Where is to far? When is not now?

[WhiteFeather93]

Carefully before any letter is typed and any thought relayed I think. I think not only on the responce my words will receive, but also the impact my words make. I read and re-read and check and correct every sentence in order to assure myself that I have not posted a grammatically flawed jumble of words that are harder to sort out than a word search puzzle. I often times refer to http://webster.com/ to ensure that I use a word in its correct pretense. I go through all this to pass knowledge or a question on in a manor that does not question the intelligence of my post. However...

I struggle constantly with that which is not easily distinguished. Even if my sentence is perfect and I have dotted my I's and crossed my T's I can still make mistakes in the content of my post. There are lines that are crossed that are not visable. There are grey areas that do not have a black and white areas easily visable by all.

My question is in the title. When does a conversation go to far? When do we as a group stop sounding like responsible liberty seeking individuals and start on a rant that appears to be written by a gun crazed fanatic bent on lunacy?
Passion is built into everyone and some subjects conjure up horrific scenes in our head that we feel must be subdued and corrected less anyone taste this horror and label an entire group as unsound.

It is true that a myriad of people both for and against firearms visit this site and read through the posts in search for fuel for their argument. But where do you draw the line in addressing both those for and against the cause. Where and when does one post their true feelings on a subject and when and where does one hold back? What is going to far? There are many many writers on this forum and in many others. Each with a different and important opinion on everything written or stated. But when does a conversation become an argument? And when has that arguement gone to far?

Capt Charlie has a very valid question built right into his signature.
"You are ambassadors to the world for firearm owners. What kind of ambassador does your post make you? (Paraphrased)

When is that line crossed that makes us seem to further the cause for those who wish we did not have a the freedom we do?

[CrazyIvan007]

Nicely put post.

I don't believe we are all doctorates. I don't believe we are all sophisticated. Many of us are simple folk. Some of us live out in the boonies. One can not expect such a diverse group of people to all speak clearly and concisely all of the time. We are all individuals with individual ideas. Were we to all hold the same exact beliefs, were we all to hold the same opinions, were we all glorified robots, there would be no reason for this forum or any other to talk to other human beings.

The majority of us know right from wrong. We share a belief that those who do wrong should pay the consequences, of which may be a miriad of different things.

We believe in defending the defenseless. We belive in "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness." We believe in freedom, friendship, family and justice. We are patriotic to our country and believe our sovereignty is very important to our enduring leadership in the world.

We do not always post our thoughts, opinions and feelings clearly and thoroughly. Most any post can be taken out of context and something from it can be used against us. Fortunately, we are protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights and can not be persecuted for our beliefs, opinions and thoughts.

We are a society which both rewards and punishes good and bad behavior respectively.

We here on this forum and other gun-supportive forums believe in the right to defend ourselves and others we may find in danger. Firearms are simply a tool which allows us to be better prepared and give us an extra tool in our belt should we act on our righteous beliefs, which fortunately are afforded to us by law.

Thanks for the thread.

[Thunderhawk88]

Very good thread Whitefeather 93, and CrazyIvan, your post said alot of what I feel.
As to "How far?"....once we stop showing respect for others and their opinion we have gone too far. We all slip now and then, but it's alarming to me to see it happening now constantly. Con/Lib, Rep/Dem, North/South, XD/Glock, 1911/everyothergun..........no one seems to be able to accept the idea that someone else has a different view. And from where I sit it appears to be crippling not only our government, but our society. (sorry guys, just had to get it off my unsophisticated chest!)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No offense but this is a General discussion and not a tactical one - don't ya think?

It would be appropriate in that forum.

As to the topic before the move (if it does), argument start as folks are intolerant and then resort to challenging the moral integrity of those who disagree.

For example, someone who might not think that open access to full automatic arms is a good idea, could be called a "liberal" and a threat to freedom

Views of freedom vary widely from complete libertarians to the sex, religion and drug police that lead to authoritarian governmental abuse.

