Why? Because you say so? I don't think you even know what that means.

Gun nuts choose to believe this is all about taking their guns away so they can't fight back when the government comes knocking on their doors for... some reason. Or that it's some furtive attempt by the government to track them and get them in some national database for mysterious and spurious reasons. This belief is often revealed via terse bullet points and catchy, oft-metered phrases that don't require a whole hell of a lot of memorization or deep understanding. Just short, simplistic regurgitations of bullshit from the rightie cesspool they are drowning in.

Authoritarians? Really? An authoritarian would want ALL your guns. Are you saying any government control is authoritarian, or does the term "government control" give you the "1984" willies? Are the old ladies behind the counter at my local DMV authoritarians, or just slaves to them? How about the building inspector? Passport office? Fish and Game Department? The person who decided there needed to be a red light at an intersection where I'd never had to stop on my way to work before? IRS? Why do I need a license/permit for everything? I mean, with the exceptions of my driver's license, passport, tax returns, fishing license, trail park pass, voter registration, car registration, smog certificate, and their records on the amount of water and electricity I use, I just wish they'd respect my privacy, right?

But, this isn't a privacy issue with you guys, is it? This is about the Alex Jones/Bachman/Palin/Beck/Limbaugh (the Thousand-Yarders) fantasy world where the government is out to get you and throw your children into liberal indoctrination camps. This is about "taking your rights" from you. This is about being prepared for the coming post-zombie apocalypse you hope is right around the corner so you can justify the thousands of dollars you spent prepping. A whole industry has sprung up around prepping, and they are happy to stoke your paranoia and reinforce your belief that you really do need all this gear, not to mention the boxcar shelter buried in the back yard with a year's supply of MREs. Money in the bank.

The 2nd Amendment? It's not a holy relic. The Amendments are subject to interpretation and limitation by Congress. If Congress passes an assault weapons ban, it's not denying you your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. It's simply defining it, just as the 1st Amendment has been further defined by the legislative and judicial branches of government since it was ratified. The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to slander someone, yell fire in a crowded theater, or reveal state secrets, etc., just as the 2nd Amendment doesn't necessarily give you the right to arm yourself with anything you please, wherever you please.

Good troll, btw.

My greatest regret was letting our TI99-4A get destroyed in the great basement flood of 1991. She was already a relic at the time. It was a painful day. We also lost the ColecoVision.

Just noticed your postes wern't private, thought I'd post my reply.

LOL I concede I am an ape!

This is long but addresses many of your questions I think. Also your assumption on my thinking was correct...can't remember what it was but I agree.

now on to the LONG post.

A) Willpower while it has limitations, it is not Limited to a finite value. Just ask any smoker who has quit. Or, a recovering alcoholic.

B) Repeat criminals do not appear to have willpower issues, they make conscious decisions to defy the law, and ether justify it to themselves or simply have contempt for the law. Some may feel the law is wrong or simply does not apply to them.

C) If all it took for a human being to lose their humanity, self respect, morality and honor was to be at the losing end of life why have we not seen a violent uprising of the homeless and downtrodden. The addicts who HAVE lost everything and wander the streets trying to survive would therefore be the most justified to go on a rampage would they not?

D) As for American laws relating to firearms, I am a Canadian and therefore will not argue those laws, as I have little knowledge in that area.
As for Canada, the process of licensing requires a full background check, questioning of witnesses towards your character and ultimately is up to the discression of the license issuer, as I mentioned before.

Are there flaws? Yes. But that is a result of the system. Ideally the system would prevent or remove firearms from any individual before violence occurs. However in order for that system to function flawlessly one must live in a system similar to Communist Russia during Stalins reign. Where every action or spoken word is monitored and reported to the government, by agents, or even by family.

Canadian restrictions to licensing are as stringent as the LAW curently allows them to be without infringing ( too much) on an individual's rights.

E) A piece of plastic does not guarantee the holder to be law abiding. However, the process involved to acquire said item does involve scrutiny. And the desire to legally go through that process as opposed to acquiring firearms illegally and with much less effort does say something towards the individuals intentions.

