Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Posted: **Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:39:05**

I do want to point out that I and other mods HAVE and DO warn others for exactly what you have been warned about, off-line. Just like you were. Lighten up. You aren't a whipping boy here. These guys have been going out of their way to be fair with you. Your political viewpoint DOES make you a target in a forum like this and you know it. When you are in the lion's den surrounded by lions, it doesn't pay to kick them and expect to be treated well for it.

Posted: **Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:53:39**

herohog wrote:I do want to point out that I and other mods HAVE and DO warn others for exactly what you have been warned about, off-line. Just like you were. Lighten up. You aren't a whipping boy here. These guys have been going out of their way to be fair with you. Your political viewpoint DOES make you a target in a forum like this and you know it. When you are in the lion's den surrounded by lions, it doesn't pay to kick them and expect to be treated well for it.

well, unless that is your goal or purpose. I have been "reprimanded" . Its not as bad as getting shot I can tell you.

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:03:00**

While I don't agree with Jim's point of view, and I agree that flaming should be stopped. What kind of leg do you/we have to stand on when we lower ourselves to the flamer level ourselves?

After Jim's post, and DK's reiteration of his warning, several posts flaming him followed.

How can we stand here on high moral ground while pointing down at him calling him a troll, and insinuating a mental breakdown?

We should be better than this....

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:30:28**

FordTek wrote:While I don't agree with Jim's point of view, and I agree that flaming should be stopped. What kind of leg do you/we have to stand on when we lower ourselves to the flamer level ourselves?

After Jim's post, and DK's reiteration of his warning, several posts flaming him followed.

How can we stand here on high moral ground while pointing down at him calling him a troll, and insinuating a mental breakdown?

We should be better than this....

.....

flaming to me is purposefully attacking another without merit. Does not apply.

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:49:10**

I'm sure everyone has their own idea of flamer. But a flamer is generally someone that shows disagreement/disapproval with inappropriate responces.

I'm just saying that responding to someone saying inappropriate things by saying more inappropriate things is lowering one's self to their level.

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:17:39**

GS78 wrote:oh please jim, cry me a river, you write like a little kid whinning because the "popular" kids won't play with you. I am probably not the only one who could not stomach much more than the first two paragraphs, you see Jim, I already raised my kids. MAN UP, act like you have set, and get on with it. You are the one who goes on the attack anytime you run up on someone who hasn't fallen for the Obama crap. This tirade of yours is actually freakin PITYFUL. You want a pity party, go join a freakin sorority . You make wild accusations about this site because most people don't agree with you politically, just like your President, Jim at least have manhood to admit that this too was laid out by uncle saul. We are the ones who are wrong, NOT YOU. We are the ones who are intolerant, NOT YOU. I was the one who said you speak like someone with little trigger time, and If you will kindly post it in CONTEXT, I will stand by it 100%, the problem with your type is you won't do that. I forget the context myself jimmy, surprisingly you didn't repost it along with your diatribe. I also said on numerous occasions "jim has a valid point" or "Jim is an intelligent ....." why didn't you mention that jim? because it doesn't fit with your ambitions does it jimmie? You want to be able to say "that site is ...blah blah blah..." right? how many times did you inquire about anything other than politics? I admire someone who is able to argue their position Jim, but you are the one who drew first blood .

Thank you GS78 for proving my point. I'll just hold my tongue and not say what I really think about your post. However you may feel free to fire as many marshmallows as you like. Who knows maybe I'll just roast them and have a few more laughs.
Respectfully
Jim

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:31:50**

Arguing, while usually pointless, is different from personal attacks. Personal attachs will NOT be tollerated by anyone. Period. You can say the idea of voting for blah is stupid but do not say BillyJoeBob, you are an idiot for whatever. It is a fine line but it is a clear line.

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:49:50**

Moss: I hear you and I would love to avoid political issues. Since I belong to other sites that are totally political and am an administrator in a chat room ten times tougher and rougher than this one I could do without politics here. If others would do the same that would be great. Unfortunately others will not do the same, so in good conscience I'm compelled to reply to some of the posts. If I have been nasty that is not my intent since that's counter productive to a good argument. But nastiness is the stock and trade of a small cabal of posters in this forum. If posters can't disagree without being disagreeable that's OK with me. If they want to personally attack that's OK too, excepting what's the point? My only problem is the rules for posters should be the same, no double standards.

In the chat room where I admin the conversation is free flowing, lively, and sometimes the words and sentiments are harsh. Every political view is represented by chatters and the admins. Most of the chatters are Americans, but a few are foreigners, to include Arabs. A few foreigners clearly hate this country and say so almost every time they are on the mike. While their views are anathema, as long as they do not violate room rules none of the Admins (there are usually several of us in the room) will take any action, or deliver any warning. There is only one standard and it should be the same way here. Btw I can't think of anything you can write that would equal what I hear when I'm admining the political chat room, and there are political chat rooms where the language and sentiment is even stronger!

