# Digital Brownshirts



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Well, it looks like the digital brownshirts have succeeded. The recent thread dealing with clothing issues for concealed carry has been shut down because some members who don't approve of concealed carry posted obnoxious and off topic posts until the thread was finally locked.

This new thread is NOT to be about concealed carry. It is to discuss when, if ever, it is appropriate to engage in thuggish behavior in an attempt to stifle the speech of others. Discuss.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Why wasn't the thread moved here rather than being shut down?

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

The thread should have remained

The off topic posters, if indeed uncivil about it, should be banned for a spell.

Andy?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

norton said:


> Well, it looks like the digital brownshirts have succeeded. The recent thread dealing with clothing issues for concealed carry has been shut down because some members who don't approve of concealed carry posted obnoxious and off topic posts until the thread was finally locked.
> 
> This new thread is NOT to be about concealed carry. It is to discuss when, if ever, it is appropriate to engage in thuggish behavior in an attempt to stifle the speech of others. Discuss.


Kind of a loaded question, isn't it? You may have a hard time finding anyone to stand up and say it is "appropriate to engage in thuggish behavior . . ."

I read a good chunk of the thread yesterday. I think it was clear from very early in the thread that people on both sides were departing from the clothing question and venturing into politics and inappropriate personal comments. It seemed odd that it wasn't moved to the Interchange, but it could be that the thread got so long so fast that the mods didn't notice it until it was pretty far gone. (I don't think they read everything, and I think the best approach is to call something that's patently, or even arguably, inappropriate to their attention as soon as you see it.)


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

You are correct that many of the posts drifted off topic, but not all. In fact the last post that I was able to see before the thread was locked was a reply to my question regarding a suitable dress belt substantial enough to comfortably support a pistol. 

However there were many post that pretty obviously had nothing to do with the topic and it appeared to me that they were posted specifically to be off topic and provocative. I believe that the sole purpose of those posts was to force management to close down the thread because it dealt with a subject which the posters felt very strongly against.

I really don't want to echo that thread here and you're right that my use of "thuggish behavior" is a loaded term. But, how is that different from shouting down a speaker at a public event? Presumably there are people there who do want to hear what she has to say. It would have been very easy for people to whom the thread didn't apply to simply not read it.

So is it acceptable to do that anytime the speaker is on the other side of an issue you feel very strongly about? Only on some issues you feel strongly about? Is it ever acceptable to do so when you strongly agree with the speaker but don't feel the topic is suitable for the present audience? How about when someone else does it to a speaker with who you strongly agree? I also used the term "brownshirts". Are there any examples from history where that kind of behavior is now considered to have been proper and in good taste?

I really do get tired of seeing things like this in our political discourse. The recent example of callers flooding a Chicago station with calls to prevent the interview of a guest who didn't like Obama comes to mind. Is it good for our society to only air one side of an issue in public? Are we violating the rights of citizens simply because we disagree with their point of view?


That is the purpose of this thread.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I don't speculate about the motivations of posters on the thread, except to say that posting obnoxious and tendentious comments is less likely to get the thread closed down than to get the poster disciplined or the thread kicked to the Interchange. 

It seemed to me that people on both sides of it had a chip on their shoulder, so I wouldn't assign blame to either side.

It can be hard to resist the temptation to engage in political exchanges in the clothing thread, especially when the topic is related to an emotionally charged topic like politicians or, apparently, guns. I don't claim to be perfect on this score, but I did have a very recent experience of a member of these boards being very hostile and insulting to me specifically because I refused to engage him politically in a clothing thread.

I think the answer is for people to try to behave better, and to report posts to the mods as soon as they seem to be getting out of hand.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

I kept out of the thread until people with (I'll give them the benefit of doubt) misconceptions started chiming in. I addressed those specifics, and even offered some clothing help. I don't think I was antagonistic.

Left to those with vested interest, it would have condensed into a clothing matter.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

norton said:


> Well, it looks like the digital brownshirts have succeeded. The recent thread dealing with clothing issues for concealed carry has been shut down because some members who don't approve of concealed carry posted obnoxious and off topic posts until the thread was finally locked.
> 
> This new thread is NOT to be about concealed carry. It is to discuss when, if ever, it is appropriate to engage in thuggish behavior in an attempt to stifle the speech of others. Discuss.


Lighten up Francis!


