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 > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #561  
Old 05-04-2021, 8:57 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 15,655
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
Check back in a year or so, or wait until CRPA/NRA send an email advising of a decision. Until then, nothing of value will come out of this thread. It will totally devolve into many, many text walls, enough to paper the White House, and beyond. It’s all tea leaves and minutia, ad nauseam.
It's expected to get to the "wall of text" phase, all these threads do.

Sometimes Librarian locks them down until new information becomes available, but this time I don't think he has the time or the will to read through all of this to make the decision. Already too much text.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 05-04-2021, 11:46 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,846
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
We're becoming repetitive.
Yeah, I suspect we're talking past each other somehow.

I'll start a new thread on this topic, and will edit this message with a link to it once I've done so.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 05-04-2021, 11:51 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
Will this thread get to 500 pages?????
I can easily see it going to 5,000 posts prior to a ruling.
This will keep y’all busy for the next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Yeah, I suspect we're talking past each other somehow.

I'll start a new thread on this topic, and will edit this message with a link to it once I've done so.
Kc, PLEASE don't give up. We were CHALLENGED by someone to get to 500 pages, please don't give up hope because the guy then backbit and said getting to 500 pages would be a bad thing.

Keep up the good fight.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 05-04-2021, 1:40 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,846
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Kc, PLEASE don't give up. We were CHALLENGED by someone to get to 500 pages, please don't give up hope because the guy then backbit and said getting to 500 pages would be a bad thing.

Keep up the good fight.
Feel free to carry on the tradition.

I'm taking it to a new thread for the purpose of clarity.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 05-04-2021, 9:56 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,975
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Kc, PLEASE don't give up. We were CHALLENGED by someone to get to 500 pages, please don't give up hope because the guy then backbit and said getting to 500 pages would be a bad thing.

Keep up the good fight.

Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 05-04-2021, 10:14 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,975
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Look at the post prior to this.

See how that works? A "post" can be as short as 3 spaces.

It doesn't have to be thousands of words of repetitive rambling. Such as debating the definition of a single word. Including dozens of senseless "QUOTES". Which interested parties have already read anyway.

The 500 post goal [already surpassed] would have been an easier goal if it had included posts of "several paragraphs of relevant thoughts".

Rather than puked up walls of text.
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 05-04-2021, 10:26 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Look at the post prior to this.

See how that works? A "post" can be as short as 3 spaces.

It doesn't have to be thousands of words of repetitive rambling. Such as debating the definition of a single word. Including dozens of senseless "QUOTES". Which interested parties have already read anyway.

The 500 post goal [already surpassed] would have been an easier goal if it had included posts of "several paragraphs of relevant thoughts".

Rather than puked up walls of text.
Calguns evolved as a place where people thought they could organize. Then it became a place where lawyers would bash people for talking regular-like and not writing insanely long quotes and the poster's interpretation of the linked part. This soon became the gold "standard" for people in the know, to prove they could read law and interpret it. This lead to a darwinian evolution where if you couldn't write legal "briefs" as a post you were a fool. So most of the people who've survived and post here write that way because people like Fabio or even Gene or other OG calgunners and others cited legal arguments for being better able to predict things, and when their predictions panned out, anyone who didn't write that way was ignored and belittled as a fool.

I'm happy to write shorter posts. Pithier posts. Posts without long dry legal analysis. In fact I basically agree there is no value to those posts. However... I will still post that way to show I can and choose not to. Hopefully more people here will value plain speaking and realize these legal arguments have no actual impact on the decisions.

Far better to write plainly and get people to act as one, including figuring out how to pressure or make decision-makers scared of not giving us what we want. However I can't write that plainly for fear of having a political federal branch roll me up. So there will still be some indirectness.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 05-04-2021, 11:49 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 159
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Well, I would endorse the idea of setting up a new thread.

I’m a 1A advocate too. By all means have a passionate debate.

I submit for your consideration that you two are trying to answer different questions. Perhaps the core of your new thread could be a philosophical debate about what the critical questions are. Peter F. Drucker posited that asking the right question was the harder part: once you had the question right, the answer usually presented itself.