Respectfully
Jim

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:11:16**

herohog wrote:I do want to point out that I and other mods HAVE and DO warn others for exactly what you have been warned about, off-line. Just like you were. Lighten up. You aren't a whipping boy here. These guys have been going out of their way to be fair with you. Your political viewpoint DOES make you a target in a forum like this and you know it. When you are in the lion's den surrounded by lions, it doesn't pay to kick them and expect to be treated well for it.

herohog: I don't mind being a target. If I didn't expect it, I would never have replied to a single post. So no problem there. If the stuff they write and the cartoons and pictures they post is going out of their way to be fair, then I guess their definition of fair is not what I find in any dictionary. If they have been warned about anything, as you can see from posts here they chose to ignore the warnings. Don't get me wrong I'm not whining and I'm sure as hell not afraid of being in any proverbial lion's den, or lions. My only point was why does anyone think it's "fair" for anyone to be in the lion's den while blindfolded with both hands tied behind their back. If that's not enough when one hand is freed, the lions cry foul, no fair? I'll say again for the umpteenth time I do enjoy a good debate, but have no wish to trade personal insults. If someone else does then so be it, but they should not cry no fair when the object of their ire occasionally bites back.

Finally I quite agree with you and would be happy if everyone would lighten up.
Respectfully
Jim

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:45:05**

gatlingun6 wrote:
GS78 wrote:oh please jim, cry me a river, you write like a little kid whinning because the "popular" kids won't play with you. I am probably not the only one who could not stomach much more than the first two paragraphs, you see Jim, I already raised my kids. MAN UP, act like you have set, and get on with it. You are the one who goes on the attack anytime you run up on someone who hasn't fallen for the Obama crap. This tirade of yours is actually freakin PITYFUL. You want a pity party, go join a freakin sorority . You make wild accusations about this site because most people don't agree with you politically, just like your President, Jim at least have manhood to admit that this too was laid out by uncle saul. We are the ones who are wrong, NOT YOU. We are the ones who are intolerant, NOT YOU. I was the one who said you speak like someone with little trigger time, and If you will kindly post it in CONTEXT, I will stand by it 100%, the problem with your type is you won't do that. I forget the context myself jimmy, surprisingly you didn't repost it along with your diatribe. I also said on numerous occasions "jim has a valid point" or "Jim is an intelligent ....." why didn't you mention that jim? because it doesn't fit with your ambitions does it jimmie? You want to be able to say "that site is ...blah blah blah..." right? how many times did you inquire about anything other than politics? I admire someone who is able to argue their position Jim, but you are the one who drew first blood .
very good, jim, it has been fun.

Thank you GS78 for proving my point. I'll just hold my tongue and not say what I really think about your post. However you may feel free to fire as many marshmallows as you like. Who knows maybe I'll just roast them and have a few more laughs.
Respectfully
Jim

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:52:43**

Oh brother , jim you are a Prima Donna. I'm guessing you are a real "champion"of free speech in "your little chat room" aren't you?...oh brother, ....a chat room? That explains a lot.

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:02:02**

FordTek wrote:While I don't agree with Jim's point of view, and I agree that flaming should be stopped. What kind of leg do you/we have to stand on when we lower ourselves to the flamer level ourselves?

After Jim's post, and DK's reiteration of his warning, several posts flaming him followed.

How can we stand here on high moral ground while pointing down at him calling him a troll, and insinuating a mental breakdown?

We should be better than this....

Indeed and well said.

@Jim - my apologies. Seriously. Regarding not posting politics, well its part of the landscape. You cant talk about guns without talking about the 2nd Amendment, and you cant talk about that without talking about politics. I recommend you join some of the exchanges in other topics. Plenty of good discussions out there and your knowledge would only serve to add to the overall goals of this forum. You could benefit as well and get to know some of the other members from a different perspective. There is common ground so, please do join in.

@GS78 -

(need I say more?)

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:16:30**

well like the old saying goes.....opinions are like a.......... well, you know how it goes...

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:18:56**

You misspelled a..........

It should be a.......

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:45:58**

SHEW!~

just read the whole post...and i would not want to let Fireman down...(thanks for looking for me

) but no tirade coming on, a bit more reflective today, as my son is 9 today!

((quick sidebar: I had tried to get him to handle a .22, but he really wasn't focused on the details enough (safety) so i have backed it off a little bit and he will be getting his "Red Ryder" BB gun today, complete with clear shooting glasses, shatterblast targets, etc.. thats right ladies and gents, 350 ft per second of screaming BB power

))

But this entire post reminds me of something i read from Lord Byron a while back... had to do some digging and i will adjust it slightly for our use here, but the ideal is the same...

