I goofed. Mea culpa.

[skippythwndrdog]

I forget which thread I posted it in. I looked for a while, but the recent posts page is expired for the post in quetion and dredging through threads with a slow dialup connection (a hazard of country life and being too tight for satellite) is tedious. I was gone for a day or so before I discovered it.

I made a past with a supposed quote by Hitler concerning gun control. I Googled the so-called quote and found it to be untrue. That's what I get for taking a friend at his word without verifying. IT was one of those emails from a pal that starts with, "Can you believe this?" Unfortunately, I did.

I'll argue 'till the cows come home, but I'll not intentionally post an untruth.

[bluestateguy]

1. Although

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 severely restricted gun ownership. Jews were not allowed to own guns.

[skippythwndrdog]

2. True. That's partly why I swallowed the quote.

A little Google ipecac cured me, though.

[Paladin]

3. Don't Feel Too Bad About It

That Hitler "quote" has been kicking around for some time now; it's turned up here in the Dungeon more than once. Good of you to post the clarification......

[skippythwndrdog]

4. Thanks. n/t

[iverglas]

5. of course

the clarification was posted here long after the "quote" was thoroughly debunked in the thread where it was posted.

Is our friend really saying that he didn't see that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=78620&mesg_id=78700&page=
and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=78620&mesg_id=78698&page=

If he didn't see library_max's request for a source, posted a mere nine minutes before that second response -- leaving a very small window for seeing the request for a source but not the debunking of the quote -- why was he googling for the quote now in the first place??

More to the point perhaps ... why does anybody get emails from people who tell him such dreadful lies?

I sure don't.

[skippythwndrdog]

9. I don't live in front of or for my computers.

I've been known to shut down my computer and step away from it for weeks at a time. Had I been aware of the posts in question that challenged the veracity of my post, I certainly would have responded sooner.

For some reason, the idea that it wasn't kosher kept niggling at me. It's akin to getting home from the store and discovering that I had received too much change from the clerk: had I counted it at the store it could have been immediately corrected.

Had I remained logged on and seen the questioning posts, I would have checked immediately.

At any rate, there it is; allusions to my honesty notwithstanding. I surely hope this clears things up.

[OpSomBlood]

6. The validation of the quote itself is minutiae.

Hitler's actions in favor of disarming the public speak much louder than this fabricated quote.

[MrBenchley]

7. In other words, op wants to pretend the lie is true

long after it's been admitted to be horseshit...

[slackmaster]

8. Careful, OpSomBlood

The Hitler apologists will be all over that one.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skippythwndrdog]

12. It's good to be happy, no? n/t

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Columbia]

14. Told ya so!

:toast:

[MrBenchley]

19. Ignorance is bliss.....

And our pro gun democrats are among the most blissful creatures on the planet....any ignorant bit of drivel the NRA puts out becomes gospel to them...

[Pert_UK]

15. Yes, 'cause this board's full of Hitler apologists.....Can't move for 'em.

:eyes:

[OpSomBlood]

16. If all pro-gun people are right-wing apologists...

...then that correlation isn't too far off.

[iverglas]

23. if wishes were horses

then you'd have a correlation. And a point.


Of course, if I knew what "pro-gun people" were, I might know what it was.

Guns are just inanimate objects, aren't they? How can anybody be "pro-" an inanimate object??

I'm pro-paper clips, myself.

[OpSomBlood]

25. And anti-humor.

n/t

[iverglas]

26. Auntie Humour

That's me!

[Pert_UK]

17. Hmmmm.........

Hitler wanted to disarm the public, therefore disarming the public is bad.

Vs

Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are bad.

What a great game.

Isn't it all about motive?

Hitler wanted to disarm the public of Europe in order to make it easier to suppress anyone rebelling against him.

Some people think that disarming the public is a good way to make the world a safer place. That doesn't make them Hitler, nor does it mean that they're necessarily wrong.

[OpSomBlood]

18. No, that is not a valid comparison.

The fact that Hitler was a vegetarian had nothing directly to do with his plans for conquest. On the other hand, he realized that strict gun control among the public was essential. It is all about motive, and Hitler's motive to disarm the public was to reduce resistance.