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Lighten up Francis!


So your saying its no big deal - acceptable behavior?

Maybe we should do a poll.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)




----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> So your saying its no big deal - acceptable behavior?
> 
> Maybe we should do a poll.


This is a private business in what it is still a *somewhat* free country. You don't like it; don't do business here.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I would be curious to see how the mods handle a large contingent of PETA members who sign on to bewail the flaying of calves for leather, sheep shorn, silkworms oppressed and horns used for buttons. And worst of all; the ethnic cleansing of moths from our closets.
Honestly, why Andy hasn't had Woody Harrelson guest write on the benefits of hemp, how to 'vet' one's purchases against sweat shops, counterfeiters and onerous regimes is
a source of continued moral compromise I lose sleep over nightly.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

norton said:


> So your saying its no big deal - acceptable behavior?
> 
> Maybe we should do a poll.


AND YOUR LIFE HAS BEEN IRREPAIRABLY DAMAGED????


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> AND YOUR LIFE HAS BEEN IRREPAIRABLY DAMAGED????


Go easy on the poor man,his rights have been violated.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

This thread isn't exactly going the way I had hoped. Again, this is not meant to be a referendum on concealed carry, or on that particular thread. It is not about how management handled the issue, I don't know that I would have handled it differently. I had hoped to generate some discussion on when, if ever, its acceptable to drown out the voice of the opposition.

I did think of an example where I believe this is done on my drive home last night. Forgive and educate me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the Parliament gets pretty boisterous at times and tries to drown out some speakers.

Perhaps what we're dealing with here is simply a cultural issue. In the US we tend to stick to Roberts Rules in organized political settings and, at least where I live, that may influence how we discuss these issues in other settings. Maybe its different in Britain? Since most of those who wanted the thread shut down seemed to be located in Britain (or Boston which is almost the same thing) maybe they were simply responding in a manner that is acceptable there? To me, as an American, it seemed quite boorish but maybe thats simply my provincial upbringing. I remember Germans seemed pretty rude whenever they were in a queue, until I realized thats just how things are done there.

My intention is not to make this sound like I'm down on the British. I'm something of an Anglophile, I'm a huge Dr. Who fan and I prefer Triumph and Norton over Harley Davidson. I order my jackets with darts and double vents. If I'm off base here just tell me, I'll accept your word.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

norton said:


> I prefer Triumph and Norton over Harley Davidson.


OK, I was on your side in this until you just went too far off the deep end.:icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> OK, I was on your side in this until you just went too far off the deep end.:icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


I second that. I'm a Buell guy.:devil:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

norton said:


> This thread isn't exactly going the way I had hoped. Again, this is not meant to be a referendum on concealed carry, or on that particular thread. It is not about how management handled the issue, I don't know that I would have handled it differently. I had hoped to generate some discussion on when, if ever, its acceptable to drown out the voice of the opposition.
> 
> I did think of an example where I believe this is done on my drive home last night. Forgive and educate me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the Parliament gets pretty boisterous at times and tries to drown out some speakers.
> 
> ...


OF COURSE, YOU WISHED TO START AN INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION BY REFERRING TO THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU AS "BROWNSHIRTS." AND IT TAKES A CLOSE READING TO DISCERN THAT YOU MAY NOT BE REFERRING TO THIS FORUM'S MANAGEMENT WITH THAT TERM.

INTERESTING. I'M STILL WONDERING EXACTLY WHO YOUR BROWNSHIRTS ARE.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

The thread that originally sprarked this one was about how to modify your dress to allow for the legal carrying of a concealed weapon. A number of posters who did not think that anyone should be allowed to carry a weapon posted increasingly off topic and annoying comments until the thread was finally shut down after one posted, for example, that he was taking his friend in to have an abortion and was wondering how one should dress for that. My point is that I believe those comments were posted in order to have the thread locked and it is those posters to whom I am referring as digital brownshirts.

I understand the confusion if you had not read the original thread, my apologies but I did not want to make that specific thread the topic, just the behavior of those who felt a need to derail it.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

The out-of-towners and domestic gun grabbers always do this...


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> I second that. I'm a Buell guy.:devil:


When I toured the Buell factory in West Allis, WI some years ago I was told that Eric Buell really liked Triumphs and originally was trying to get a harley to handle like a Triumph. If I was still riding and was buying a new bike I'd look at Buell.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

norton said:


> If I was still riding and was buying a new bike I'd look at Buell.


