Site Staff note the bold

Especially in regards to bullshit state laws

prebans is concerned.

The is the situation in a nutshell.

Currently,  it would.

Thus is how ridiculous the CoC has gotten.

... Exactly

King’s actions were unlawful. @Minion42

The mods seem to be operating the guise of an absolute worst case scenario discussion or comment.

So the question remains why can’t peaceful non compliance of petty laws be definatelvey carved out.

I talk about ignoring Misdemeanor magazine bans in Colorado and site staff (you and Beerslayer) starts talking about machine guns, IEDs, political violence and sedition, insurrection and civil war.

Do you see the disconnect? A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.

What’s hilarious is that Brownell’s is shooting themselves in the foot, here. I don’t know know what they paid for Arfcom, but I’m sure it wasn’t cheap. It commanded whatever price they paid, because of the amount of activity here. That activity existed because people liked the way it was. If they continue to screw with that, they will lose that activity. As such, they will devalue their investment considerably.

One thing worth mentioning is the simple fact that "free speech" is increasingly controlled by government.  In this day and age of social media platforms becoming the defacto means of communication, and the pluralism the social media platforms have demonstrated, we the people can no longer think our ability to communicate freely is assured.  The government or their agents can control the message at the very least, or shut down any internet site anytime they damn well please.

ARFCOM, as have other platforms, has demonstrated that the message is controlled.  If in the future SHTF occurs, and I hope it doesn't, free speech and communication may be a real problem for those who don't want to roll over to the king's will.  All one has to do is watch the Democrats, and many others, in the news everyday.  It's very apparent they have no interest in allowing opposing viewpoints or speech that doesn't agree with their view of what's right or wrong.

I wish I knew how to assure free speech now or in the future!!

Actually, here in Alabama of all places it is illegal to carry in or near a protest.

I have bitched about it to state reps and none of them seem to care.

This.

Discussion on how to build and use IEDs against the .gov has NEVER expected to be allowed.

That’s essentially the crux of the matter here, too. It was also “illegal” to take up arms against the King. We did it anyway.

Not to mention tainting the business itself.

Ive spent thousands of dollars at Brownells in the past year.  If this continues I sure as hell aint doing it in the future year.

In their minds, I'm sure they don't see it that way.  Forums are a way to make money.  The informational or entertainment value of the discussions are just the way the site owners get members to come to their boards and click on their sponsor links.  That's not a criticism.  Any entertainment venue only exists to enrich the sponsors and producers.  Welcome to Business 101.

Or unless you are a democrat.  

So the chilling effect is still going to be in effect.

I'm sure the Chinese, and our own politicos, have seen that Knob Creek footage ABC attributed to the Turks.

And that's just a bunch of Americans recreating.
Imagine if they were hard pressed by tyrannical government action.

Impossible, he is the sole sovereign.

But saying something like, "I'm surprised no one has planted an IED at (insert government location here)."

Isn't endorsement of that action.

But mods tend to disagree, they go to the "Damaging to the community" COC as the catchall.
Which then shuts down conversation through the chilling effect.

 Rosa Parks would be perma banned for her willingness to break the law.

It's also illegal to enforce unconstitutional laws.

18 USC 242

I am in favor of enforcing 18 USC 242 against people who want to enact and enforce red flag laws.  And 18 USC 242 is an older statute than a lot of gun laws, and much older than the red flag stasi nonsense.

Let me play devil's advocate.  Put the site behind a paywall like many members have suggested.  Keep every time, dick, and Harry on the internet from having access here.  Problem solved.

Excellent post!

Attached File


They can't ban all of us.

And revenues decrease?

You'd have to be nuts to advocate violating the law in a forum full of cops.

Just an observation, but I would think "will not comply" is the very definition of civil disobedience.

It doesn't advocate violence or any other "offensive" response.  Civil disobedience has been accepted as a form of protest almost since this country was founded.

It's up to the site owners, of course, if it's allowable under the CoC or not, but at some point the fundamental question has to be whether "will not comply" is indeed just a form of protest and/or free speech or a form of promoting illegal activity.

Reported!!1

Yes. It’s not beating a dead horse
The conversation will move somewhere else if the appointed mods here cannot conduct themselves appropriately and respectfully
If they cannot separate themselves from biases, like not allowing people to slander the name of the prophet, while doing nothing about those who bring up flying spaghetti monsters and such, or secretly deleting posts, then this site has outlived its usefulness
There are other 2A sites out there
This one was just perhaps more entertaining.   Now thanks to the current crop of mods (or a couple of them), that function is diminishing
It’s all about clicks and revenue.

Do the owners sit by and do nothing while the clerks run off the customers?  How will that help revenue?

I guess it's time to start looking at those sites then.

Quite frankly any "Arms Ban" whether it be the arms themselves, components, and or features is unconstitutional period.  We have been constitutionally fleeced by our leadership for a number of decades (going back to the 1960's possibly earlier?) It is clear that Supreme Law protects these as RIGHTS.  "...bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution OR Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding..." it goes on to clarify: ...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

This says that the US Constitution trump State Constitutions. It also goes on to say ALL Senators, Representatives, and Members of State Legislatures, Executive, and Judicial Officers are bound to the oath in affirmation to support the US Constitution. Therefore none of them can contradict it knowingly to enact laws, regulations, and treaties that violate it.  It's very clear.  The abused component is the second paragraph and the interpretation of OR . It is clear OR is under the assumption that what is mapped out in the US Constitution is not violated when enacting laws.  In other sections of the US Constitution is elaborates that the rights and articles are not intended to limit freedoms, but merely protect and prevent government from infringing upon them.  Quite frankly the idea that States can be part of the USA and violate rights within the US Constitution is a FANTASY.  And unfortunately our wealthy and powerful leadership has conned us for some time.  I believe with the advent of the internet and social media this con has run its course and we are reaching a state of enlightenment.  I also believe if the Executive Branch and SCOTUS enforce Article VI we will never have to worry about Civil War.  If not, it is inevitable.

