Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > GENERAL DISCUSSION > Technology and Internet
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Technology and Internet Emerging and current tech related issues. Internet, DRM, IP, and other technology related discussions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-08-2018, 1:40 PM
GunsInMyEyes GunsInMyEyes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 260
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default They are censoring Alex jones on Internet

First amendement under attack

Last edited by GunsInMyEyes; 08-08-2018 at 6:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-08-2018, 1:48 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

First amendment only applies to government action.

“They” aren’t the government.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-08-2018, 2:41 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,182
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
First amendment only applies to government action.

“They” aren’t the government.
Sure. But freedom of speech is about more than the restrictions on governmental actions in the 1A. It's about cultural norms that speech which may be offensive or stupid is not shut down, but tolerated and countered with more speech. And while the 1st Amendment is alive and well, the cultural norm of freedom of speech is under assault from the militant left.

There's little point in having free speech as a legal right when the culutral norm makes it perfectly acceptable for employers to be bullied into firing you from your job (a job that has nothing to do with the political opinions you espouse), for example, because you dared express support for some politically incorrect idea.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-08-2018, 2:59 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Sure. But freedom of speech is about more than the restrictions on governmental actions in the 1A. It's about cultural norms that speech which may be offensive or stupid is not shut down, but tolerated and countered with more speech. And while the 1st Amendment is alive and well, the cultural norm of freedom of speech is under assault from the militant left.

There's little point in having free speech as a legal right when the culutral norm makes it perfectly acceptable for employers to be bullied into firing you from your job (a job that has nothing to do with the political opinions you espouse), for example, because you dared express support for some politically incorrect idea.
Free speech has always had repercussions. Just ask the Dixie Chicks, or were you fine with what happened to them? I WANT to be able to react to idiots I disagree with.

Employers can fire you for any reason or no reason, as long as it’s not an illegal reason. I don’t want more government to step in and come between employers and employees on this issue.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-08-2018, 6:18 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,182
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
I WANT to be able to react to idiots I disagree with.
Honest question: do you think it's a healthy society where people get fired for a politically incorrect comment in situations where the comments have nothing to do with their jobs? So I'm not talking about professional political commentators or celebrities, but I'm talking about Brandon Eich, CEO of a tech company fired for supporting Prop 8. Maybe you do--I disagree.

Quote:
I don’t want more government to step in and come between employers and employees on this issue.
Who said anything about government? I made a clear distinction between laws and cultural norms. Reading is fundamental.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post

Employers can fire you for any reason or no reason, as long as it’s not an illegal reason.
Surely, you are aware that terminating an employee for lawful conduct off the job, such as advocating for a particular political position, is illegal in California under Labor Code section 96(k). Hope your counsel to your clients is better than your Calguns posts.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-08-2018, 6:40 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 5,923
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wear your MAGA hat or JFK conspiracy theory shirt into a store or restaurant once and they can ban you for life.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-08-2018, 6:48 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Honest question: do you think it's a healthy society where people get fired for a politically incorrect comment in situations where the comments have nothing to do with their jobs? So I'm not talking about professional political commentators or celebrities, but I'm talking about Brandon Eich, CEO of a tech company fired for supporting Prop 8. Maybe you do--I disagree.



Who said anything about government? I made a clear distinction between laws and cultural norms. Reading is fundamental.



Surely, you are aware that terminating an employee for lawful conduct off the job, such as advocating for a particular political position, is illegal in California under Labor Code section 96(k). Hope your counsel to your clients is better than your Calguns posts.
I wasnt limiting my comments to california, nor was the question limited to California. And my post doesn't constitute legal advice.

But now that you mention it, my statement is undeniably correct. Labor Code 96k is a prohibition against action by the employer. That would make it an illegal reason, wouldn't it?

I'll answer that, the answer is yes. Therefore my statement is 100% accurate.

I hope your clients aren't paying for streaming piles of faux superity like your post.

But keep it classy.

Thanks for pretending to be superior.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXX

Last edited by Citadelgrad87; 08-08-2018 at 6:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-08-2018, 9:01 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 556
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Freedom of the press is limited to those with a (internet) printing press.

Until infowars.com is taken down, no infringement exists. Jones is not being silenced so much as his partners are exercising their rights to not publish his work.

Not censorship, free market at work. Make a product that can't be sold (offensive to their customer base) and reap the "reward" as you lose your distribution channels. No publisher or distributor is a charity. That being said, there is a dearth of righty-podcast publishers. An opportune market to exploit.

The same thing happened with the gun channel purges on YouTube. It just opens a market for their competitors.

I have no opinion of Jones that pertains outside this matter, but he's whining like a little girl at the moment.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-08-2018, 9:37 PM
sfarchitect's Avatar
sfarchitect sfarchitect is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,015
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Couldn't happen to a nicer man child sociopath. Look at what this 'man' has done to the parents of the victims of Sand Hook. As if those poor people haven't already suffered enough. The list just starts there.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-08-2018, 10:34 PM
bigmike82 bigmike82 is offline
Bit Pusher
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: W. Los Angeles
Posts: 3,188
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Online services have terms of use. He chose to violate them.

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes?"

Also, nothing's stopping him from starting his own video service. Not like YouTube isn't under fire at the moment for their draconian review and removal policies anyway.

Finally, **** that guy. He's a steaming pile.
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-09-2018, 5:46 AM
wpod's Avatar
wpod wpod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,820
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
Wear your MAGA hat or JFK conspiracy theory shirt into a store or restaurant once and they can ban you for life.
But if you're gay they have to bake you a cake.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-09-2018, 6:29 AM
Madmox Madmox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 481
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post



Employers can fire you for any reason or no reason, as long as it’s not an illegal reason.

In California or another At-Will State.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-09-2018, 6:31 AM
Madmox Madmox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 481
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Honest question: do you think it's a healthy society where people get fired for a politically incorrect comment in situations where the comments have nothing to do with their jobs? So I'm not talking about professional political commentators or celebrities, but I'm talking about Brandon Eich, CEO of a tech company fired for supporting Prop 8. Maybe you do--I disagree.



Who said anything about government? I made a clear distinction between laws and cultural norms. Reading is fundamental.



Surely, you are aware that terminating an employee for lawful conduct off the job, such as advocating for a particular political position, is illegal in California under Labor Code section 96(k). Hope your counsel to your clients is better than your Calguns posts.


See where he said. “As long as it isn’t an illegal reason” reading is fundamental.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-09-2018, 7:31 AM
sealocan sealocan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 7,196
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

" So far, he is banned by ...

Facebook

YouTube

Apple

Google Podcast

Spotify

TuneIn

Spreaker

iHeartRadio

Audioboom

Pinterest

MailChimp ( is that a spin-off from Trunk Monkey?)

Stitcher

Disqus

Sprout Social

LinkedIn

… and maybe even YouPorn?

Their termination notice from the Disqus comment hosting service, which ominously adds they’re “blocking the domains ‘infowars.com’, ‘newswars.com’, and ‘prisonplanet.com'” – presumably meaning comments containing those urls will be censored. "
( because Disqus is worried about people that just might make comments that might lead to their other readers going somewhere else for news? )


Now I'm a person who hasn't even seen a full Alex Jones Show, ever. but with this recent activity of multi mass media banning going on I've checked it out.... and I even found where they're now posting all there videos(and where other people can post videos of that " dangerous " type) without being banned. ...


https://www.real.video/



Also because of the importance I put on Liberty and freedom I do feel that private companies can do what they want.
( Even though currently our government controls many other aspects of who those same companies can choose or deny for customers and many many of their other business decisions.)

But I think that most people could admit that IF one or all of those same companies are controlling approximately 80% plus (that's just my estimate, it's probably higher) the market share of distributing media they DO have a lot of power.

And we wouldn't necessarily want very powerful corporations that can easily control our government ( or a large percentage of the non rational thinking humans) with money and their own media.
Would we?
( that's a semi joke.)


But if you know history sometimes when powerful entities are trying to hide you away or crush you that you actually end up getting even more support then you would have otherwise.

Some examples just off the top of my head...

· Adolf Hitler was sent to jail where a book was written and got a lot more followers.


· Fidel Castro was also sent to jail, no book was written but he became even more powerful.



· Obi-Wan Kenobi...


Enough said.





Last edited by sealocan; 08-09-2018 at 7:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-09-2018, 9:37 AM
sealocan sealocan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 7,196
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

^ it's kind of funny but what I just predicted is now being reported on breitbart.com as actually happening...


" Alex Jones claims 5.6 million people have subscribed to his free Infowars newsletter and podcast over the last 48 hours.
These 48 hours have been crucial for Jones, as the Big Tech monopolies and left-wing news outlets like CNN and BuzzFeed have joined forces to blacklist/erase Infowars from the public square.

Jones and Infowars have had their accounts canceled – have been effectively purged and erased – from YouTube, Facebook, Apple, LinkedIn, Spotify, Stitcher, and Pinterest. Even the emailing service MailChimp blacklisted Jones, in what has been a highly effective and coordinated media/Big Tech campaign to silence a vocal Trump supporter."


Now even if he's fudging the numbers x 2 he had only originally had 2.2 million subscribers over on YouTube where he is now banned.


Whether you love him or hate him you have to realize prohibition / banning , regarding anything when it comes to humans, doesn't always work out the way you think it should.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:23 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 556
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/...-blacklisting/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-09-2018, 12:17 PM
afteractionreport's Avatar
afteractionreport afteractionreport is offline
CGSSA Leader
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,583
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Im not an alex jones fan. Hes a little out there for me.

But now wouldnt this be a case for censoring an individual for his political ideology that can be brought up in court?

If theyre censoring people for their political views then social media platforms are no longer merely hosts of the content being produced by users. This is how the internet has flourished. The sites vould not be held liable for stuff posted. But now that sites are curating their content and with the new laws that CAN hold websites liable for stuff posted. Like backpage and their escort ads. Then censoring someone for nerely having the "wrong" polical opinion is probably against the law
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-09-2018, 1:31 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,182
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
But now that you mention it, my statement is undeniably correct. Labor Code 96k is a prohibition against action by the employer. That would make it an illegal reason, wouldn't it?

I'll answer that, the answer is yes. Therefore my statement is 100% accurate.
Your statement that a person can legally be fired for any reason that's not illegal is true, in the same way any truism is true. It also says nothing and means nothing.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-09-2018, 1:43 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,812
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

One of two things will happen over the next couple years.

Either A. There will eventually be some sort of regulation that either labels semi-monopolistic technologies as "public squares" or

B. Realizing that there is a market for 100% non censorship, a new platform will become popular with fringe advertisers that fit that media.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-09-2018, 1:44 PM
bbodybill's Avatar
bbodybill bbodybill is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 299
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Smile I personally SUPPORT Mr. Jones'''

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Your statement that a person can legally be fired for any reason that's not illegal is true, in the same way any truism is true. It also says nothing and means nothing.
Can anyone personally supprt ANY of his HEALTH products ???? I would like to SUPPORT HIM !!!!! May OUR GOD bless the USA !!!!!
__________________
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=20c9730268&view=fimg&th=15ad3c387b7ea1aa& attid=0.1&disp=emb&realattid=ii_15ad3c34b07b03d5&a ttbid=ANGjdJ_GOwaOCfqt3OHKm7zY_mRBiORflleilym4tijR cuiC5hGws2oJLyDhF9PhQVXWMa7_jCP_uMAWxJrz5ef-HJcaRLRDzRANo5ScBq6Y0tJJfz6He0c6K0GPTDg&sz=w632-h880&ats=1489612610462&rm=15ad3c387b7ea1aa&zw&atsh =1
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-09-2018, 1:46 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Your statement that a person can legally be fired for any reason that's not illegal is true, in the same way any truism is true. It also says nothing and means nothing.
Says the butt hurt guy who doesn’t read carefully, but wants to play expert.

