stuckinchico
Regular Member
imported post
yeah mine was a joke personally I dont care
yeah mine was a joke personally I dont care
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Have you seen this post on CGN
- Thread starter stuckinchico
- Start date
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Kestryll wrote:
Kestryll wrote:
Kestryll wrote:
Kestryll wrote:
Kestryll wrote:
Let me quote exactly the post that you deleted (in addition to the Franklin comic):
As you can see, I was responding to Bill's comments, and his continued insults cast at me and fellow UOC advocates. You didn't delete his posts, only my calling him out on it. Now I know Bill is a great guy and a true RKBA activist who's done more than most, but that does not mean I won't call him out when he is being an ass. (He in fact called us drama queens and many other childish insults.)
Kestryll wrote:
I was not aware that Oaklander was banned, nor was I aware of other post deletions, therefore I did not speak about these things. If you'd lay off the censorship on all sides of the discussions, and just let people hang themselves, maybe you would have less trouble.
Kestryll wrote:
You have deleted my posts on many occasions. You always claim the same reasons. Perhaps sometimes you are justified. But from my perspective there have been many times where you are blatantly biased and censor beliefs and opinions you do not like. It's your sandbox. You can do what you want. But I don't have to like it. Nor do I have to shut up about it outside your sandbox.
Kestryll wrote:
I think you are full of it, and I think you know it. As I have told you on many of these occasions, I don't think any posts should be deleted. Close threads if you want. Ban users if you want. But when you selectively delete posts (and worse, when you delete/edit a user's post and then ban him) to misrepresent views that you don't like (particularly around religious discussions where your bias is the most blatant) it's the worst kind of censorship.
cato
Newbie
imported post
Calguns is a big tent and with that diverse group interacting I think Kes as done an admirable job in moderating even if at times I may personally disagree or would do things differently sometimes.
In this fight we must really separate our egos from the pursuit of our goal. All it takes is 20 posters in an "anti" oc thread to make one feel ganged up on. But remember EVERYTHING we write goes to a MUCH LARGER audience (10s of Thousands). Speak to that audience and ignore all personal attacks (itreflects wellon usand makes ones argument look the more rational IMO)
There are two things to keep in mind as an OC supporter. One is the reason for OCing which is why we're drawn to it and well explained at californiaopencarry.org. The other is the legislative climate here and the civil rights suit process to secure RKBA.
One can still support OC as clearly the Right and also support the path chosen to expand RKBA by our very experienced civil rights attorneys; Alan Gura and Don Kilmer. Both of themI believe are,from meeting and speaking toboth, strongsmall "l" libertarians at heart, but they also understand the realitiesturning RKBA in to a strong court recognized Right and the ins and outs of the federal court system. I trust their decisions on the where, when, and how of attacking the bad laws.
I would ask for all to stayinvolved on CGN (and other forums) even in a minority status in order to spreadour message and to bringnew membershere.
artwork by Mudcamper, a greatAmerican
!
Calguns is a big tent and with that diverse group interacting I think Kes as done an admirable job in moderating even if at times I may personally disagree or would do things differently sometimes.
In this fight we must really separate our egos from the pursuit of our goal. All it takes is 20 posters in an "anti" oc thread to make one feel ganged up on. But remember EVERYTHING we write goes to a MUCH LARGER audience (10s of Thousands). Speak to that audience and ignore all personal attacks (itreflects wellon usand makes ones argument look the more rational IMO)
There are two things to keep in mind as an OC supporter. One is the reason for OCing which is why we're drawn to it and well explained at californiaopencarry.org. The other is the legislative climate here and the civil rights suit process to secure RKBA.
One can still support OC as clearly the Right and also support the path chosen to expand RKBA by our very experienced civil rights attorneys; Alan Gura and Don Kilmer. Both of themI believe are,from meeting and speaking toboth, strongsmall "l" libertarians at heart, but they also understand the realitiesturning RKBA in to a strong court recognized Right and the ins and outs of the federal court system. I trust their decisions on the where, when, and how of attacking the bad laws.