F) Firearms training and safety cources do indeed instill responsibility, confidence in the use, and the safe possession of firearms. Personally I believe everyone eligible should be trained in the safe responsible use of firearms. Whether they choose to own or not. ( we have sex Ed in school, why not gun Ed )

G) As for F*** heads, they will always be F**** heads. One purpose of licensing is to prevent them from acquiring firearms legaly. Thankfully most of humanity does not fit into this category. ( however they do seem to be breeding at an alarming rate)

H) As for the Katana, not only was it a weapon, it was a symbol of honor for samurai and was passed down through generations with a reverence bordering on a relic. Spend time and look up the 7 virtues of the Bushido code.

Regarding Nukes, while their application is abhorrent to any rational human, think about how many were actually used for their intended purpose. TWO!, out of how many thousands. And both were released by human hands. Possession does not equate to application.

I) Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

So if you read all that I thank you! I'm prepared to say we agree to dissagree and leave it at that but I'm open to more dialog if you wish.

I wish you lived in my area so I could take you to the range to see first hand what it's all about.

Big Ape signing off

>> ^Morganth:

Then I guess I'm also bigoted and discriminate against pedophiles or the KKK for that matter. How dare I, right?

You fail to understand. Discrimination as a concept is not a bad thing. Discrimination against people for no good reason that is where the problem lies. To break it down:

Discrimination against nazis, pedophiles and twilight fans: Perfectly acceptable, those people did
something wrong.

Discrimination against people of other ethnicities, sexual orientation: bad!

>> ^Morganth:

And no, history will not judge me for my eff'd up morals, as you put it. History will judge me as someone who actually had morals that weren't swayed by popular culture, rather than changing beliefs with every whim of society.

Sadly for you, no. You aren't some brave moral crusader. You're a relic, clinging to an anachronistic belief that will be consigned to the same dustbin of history as those who thought women shouldn't vote. At best, you'll be tolerated and at worst, vilified.

See that ladies and gentlemen: DON'T HAVE CHILDREN! They'll not only slow your own dreams, but the dreams of hundreds of other people.>> ^lucky760:

Just FYI, the biggest hang-up with the birth of VS5 is yours truly. I originally wanted to rebuild VS from scratch using my much better PHP framework that I've developed over the past 2+ years, however parenthood, my full-time job, and my part-time job have been a black hole of time, so it would probably take me more than a year to follow through with that plan, so VS5 will just evolve from this old relic.
VS5 will be my focus once I'm through with the current massive project that I've been working on for over a year now. (But then when baby #2 arrives in October, I'm sure my development time will vanish again.)
So, in short, everyone hang in there and bear with us and VS4. I am but one man and as I always do, I'll work my buns off for the betterment of we, our community, as fast as I possibly can.
Thanks for your patience!

Just FYI, the biggest hang-up with the birth of VS5 is yours truly. I originally wanted to rebuild VS from scratch using my much better PHP framework that I've developed over the past 2+ years, however parenthood, my full-time job, and my part-time job have been a black hole of time, so it would probably take me more than a year to follow through with that plan, so VS5 will just evolve from this old relic.

VS5 will be my focus once I'm through with the current massive project that I've been working on for over a year now. (But then when baby #2 arrives in October, I'm sure my development time will vanish again.)

So, in short, everyone hang in there and bear with us and VS4. I am but one man and as I always do, I'll work my buns off for the betterment of we, our community, as fast as I possibly can.

Thanks for your patience!

the f-22 exists because military contractors subcontract to just about every congressional district in the country, thus military projects do not get cancelled.

While a potent fighter, it's utility is eclipsed by combat drones. It's basically already a technological relic.

Geeze @dannym3141, I think you went a bit harsh there on @critical_d... I don't think he was AT ALL saying NOT to do space exploration, but rather it's a bit baffling that there has been so little deep sea exploration. It's entirely conceivable that things will be found down there that can change our life in large ways... some animal that produces some chemical that is a huge boon to science, some animal that changes how we think of biology... a relic of an alien civilisation.