It's more complicated than cliches and those complexities usual lead a thread to devolve into insults.

Sigh.

[Erik]

There's a balance in any conversation, somethign often times hard to acount for on a website. So sometimes we seem like nuts to some, other times liberals to a few, and most of the time somewhere in between to most. In between with a decidedly conservative slant to most of society, mind you.

[ZeroJunk]

I think one problem with these type forums in general is that the spoken word carries so much more information than the written word.Without loudness,tone,inflection to convey attitude along with the words there is enormous room for misunderstanding.

That's the reason you sometimes feel like you get over reaction from way out in left field compared to what you were trying to convey.

But,I see nothing posted in these forums to indicate that the members are anything but a sampling with the opinions and concerns of the population in general.

[Dwight55]

Thanks, guys, . . . lots of good stuff has been said.

Though we are rep/dem, . . . lib/conservative, . . . yank/rebel, . . . 1911/others: we are gun loving people, . . . shooters, reloaders, CAS, SASS, NRA, IDPA, . . . folks with 5 shot .22's and some with .600 boomers.

Funny thing, . . . and I don't say this as a platitude, . . . I have hardly ever met another gun loving person with whom I could not get along.

It seems the gun brings us together, . . . and the ideas associated positively with it, . . . keeps us together.

May God bless,
Dwight

[Avenger11]

Let's all have a group hug!!!

[WhiteFeather93]

Lets see if we can dig a little deeper...

I put this post in Tactics and Training because I felt this area could benefit from a discussion on boundaries. If the mods wish to move it I am fine with that. I am not trying to hyjack the forum I just have questions that I cannot answer on my own. And in asking those questions maybe some will ask themselves the same. As I stated there are some very clear lines in a discussion involving firearms that I refuse to cross anymore. Now I am well aware that in the past I activily engaged in idle talk of "what ifs" and I want to make it clear that I am not preaching from the pulpit. I have more questions than I have ideas to answer. But in particular I refuse to comment on "what if" threads and I choose to use this as an example. The more I thought about it the more I did not like the idea of it." What if." Threads have a purpose and are useful for some. But it is of my mind that to comment on some of those threads would leave a person out in the open for a premeditated charge. I get arrested for shooting in self defense and somebody searches through my records and finds that on said date and time I mentioned that if blank ever happened this is how I would react, it could cause doubt in the minds of those who wish to give me a one way ticket to jail.

I am not a doctorate.
I live in a little little boony town with a population of less than 5,000
I am only a young lad of 21.

Although writing in a proper and concise manor helps to explane a thought easier. I look less at somones grammer and more at content. Some of the smartest people I've known could not read or write. But if I had a pen and paper handy everytime they talked I could fill a book with quotes to live by.
Refering back to my original post however. When does a converastion become incriminating. When does one cross the line of adding to a conversation and start provide the argument for those against us? And when do you care if you say something that could be used against you? I'll stop here and let those re-read the first post. I really can't seem to find an answer to these and although the replys so far have been good I just am not finding what I need.

[CrazyIvan007]

Responding to a hypothetical scenario is quite different than planning out an attack against someone.

Were prosecution of someone available should they have prepared or contemplated their response of an attack, then police and military would all be in jail. They train to defend themselves and others as well as to carry out deadly force against an enemy. Would then their shooting someone become pre-meditated because of their time training for such a situation? I don't think so.

[Groundhog]

Whitefeather93 said:

My question is in the title. When does a conversation go to far? When do we as a group stop sounding like responsible liberty seeking individuals and start on a rant that appears to be written by a gun crazed fanatic bent on lunacy?

My (only slightly) tongue in cheek response is: About half way down the first page of replies.

There are very, very few threads on this (or most other) forums that go over one page that are any good once you get to those successive pages. They usually end up being some kind of nitpicking/comprehension debates between a very few people.

Whitefeather93 also said:

It is true that a myriad of people both for and against firearms visit this site and read through the posts in search for fuel for their argument.

