In other words, it's like the TSA banned flyers list.
I'd like to know how the "no fly" list passes Constitutional muster, when the 5th amendment requires that due process be provided before one is deprived of life, liberty or property. It doesn't really seem compatible with the spirit of that amendment to deny people their rights and then provide them with an appeals process.
I'd also like to extend a big fat middle finger to the idiots that are whining about the "terror gap" and the need to prevent people on the no fly list from purchasing guns. One wishes that they could see past their hoplophobia long enough to realize that they are advocating for a policy that would allow the US Attorney General to deprive American citizens of their civil rights without needing to go before a judge or jury. Scary stuff.....
There you go again, leaping to conclusions not supported by my statements. I've never said that we have no impact whatsoever. I would just argue that it's a cost of modern civilization and that the eventual impact will not be nearly as bad as the chicken little's are claiming it will be. As I've said, life on this rock has survived far worse than we can throw at it. Humanity itself has survived worse catastrophes.
I would also argue that there are better ways to encourage a transition away from carbon based energy sources than to impose a new tax that will grow government while increasing the price of virtually all consumer goods. Just what do you want government to do with the billions of dollars that it's going to take from Americans who need to heat their homes or get to the grocery store? You've already poo-pooed the idea of giving that money back to the American people, so I can only conclude that you want to see it used to increase the size of government. Personally I think the government has enough involvement in our lives already and will not condone any policy that seeks to further expand that involvement.
Either way, you haven't seemed real interested in a productive dialog about this issue. You've told me to "go away", you've put words into my mouth and you've leap to conclusions that aren't supported by my writings. Perhaps we should call it here and just agree to disagree, hmm?
when we are off of technology that destroys our planet in both the short and long term
You have a seriously inflated opinion of humanity if you think we possess technology that's capable of destroying the planet. Life on this blue marble has survived far worse than we can throw at it. It will be here long after we are gone, until such time as Sol boils away the oceans and blows away the atmosphere.
In other words, these idiots have turned Mohammad into an idol by their actions and words, and so are violating the very law they seek to enforce on others.
I am not an expert on the Islamic faith, but I rather suspect they turned their backs on Mohammad when they started blowing up women and children.
So now you want to gut the economy on the basis of a science that you admit isn't "exact"? The climate has changed before you know. Homo sapiens are still here and thriving.
BTW, carbon taxes have nothing to do with reducing carbon. There's a number of ways we could do that without imposing new taxes. Carbon taxes represent another attempt at expanding the power and reach of government. You want my support for a carbon tax? Offset it with equal reductions in the income tax. Somehow I doubt you'd be willing to go along with that though....
You live in a part of the country that uses it's pistol licensing system in the same manner as the Southern States used to use poll taxes. $430 to apply for a NYC pistol license that needs to be renewed every two years. There is no possible justification for charging that much money other than to discourage handgun ownership. NYC also looks at factors that have no bearing on one's fitness to own a firearm -- they'll deny you if you've had one too many speeding tickets.
Move to a free area and you'll find that handguns are owned for all manner of different reasons. You don't even need to leave New York State -- most Upstate jurisdictions make it as painless as possible under the Sullivan regime to get a pistol license. I live in Broome County and no issues getting one. We actually have more pistol licenses in our County (pop: 200k) than the entire City of New York (pop: 8.3 million)
We don't have a problem with them around these parts but our DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) still encourages hunters to shoot pigs on sight. I guess a few feral pigs have been seen in the wild but for the most part it's a non issue here.
I have family in the Southeast and get the opportunity to hunt wild boar when I visit. I've bagged three of them -- one with the Glock and two with my trusty Model 70. The one I took with the handgun was probably the most fun -- stalked her for over an hour before I had the shot I wanted. The ones I got with the.30-06 just wandered into range and never knew I was there.
What do you think of the.45 for wild boar? The research that I did suggests that it's not enough gun. I would love to take one with my 1911 though. I had a blast doing it with the Glock.
It took two. I screwed up the first shot and hit her in the spine about midway down her body. That kept her from running away but didn't put her down. The second shot was behind her ear and finished the job. She went down almost instantly after that hit. I paced it off once she expired -- it was 28 yards.
