News Shutting Current Events / Politics section down Oct - Dec

[GoldensRule]

You'll notice our bots levels here are managed... We have a responsibility and duty to help law enforcement in case there's any type of serious event. This is another consideration why we want to keep the political tone down. I assume everyone here owns firearms. This isn't the place to be really outspoken about who you consider political enemies, etc. I think it's important to keep that elsewhere.

I don't know if you are suggesting that being outspoken about political adversaries is a bad thing because you don't like it or because you think the US government is watching, our both? If it's the latter, I will not be fearful of Trump, if it's the former, that's up to you.

Don't know why you think they wouldn't scrape a firearms trading site, that's basically what this is and would be a serious a target for authoritarians as any site on the deep web.

Please tell me you aren't logging IP addresses, fingerprinting browsers, utilizing behavior biometrics, etc?

 

[couragewolf]

If I had to make a choice, I would choose foreign enemies surveillance of this site over US government surveillance. For end user security, there isn't much the PRC, DPRK or RF can do with our information. As long as his payment systems are secured correctly, the overseas people can't do much to us short of invading the homeland and confiscating weapons. If that happens, our problems are FAR greater than any of us believe.

Sadly I suspect you are far more engaged with both than anyone here truly appreciates.

@ikeo1 is right of course, you don't have a choice, and noone does. The sophistication, depth of penetration, and surface area of these systems is no longer remotely escapable even for people attempting to make the escape(as EVERYONE should be).

 

[couragewolf]

I don't know if you are suggesting that being outspoken about political adversaries is a bad thing because you don't like it or because you think the US government is watching, our both? If it's the latter, I will not be fearful of Trump, if it's the former, that's up to you.

Don't know why you think they wouldn't scrape a firearms trading site, that's basically what this is and would be a serious a target for authoritarians as any site on the deep web.

Please tell me you aren't logging IP addresses, fingerprinting browsers, utilizing behavior biometrics, etc?

What makes you confident @ikeo1 and his team would need to be logging IP's for those IPs, browser fingerprints, telemetry to be collected at different layers of the stack completely out of their control?

 

[couragewolf]

I don't know if you are suggesting that being outspoken about political adversaries is a bad thing because you don't like it or because you think the US government is watching, our both? If it's the latter, I will not be fearful of Trump, if it's the former, that's up to you.

Don't know why you think they wouldn't scrape a firearms trading site, that's basically what this is and would be a serious a target for authoritarians as any site on the deep web.

Please tell me you aren't logging IP addresses, fingerprinting browsers, utilizing behavior biometrics, etc?

additionally, the threat with surveillance is never baselined by whatever the capabilities of the current whoever it is. The threat is in a distant unknown future where data that can never be uncollected is widely available to the worst possible imaginable regime somehow in great power over your quality of life.

With all systems this is the only way to design such systems.

 

[Glassmtn]

We're still working on archiving after a specific time period, but again, that wouldn't be removed entirely until a specific date.
The politcal section was sectioned off as of last week so that this would be the last post for this kind of thing, top of the fold.
Moderators are a bit more aggressive now that we have a few more.

Overall, we'll continue to adjust.. I appreciate when you supported and also the feedback. There's some things we have to do and totally understand either way.

I think in the future you'll dig some of the changes coming.

My main issue was with the public archiving. I understand that you feel you need to archive to cover your ass. I’m actually ok with that. What I don’t understand is why that archive needs to be public. It is nobody’s business how much I paid or how much somebody paid me for something that I sold or bought here other than the IRS. The state of California doesn’t even ask how much on a ppt. I also don’t need my neighbors to be able to log on here, recognize my username and say “oh he just bought a new (fill in the blank) “.
If you give me the option to delete my ads from the public/member facing side of the website I would absolutely subscribe again. It’s a privacy issue.

 

[bbp00]

Between the CDN, Alma Linux and docker, he should be able to block the government bots by analyzing traffic for behavioral anomalies, looking for high request volume from a single IP range and many requests from .gov and or .mil domains, abnormal traffic spikes and suspicious user agents.

Editing his nginx.conf or the .htacess and robots.txt files and using a web application firewall like cloudflare, along with some other basic techniques, he should be able to keep the government baddies and AI's from crawling the site. It would be great if he were to encrypt all user related data with at least AES-256 and to stop logging IP addresses.