Article VI: Supreme Law

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

First Amendment freedom of speech v. CoC.

This site may be publicly available, but it has not taken on the aspects of a public forum.  So, no.  CoC > yuh rites.

Shit, long before Brownells, Aimless got mad at me for supporting the notion of Jury Nullification.

And a long time LEO member here chastised me for supporting that also because "you would go against your word promising to uphold the law when on the jury".

That's where you're wrong kiddo...

Here's the problem.  It doesn't stop with, "XX is unconstitutional.  Therefore I don't feel obligated to obey.  I won't obey.  I don't think you should feel constrained to obey."  There is no self discipline, no restraint.  The chest beating always devolves into insults on one hand or actual discussion or encouragement of illegal activity on the other.  This is a business.  We don't have any "right" to break their rice bowl.

True.  Their ballpark, their rules.  People absolutely need to remember that.  Where the line is drawn needs to be clearly and precisely delineated.

"Will not comply" , "water the tree of liberty", even a phrase like "inalienable right" could all be CoC violations if they want to pursue it.

Well I'm not paid to be here.

I pay to be here.

So I don't give 2 shits about how much profit is generated by the site.

OP if we're honest, discussion of civil and...call it uncivil...disobedience should be allowed when it comes to government action that attempts to deprive us of our rights bestowed on us by the Constitution and BoF.  There is an actual line, and I don't think it's that "fuzzy" when rational, logical people see real, not imagined, threats to individual liberty supposedly guaranteed to us.

Discussion is vital to those guaranteed rights.  Without discussion you go straight from liberty to chaos.  Discussion actually often de-escalates a volatile situation when everyone can see, out in the open, where people stand on certain issues.  One example in light of gun control would be the stated promise of gun owners that they will not comply and that they will respond with violence if pushed beyond reasonable limits.

Now, if someone tries to claim that last sentence is a violation of COC in a discussion, that alone is part of the problem we're talking about here.  Elected officials, judges, law enforcement, and many others need to know where a good many gun owners stand on these related issues of gun control.  Squelching that speech contributes to laying the groundwork for a misconception on the part of those authorities who could easily get the impression that the citizenry is not serious about certain personal rights or the actions of government.

Now understand this clearly...my "discussion" here is not encouraging one or more gun owners to rush out the door right now and start an armed rebellion.  However, our founders and their documents by which we live clearly warned us that such action "could" be necessary in some future scenario.  Our ability and right to discuss the possibility of such future action if our government were to clearly cross a tyrannical line is one of the very elements that hinders the likelihood of a tyrannical government.

And while we're mainly talking about gun control issues here, this unfettered freedom to discuss applies to all issues between the government and its citizens.  One need only look at the impact of an almost totally left/liberal leaning media to see the danger of limiting discussion and commentary about the different sides of controversial issues.  It's a foolish pursuit on their part, as it will likely backfire when enough people on any given issue get tired of being fed an endless line of BS and react more aggressively than perhaps they would have if a more open discussion had been presented.

While discussion should have it's own limitations guided by logic and reason, it should be relatively open, frank, and unhindered.  Obviously an example of someone promoting immediate violence and mayhem in an unwarranted scenario should be called out.  Exactly where that point occurs or when that subject matter is inappropriate is...well...you guessed it...open for discussion.

Why do people keep bringing up our "right" to discuss something?

This is a private forum, so the owners can make whatever limitations they want.

And members can choose to leave or cease supporting a site that doesn't align with their personal beliefs.

The point of this thread, as I see it from Miles' posts last night, was to determine if Paul was being overzealous in his modding, or if the site's position is that we cannot discuss peaceful non-compliance with a law limiting magazine capacity, that not even many LEO's in CO have a desire to enforce.

If "Come and take them" actually has meaning, or if this is a site solely for LARPing.

But the owners probably give 2 shits about how much profit they generate and, as a result, my guess is your suggestion has no chance of ever being implemented.

I think members want to believe that this place is more than just a business

I have talked about this here before.

Massive civil disobedience, a few thousand arfcommers with 30 round mags on the DC mall.

We have precedent for lack of prosecution.  They didn't prosecute this piece of shit.



https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/23/david-gregory-arrest-affidavit-nbc-knew-he-would-violate-dc-gun-law

Point out their hypocrisy and stupidity.

via Imgflip Meme Generator" />

That is cuckold BS. A protest in secret isn’t a protest.
Our actions and words have no power if they are invisible to the world.

Uhhhh....yes. Their planning is pretty straightforward and open, as is the illegal activities, namely assaults, they plan to carry out at whatever rally or protest they plan on being at.

Do they attempt some form of opsec, sure. Is it effective, no not really. You just need to follow about a dozen FB groups and maybe 2 dozen Twitter handles.

Good thing she wasn't just dicking around in the internet

You guys are as bad as the lefties that see Nazis and racists under their bed, and think they're saving the world.

Okay, so that means cops can't plan their red flag raids, here.

Does that also mean we can ban people who support or promote gun control?  I'd actually be pretty okay with that, here...though the Trump meme threads might get a lot less crowded.

You must be a liberal.

We KNOW what was intended under Second Amendment. We also know that the gun grabber's justifications for infringements are horseshit.

Let me ask you this, if Congress banned and nullified the 4th Amendment with some kind of legislation, does that mean every cop in the country can simply search and seize your property without probable cause or a warrant? Think and answer carefully.