I would ask for all to stayinvolved on CGN (and other forums) even in a minority status in order to spreadour message and to bringnew membershere.
artwork by Mudcamper, a greatAmerican
!imported post
This logic is as sound here and now where it concerns the general public and
where it should concern law enforcement as a whole. As it has been in combat
since uniformed American troops fought a well organizedviet cong guerilla force.
to nowwhen coalition troops do there best to ferret out a terrorist insurgency
hiding an AK under their robe.
"On the plains of hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions,
who at the dawn of victory rested, and resting died"{Omar the tent maker}
DEFENSOR FORTIS
This logic is as sound here and now where it concerns the general public and
where it should concern law enforcement as a whole. As it has been in combat
since uniformed American troops fought a well organizedviet cong guerilla force.
to nowwhen coalition troops do there best to ferret out a terrorist insurgency
hiding an AK under their robe.
"On the plains of hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions,
who at the dawn of victory rested, and resting died"{Omar the tent maker}
DEFENSOR FORTIS
cato
Newbie
imported post
DEFENSOR wrote:
Ok was June 6th, 1944the right time forOperation Overlordor should it have happened in 1942?
Planning Planning and Planning to strike at the right time with the right tools brings success. I don't see any hesitation on our side. Things are progressing at a legal blitzkrieg pace for civil right issues.
Hesitating is UOCing as civil obedience (something I support generally by the way with occasional reservations). Not hesitating would be to LOC inviolationof 12031 at a press conference. Any takers? I hope not yet because North Africa and Italy (the low hanging fruit / soft under belly)have not beenconcluded.
witness planning:
DEFENSOR wrote:
Ok was June 6th, 1944the right time forOperation Overlordor should it have happened in 1942?
Planning Planning and Planning to strike at the right time with the right tools brings success. I don't see any hesitation on our side. Things are progressing at a legal blitzkrieg pace for civil right issues.
Hesitating is UOCing as civil obedience (something I support generally by the way with occasional reservations). Not hesitating would be to LOC inviolationof 12031 at a press conference. Any takers? I hope not yet because North Africa and Italy (the low hanging fruit / soft under belly)have not beenconcluded.
witness planning
:Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
cato wrote:
cato wrote:
Apt metaphor. Nice. Very nice.
imported post
No one has said that you were lying on your points did they?
But your 'BS that can not be proven' IS exactly that.
Let's take a look at Bill's post:
In your post all I see is you questioning Bill's truthfulness and directly going after him personally.
I don't see anything in the post that was deleted that addresses the topic at all.
You accuse me of bias and double standard and yet you are quite comfortable making those accusation based only on your view that it must all be about silencing you.
You do not have all the info nor do you look for it, you just react and accuse.
I delete them when they violate the rules, I delete them when they are offensive and I delete them when the only thing they add to the discussion is a catalyst to start the bickering and flaming.
The funny thing is the wide range of views who claim I am biased.
Half the die-hard liberals on the forum consider me to be a conservative overlord and half the die-hard conservatives accuse my of being a traitor to 2A for coddling liberals.
I have you deriding me for being oh so biased against UOC and I have several forum members sending me nasty-gram PMs for not outright outlawing UOC discussions.
I'm still not sure who I'm suppose to hate and practice bias against tomorrow, I need to check my day planner.
No one told you to shut up did they?
I simply provided a counter point to what you said.
Perhaps that is why you have issues on occasion, you are looking for the offense or slight and seeing them when they are not there.
Where did I say you have to shut up?
You want to see CGN become an open bear pit forum and I will not let that happen.
We see things differently.
I expect that the rules as written will be adhered to and that the consequences of not following them will occur as written in these same rules.
Nothing should be deleted?
So when someone let's loose with a profanity laced diatribe we should just let that stand and not do or say anything?
And what of all the other members who don't want to read that stuff or want their family exposed to it?
Too bad for them because to remove it is censorship?
Guess what, having rules of any kind is censorship, it is displayed on almost every forum to some level or another.