You do know that Harley-Davidson owns Buell don't you? They aren't my cup of tea but given the long, close relationship between the two companies, Buell's are OK in my book. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

OT-Buell Blasts are regarded as junk, no? Maybe the first ones; don't know much about 'em. I likes my Ninja. :aportnoy:

Norton-I didn't get to see all the thread. In candor, I know there was an attempt to derail it. I'm not sweating it; neither should you. And anyone that was in on the 'jacking-cool it, too. :icon_smile:

Is it too late to add that Langlitz Leathers makes MC jackets with holsters?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Ironically the most overlooked elephant in this room is who DIDN'T join the discussion.
This website is a form of JOURNALISM. 
A member of this forum is a highly respected magazine editor and journalist in the specialty that seemes to have twisted the 'lions' tail, or a Chesire Cat of fantasy and illogic.
I can only wonder if past verbal insult tempered any reply by said individual.
I know it has mine yet again.
If a journalistic effort of any mileau chooses such a parochial and studied mediocrity it becomes mere checkout line Literature, endcapped next to the breath mints and pink scrunchies.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'M STILL WONDERING EXACTLY WHO YOUR BROWNSHIRTS ARE.


The brownshirts were thugs who were known for starting fights (or riots, really) to break up political organizing by their enemies. The police would then show up and arrest everyone, silencing the opposition.

Until they took over the government, that is. Then they would just arrest the other guys.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Brownshirts were the SA of the early Nazi Party. Their leader, Ernst Rohm was a serious competitior for Hitler's leadership. Once their political usefullness ended, and demands by mainstream German Society for their removal also threatened Hitler's power, they wre arrested and largely executed in 'the Night of the Long Knives' so named after the legendary slaying of Saxon Prince Vortigern and his men.

Shortly after this, Hitler banned private gun ownership, began burning books and jews,homosexuals, gypsies and Jehovah Witness.
Then he reoccupied the Sudentenland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. with the acquiescence of Great Britain and France. Then Hilter attacked Poland and mutual defence treaties were honoured.
Eventually, England stood alone, save lend lease and THOUSANDS of privately owned firearms and ammuniton donated by american citizens for the british home army; a hurriedly organised citizen defense force not unlike our minutmen, our own arms industry filling regular contracts.
Eventually, Hitler was defeated, though Poland, the conquered country that FINALLY started it all was abandoned to another great guy name of Stalin.
Wonderfull thing, appeasment, be it surrendering other country's very soveriegnty or just your own fellow citizens right to breech perfectly legal questions.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, it's very ironic that the West went to war for Poland, then gave it up to the Commies for nothing.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> You do know that Harley-Davidson owns Buell don't you? They aren't my cup of tea but given the long, close relationship between the two companies, Buell's are OK in my book. :icon_smile:
> 
> Cruiser


I was going to buy myself a Buell Lightning XB8SX as a graduation present to myself, but instead I bought an engagment ring... for the same price I could have had something with moving parts...


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

We're going back and forth between early 20th century fascist politics and the virtues of Buell motorcycles. This is a very interesting thread. No brownshirts yet.

Kav: Don't forget what really did Hitler in was Barbarosa. Eight out of 10 Germans killed during WWII died fighting on the Eastern Front.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Kav said:


> Ironically the most overlooked elephant in this room is who DIDN'T join the discussion.
> This website is a form of JOURNALISM.
> A member of this forum is a highly respected magazine editor and journalist in the specialty that seemes to have twisted the 'lions' tail, or a Chesire Cat of fantasy and illogic.
> I can only wonder if past verbal insult tempered any reply by said individual.
> ...


All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

- Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I knew who the Brownshirts were.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

So why isn't it obvious who he's comparing to them?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

norton said:


> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> 
> - Thomas Jefferson


Even the tyranny of whiners?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

IF I owned this website, and IF I was a moderator; I would have handled the thread thusly:
Dear forum members- Conealed handgun carry is a legal option in the United States and a legitimate need for many people in law enforcement in many nations.
Knowing how to dress with this need in mind is a acceptable post.
Debate over firearms themselves, with many national laws
and cultural values at odds , is not. If you don't care for the OPs query kindly just move on to a posting that you enjoy.
I would have done this proactively, early in the thread.
And, in fact, I have moderated an award winning website for eight years with traffic that rivals AAAC with an equally international membership.
Again, it's Andy's gig, good,bad or indifferent.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

norton said:


> However there were many post that pretty obviously had nothing to do with the topic and it appeared to me that they were posted specifically to be off topic and provocative. I believe that the sole purpose of those posts was to force management to close down the thread because it dealt with a subject which the posters felt very strongly against.
> 
> I really don't want to echo that thread here and you're right that my use of "thuggish behavior" is a loaded term. But, how is that different from shouting down a speaker at a public event? Presumably there are people there who do want to hear what she has to say. It would have been very easy for people to whom the thread didn't apply to simply not read it.


Yep. The hypocrites couldn't keep their mouthes shut.

Instead of being shut down it should have been moved here.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Liberal gun grabbers are the scum of the earth. They really are. Pitiful scared creatures who were abused growing up and now try to project their psychological ans psychiatric problems on to others. 

Don't tell us what to do or not to do and we will not tell you where to go.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Kav said:


> IF I owned this website, and IF I was a moderator; I would have handled the thread thusly:
> Dear forum members- Conealed handgun carry is a legal option in the United States and a legitimate need for many people in law enforcement in many nations.
> Knowing how to dress with this need in mind is a acceptable post.
> Debate over firearms themselves, with many national laws
> and cultural values at odds , is not. If you don't care for the OPs query kindly just move on to a posting that you enjoy.


I'm assuming that Hell has frozen over since it appears that we are in agreement on this. So much for global warming.

Having said that, the fact remains that we are all guests here and as kav said, at the end of the day we don't get to make the rules. There is nothing unfair about that.

Cruiser


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Response from an armed leftist*



oktagon said:


> Liberal gun grabbers are the scum of the earth. They really are. Pitiful scared creatures who were abused growing up and now try to project their psychological ans psychiatric problems on to others.
> 
> Don't tell us what to do or not to do and we will not tell you where to go.


I usually think of conservatives as the ones who were abused as children. Are you sure you're not projecting?

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> I usually think of conservatives as the ones who were abused as children. Are you sure you're not projecting?
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Weel let's see....

Who want the state to care of them as if they are incompetent to make their own decisions?
Who wants the bastard factories to continue to operate to spill out more democratic-voting crack babies?
Who wants to take the right of law- abiding citizens to protect themselfes?
Who wants to open our borders to hoards of unwashed illegal eliens?
Who wants to stop us from protecting US population from terrorists and close Gitmo and other facilities?

..... that wouls be socialist scum calling themselfes "the Democrats"

Here you go.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

"Bastard factories"?

"Unwashed illegal aliens"?

"Socialist scum"?

You really love the human race, don't you?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The trouble with taking ANY social/political opinion is the company you find yourself in. Oktagon, go ultimate fight yourself and tap out.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

norton said:


> This thread isn't exactly going the way I had hoped. Again, this is not meant to be a referendum on concealed carry, or on that particular thread. It is not about how management handled the issue, I don't know that I would have handled it differently. I had hoped to generate some discussion on when, if ever, its acceptable to drown out the voice of the opposition.
> 
> I did think of an example where I believe this is done on my drive home last night. Forgive and educate me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the Parliament gets pretty boisterous at times and tries to drown out some speakers.
> 
> ...


"Britain(or Boston which is almost the same thing)"....you're kidding,right? Well,most of us speak a language very similar to what is commonly heard in England,so there are some similarities.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

I would have enjoyed a *serious* concealed carry discussion, since it can feel sartorially limiting; I don't visit this forum often enough to have seen it, so I missed the hullabaloo.

I did order a Milt Sparks IWB holster the other day - 6 months wait until I get it - for my Glock 19. Maybe I'll dare to post a review when it arrives 

D.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> I would have enjoyed a *serious* concealed carry discussion, since it can feel sartorially limiting; I don't visit this forum often enough to have seen it, so I missed the hullabaloo.
> 
> I did order a Milt Sparks IWB holster the other day - 6 months wait until I get it - for my Glock 19. Maybe I'll dare to post a review when it arrives
> 
> D.


For those like the above poster who would have enjoyed a *serious* sartorial concealed carry discussion, may I recommend reading the following: https://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=36169

I hesitate to post this because that thread has survived for four years without the kind of problems seen in this forum and I would hate to see the brownshirts traveling over there.