"As long as I retain my feeling and my passion for Nature, (read: Firearms) I can partly soften or subdue my other passions and resist or endure those of others. "

what i see here is actaully the American way, passion in debate,
and as a new mod (to this board) i love a good discussion, a lively one, with passion, points and counters...as Americans we can agree to disagree, and still get on with it... my favorite example is the Bush:Gore presidential race, the next day when all was in limbo, we did not take to the streets, we did not light cities on fire, no guardsmen had to secure the capitol...we all got up the next day, put our kids on the bus to school, and went to work. and that one of the reasons , to me, why we are part of the Greatest Nation on earth. period.

and in any debate, the sides have differing views, but no matter how polarising the issue may be, we do need to keep it civil and disagee with the ideas put forth, and step back from the personal attacks...I have have done it myself, when I was trying to verabally chop off Burkeman's head off for getting snipy about my "cheap AK is an SKS" comments ...just one of those days and fired off my response before brain was engaged...yes, it was funny, to me...but this place has far greater value by being inclusive, not exclusive...A little bit is (can be) funny, too much is offensive, and way too much drives wedges in that are very hard to remove...

We should revel in the fact that firearm owners do not fit any specific mold, political or otherwise...example is VA2A, my most recent hero, and she doesn't seem to fit the sterotype, any of them... which is just A-OK with me...

and while i am in my "make room for my fellow man" mode (subject to change without notice), i leave you with a quote from the Desiderata to contemplate...

"speak your truth quietly & clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, as they too, have thier story"

Carry on, my fellow VGOF'ers, & Do good things!

Posted: **Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:59:11**

^^ Hear Hear!^^

Posted: **Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:35:35**

Posted: **Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:51:31**

graybeard321 wrote:Anything would be better than the Socialist That is currently in office.
Not really sure how this supreme court decision is going to affect elections, but I can now see big business's donating large amounts of money to elect officials who will help them and I see unions donating large amounts of money to put more liberals and socialist in to office. I guess either way the American people lose.

There appears to be a misconception around the country--but I'm a bit surprised to see its hold on usually well informed gunnies--that restricted contributions by certain donors at certain times has been the rule for "100 years" as I think our President of uncertain citizenship put it in his State of the Union speech. Please try to recall, folks, that the restrictions undone by SCOTUS were given us us in the McCain-Feingold law. It's recent, and it was harshly opposed. At least one of those cats is still (barely) alive.

We got rid of a piece of autocratic government, and the Democrats are screaming their shriveled hearts out.

Posted: **Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:59:57**

Palladin wrote:several thoughts before I toddle off to bed...

Aww Paw! can't we keep him? We need a token "one of those people" around here...

I still think the guy with his head up his arse was funny - chuckle chuckle snort

Jim gives me a glimpse of how "other people" think, not that I know what I'm looking at, but a glimpse just the same.

Jim - When was the last time you warmed the barrel up on that Gustav? And why do you need that much horsepower?

Re: Post by gatlingun6 » Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:52:31- I agree with Doug, this was your best yet. As for more money in the mix, I can't help but wonder if this is a good thing...

And this one's a little off topic, but I neglected to chime in at the time. Concerning amnesty and illegals, they are here because of our greed. We let them in and employed them to save an almighty buck. We should man up to that, and give them a free ride back home - but no amnesty... Wow - I can see it now - all those jobs created, plus taxable income and the $29B stays home.

yawwwwwwn... G'nite all - still don't know of anywhere I'd rather be than right here...

thanks Palladin: Why do I need that much firepower? Need? Who cares about need? The answer is because I can, besides you never know when you might need some additional firepower for the lions

I thought more about that SCOTUS ruling, I asked. Do I want Toyota of American, BMW of America, FOX, BMW of America, Canon of America, 20th Century Fox, Microsoft, Exxon/Mobil, CITGO (owned by GS78's friend Hugo Chavez), BP, Apple, BFGoodrich, Dannon, Random House, Le Creuset, Cargill Hybrid Seeds, Sony, Columbia Pictures, etc. putting up unlimited sums to defeat an incumbent or promote a challenger? Or worse threatening an incumbent with the equivalent of monetary carpet bombing if they don't toe the line. What if some of them combined their resources? My answer? A resounding NO! Combined they could be like foam poured on a raging fire, they could simply suck all the oxygen, i.e. speech from the room. Btw did you spot all the corporations owned by foreign corporations and individuals?
As far as the illegal immigrant issue. As Pogo said: We have seen the enemy and it is us!
Respectfully
Jim

Posted: **Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:22:51**

@Jim - i dont agree with foreign interests being able to do that either and not sure how/why SCOTUS ruling was interpreted that way. Regarding illegals, the "us" enemy is the "US" government...

Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Re: Why