Nobody here is calling anyone a Hitler apologist. But the anti-gunners seem to think that there is no precedent for gun control being linked to totalitarianism, yet we have an perfect example from just the last century.

[Pert_UK]

21. So when ol' Slacky said....

"The Hitler apologists will be all over that one" he wasn't suggesting that there are Hitler apologists who visit this forum?

Curious.

I take your point about vegetarianism not being linked to Hitler's plans for conquest. Fair enough.

However, the same action can be viewed as either moral / good or evil, depending on intention and circumstances.

Hitler wanting to disarm the public to facilitate his tyranny is bad.

The British government deciding to disarm the public to prevent guns being misused in massacres is good.

And no, I'm not fooling myself - the vast majority of the British public don't want "normal" people to have access to firearms.

[OpSomBlood]

22. That's fine, different countries should have their own laws.

As for slackmaster's comment about the "Hitler apologists"...it was obviously a joke, because pro-gun people are accused of being right-wing apologists here all the time.

The present-day right-wingers demonstrate many of the same tendencies as the Nazis did. So most of us take offense to the notion that our desire to have the right to own guns somehow makes us one of them.

But I'm fairly certain that slackmaster's comment was made in jest.

[slackmaster]

28. 10 points for OpSomBlood

As for slackmaster's comment about the "Hitler apologists"...it was obviously a joke, because pro-gun people are accused of being right-wing apologists here all the time.

You got the brass ring.

:toast:

But I'm fairly certain that slackmaster's comment was made in jest.

It was aimed at those who are unable to distinguish bona fide Nazis from World War II reenactors and collectors of militaria.

The neo-Nazis we need to worry about wear business suits.

[iverglas]

24. funny, isn't it?

Correlation isn't causation ... except when ... well, when it is.

[MrBenchley]

20. Never mind that Hitler

actually ARMED his public, authorizing sales of military weapons to everyone BUT Jews....

Or that the folks running around today wearing swastikas are all spouting this "gun rights" rubbish, and clogging the aisles of gun shows....

[slackmaster]

27. Hitler's motives were pure evil

About the only good thing I can say about him is that he treated his dogs well.

[iverglas]

29. well, there was Leni whats'ername

Riefenstahl, that's it.

It was important art, whatever else it may have been.

Her birthday's rolling around again: August 22. I've been thinking of posting a tribute over in Civil Rights. A gal who made good, no matter that what she made good at wasn't necessarily good.

Civil Rights frequenters who caught the little chats about Barry White and Celia Cruz some time back will get the joke.

[slackmaster]

30. In undergraduate film class we watched Triumph of the Will backwards

Our professor was always doing weird shit like that to us.

:argh:

[iverglas]

31. and did you find out

whether Paul was dead?

http://website.lineone.net/~felixfellows/

[library_max]

33. The only thing wrong with your argument

is that Hitler did not institute strict gun controls. And, as Fuehrer, of course he could have if he wanted to. But he didn't, except for specific portions of the population (e.g. the Jews). The rest hovers between myth and lie.

[FeebMaster]

34. This is the funniest post I have ever read.

"But he didn't, except for specific portions of the population (e.g. the Jews)."

[library_max]

35. Keep hovering, Feeb. /nt

[FeebMaster]

36. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

"But he didn't, except for specific portions of the population (e.g. the Jews)."

[OpSomBlood]

38. Substitute "the poor" for "the Jews" and you have our current situation.

n/t

[FeebMaster]

39. That's completely different.

Everyone knows all gun owners are racists and probably hate the poor too. That's why the pro-gun side is always arguing against those gun laws that price guns out of poor people's ability to purchase them.

[library_max]

40. Show me the law or regulation that categorically prevents "the poor"

from buying firearms. That's complete and utter bullshit. There's a whole laundry-list of things that are easier for the rich to afford than the poor - hell, everything is easier for the rich to afford than the poor. But it is an outrageous falsehood to say that anything that makes some guns more expensive is the moral equivalent of Hitler's treatment of the Jews.

I sure wish you guys would have some respect for honest discourse, and not just post knee-jerk any argument that you think will help you defend guns.

