[chris v]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Finally, I've never owned a firearm. I've always been grateful that my neighbors have.

Heh. You haven't met my neighbors.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Yes. You do.

Additionally, Mr. Obama didn't help matters by his campaign remarks about people "clinging to guns and religion."

Don't forget the "bitterly" part. We're BITTERLY clinging to guns and religion. Actually, I know far more people who are religious about their gun rights than are just plain religious.

Why shouldn't people be "clinging" to two things which, as Indiana Jones could tell you, are among the foundations of civilization. "Community organizing" isn't in there until much much later.

Obama has a proven record of opposing guns in the hands of the populace as a member of the legislature in Illinois. Further, his attorney general was just to the left of Stalin when we worked for Janet Reno. Just picking Eric Holder as AG should have set off the folks on the ownership side of the issue.

Given the history of these guys, and the folks running Congress, there's very little in the way of "panic" here -- all it requires for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing. Or something like that.

I just can't believe that ammunition has dried up like that. Wow.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Further, his attorney general was just to the left of Stalin when we worked for Janet Reno.

Is there a corollary to Godwin's Law that covers Stalin?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Is there a corollary to Godwin's Law that covers Stalin?

The idea that Stalinism=socialism is trotted out whenever there's not a point left to make. the man misused the word to euphemistically describe a totalitarian terror regime. The only way that Soviet Russia under Stalin even resembled Marx's idea of communism was that people had been herded forcibly into "collectives" where production was centralized.

Stalinism was government of the state, by the state & for the state, with "the state" meaning Stalin himself. It's an absolutely moronic equivalency that generally signals a bankruptcy of thought on the part of its utterers.

Not sure if it has a name yet, though. Maybe Finboy's Law.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Don't forget the "bitterly" part. We're BITTERLY clinging to guns and religion. Actually, I know far more people who are religious about their gun rights than are just plain religious.

Why shouldn't people be "clinging" to two things which, as Indiana Jones could tell you, are among the foundations of civilization. "Community organizing" isn't in there until much much later.

Are you really trying to support your argument, that guns and religion "are among the foundations of civilization", by referencing a fictional character from a movie?



This would be funny if it didn't seem like you were serious. Are you serious?

Do you really think Indiana Jones, a fictional movie character, has anything to say about guns and religion being "among the foundations of civilization"?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Are you really trying to support your argument, that guns and religion "are among the foundations of civilization", by referencing a fictional character from a movie?



This would be funny if it didn't seem like you were serious. Are you serious?

Do you really think Indiana Jones, a fictional movie character, has anything to say about guns and religion being "among the foundations of civilization"?

Yes, I was using a fictional character to make a point. It's at least as good as using Wikipedia, I'd guess. He's an ANTHROPOLOGIST. If you haven't heard of those, find an authority figure in your life (not online) and ask them. They might know of a REAL ONE who can answer your basic questions about the nature of civilization and the development of societies. Self-defense and common belief/faith are two really big rungs to hit when climbing down from the trees. Don't take my word for it, look it up on the Intraweb. They've got everything!

[finboy]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Stalinism was government of the state, by the state & for the state, with "the state" meaning Stalin himself. It's an absolutely moronic equivalency that generally signals a bankruptcy of thought on the part of its utterers.

I remember now, and only just now, why explaining things on the Intraweb is a waste of time. To those convinced that "last week = history", most casual references require a trip to the land of Google. Sorry, I'll slow down for you.

The "bankrupt" comment is the Intraweb equivalent of a chimp flinging poo. It's more effective if people can actually believe you understand those words and how to use them. That's tough for some of us to make that leap.

The current AG's role in the gun control efforts of the Clinton Justice Department are pretty clear -- Stalin had guns confiscated too. You're right, though, that they aren't comparable in a strict sense: Stalin never said that the American Civil Rights movement was made up of "cowards". He died too soon, but if asked he might have gone there. We can only speculate.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by finboy 

We can only speculate.

However it fits your needs to speculate, then yes. Drawing a straight line from Obama's attorney general's position on gun control to impending Stalinism in America is just the other chimp flinging to poo back.

I guess I've had it with everyone talking past each other here for a while, again.

Peace.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Are you really trying to support your argument, that guns and religion "are among the foundations of civilization", by referencing a fictional character from a movie?



This would be funny if it didn't seem like you were serious. Are you serious?

Do you really think Indiana Jones, a fictional movie character, has anything to say about guns and religion being "among the foundations of civilization"?

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yes, I was using a fictional character to make a point. It's at least as good as using Wikipedia, I'd guess. He's an ANTHROPOLOGIST. If you haven't heard of those, find an authority figure in your life (not online) and ask them. They might know of a REAL ONE who can answer your basic questions about the nature of civilization and the development of societies. Self-defense and common belief/faith are two really big rungs to hit when climbing down from the trees. Don't take my word for it, look it up on the Intraweb. They've got everything!

WW!

I am stunned. I thought you were being sarcastic but you were not. You really think the word of a fictional character in a movie--NOT the words of a real, living, actual anthropologist but the words of a fictional anthropologist in a movie--have relevance and merit in an argument. I am stunned. You do realise the words of Indiana Jones were created by a screen-writer, right? And just for the record, the fictional character of Indiana Jones was an archeologist and NOT an anthropologist*.


*For your reference, I asked a real archeologist--a friend from my days working at the Smithsonian--to describe his field and he described it thusly: Archaeologists study the physical remains of cultures and civilisations for clues as to how the people lived in that culture or civilisation.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yes, I was using a fictional character to make a point. It's at least as good as using Wikipedia, I'd guess. He's an ANTHROPOLOGIST. If you haven't heard of those, find an authority figure in your life (not online) and ask them. They might know of a REAL ONE who can answer your basic questions about the nature of civilization and the development of societies. Self-defense and common belief/faith are two really big rungs to hit when climbing down from the trees. Don't take my word for it, look it up on the Intraweb. They've got everything!