Site security is a morass of ever evolving threats and it requires concerted effort and constant learning to stay ahead of the bots. Now, if the government really wants to get the information, they will just uncover the domain registration info and or the CA LLC registration information, send a couple of goons, hit him over the head with a wrench and I'm pretty sure everyone's private information would be toast.

It's not Caguns job to take care of your anonymity or protect you from gov snooping. That's solely up to you.

 

[ikeo1]

My main issue was with the public archiving. I understand that you feel you need to archive to cover your ass. I’m actually ok with that. What I don’t understand is why that archive needs to be public. It is nobody’s business how much I paid or how much somebody paid me for something that I sold or bought here other than the IRS. The state of California doesn’t even ask how much on a ppt. I also don’t need my neighbors to be able to log on here, recognize my username and say “oh he just bought a new (fill in the blank) “.
If you give me the option to delete my ads from the public/member facing side of the website I would absolutely subscribe again. It’s a privacy issue.

Yep that’s what’s being made private in our roadmap. Changing the application is expensive. It’s coming though.. we need to archive and remove listings from a house keeping perspective too.

 

[ikeo1]

I don't know if you are suggesting that being outspoken about political adversaries is a bad thing because you don't like it or because you think the US government is watching, our both? If it's the latter, I will not be fearful of Trump, if it's the former, that's up to you.

Don't know why you think they wouldn't scrape a firearms trading site, that's basically what this is and would be a serious a target for authoritarians as any site on the deep web.

Please tell me you aren't logging IP addresses, fingerprinting browsers, utilizing behavior biometrics, etc?

The thing is this is a hobby site and should be treated like a hobby and not a serious political anything. However given the nature of the hobby just keep it light.

I’m not saying to fear anyone or anything but in today’s world the anonymity a lot of people once enjoyed in the past has systems being built to bypass that with this administration.

I prefer to keep things on topic. Again if you want to discuss politics, perhaps you have an account at Calguns, people there would entertain you and is a primary identity for the site.

This place is more about training and information with trading. It just so happens I have experience in the trading aspect, but that wasn’t the intention. Kinda just fell into it.

 

[cali_jazz]

Save the shaming and the virtue signaling. Liberal gun owners who vote for liberal politicians create the very problem that exists in this state in regard to the destruction of gun rights for everyone, regardless of political persuasion. Regardless of where you stand on any other issues, if you vote for Democrats today, you are voting for gun control and the unconstitutional infringement of gun rights. Unless Democrats who own guns can somehow convince their own party to stop the never-ending assault on our rights, there is nothing “pro-2A” about supporting the Democrat party.

In today’s world, saying that a Democrat who owns a gun makes them part of the “pro-2A movement” is like saying an axe with a wooden handle makes it a tree.

View attachment 99443

To quote yourself, “You're either part of the solution or part of the problem, brother.”

So calling out a sarcastic stereotyping slam against liberal gun owners in the context of a poll/discussion on (temporarily) removing divisive politics from this site is "virtue signaling" and "shaming"? Interesting accusation since you don't know me or my motives.

The post I replied to referred to Liberals, but you chose (ironically) to extrapolate it into a political rant about Democrats.

Do you think Democrat gun owners are more or less likely to convince their party to stop the assault on 2A if they are stereotyped, insulted, and rejected by the gun community?

I see growing the number of people who join the 2A community as a generally positive trend and hopefully part of the path forward to restore gun rights in California.

We want the same outcome, tell me your approach that is part of the solution vs mine that is part of the problem.

 

[Hit Factor]

tell me your approach that is part of the solution vs mine that is part of the problem.

Stop voting for Democrats. They’re gun grabbers.

 

[FriedChickies]

People can’t seem to remain civil on here regarding these charged topics. Time to shut it down.

 

[Enthused]

People can’t seem to remain civil on here regarding these charged topics. Time to shut it down.

We have to come together and try to agree on the small things at first, instead of the bigger and convoluted picture as a whole.

Can we agree that any politician who is anti-2A is a piece of , at least concerning to this one single issue?

Exhibit A, someone who many people on this very forum voted for:

If we can at least agree on a single issue about someone, or something, there could be some discussion to be had. But we can't even agree on that.

