Do you ever wonder if Gun Control Advocates lurk or even sign up on Gun Forums?

Very interesting "Smitten" and thought provoking? I don't see much on this forum but the S&W Forum is far different from others. Here, the overall group is by far and away comprised of reasoning thinkers and seekers quite willing to listen, think and then contribute. It would be difficult for an anti to do much more than take it in. This forum is too smart and well moderated to take the troll bait by enlarge.


There are other forums where this seems to run rampant and unchecked, several of which tout themselves as being the "word" on this or that brand or weapon platform... I believe part of their issue is infiltration but what Krogen referred to; "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of a task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge." would seem as the root of it.
These forums are almost "in your face" with their "knowledge" and I find them to become boring and obnoxious quickly and shortly limit my participation. That's my $.02 and thanks for reading it...
 
Last edited:
It's an issue with every single platform, forum, group and scent marked fire hydrant.
the moment you think you've gotten away from the trolls, you find it's stacked ten deep with whackadoos.
Wimkin, MeWe, Parler even truth social seem to have higher concentrations of insurgents than even facebook.
You're not only correct in your observation, but there is also high probability of organized infiltration efforts.

I've seen antigun sites posing as gun law resources, presenting incorrect information.
Is it to start fights? or is it to get folks picked off as low hanging fruit as they act in accordance with their erroneous council?
 
My general rule, when posting online, by email, or any other digital communication is to always assume someone is watching, listening, and recording and that whatever you say will be used against you in the future if possible. (Not necessarily as in being arrested, but in general society).

I will admit that I have often made disclaimers on statements of self-defense when posting online. Those are more like what a lawyer would say rather than "fear-mongering".

As to online forums and so forth. I think there are both people reading them + artificial intelligence flagging certain phrases, words, and so forth.

This is jus me personally, I know many people are truly fearless when posting and I appreciate them.

One of the reasons I like this forum so much is that it is generally clean, respectful and informative. It is my go-to online forum. For that, I wanted to take a minute and thank those that post and contribute to this forum.
 
Most assuredly there are opposition people on all forums, some are even NRA members simply to gain information.
We do the same.

Randy
 
I’ll take the leap: I think there should absolutely be **some** gun controls imposed on the population of the United States, on a federal level, and in some cases with appropriate local restrictions.

For example, I think we should collectively ban fully-automatic firearms for anything other than novelty range toys. No carry, no use outside of a designated, approved range, and very restrictive accessibility to them. There’s no legitimate self-defense or hunting rationale for a FA firearm, and only very limited sporting ones. This also includes devices like Glock switches, binary triggers, etc…when we drop the rules-lawyering, these are functionally machine guns by different mechanisms.

I also think we as a nation should require a training class, to be hosted weekly by local law enforcement, for every firearm purchased, to be completed prior to taking possession. $50, ammunition, and a range managed by LEOs with a shall-issue (pending objective performance/safety reviews), possibly to include a licensure scheme a la CHL.

I think private sales of firearms are potentially controversial and would be OK with mandating use of a background-check system as a part of those transactions.

I think it is entirely reasonable for society to require people who want to carry a firearm in public to demonstrate functional proficiency with carrying, drawing, loading and firing that firearm accurately. I don’t think it’s a good thing to have ignorant people brandishing weapons because “muh rights!” And thinking every mild-to-moderate social problem should be solved with presentation of a weapon.

I think we should deny weapon ownership to the mentally ill, certain felons, illegal immigrants and minors (in most cases). I also think that we should functionally have some way to expeditiously remove firearms from someone demonstrating evidence of a mental-health crisis, subject to due process and the return of their property after they are no longer in crisis.

I think that particular places are not appropriate for carrying weapons and that CCW regulations should reflect that reality.

I think that there is a legitimate public-safety discussion for magazines in excess of 15-20 rounds; once again, why exactly does a user need more ammunition on board than dudes who literally fought through WW2? I’d honestly be OK if we treated 10+ round magazines like suppressors and required a tax stamp, NFA registration, etc.

Gun control ain’t a bad thing, y’all.

I also think that we should have a national concealed-carry infrastructure with mandatory reciprocity, that feature bans are silly and stupid, and that every American who wants it should be able to access free, high-quality training and live-fire training on a safe range managed by local law enforcement on an annual basis at a minimum. I also think that we should constitutionally enshrine protections against gun bans and confiscation and affirm a constitutional right to self-defense. I think that a lot of the Democrat gun control is stupidity enshrined and I think that a lot of the workarounds and adaptations of gun culture actually promote irresponsible, unsafe use of firearms instead of well-reasoned, respectful and safe use.

Not a hippy or a troll or anti-gun; I probably have a more-extensive collection than around a third of the board and I carry everywhere I can (legally and safely). I think almost everyone should be armed and I think firearms ownership by private persons is one of the factors that keeps America free and good and mostly honest. I think disarmament is a terrible idea that leads to tyranny. I think the 2A is fundamentally about maintaining the capability to effectively resist tyranny, not hunting or sports. I also think that we as a society need to adapt to the demonstrated and known threats posed by individuals with firearms that allow them to wield more “firepower” than an infantry platoon in a short period of time.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting topic and one that appears on just about every public internet forum I’ve ever been on since 1999.

A person can be anything they want to be behind a keyboard.

I believe it doesn’t take long for the average participating member of a forum to determine how someone “thinks” about the topics they are posting on.

Being quickly able to filter the Bravo Sierra from valid anecdotal opinions, logical facts, relevant data, and obvious intent is key to enjoying and participating in a public internet forum. In textual communications it is too often difficult to interpret humor, emotion, and tone. In the absence of body language, voice intonation, facial expressions, and eye contact, it’s easy to misconstrue what someone is actually saying. Personal attacks on a person’s character only demonstrate the insulting person’s stupidity and ignorance.

I am a big fan of the 1st Amendment, so I dislike heavy restrictions, admin monitoring of posts, and closing an ongoing flaming discussion in any given raging topic being discussed providing the posts do not break forum policies.

Some of the very best, most interesting, relevant, and educational threads I’ve read in a public forum were the most emotional and fiery. If left alone they will nearly always “flame out” on their own.

Aggressively and respectfully debating a person’s statement is good discourse.

I’m old and crotchety, so I don’t let bad people or those who disagree with me waste my time.
 
Last edited:
Lately, I'm beginning to wonder if certain gun forums have been infiltrated by Gun Control Advocates based on observation of users with strangely pro-Gun Control statements as well as a habitual presumption that their fellow forum-goers aren't responsible with firearms.

I've noticed a phenomenon in which certain users automatically presume that others are completely ignorant if not totally lacking in common sense when it comes to self-defense.

Honestly, it seems that in any given discussion, there's always a handful of users who speak to others in the most condescending way possible, treating them as if they're completely irresponsible without anything whatsoever to indicate that they don't know what they're doing.
They make all manner of statements as if the people they're speaking with aren't aware of their rights, how their firearms work, of basic firearms safety, despite the fact that obviously those who post here are Firearms Enthusiasts who otherwise wouldn't be here at all if they didn't know about these things, especially not posting from accounts which were created years ago.

For example, if someone starts a discussion on the topic of Home Defense, someone will start talking down to them about how they need to be aware of their local laws, be responsible for every shot that they take, to be mindful of the fact that walls don't stop bullets, that guns don't work the way they do in the movies, and every other presumptuous, condescending statement possible.
It would be one thing if the topic creator opened the thread by stating that they're new to self-defense and that they were seeking advice, but that isn't the sort of thread I'm referring to here. It's just users who seem to be under the impression that the majority of other users are negligent or incompetent to the point that they're a danger to themselves as well as everyone around them.

Unsurprisingly, these users also tend to make statements in favor of Gun Control and against the enactment of laws which uphold the Second Amendment such as Constitutional Carry.

So I have to wonder just who these users really are and what side they're on when they think so lowly of their peers that they treat every thread like it's an opportunity to instruct their fellow users on firearms safety, their rights, and everything else that's relevant to self-defense as if they're ignorant, irresponsible, or otherwise completely negligent of these things.
Furthermore, I cannot help but feel as if it's intentionally manipulative, as these presumptions are clearly never put to rest, nor do the users who make them ever appear to be reassured by their fellow users when they attempt to inform them that they know what they're doing, regardless of how informed they clearly are or what their service credentials would indicate to the contrary. They just keep right on responding to threads with their presumptuous, condescending rhetoric.

Regardless of intent, it's a very rude way to address others which isn't conducive towards civil discussion nor maintaining a friendly atmosphere to go full Mrs. Shields by arbitrarily responding every discussion they read on Firearms, Self-Defense, and the Second Amendment with comments which more or less equate to; "You'll shoot your eye out, Kid!"

In addition, I have witnessed the all-the-more suspicious activity which is essentially users attempting to scare other users out of using firearms for self-defense by bombarding them with horror stories of how they had better have a darn-good lawyer or they'll lose their money, their house, their job, and their freedom if they dare to shoot someone in self-defense.
Alternatively, they'll attempt to make others doubt in their ability to safely use a firearm under stress by telling horror stories of folks who forgot to switch off the safety or didn't keep a firm grip on it so it was snatched away by their attacker and used against them, or how someone unintentionally shot someone innocent because they panicked, or any number of other such cautionary tales which end in death or imprisonment.
As if that wasn't enough, there are always the horror stories of accidental death, betrayal and grisly murder by family and friends who were able to get their hands on firearms which either weren't adequately secured or otherwise left openly accessible to a third party.