That was my only experience with a Glock or the 10mm. I borrowed it from a friend so that I could give handgun hunting a try. I own a.45 but the research that I did suggested that it would be marginal for wild boar. I also have a.357, which is supposedly enough gun with the right load, but I'm not a good enough revolver shooter to ensure a clean kill with it.
False on both counts. The larger handgun calibers (.41/.44 magnum/.50 AE/.500 S&W/etc) were specifically designed for hunting. They are too powerful for effective self-defense and too expensive for routine target shooting. What they are good at is taking game and wilderness protection. The shooting sports are also filled with handgun disciplines, ranging from old fashioned target shooting to practical/defensive shooting to cowboy action shooting.
If you live in a free country find a handgun range and go observe for awhile. You might be surprised at the range of applications for them.
You try casually walking into a bank with a ford mustang concealed on your person before donning a clown mask and sticking the place up..
The actions of a few bad apples does not make the device itself dangerous. I could rob that bank with a knife or baseball bat if I was so inclined. Do you regard those items as dangerous?
Fact is, a gun's primary (and arguably only real) function is to shoot (at) people
I guess you've never heard of the shooting sports or hunting?
I agree with you (they should be legal), all I'm saying is that you are bound to follow the law of the countries that you visit.
I like to drive through Canada to get to Detroit. It shaves two hours off my trip. I have a valid concealed carry permit in both New York State and Michigan. Can I lock up my handgun in the trunk without going through the proper channels to obtain a Canadian firearms license? It's not hurting anyone after all.....
A gun is no more dangerous than a motor vehicle, but that's rather beside the point that I was trying to make. If you visit a foreign country you have to abide by the laws of that jurisdiction. I don't happen to agree with Saudi Arabia's laws regarding women but I wouldn't suggest that my sister fly there and try to rent a car as an act of civil disobedience.....
I imagine this could have serious consequences for Japanese and other Asian travelers were images of child porn (i.e. anime and manga) are perfectly legal.
Tough shit. My handgun is completely legal the United States. If I take it into another country where it's not legal I'm going to be charged. Maybe the Japanese should leave their kiddie porn at home when they travel to the West?
What a giant circle jerk of pretending they are helping the victims.
Now how can you say that? They are ASKING you if you have porn on your computer. Surely no self respecting kiddie porn pervert would disgrace himself by LYING, would he?
Only by completely refuting all known science behind climate change research could someone say with as much certainty as you that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will do human civilization no harm.
Wake me up when they can accurately predict next years climate. Until then you'll forgive my skepticism regarding 100 year projections.
Being greener does not have to equate to increased poverty and less of a role in global economics
I didn't say that being greener would do either of those things. The specific topic of this discussion is a carbon tax, which will equate to increased poverty and a loss of jobs. You can't impose a massive increase on the cost of energy needed to run modern civilization without having an impact.
Science is continuously developing more efficient strategies for alternative energy
We already have three carbon neutral energy technologies. Hydro, nuclear and wind. Two of those are met with staunch opposition from most of the green movement while the other one is opposed by the usual NIMBY/BANANA crowd with some high-profile leftists tossed in for good measure (see the opposition to Cape Wind). It seems to me that if you want to reduce our CO2 consumption it would be in your best interest to embrace these proven technologies but many of the people in your movement oppose them for one reason or another.
and if we could get some more funding going on for things then progress would be even greater
Yes, if we could only get more funding we'll come up with the perfect technology. Never mind the fact that we've already got it but refuse to support it. See, this is why I'm skeptical of the whole green movement. If it really cared about reducing carbon it would embrace nuclear power. Unfortunately it's the green movement's staunch opposition to nuclear power in the 70s and 80s that helped to maintain the carbon intensive status quo for the last three decades.
The status quo should not and cannot be maintained.
You see what you did there -- you implied that I only support the status quo when I've said nothing of the kind. Does it make it easier to write someone off when you can put words in their mouth and paint a negative picture of them in your mind?
Lastly, why do climate change deniers always act like Al Gore is the only person or even the biggest/most visible person in the climate change debate?
Because he is the most visible person, at least in the United States. He's also a walking example of hypocrisy -- he expects me to pay artificially inflated prices for energy and reduce my "impact" while he flies around the world in a private jet and lives in a 10,000+ sq ft house. Do as I say, not as I do.
I and most others are curious about your obsession with the guy over the silly claim that he allegedly said he invented the internet
That's interesting, because I've said nothing at all about that in this discussion. Again you put words in my mouth rather than engage in an honest dialog. It's getting hard to take you seriously.
You guys win over the misinformed far easier by attacking persons though instead of using reason.
Well, since we've moved onto talking about "you guys" (way to paint with a broad brush there....), let me respond by pointing out that "you guys" do the exact same thing when you blame "big business" for all the woes of society. "You guys" do the exact same thing when you write off an entire grassroots movement by linking them to a sexual act (teabaggers).
Next time you want to talk about "you guys" find someone else.
So what? It's still not going to kill us. It still doesn't have the impact on life as your "polluted air and water" straw man. From where I sit it seems pretty damned arrogant to proclaim that we need to destroy livelihoods and whole economies on the basis of climate models that can't even predict today using all of the historical data that we have.
Go ahead and advocate for your carbon tax. You won't get it in the United States. Not even with 60 Democratic Senators could you find the support to get it through the US Congress. The EPA's threat to regulate it is an empty one -- the American people through Congress can cut off it's funding whenever they want. Nor would it matter even if you managed to get the US to commit economic suicide. China and India are not going to halt their efforts to pull their citizens out of poverty because of Al Gore.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, it's like the TSA banned flyers list.
I'd like to know how the "no fly" list passes Constitutional muster, when the 5th amendment requires that due process be provided before one is deprived of life, liberty or property. It doesn't really seem compatible with the spirit of that amendment to deny people their rights and then provide them with an appeals process.
I'd also like to extend a big fat middle finger to the idiots that are whining about the "terror gap" and the need to prevent people on the no fly list from purchasing guns. One wishes that they could see past their hoplophobia long enough to realize that they are advocating for a policy that would allow the US Attorney General to deprive American citizens of their civil rights without needing to go before a judge or jury. Scary stuff.....
as they have little value as game rifles (i.e. AK47, AR15/M16, etc.)
The AR-15 fires the .223 Remington, which is just what the doctor ordered for many types of varmint hunting. Ever hunted woodchucks?
There you go again, leaping to conclusions not supported by my statements. I've never said that we have no impact whatsoever. I would just argue that it's a cost of modern civilization and that the eventual impact will not be nearly as bad as the chicken little's are claiming it will be. As I've said, life on this rock has survived far worse than we can throw at it. Humanity itself has survived worse catastrophes.
I would also argue that there are better ways to encourage a transition away from carbon based energy sources than to impose a new tax that will grow government while increasing the price of virtually all consumer goods. Just what do you want government to do with the billions of dollars that it's going to take from Americans who need to heat their homes or get to the grocery store? You've already poo-pooed the idea of giving that money back to the American people, so I can only conclude that you want to see it used to increase the size of government. Personally I think the government has enough involvement in our lives already and will not condone any policy that seeks to further expand that involvement.
Either way, you haven't seemed real interested in a productive dialog about this issue. You've told me to "go away", you've put words into my mouth and you've leap to conclusions that aren't supported by my writings. Perhaps we should call it here and just agree to disagree, hmm?
when we are off of technology that destroys our planet in both the short and long term
You have a seriously inflated opinion of humanity if you think we possess technology that's capable of destroying the planet. Life on this blue marble has survived far worse than we can throw at it. It will be here long after we are gone, until such time as Sol boils away the oceans and blows away the atmosphere.
Such websites would be illegal in Texas
Citation needed.
In other words, these idiots have turned Mohammad into an idol by their actions and words, and so are violating the very law they seek to enforce on others.
I am not an expert on the Islamic faith, but I rather suspect they turned their backs on Mohammad when they started blowing up women and children.
Try making a valid comparison. Has the State of Texas shuttered any websites condemning beef?
How much of your GDP are you willing to throw at a futile attempt to hold back the ocean with a broom?
Have you looked at North Korea lately?
CO2 != pollution
So now you want to gut the economy on the basis of a science that you admit isn't "exact"? The climate has changed before you know. Homo sapiens are still here and thriving.
BTW, carbon taxes have nothing to do with reducing carbon. There's a number of ways we could do that without imposing new taxes. Carbon taxes represent another attempt at expanding the power and reach of government. You want my support for a carbon tax? Offset it with equal reductions in the income tax. Somehow I doubt you'd be willing to go along with that though....
You live in a part of the country that uses it's pistol licensing system in the same manner as the Southern States used to use poll taxes. $430 to apply for a NYC pistol license that needs to be renewed every two years. There is no possible justification for charging that much money other than to discourage handgun ownership. NYC also looks at factors that have no bearing on one's fitness to own a firearm -- they'll deny you if you've had one too many speeding tickets.
Move to a free area and you'll find that handguns are owned for all manner of different reasons. You don't even need to leave New York State -- most Upstate jurisdictions make it as painless as possible under the Sullivan regime to get a pistol license. I live in Broome County and no issues getting one. We actually have more pistol licenses in our County (pop: 200k) than the entire City of New York (pop: 8.3 million)
We don't have a problem with them around these parts but our DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) still encourages hunters to shoot pigs on sight. I guess a few feral pigs have been seen in the wild but for the most part it's a non issue here.
I have family in the Southeast and get the opportunity to hunt wild boar when I visit. I've bagged three of them -- one with the Glock and two with my trusty Model 70. The one I took with the handgun was probably the most fun -- stalked her for over an hour before I had the shot I wanted. The ones I got with the .30-06 just wandered into range and never knew I was there.
What do you think of the .45 for wild boar? The research that I did suggests that it's not enough gun. I would love to take one with my 1911 though. I had a blast doing it with the Glock.
It took two. I screwed up the first shot and hit her in the spine about midway down her body. That kept her from running away but didn't put her down. The second shot was behind her ear and finished the job. She went down almost instantly after that hit. I paced it off once she expired -- it was 28 yards.
That was my only experience with a Glock or the 10mm. I borrowed it from a friend so that I could give handgun hunting a try. I own a .45 but the research that I did suggested that it would be marginal for wild boar. I also have a .357, which is supposedly enough gun with the right load, but I'm not a good enough revolver shooter to ensure a clean kill with it.
Last year. I took a wild boar with a Glock 20 in 10mm. Next question?
False on both counts. The larger handgun calibers (.41/.44 magnum/.50 AE/.500 S&W/etc) were specifically designed for hunting. They are too powerful for effective self-defense and too expensive for routine target shooting. What they are good at is taking game and wilderness protection. The shooting sports are also filled with handgun disciplines, ranging from old fashioned target shooting to practical/defensive shooting to cowboy action shooting.
If you live in a free country find a handgun range and go observe for awhile. You might be surprised at the range of applications for them.
In Australian law? The one with the biggest tits.
But justice is supposed to be blind. Does that mean there will be groping involved? How do I get on a jury in Australia? ;)
You try casually walking into a bank with a ford mustang concealed on your person before donning a clown mask and sticking the place up..
The actions of a few bad apples does not make the device itself dangerous. I could rob that bank with a knife or baseball bat if I was so inclined. Do you regard those items as dangerous?
Fact is, a gun's primary (and arguably only real) function is to shoot (at) people
I guess you've never heard of the shooting sports or hunting?
I agree with you (they should be legal), all I'm saying is that you are bound to follow the law of the countries that you visit.
I like to drive through Canada to get to Detroit. It shaves two hours off my trip. I have a valid concealed carry permit in both New York State and Michigan. Can I lock up my handgun in the trunk without going through the proper channels to obtain a Canadian firearms license? It's not hurting anyone after all.....
a gun is dangerous
A gun is no more dangerous than a motor vehicle, but that's rather beside the point that I was trying to make. If you visit a foreign country you have to abide by the laws of that jurisdiction. I don't happen to agree with Saudi Arabia's laws regarding women but I wouldn't suggest that my sister fly there and try to rent a car as an act of civil disobedience.....
I imagine this could have serious consequences for Japanese and other Asian travelers were images of child porn (i.e. anime and manga) are perfectly legal.
Tough shit. My handgun is completely legal the United States. If I take it into another country where it's not legal I'm going to be charged. Maybe the Japanese should leave their kiddie porn at home when they travel to the West?
Maybe the guy who pushed this rule is actually addicted to porn and wants to create a giant archive of it all
We already have a giant archive of porn. It's called the internet ;)
What a giant circle jerk of pretending they are helping the victims.
Now how can you say that? They are ASKING you if you have porn on your computer. Surely no self respecting kiddie porn pervert would disgrace himself by LYING, would he?
Yes, god forbid I pass some of my life's work down to my children. The Government should come and seize it all when I die.
Only by completely refuting all known science behind climate change research could someone say with as much certainty as you that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will do human civilization no harm.
Wake me up when they can accurately predict next years climate. Until then you'll forgive my skepticism regarding 100 year projections.
Being greener does not have to equate to increased poverty and less of a role in global economics
I didn't say that being greener would do either of those things. The specific topic of this discussion is a carbon tax, which will equate to increased poverty and a loss of jobs. You can't impose a massive increase on the cost of energy needed to run modern civilization without having an impact.
Science is continuously developing more efficient strategies for alternative energy
We already have three carbon neutral energy technologies. Hydro, nuclear and wind. Two of those are met with staunch opposition from most of the green movement while the other one is opposed by the usual NIMBY/BANANA crowd with some high-profile leftists tossed in for good measure (see the opposition to Cape Wind). It seems to me that if you want to reduce our CO2 consumption it would be in your best interest to embrace these proven technologies but many of the people in your movement oppose them for one reason or another.
and if we could get some more funding going on for things then progress would be even greater
Yes, if we could only get more funding we'll come up with the perfect technology. Never mind the fact that we've already got it but refuse to support it. See, this is why I'm skeptical of the whole green movement. If it really cared about reducing carbon it would embrace nuclear power. Unfortunately it's the green movement's staunch opposition to nuclear power in the 70s and 80s that helped to maintain the carbon intensive status quo for the last three decades.
The status quo should not and cannot be maintained.
You see what you did there -- you implied that I only support the status quo when I've said nothing of the kind. Does it make it easier to write someone off when you can put words in their mouth and paint a negative picture of them in your mind?
Lastly, why do climate change deniers always act like Al Gore is the only person or even the biggest/most visible person in the climate change debate?
Because he is the most visible person, at least in the United States. He's also a walking example of hypocrisy -- he expects me to pay artificially inflated prices for energy and reduce my "impact" while he flies around the world in a private jet and lives in a 10,000+ sq ft house. Do as I say, not as I do.
I and most others are curious about your obsession with the guy over the silly claim that he allegedly said he invented the internet
That's interesting, because I've said nothing at all about that in this discussion. Again you put words in my mouth rather than engage in an honest dialog. It's getting hard to take you seriously.
You guys win over the misinformed far easier by attacking persons though instead of using reason.
Well, since we've moved onto talking about "you guys" (way to paint with a broad brush there....), let me respond by pointing out that "you guys" do the exact same thing when you blame "big business" for all the woes of society. "You guys" do the exact same thing when you write off an entire grassroots movement by linking them to a sexual act (teabaggers).
Next time you want to talk about "you guys" find someone else.
So what? It's still not going to kill us. It still doesn't have the impact on life as your "polluted air and water" straw man. From where I sit it seems pretty damned arrogant to proclaim that we need to destroy livelihoods and whole economies on the basis of climate models that can't even predict today using all of the historical data that we have.
Go ahead and advocate for your carbon tax. You won't get it in the United States. Not even with 60 Democratic Senators could you find the support to get it through the US Congress. The EPA's threat to regulate it is an empty one -- the American people through Congress can cut off it's funding whenever they want. Nor would it matter even if you managed to get the US to commit economic suicide. China and India are not going to halt their efforts to pull their citizens out of poverty because of Al Gore.