I could see where a forum split would be beneficial. However, getting rid of political, religous and other law discussion not related to RKBA would be a bad idea I think. The thing I like best about this forum is that even though it is centered around the 2A and firearm ownership anything is open to discussion. At least it used to be.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
I'd like your thoughts on the Politics, Laws and 2nd Amendment forum please
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
nawainwright
Expert
I would like to point out, that if you don't want to read the politics section, no one is forcing you to do that. It's important for everyone to be informed as to ALL of the rights and issues the govt is trying to open/restrict. Ignorance helps no one. Sure sometimes people get carried away, but I've seen that from people who believe that if God owns a gun, its a Glock 
The reality is that our freedom to own firearms is inextricably tied to our innate right to protect ourselves from perceived threats, whatever venue those threats come from (or we perceive them to be coming from).
I come here to find not only information about guns, but to find people with whom I can discuss events that I find encouraging and/or troubling. Some of those are political.
Whether you like it or not, your rights are tied to the political process, to ignore that is asinine.
The reality is that our freedom to own firearms is inextricably tied to our innate right to protect ourselves from perceived threats, whatever venue those threats come from (or we perceive them to be coming from).
I come here to find not only information about guns, but to find people with whom I can discuss events that I find encouraging and/or troubling. Some of those are political.
Whether you like it or not, your rights are tied to the political process, to ignore that is asinine.
shooter521
Certified Glock Nut
Politics subforum POLL
Poll posted to go with Fenway's question. Even if you have already registered your opinion in this thread, please go back and vote!
Poll posted to go with Fenway's question. Even if you have already registered your opinion in this thread, please go back and vote!
Well, I for one think the politics section should stay. I'm not even particularly in favour of a split. I read lots of gun threads here, but I must admit I like the politics section best. The variety of views and discussion are refreshing. Sure it gets heated at times, that's because folks are passionate about things that matter. Folks who aren't in favour of the politics forum have the option of not reading things that upset them. Shoot, I don't read hundreds of postings here at INGO every day. It's easy and requires no requests for censorship or restrictions on anyone's speech. As was pointed out earlier, the politics forum is by far one of the most popular single forums at INGO, (although the combined postings for firearms discussions far outnumber the postings for politics). My vote is to keep it.
2ADMNLOVER
Grandmaster
As others have mentioned I think a split may be a good thing , personally I don't see a need for it but I'm not privy to everything that happens behind the scenes either .
I think we would all benefit if folks would play nice and use a little more tact and diplomacy in their posts .
If you're in a heated debate and you feel the need to tell someone to "go to **LL!!" , do it in such a way as to make them look forward to the trip .
IMO , reading comprehension is a biggy here .
I see quite a few folks apologizing because someone misread what they posted and got all butt hurt over it , when in fact no malice was ever intended .
In summary ,
I'd leave it alone . Nobody is forced to read any political threads and if the forum is disposed of entirely I think much discussion will be lost .
If you're an adult , grow a pair and act like it . STOP running off to tell on someone because you got your delicate sensibilities offended .
Read ONLY what is typed and don't read anything into the meaning .
If you feel like you've been slighted then PM the person and ask for some clarification .
Chances are that if someone is trying to offend you specifically , they'll let you know .
I think we would all benefit if folks would play nice and use a little more tact and diplomacy in their posts .
If you're in a heated debate and you feel the need to tell someone to "go to **LL!!" , do it in such a way as to make them look forward to the trip .
IMO , reading comprehension is a biggy here .
I see quite a few folks apologizing because someone misread what they posted and got all butt hurt over it , when in fact no malice was ever intended .
In summary ,
I'd leave it alone . Nobody is forced to read any political threads and if the forum is disposed of entirely I think much discussion will be lost .
If you're an adult , grow a pair and act like it . STOP running off to tell on someone because you got your delicate sensibilities offended .
Read ONLY what is typed and don't read anything into the meaning .
If you feel like you've been slighted then PM the person and ask for some clarification .
