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: 15,645
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 online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,953
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 online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,965
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 online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,965
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 online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,953
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: 2,485
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 online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,965
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: 2,485
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 online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,953
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 online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,965
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
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 5:00 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