• Anything ‘published’ on the web is viewed as intellectual property and, regardless of whether it displays a copyright symbol or not, is therefore copyrighted by the originator. The only exception to this is if there is a “free and unrestricted reuse” statement associated with the work.

    In order to protect our members and TFL from possible litigation, all members must abide by the following new rules:

    1. Copying and pasting entire articles from another site to TFL is strictly prohibited. The same applies to articles from print or other media, and to posting photographs taken of copyrighted pages or other media.

    2. Copyright law provides for “fair use” of portions of a copyrighted work. You can copy no more than a SINGLE paragraph from the article to your post (3 or 4 sentences at most).

    3. You must provide a link to the article along with the name of website. For example: ww.xxx.yyy/zzz (The Lower Thumbsuck Daily News).

    4. You must provide, in your own words, a brief summary of the article AND your reasons for believing it will be of interest to TFL members. Failure to do so may result in the thread being closed or your post being deleted as a “cut and paste drive by.”

    5. Photographs and other images are also copyrighted. "Hotlinking" of images (so that it appears in your message) from other sites is also prohibited unless you own rights to the image. If you wish to share an image, provide a clickable link to it.

    Posts that do not follow these new guidelines will be altered or deleted by staff. Members who continue to violate this policy may lose their posting privileges at TFL.

    Thank you for your cooperation and your participation in TFL, the leading online forum for firearms enthusiasts.

Policy Is Much Too Restraining

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MrBot

New member
..just read a post where the OP stated A NEW RUGER 10-22 JUST FOLLOWED HIM HOME FROM DICK'S.

Early on in the Discussion the rest of us were warned to NOT GO OFF ON DICK'S ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT stance.

Well, anyone who's been paying attention knows full well of Dick's mistake in alienating pro-gun supporters. We would all be better served if ALL OF US SIGNED A PLEDGE TO NEVER AGAIN SPEND A BUCK ON ANYONE WHO WOULD SO READILY TRAMPLE ON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Not only would that include the likes of Dick's but you can throw in Levi's, Dockers, Zeti Coolers.. And the list goes on.

The OP obviously is either unaware of the resentment many of us have toward Dick's & those who would deny us our Constitutional rights, or he just doesn't care. Allowing others to inform this individual why none of us should be doing business with Dick's would be a much better policy than one that continues to shield the truth from this conflicted, apathetic or uninformed gun buyer. As is he may very well never learn the perilous predicament gun owners are in in today's America with so many who would love nothing better than to deny us anything & everything guns & gun related. And that includes this forum. The fact of the matter is there are many out there who would shut The Firing Lines forums down if given the chance.

So why do to ourselves what others would love nothing better than to do to us? Why deny Responders the free-speech right to--you guessed it--practice a little free-speech & respond?

I would think it would be a much better policy to give Responders more reign & allow them to Respond as they see fit. If responses get out of hand deal with it at that time. But to PLAY SPEECH POLICE--and say, YOU JUST CAN'T SAY THAT! !!!!!--in the end prevents us from sometimes looking at the bigger picture. From time to time we all need to be made aware that there's a lot more to life than the cheap thrill of acquiring a new gun. Yeah, buying a new firearm is fun, but let's face it there are a whole lot more important issues going on in today's world.
 
Can you link to the thread in question?

If you want to start a thread on Dick's policies, you can do so. It sounds like perhaps your post was off-topic for the thread in question.
 
MrBot said:
Early on in the Discussion the rest of us were warned to NOT GO OFF ON DICK'S ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT stance.
Click to expand...
The mods work really hard to keep threads on-topic. Since they often see certain threads on certain topics veer off-topic, this was simply a warning based on previous experiences. Anyone who wanted to discuss the topic of Dick’s 2A stance was welcome to start a new thread. You could even have PMed members about that new thread in case they didn’t see it.

MrBot said:
So why do to ourselves what others would love nothing better than to do to us? Why deny Responders the free-speech right to--you guessed it--practice a little free-speech & respond?
Click to expand...
This is a private forum. Free speech and the 1st Amendment don’t apply. The mods on TFL have every right to control what is said here, and I think the forum is better for it.

MrBot said:
I would think it would be a much better policy to give Responders more reign & allow them to Respond as they see fit.
Click to expand...
No thanks. If I want threads that veer wildly off-topic, people who spew vitriol and insults, and constant political talk, I’ll go elsewhere. I come to TFL for civil and ordered discussions on firearms.
 
Last edited:
What Theohazard said. I enjoy TFL's focus on firearms and its general attempt to sidestep the usual political threads. They degenerate quickly.
 
When someone buys a gun, they're usually pretty happy about it and they often want to share.

What they don't want is someone jumping on them for buying (the wrong kind of gun/from the wrong store/in the wrong caliber/made of the wrong material/with the wrong finish/etc.).

So, when someone is posting about their new gun, it's not the time to tell them how bad they screwed up for not doing things the way you would. That's rude and likely to get a sharp response.

Rude posts and sharp responses make members unhappy and make unpleasant work for the staff cleaning up threads and infracting members who've broken the rules.

So, when a mod sees someone about to step on a snake, they might call out a warning. The fact that the member in question may not see the snake doesn't mean that the warning was unwarranted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top