Chances are that if someone is trying to offend you specifically , they'll let you know .
shooter521
Certified Glock Nut
shibumiseeker
Grandmaster
All due respect, Tim, I disagree. For me, INGO is not just a hobbyist site. It reaches out and touches all aspects of we who enjoy the benefits of responsible firearm ownership. Politics, advocacy and spirited, civil debates are all a BIG part of that.
Ah, there's the rub. I don't think you can have a civil debate on many topics without heavy moderation. They are too emotionally charged. Point in fact, with the exception of guns, I am on the other end of the political spectrum than probably 90% of the people here. Yet by merely airing an opposing viewpoint, there are many on the politics section who would both immediately label me a traitor, and simply by continuing to try to explain or defend my viewpoint would also get me a reputation for trolling. So on the times I do manage to get sucked into a politics discussion, I try to limit my posts to one or two, and because I really don't care to debate with people who aren't interested in actually trying to understand an issue, those types of folks are of the "proof by vigorous assertion" crowd. There are opposing viewpoints I would NEVER admit to or even hint at anywhere on this or any other gun board because while a majority of the folks here are decent folks who I respect quite a lot, there's also a quite vocal crowd (and not a small minority) who immediately get their ire up, and a smaller but much more vocal crowd who immdiately go nuclear.
So, there you go. I try not to post much in the politics section because it is most definately NOT a good place for reasoned, rational discussion on many political topics. I know for a fact that there are people who avoid this gun website as well as many of them out there because of the extreme right wing politics that often go hand in hand. Many of these people are ardent gun rights supporters, and many of them are even <gasp> DEMOCRATS! (no, I am not a democrat)
I've been here a few months now and it took me a while to learn to sort out who the nut cases were and who the good folks are. To a casual observer, the strident political voices very strongly color the entire site. Many years ago I unsubscribed from the indiana gun owners email list (early 90s) because it had very little traffic about guns or strongly gun related topics and a whole lot of right wing political stuff which had nothing to do with guns. At least here thanks to Pami now I can filter out the worst of the non-gun political discussions without losing the other incidental social discussion with fellow gun enthusiasts.
And, I think it bears saying, I was not someone who complained to Fenway or the mods, I learned a long time ago to just keep my mouth shut for the most part on gun forums when it came to non gun politics. The ONLY reason I am expressing opinion here is because the site owner asked.
This^^^
If you really think it must be changed, Fenway, just split it. I'd hate to lose the other topics.
I'm sorry but what's going on in this argument? As I read it, it says either: "I'm not comfortable entering discussions in that subforum, so it should be be heavily policed or eliminated.", or "There aren't many opposing viewpoints in the Politics forum, so I don't feel comfortable expressing opposing viewpoints." Though I often lurk in Politics more than post, I'd welcome seeing reasoned, factually supported views that differ from our usual echo chamber.
Because I'm trying to encourage discussion among the female population regarding firearm ownership. I believe it is important to this gun board.
shooter521
Certified Glock Nut
Not everyone does, which I believe was the OP's point.
shibumiseeker
Grandmaster
My apologies if it is not clear, it's not an easy set of thoughts to put into words. It's not that I am not comfortable posting an opposing viewpoint, I do that from time to time. But someone CAN'T post opposing viewpoints on SOME political topics here without the thread going nuclear. The reason you don't see more reasoned, factually supported viewpoints is twofold: First, on many of the most politically charged discussions it isn't about facts, it's about emotions, and second, since the overwhelming views in the politics section are right wing, anyone posting opposinng viewpoints is both drowned out, and deemed to be a troll or a radical. This is not unique to this site, or even to guns as a topic in general. This happens in the other direction on some liberal sites I visit for other aspects of my beliefs.
So, to try to clarify what I am talking about:
Point number 1:
If you truly want a reasoned and rational debate, it has to be moderated heavily to ensure the minority is heard (kinda like the Bill of Rights, eh?).
