The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - SAF, Calguns Challenge Arbitrary Denial of Right to Bear Arms In California

Al Norris · May 5, 2009, 11:05 PM

tube_ee:

What's the definition of a drive-by post?

One that is devoid of substance ("+1" anyone?).
One that attempts to advance an agenda without intelligent back-up.
One that has no intelligent content.

What's the definition of a cut-n-paste post?

One that contains a link and little or no commentary on the link.
One that contains an article (cut-n-pasted) and little or no commentary on the article.
One that contains both a link and an article, but has little or no commentary.

The above applies equally to individual posts within a thread, or to the starting post of a thread itself.

The above is from the L&CR rules. It is a link within those rules.

As I said, this is an exception, because the information and the implications of a (now) double attack on California gun laws are huge.

Later this month, we will have orals in McDonald v Chicago. By the end of summer we will know if yet another Circuit has bowed to the inevitable. For things in the Court System, we are moving at break-neck speed.

What's next for Gura? Define "sensitive places?" Attack the CA AWB? I don't know. But something is up for sure.

May 5, 2009, 11:05 PM	#10
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	tube_ee: What's the definition of a drive-by post? One that is devoid of substance ("+1" anyone?). One that attempts to advance an agenda without intelligent back-up. One that has no intelligent content. What's the definition of a cut-n-paste post? One that contains a link and little or no commentary on the link. One that contains an article (cut-n-pasted) and little or no commentary on the article. One that contains both a link and an article, but has little or no commentary. The above applies equally to individual posts within a thread, or to the starting post of a thread itself. The above is from the L&CR rules. It is a link within those rules. As I said, this is an exception, because the information and the implications of a (now) double attack on California gun laws are huge. Later this month, we will have orals in McDonald v Chicago. By the end of summer we will know if yet another Circuit has bowed to the inevitable. For things in the Court System, we are moving at break-neck speed. What's next for Gura? Define "sensitive places?" Attack the CA AWB? I don't know. But something is up for sure.