Well, as a Mod who's locked threads I seem to have a dog in this fight, so I'll throw in.



The bans that have been issued have not been for taking the "moral high ground". The bans have taken place for violations of the Code of Conduct, usually as a result of arguments or disagreements between certain members that come to a head in a thread and in the cases that come to mind they've typically been repeated ones.



Think about it - as an internet forum that strives to provide an interesting and stimulating* venue, would we rather have an exchange between educated, opinionated folks or more "Here's a pic of a booger - should I eat it? Wait for pole" or "what was the gun Pacino used in HEAT" threads?

Just my $0.02... if they start capping folks due to a "quality of content" standard, as someone who often over-documents arguments I'm SOL.






Although I have to completly agree with your latter statement.

* Not too stimulating - still has to meet the BOTD rules.

Multiple points - apologies in advance for possible scattered argument syndrome.




As far as "us" and "them" and who's "better": It all depends on which side of the fence you stand.



Humans usually operate under the concept that the beliefs they hold on a subject are correct, and other ones are incorrect, if not inferior. While the beliefs we hold in an intellectual sense can be challenged and sometime converted by the presentation of scientific evidence, anectdotes and practical experience (9mm v .45), those we hold by faith are far more difficult to alter despite the availability of contradictory evidence (although faith based belief in an idea is in no way limited to religion)



There is typically a fair amount of pride and egoism that accompanies discussion about one's beliefs, increased by the anonymity of the internet. During rational and polite discourse, this egoism is usually held in check for the purposes of discussion and learning.



But times have changed, and we'll reflect how those changes have impacted this below.



Each internet forum carries with it two predispositions - those of the founders that establish the site and those of the members who visit, participate and continue the existence of it. In this case, both are still active.



This board was founded to discuss firearms. As such it will attract folks who own, or desire to own firearms. Typically and in the broadest sense, the people like that that frequent this board tend towards the "right" side of American politics, and believe in hunting, the right to self defense and RKBA.



Typically and in the broadest general sense, folks who could fall under the descriptors of "hippie" or "tree hugger" tend towards the "left" side of the spectrum. You don't find many who own firearms or wish to... in fact, many of the folks who embrace that lifestyle are believers that nobody (with the possible exception of law enforcement or the military) should even possess firearms, whether for hunting or self defense.



Thus an inherent conflict develops. While the attitude here may seem hostile to "hippies", I doubt that a board catering to "hippies" would long tolerate a poster who started espousing the beliefs of ARFCOM. Even if the board itself allowed him to continue under what we view as freedom of speech, I can't help but wonder how long it would be until other posters claimed to "feel threatened" by the poster's positions, and used the machine of "political correctness" to silence a dissenting voice.



It's also human nature of a sort to depersonalize one's opponent. From the Greeks referring to outsiders as uneducated barbarians; "Johnny Reb" and "blue bellied devils" of the American Civil War / WBS; the "Hun" of WWI, "Krauts" and "Nips" of WWII; "Slopes" of VN; "Skinnies" of SOM.



One could even make the argument that such a depersonalization was used during the 2008 Presidential campaign between "rich" and "working class" (or "rich" and "poor") but that might be hard to prove, and it depends on whether we're talking about +/- $250,000 $150,000/year.




Since the (D)'s took the majority of congress, and especially since the last election, there has been a slew of anti RKBA/2A sentiment from the (D)'s in office, from Congress to POTUS. While they may lack the practical ability to impose their anti freedom beliefs at this time, the desire is still there, and it is not being hidden or concealed.



As such it is viewed by many that we are in a battle of ideologies between the anti RKBA folks in DC and the individual lawfully armed citizen. As a result the niceties of the negotiation table or cocktail party have been discarded, as has the concept of the "individual validity" of the person who is espousing those ideas, or anything like them, and likewise the concept that an opposing ideology is "equally valid".



It's not so much an attack on "John Doe" the liberal, it's an attack on the beliefs and culture to which John Doe subscribes which are diametrically opposed to the core beliefs of this site and most of it's members. While not directly anti RKBA, many of those sentiments are shared by those who are, and you're often judged by the company you keep.

As far as being "better" than anybody else here or elsewhere... I don't know what you're looking for exactly. A "pure" forum, where all ideas, concepts and beliefs can share an equal forum with respect and dignity?



If so, it's not here, and to be honest given what I know and have seen concerning human behavior I doubt that such a pure evironment exists.