And to address your point, I am well aware that the desire for self defense was important when [humans ?] climbed down from the trees but I am pretty sure our proto-human ancestors from 3 or 4 million years ago were NOT too concerned with belief/faith at that time. You can ask an *archaeologist* for more info but I am pretty sure they will tell you our proto-human ancestors--the one's "climbing down from the trees"-- were much more ape-like than human and to assign traits of a highly advanced intellect--creation of and belief in deities--seems a bit far-fetched. But the thing is, while the fundamental desire for personal safety and security has not changed in the past 3 or 4 million years the ways in which proto-humans, ancestral humans, and modern humans have created that personal safety and security have changed. But the thing is, in spite of that ever-present desire for personal safety, guns are not items "among the foundations of civilization". Weapons are definitely "among the foundations of civilization"--humans have always had weapons--but guns are a particular type of weaponry that have existed only recently in the time-frame of settled, human civilisation. In other words, the existence of settled, human civlisation pre-dates the existence of guns which makes false your argument that guns are foundational to human civlisation.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yes, I was using a fictional character to make a point. It's at least as good as using Wikipedia, I'd guess. He's an ANTHROPOLOGIST. If you haven't heard of those, find an authority figure in your life (not online) and ask them. They might know of a REAL ONE who can answer your basic questions about the nature of civilization and the development of societies. Self-defense and common belief/faith are two really big rungs to hit when climbing down from the trees. Don't take my word for it, look it up on the Intraweb. They've got everything!

So, you know, the words of action/comedy fictional anthropologists from 50 years ago (if Indiana Jones were an anthropologist) are not necessarily the words of present-day real anthropologists. I'm afraid to disappoint you, but the Arc of the Covenant, Sankara stones, the Holy Grail and crystal alien skulls haven't been found yet either.

[subego]

Big monolith?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

WW!

I am stunned.

Ask some adult to read what I wrote and explain it to you at some point. Maybe if they speak slowly and carefully this thing can get cleared up.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

In other words, the existence of settled, human civlisation pre-dates the existence of guns which makes false your argument that guns are foundational to human civlisation.

As with the above, have someone who can read what I wrote and explain that the point has nothing to do with guns, but with self-defense.

I'm afraid the institutions of higher learning must not be anymore.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Institution of higher learning = BlockBuster?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Institution of higher learning = BlockBuster?

I take a correspondence course from Netflix. They even have online classes!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Ask some adult to read what I wrote and explain it to you at some point. Maybe if they speak slowly and carefully this thing can get cleared up.

Originally Posted by finboy 

As with the above, have someone who can read what I wrote and explain that the point has nothing to do with guns, but with self-defense.

I'm afraid the institutions of higher learning must not be anymore.

Except, you didn't say guns were a self-defense mechanism. You said that guns and religion "are among the foundations of civilization". You didn't say the desire to defend oneself or the desire to worship a deity were "among the foundations of civilization", you said the specifics of guns and religion. See, the problem here is that I *can* read and when having a logical debate with someone you can only debate them based on what they say. And what you said (the words you wrote) is what I responded to with my posts. If you wanted to say something else, something more generic about self-defense and worshiping deities, you should have said that. If you want your logical arguments to be taken seriously then they should be logical, and logically consistent. If you wanted to state that Indiana Jones could tell you that a desire for self defense and worshiping deities are "among the foundations of civlisation" you would have had a valid logical argument that could be debated. (The argument would be valid although putting words in the mouth of a fictional character to make a point is still of dubious logical merit.) But you didn't do any of those things. You tried to make a point about specific, contemporary anthropological practices (the use of guns and the practice of religion) by a) referencing a fictional character in a movie and b) attributing traits to this fictional character which were incorrect (Indiana Jones was an archeologist and NOT an anthropologist and c) reinforced your argument to say the basis for these specific, contemporary anthropological practices was due to behavior of proto-humans that "climbed down from the trees" 3 or 4 million years ago.

Why don't we put it to a vote to see which one of us is more logical and is making more sense.


PS: As for your repeated insistence on insulting my intelligence, you'll have to try harder, a LOT harder to get a rise out of me. There are about six people on the whole planet whose opinions matter to me and none of them are random people I know through the intarweb. Better luck next time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I take a correspondence course from Netflix. They even have online classes!

Netflix is a total party school

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Institution of higher learning = BlockBuster?

That's how it's looking.

I keep hearing "Who elected this guy?" and it's easier to see how it happened all the time.

[Kerrigan]

I noticed the price of cheap shotguns went up by around $200 after the election.

However, I recently bought a Citori and as far as I can tell the price had not been subject to paranoia demand pressures. I guess the tinfoil hat people don't buy over-unders...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I noticed the price of cheap shotguns went up by around $200 after the election.

However, I recently bought a Citori and as far as I can tell the price had not been subject to paranoia demand pressures. I guess the tinfoil hat people don't buy over-unders...

Citoris are an extremely niche product. Most people don't even have a clue what they are, where to find them (NOT at Wal-Mart, for example), and why people want to spend that sort of money on a shotgun. Have you noticed that Benelli has a line of "affordable" shotguns now? They used to be exclusively in the "competition" shotgun market, and now they make some really nice "consumer-level" pieces.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I noticed the price of cheap shotguns went up by around $200 after the election.

However, I recently bought a Citori and as far as I can tell the price had not been subject to paranoia demand pressures. I guess the tinfoil hat people don't buy over-unders...

All double-guns are underrated. But I'd imagine that most of the top end stuff will remain available. Buckshot loads? Nope.