 

[aema15]

What I've seen here (and on many other 2A communities) are a lot of how xyz person or group of people are stripping away rights and/or freedoms. There's a lot of pushback on gun control laws, where folks will poke holes (justifiably so) on how many of these regulations won't work. Then it becomes a huge political discussion/debate, even amongst ourselves.

I think a more progressive approach would be to come up with ideas to address the root problems. Examples:
- How do we prevent "bad" people from obtaining firearms (ie. Straw purchases, theft, etc.).
- How do we prevent those who lawfully own firearms conduct an unlawful shooting?

We can throw our hands up and yell (or type) into the void about how unconstitutional things are, but I rarely see anyone in the community present ideas that we could try instead. We seem to be hard focused on politics when we're all really just dancing around what people perceive to be important issues (ie. Unlawful shootings).

I'm not saying I have any good ideas off the top of my head. Perhaps this would be a good discussion for a separate thread.

Everyone here likes guns to some extent. We want to have as many options as we can. It's best to come together with real concrete ideas / potential solutions rather than "stop voting Democrat."

 

[Deleted member 16735]

We have to come together and try to agree on the small things at first, instead of the bigger and convoluted picture as a whole.

Can we agree that any politician who is anti-2A is a piece of , at least concerning to this one single issue?

Exhibit A, someone who many people on this very forum voted for:

If we can at least agree on a single issue about someone, or something, there could be some discussion to be had. But we can't even agree on that.

While I don't agree with Walz's solution, I also think the 2A community has done less than zero to actually come up with solutions to gun violence. A Minnesota state senator was assassinated and republicans like Mike Lee literally just made fun of Walz in the aftermath. Like why would regular ass centrist people do anything differently? What motivation does Walz have to protect so called "Assault weapons" and standard capacity magazines? The 2nd amendment is complicated because it doesn't have considerations for public safety on a micro level. I don't think we will ever make inroads with the centrists until we can come up with real solutions. It used to be "thoughts and prayers" but seems to have shifted to "mental health" and while I don't disagree, the same people are also actively making it harder to access mental health services...

 

[Hit Factor]

I also think the 2A community has done less than zero to actually come up with solutions to gun violence.

More people die each year from motor vehicle crashes in the United States than from all deaths involving firearms, including suicides. What is the driving community doing about it? Why is no one trying to ban cars? For that matter, obesity-related deaths in the U.S. outnumber deaths involving guns by an astonishing 10 to 1. Why is no one trying to ban spoons?

 

[treelogger]

As we've said several times in this thread: Any discussion of gun laws, what is legal in California and what isn't, gun-related lawsuits (whether criminal or civil rights), and the politics that ultimately controls gun laws and lawsuits is virtually impossible to get rid of in a gun forum. Right now in California, all I need to say is "Glock" or "large capacity magazine", and some people will be triggered to rant against (or rarely for) the current California legislature and executive. And shutting that down takes an enormous amount of moderation effort, if we want to have a hard rule to never discuss the political (and therefore sociological) reasons that underly the legal situation we're in.

One possible solution is the one Ikeo1 keeps mentioning: This site is ONLY about training, skills, and gun trading. That means you can't ask the question "can I carry a CCW with the LCW removed", or "is it OK to use a 10-rounder 40S&W magazine loaded with 11 rounds of 9mm" or "will the Glock model 123 be on the roster next year", because those questions are about law and ultimately politics. Maybe we shall ban all these questions completely.

I think a much better idea is to make sure such discussions remain civil. I think it is much much palatable to have a reasoned argument about why our gun control is the way it is, if it is done with arguments, instead of with insults, ad hominems, and "you suck" arguments. Let me start with singling out one example:

Cubafornia

That right there is an insult, wrapped in a thin layer of a joke. Personally, I think anyone who does this kind of thing, including for example calling the President "Drumpf", should be (a) warned on the first offense, (b) get a one week ban on the second, and (c) permabanned on the third. If we want to have discussions with common sense here, we first all need to learn manners.

The problem is: To get there, we'll need intense moderation, until our "culture" here is such that it becomes self moderating. And as a mere user of this site, I can't in good conscience demand that the owners / administrators / moderators put in those kind of hours.