Given the limitations on amicus brief length, it’s easy to run out of space answering the wrong question.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/casehan...sGuide2019.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 05-05-2021, 12:27 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Look at the post prior to this.

See how that works? A "post" can be as short as 3 spaces.

It doesn't have to be thousands of words of repetitive rambling. Such as debating the definition of a single word. Including dozens of senseless "QUOTES"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Calguns evolved as a place where people thought they could organize... This lead to a darwinian evolution where if you couldn't write legal "briefs" as a post you were a fool...

I'm happy to write shorter posts. Pithier posts. Posts without long dry legal analysis...

Far better to write plainly and get people to act as one, including figuring out how to pressure or make decision-makers scared of not giving us what we want...
An even better, more accurate, in some ways 'pithier,' and less 'confrontational' or 'accusatory' argument would be to examine the name of this section of the site...

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion

As a result, what is deemed "long dry legal analysis" posts are actually comparatively SHORT as legal analyses go and are, by derivative, an expected part of this (and similar sections) of the site; i.e., a primary purpose of such sections being... legal discussion, which includes legal analysis.

(Simply disagreeing with an analysis is not the same as invalidating the analysis proffered in that, as I like to periodically observe, if you place 5 lawyers in a room, give them an issue, you're likely to end up with 55 analyses of the issue. )

So... Yes... A "post" can be as short as 3 spaces and it doesn't have to be thousands of words, repetitive or otherwise.

However, by nature of the parameters for posting which are set by those who run the site, they are ALLOWED to be; likely in the interest of allowing for some level of actual, legal analysis and such analyses often include and are very much dependent upon "the definition of a single word" and reference to what many outside a 'legal mindset' would see as dozens of senseless "QUOTES". In that sense, what some see as 'long, useless, and repetitive' is speaking plainly within the context of the discussion and the section of the site it is located in.

Does all of the discourse have to be that way? As I just noted, No. Members are free to participate in whatever manner they wish, provided it is within the rules/parameters of the site. Further, those who do not wish to 'participate' are free to ignore the 'longer posts' or entire threads they deem to be repetitive, long, or useless. I'm no moderator, but, at least, that is how I understand both the written and unwritten 'standards.'

Whatever the perception of the past and whatever some believe was LED (as opposed to 'lead') to evolve is a projection of personal preference rather than a recognition of what has been provided. As I said, long ago, if management does not see 'value' in posts beyond a certain, 'arbitrary' length, all that needs be done is reset the number of characters allowed. If no 'value' is perceived in "quotes," then all which need be done is elimination of the function or a specific rule proscribing a limitation on the 'number' allowed. (We see precedent for that in the COVID section where a couple of 'unique to that section' rules are in place and enforced.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
Well, I would endorse the idea of setting up a new thread.

I’m a 1A advocate too. By all means have a passionate debate...
As I observed earlier, I suggested such before the question of "What Happened?" was even broached; pointing to an already existing thread as a potential alternative. If one actually reads the posts, you will find that such has already been mutually agreed to. But, there is another point that those with a preference for 'short' or 'someplace else' appear to have missed.

Given the nature of the topic, the 2nd Amendment and its meaning, I'd far rather have passionate and maybe even somewhat erudite individuals on "our side" than drive them away with suggestions, pontification, and, if you prefer, 'brow beating' and 'insult' that some of (not the entirety of, by the way) their contributions are 'too long' or 'too documented' or 'too dry' when the actual intention is to comply with what a significant number of members were asking (and continue to ask) for prior to my actually joining. What was that?

Links, quotes, explanation... i.e., reference/documentation... as a supplement to (not strictly a replacement for) the 'bumper sticker' assertions many often post. Such allows readers (not simply posting members) to research and decide for themselves what their opinion is or should be regarding a given topic. If the goal is to "act as one" and "figure out" how to persuade decision-makers, then I should think that the first step is to inform rather than 'demand' in that the audience, particularly for this site, would seem to be more independent- or independence- minded.
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 05-05-2021, 1:22 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,975
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

lowimpactuser

Did all of that "Darwinian evolution" transpire between the months of April and May of 2014? In case you wonder why I ask. Compare our "join dates", top RH corner of each post.