[OpSomBlood]

42. Nice logical leap.

You said that Hitler selectively banned legal, private gun ownership from the Jews. I said that we are currently selectively banning legal, private gun ownership from the poor.

From that, you have determined that I believe gun control is analogous to the Holocaust. I mean...when you type these things, does the "amazingly ridiculous" alarm ever go off in your head?

I imagine not.

[library_max]

44. First of all, your statement is false.

We are not "selectively banning legal, private gun ownership from the poor." That's an out-and-out lie.

Second, you're the one who brought up that false notion in comparison to Hitler's treatment of the Jews. So where's the "amazingly ridiculous" part?

[skippythwndrdog]

52. Greater regulation makes them more expensive.

That effectively bans the poor from ownership of some weapons.

[iverglas]

57. just like

Greater regulation makes them more expensive.
That effectively bans the poor from ownership of some weapons.

... I'm "effectively banned" from owning Mar a Lago. And NBC. And the Hope Diamond. Damn, life is crap.

[skippythwndrdog]

64. Come back to planet Earth.

Or post a reasonable argument. I really don't care which.

Do a little background research on increased costs in correlation to increased regulatory costs, then get back to me.

[library_max]

69. Her argument is perfectly reasonable.

Yours and Op's, that anything expensive is "banned" for the poor, is tripe. Demanding that iver go do some research for you (hey Op, isn't that one of the seven deadly sins?) won't change that.

[skippythwndrdog]

83. The poor are effectivly banned from ownership of many things.

When the cost of any item is beyond one's ability to pay the cost is most definitely a bar to ownership. Taxes such as the $200.00 tax to own a select fire firearm most certainly increase the cost which necessarily places those items beyond the reach of some. If anyone cannot see that is a selective ban against the economically disadvantaged, no amount of debate will change his mind.

Comparing the cost of a major telecommunications company to the cost of a firearm is both ludicrous and disingenuous.

[library_max]

84. Everything is harder for the poor to afford than the rich. Everything.

The point of bringing telecommunications into the equation is the microphone rule. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but not a microphone - it guarantees freedom of the press, to those who own one. But the fact that publishing and broadcasting are expensive operations, made more expensive by licensing requirements and other regulations, is not taken as a trick to deprive the poor of their First Amendment rights. Stuff costs money. Rich people have more money than poor people. That's not disingenuous, that's just the way it is. What's disingenuous is to pretend otherwise, to pretend that the cost of one item (but not any other) is specifically intended to keep that item out of the hands of the poor.

[iverglas]

77. do see post #50

Or post a reasonable argument. I really don't care which.

Obviously.

You don't bother to acknowledge when it's done, so obviously you don't care whether it's done.

Any replies to post #50 gratefully received.

[skippythwndrdog]

82. I saw it and opted to refrain from answering.

Your post refers to vices and a necessity.

We're discussing the right to own a firearm in the U.S. and the ability of the poor to afford said firearms.

That is, since the thread got hijacked on this subthread.

There's a difference.

[iverglas]

85. no shit

You opted to refrain from answering the post in which I said:

You mean ... like the taxes on cigarettes?
Like the taxes on alcohol?
Like the taxes on gasoline?

Are we on to something here, do you think?

And now you say:

Your post refers to vices and a necessity.

VICES?? What judgmental nonsense is this??

I thought we all didn't have to justify our wish to acquire/possess things.

In that case, how can you possibly know why anyone wants cigarettes and/or alcohol? Has anyone ever JUSTIFIED that desire to you?

Great balls of mooncheese -- you get to call my desire to drink and smoke "vice" -- and I don't get to call your desire to tote a gun around in your pants anything, I suppose.

I HAVE A RIGHT to drink and smoke. And you just try and tell me I don't. (But hey, feel free to ask me what I think about your quaintly offensive characterization of my choices as "vice".)

So ...

We're discussing the right to own a firearm in the U.S.

... YOUR POINT WAS?

There's a difference.

And that "difference" is???


Oh -- and gasoline became a "necessity" ... when? But never mind -- your point was?

[skippythwndrdog]

86. Allow me to rephrase.

Nicotine and alchol are addictive. After the first few ingestions of either, many find their decisionmaking ability concerning the purchases of those things is impacted by psychological addiction with physical repurcussions.