What each forum has to decide is where is the balance point between anarchy and rules and CGN has chosen it's balance point.
To readdress your posts that were deleted:
The post made in response to Bill's statement did not add anything to the topic and was focused directly at impugning him, I stand by it's deletion.
The post of the Franklin flag was removed due to concerns of antagonizing an already very touchy and argumentative situation.
That one was removed in error, the concern is valid but it should fall not on the person posting the picture but on those who respond inappropriately.
Had you called him out on what was said it would be one thing, to imply lying is another.
No one has said that you were lying on your points did they?
But your 'BS that can not be proven' IS exactly that.
Let's take a look at Bill's post:
Yes, he did get a bit snarky but the post itself actually addresses the issue at hand.
In your post all I see is you questioning Bill's truthfulness and directly going after him personally.
I don't see anything in the post that was deleted that addresses the topic at all.
Ahh.. so you make accusations without having all the information and then the blame becomes mine because I am enforcing rules that have existed for years and have been enforced in that same manner for all of those same years.
You accuse me of bias and double standard and yet you are quite comfortable making those accusation based only on your view that it must all be about silencing you.
You do not have all the info nor do you look for it, you just react and accuse.
Yup! I have deleted posts of yours and of hundreds of others.
I delete them when they violate the rules, I delete them when they are offensive and I delete them when the only thing they add to the discussion is a catalyst to start the bickering and flaming.
The funny thing is the wide range of views who claim I am biased.
Half the die-hard liberals on the forum consider me to be a conservative overlord and half the die-hard conservatives accuse my of being a traitor to 2A for coddling liberals.
I have you deriding me for being oh so biased against UOC and I have several forum members sending me nasty-gram PMs for not outright outlawing UOC discussions.
I'm still not sure who I'm suppose to hate and practice bias against tomorrow, I need to check my day planner.
No one told you to shut up did they?
I simply provided a counter point to what you said.
Perhaps that is why you have issues on occasion, you are looking for the offense or slight and seeing them when they are not there.
Where did I say you have to shut up?
Of course you think I'm full of it, we do not agree on how things should be run and because I disagree I'm wrong.
You want to see CGN become an open bear pit forum and I will not let that happen.
We see things differently.
I expect that the rules as written will be adhered to and that the consequences of not following them will occur as written in these same rules.
Nothing should be deleted?
So when someone let's loose with a profanity laced diatribe we should just let that stand and not do or say anything?
And what of all the other members who don't want to read that stuff or want their family exposed to it?
Too bad for them because to remove it is censorship?
Guess what, having rules of any kind is censorship, it is displayed on almost every forum to some level or another.
What each forum has to decide is where is the balance point between anarchy and rules and CGN has chosen it's balance point.
To readdress your posts that were deleted:
The post made in response to Bill's statement did not add anything to the topic and was focused directly at impugning him, I stand by it's deletion.
The post of the Franklin flag was removed due to concerns of antagonizing an already very touchy and argumentative situation.
That one was removed in error, the concern is valid but it should fall not on the person posting the picture but on those who respond inappropriately.
cato
Newbie
imported post
Stucky in Chino,
"Have you seen this post on CGN" from yesterday?
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2824283&postcount=125
It is by Gene Hoffman, Chairman of the Calguns Foundation, an organizationwhich has spent thousands of dollars in the last couple of yearsdefending UOCers against wrongfulprosecution. And now post Nordyke they are on the offensive to STRIKE DOWNin Federal Court bad CA law and create a beachhead to expand the RKBA.
It doesn't hurt to listen and consider (even if one later dismisses for what ever reason) the advice of those who want the same things aswe do and have the means and planning to get it done.
Stucky in Chino,
"Have you seen this post on CGN"
from yesterday?http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2824283&postcount=125
It is by Gene Hoffman, Chairman of the Calguns Foundation, an organizationwhich has spent thousands of dollars in the last couple of yearsdefending UOCers against wrongfulprosecution. And now post Nordyke they are on the offensive to STRIKE DOWNin Federal Court bad CA law and create a beachhead to expand the RKBA.