I don't know about the rest of you, but that doesn't strike me as the sort of way that a Firearms Enthusiast speaks, but rather that of a Gun Control Advocate who is going out of their way to discourage people from exercising their rights by owning, carrying, and using their firearms for self-defense.
Of course they do. Why wouldn’t they?
 
They may lurk but if they speak we would smell them immediately.

To wit, a couple posts above an anti shows their hand:

 
Last edited:
I’ll take the leap: I think there should absolutely be **some** gun controls imposed on the population of the United States, on a federal level, and in some cases with appropriate local restrictions.

For example, I think we should collectively ban fully-automatic firearms for anything other than novelty range toys. No carry, no use outside of a designated, approved range, and very restrictive accessibility to them. There’s no legitimate self-defense or hunting rationale for a FA firearm, and only very limited sporting ones. This also includes devices like Glock switches, binary triggers, etc…when we drop the rules-lawyering, these are functionally machine guns by different mechanisms.

I also think we as a nation should require a training class, to be hosted weekly by local law enforcement, for every firearm purchased, to be completed prior to taking possession. $50, ammunition, and a range managed by LEOs with a shall-issue (pending objective performance/safety reviews), possibly to include a licensure scheme a la CHL.

I think private sales of firearms are potentially controversial and would be OK with mandating use of a background-check system as a part of those transactions.

I think it is entirely reasonable for society to require people who want to carry a firearm in public to demonstrate functional proficiency with carrying, drawing, loading and firing that firearm accurately. I don’t think it’s a good thing to have ignorant people brandishing weapons because “muh rights!” And thinking every mild-to-moderate social problem should be solved with presentation of a weapon.

I think we should deny weapon ownership to the mentally ill, certain felons, illegal immigrants and minors (in most cases). I also think that we should functionally have some way to expeditiously remove firearms from someone demonstrating evidence of a mental-health crisis, subject to due process and the return of their property after they are no longer in crisis.

I think that particular places are not appropriate for carrying weapons and that CCW regulations should reflect that reality.

I think that there is a legitimate public-safety discussion for magazines in excess of 15-20 rounds; once again, why exactly does a user need more ammunition on board than dudes who literally fought through WW2? I’d honestly be OK if we treated 10+ round magazines like suppressors and required a tax stamp, NFA registration, etc.

Gun control ain’t a bad thing, y’all.

I also think that we should have a national concealed-carry infrastructure with mandatory reciprocity, that feature bans are silly and stupid, and that every American who wants it should be able to access free, high-quality training and live-fire training on a safe range managed by local law enforcement on an annual basis at a minimum. I also think that we should constitutionally enshrine protections against gun bans and confiscation and affirm a constitutional right to self-defense. I think that a lot of the Democrat gun control is stupidity enshrined and I think that a lot of the workarounds and adaptations of gun culture actually promote irresponsible, unsafe use of firearms instead of well-reasoned, respectful and safe use.

Not a hippy or a troll or anti-gun; I probably have a more-extensive collection than around a third of the board and I carry everywhere I can (legally and safely). I think almost everyone should be armed and I think firearms ownership by private persons is one of the factors that keeps America free and good and mostly honest. I think disarmament is a terrible idea that leads to tyranny. I think the 2A is fundamentally about maintaining the capability to effectively resist tyranny, not hunting or sports. I also think that we as a society need to adapt to the demonstrated and known threats posed by individuals with firearms that allow them to wield more “firepower” than an infantry platoon in a short period of time.
Just curious if you feel the same way about the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments? Or is the 2nd some sort of second hand right?
 
Of course they are here along with FBI, ATF, DEA, US MARSHALLS and spies from China, Russia and Iran. What else do you want to know ?
And not to over boil the pot, but except for the PRC spies, there are genuine firearms enthusiasts and 2A advocates in those groups mentioned. And upper level management in at least DEA and USMS doesn’t seem to be sitting around dreaming of implementing ways to disarm to usher utopia. Most of them don’t want to live in a police state either, because police states have the bad habit of eating their retirees.

And I’m sure there are anti gun trolls, but there are also those with real world experience who may pipe in and suggest people use common sense when planning ways to defend themselves. Having a legal defense plan with quick access to a lawyer is not irrational. Nor is practicing Rule #4. 30 round magazines are good, but 30 rounds impacting a neighbor’s house because someone hysterically sprayed and prayed is not good. Being responsible doesn’t mean we have to be against 30 round mags, but that we take our responsibility seriously and put real effort into safe practices and training.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top