I've been confused on what the purpose of this website is.  The purpose determines on how the website is run.  Currently, it's very open like a boys clubhouse where people can say just about anything they want.  If it's meant as a discussion forum for a wide audience, then you need more moderation and rules.  If the goal is focused on activism, technical, and gun rights then it has to be further moderated.

Websites like AR15.com tend to be more toward discussion for a wider audience.  Technical websites like anandtech (for techies) are heavily moderated where you can't go off topic and you can get suspended easily.

I've been confused on what the purpose of this website is.  The purpose determines on how the website is run.  Currently, it's very open like a boys clubhouse where people can say just about anything they want.  If it's meant as a discussion forum for a wide audience, then you need more moderation and rules.  If the goal is focused on activism, technical, and gun rights then it has to be further moderated.

Websites like AR15.com tend to be more toward discussion for a wider audience.  Technical websites like anandtech (for techies) are heavily moderated where you can't go off topic and you can get suspended easily.

I am not talking about disagreement either, I am talking about snarky, rude, insulting behavior.

You do realize that those judgments on your part ("snarky, rude, insulting") are nothing but your own judgments, and not "facts", right? If I characterized many of your posts as "irrational, illogical, self-contradictory, leftist snowflake whining", would that be a fact or merely my personal judgment?

And you ARE calling for censorship. You can deny it, as you did by writing that you are "not talking about censoring people but..." (as virtually every politician everywhere who wants to ban guns states they "support the Second Amendment, but..."). And that's fine, you can ask for whatever you want. If you want to limit the discussion to various topics and/or various limitations on what kinds of words or types of arguments are allowed, perhaps the owners of the website will agree with you and create an echo chamber that will please you. And maybe that censorship will have the effect that you suspect, the "activism" in Hawaii re these issues will swell to a massive tsunami and overwhelm the legislative, executive and judicial reticence to legally recognize our inherent natural rights. Personally, I suspect you are 100% wrong, but I will gladly never click on this site again, much less write anything, if that were the case.

Why don't you provide us with a list of the people you find "insulting" and maybe they will agree to forgo posting here for one year to see just how effective that strategy is in sparking real change in our legal situation? Or how many years do you think it will take?

You do realize that those judgments on your part ("snarky, rude, insulting") are nothing but your own judgments, and not "facts", right? If I characterized many of your posts as "irrational, illogical, self-contradictory, leftist snowflake whining", would that be a fact or merely my personal judgment?

And you ARE calling for censorship. You can deny it, as you did by writing that you are "not talking about censoring people but..." (as virtually every politician everywhere who wants to ban guns states they "support the Second Amendment, but..."). And that's fine, you can ask for whatever you want. If you want to limit the discussion to various topics and/or various limitations on what kinds of words or types of arguments are allowed, perhaps the owners of the website will agree with you and create an echo chamber that will please you. And maybe that censorship will have the effect that you suspect, the "activism" in Hawaii re these issues will swell to a massive tsunami and overwhelm the legislative, executive and judicial reticence to legally recognize our inherent natural rights. Personally, I suspect you are 100% wrong, but I will gladly never click on this site again, much less write anything, if that were the case.

Why don't you provide us with a list of the people you find "insulting" and maybe they will agree to forgo posting here for one year to see just how effective that strategy is in sparking real change in our legal situation? Or how many years do you think it will take?

Lets not get into a argument about this, again, because BOTH sides constantly beg us moderators to censor the other when we allow differing points of view to remain.  Then the personal insults ensue when the topic is played out and no one can come to an agreement. 

1) People should do the ADULT thing, and WALK AWAY, agree to disagree, and walk away. 

2) All I know is some, who many complain about to be banned and censored, I have actually seen, in real life, boots on the ground doing SOMETHING to further 2A in Hawaii.  And others, who make a lot of noise, preaching to the choir,  seem to know a lot about the know, I have never seen nor heard of doing any real life furthering, and heard the excuses, when ask to. 

Just Sayin

I am not calling for censorship, you are reading too deep into this. Nowhere did I suggest anything but self control. If I called for censorship I would have suggested moderators played a bigger role. Instead I ask people to control themselves, to put the bigger issue ahead of their desire to insult others.

Yeah, you don't want "censorship", you just want people to not say what they want to say and you want to call that "self control", rather than "my control". How very convenient for you. You want to dictate what people are "allowed" to write, but you want them to acquiesce in conforming to your "standard" of what is "acceptable" or not. But you don't advocate censorship. You just want everyone to agree with you. Where have we seen that before? Another one of your, pardon me, logically incoherent and false claims.

Ok, you wanna dance around this by suggesting that insults are just subjective judgements? So I could call your mother some negative names and just suggest it is your fault for "judging" the comment as rude?

It wouldn't be my "fault" because I wouldn't call your statement "rude" because that's a judgment that would be pointless for me to make. I know, you don't get it. Obviously.

There is also a difference between saying that there is a logical fault to an argument and just dismissing an individual as illogical. One fosters dialogue the other shuts it down.

Yeah, and your "complaining" and wanting people to exhibit "self-control" is not an attempt to "shut down" dialogue, right? Just "certain kinds" of dialogue that you find "unacceptable" for whatever variety of "reasons" you offer to justify ending such dialogue. You want to "foster dialogue" as long as it conforms to your standard of "appropriate" dialog. You can't make this stuff up.

Lets not get into a argument about this, again, because BOTH sides constantly beg us moderators to censor the other when we allow differing points of view to remain.  Then the personal insults ensue when the topic is played out and no one can come to an agreement. 

I've never asked, much less "begged" a moderator to ever censor any statement on this site. I abhor censorship in any form and believe that no purpose is served by it other than to move the goal posts ever further and further toward crimethink. Of course the owners of this site are free to institute any policies they like.

I can only imagine the "rules" if the goal is to "come to an agreement". That's perfectly Orwellian. Be sure to let me know what the agreements are you reach with Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, etc..

Good points. As I am not the creator of this website I certainly cannot claim what its real purpose is. I just know that it has helped to get me learning about how to become involved in the political process beyond just voting and having discussions with people about gun rights.