OK, maybe not the last one.

There's more than enough reason to be doing both.

Sold.

I would love to see Relic steal this idea and do a Dawn of War game in this way (turn-based with the "glam cam").

Right on! That is also one of my favorite scenes in, yes, probably still one of my top-10 films. It is stuff like that where we see the most crippling critique of religion in this film--questioning the very psychological foundations of religious belief itself (also fantastically illustrated in this scene and its many shouts of "It's a Miracle!"). But that flies all the way over the heads of the bishop and his little buddy here, who instead obsess over superficial gags like cross singing and people failing to fall weeping to their knees while viewing the sermon on the mount.
>> ^EMPIRE:

and The Life of Brian is indeed one of the funniest best criticisms of religion put on film.
that whole scene when one of Brian's sandals fall off, and they treat it as a religious relic, and then there's the other group who already had the gourd he had "bought" at the market who also thought it was a religious relic, and in that precise moment, two distinct sects of a religion appear from a completely stupid point. love it!

and The Life of Brian is indeed one of the funniest best criticisms of religion put on film.

that whole scene when one of Brian's sandals fall off, and they treat it as a religious relic, and then there's the other group who already had the gourd he had "bought" at the market who also thought it was a religious relic, and in that precise moment, two distinct sects of a religion appear from a completely stupid point. love it!

If only there'd been a vote so I would've gotten my way. Am I supposed to feel sorry for this relic? Your rights don't trump others rights. History will see this person in the same light as those who opposed people of differing ethnic backgrounds getting married.

>> ^Mcboinkens:
Yes, prisons and zoos are the same for all comparative purposes.
In terms of not.


True. Prison inmates have usually done something to deserve to be there.

I know a lot of zoos do good work with breeding programs for endangered species, and rehabilitating sick or injured animals, but they are still a bit of a relic from the days when we couldn't see animals doing humorous things on the internet.

The metaphor of an endangered species of duck is still apt.


No. It is not an apt comparison, you should stop using it, thinking in these brackets and stop listening to whomever told you this crap:


1. Human beings are at the top of the food chain, intelligent, social and able to make babies with one another, as previously stated.

2. Ducks can be saved by humans because humans can save ducks because: point 1. Ducks cannot form eco-departments of duck governments to save other ducks. Because they are fucking ducks. Certain species of ducks cannot breed with other species of ducks. Because they are actually different in more ways than colour. So saving a certain species of duck makes sense for biodiversity and etc. Also, plants and whatnot.

3. Now: Human beings of whatever colour, culture or other dividing feature your racist brain cooks up, are NOT DUCKS. They are all equally human. All. Equally. Let it sink in. Aaaalll. Eeeequaally. Not one single person is above another.

The above considered, I plead that because a particular civilization finds itself below replacement level it is in a perilous state and merits attention. This is a conclusion that, again, assumes an overreaching, unfettered respect for diversity.


There it is again, the racism. See point 3 for physical racism. Now to your cultural racism: "Civilisations," cultures, religions are NOT DUCKS. They are collective constructs. They diminish, they go inert. You can look at them in museums. Because there are almost always remnants and relics. But cultures are never dead. They are not murdered, driven away by evil muslims, outbred or dying off.

Cultures go on in the following cultures. They are absorbed. They are mixed. They are in flux. As I mentioned before. Cultures change. It is inevitable. A few hundred years ago, German was spoken on the British isles. It mingled with Scandinavian, Celtic and french languages and cultures --> English.

You must extend your own desire to protect a unique given species to the right of a nation to maintain its own identifying characteristics. Realize that the desire for prosperity and sustained existence of a nation does not by definition mandate the impingement on another.

Bullshit. Any nation's "identifying characteristics" did not exist 200 years ago and will not exist in 200 years time. It doesn't even need an outside influence to do it. It happens. "Nations" do not have a right to maintain characteristics. Those which tried, failed. We live in a globally connected world now in which ideas, culture, science and knowledge can be shared freely. Look at yourself being lectured at by a post-racial, post-fascist human being on the internet. Whatever culture you belong to, it changed a lot and it will keep changing a lot. This is called progress. Otherwise we'd all be talking a babylonian language.


On the other hand, if like GenjiKilpatrick you harbour a sense that "whites" deserve to be eradicated because of who they are... you're barely human.

As far as I can see here, he never said such a thing. This is your irrational fearful racist mind at work. Try to look outside your head. I guess you misread this: Not to mention - Adult White Males have been the most privileged, self-entitled, killin' & manipulating "lesser" cultures type homo sapiens on the planet for a few centuries now, at least.
He says that white men were basically "in charge." Nowhere does he call for an eradication.

And again you are calling a fiction of your own "barely human". I do not think it, Genji does not think it. This is your racist mind creating fictions you can lash out at. Try to see how your own fears are all without merit. Group B will not destroy anyone's culture. They will enhance it. As they have done before. And Group A will enhance them. As they have done before. In fact, there are no group A or B. Just humans with interchanging, intermingling cultures. Stop thinking in black and white. In every aspect.

Ugh. Ok:



Population group A has a lower than replacement level reproduction rate.
Population group B has a higher than replacement level reproduction rate and benefits from an unlimited external source of replenishment.
The outcome is that over time, group A will cease to exist.
As it happens, some individuals in group A may be displeased about their upcoming extinction.


Human beings of whatever colour of skin can make babies with one another. Therefore: AB+A+B , not either A or B. This is not how it works. Also your group B cannot have unlimited external source of replenishment. Even with a huge outside source of replenishment, it will all work out as a nice intercultural mix, as it is right now: the letters we use are latin, the numerals arabic. Cultures are all already mixed.
It is not "us" versus "them", It is "us" with "them." What your ideological fear of a "civilisation going extinct" implies, is that you are a racist. Maybe just a cultural racist, but a racist nonetheless. Now to the really stupid stuff:

Unlike most media sources who immediately suspected Muslim involvement, I waited for more facts to emerge before making assumptions. That is not the action of a "racist" as you would define one.

Very good, had nothing to do with why I called you a racist, and you are right, it would not be a reason to call you a racist. But it does not negate your racist comments of basically agreeing with a mass-murderer that Muslims, or group B as you like to call them, will end our "civilisation."


My admission is that his reasoning is sound, his concerns legitimate and his motivations worthy of study.

His reasoning is not sound, his concerns are bonkers and his motivation is worthy of study for psychiatrists. If you like, present one of his mad theories you agree with and watch it being ripped apart by every kind of reasonable person (non-fascists and non-racists) there is. Now for the best bit:

As for DerHasisttot's logical pretzel. I'm sure he is the type of fellow that would mobilize government in defense of an endangered species of duck, but yet finds the mild concept that a civilization wishes to maintain its existence is morally wrong. Shame on him.


Let's reverse the roles ad absurdum and relish in the brilliant irony of your preface "logical pretzel": "I'm sure pprt is the type of person X, who would rather Z than Y! Shame on him!." So, you assume I am a specific type of person, assume how I would act in a certain situation, then assume how I would act in a different type of situation that goes against your ideology; and you follow with the (in your mind logical) conclusion that shame should be thrust upon me. Dude, you are shaming your own fiction.

But: Yes I would ask the nature conservatory of my government to protect an endangered species. The second part of your assumptional assault is of course: bonkers. I do not think it is ethnically wrong for anyone to remain alive. And I am not against museums, where one can look at relics of previous "civilisations." But: Cultures are in flux. Cultures are NOT static. Even North Korean culture cannot resist every western influence. In 200 years, no culture we know today will still exist. They will not have been killed by muslims like you want to believe in your racist mind. They will just evolve, move on, adapt and MIX. Every culture is mixed and NOT a homogenous entity.