It doesn't hurt to listen and consider (even if one later dismisses for what ever reason) the advice of those who want the same things aswe do and have the means and planning to get it done.
imported post
MudCamper wrote:
Thanks again you guys for keeping this board awesome.
MudCamper wrote:
I absolutely support this statement. One thing I've always found very inspiring about the California forum on OCDO is the ability for everything to self-regulate. I can't think of a single instance where there was ever any need for a ban (other than spammers) or for censorship. The members who have been around the longest always step up and will say what's up and calm people down for the most part.
Thanks again you guys for keeping this board awesome.
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I recently got into a very heated discussion on Calguns and I don't recall anyone being banned.
I don't think anyone though came out and really attacked another other. I think the most serious it got was calling each other selfish.
I did also get banned once on Calguns because I was having a particularly bad day and someone posted a negative comment about OC when they didn't really know what it was and all I said was something along the lines of STFU. I got banned for not contributing to the discussion combined with the negative statement. . . Can't say I blame them.
I recently got into a very heated discussion on Calguns and I don't recall anyone being banned.
I don't think anyone though came out and really attacked another other. I think the most serious it got was calling each other selfish.
I did also get banned once on Calguns because I was having a particularly bad day and someone posted a negative comment about OC when they didn't really know what it was and all I said was something along the lines of STFU. I got banned for not contributing to the discussion combined with the negative statement. . . Can't say I blame them.
imported post
cato wrote:
cato wrote:
Ok was June 6th, 1944the right time forOperation Overlordor should it have happened in 1942?
Planning Planning and Planning to strike at the right time with the right tools brings success. I don't see any hesitation on our side. Things are progressing at a legal blitzkrieg pace for civil right issues.
Hesitating is UOCing as civil obedience (something I support generally by the way with occasional reservations). Not hesitating would be to LOC inviolationof 12031 at a press conference. Any takers? I hope not yet because North Africa and Italy (the low hanging fruit / soft under belly)have not beenconcluded.
witness planning
I amnot forUOC as civil disobediencestrictly by virtue of the fact that exercising these rights at any time does not constitute said disobedience This is notTehran square where one sign held up willearn you a baton
strike or worse. I am for all2A rights, Ive earned them more than once. If your refererences to low hanging fruit and soft underbelly are metaphoric for LOC and eventual CCW then we should still be conducting operation O'Lord. though apress conference is not a battlefield to force a tactical agenda but to develop a strategic advantage "no takers on LOC with reporters and LEO's I will dispense with any further metaphores.
stuckinchico
Regular Member
imported post
lol stucky in Chino nice nice no I cant see that post because I am still banned
lol stucky in Chino nice nice no I cant see that post because I am still banned
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Kestryll, you are selectively editing again. The "drama queen" comment was only one mild comment among many worse. I'm not going to go dig through an old OC bash thread to pull out all the personal attacks that were in that thread that you chose not to use in your example. I am finished discussing this with you. You've had the last word. Now I will take my own advise and "Hang Together".
Kestryll, you are selectively editing again. The "drama queen" comment was only one mild comment among many worse. I'm not going to go dig through an old OC bash thread to pull out all the personal attacks that were in that thread that you chose not to use in your example. I am finished discussing this with you. You've had the last word. Now I will take my own advise and "Hang Together".
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
Just an observation Kestryll... but you seem quite the drama queen. There seems to be the proclivity in California (overall) to complicate soup. Specifically... there is no '2A' as such in the California Constitution. Several other states have the same problem (Maryland being one of them)... having deleted the 'Right' at some point in it's history. (1867 for MD) However... the 2A (Law of the Land)remains in effect.
The 2AIS open carry. As to 'Arms'... the 2A does not even specify firearms. Concealing a weapon was once considered a dishonest and nefarious practice. A man bore his arms (blade and firearm) openly, for all to see. Military and uniformed police are required to carry in that mode as well. The CCW crowd have put the chicken before the egg.I don't use the word 'chicken' by accident.