Personally, I have some pretty definite opinions on some things and debate is unlikely to change my mind on those things, but I too am always interested in hearing reasoned opposing opinions, and I am happy to agree to disagree with someone who equally strongly holds opposing viewpoints. As I well know, however, that is not the opinion of the majority of folks who regularly engage in debates on political issues.
Point number 2:
If the site owners want INGO to be a place where all gun owners can feel comfortable being to discuss guns and directly related gun issues, then the fact that there is a not so small minority of people out there who really like guns who really don't like being painted with the same brush as the extreme right wing. Many of those people are even on the right politically. Having most of the most politically sensitive topics be a free for all means that the folks who might engage in reasoned debate on minority viewpoints pretty much avoid those parts of the site, so the outside observer of the casual observer sees the entire site colored in that manner.
Another poster summed it up pretty well, from the outside INGO looks like a political site that also discusses guns a lot. This is a view that folks who are on the inside who stay away from the particular part of the site that is devoted to politics tend to forget.
I have no particular problem with extreme right wing, or left wing, or Wonko the Sane Wing political sites. If that is the intent of the site owners, more power to them. If the intent of the site owners is to have a gun enthusiasts site then it's a good idea to limit the volume of outside political discussion. One reason I am not a paying member of ar15.com and INGO (aside from being a cheap bastich) is because both sites stray pretty far from purely gun topics way too much for my tastes. I'd rather see a gun site (pun intended) where occasional outside discussions like happen in the Break Room are allowed but are the minority. Keeping a site from becoming too political is a delicate balancing act because it very easily slides one direction or the other as most of the politically moderate people jump ship. I am a paid member of two other gun groups, so it isn't purely because I am a cheap bastich.
BTW, I applaud Fenway for soliciting opinions, I think that's a mark of a good site owner/moderator.
I voted. My sense (in the short time I've here) is that this community is as much about people and their thoughts, centric to our common interest in firearms, than simply a place to talk about guns. The site name reflects that focus, I think... otherwise, it might have a name something like "www.gunsinindiana.com." The site name seems to place an equal or heavier weight on the "Owner" or "people" aspect than simply a place to talk hardware. And if this is a community, I find that I learn more about you people and develop an appreciation for you based on your humor and insight and not just what opinion you have about "9mm vs .40."
scheesman makes a good point about this community's interest in political issues being reflected in the tag cloud. I see this as a healthy thing, highlighting that those of us with a common interest in firearms pay attention more and have strong political opinions because we realize the high stakes involved.
On the topic of manners, I'm continually impressed by the tolerance and patience I see demonstrated by the majority of you. Yeah, sure... people can be narrow or insulting or uncivil, but for the most part, I don't see that here. I'm thinking back to one of (I think it was) Scutter01's comments about an individual, something along the lines of "you want to start banning people because they're unpopular? If the guy grows up and wants to participate, he'll be welcomed back." I love that attitude. That's a community I want to be a part of. I have, myself, gone back and edited one of my own smart-@ss or judgmental comments after being humbled by the tolerance or maturity of some other comment by one of you.
Anyhow, I think that providing both RKBA and general politics forums recognizes -- and provides a venue for -- both the broad and the narrower, more-specific political interests and opinions of this community.
People seem to be able to discuss their preferences for bacon, ham, and sausage separately from topics regarding pork chops... so I think we have precedent.
scheesman makes a good point about this community's interest in political issues being reflected in the tag cloud. I see this as a healthy thing, highlighting that those of us with a common interest in firearms pay attention more and have strong political opinions because we realize the high stakes involved.
On the topic of manners, I'm continually impressed by the tolerance and patience I see demonstrated by the majority of you. Yeah, sure... people can be narrow or insulting or uncivil, but for the most part, I don't see that here. I'm thinking back to one of (I think it was) Scutter01's comments about an individual, something along the lines of "you want to start banning people because they're unpopular? If the guy grows up and wants to participate, he'll be welcomed back." I love that attitude. That's a community I want to be a part of. I have, myself, gone back and edited one of my own smart-@ss or judgmental comments after being humbled by the tolerance or maturity of some other comment by one of you.
Anyhow, I think that providing both RKBA and general politics forums recognizes -- and provides a venue for -- both the broad and the narrower, more-specific political interests and opinions of this community.
People seem to be able to discuss their preferences for bacon, ham, and sausage separately from topics regarding pork chops... so I think we have precedent.
Last edited:
I voted to leave it. I don't care if I have to go through posts, when I see a title and think it's not interesting I don't click on it.
Some advice, grow a thicker skin if you're going to be posting on the internet. Try not to think every time someone disagrees with you it's a big attack. Have some fun with it, who cares if we don't agree, as far as I know we're not related.
All you guys who want to change it are morons.................... just kidding.
Some advice, grow a thicker skin if you're going to be posting on the internet. Try not to think every time someone disagrees with you it's a big attack. Have some fun with it, who cares if we don't agree, as far as I know we're not related.
All you guys who want to change it are morons.................... just kidding.
A few points from Caleb
I've tried to make these as concise as possible, summarizing my main point in bold.
1) I've had no problems with finding gun topics.
It has been said a couple times on this thread so far that INGO may appear to some users to be a political forum that also discusses guns. I thought I'd mention that, in the 5-6 months I've been a member, I don't think I've read a political thread more times than I can count on one hand, and probably wouldn't even need all my fingers. In my experience on INGO, I've not had any problems reading about actual gun-related topics due to any concept of "too many politics threads" and I have never once had the thought that this was a political forum that also discussed guns. I reiterate: this is just my experience.
2) Don't see a need for change, but if one is needed, split the forums.
I think I made this point in my first post in the thread, and I voted in the poll, but I'll make a couple more comments. As I said in Point (1) above, I haven't spent much time in the political sections on this site. So, while I don't see a need for any change at all regarding the political forums, my opinion on that should carry less weight because I haven't had my toes in that water. That being said, if it is determined that a change is indeed necessary, I believe my opinion should carry standard weight as a member when I say that it would be better to split the forums than to restrict discussion to only 2A politics. If nothing else, Fenway could split the forums on a trial basis for an appropriate time, at the end of which he may decide to make the split permanent or remove the other politics forum altogether.
3) There is a distinct need for an "INGO Statement of Purpose".
I have seen several people post his or her opinion of what INGO is to them: a hobbyist site; a political site that discusses guns; a place to talk to Hoosiers. I believe there is a clear need for a "statement of intent" or a "mission statement" to be drafted by Fenway, who may at his discretion receive input from the moderators and members, to define exactly what this board is and answer the question "What is INGO?". That would greatly help us make the kind of decision we're trying to make in this thread.
Long live the bacon.
I've tried to make these as concise as possible, summarizing my main point in bold.
1) I've had no problems with finding gun topics.
It has been said a couple times on this thread so far that INGO may appear to some users to be a political forum that also discusses guns. I thought I'd mention that, in the 5-6 months I've been a member, I don't think I've read a political thread more times than I can count on one hand, and probably wouldn't even need all my fingers. In my experience on INGO, I've not had any problems reading about actual gun-related topics due to any concept of "too many politics threads" and I have never once had the thought that this was a political forum that also discussed guns. I reiterate: this is just my experience.
2) Don't see a need for change, but if one is needed, split the forums.
I think I made this point in my first post in the thread, and I voted in the poll, but I'll make a couple more comments. As I said in Point (1) above, I haven't spent much time in the political sections on this site. So, while I don't see a need for any change at all regarding the political forums, my opinion on that should carry less weight because I haven't had my toes in that water. That being said, if it is determined that a change is indeed necessary, I believe my opinion should carry standard weight as a member when I say that it would be better to split the forums than to restrict discussion to only 2A politics. If nothing else, Fenway could split the forums on a trial basis for an appropriate time, at the end of which he may decide to make the split permanent or remove the other politics forum altogether.
3) There is a distinct need for an "INGO Statement of Purpose".
I have seen several people post his or her opinion of what INGO is to them: a hobbyist site; a political site that discusses guns; a place to talk to Hoosiers. I believe there is a clear need for a "statement of intent" or a "mission statement" to be drafted by Fenway, who may at his discretion receive input from the moderators and members, to define exactly what this board is and answer the question "What is INGO?". That would greatly help us make the kind of decision we're trying to make in this thread.
Long live the bacon.
It would be a shame to throw out the baby with the bathwater. For a lot of us, this is the only source of discussion on the politics that affect us, local and national.
That said, any discussion that takes place on ingunowners.com is owned by ingunowners.com. We, as Indiana gun owners and members of this forum are all subject to the cloak that might be cast over us.
When a discussion involves name calling it makes us all look childish. Childishness and gun ownership DOES NOT go together. This is fuel for the fires of those who oppose our 2nd Amendment rights. It is also extremely intimidating to new members and, or lurkers. Those who, like myself, do not agree with the motives or methods of some of our elected officials, yet would never denigrate ourselves by calling them or anyone a traitor.
When a discussion involves ANY reference to a call to arms, be it written or implied, that is something I won't be a part of. Yes, I can choose not to look at or participate in threads that go this way. Yet, I can't run from them because I am an Indiana gun owner and a member of ingunowners.com.
Unless I'm mistaken, this forum has rules prohibiting both of these problems. The difficulty lies in where to draw the line in enforcement. My opinion is that these rules should be enforced much more strictly.
The moderation of this site is IMHO excellent. They cannot be everywhere at all times, that is what the "Report Post" button is for. Yes, I use it. So flame away with the "need a thicker skin," cry baby, sheep references.
This is not just any other Internet forum. This one contains the name of what I am, an Indiana gun owner. If I never chose to visit or post again, I would still be affected by the public's view of anything that is posted on ingunowners.com.
That said, any discussion that takes place on ingunowners.com is owned by ingunowners.com. We, as Indiana gun owners and members of this forum are all subject to the cloak that might be cast over us.
When a discussion involves name calling it makes us all look childish. Childishness and gun ownership DOES NOT go together. This is fuel for the fires of those who oppose our 2nd Amendment rights. It is also extremely intimidating to new members and, or lurkers. Those who, like myself, do not agree with the motives or methods of some of our elected officials, yet would never denigrate ourselves by calling them or anyone a traitor.
When a discussion involves ANY reference to a call to arms, be it written or implied, that is something I won't be a part of. Yes, I can choose not to look at or participate in threads that go this way. Yet, I can't run from them because I am an Indiana gun owner and a member of ingunowners.com.
Unless I'm mistaken, this forum has rules prohibiting both of these problems. The difficulty lies in where to draw the line in enforcement. My opinion is that these rules should be enforced much more strictly.
The moderation of this site is IMHO excellent. They cannot be everywhere at all times, that is what the "Report Post" button is for. Yes, I use it. So flame away with the "need a thicker skin," cry baby, sheep references.
This is not just any other Internet forum. This one contains the name of what I am, an Indiana gun owner. If I never chose to visit or post again, I would still be affected by the public's view of anything that is posted on ingunowners.com.
I voted...I personally think that it should be limited to RKBA and 2nd Amendment issues only, but understand that others don't feel the same way. Therefore, my 2nd choice would be to split them into their own separate forums.
I look at it this way...INGO is site for firearms enthusiasts, not a political roundtable. There are some political issues related to the RKBA/2nd Amendment issues, so that's a reason to allow those issues in their own area while limiting the general politics.
Just my
I look at it this way...INGO is site for firearms enthusiasts, not a political roundtable. There are some political issues related to the RKBA/2nd Amendment issues, so that's a reason to allow those issues in their own area while limiting the general politics.
Just my