Just like being able to find support for virtually any position you take on Christianity in the Bible, you can do the same with an internet forum. I obviously don't know what the actual numbers are but I suspect that TFL forum has not exactly been an instrument of mass conversion from one side of the 2A debates to the other. It may have contributed to a few and probably both ways though. My first though about someone who has accepted a particular view of something based solely or even in large part on what they read on an internet forum is that they didn't put too much into coming up with that view!

Whitefeather93 also done said:

But it is of my mind that to comment on some of those threads would leave a person out in the open for a premeditated charge. I get arrested for shooting in self defense and somebody searches through my records and finds that on said date and time I mentioned that if blank ever happened this is how I would react, it could cause doubt in the minds of those who wish to give me a one way ticket to jail.

Possible but not probable in the case of most posts here. However, I detect the beginnings of wisdom in you youngun'.

When does a conversation become incriminating.

Between the time the media plasters it completely out of context to everyone on the planet and the point where you lawyer puts it back into proper context in the court room.

When does one cross the line of adding to a conversation and start provide the argument for those against us?

See my first answer.

And when do you care if you say something that could be used against you?

If you are smart, at all times.

Good thread man.

[Al Norris]

WhiteFeather, when I write, I compose everything I want to say offline - that is to say, in a text editor. I write with the view that what I say will be read by tens of thousands of people. I write with the view that my posts will be visible for years. Even if this is not the case, that's how I formulate a response.

Yes, I go over my grammar (but read on!). Yes, I spellcheck what I've written. Yes, I change, edit, delete and rephrase what I write, so that I can convey my ideas in the best possible manner. I also have to take into consideration that we are not speaking face-to-face. Therefore, tone, inflection, volume, facial expressions and basic body language are lost. And loosing that, means I have to try to be more accurate in my written delivery, than I normally would... That means I take a few liberties with basic grammatical construction and some spelling. I also use bolding, underlining and italics either separately or in some other order to convey parts of my writings, that would otherwise be lost, because we are not face-to-face... Though I usually draw the line at different fonts/colors/text sizes, as being immature... OK... It annoys the heck out of me!

To use such as was used in quoted text (news articles and such) is one thing, but if that's your message... Ya done lost me.

Having said all of that, when do such response to tactical scenarios (what ifs) possibly pose a danger, real or imagined? When the posts leave the plane of this reality and become fantasy. All Too Common, if you ask me, and not just on gun boards.

The single biggest problem that I see with many scenarios, is that many who respond, who have never been in, nor are they acquainted with those who have been in, such scenarios. They are using their imaginations and this is where it looses it base in reality. What we see in TV and movies is very rarely the way things actually happen. And it is precisely this mentality that pervades (or is that, invades?) many scenarios.

Ummm... Goes for the topic starter who sets up the scenario in the first place!

Easy to spot, if you've been there and done that.

[saspic]

I think we go too far when our willingness to use lethal force appears, in writing at least, to go beyond the desire to protect our lives and the lives of our families, and betrays a lack of respect for human life similar to that of the bad actor.

Sometimes these criminals show no respect or concern for our lives, property, and rights. If this puts us in fear of our lives we may respond with deadly force, and not without justification, I think. But if someone sounds just as casual and uncaring about ending the life of BGs as the BGs do about us, it can make us sound like the stereotypical "gun nut." Most people would feel regretful if forced to take a life in a criminal encounter. I suspect, and hope these "keyboard commandos" would not, in fact be so cavalier if it happened to them for real.

Bernard Goetz may have been justified in his shooting incident, but he was not a good role model for second amendment causes.

Also, since you did bring up spelling and grammar...
The title of the thread should say "Where is too (not to) far?"
"I go through all this to pass knowledge or a question on in a mannner (not manor) that does not question the intelligence of my post."
"Oftentimes" is usually spelled as one word but I suppose it could be two...

I consult my dictionary and reread the preview before posting as well, but these things do slip through. I can't find the edit button to fix a misspelling in another thread right now.