Your heads are full of legalese clutter. The Right to bear arms is a Right. It's an equality issue... a Civil Right. Y'all can cross the Colorado 'n buckle on your gunbelt... or holster your 'loaded'firearm... or hang a sword on yer belt if you care to... and ask permission from no one. Is it not the same country? I walk out the door daily with an openly holstered 1911-A1 'cocked 'n locked' and go about my business unmolested. I have an AZ CWP to conceal... but the 'permit' is to 'conceal'... not to carry. That requires no permission. Amazing concept...
That's what the 2A is about. It's Freedom.With that freedom comes personal responibility. I am responsible for my actions under arms. I am responsible for the arm itself.None of this 'tactical surprise' nonsense. Surprise is an offensive, not a defensive tactic. The element of surprise will always be with the BG threat and cancome from any direction in any scenario (even the most benign) imaginable.
Jefferson, Adams, Washington and others were very clear in their assessments of bearing arms. The fact that is the 2nd Amendment to beenumerated in the Constitution is no accident.
The SASS Wire is another California based forum full of deletions and bannings.I once posted thatI would no sooner use my SAA .45 for daily self defense than drive a Model T on the I-10. That one was deleted as fast asI posted it. (Hurts advertisers sales of SAA's.) Refer to apistol, rifle or shotgunas a 'weapon' 'n that will get deleted as well. SASS is a bunch'a FUDD's playin' cowboy.
But... the Bottom Line is the 2A IS open carry. If the state requires 'permit' to conceal'... fine. The fact that the state denies the right to bear arms is tyranny.
'Shall not be infringed' is pretty clear.
Just an observation Kestryll... but you seem quite the drama queen. There seems to be the proclivity in California (overall) to complicate soup. Specifically... there is no '2A' as such in the California Constitution. Several other states have the same problem (Maryland being one of them)... having deleted the 'Right' at some point in it's history. (1867 for MD) However... the 2A (Law of the Land)remains in effect.
The 2AIS open carry. As to 'Arms'... the 2A does not even specify firearms. Concealing a weapon was once considered a dishonest and nefarious practice. A man bore his arms (blade and firearm) openly, for all to see. Military and uniformed police are required to carry in that mode as well. The CCW crowd have put the chicken before the egg.I don't use the word 'chicken' by accident.
Your heads are full of legalese clutter. The Right to bear arms is a Right. It's an equality issue... a Civil Right. Y'all can cross the Colorado 'n buckle on your gunbelt... or holster your 'loaded'firearm... or hang a sword on yer belt if you care to... and ask permission from no one. Is it not the same country? I walk out the door daily with an openly holstered 1911-A1 'cocked 'n locked' and go about my business unmolested. I have an AZ CWP to conceal... but the 'permit' is to 'conceal'... not to carry. That requires no permission. Amazing concept...
That's what the 2A is about. It's Freedom.With that freedom comes personal responibility. I am responsible for my actions under arms. I am responsible for the arm itself.None of this 'tactical surprise' nonsense. Surprise is an offensive, not a defensive tactic. The element of surprise will always be with the BG threat and cancome from any direction in any scenario (even the most benign) imaginable.
Jefferson, Adams, Washington and others were very clear in their assessments of bearing arms. The fact that is the 2nd Amendment to beenumerated in the Constitution is no accident.
The SASS Wire is another California based forum full of deletions and bannings.I once posted thatI would no sooner use my SAA .45 for daily self defense than drive a Model T on the I-10. That one was deleted as fast asI posted it. (Hurts advertisers sales of SAA's.) Refer to apistol, rifle or shotgunas a 'weapon' 'n that will get deleted as well. SASS is a bunch'a FUDD's playin' cowboy.
But... the Bottom Line is the 2A IS open carry. If the state requires 'permit' to conceal'... fine. The fact that the state denies the right to bear arms is tyranny.
