Guntards.net

It all started when I tried to sell my kel tec su16. The ad had a picture showing the rifle with a compensator install. So some moderator went and pulled the ad, I asked why? he said it was (AW) and violated the law . {BUT it has a bullet button!!!!} I told him. SO the moderator says "go ahead and re post just don't show a pic of the comp. So I did. 20min later ......where in the hell is my ad? They pulled again! some moderator PMs me and says" don't re post until I show a picture of the rifle with the compensator remove. That's when I told em there all dip shits!

Cal-Guns is a totalitarian website.  One of those moderators tried to can me for daring to mention just what the LAPD IAD unit was.  It is hardly a secret that those initials stand for the Internal Affairs Division which investigates crooked cops.  Those morons live in a fantasy land.  There is no such thing as corrupt cop.  You can be banned for things not even considered to be obscene, racist or threatening.  Kestryll and his thugs routinely ban people for anything which suits themselves on a given day.  I quit Cal-Guns rather than kiss their asses.

Gunboards.com isn't this bad.  Everybody gets a few demerits once in awhile; but I never even read those nit picky messages.  You at least have to be some kind of a potty mouth, a racist or threaten somebody to get banned on that site's forums

I was banned today for referring to "religious f-nuts".  Why does Kestryl want to help and support the Taliban?  I wonder.  I mailed the Calguns foundation saying that I couldn't give them my $50, as much as I support the 2A, as long as they were going to support Kestryl's hate speech.  I wonder why they let that guy run off people who agree with their goals (restoring 2A rights) that aren't good god-fearing Christians?

Welcome!

The restriction of more than one login from the same IP is laughable.  For example, in my office, about 800 people share the same outgoing IP address.  What if more than one person had a Calguns login?

Anycase.  Here is the deep question: Is the only thing that unites us here at Guntards (now that most discussions have come to a standstill) our hatred of Calguns?  Are we like a group of refugees or emigrees, who sit around incessantly arguing that A: How wonderful things were when we were still on Calguns, and B: How horrible Calguns is (ignore the little schizophrenia in those statements)?

I'm no longer disgusted with Calguns.  But I'm frustrated with life.  I think Calguns is a good reflection of the typical community of vocal gun people and gun activists.  They are quite intolerant.  A large fraction of them are either hard-right social conservative republicans, or fundamentalist libertarian utopians.  Because of the social conservative bent, there is a strong bias towards fundamentalist Christianity (which is particularly intolerant).  As recent discussions have shown, many are perfectly happy to throw gun rights under the bus, to prevent something they really abhor, like gay marriage.  Some of the worst loud-mouthed public symbols of the movement are angry young angry men (rebel without a clue, we've already seen several of them get in serious trouble with the law, because of their lack of judgement and intelligence).  Clearly this group typically hates LEOs and is seriously anti-government.

I think the Calguns forum and its style simply reflects the reality of the group it serves.  Same with Arfcom and the NRA (which stands for National Republican Auxiliary).  Paul (a.k.a. Kestryll), his moderators, and the shadowy figure behind the throne (if he exists, which I don't know) just serve the needs of their community.  No wonder the place is like an echo chamber - that's what the people who enter the echo chamber want.

Fortunately, the Calguns foundation is partly run by more sensible people, and is capable of doing good work for gun rights.

So far, I've just described the reality of the gun blogosphere: disgusting.  Right now, the Brady bunch or VPC or LCAV could simply use printouts of Calguns (or Arfcom) threads as fundraising material: If a sensible person reads that crap, they'll donate $1000 to make sure these lunatics are disarmed.  Just look at all the threads that have veiled questions about when it is legal to shoot people, all the anti-immigrant threads, and the anti-LEO posts.  And then there are the insecure attention-whores, who feel like a "complete man" when wearing a big penis-extender on their belt, highly visible in public.  Maybe they should try codpieces instead.

The reason I'm frustrated is that this crazy bunch of people are self-destructive, and will harm gun rights.  With friends like this, who needs enemies.  These folks are unable to work together, and unable to work for a goal.

Sadly, the situation in OHV rights (dirtbikes and ATVs) is similar.  The problem has the same roots: motorcycle culture is based on the "rebel" being the model; that leads to a culture of jerks and asses.  I fear the outlook for my two hobbies (shooting and dirtbike riding) is pretty bleak.

Last edited by treelogger (2010-02-02 20:23:54)

Tolerant?  Do I try to prevent them from speaking?  Do I heckle them, or shout them down, or moderate them away?  In the few cases where I argue with them, do I become unpolite?  No.

Do I think they are right, or that they are doing a good thing, or (for many of them) that they have two clues to rub together?  No.  They have every right to say what they are saying.  Unfortunately, they even have the right to strut around in public with unloaded weapons that are used to display their masculinity and make them feel important while actually being useless (remove the "l" from public to make it even more insulting).  I'm not tolerant of them if what you mean by "tolerance" is "agreement".

The grey zone: I choose not to mingle with them.  In that sense, I'm intolerant.

Last edited by treelogger (2010-02-03 14:32:21)

UOC advocates are treated like the black sheep of the family at calguns.   Just because you do it with a good vocabulary and writing, doesn't change the fact that you are in fact heckling and putting people down.  Look at your description of UOC...

treelogger wrote:

Do I think they are right, or that they are doing a good thing, or (for many of them) that they have two clues to rub together?  No.  They have every right to say what they are saying.  Unfortunately, they even have the right to strut around in public with unloaded weapons that are used to display their masculinity and make them feel important while actually being useless (remove the "l" from public to make it even more insulting).  I'm not tolerant of them if what you mean by "tolerance" is "agreement".

The grey zone: I choose not to mingle with them.  In that sense, I'm intolerant.

Last edited by Incitatus (2010-02-04 10:34:03)

Incitatus wrote:

UOC advocates are treated like the black sheep of the family at calguns.

(highlighting is mine)

Not treated like.  They are the black sheep.  They are the people who are doing great harm to gun rights, maybe because they have no idea about the society they live in (hint: in California, guns are scary to the vast majority of the population), or because they follow an idealistic but completely unrealistic dream (if we just introduce the population to guns, they will love them, and a right exercised frequently will be cemented, even if overwhelmingly unpopular), or because they seek attention (for their person or their cause).

They also give a very skewed view of the gun culture: what's visible in the (U-)OC movement is angry white men, a good fraction of them young and out of control (Theseus, BlackwaterOps used to do the same stunts for the OLL movement), and other that are old and bitter.  If you listen to the (U-)OC advocates, you find that even more than the typical "gun nut on the interwebs" they are anti-government, anti-LEO, and angry.  Fortunately, if you look at a shooting range, or in the forest during hunting season, you find that many gun people in real life do not fit those stereotypes.  The public impression that the (U-)OC give would be comparable to believing that KKK marchers are typical southerners, or that tea party activists are typical US voters, or that doped-up beach hippies with surfboards and flip-flops are typical southern Californians (our very own Mitch would probably very much disagree with this).

Unfortunately, it is a free country.  Unfortunately, (U-)OC advocates still have the right to run around town, showing off their male fashion jewelry.  Unfortunately, there is a free speech right, even for people who are very very wrong.  I say "unfortunately", because by exercising these rights, they are endangering their (and my!) gun rights.  No, we should not restrict those rights; instead we need to get those black sheep to grow a pair - of brain lobes.

OC advocates are like dirt-bike riders who insist on riding off-trail, and go out of their way to ruin public riding areas, with their justification being that it's more fun to ride through wild terrain, rather than over planned and maintained trails, and that we used to do that without any consequences 30 years ago, that the organized riding areas are overcrowded, and that the motorcycle culture has always been about being a rebel.

Matter-of-fact, seeing how James Dean is associated with the city of Hollister, which has one of the state's premier dirt bike parks, the following motto really applies to both OC advocates and off-trail riders: "Rebel without a clue".

Last edited by treelogger (2010-02-05 16:50:17)

simonov wrote:

Snilloc Sabanrab wrote:

If I ever moved to CA, though, I probably would avoid it due to what I've read here.

No, Calguns is almost necessary for any active gun owner in California.

It is everything Treelogger said it is, but most of all it is the primary forum and window onto the activities of the Calguns Foundation, who collectively (before there was a Calguns Foundation) have done more for gun rights in California in the last five or ten years than the NRA has done in the last 25 years.

It's worth wading through the horseshit (which is typical of almost any gun board) to see what Gene and Ben and Bill are up to this time.

You're right.  I've never had a problem with Mr.'s Hoffman, Cannon or Weise!  Cal-Guns needs a moderator, who believes in the first amendment and does not have the personality of a fascist dictator.  Some of you guys were banned, for utterly ridiculous reasons.  Me too.  F--- that Kestrll asshole whoever he really is...