Gasoline is a necessity for folks who live in rural areas or farm for a living - unless they want to have a greatly diminished quality of life as a result of farming with livestock. Speaking of livestock, how far would most cattle farmers and renchers get these days driving their stock into town to the rail yards?

[iverglas]

87. and now all you need to do ...

Nicotine and alchol are addictive. After the first few ingestions of either, many find their decisionmaking ability concerning the purchases of those things is impacted by psychological addiction with physical repurcussions.

... is explain what all that blah-blah has to do with the fact that there is a honking great tax on those commodities, which are required by people who wish to engage in the activities of smoking and/or drinking for whatever reason they may have, and as they have a right to do.

'Cause the only appropriate response I can think of to all that blah-blah is: yeah; so?

Are you saying that the govt. ("public") is entitled to take action to deter an activity that it considers undesirable and that people have a right to engage in, by taxing the commodities needed for that activity -- even if this results in the poor being effectively unable to engage in that activity while the rich can do it 'til those cows of yours come home??

Maybe the govt. is entitled to characterize certain people as being incapable of making decisions in their own best interests, even though no finding of incapacity has been made against them, and to make those decisions for those people by making it essentially impossible for them to do what they would otherwise choose to do and that they have a right to do, by taxing the commodities needed for that activity -- even if this results in the poor being effectively unable to engage in that activity while the rich can do it, etc.?

Gee. Surely not.


Gasoline is a necessity for folks who live in rural areas or farm for a living

Uh, yeah. Are you arguing my point, maybe? It's taxed, remember? That was my point? The question being: is the honking great tax on it a "bar" to the poor acquiring/possessing it? And if not, why not?


Ya won't actually catch me arguing in favour of regressive taxes, ever. But ya sure won't catch me saying they're just fine in the case of everything under the sun except guns, either. I'd just look like a dunderhead if I were to do that.

[iverglas]

49. yes ... and ... your point is ...?

You said that Hitler selectively banned legal, private gun ownership from the Jews. I said that we are currently selectively banning legal, private gun ownership from the poor.

Indeed. That's what happened.

library_max made a true statement, and you made a false statement.

What seems to be your problem, and/or point?


From that, you have determined that I believe gun control is analogous to the Holocaust.

Hmm. You must be talking about this statement (there isn't really much option here):

But it is an outrageous falsehood to say that anything that makes some guns more expensive is the moral equivalent of Hitler's treatment of the Jews.

Hmm hmm hmm. Who is it who has imported "the Holocaust" into this discussion?

Looks like ... you!! Unless it was Satan.

"Hitler's treatment of the Jews", in our context here, was to prohibit them from possessing firearms, wasn't it?

Why would you imagine that someone was talking about something other than what was being talked about??

I ask, rhetorically ...

[OpSomBlood]

55. I'm the one with the problem?

I'm not the one dictating to people in another country what their rights should be.

Get a hobby.

[iverglas]

56. but you're it!

I'm not the one dictating to people in another country what their rights should be.

And I'm not the one flying a Cessna solo across the South Pacific.

We do have the most entertaining conversations here, don't we?

You say something à propos of nothing whatsoever, I say something à propos of nothing whatsoever ... and so it goes.

As hobbies go, I've had worse.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skippythwndrdog]

67. At least it keeps her off the street. n/t

[OpSomBlood]

71. When the truth cuts too close to the bone, hit that Alert button.

n/t

[library_max]

72. No, when someone indulges in a personal attack, hit that Alert button. /nt

[iverglas]

75. glad to see you weren't talking to me

I don't know whether I even saw that one, but I'm sure it was entertaining as hell!

[FeebMaster]

43. OK

The National Firearms Act placed a $200 tax on the transfer of machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and silencers. At the time of it's passing shotguns and silencers could be bought for literally a few dollars. Originally the NFA placed the same restrictions on handguns as it did on machine guns, but this didn't make it into the final version.

The Bush Import Ban (1989) with it's goofball thumb-hole stock garbage and US parts "loopholes" practically doubled the price of the weapons it affected.

The Gun Control Act's import restrictions froze the supply of a number of guns driving the prices up significantly.

The Firearms Owner's Protection Act and it's civilian machine gun manufacturing ban drives the prices of some machine guns into the tens of thousands of dollars range or more. Some of these same guns are available overseas for around $25.

That's just at the federal level. At the state level you've got other stuff like all those mandatory trigger lock laws that drive the price of purchasing a gun up by the cost of a new trigger lock. Or bans and attempted bans on Saturday Night Specials and junk guns aka cheap guns poor people can afford.

I guess you were right, none of that prevents poor people from owning guns. If they want to spend half a years salary to own a real life full-auto AK-47, nothing is stopping them.

[library_max]

45. Everything is harder for the poor to afford than the rich.

So what? The fact that something is expensive doesn't mean that it's "banned."

The cost of federally-mandated inspections drives up the cost of meat and most other foods. Want to make the case that regulations which prevent food from being tainted, rotten, or poisoned are discriminatory against the poor?

[FeebMaster]

46. Advocate putting a $200 tax on the transfer of hamburger

then get back to me.

[OpSomBlood]

48. Great minds...uh...think...you can't get fooled again.

n/t

[FeebMaster]

62. The NRA taught us well.

Which training camp did you attend?

[OpSomBlood]

70. The one in Waco...

...where they trained Timothy McVeigh and the other "militia types" to blow up buildings with assault weapons.

[OpSomBlood]

47. But you don't put a special $50 tax on a steak.

There's a subtle difference between subsidizing minimum safety standards and levying an astronomical tax that is clearly aimed at keeping a particular item out of poor peoples' hands.

[iverglas]

50. hmm

an astronomical tax that is clearly aimed at keeping a particular item out of poor peoples' hands.


You mean ... like the taxes on cigarettes?

Like the taxes on alcohol?

Like the taxes on gasoline?


Are we on to something here, do you think?


Taxes levied on the transfer of goods and services are regressive!

Maybe somebody should call the London School of Economics or something.

[library_max]

51. "Clearly aimed at keeping a particular item out of poor people's hands."

And you can support that, right? You can find some actual fact to indicate that that is/was the reason for those taxes, right?

[OpSomBlood]

53. Can you show me the specific program that these taxes subsidize?

If you can't, that means that this is a regressive tax that serves no purpose other than to make guns more expensive.

[iverglas]

59. here's that novel idea again.

It's called "answer the question". Anybody wanna play?

You say: Clearly aimed at keeping a particular item out of poor people's hands.

And you're asked: And you can support that, right? You can find some actual fact to indicate that that is/was the reason for those taxes, right?

... and then -- you ANSWER THE QUESTION! It's new, it's fun, it's liberating and refreshing.

Now, don't be trying the other version of the game, in which you win by telling the person asking the question to fuck off because s/he has no reason to ask you the question in the first place. Noooo -- that's a good game too, and all, but it's not the one that's underway here.

Here, you see, the question you were asked actually related to something you said. (I know, another novel idea, so maybe you didn't recognize the concept. Give it a shot; you might get the hang of it fairly quickly.)

So the way it goes is that when somebody asks you to prove the truth of something you said, you prove the truth of the thing you said.

Now, indeed, nobody's the boss of you, so, indeed, if you want to say things like

If you can't, that means that this is a regressive tax that serves no purpose other than to make guns more expensive.

instead of answering the question, that's entirely your prerogative. You could also to sit in a tree and eat gummy bears instead of answering the question, if it made you happy.

But you know, if you actually tried playing the game the way it's played in the real world, you might, you just might, find you enjoy it. You never know.

Whenever you're ready, give it a shot!

[library_max]

61. In other words, you can't support your assertion. /nt

[gatlingforme]

10. LOL I did not see that quote, but we all make the mistakes. I thought

once when I received an e-mail from my sister that some kind of mops are poisonous to your dog. LOL I thought that was true for 2 minutes before I thought about it and realized it did not make any sense.

[library_max]

32. Here's the link, if you want to fix it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=78620#79063

[skippythwndrdog]

37. Thanks, but this more "public" venue seems fine to me.

Nothing like gracious acceptance of an apology.

[iverglas]

41. sometimes one just has to accept ...

Nothing like gracious acceptance of an apology.

... that one's credibility is a tad questionable, and that it is entirely reasonable for others not to take one at face value.

It happens to the best of us, and it can happen for a myriad of entirely irreproachable reasons.

In this case, the correction and apology came loooooong after the bogusness of what needed correcting and apologizing for had been pointed out and proved, publicly and not by any means in a location inaccessible to you. And the material in the initial offending post was just so easily debunkable, including by you, in the first place.

Do you really imagine that you would not have a "hmm" to say were the tables turned?

(Do you really imagine that you'll sound very credible if you say you would not??)

And do you really think that you would be prepared to accept someone else's protestations as proof of anything in such a situation?

Neither your good faith nor your bad faith is provable, in the case of either the initial offending post or the delayed correction/apology (which wasn't actually much of an apology, anyhow). There are facts somewhere in it all, but neither hypothetically possible version of them, even if true, is capable of proof.

Your credibility is the only thing available to vouch for you, and some quite reasonably find it inadequate. That does not mean that anyone has proof that you are telling anything less than the truth; it just means that no one has much reason to believe you are telling the truth.

We could try tossing you in the river and seeing whether you sink, of course, if you like ...

There are reasons why people are advised not to cry "wolf".

[skippythwndrdog]

54. I suppose you failed to recall a previous post of mine.

In a nutshell, I don't live in front of my computer. I often leave it for days or weeks at a time.

[library_max]

60. Right.

But I gave you the link, and you've posted many times on many threads since then. So it becomes harder and harder to see what not living in front of your computer has to do with it.

[skippythwndrdog]

63. Post #37. n/t

[library_max]

65. Post #37 is a dial tone.

In what sense is this thread a more public venue than the other thread?

[skippythwndrdog]

66. How about the fact that I erred shows up on the front page?

Better than being buried in the middle of a thread IMO.

For those who recognize and appreciate the fact that I can greely admit error, it seems to be no problem.

For the narrow minded assholes: I truly don't give a shit.

edited for spelling

[library_max]

68. I see.

So if somebody steps on your foot in the line at the grocery store, the thing for him to do is go the the movie theater a few hours later and apologize (to the world in general) there. Because it's more public. Yeah, that's the way apologies work. And if you see him a few days later and want to know why he didn't apologize, his next move (according to Emily Post) would be to call you a narrow minded asshole.

[skippythwndrdog]

73. How disengenuous can you be?

One enters the fora via the J/PS lobby. Where's the accuracy of your correlation.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time debating this with you. I do believe that I could offer to kiss ass in front of the post office at noon and some on this board wouldn't be pleased because they weren't first in line.

[library_max]

74. All this sound and fury, all these excuses,

wouldn't it have been simpler to have just gone, followed the link, and apologized?

[skippythwndrdog]

80. Read the origination post.

Believe it or don't. I'm beyond caring where some members of this board are concerned.

[FatSlob]

76. Only on DU is an apology questioned.

Certain people should be ashamed.

[iverglas]

78. but the funny part

is that I don't think we've seen an apology yet.

"I goofed" isn't an apology. A statement that one would never intentionally post false info is not an apology. Even "mea culpa" isn't an apology. ("It was my fault" is just not the same thing as "I'm sorry", you see.)

To take the stepping on foot in grocery checkout lineup example, would the person who did it say "I goofed", "I would never intentionally step on your foot" and/or "it was my fault" and think that was an end of it?

apology a regretful acknowledgement
of an offence or failure <emphasis added>

The usual expression of that regret is "I'm sorry". Or heck, even "I apologize".

[FatSlob]

79. Get off it.

You are being absurd. His intent is quite obvious. Sometimes you should take off your lawyer hat and see that the obvious is what is really going on.

[MrBenchley]

81. Horseshit, fat slob....

Remember, this all started because our trigger-happy chum compared Democrats to Hitler, using a quote that has been debunked dozens of times on this forum. And note that another "pro gun democrat" dredged up a Himmler "quote" for the same ugly and dishonest purpose.

"His intent is quite obvious."
And Iverglas wasn't fooled into thinking otherwise for an istant.