Bashing: why is some not ok, while others are ok?

[ATF Consumer]

Just ran across this thread: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...uggestion_re_cop_bashing_imho.html#post756283
and it got me thinking about the whole issue. The quotes that were pointed out clearly did not say that ALL cops are bad, just that cops are bad.
INGO has a short tolerance when it comes to "cop bashing" yet I have not seen the same protectionism when it comes to bashing politicians. Clearly not all politicians are bad, yet I know I have read several posts in various threads that have stated this and I don't recall there being the same attention by the mods.

Is there favoritism here or am I seeing this wrong?

 

[esrice]

My response to that thread still applies here-- the bold portion should answer your question.

Here is what we ask: Please do not make broad generalizations about police or the job they perform. Specific incidents are welcome (and encouraged) to be discussed.

Why do we ask this? Because we've seen a history of threads degenerating into flame wars over issues that were never intended in the OP. This, in turn, widens the "us vs. them" mentality-- in general, and specifically in the INGO community (and the cops here are actually on our side).

The policy is there not for protectionism or favoritism, but because we're trying to curb a problem that we've seen crop up in the past. It could've been politicians, postal workers, delivery drivers, or auto mechanics, but we happened to see the problem come up with cop-related issues.

 

[techres]

Just ran across this thread: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...uggestion_re_cop_bashing_imho.html#post756283
and it got me thinking about the whole issue. The quotes that were pointed out clearly did not say that ALL cops are bad, just that cops are bad.
INGO has a short tolerance when it comes to "cop bashing" yet I have not seen the same protectionism when it comes to bashing politicians. Clearly not all politicians are bad, yet I know I have read several posts in various threads that have stated this and I don't recall there being the same attention by the mods.

Is there favoritism here or am I seeing this wrong?

It is one thing to say, "Those guys in washington are all a bunch of yadda yadda..."

It is another thing to say cops are just XYZ at the dinner table with other cops present.

One is blowing off steam. The other is rude to community members and inconsiderate to the community itself as that talk has a history of tearing us apart.

You wanna say Cops are XYZ? Assume we will be in there as it is not true of our community members here, many of which are cops. You say that and you had better be specific and have proof.

Gun forums have a tendency to be very hard on cops, very. Check out ARFcom and you will see that they have an area just for cops and the rules there are VERY stringent. We want all of our members here to be respected and that includes cops. We should be very happy and appreciative that they endure being here.

Now, as for politicians, I would love to have a bunch of our state and national congress folk on this board. And if they did come here, I would offer them the same POLITE courtesy as the police and I would infract those who could not do that.

Hope that helps.

 

[ATF Consumer]

My response to that thread still applies here-- the bold portion should answer your question.



The policy is there not for protectionism or favoritism, but because we're trying to curb a problem that we've seen crop up in the past. It could've been politicians, postal workers, delivery drivers, or auto mechanics, but we happened to see the problem come up with cop-related issues.

Thanks for the reply, and I understand about the flame wars, but you quoted a generalization that isn't quite correct...

(and the cops here are actually on our side)

I know I have read threads where cops on this forum have indicated that they are not happy with the current gun laws and in fact want mental exams and further infringements upon us before we have the right to carry. I don't see how that type of comment could be construed as cops on this forum are on our side.

 

[esrice]

Thanks for the reply, and I understand about the flame wars, but you quoted a generalization that isn't quite correct...
I know I have read threads where cops on this forum have indicated that they are not happy with the current gun laws and in fact want mental exams and further infringements upon us before we have the right to carry. I don't see how that type of comment could be construed as cops on this forum are on our side.

I get what you're saying. Some of them may not fit your personal definition of "pro-gun" or "pro-2A". My using the term "our side" was simply referring to those who like guns, versus those who don't. Everyone is a bit different (which is why INGO is such a cool place).

 

[Agent 007]

I have received a couple of infractions and a warning on this site....if it makes anyone feel better.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...Now, as for politicians, I would love to have a bunch of our state and national congress folk on this board. And if they did come here, I would offer them the same POLITE courtesy as the police and I would infract those who could not do that.

In 2007, when Sen. Nugent proposed and introduced a bill that would have ENDED State or political-subdivision-of-state restriction on the carriage of firearms except in penal facilities and secure areas of airports, I have told several times of my involvement with the attempt to pass that bill. I was promised to my face by State Sen. Ron Alting that he would vote to pass that bill. In fact, when the time came to vote, he was one of seven so-called "Republicans" who voted against it. It missed a Constitutional majority required to pass it by one vote.

