New "laws" won't necessarily keep it from happening again. They might help. But, just like everything else, laws, locks, and signs only keep the honest from straying.
As I've said about the other site, it's their piece of work and they're entitled to it. However, that doesn't mean I have to support it monetarily, via recommendation/specific mention, clicks, or in any other way. The members over there talk as though they are 2nd Amendment zealots, but most are there for different reasons.
Among those reasons is the vitriol and hatred they claim to abhor about .net. It's simply directed differently. While I agree that there is some of that on .net, there's a reason for OT and it being member only. There's also a reason we talk about 'changing the channel' if you don't agree with what's on at the moment.
It's just like the owner over there considering Hunter Biden to be "2nd Amendment related," yet not seeing how COVID was. What was that about lockdowns and lawsuits over who/what was 'essential?' What was that about COVID and 'gun violence?' (If you don't get that reference, simply enter 'COVID and firearms' in a Google search string and see what comes up.) The owner further enhanced his rather 'blindered' and 'partitioned' view of what involves the 2nd Amendment later in the thread by 'chastising' another .net member with regard to 'talking about politicians and pardons' rather than the actual case. He even tried to change the subject to what members did over the weekend or would you do the same for your family to 'humanize' the discourse.
What it came down to for the owner was the main point being don't lie on your DROS. Uh... Nope. It's about the unequal enforcement, the pejorative or permissive use of both laws and Executive/Legislative/Judicial Power, and whether both sides use those powers in such ways when it comes to the 2nd Amendment (and other rights). If you don't get that, then ask yourself a simple question: "Why must one answer loaded questions to exercise a Constitutional right?" It's not about the owner being hypocritical in terms of what he allows or doesn't allow in relation to discussions. It's about the owner lacking a sense of perspective in terms of how things relate and interrelate. Just like the owner, somehow, thinking Trump will be as egregiously bad by pardoning himself for this 34 felony convictions; evidently not being aware that, Constitutionally, Trump can't pardon himself on state-level convictions, only Federal charges.
What was that about moral equivalence and 'orange man bad?' What was that about infusing personal sentiments into arguments and turning them into fusillades against individuals?
In a sense, even the enforcement on .net is "uneven" and anyone who doesn't think so isn't keeping up. It's just that Kestryll and most of the moderators have a better sense for how far things extend or can be extended or will be extended than the owner of the 'other site.' Put in a nutshell, he wants a 'safe space' for himself and doesn't feel open to discourse which involves anything he feels 'uncomfortable' with, relevant or not. If it tweaks his 'comfort,' he finds a way to make it appear 'bad.' That's an exercise of power which I don't feel comfortable with when discussing Constitutional Rights. (As I also said on another thread, it brings to mind questions as to what the owner might support by way of gun laws and why.)