And BTW, FGG has been MIA for going on 8 months, if memory serves. And where is Gene? And how many years since he graced us with HIS presence??

IMO, A wise man, puts his brain in gear before opening his Yap/Keyboard and organizes his thoughts into a concise and succinct flow. In order to present his thoughts in such a manner that readers will pay attention to his message. Not get bored stiff and just scroll past WALLS of TEXT.

My earlier Plato quote is a perfect example. The greatest, most profound, most referenced and requoted-quotes, in all of history. Penned by the most famous thinkers of all time. RARELY exceed a single paragraph.

Whereas those referenced in the second part of that Plato quote. Just keep rambling on, and on, ad nauseum, and remain ignored.
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 05-05-2021, 2:26 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
...IMO, A wise man, puts his brain in gear before opening his Yap/Keyboard and organizes his thoughts into a concise and succinct flow. In order to present his thoughts in such a manner that readers will pay attention to his message. Not get bored stiff and just scroll past WALLS of TEXT.

My earlier Plato quote is a perfect example. The greatest, most profound, most referenced and requoted-quotes, in all of history. Penned by the most famous thinkers of all time. RARELY exceed a single paragraph.

Whereas those referenced in the second part of that Plato quote. Just keep rambling on, and on, ad nauseum, and remain ignored.
Some of the most divisive and controversial quotes, in all of history, have also been concise; leading to, literally, millennia of debate, discussion, and continued 'uncertainty.' As a prime example of a 'legal' issue...

Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Without further elaboration, the reader is left to discern for themselves the intended meaning and how to apply that meaning. Such discernment involves and has involved, not just "Walls of Text," but libraries of text; both written and spoken. Yet, in the end, I suspect such was the very point.

Learning, understanding, and wisdom comes from thought; both internally and expressed. Such learning, understanding, and wisdom is not limited to a single individual or, in many cases, to a single understanding or definition. In fact, that is precisely what separates man, as a species, from all others; the ability to learn and understand with the wisdom to pass such to subsequent generations. As an example...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
What happened is that this thread has been subjected to not just "thread drift" or "jacking".

It has been the victim of an avalanche of Not just Walls of Text. But REGURGITATED GIANT WALLS OF TEXT. Of the same quotes OVER AND OVER. Even by the original posters of the quotes. As if they don't really have anything new to share, or add to the discussion. They just relish seeing their own words in print. OVER and OVER and OVER. Adding nothing to the conversation.

Which brings to mind this quote, from Plato.
Perhaps it is time we "all" examined what... someone else said... approximately 9 hours prior to that post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
While I enjoy our 'conversations,' I think we need to allow this thread to return its focus to NYSRPA v. Corlett and allow the more generic 'carry and Heller' to proceed on the other thread if we can't simply 'agree to disagree.'
That seems like less than a paragraph and is, in fact, a single sentence. I believe there is some representative understanding and wisdom in it.
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 05-05-2021, 8:51 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
lowimpactuser

Did all of that "Darwinian evolution" transpire between the months of April and May of 2014? In case you wonder why I ask. Compare our "join dates", top RH corner of each post.

And BTW, FGG has been MIA for going on 8 months, if memory serves. And where is Gene? And how many years since he graced us with HIS presence??

IMO, A wise man, puts his brain in gear before opening his Yap/Keyboard and organizes his thoughts into a concise and succinct flow. In order to present his thoughts in such a manner that readers will pay attention to his message. Not get bored stiff and just scroll past WALLS of TEXT.
A wise man might ask if I was lurking or posting here far before I felt like I wanted to post like I do under this account. Not everything is as it seems on the internet.

For someone talking about "wise" men you seem to be very prone to ad hominem and do nothing to refute my points about how calguns evolved. Instead of being willing to offer an olive branch "maybe it DID evolve that way, but if it's vestigial/no longer functional maybe it can evolve again?" you go on the attack without grace, style, or wit.