Piss up a rope. My statement is an accurate statement of California employment law, and is uttered at the outset of every employment law seminar and almost every case I’ve read on the subject. It’s says EVERYTHING about when you can be fired. That’s the law, any reason, or no reason, but not an illegal reason.

Better luck next time.

Let’s review, you now admit that the sentence you attacked as untrue is...a truism.

Wow. Some people’s children.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXX

Last edited by Citadelgrad87; 08-09-2018 at 1:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-10-2018, 1:55 AM
remusrm remusrm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 196
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
First amendment only applies to government action.

“They” aren’t the government.

They are publicly traded companies that act as a public forum. I am tired of the likes of you the keep a hard line on their own demise!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-10-2018, 10:33 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by remusrm View Post
They are publicly traded companies that act as a public forum. I am tired of the likes of you the keep a hard line on their own demise!
Don’t deign to lump me in with anyone else. The likes of me? Wahhh.

The law is clear, the first amendment protects against STATE action. Period.

A publicly traded company is open to shareholder disagreement and market forces, but not the first amendment.

Your final sentence is unintelligible.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-10-2018, 6:47 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 5,923
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-15-2018, 12:51 PM
nate76239 nate76239 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,462
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

The public guest WiFi at UC Davis medical center started blocking infowars.com this week
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-15-2018, 2:12 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 556
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Embrace the love for VPNs and route around idiotic censorship
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-10-2018, 1:47 PM
pacneil pacneil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Poway
Posts: 15
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There is no first amendment in corporate land. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-10-2018, 3:02 PM
Mr. Snuffalupagus Mr. Snuffalupagus is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunsInMyEyes View Post
First amendement under attack
you know that "End User License agreement"
the one you just scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "ok" on without reading?


yeah... well that wall of text says that the OWNERS of the website/service reserve the right to do anything they please, for any reason with your account up to and including deletion.
ol' Alex really should have read that in it's entirety and followed the rules outlined therein. No government entity involved.
so, the first amendment doesn't apply here.


Private concern on privately owned servers. their web service, their rules.


Just like if I went nuts and started shooting off my mouth on Calguns extolling the virtues of Left wing progressive thought, while simultaneously attacking other members here... I'd get my *** banned in a heartbeat.

Sure, I'm entitled to voice my opinion, and sure, I'm entitled to tell others what I think of them without fear of government reprisal... but I did digitally "sign" (that's what clicking yes means!) a document that says I'll follow Calguns rules when I joined... if I violate those rules, I'm also entitled to accept whatever punishment the moderators see fit.


sorry buddy.

not censorship.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-10-2018, 10:28 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,938
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

If he no longer has an outlet, if could take his money he has earned and start his own online network, and spew whatever he wants, right or wrong.

He should put his money where his mouth is rather than demanding others provide him the microphone at their cost.

It's their microphone; they bought it, they can take it home at night and control who speaks into it.

If he goes an buys his own microphone or networks with someone that will allow his drivel, so be it.

.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-14-2018, 7:40 PM
Silent Pulse's Avatar
Silent Pulse Silent Pulse is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 93
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Interesting read from a USAF veteran/columnist regarding free speech and private companies: https://americaoutloud.com/virtual-f...perty-rights/#
__________________
I was once a moderate until the U.S. Constitution turned me into a conservative like a vampire biting someone to become one of them.

This Millennial is woke.

Continuously learning...


Official Firearms Policy Coalition member
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:47 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.