'Shall not be infringed' is pretty clear.
nukechaser
Regular Member
imported post
I've re-read Gene Hoffmann's post about holding off on UOC for the time being. At first blush I was "huh? I thought he was on our side!" but after reading and re-reading and giving it some serious thought, I may cut back on UoCing.
My reasons are several:
1. Reading about the pending civil rights/law-changing efforts by lawyers that I probably couldn't afford to take to lunch makes me not want to give the anti-gun opposition any possible counter argument. I don't want to toss a monkey wrench where it wouldn't be appreciated.
2. As a state employee I've experienced an almost 15% cut in pay since January and therefore my "keep several thousand dollars available for a defense" fund has taken a hit. As a single father of a teenage boy, my monthly expenses are dipping into what I would normally have available. It just wouldn't be prudent to put my household in financial jeopardy, should I need to hire counsel.
3. I see a few UoC members of recent vintage that make me cautious. Frankly, I think some may either be plants from the opposition or loose cannons. If a meet up were to be scheduled in NorCal I would probably have to decline or only be the friendly witness with video/audio. Based upon what I've gleaned as inherent attitude, I don't think I could trust some with my safety. The gang from the meet up in Sacramento eariler this year was a great bunch. Nothing in their prior postings gave me pause, but not these days. I don't know if it is incidental or by design.
4. Since we are post-Nordyke, I want to see what are the results of the possible en banc vote. A high profile brouhaha could be brought to the attention of the court and I wouldn't want to be the guy who did it, 'cuz the media would, of course, portray it only in a bad light.
5. I think Cato's Normandy D-Day analogy struck a chord with me.
I still support the heck out of UoC, and will actively participate, but only when I feel it would not violate my own reasons stated above.
Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind at any time...
(edited for spelling)
I've re-read Gene Hoffmann's post about holding off on UOC for the time being. At first blush I was "huh? I thought he was on our side!" but after reading and re-reading and giving it some serious thought, I may cut back on UoCing.
My reasons are several:
1. Reading about the pending civil rights/law-changing efforts by lawyers that I probably couldn't afford to take to lunch makes me not want to give the anti-gun opposition any possible counter argument. I don't want to toss a monkey wrench where it wouldn't be appreciated.
2. As a state employee I've experienced an almost 15% cut in pay since January and therefore my "keep several thousand dollars available for a defense" fund has taken a hit. As a single father of a teenage boy, my monthly expenses are dipping into what I would normally have available. It just wouldn't be prudent to put my household in financial jeopardy, should I need to hire counsel.
3. I see a few UoC members of recent vintage that make me cautious. Frankly, I think some may either be plants from the opposition or loose cannons. If a meet up were to be scheduled in NorCal I would probably have to decline or only be the friendly witness with video/audio. Based upon what I've gleaned as inherent attitude, I don't think I could trust some with my safety. The gang from the meet up in Sacramento eariler this year was a great bunch. Nothing in their prior postings gave me pause, but not these days. I don't know if it is incidental or by design.
4. Since we are post-Nordyke, I want to see what are the results of the possible en banc vote. A high profile brouhaha could be brought to the attention of the court and I wouldn't want to be the guy who did it, 'cuz the media would, of course, portray it only in a bad light.
5. I think Cato's Normandy D-Day analogy struck a chord with me.
I still support the heck out of UoC, and will actively participate, but only when I feel it would not violate my own reasons stated above.
Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind at any time...
(edited for spelling)
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
Kestryll wrote:
Oh great, inter-forum drama.
I was looking very carefully for any ongoing evidence of mod actions since the UOC thread I think we are all talking about started, since I knew history would repeat itself and drama would ensue.
Prior to my ban, I saw one ban, of a relatively low-post-count member who objected to the anti-UOC ad homs. I saw a few broad warnings from you, then a final warning, but the anti-UOC ad homs continued being flung by multiple members. The only edits in the thread I saw were self-, not mod-censorship. Then one last anti-UOC ad hom was made without receiving a ban or a censor, which I mocked by copying the unbanned ad hommer. I was then banned. So from all observation I could gather, the score was 2-0 in favor of pro-UOCers getting banned, and anti-UOCers getting an infinite get out of jail free card.
