I guess it's just that we are in an election year but it seems that more and more thread topics are getting political. I know the Mods are closeing some of them and that is exactly what should be done.
I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to bending the rules, but this is the best forum site I have found on the web. So what do you say we get back to hunting ,shooting, and reloading?
Politics seem to corrupt people anyway!
Glenn

Aman fornra. Lots of blogs to talk politics out there, but there is only one shooters forum, lets keep it to guns and hunting and shooting.

I'm with you forna.
There are plenty of websites that welcome political discourse.We don't need any there.
Frank

This site has the best politial race of all.

Lee vs Lyman vs RCBS vs Pacific vs Hornady vs Redding vs Forster.

What else would anyone want to talk about?

Happens every election season :rolleyes:

Just part of the job!

I understand all too well how hard it is to avoid politics in a discussion about our very politically threatened pursuits.

We did all agree to avoid them here, and the terms of use here do make this a very civil and focused forum.

Fireplug

Actually, the rule is to limit such posts to shooting-related legislation and politics. So far, gun control hasn't loomed large in this election cycle, so there hasn't been much dramatic to say (thank goodness). The only two things that even showed up in the last couple of weeks have been the proposed rule change to allow CCW in the National Parks, which may be a bone thrown our way by the administration for this election cycle, and not a bad one. The other is that the liberal party's most effective speaking candidate affirmed his belief the Second Amendment is an individual right, and then that he supports D.C.'s ban all in the same speech, with no hint how he reconciles the two positions? Now that's politics.

The positive thing I take from that second item is it hints how political advisers are anticipating the Supreme Court will decide the individual verses the fictional collective right interpretation. They don't want their candidate to appear ignorant of the constitution by having failed to correctly understand that in advance of the decision, which will receive a lot of press coverage. The bad side is, it illustrates how far they think "reasonable limits" can be taken even under an individual right interpretation. In other words, they think the Supreme Court will present a fuzzy decision, other than the statement the right is individual. In any event, both sides are now awaiting the court action to play out with bated (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm) breath. It may take the topic largely off the political table or it may take the fight deep into the minutiae of "reasonable limits". I'd presume the latter, as pushing the limits of SCOTUS decisions is one way legislators and prosecutors make their reputations and get noticed in their field. We shall see?

Meanwhile, I quite agree that clever insults and rants pertaining to candidates or parties or general political philosophy or other non-shooting-sports-specific politics needs to be kept clear of here. There are already more outlets for that than I'd care to count. We don't need to be an also-ran. If you want to demonstrate your broad political wit or anger or frustration, you should get a web cam and submit visual evidence of your sentiments to YouTube. Who knows. Maybe you'll go viral? I know my sinuses seem to be doing that, even as I type.