 

[ikeo1]

That means you can't ask the question "can I carry a CCW with the LCW removed", or "is it OK to use a 10-rounder 40S&W magazine loaded with 11 rounds of 9mm" or "will the Glock model 123 be on the roster next year", because those questions are about law and ultimately politics. Maybe we shall ban all these questions completely.

You can ask this the CA Laws and activism is still ok. It’s things unrelated to CA.

The thing is so many people nowadays are used to whining and complaining like Karen’s and Chads and get butt hurt when they get a penalty. If you recall the outage from the emoji was quite hilarious in its own topic. Looking at you @pikachu

We want people to have access to laws here because that is part of the informational aspect of the site.

More people die each year from motor vehicle crashes in the United States than from all deaths involving firearms, including suicides. What is the driving community doing about it? Why is no one trying to ban cars? For that matter, obesity-related deaths in the U.S. outnumber deaths involving guns by an astonishing 10 to 1. Why is no one trying to ban spoons?

you know you’re on a 2A site right?

Also if you watched Hegseth he just demanded Generals get off their butts and lose weight or leave the military. If you also haven’t noticed robo-cars are on the rise. It’s all happening under your nose by guess who..

 

[Deleted member 16735]

More people die each year from motor vehicle crashes in the United States than from all deaths involving firearms, including suicides. What is the driving community doing about it? Why is no one trying to ban cars? For that matter, obesity-related deaths in the U.S. outnumber deaths involving guns by an astonishing 10 to 1. Why is no one trying to ban spoons?

As I said I don't agree with his solution, however I should also point out that cars are regulated much more hedvily, with yearly registration, an actual ability and safety test, police watching you use them, seatbelt laws, speed limits etc. and those actions save lives. So what is our answer to how to save lives? If the gun community is just constantly at odds with soccer moms calling them evil, why would soccer moms say they want to let us have standar cap mags?

 

[Hit Factor]

you know you’re on a 2A site right?

Also if you watched Hegseth he just demanded Generals get off their butts and lose weight or leave the military. If you also haven’t noticed robo-cars are on the rise. It’s all happening under your nose by guess who..

You equate this with the Democrats’ never-ending push for gun control and legislation banning the use or possession of inanimate tools that are actually protected in the U.S. Constitution? We’re in more trouble than I thought.

As I said I don't agree with his solution, however I should also point out that cars are regulated much more hedvily, with yearly registration, an actual ability and safety test, police watching you use them, seatbelt laws etc. and those actions save lives. So what is our answer to how to save lives? If the gun community is just constantly at odds with soccer moms calling them evil, why would soccer moms say they want to let us have standar cap mags?

I should point out that driving is nothing more than a privilege in the U.S., while keeping and bearing arms is a constitutionally-protected right. There is an extremely significant difference that always seems to be lost on the gun grabbers.

And fortunately, soccer moms don’t get to “let us” have standard capacity magazines; the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does. This is another major point that seems to be lost on the gun grabbers, but they will be reminded soon enough by the federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe if the Democrats tried to ban those soccer moms’ minivans, they might start to understand.

And incidentally, isn’t it ironic that when people who want to ban guns, like those soccer moms you mention, get attacked or otherwise victimized by predators who mean them harm, the first thing they do is try to call people with guns to come and protect them. Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away . . .

 

[ikeo1]

You equate this with the Democrats’ never-ending push for gun control and legislation banning the use or possession of inanimate tools that are actually protected in the U.S. Constitution? We’re in more trouble than I thought.

You don’t seem to realize or acknowledge the very thing you spoke of Democrats doing are being implemented in early stages by Republicans.

You said ban spoons, you can now be fired from your job in the military for being fat.

You said ban cars, there are robo-taxis and automated driving systems being put in place and paid for by different entities. In the future you will have to pay to drive manually as it’ll be deemed less safe than automated driving as that roll out continues to propagate. It’s a systematic rollout and a plan by Elon to make driving safer. Robots don’t get tired or need to sleep.

You also seem to miss the call for a straight up ban for 2A for a minority group. Yes, democrats call for restrictions but you can still obtain/procure firearms. The flat out ban being called for, you would be barred from purchasing entirely.

Is that right or not?

The end goal for both is control, it’s the illusion of choice with the same outcome. The SC could easily repeal 9th circuit decisions, Yes or No? 6-3 majority. Yet they do not. They use it as a voter management tool. They know if they made it legal at the SC level then it becomes a non-issue