I later heard that Oaklander got banned, no word on any others. At least Oaklander self-censored supposedly to avoid getting banned. I saw no evidence that any of the others cared if they got banned or not, since they didn't do the same.
So I can only conclude from the evidence I saw prior to the ban and now your own admission that Oaklander was banned, that there was practical immunity for all 3,000+ post members, except for one example being made of either side - Oaklander, and me.
I choose not be a part of that sick game anymore. If I run a forum again, I will not tolerate insults from either side, letting public perception of gun owners get shot to hell. 1st strike gets mod censored, 2nd is lifetime ban by a comprehensive profile of the user's personal data.
Kestryll wrote:
Oh great, inter-forum drama.
I was looking very carefully for any ongoing evidence of mod actions since the UOC thread I think we are all talking about started, since I knew history would repeat itself and drama would ensue.
Prior to my ban, I saw one ban, of a relatively low-post-count member who objected to the anti-UOC ad homs. I saw a few broad warnings from you, then a final warning, but the anti-UOC ad homs continued being flung by multiple members. The only edits in the thread I saw were self-, not mod-censorship. Then one last anti-UOC ad hom was made without receiving a ban or a censor, which I mocked by copying the unbanned ad hommer. I was then banned. So from all observation I could gather, the score was 2-0 in favor of pro-UOCers getting banned, and anti-UOCers getting an infinite get out of jail free card.
I later heard that Oaklander got banned, no word on any others. At least Oaklander self-censored supposedly to avoid getting banned. I saw no evidence that any of the others cared if they got banned or not, since they didn't do the same.
So I can only conclude from the evidence I saw prior to the ban and now your own admission that Oaklander was banned, that there was practical immunity for all 3,000+ post members, except for one example being made of either side - Oaklander, and me.
I choose not be a part of that sick game anymore. If I run a forum again, I will not tolerate insults from either side, letting public perception of gun owners get shot to hell. 1st strike gets mod censored, 2nd is lifetime ban by a comprehensive profile of the user's personal data.
cato
Newbie
imported post
stuckinchico wrote:
Well that's a shocker :lol:
Ok here it is:
art work by oleg volk:
stuckinchico wrote:
Well that's a shocker :lol:
Ok here it is:
I've explained before that there is a reason for the order of operations here.
We can get shall issue CCW if we attack that first (and say some things in that attack that OC proponents will not like - I'm warning you.) Once we secure shall issue CCW there is a specific way in which we can likely decriminalize LOC as well. I too don't want to be in the Texas situation of being cited for OC when I have a CCW too. That will also mean we'll head after GFSZ's too but those are certainly not the first cases you want to bring.
If we went in the other order, then I worry simply that LOC will end up being prohibited by every mall and restaurant in California. Just look at what is happening in Arizona and Tenessee for goodness sake. Bars are posting "no guns" signs even after both states started allowing CCW carriers in. Don't for a moment think that if LOC is our only choice, that we will not suffer the effect of having gun haters outnumber us 3:2 and have that make the private sector make it virtually impossible to carry.
LCAV and Brady would enjoy us attempting to get the equivalent ruling to Pruneyard on guns. Here's a hint - it will not happen. We'll have a mooted right to LOC - basically useless...
I've open carried before in places where it is legal and the public support ratio is more like 1:1. It is nicer and easier than CCW. Personally I want to walk down Market Street in San Francisco with an AR on my back and a Sig on my hip and a s**t eating grin on my face.
Do this in reverse, and we'll all hang separately. Remember that it took 100 years after the end of slavery for black people to stop being lynched. The patience we're asking for is very, very short in comparison. Also note that I'm certainly not saying no UOC. I'm saying no lone UOC and that it would be far, far better politically if the group UOC wasn't a bunch of normal white males.
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation - Member, CRPA Board of Directors
DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
[align=center]"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Ultima Ratio Liberarum[/align]
art work by oleg volk: