “hate” Disqus, but I do find it buggy and annoying, and good idea Mina, but I agree with Matt, no need to have one step removed third party to blame trollery on, if we simply keep our own house clean-
    I’m reminded of Roberts citation of the Hemingway quote- ” a clean well-lit place”.

    e. I remind my kids that just because ever other teen uses the F-bomb doesnt mean they can- a little class goes a long way, and it takes a lot more imagination to insult someone without swear words, especially if you can hoist them upon their own petard… with the facts. Ridiculously target rich environment out there, in Prog-land, imho, so why not keep it classy?

    • On a serious note, I agree about remaining anonymous. First and foremost, it’s no one’s business but mine who I am, where I live, what I have, and so forth. In my world, that’s called OPSEC, and the little breadcrumbs are called EEFI. There is nothing wrong with revealing only what you feel comfortable about revealing to the world, IMO.

      Oh, and our adversaries will stop at nothing to twist and distort anything here to paint us in the worst possible light. I’m convinced that the next step for them is out-and-out lying and planting false quotes just to have something to point to. As Ralph pointed out many times, this is a culture war, and we must win.

    • ”a clean well-lit place” – I agree totally. I just think sometimes we have to hit the enemy the way he hits us, so that he understands it. kwim?

      BTW I like the anonymous. I would not be allowed to post here if I had to use my real name. just reality in my world (husband’s privacy rule; he also reviews my comments from time to time …)

      • I’m a little surprised at that last line. Privacy rules I understand. Reviewing your comments demonstrates, to me, a lack of trust in your judgment in adhering to those rules.

      • Mina, I agree – fair is fair, and we should use Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals,

        just smarter,
        and classier,
        and funnier,

        for, as the Immortal BlogFather has writ: “Mock Them!”

  34. “This new, stricter policy – designed to deny the enemies of gun rights ammunition for their campaign of civilian disarmament”

    Sorry, Rob, but you’re deluding yourself if you think they care if you delete comments or not. Regardless of what anyone posts here, they’re going to hate you not matter what. Censoring others because you’re trying to pacify those who think you should be locked up or killed isn’t going to change their minds.

    I expect this comment to be deleted in 3…2…1…

    • You’re right that we can’t convince the truly committed anti-gun people that we’re reasonable. They’re going to keep attacking us whatever we do. Nothing short of giving in to their demands will be good enough.

      But how we act in front of everyone in the middle does matter. And sometimes, there are people on our side who should keep their mouths shut and let those with a little more tact do the talking for us. When those people have a lapse of common sense and sling out a bunch of ignorance, they make us all look bad.

      Maybe you can’t win the people like Shannon Watts over, but that doesn’t mean you have to hand her the gasoline to burn you with.

      • “Maybe you can’t win the people like Shannon Watts over, but that doesn’t mean you have to hand her the gasoline to burn you with.”

        Except as we’ve seen time and time again, the anti’s have no problem just making stuff up.

  35. RF, it’s your blog and you’re free to do what you like.

    That said, if you force us all to take the high road, it puts us all in a better position to piss over the rail and onto the enemy.

    • Super soakers, a zippo, duct tape and gasoline.

      Yeah, single-use (due to solvent action destroying first all the seals and then the plastic gun itself), but hell. It’s cheaper my way.

      Oh, wait, I guess I just got hijacked.

      Quick, call DHS and ask for an express mailing of “active hijacker” advice cards.

  37. Once again, the gun community shows that many of its members don’t really get freedom of speech. It’s sad and it’s one of out biggest weaknesses. The whole “It’s your house, your rules” thing is a fallacy. This is not a piece of property from which you could throw someone out if they bother you. This is a forum of discussion, and if you don’t allow discussion to flow freely, then your undemining the whole thing.

    Also, it’s not about laws (“The 1st Amendament applies only to the government” fallacy), it’s about the principle of it. If you don’t practice freedom of speech yourself and you just demand that others practice it, then you’re losing the moral highground when talking about rights.

    Finally, do you really thing that the gun grabbers are going to just pack up and go home because they can’t find insulting comments? “Darn! Foiled again by those rednecks! I guess we should give up now that they censored all that colorful language.” There will be something they can pick on, because it’s not in their nature to appeal to reason and they always have to fall back on sentiment. By censoring potentially offensive speech, you’re just playing into their game. Instead, we should be looking for ways of making them play into ours. By censoring stuff, you are even, potentially, giving them more ammo. Now they could pick on the fact that, on top of scaring their pants off by subjecting them to the sight of firearms, we’re also against freedom of speech. I can imagine some other hipster gun grabber penning something along the lines of “They’re going to come and get us with their guns because they hate our freedom of speech!”

    • Discussion and asshattery are not the same thing.

      As far as I can tell, TTAG likes and encourages the former and is starting to move away from the latter (less entertaining, I know – but less of our… erm… mud for passers-by to pick up and sling around to offend others with).

      Fine by me, since you can find blithering idiots everywhere on the internet – it’s my impression that this site is more about affecting real life through the internet than living life via the internet.

      This is a very good thing.

    • Congress shall make no law respecting an… The applicability of the 1st Amendment (and the other 9) to restrict the Government and protect the rights of individuals in not a fallacy.

    • TW, I think I get your point about censorship- but I dont quite agree- this seems to be more a request that we clean it up a bit, with a reminder when it steps over the line-

      The internet is a huge place, and all gun sites is a smaller set, but still a pretty big group to make valid generalizations about.

      My take on TTAG is its one subset- and part of what makes it different is it isnt like ALL gun sites. And thats something the owners get to have their way on, mostly, just like any business.

      I think of TTAG as more of a fine cigar shop with men and women of distinction, taste and experience in the subject matter, are all talking about guns, and whatever else we fancy – but with the agreement we keep it classy- well, not too classy or I’d never get in.

      Not a boring British Aristocratic upper class place, more closer to New Orleans, French Quarter- or that joint in Casablanca- workingmen and pirates and military and clean cops welcome, noobs included if they dont puke on the rug, and
      most of all, where one and all have respect for the other, and share discussion in the art of gunfu. Remember, an armed nightclub is a polite nightclub. Hemingway-esque – clean well lit space.

      And if you get a wild hair you can always go down the street to the biker bar- say AR.coms general discussion, where no holds barred.

    • I’m not sure if you understand how the internet works, but this blog IS a piece of property. RF pays for it. The first amendment applying to government censorship is not a fallacy. Property owners, physical or digital, can restrict whatever speech they want. Case in point: If you come into my home and insult me, I can and will throw you out.

      • You and Texan Hawk above missed the point of what I was saying and focused on only of part of it out of context. It is true that the 1st Amendament is only about the govt in particular, but the spirit of the 1st Amendament is about freedom of speech in general. If you don’t respect freedom of speech in general, then you’re not any better than a governernment that would curtail it. I’m not going to rewrite my whole argument here (or even expand on it) because what is already written is enough for you to use as a starting point for thinking about this issue. If you don’t want to, that’s on you, but don’t forget that the general disrespect towards the freedoms protected by The Constitution isn’t something that just appeared out or the blue, but it’s something that grew out of people’s lack of respect toward these rights over a long period of time.

    • I like how you think, I beat this horse to death on the last blog post on this topic.

      And this: “you’re just playing into their game. Instead, we should be looking for ways of making them play into ours.” If I had a quarter for every time I have said that very thing on this site!! 😀 (hence my references to ROK and the manosphere….)

  38. One of the reasons I’ve tended to hang around on this site/forum in the last few months is that the ratio of good information is very high, the comments include a lot of intelligent discussion, and I see a few gun-control people here arguing their points. To me, that last one is a very valuable resource. It helps me understand that mindset better and helps me to understand where my arguments might be useful or useless.

    Mike

  39. Robert,

    I think this is the right decision, but consider that your actions (posting a stupid picture of Mr. Skinny Jeans which begged for insults and referring to him as a troll) might encourage the ad hominems.

  42. Sounds good to me.

    While I appreciate the need that people have to blow off steam when some anti-gunner says / does something incredibly stupid / evil / ridiculous / etc. … it doesn’t help the site or the site’s mission when people engage in personal attacks.

    Not only does it give ammunition to the enemies of the POTG, but it worsens the signal-to-noise ratio on the site overall. That makes it more likely that people who have good, intelligent and helpful things to post here will simply stop doing so because it’s not worth the time to read through all of the crap.

    There are plenty of ways we can attack the anti-gun crowd without resorting to the techniques used by an 11-year old throwing a tantrum.

    In short, I support the policy. It’s a good decision.

  43. Nothing will change the mindset of the anti gun elite…unless they’re robbed,beaten,shot at,victimized or otherwised inconvenienced. Its your site. No matter what language someone uses they all think were all GUN NUTS. Banning what you find offensive won’t convert anyone. They already think they have all the answers.

    • That was basically my thinking, that they are going to spin whatever we post so whats the sense. I could say I love the Constitution & s. brady will say I caused the death of the kids because of my 2A support. They appear to be losing big time, they have a few states & a guy with a pen. I’m still not sure of the rules here & Matt said they are as the moderator sees fit…?

  44. There are MORE than enough racist, homophobic, slanderous, vile and violent comments on just about every single news article out there. We don’t need them here at TTAG. If you can’t control yourself, don’t post here.

  45. After Newtown, the Second Amendment was nearly toast.

    Feinstein and Schumer rolled out the mother of all gun bans. The President gave a speech behind a row of little kids demanding action. And groups like MDA rose up like cold sores to shame us into silence. Remember how ugly things looked one year ago.

    We needed a safe place to hang out with like-minded people. We needed to read about victories in D.C., and later Colorado. We needed to monitor losses in New England and California. We really needed to be able to poke fun at the villains causing all this fear. Enter TTAG.

    TTAG got huge by being the most fun place on the net for gun owners. I love reading about people shooting guns I can never afford, spectacular trick shots, and brilliant ballistics intel. But I most enjoy the comments.

    TTAG is populated by the smartest, dumbest, goofiest and most serious group on the web. The comments make the site. It was like the most fun playground around.

    Now it feels like we are in detention.

    The boss tried to make the place clean, but it also got cold and sterile.
    I miss TTAG, already.

    • Seriously? In this one set of comments, you have side discussions about the past, present, and future of Monty Python jokes, ancient Rome, though not in great detail, a video showing how to make an improvised flamethrower, and some jokes about poop, both how it flows downhill most but not all of the time, and also trying to figure out who pooped on Ralph’s dog. Which, by the way, wasn’t me.

      All that will be missing is the worst of the name calling.

  46. You mean I cant call CSGV Center to Support Government Violence anymore? Personally I dont care what people say about MDA or CSGV. Both of these groups go to great lengths to suppress opponents First Amendment rights. Why should we become like them?

  47. Wise move, TTAG, for exercising your 1st Amendment right to publish whatever you like on your site and for exercising editorial discretion any which way you please, which, since I agree with the whole nix on add hominy, is easy for me to say, right?
    To fellow commenters, I also salute you. TTAG’s comment section is the ONLY one I ever even dream of peering into. Among you I sometimes find insight, wisdom and blessed, blessed humor. The scatological fustian I can do without, or make it myself if I need some. And how fortunate we are that TTAG allows dissenters to voice opinions on the policy — sans the empty bombast of personal attack.

  48. The only problem with the deletion of “ad hominem attacks” is that it is a matter of some subjectivity as to what is ad hominem or not. Truth, while sometimes it comes across as an attack, is nothing but truth. To treat truth otherwise to to cower to the PC crowd and lick the boots of your oppressors.

    But I digress.

  49. Congratulations Robert and quite right. Nothing is more corrosive to any cause then the over-the-top shrillness so often found on the commentary sites on any matter – not just guns.

    I said “nothing”, but what may be even worse is the endless, snarky attacks on others of the same mind. From minutiae like spelling or word usage to “smartest-guy-in-the-room” wiseassyness to charges of treason for any variation from the party line it simply “leaves the field” to the loudest and crudest. This not only removes some of the ablest of thinkers from the struggle but often causes them to reflect that perhaps some of the commentators really shouldn’t possess firearms of any sort – maybe some of these laws aren’t so bad after all…..

    In the end the gun rights crowd is in danger of becoming a small, squabbling and isolated band of misfits to be dumped into the dustbin of history. Do not let this happen. Commentary and criticism are fine and often helpful but always ask yourself, does it advance the cause?

    The grabbers never sleep, they never give up and they don’t waste time sniping at each other. Let’s do the same.

    • There is no need to debate a leftist. You will only waste your breath. One is only allowed so much time on Earth, best not waste a precious second debating gun control with a leftist/statist commtard.

      • Actually there are two reasons to debate a leftist:
        1. If there is an audience and you have the opportunity to therefore not only win some people to your side, but humiliate the lefty at the same time.
        2. It is just good fun.

        #1 is a required pre-requisite though.

  51. Someone’s freedom of speech doesn’t mean that we have an obligation to let verbal abuse and name calling be tolerated. Deleting the nasty hateful comments is right on.

  52. Having been on the receiving end of the new TTAG moderator oversensitivity (deleted comment for telling someone to “get off their high horse”), I disagree with the direction TTAG is taking.

    Moderating comments flaming other commenters, staff, and site makes sense.

    But moderating and deleting light flaming of our ideological enemies, especially those who argue in bad faith and are deliberately provocative, is ridiculous.

    If you can’t tolerate that, IMO, it’s time to shut the comments section off entirely and direct everyone to the private forums.

  53. I encourage the TTAG site owners, moderators and anyone else who has anything to do with moderating comments to stop explaining the policy and frankly, kind of apologizing for it and trying to convince some people (who choose to remain invincibly ignorant) that your comment policies are good for the site.

    Consider the following:

    A) The vast majority of people reading TTAG never post a comment or even read them to begin with.

    B) Many readers post comments occasionally.

    C) Some of us comment a lot and we should behave ourselves, per your policy.

    D) Anyone who does not like your policies can simply go pound sand and start their own blog site and say whatever they want.

    I think you have made the policy clear enough guys and it is time to move on and stop explaining it, or defending it.

    Your site, your rules.

  54. Very pleased with this. All ‘arguments’ about how this will stifle people’s free speech are ludicrous. Not being able to attack someone’s appearance or any other irrelevancies rather than their arguments, does not hamstring anybody.

  55. This seems pretty simple to me. I acknowledge freedom of speech but when a commenter is doing damage to the People of the Gun, there is no place for him/her. This is just as much a PR war as anything else and we all need to be on our best behavior. Most of us agree that those OCT guys in chipotle were in the wrong by posing and brandishing their weapons. It’s the same damn thing. Quit brandishing your mouth and using personal attacks. Logic, facts, and reason are our bread and butter so please use the brain you have and don’t act like an idiot. This should really be a non-issue.

Comments are closed.