I was livid. I do not take well at all to being lied to. The membership of an organization I co-founded were upset. Nonetheless, I spoke up and told them we needed to hear what he had to say, that maybe he had a good reason for changing his vote, and I contacted him. Sen. Alting did not, in fact, have a good reason. He had several reasons, to be sure, and he told me several of them, but as the story kept changing as to which was the reason for him going back on his word, I put no credence to those excuses. He is simply not a man I would ever believe after that incident.

Now, many people have told me, "Well, he's a politician, and you know they all lie!" That would sure be an easy generalization, wouldn't it? Contrast Mr. Alting's promise and action against those of State Sen. Johnny Nugent. Sen. Nugent has, in every interaction I have had or have heard of anyone else having with him, been scrupulously honest. The president pro tempore of the State Senate, Sen. David Long, pointed out Sen. Nugent's record of unfailing honesty and unquestionable integrity.

The point? I will without hesitation point out that Mr. Alting is untrustworthy based on the above example and incident. I cannot at the same time slam ALL politicians, however. I hold no respect for Mr. Alting and if he was to tell me the sky is blue, I'd go look to make sure. Funny thing, though; when I challenged his action and excuse for the second time, his terse, final reply made it very clear that he knew he'd done wrong and was uncomfortable with it being pointed out. Perhaps there is hope for him, but I would not hold my breath waiting to find out.

Nonetheless, while I do not hesitate to make this post, knowing he might read it and probably would know that it was I to whom he spoke, I also would welcome his presence here... With our membership, I think it likely that he would actually learn something and maybe his votes would show it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATF Consumer]

BOR

 

[techres]

BOR

And my +1 is because BOR is being specific and naming names. You do the same with cops and keep your comments specific and the forum will be happy for the content.

Specific Accusations with Evidence = good.
General Accusations without Evidence = bad.

 

[AFA1CY]

Boy! Didn't know I'd be stirring the pot this morning!

 

[esrice]

Boy! Didn't know I'd be stirring the pot this morning!

I always figured you for being younger. . . . .

 

[AFA1CY]

I always figured you for being younger. . . . .

It's the corn squeezins.......

 

[esrice]

It's the corn squeezins.......

Too much steam?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Thanks for the reply, and I understand about the flame wars, but you quoted a generalization that isn't quite correct...
I know I have read threads where cops on this forum have indicated that they are not happy with the current gun laws and in fact want mental exams and further infringements upon us before we have the right to carry. I don't see how that type of comment could be construed as cops on this forum are on our side.

Show proof of this. I for one have never made that comment, and I'd like to know which of the LEOs that frequent this site did.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Show proof of this. I for one have never made that comment, and I'd like to know which of the LEOs that frequent this site did.

PM sent.

 

[j706]

I think the mere fact that some LEO's are members of this site tells you they are pro 2nd and are gun owners themselves. I know very few anti gun cops. Very few!

 

[samot]

Show proof of this. I for one have never made that comment, and I'd like to know which of the LEOs that frequent this site did.

@ ATF consumer, shouldnt we all see the answer to this, kinda confused why you would send the answer to him in a PM, considering you started this thread i guess its yours to do what you want with dont mean any disrespect, just dont understand the reasoning

 

[DoubleTap Tactical]

+1 For the Mods!!!

 

[ATF Consumer]

@ ATF consumer, shouldnt we all see the answer to this, kinda confused why you would send the answer to him in a PM, considering you started this thread i guess its yours to do what you want with dont mean any disrespect, just dont understand the reasoning

Ok, just read through this thread... https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ense/24746-big_chicken.html?highlight=chicken

 

[techres]

Is there favoritism here or am I seeing this wrong?

Ok, so that everyone here has a direct answer:

We mods do not favor anyone. Like parents being asked to judge who was more wrong "this time" we get very tired and will close threads to stop the bickering.

The real problem is that the bickering and poking with a sharp stick seems to be more important than the community itself at times in these threads. INGO will not thrive if we let members beat on each other day in and day out for fun no matter who starts or continues it.

Mods are faced with two choices:

1. Let this place turn into a spiteful pit of screaming.
2. Lock down all fights.

We frankly don't want to do either as it goes against the purpose of the site and our 1A leanings.

But to be clear, we will not let #1 happen. And if some threads have to be closed, so be it. And if some posters turn to using squabbling as a thread "veto" power, they will be asked to stop, and then asked to leave.

Guys, this is a place for polite hoosier gun talk, not hoosier bashing. When you start a thread or make a post, ask yourself if this is going to further discussion or just poke someone with a sharp stick.

Help us help the site.

Please.