I use a Milt Sparks IWB for a 1911 and it is the most comfortable and concealable holster I own. Use a good stiff belt. The only problem is that, like all ISB's, you need to get your pants several inches bigger around the waist.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

norton said:


> All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
> 
> - Thomas Jefferson


With all of the motorcycle talk when I first read this I thought it said, "All tranny needs to gain a foothold..." I thought, are transvestites really trying to become a majority? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> I would have enjoyed a *serious* concealed carry discussion, since it can feel sartorially limiting; I don't visit this forum often enough to have seen it, so I missed the hullabaloo.
> 
> I did order a Milt Sparks IWB holster the other day - 6 months wait until I get it - for my Glock 19. Maybe I'll dare to post a review when it arrives
> 
> D.


I have one of Milt Sparks' holsters for a 1911. I don't carry IWB, but I think you will like his work very much. I think Mr. Sparks and Mr. Kramer are the best in the business.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Kav said:


> The trouble with taking ANY social/political opinion is the company you find yourself in. Oktagon, go ultimate fight yourself and tap out.


Well, I since you obviously have great experience in the actions you suggest, perhaps thay are better left to be done by yourself.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Son, I am a NRA life member, Ralph Nader supporter, Honourably discharged veteran,registered Wobbly.
Julia Butterfly slept in the sleeping bag I supplied and I fix problem horses for celebrities. 
I am up with the sunrise drinking coffee I grind with a stern look while you're still groping for release from last night's dream about that cheerleader who wouldn't go out with you.
And the biggest leveler, is knowing there are people here with skills that humble mine in many endeavors.
So, put a sock in it, shut up and listen for 6 months and then post when you have something interesting to contribute.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Kav said:


> Son, I am a NRA life member, Ralph Nader supporter, Honourably discharged veteran,registered Wobbly.
> Julia Butterfly slept in the sleeping bag I supplied and I fix problem horses for celebrities.
> I am up with the sunrise drinking coffee I grind with a stern look while you're still groping for release from last night's dream about that cheerleader who wouldn't go out with you.
> And the biggest leveler, is knowing there are people here with skills that humble mine in many endeavors.
> So, put a sock in it, shut up and listen for 6 months and then post when you have something interesting to contribute.


These references to cheerleaders, groping and horses really reveal some deep psychological problems, which have obviously taken over your life. Perhaps you should see a specialist at the nearest VA medical facility.

I will ignore the offensive remarks you have made out of pity. I don't care what you have accomplished, but based on your bragging it is not much.

Don't embarrass yourself further by your stupid comments.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

oktagon said:


> Don't embarrass yourself further by your stupid comments.


We're with you, oktagon.


----------



## Hegemon (Dec 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Don't forget what really did Hitler in was Barbarosa. Eight out of 10 Germans killed during WWII died fighting on the Eastern Front.


A lot of people thought Hitler was crazy (and he may have been). But he lost the war because he was stupid. He shouldn't have fought Russia and America. He should have gotten Russia and America to fight each other, and he could have gone after the winner.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Hegemon said:


> A lot of people thought Hitler was crazy (and he may have been). But he lost the war because he was stupid. He shouldn't have fought Russia and America. He should have gotten Russia and America to fight each other, and he could have gone after the winner.


He also would have been better off doing all that ethnic cleansing stuff after he'd won the war - the SS trying to round up undesirables got in the way of capable generals trying to run a war.


----------



## bbcrock (Feb 13, 2009)

norton said:


> Well, it looks like the digital brownshirts have succeeded. The recent thread dealing with clothing issues for concealed carry has been shut down because some members who don't approve of concealed carry posted obnoxious and off topic posts until the thread was finally locked.
> 
> This new thread is NOT to be about concealed carry. It is to discuss when, if ever, it is appropriate to engage in thuggish behavior in an attempt to stifle the speech of others. Discuss.


A REAL gentlemen who knows rhetorical debate would never have written the above broadsheet.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

bbcrock said:


> A REAL gentlemen who knows rhetorical debate would never have written the above broadsheet.


No, real gentlemen would not have hijacked a discussion of clothing issues as they relate to carrying a firearm and turn it into a moral argument about firearms. If they wanted to discuss whether it is appropriate to carry a firearm, they should have started a separate thread on that topic.

Cruiser


----------