Also, praytell, who would you consider "wise men" who ever used a keyboard? Typing on a keyboard was generally reserved for secretaries until the early-mid 90s for most.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
My earlier Plato quote is a perfect example. The greatest, most profound, most referenced and requoted-quotes, in all of history. Penned by the most famous thinkers of all time. RARELY exceed a single paragraph.

Whereas those referenced in the second part of that Plato quote. Just keep rambling on, and on, ad nauseum, and remain ignored.
If you want to compare knowledge of Plato you're likely to get trounced you codswollop-spouting prole. Even your one citation of Plato shows your complete lack of familiarity with the Platonic school of thought. And because I DO show my work I'll just leave it at "exoteric vs. esoteric meanings and teachings" in the Platonic school of thought. Pro-tip: if googling doesn't work as well, startpage and yandex are other great search engines to find things Google doesn't consider as relevant.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 05-05-2021 at 9:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 05-05-2021, 3:54 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,975
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
While I enjoy our 'conversations,' I think we need to allow this thread to return its focus to NYSRPA v. Corlett and allow the more generic 'carry and Heller' to proceed on the other thread if we can't simply 'agree to disagree.'
Quote:
That seems like less than a paragraph and is, in fact, a single sentence. I believe there is some representative understanding and wisdom in it.
And I would agree. Except you unfortunately didn't heed your own words. Instead you now defend your "WALLS OF TEXT" with more "WALLS OF TEXT".


Quote:
A wise man might ask if I was lurking or posting here far before I felt like I wanted to post like I do under this account. Not everything is as it seems on the internet.
So, should we address you as Fabio or Gene? Just who is this "Shadow Persona" you allude to hypothetically being, without admitting to?

I posted nothing to refute your synopsis of CG beginnings. Because I just don't care. Now as to why you consider my lack of caring, and comment, as an attack remains a mystery. That I also don't care about.

Quote:
If you want to compare knowledge of Plato you're likely to get trounced you codswollop-spouting prole.
I made ONE relevant quote of a 2,000 yr ago philosopher, In support of succinctness, and you get triggered again. And chose to take it as an attack on your own personal scholastic knowledge.

Paranoid much? Just maybe you are a bit too thin skinned for internet forums. Ever consider meditation?

NYSRPA v. Corlett, is an active and ongoing viable corridor to a hopeful pro 2A SCOTUS ruling.

And again, a select few, have turned it into just another monopolized crap storm of DUELLING WALLS of TEXT here on CG. Filled with regurgitated quotes. Which only the same select few even bother to read or post in.

So much for another appeal to reason. Just becoming an exercise in futility.
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 05-05-2021, 5:02 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
I made ONE relevant quote of a 2,000 yr ago philosopher, In support of succinctness, and you get triggered again. And chose to take it as an attack on your own personal scholastic knowledge.

Paranoid much? Just maybe you are a bit too thin skinned for internet forums. Ever consider meditation?
Don't quote a philosopher who believed most people are too stupid to understand most of his philosophy to make a point about being easy to understand as desirable.

Thin-skinned is different than offended by attempting to corrupt the Platonic school of thought. Personally I find you beneath contempt and thus beneath even being worried about. I just enjoy harpooning people who deserve it and don't get enough people who deserve roasting in my personal life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
NYSRPA v. Corlett, is an active and ongoing viable corridor to a hopeful pro 2A SCOTUS ruling.

And again, a select few, have turned it into just another monopolized crap storm of DUELLING WALLS of TEXT here on CG. Filled with regurgitated quotes. Which only the same select few even bother to read or post in.

So much for another appeal to reason. Just becoming an exercise in futility.
You're trying to use your own personal attacks to get us to stop doing what calguns is for, and instead of asking nicely you wanted to get in a game of mudslinging. I personally would meet you for mutual combat (even empty hands if you are too scared of the proper dueling weapons), but you are a moral as well as physical coward. So instead we are putting on a show for the rest.

You never appealed to reason and instead stuck with ad hominem so I've returned the favor many times over. Anyone else who actually asks for something in a polite way will find their politeness returned in kind.

As for NYSRPA, we shall see. I'm happy to engage in conversation about it, including asking other people's takes as well as my own analysis. Sadly not once did you even engage with that issue, except to sprinkle in a single reference so you could try to cover your own vendetta and off-tracking the thread.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 05-05-2021 at 5:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 05-05-2021, 6:35 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,975
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Don't quote a philosopher who believed most people are too stupid to understand most of his philosophy to make a point about being easy to understand as desirable.

Thin-skinned is different than offended by attempting to corrupt the Platonic school of thought. Personally I find you beneath contempt and thus beneath even being worried about. I just enjoy harpooning people who deserve it and don't get enough people who deserve roasting in my personal life.



You're trying to use your own personal attacks to get us to stop doing what calguns is for, and instead of asking nicely you wanted to get in a game of mudslinging. I personally would meet you for mutual combat (even empty hands if you are too scared of the proper dueling weapons), but you are a moral as well as physical coward. So instead we are putting on a show for the rest.

You never appealed to reason and instead stuck with ad hominem so I've returned the favor many times over. Anyone else who actually asks for something in a polite way will find their politeness returned in kind.

As for NYSRPA, we shall see. I'm happy to engage in conversation about it, including asking other people's takes as well as my own analysis. Sadly not once did you even engage with that issue, except to sprinkle in a single reference so you could try to cover your own vendetta and off-tracking the thread.
OK Gene, Or whoever you are. I posted your "quote" just so you can't edit out all your "Off the Deep End", delusional paranoid rants, name calling, personal attacks, and offered threats of violence.

Quote:
Thin-skinned is different than offended by attempting to corrupt the Platonic school of thought.
Your repeated accusations of my "personal attacks" might be supported with an actual quote. Good Luck.

WOW! I quoted a guy who died 500 yrs BC. So now I'm corrupting his "Platonic school of thought".

I believe that whatever you issue is, it goes far beyond a case of thin skin.
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 05-05-2021, 6:49 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
OK Gene, Or whoever you are. I posted your "quote" just so you can't edit out all your "Off the Deep End", delusional paranoid rants, name calling, personal attacks, and offered threats of violence.



Your repeated accusations of my "personal attacks" might be supported with an actual quote. Good Luck.

WOW! I quoted a guy who died 500 yrs BC. So now I'm corrupting his "Platonic school of thought".

I believe that whatever you issue is, it goes far beyond a case of thin skin.
I stand by my words. I only correct some syntax for clearer meaning a few minutes after posting.

You recoil from the idea of mutual combat and call it "violence" as opposed to a choice. You are both intellectually as well as physically a nothing who lacks any qualities worthy of admiration.

Everything you write is personal as you have no original thoughts to offer. Including adding nothing to the debate of the NYSRPA case, not even a prediction of how it will go as even that would require too much personal courage. Your writing is a testament to everything I write so completely I have nothing else to add.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 05-05-2021, 7:25 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 3,483
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Interesting because it's clearly more correct to say "thou shalt not murder".

To try and rephrase a debate with a poor translation is odd. If done purposely versus out of ignorance leads to interesting discussion either way.
__________________
CA firearms laws timeline BLM land maps
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) -Scalia majority opinion in Heller
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 05-05-2021, 8:29 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Interesting because it's clearly more correct to say "thou shalt not murder".

To try and rephrase a debate with a poor translation is odd. If done purposely versus out of ignorance leads to interesting discussion either way.
Except, the translation which happened for, at least, several hundred years and is still the more common is... "Thou Shalt Not Kill." In fact, the King James Version, which is where that translation is found, remains the most or one of the most popular version(s) in print for readers in English.

The "Thou Shalt Not Murder" translation is a comparatively recent translation in the context of introduction to the public consciousness. Even at that, pages upon pages of text exist attempting to explain why it is the more accurate translation. On top of that, the philosophical diatribes continue with questions such as: "Does it only apply to 'murder' or does it also apply to...?"

Which was my very point. What you recognize and accept, personally, as the 'better' translation or the 'only proper' translation means that you, the reader, have discerned, for yourself, the intended meaning and how to apply that meaning. Congratulations. Now, if the rest of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism explicitly agreed, there would be no need for the millennia-old discussions, debates, etc. which are still ongoing.

In fact, well before the introduction of the "Thou Shalt Not Murder" translation into the public debate, the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" rendition even made its way into popular culture via the 'struggle' one individual had in reconciling "kill" with what is necessary in "war." Do you 'murder' the enemy in war or do you 'kill' them? Is killing necessary, at times, in order to 'save' others or 'preserve' something? Does God allow for exemptions based on circumstance; after all, God ordered the killing of thousands in the Old Testament and even forgave the outright 'murder' of a man and his family by Phineas, the son of Aaron, because Phineas was 'zealous' for God's sake? (Numbers 25)

In other words, this scene from Sergeant York is, in many respects, a microcosm of the debate that began when Moses brought down the tablets and continues today...



Libraries full of text exist over how A SINGLE WORD was, is, and/or should be translated and, regardless of how it is translated, what it means. Yet, over the millennia, no single, all-encompassing, one-size-fits-all 'solution' has been found acceptable by everyone. While it can be argued that a general understanding of what was intended has always been available, application to specific circumstances is still open to interpretation.

But, hey. You've got your opinion and everyone over the ages were simply idiots for not knowing what you now do. Right? I mean, God just allowed an erroneous translation to become an inherent part of Western Civilization so that branch of mankind would skew sinful and He wouldn't have to worry about their salvation. Right? It wouldn't make sense that, as a Baptist preacher I heard once said, if you're doing it right, you'll get what you're supposed to out of the King James Version; otherwise, you'd need to 'find' a 'perfect' translation for salvation and such would have had to have been available to all from the moment God etched it into stone? Right?

The bottom line, as I said, learning, understanding, and wisdom comes from thought; both internally and expressed. Such learning, understanding, and wisdom is not limited to a single individual or, in many cases, to a single understanding or definition. This is what appears to be meant by "seek the Lord" and "rely on His wisdom." But, what is "His wisdom?" You have to seek it to find it, don't you? Does everyone have access to what is deemed 'the proper' or 'the perfect' translation or has it always been found through study, contemplation, and/or a personal relationship with God?

In the end, like it or not, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was part of the discourse surrounding the 2nd Amendment and it continues to be, regardless of which translation of the word is posited. Which is precisely why that phrase was chosen, as an example of how concision isn't necessarily a panacea for understanding and meaning. Where, instead, it can directly lead to greater obfuscation, accusation, debate, and lack of understanding. As an example...

One thing you fail to note is that while "murder" is a more exact transliteration, the Hebrew word imparted more than what the English word "murder" does; having far more nuance and a wider range of meanings than the English equivalent. So, when you claim 'kill' is a poor translation, so too is 'murder' a poor translation in that it is incomplete in the meaning the original word potentially imparted.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 05-05-2021 at 8:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 05-05-2021, 8:51 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,989
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Some of the most divisive and controversial quotes, in all of history, have also been concise; leading to, literally, millennia of debate, discussion, and continued 'uncertainty.' As a prime example of a 'legal' issue...



Thou Shalt Not Kill.


This was from a bad translation from the King James.

The original Hebrew read as:
Thou Shalt not Murder.
Also, the common mandate that a man should protect his family and property up to and including smiting ones foe means "killing" is justified by God (and man) in certain circumstances..
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 05-05-2021, 8:51 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,975
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
I stand by my words. I only correct some syntax for clearer meaning a few minutes after posting.

You recoil from the idea of mutual combat and call it "violence" as opposed to a choice. You are both intellectually as well as physically a nothing who lacks any qualities worthy of admiration.

Everything you write is personal as you have no original thoughts to offer. Including adding nothing to the debate of the NYSRPA case, not even a prediction of how it will go as even that would require too much personal courage. Your writing is a testament to everything I write so completely I have nothing else to add.
So you can't actually produce a quote that confirms a "personal attack". That you repeatedly claim I made. Because they only exist in your head. And then broaden the scope of the false accusation to include "everything I write".

And making WAGs about SCOTUS rulings, now somehow requires "courage" that I obviously lack. Again according to you.

You're a funny guy Gene. Sad but funny.
Reply With Quote
  #581  
Old 05-05-2021, 9:07 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
This was from a bad translation from the King James.

The original Hebrew read as:
Thou Shalt not Murder.
Also, the common mandate that a man should protect his family and property up to and including smiting ones foe means "killing" is justified by God (and man) in certain circumstances..
See my post preceding your's. You are introducing 'nuance' and understanding which is not conveyed by the 4 words used; but, is discerned by additional study/reference.

That was precisely the point. Simple concision (conciseness) isn't, of necessity, the conveyance of a full or complete idea or a conveyance of the full/complete/potential meaning.

Discussion of the myriad interpretations of the phrase should probably be on another thread.
Reply With Quote
  #582  
Old 05-05-2021, 9:08 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,975
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Some of the most divisive and controversial quotes, in all of history, have also been concise; leading to, literally, millennia of debate, discussion, and continued 'uncertainty.' As a prime example of a 'legal' issue...

Thou Shalt Not Kill.
https://www.wgbh.org/programs/2020/0...shalt-not-kill

PBS to the rescue
Reply With Quote
  #583  
Old 05-05-2021, 9:19 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Map Maker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 3,376
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
It's expected to get to the "wall of text" phase, all these threads do.

Sometimes Librarian locks them down until new information becomes available, but this time I don't think he has the time or the will to read through all of this to make the decision. Already too much text.
Jesus. Just reading this single page made my head hurt. This really is a **** show.

__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

NRA Lifetime Member : CalGuns Lifetime Member : GOA Lifetime Member

Reply With Quote
  #584  
Old 05-05-2021, 9:25 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
Jesus. Just reading this single page made my head hurt. This really is a **** show.

Come on, we were challenged to get 500 pages. Let's gooooo!
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #585  
Old 05-06-2021, 1:58 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,975
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Come on, we were challenged to get 500 pages. Let's gooooo!

Actually we weren't.

Quote:
Quote: from post #407
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
Will this thread get to 500 pages?????
I can easily see it going to 5,000 posts prior to a ruling.
Quote:
Quote: from post #408 by you
This will keep y’all busy for the next year.
I'll help if you agree to help.
Reply With Quote
  #586  
Old 05-06-2021, 2:40 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,106
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

How long does it take to schedule when they will hear the case?
Reply With Quote
  #587  
Old 05-06-2021, 2:50 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Maybe Paladin knows? Wish there was a tag function.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #588  
Old 05-06-2021, 3:31 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Brief due 6/10/2021
Reply With Quote
  #589  
Old 05-06-2021, 4:07 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,106
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

So probably October-November will be oral arguments.

I am very interested to see what happens with some other pending 2A cases. NRA is bringing a mag ban to SCOTUS soon. If they took that one as well, we would probably end up in a great place going forward as far as how much gun control advocates can F us over.
Reply With Quote
  #590  
Old 05-07-2021, 12:29 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snailbait View Post
Brief due 6/10/2021
Clement just asked, on behalf of both sides, for an extension.

Petitioners brief (and joint appendix) due July 02
Respondents brief due August 23

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...st%20FINAL.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #591  
Old 05-08-2021, 3:24 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,683
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
So probably October-November will be oral arguments.

I am very interested to see what happens with some other pending 2A cases. NRA is bringing a mag ban to SCOTUS soon. If they took that one as well, we would probably end up in a great place going forward as far as how much gun control advocates can F us over.
Several criminal cases were denied cert outright. Seems the court is signaling whatever happens here won't affect those cases.
And I know one of the cases is about as low level of a felony as you can get (bootlegging cassette tapes), and it got booted...

I would expect the mag ban and any other non criminal cases to be held pending the outcome of this case.

Last edited by press1280; 05-08-2021 at 3:26 AM..
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 7:50 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical