Right, of course, because calling a person a liar is an excellent debate tactic. I asked you, the reader, to do your own research on this so I make no direct claims on precise numbers. If you would like to provide a source that contradicts my claims then perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion.
Wind is cheaper than gas right now at about 4cents/kwh on 30 year contracts.
I made no claims on gas versus wind so I do not see how this is relevant. That may be true but does nothing to dissuade someone from choosing nuclear power.
Nuclear in old already paid for plants is 10cents/kWh and if you want to build a new one its close to 16cents/kWh.
Let's assume that is true, that wind costs 4cents/kWh and nuclear costs 16 cents/kWh. The problem is that a one gigawatt windmill farm produces power only 30% of the time while a one gigawatt nuclear power plant produces power 90% of the time. You'd need three of those wind farms to make up for the one nuclear power plant. You have to pay for that wind farm even if it is not producing any electricity making the cost 12cents/kWh, that's real close to the nuclear power cost. Still cheaper but not as much as you make it out to be.
Let's ignore that and get back to 4 cents compared to 16 cents. I will do this because in my previous post I conceded the point that wind can be cheaper than nuclear in certain cases. I will further concede, if it makes you happy, that wind is 1/4 the price of nuclear but the issue is more than just price. Nuclear power is still more reliable. Wind needs a backup, like that natural gas you mentioned, or the lights go out once in a while. That might be fine for me sitting in my basement with my laptop and battery backed up lighting but that's no way to run a hospital, prison, police station, fire station, airport, military base, factory, restaurant, or much of anything really.
Price aside and reliability aside, I will concede both points if that makes you happy. We will assume that we can create a nation wide smart grid and the wind is always blowing somewhere. That might still suck for small island nations/states/whatever like the UK, Hawaii, or Japan, but whatever, they can harvest tidal energy too or something. That still leaves me with my two biggest points on nuclear power, lives lost and carbon emissions.
People die in construction accidents, and that includes wind and nuclear. Nuclear is such an energy rich power source that even adding in big events like Chernobyl and Fukushima the amount of energy produced to lives lost is still in favor of nuclear power. If you favor wind over nuclear power then you must not be bothered by people dying in construction accidents.
Then there is the matter of carbon footprint. I thought the whole point of using wind power was because it was "green". Not that wind power isn't green, it is very much a green source of energy. That is if you ignore the people and birds that get killed, then it turns a bit red, but hey, we need to fertilize that land somehow, amiright? Blood is a very nutrient rich fertilizer, at least that is what my drill sergeant told me. Anyway, I got a bit off topic there. Wind is an energy source that still produces two to three times the carbon per kWh produced compared to nuclear power. Look it up.
If you look into the carbon footprint of wind further than just the construction of the windmills you will find that the need for backup power is detrimental to the CO2 produced. This is because of a natural gas boiler putting along, or a nuclear power plant, you get steady power but you have windmills producing intermittent power with natural gas turbines filling in the gaps. Natural gas turbines are not as efficient as boilers and so more CO2 is produced in operating them. This gets worse if they are cycled often since they have to burn fuel to get up to speed before they can produce power. I know we assumed earlier that with a
My sister and her husband live in Illinois and they went out of state to buy a firearm, not Indiana but Iowa. They had to provide ID, submit to a background check, and wait 24 hours for delivery as required by Illinois law because they are legally Illinois residents. Going out of state does not allow a person to bypass federal law, or even many state laws.
The firearm they purchased had to meet the laws of Illinois on how they define an "assault weapon". I don't know what would happen if they tried to buy something illegal to own in Illinois as an Illinois resident. I have a suspicion that the gun dealers would not sell them because the BATFE frowns upon people that try to bypass state laws, and if a dealer makes the BATFE unhappy then the BATFE makes the dealer unhappy. The levels of "unhappy" the BATFE can bring on a licensed dealer can range from a warning, probation, fines, revocation of their license, all the way up to many many years in federal prison.
If these people are leaving the state to buy from an unlicensed dealer then they are idiots, because unlicensed dealers are by definition breaking the law and they don't need to leave the state to find those people.
What about people that steal guns from their elderly neighbor? Are we going to have my tax money going toward buying that gun too? How is that not creating an incentive for more crime? This "kid", is he over 18 years old? If not then it is illegal for this "kid" to possess the gun without adult supervision. Does this "kid", assuming he lives in Illinois or state with similar gun laws, have a Firearm Owners Identification Card? How is this "kid" going to carry the gun to the taxpayer funded compensated confiscation program? Does this "kid" have a concealed carry license? Perhaps the "kid" will carry the gun in a clear zip-lock bag in their hand, so it is not concealed but everyone he passes on the street is going to see this gun. Maybe this "kid" will get beat up and robbed for the gun by another "kid" so he can cash in on the deal, or worse.
I believe that you did not think this through.
It's not a total solution but will reduce the number of people getting shot which will give victims of violence a better chance at survival and more importantly, reporting their attackers.
I have to wonder if you've been brainwashed by Mom's Demand Action on Gun Violence or you've not taken your meds this morning. Perhaps you took one pill, or toke, too much.
There is also still a strong social stigma against seeking mental health. Nobody is embarrassed to say something like "My arm was broke so I went to see the doctor," but the moment someone utters the phrase "mental health" everyone thinks of him as crazy, weak, and pathetic.
There is a big difference between going to a surgeon to fix a broken arm and going to a psychiatrist for a mental illness. A broken arm does not lead to the police coming to your house to take your guns. Depending on the conditions of the mental illness in Illinois the government will revoke your FOID for one year, five years, or the rest of your life for seeking treatment for a mental illness. Getting a FOID is difficult and expensive. Getting a firearm to protect yourself, your home, and your family is also difficult and expensive. Being disarmed in your own home is not pleasant if one lacks the means to move to a better neighborhood or one is bound by some (real or imagined) obligation to stay put.
You want to see crime go down and people get treatment for mental illness? Then get rid of the laws that disarm people and leave them vulnerable to the thugs that the police cannot do anything about. The police can only come when called, they cannot be there every time there is a crime, as much as they might want to be there. When a crime is committed there are certain to be two people present, the perpetrator and the victim. Let's allow the victims to be armed so that they can defend themselves.
Illinois was the last state in the federation to lift the ban on concealed carry of weapons. Even though they are technically available the process to get the license is lengthy and expensive, something not everyone that need them can afford. The license alone costs $150. Then there is the required training, photograph, fingerprints, and probably more that have to be paid for. The time to do all of this is likely out of the question for the average blue collar worker.
This brings up the question on why Illinois even needs a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Would you believe me if I said six states do not require permits to carry a concealed weapon? Well, you shouldn't because the real number is more like eleven, depending on how one defines permitless carry. Carrying a weapon in the open, not concealed, does not require a permit in 25 or 30 states.
Where is all of this crime happening? There seems to be a strong correlation between restrictions on the carry of self defense tools and violent crimes. There is also a strong correlation between Democrat governance and crime. Think about that the next time you vote.
Easy, do a Google search on "deaths per terawatt hour" and "cost of energy sources". You'll find ample evidence of the safety of nuclear power compared to everything else. You'll also find that while nuclear power might not always win out on price compared to everything else it is almost always cheaper than wind and solar. There might be a few places where onshore wind beats nuclear on price but the margin is very small.
If you are one of those people that doubt the "carbon free" claims of nuclear power then you can search on "carbon footprint by energy source". The carbon footprint of nuclear isn't zero but it is less than that of "carbon free" energy sources like wind and solar.
Saying that nuclear power is more reliable than wind and solar should not even enter into debate but if it does then we can define reliability in one way with capacity factor. Do a search on "capacity factors by energy source" and you will see nuclear power is 90% or better, perhaps some reports will show it as low as 80%. Wind and solar have capacity factors of about 33%. Perhaps some ideal cases might reach 40%, perhaps even better than that but that is still half of nuclear.
Do I really need to add all of that up for you? You might argue about the exact numbers but getting within an order of magnitude you'll find wind and solar being three times as expensive as nuclear (mostly due to capacity factor issues), result in ten times as many people dead (mostly due to construction accidents), and ten times the carbon output.
Is that why Russia is building more nuclear powered ice breakers? Because the northwest passage is ice free?
I'm not a believer in CAGW but I do see the value in nuclear powered ice breakers. I wish the US Coast Guard had a couple, or even a half dozen. I prefer those big ships use nuclear power regardless of how much Arctic ice there is because nuclear power provides capabilities that oil fueled ships cannot. It would seem that you should be in favor of nuclear power because it doesn't have the carbon footprint of burning oil.
Tell me something, how to you propose those ships travel through the Arctic circle? Wind mills and solar panels? I'd like to see how that works. Turns out we have two choices to keep those shipping lanes open and cargo moving, it's nuclear or it's oil. Which do you prefer?
At the same time government policy has priced nuclear power out of existence. We need nuclear power now more than ever but yet the government won't allow it.
Government is a necessary evil. We need it for society to work but it has also been one of the biggest killers. It's going to kill a lot more people unless we get nuclear power to replace the killers that are coal, oil, wind, and solar.
Yes, I put wind and solar in the same category of killers as coal and oil. Wind and solar may cause only 1% of the deaths that oil does on a per kilowatt basis but nuclear causes only 1% of the deaths that wind and solar do. That is including the people killed in Chernobyl, Fukushima, and in mining uranium.
With wind and solar producing only a fraction of our electricity, and nuclear power producing about 20%, I'd say that the government policies to encourage wind and solar have failed. What has also been largely a failure, thankfully, is the government has been unable to kill off nuclear. Only now, after about four decades of no new nuclear power plants in the USA, are we finally seeing new nuclear reactors being built. Say what you will about the expense and safety of past nuclear reactors but we've learned a few things since then, we can make them better.
Instead of denying the problem exists, why not promote a solution you're comfortable with?
I'll bite.
Nuclear power. I'll deny the problem exists but I'll also play along so long as the solution is nuclear power. Nuclear power is cheap, reliable, safe, and carbon free. It's cheaper than wind and solar. It's more reliable than wind and solar. It's safer than wind and solar. It has a smaller carbon footprint than wind and solar.
The only thing that can beat nuclear power any any of those points in hydro-electric but we've run out of rivers worth a dam. Therefore we must use the second best solution and that is nuclear power. Anything else means people die. They might die from falling off a roof installing solar panels. They might die from power being too expensive and having to choose between starving to death or freezing to death. Perhaps they die from the effects of global warming.
It's nuclear power or suicide. If you are not comfortable with nuclear power as the solution then you've just put us on the path to suicide.
If you start planning for a new nuclear plant today, it will be probably finished in 25 years. If at all.
Why is that? Are nuclear power plants so large and complex that they cannot be completed in any less time? No, of course not. The US military routinely has nuclear power plants built in two years. The problem is that the government gets in the way of any civilian nuclear power plant. Why they do so is something of a mystery to me. If global warming is a problem then certainly these people are concerned about finding solutions, no?
While you actually could likely build 10 times as much energy production with wind and solar and other means in the same time frame.
Why is that the case? Could it be that the powers that be in the government are more concerned about buying votes than solving the problem? That's one theory.
Wind and solar are expensive. Government subsidies don't lower the costs, they just hide them from the consumers. Nuclear power, if the government would get out of the way, would be cheaper than coal. We know this because we have decades of nuclear power operation to prove it. Right now, with current technology, nuclear power is cheaper, safer, and more reliable than wind and solar. All we need is a government willing to license people to build and operate them.
if you want to claim that wind and solar will get cheaper then I'll say nuclear power can get cheaper too. We could cut the cost in half by using new materials, automated safety systems, and so forth. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) would be safe, cheap, and reliable if the government would allow them to be built. We know they work because we were building them 50 or 60 years ago. We abandoned the technology then because it was the Cold War then and LFTR is worthless for producing weapons. Today that aspect is a plus, not a minus.
In the meantime you are happily continue with CO2 production?
Yes, because I do not believe that catastrophic man made global warming exists. However I see the value in nuclear power for other reasons. The problems with nuclear power are all political, we can solve them by just deciding they are no longer a problem. The problems with wind and solar, like being expensive and unreliable, are not so easily solved.
If the summer months keep breaking records but the winter months keep canceling them out, that still indicates there is an ongoing change even if the "average" isn't moving.
Yeah, sure, whatever. I don't care any more. Here's what I do care about, solving the problem. I've looked at this problem for a long time now and I've concluded the only solution is nuclear power and anything else is suicide.
If you want to engage the brain with someone about the possible problems with greater temperature variation then perhaps someone else will step up. Whatever question you ask I have one answer, nuclear power.
I made a comment to this post earlier and decided it was just too long. Instead of creating more hot air debating the existence and/or extent of global warming I suggest we talk solutions.
I've been looking at this global warming scare for a long time now and I'm tired of it, so let's put an end to this. We need nuclear power. Anything else is suicide.
14 months of consecutive high temperatures? Don't care. I'll concede any point on global warming if it means getting people to agree to building more nuclear power plants.
You want to claim the seas will rise fifty feet by next Tuesday if we don't stop burning coal? Sure, I'll go with that so long as you agree that nuclear power is the replacement for that coal.
Don't care. I decided about two minutes ago to take this conversation on a new direction. Instead of arguing on whether or not global warming exists I propose we talk about solutions. If the problem is too much CO2 from burring petroleum and coal then we need nuclear power. Anything other than nuclear power is suicide.
How about that? Can you get on board with nuclear power or are you going to hug trees until the seas rise to drown you?
Statistics will say anything if you torture them long enough.
People are so caught up in proving global warming that it seems more like a mental illness, or a religion, than science.
You want to impress me? Then let's talk about solutions we can all agree upon instead of whether or not global warming exists. One thing I've figured out is that any solution to global warming that does not include nuclear power just will not work. We need nuclear power now.
I don't believe that there is such a thing as catastrophic man made global warming. Perhaps there is warming but it's not man made. Perhaps the global warming is man made but it's not catastrophic. Perhaps there is catastrophic global warming but it's not man made. I don't know and I don't care. What I do know is that if there is man made global warming then we need nuclear power.
What if there isn't catastrophic man made global warming? Then we need nuclear power anyway, because the oil, coal, and natural gas are going to get more expensive as we run out of it. Nuclear power is so abundant that we have enough on this planet to last until the sun consumes the atmosphere.
You want relevant? Here's relevant. I've seen people debate this for thirty years and we've been going around in circles. Here's what I've figured out, we move to nuclear power or we have catastrophic global warming, or we sit in the dark and freeze to death, or we have resource wars that could kill off billions.
What was the question again? Never mind, because I don't give a fuck and the answer is nuclear power.
I thought that they were about moving the heat through the ocean. When we see a short global cooling event its because the warmer water sunk in the ocean. When we see a spike in temperatures its because the warmed water was carried by the current back to the surface. One is La Nina, the other El Nino, I don't recall which is which.
Yep, I'll admit I missed that point. My bad. I still maintain that this is cherrypicking data to fit a narrative. When temperature gets warm for a period it's global warming. If temperatures are cool for a period then people get real quiet.
If things are cool for a while and it's pointed out to the global warming alarmists then we get excuses. The excuse might be that there's a La Nina event keeping the heat in a subsurface ocean current or something. Maybe the explanation is that the temperature readings are erroneous, maliciously altered, or incomplete. The most likely excuse is that I, and people like me, will get lectured on how weather is not climate.
Here's something for you, weather is not climate. So what if we had 14 consecutive months of record setting temperatures, that might be a data point but that doesn't prove anything. The global warming alarmists made all kinds of predictions and they were proven false. A memorable one was when a Senator brought a snow ball in front of the Senate to "prove global warming was a hoax", but that's not what happened. He brought in the snowball to show that the predictions from another senator was false. The prediction was that DC would never see snow again, well they had snow and therefore perhaps we should take another look at the theory before we create a law that we might regret in the future.
There's two groups of people in this that just baffle me. The first group are the "true believers". These people believe in man made global warming and will stick by it. I'd think that the potential end of the human race would scare them, that they'd be relieved that there might be hope that global warming might not happen. When shown evidence that man made global warming might not be a valid theory, or that the catastrophic effects might not happen with the warming these people get... I don't know the right word but I'll say they get mad. These same people will be adamant that this is about science, that science shows we are fucked unless we stop with the fossil fuels now. When science shows this might not be true then they blow a fuse, or something. This is not science, this is a religion.
The other group that baffles me is what I call "watermelons". I didn't think of the term but I find it appropriate. The watermelons are people that are all green environmentalists on the outside but red communists on the inside. These people will talk about how we need government to solve this global warming problem, and only government can solve the problem. We cannot simply allow the free market to provide things like electric cars, solar panels, and high efficiency lighting. That just won't do. We must have government subsidized electric cars, "cash for clunkers" programs, and mandates on ethanol in fuels. If there is a tax or subsidy then it must be good.
When these watermelons are shown solutions to the global warming problem that does not require government involvement then they think of ways to get the government involved. If there is not a way to get the government involved then there must be something wrong with the idea.
An excellent example is nuclear power. We know how to build nuclear power that is carbon free (or as carbon free as wind and solar are carbon free), safe, cheap, and reliable. The "true believers" will make claims that nuclear power cannot be made safe because of Chernobyl and Fukushima, even though those are 50 year old solid fuel designs that no one is proposing we build. Us thorium for energy folks want liquid fuel reactors which operate completely differently. I even had someone, an electrical engineer in fact, tell me that nuclear power plants did not produce any net power. Because if they cannot claim that nuclear power is unsafe, or not carbon free, or unreliable, then nuclear power must need so much steel, concrete, and other materials that even if they produce a gigawatt of electricity for forty years that they cannot pay back for all of the diesel fuel and coal burned to build it.
As someone that once wore the uniform of an American warrior I am quite aware of Trump saying some disparaging remarks about our military. Even so I've seen him say many good things. Hilary Clinton on the other hand allowed people under her care to die at the hands of our enemies only because by sending in our warriors might make things look worse for her. Trump isn't perfect and I'll admit that. Clinton on the other hand is far worse.
A very interesting idea but it doesn't seem to be playing out that way anywhere.
I can see both sides here, for and against.
First, in agreement with you. You are correct that people aren't mass producing machine guns in their basements or battle tanks in their garages. Even though there is a lot of suckage to go around we here in the USA still have it pretty good. People have access to a wide variety of weapons off the shelf and if one wants to go through the paperwork they can own real deal military hardware. Now people cannot own modern weapons like F-22 planes but people can get a vintage fighter plane, a belt fed machine gun, a medium battle tank, or just about anything except perhaps land mines. Because things are good and people generally have access to some really nice hardware we don't see people arming up with home made weaponry. If things become not so good then we get to my second point.
Second, I did not claim that people were making such things now, only that the capability exists or will exist very soon. Every once in a while we will even see it happen. People will have a broken rifle and it goes full auto on them, it happens. It's trivial to clean that up and make it do that intentionally and safely. We've seen people flip their lid and turn a bulldozer, earth mover, or some other piece of heavy machinery into a mobile gun platform. Not quite a battle tank but if you look for videos on the internet you'll see a few cases of some quite successful attempts at getting close. Again if this is cleaned up a bit, and done with some sane planning instead of an act of suicide by cop then we could see something quite battle worthy. A lot of people know how to make this stuff but lack the motivation to do so. With a few emerging technologies to help this along, like 3D printing, the number of people with this capability increases as does the rate at which such weapons could be produced.
By the way, what do you second amendment types do at 45? Do you get rid of all your guns since the second amendment doesn't apply to you after that? Perhaps you should consider that your right to be armed comes from it not being taken away from you in the first place and has nothing at all to do with the second amendment.
It appears you are of the mind that the Second Amendment is there to protect the state's right to create a militia. This is a false interpretation, to demonstrate how this is wrong I can show the writings of the authors of the Constitution and opinions from SCOTUS that the right to keep and bear arms exists outside of the militia. The Second Amendment protects the right of self defense by the individual and by the states. The right does not begin and end at the age of conscription.
You are correct that the right of self defense exists outside of the Second Amendment which is why I am confused that you some how came to the conclusion that I believe that the Second Amendment places limits on my rights. The Second Amendment does not define my rights, limit my rights, or create my rights. What it says is that my rights exist, that they are inherent to my person, and says that the government has no authority to deny that right to me. All of that is not said in the Second Amendment alone, but comes from the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole.
That's not intent to distribute classified material
Irrelevant. She intentionally had classified material on electronic systems that were not certified for storing them, that in itself is a crime.
What is there to misunderstand here? The data was "born classified" and she did not have the authority to declare something unclassified. This separation is intentional, the people that declare something classified cannot be the same people that receive it. Not even the Secretary of State can declassify the classified material she receives. I don't know the process on that but it is not a simple process. By placing that information on a system not deemed secured for classified material she has committed a crime. It is a crime even if she did not intend to transmit that to a person not deemed fit to receive it. It is a crime even if there is proof that it had not been taken by an adversary. The fact that the server was not monitored by the people at the Department of State there is no way to prove that the data was not copied by an adversary.
only to enable capabilities which were denied her and critical to job function in the information age.
I was going to write a lengthy paragraph on why you are wrong but instead I'll respond with a single word: Bullshit.
Huh. So what you're saying is, five years ago we had a year in which some months broke all previous records for heat, and this year that's happening again, but... what, exactly?
But then the record heat early in the year, when there is this thing called a "summer", was canceled out by the cold temperatures, during this thing called "autumn", and the year turned out to be an average year in temperatures. My co-workers were all excited about this record heat as proof of global warming but when they were asked to pay up on their wager that the year in total would break records, and it didn't, they forgot the whole thing happened.
This is typical, when there is evidence for global warming there's all kinds of people that get amped up on it being "proof" but when there is evidence against they make excuses. Slashdot is complicit in this, they will post on articles that talk about extreme heat, at times when temperatures are not all that extreme and when the proof of these temperatures being extreme is pretty dubious. When later evidence shows that the extreme heat was not in fact all that extreme there is no follow up to correct the record and allow people to discuss it. When there is "proof" of global warming Slashdot will post it, when the "proof" ends up being not so proven Slashdot won't post anything about it. Global warming is news for nerds but when there is evidence against global warming that is stuff that doesn't matter.
I can't tell whether you're just using this topic to vent about your coworkers, or whether you actually have an opinion on global warming (or the lack thereof), or if you're just very disappointed that we haven't had a bunch of Category 5 hurricanes.;p
A bit of both really. I wanted to vent because this reaction to "proof" of global warming is all over the place when temperatures just happen to peek above the norm or when there is a big storm. Well here's a news flash, the law of averages means that there are going to be the odd extremes here and there but the rest of the data points will cancel them out.
Also, for some strange reason hurricanes fascinate me. Since I don't live any where close to a coast I can watch them safely from home on TV. Not having any big hurricanes for so long is disappointing in a way.
It was about five years ago and I read on Slashdot on how, at about this same time of year, the year had record setting high temperatures. This made for an interesting discussion at work. I had co-workers tell me that this is for certain proof of global warming. I countered with a wager that by the end of the year the temperatures would be nothing of note. The wager was accepted.
January rolled around and I went to collect on my wager. Wouldn't you know that the co-worker that accepted the wager had no recollection of the article, the wager, or the discussion. I was told that even if the past year was a completely average year that I was not to equate weather with climate. You see, I was told, just because one year produced a completely nominal temperature average world wide that this was not evidence that global warming isn't happening. The heat was merely sunk into the ocean to appear in a later year, or something like that. For certain this "hidden" heat that didn't show in air temperatures was still there in water, rocks, or something. I was told that this heat would still result in some major hurricanes in the future, or some other extreme weather events.
Let's look at this again in six months, when we know the entire year's temperatures, before we make claims of global warming. I'd wager that this year, like so many in recent history, will be just as much a nonevent as it was those five or six years ago.
Oh, and where were those Category 5 hurricanes we were supposed to see?
Privatize security? You mean like dismantle the TSA and have airport security run by the airlines? As in having the government issue letters of marque and reprisal? Where privateers/mercenaries/whatever fight our wars for profit?
Tell me something, how are these people supposed to arm themselves? Would this not require people to be able to buy the same weapons as those available to the standing army? If not then what are people supposed to fight with, VP Biden approved double barrel shotguns?
The ability for people to fight the battles that our government gets us into was the reason for the Second Amendment. Minutemen were people of the unorganized militia that came to battle with their own weapons. That's why they were called "minutemen", because they were ready to fight on a minute's notice.
One big problem I have with your proposition is the privatization of all military. The reason the Second Amendment is there is to allow the people to protect themselves from the government. What concerns me is with no government funded military there is nothing to protect the government from the people. The mutual respect of the authority of the people and the authority of the government is supposed to keep both in check, if that fails the natural instinct to not get killed in a battle between the two was supposed to keep them in check. Disarming one or the other is dangerous, disarming both is impossible.
Trump may be supportive of our right to keep and bear arms, and he may see some value in handling many aspects of the government like a business, what I don't see him doing is privatizing the military. I believe he has enough respect of the people in uniform to believe they will do the right thing when called upon.
I did laugh at loud at your proposal, if only because it reminded me of a scene from Iron Man 2 where an irreverent billionaire told a bunch of stuffy government officials to fuck off because he just privatized national defense. In some way I see that coming. Technology is enabling people with even a few thousand dollars to spare to produce weapons on par with anything the government has. An M-16 is almost trivial to produce now in a basement shop. I believe it won't be long before larger and more complicated weapons, like a passable battle tank, can be mass produced in an amateur machinist garage.
Slashdot Mirror
"Do you really think Europe would allow third world ships with nuclear propulsion into their waters or even harbours?"
Why not? They probably sold the ships to them.
Liar.
Right, of course, because calling a person a liar is an excellent debate tactic. I asked you, the reader, to do your own research on this so I make no direct claims on precise numbers. If you would like to provide a source that contradicts my claims then perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion.
Wind is cheaper than gas right now at about 4cents/kwh on 30 year contracts.
I made no claims on gas versus wind so I do not see how this is relevant. That may be true but does nothing to dissuade someone from choosing nuclear power.
Nuclear in old already paid for plants is 10cents/kWh and if you want to build a new one its close to 16cents/kWh.
Let's assume that is true, that wind costs 4cents/kWh and nuclear costs 16 cents/kWh. The problem is that a one gigawatt windmill farm produces power only 30% of the time while a one gigawatt nuclear power plant produces power 90% of the time. You'd need three of those wind farms to make up for the one nuclear power plant. You have to pay for that wind farm even if it is not producing any electricity making the cost 12cents/kWh, that's real close to the nuclear power cost. Still cheaper but not as much as you make it out to be.
Let's ignore that and get back to 4 cents compared to 16 cents. I will do this because in my previous post I conceded the point that wind can be cheaper than nuclear in certain cases. I will further concede, if it makes you happy, that wind is 1/4 the price of nuclear but the issue is more than just price. Nuclear power is still more reliable. Wind needs a backup, like that natural gas you mentioned, or the lights go out once in a while. That might be fine for me sitting in my basement with my laptop and battery backed up lighting but that's no way to run a hospital, prison, police station, fire station, airport, military base, factory, restaurant, or much of anything really.
Price aside and reliability aside, I will concede both points if that makes you happy. We will assume that we can create a nation wide smart grid and the wind is always blowing somewhere. That might still suck for small island nations/states/whatever like the UK, Hawaii, or Japan, but whatever, they can harvest tidal energy too or something. That still leaves me with my two biggest points on nuclear power, lives lost and carbon emissions.
People die in construction accidents, and that includes wind and nuclear. Nuclear is such an energy rich power source that even adding in big events like Chernobyl and Fukushima the amount of energy produced to lives lost is still in favor of nuclear power. If you favor wind over nuclear power then you must not be bothered by people dying in construction accidents.
Then there is the matter of carbon footprint. I thought the whole point of using wind power was because it was "green". Not that wind power isn't green, it is very much a green source of energy. That is if you ignore the people and birds that get killed, then it turns a bit red, but hey, we need to fertilize that land somehow, amiright? Blood is a very nutrient rich fertilizer, at least that is what my drill sergeant told me. Anyway, I got a bit off topic there. Wind is an energy source that still produces two to three times the carbon per kWh produced compared to nuclear power. Look it up.
If you look into the carbon footprint of wind further than just the construction of the windmills you will find that the need for backup power is detrimental to the CO2 produced. This is because of a natural gas boiler putting along, or a nuclear power plant, you get steady power but you have windmills producing intermittent power with natural gas turbines filling in the gaps. Natural gas turbines are not as efficient as boilers and so more CO2 is produced in operating them. This gets worse if they are cycled often since they have to burn fuel to get up to speed before they can produce power. I know we assumed earlier that with a
My sister and her husband live in Illinois and they went out of state to buy a firearm, not Indiana but Iowa. They had to provide ID, submit to a background check, and wait 24 hours for delivery as required by Illinois law because they are legally Illinois residents. Going out of state does not allow a person to bypass federal law, or even many state laws.
The firearm they purchased had to meet the laws of Illinois on how they define an "assault weapon". I don't know what would happen if they tried to buy something illegal to own in Illinois as an Illinois resident. I have a suspicion that the gun dealers would not sell them because the BATFE frowns upon people that try to bypass state laws, and if a dealer makes the BATFE unhappy then the BATFE makes the dealer unhappy. The levels of "unhappy" the BATFE can bring on a licensed dealer can range from a warning, probation, fines, revocation of their license, all the way up to many many years in federal prison.
If these people are leaving the state to buy from an unlicensed dealer then they are idiots, because unlicensed dealers are by definition breaking the law and they don't need to leave the state to find those people.
What about people that steal guns from their elderly neighbor? Are we going to have my tax money going toward buying that gun too? How is that not creating an incentive for more crime? This "kid", is he over 18 years old? If not then it is illegal for this "kid" to possess the gun without adult supervision. Does this "kid", assuming he lives in Illinois or state with similar gun laws, have a Firearm Owners Identification Card? How is this "kid" going to carry the gun to the taxpayer funded compensated confiscation program? Does this "kid" have a concealed carry license? Perhaps the "kid" will carry the gun in a clear zip-lock bag in their hand, so it is not concealed but everyone he passes on the street is going to see this gun. Maybe this "kid" will get beat up and robbed for the gun by another "kid" so he can cash in on the deal, or worse.
I believe that you did not think this through.
It's not a total solution but will reduce the number of people getting shot which will give victims of violence a better chance at survival and more importantly, reporting their attackers.
I have to wonder if you've been brainwashed by Mom's Demand Action on Gun Violence or you've not taken your meds this morning. Perhaps you took one pill, or toke, too much.
There is also still a strong social stigma against seeking mental health. Nobody is embarrassed to say something like "My arm was broke so I went to see the doctor," but the moment someone utters the phrase "mental health" everyone thinks of him as crazy, weak, and pathetic.
There is a big difference between going to a surgeon to fix a broken arm and going to a psychiatrist for a mental illness. A broken arm does not lead to the police coming to your house to take your guns. Depending on the conditions of the mental illness in Illinois the government will revoke your FOID for one year, five years, or the rest of your life for seeking treatment for a mental illness. Getting a FOID is difficult and expensive. Getting a firearm to protect yourself, your home, and your family is also difficult and expensive. Being disarmed in your own home is not pleasant if one lacks the means to move to a better neighborhood or one is bound by some (real or imagined) obligation to stay put.
You want to see crime go down and people get treatment for mental illness? Then get rid of the laws that disarm people and leave them vulnerable to the thugs that the police cannot do anything about. The police can only come when called, they cannot be there every time there is a crime, as much as they might want to be there. When a crime is committed there are certain to be two people present, the perpetrator and the victim. Let's allow the victims to be armed so that they can defend themselves.
Illinois was the last state in the federation to lift the ban on concealed carry of weapons. Even though they are technically available the process to get the license is lengthy and expensive, something not everyone that need them can afford. The license alone costs $150. Then there is the required training, photograph, fingerprints, and probably more that have to be paid for. The time to do all of this is likely out of the question for the average blue collar worker.
This brings up the question on why Illinois even needs a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Would you believe me if I said six states do not require permits to carry a concealed weapon? Well, you shouldn't because the real number is more like eleven, depending on how one defines permitless carry. Carrying a weapon in the open, not concealed, does not require a permit in 25 or 30 states.
Where is all of this crime happening? There seems to be a strong correlation between restrictions on the carry of self defense tools and violent crimes. There is also a strong correlation between Democrat governance and crime. Think about that the next time you vote.
Oh I could tell you why the sea touches the shore. I'd think of things I never thunk before, and then I'll stop... and think some more.
If I only had a brain.
Easy, do a Google search on "deaths per terawatt hour" and "cost of energy sources". You'll find ample evidence of the safety of nuclear power compared to everything else. You'll also find that while nuclear power might not always win out on price compared to everything else it is almost always cheaper than wind and solar. There might be a few places where onshore wind beats nuclear on price but the margin is very small.
If you are one of those people that doubt the "carbon free" claims of nuclear power then you can search on "carbon footprint by energy source". The carbon footprint of nuclear isn't zero but it is less than that of "carbon free" energy sources like wind and solar.
Saying that nuclear power is more reliable than wind and solar should not even enter into debate but if it does then we can define reliability in one way with capacity factor. Do a search on "capacity factors by energy source" and you will see nuclear power is 90% or better, perhaps some reports will show it as low as 80%. Wind and solar have capacity factors of about 33%. Perhaps some ideal cases might reach 40%, perhaps even better than that but that is still half of nuclear.
Do I really need to add all of that up for you? You might argue about the exact numbers but getting within an order of magnitude you'll find wind and solar being three times as expensive as nuclear (mostly due to capacity factor issues), result in ten times as many people dead (mostly due to construction accidents), and ten times the carbon output.
Is that why Russia is building more nuclear powered ice breakers? Because the northwest passage is ice free?
I'm not a believer in CAGW but I do see the value in nuclear powered ice breakers. I wish the US Coast Guard had a couple, or even a half dozen. I prefer those big ships use nuclear power regardless of how much Arctic ice there is because nuclear power provides capabilities that oil fueled ships cannot. It would seem that you should be in favor of nuclear power because it doesn't have the carbon footprint of burning oil.
Tell me something, how to you propose those ships travel through the Arctic circle? Wind mills and solar panels? I'd like to see how that works. Turns out we have two choices to keep those shipping lanes open and cargo moving, it's nuclear or it's oil. Which do you prefer?
At the same time government policy has priced nuclear power out of existence. We need nuclear power now more than ever but yet the government won't allow it.
Government is a necessary evil. We need it for society to work but it has also been one of the biggest killers. It's going to kill a lot more people unless we get nuclear power to replace the killers that are coal, oil, wind, and solar.
Yes, I put wind and solar in the same category of killers as coal and oil. Wind and solar may cause only 1% of the deaths that oil does on a per kilowatt basis but nuclear causes only 1% of the deaths that wind and solar do. That is including the people killed in Chernobyl, Fukushima, and in mining uranium.
With wind and solar producing only a fraction of our electricity, and nuclear power producing about 20%, I'd say that the government policies to encourage wind and solar have failed. What has also been largely a failure, thankfully, is the government has been unable to kill off nuclear. Only now, after about four decades of no new nuclear power plants in the USA, are we finally seeing new nuclear reactors being built. Say what you will about the expense and safety of past nuclear reactors but we've learned a few things since then, we can make them better.
Instead of denying the problem exists, why not promote a solution you're comfortable with?
I'll bite.
Nuclear power. I'll deny the problem exists but I'll also play along so long as the solution is nuclear power. Nuclear power is cheap, reliable, safe, and carbon free. It's cheaper than wind and solar. It's more reliable than wind and solar. It's safer than wind and solar. It has a smaller carbon footprint than wind and solar.
The only thing that can beat nuclear power any any of those points in hydro-electric but we've run out of rivers worth a dam. Therefore we must use the second best solution and that is nuclear power. Anything else means people die. They might die from falling off a roof installing solar panels. They might die from power being too expensive and having to choose between starving to death or freezing to death. Perhaps they die from the effects of global warming.
It's nuclear power or suicide. If you are not comfortable with nuclear power as the solution then you've just put us on the path to suicide.
If you start planning for a new nuclear plant today, it will be probably finished in 25 years. If at all.
Why is that? Are nuclear power plants so large and complex that they cannot be completed in any less time? No, of course not. The US military routinely has nuclear power plants built in two years. The problem is that the government gets in the way of any civilian nuclear power plant. Why they do so is something of a mystery to me. If global warming is a problem then certainly these people are concerned about finding solutions, no?
While you actually could likely build 10 times as much energy production with wind and solar and other means in the same time frame.
Why is that the case? Could it be that the powers that be in the government are more concerned about buying votes than solving the problem? That's one theory.
Wind and solar are expensive. Government subsidies don't lower the costs, they just hide them from the consumers. Nuclear power, if the government would get out of the way, would be cheaper than coal. We know this because we have decades of nuclear power operation to prove it. Right now, with current technology, nuclear power is cheaper, safer, and more reliable than wind and solar. All we need is a government willing to license people to build and operate them.
if you want to claim that wind and solar will get cheaper then I'll say nuclear power can get cheaper too. We could cut the cost in half by using new materials, automated safety systems, and so forth. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) would be safe, cheap, and reliable if the government would allow them to be built. We know they work because we were building them 50 or 60 years ago. We abandoned the technology then because it was the Cold War then and LFTR is worthless for producing weapons. Today that aspect is a plus, not a minus.
In the meantime you are happily continue with CO2 production?
Yes, because I do not believe that catastrophic man made global warming exists. However I see the value in nuclear power for other reasons. The problems with nuclear power are all political, we can solve them by just deciding they are no longer a problem. The problems with wind and solar, like being expensive and unreliable, are not so easily solved.
If the summer months keep breaking records but the winter months keep canceling them out, that still indicates there is an ongoing change even if the "average" isn't moving.
Yeah, sure, whatever. I don't care any more. Here's what I do care about, solving the problem. I've looked at this problem for a long time now and I've concluded the only solution is nuclear power and anything else is suicide.
If you want to engage the brain with someone about the possible problems with greater temperature variation then perhaps someone else will step up. Whatever question you ask I have one answer, nuclear power.
I made a comment to this post earlier and decided it was just too long. Instead of creating more hot air debating the existence and/or extent of global warming I suggest we talk solutions.
I've been looking at this global warming scare for a long time now and I'm tired of it, so let's put an end to this. We need nuclear power. Anything else is suicide.
14 months of consecutive high temperatures? Don't care. I'll concede any point on global warming if it means getting people to agree to building more nuclear power plants.
You want to claim the seas will rise fifty feet by next Tuesday if we don't stop burning coal? Sure, I'll go with that so long as you agree that nuclear power is the replacement for that coal.
Don't care. I decided about two minutes ago to take this conversation on a new direction. Instead of arguing on whether or not global warming exists I propose we talk about solutions. If the problem is too much CO2 from burring petroleum and coal then we need nuclear power. Anything other than nuclear power is suicide.
How about that? Can you get on board with nuclear power or are you going to hug trees until the seas rise to drown you?
Statistics will say anything if you torture them long enough.
People are so caught up in proving global warming that it seems more like a mental illness, or a religion, than science.
You want to impress me? Then let's talk about solutions we can all agree upon instead of whether or not global warming exists. One thing I've figured out is that any solution to global warming that does not include nuclear power just will not work. We need nuclear power now.
I don't believe that there is such a thing as catastrophic man made global warming. Perhaps there is warming but it's not man made. Perhaps the global warming is man made but it's not catastrophic. Perhaps there is catastrophic global warming but it's not man made. I don't know and I don't care. What I do know is that if there is man made global warming then we need nuclear power.
What if there isn't catastrophic man made global warming? Then we need nuclear power anyway, because the oil, coal, and natural gas are going to get more expensive as we run out of it. Nuclear power is so abundant that we have enough on this planet to last until the sun consumes the atmosphere.
You want relevant? Here's relevant. I've seen people debate this for thirty years and we've been going around in circles. Here's what I've figured out, we move to nuclear power or we have catastrophic global warming, or we sit in the dark and freeze to death, or we have resource wars that could kill off billions.
What was the question again? Never mind, because I don't give a fuck and the answer is nuclear power.
It evaporated, blew to the south pole, and snowed on Antarctica.
My guess would be the hide.
I thought that they were about moving the heat through the ocean. When we see a short global cooling event its because the warmer water sunk in the ocean. When we see a spike in temperatures its because the warmed water was carried by the current back to the surface. One is La Nina, the other El Nino, I don't recall which is which.
Yep, I'll admit I missed that point. My bad. I still maintain that this is cherrypicking data to fit a narrative. When temperature gets warm for a period it's global warming. If temperatures are cool for a period then people get real quiet.
If things are cool for a while and it's pointed out to the global warming alarmists then we get excuses. The excuse might be that there's a La Nina event keeping the heat in a subsurface ocean current or something. Maybe the explanation is that the temperature readings are erroneous, maliciously altered, or incomplete. The most likely excuse is that I, and people like me, will get lectured on how weather is not climate.
Here's something for you, weather is not climate. So what if we had 14 consecutive months of record setting temperatures, that might be a data point but that doesn't prove anything. The global warming alarmists made all kinds of predictions and they were proven false. A memorable one was when a Senator brought a snow ball in front of the Senate to "prove global warming was a hoax", but that's not what happened. He brought in the snowball to show that the predictions from another senator was false. The prediction was that DC would never see snow again, well they had snow and therefore perhaps we should take another look at the theory before we create a law that we might regret in the future.
There's two groups of people in this that just baffle me. The first group are the "true believers". These people believe in man made global warming and will stick by it. I'd think that the potential end of the human race would scare them, that they'd be relieved that there might be hope that global warming might not happen. When shown evidence that man made global warming might not be a valid theory, or that the catastrophic effects might not happen with the warming these people get... I don't know the right word but I'll say they get mad. These same people will be adamant that this is about science, that science shows we are fucked unless we stop with the fossil fuels now. When science shows this might not be true then they blow a fuse, or something. This is not science, this is a religion.
The other group that baffles me is what I call "watermelons". I didn't think of the term but I find it appropriate. The watermelons are people that are all green environmentalists on the outside but red communists on the inside. These people will talk about how we need government to solve this global warming problem, and only government can solve the problem. We cannot simply allow the free market to provide things like electric cars, solar panels, and high efficiency lighting. That just won't do. We must have government subsidized electric cars, "cash for clunkers" programs, and mandates on ethanol in fuels. If there is a tax or subsidy then it must be good.
When these watermelons are shown solutions to the global warming problem that does not require government involvement then they think of ways to get the government involved. If there is not a way to get the government involved then there must be something wrong with the idea.
An excellent example is nuclear power. We know how to build nuclear power that is carbon free (or as carbon free as wind and solar are carbon free), safe, cheap, and reliable. The "true believers" will make claims that nuclear power cannot be made safe because of Chernobyl and Fukushima, even though those are 50 year old solid fuel designs that no one is proposing we build. Us thorium for energy folks want liquid fuel reactors which operate completely differently. I even had someone, an electrical engineer in fact, tell me that nuclear power plants did not produce any net power. Because if they cannot claim that nuclear power is unsafe, or not carbon free, or unreliable, then nuclear power must need so much steel, concrete, and other materials that even if they produce a gigawatt of electricity for forty years that they cannot pay back for all of the diesel fuel and coal burned to build it.
Th
He has shown utter contempt on several occasions.
As someone that once wore the uniform of an American warrior I am quite aware of Trump saying some disparaging remarks about our military. Even so I've seen him say many good things. Hilary Clinton on the other hand allowed people under her care to die at the hands of our enemies only because by sending in our warriors might make things look worse for her. Trump isn't perfect and I'll admit that. Clinton on the other hand is far worse.
A very interesting idea but it doesn't seem to be playing out that way anywhere.
I can see both sides here, for and against.
First, in agreement with you. You are correct that people aren't mass producing machine guns in their basements or battle tanks in their garages. Even though there is a lot of suckage to go around we here in the USA still have it pretty good. People have access to a wide variety of weapons off the shelf and if one wants to go through the paperwork they can own real deal military hardware. Now people cannot own modern weapons like F-22 planes but people can get a vintage fighter plane, a belt fed machine gun, a medium battle tank, or just about anything except perhaps land mines. Because things are good and people generally have access to some really nice hardware we don't see people arming up with home made weaponry. If things become not so good then we get to my second point.
Second, I did not claim that people were making such things now, only that the capability exists or will exist very soon. Every once in a while we will even see it happen. People will have a broken rifle and it goes full auto on them, it happens. It's trivial to clean that up and make it do that intentionally and safely. We've seen people flip their lid and turn a bulldozer, earth mover, or some other piece of heavy machinery into a mobile gun platform. Not quite a battle tank but if you look for videos on the internet you'll see a few cases of some quite successful attempts at getting close. Again if this is cleaned up a bit, and done with some sane planning instead of an act of suicide by cop then we could see something quite battle worthy. A lot of people know how to make this stuff but lack the motivation to do so. With a few emerging technologies to help this along, like 3D printing, the number of people with this capability increases as does the rate at which such weapons could be produced.
By the way, what do you second amendment types do at 45? Do you get rid of all your guns since the second amendment doesn't apply to you after that? Perhaps you should consider that your right to be armed comes from it not being taken away from you in the first place and has nothing at all to do with the second amendment.
It appears you are of the mind that the Second Amendment is there to protect the state's right to create a militia. This is a false interpretation, to demonstrate how this is wrong I can show the writings of the authors of the Constitution and opinions from SCOTUS that the right to keep and bear arms exists outside of the militia. The Second Amendment protects the right of self defense by the individual and by the states. The right does not begin and end at the age of conscription.
You are correct that the right of self defense exists outside of the Second Amendment which is why I am confused that you some how came to the conclusion that I believe that the Second Amendment places limits on my rights. The Second Amendment does not define my rights, limit my rights, or create my rights. What it says is that my rights exist, that they are inherent to my person, and says that the government has no authority to deny that right to me. All of that is not said in the Second Amendment alone, but comes from the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole.
That's not intent to distribute classified material
Irrelevant. She intentionally had classified material on electronic systems that were not certified for storing them, that in itself is a crime.
What is there to misunderstand here? The data was "born classified" and she did not have the authority to declare something unclassified. This separation is intentional, the people that declare something classified cannot be the same people that receive it. Not even the Secretary of State can declassify the classified material she receives. I don't know the process on that but it is not a simple process. By placing that information on a system not deemed secured for classified material she has committed a crime. It is a crime even if she did not intend to transmit that to a person not deemed fit to receive it. It is a crime even if there is proof that it had not been taken by an adversary. The fact that the server was not monitored by the people at the Department of State there is no way to prove that the data was not copied by an adversary.
only to enable capabilities which were denied her and critical to job function in the information age.
I was going to write a lengthy paragraph on why you are wrong but instead I'll respond with a single word: Bullshit.
Huh. So what you're saying is, five years ago we had a year in which some months broke all previous records for heat, and this year that's happening again, but... what, exactly?
But then the record heat early in the year, when there is this thing called a "summer", was canceled out by the cold temperatures, during this thing called "autumn", and the year turned out to be an average year in temperatures. My co-workers were all excited about this record heat as proof of global warming but when they were asked to pay up on their wager that the year in total would break records, and it didn't, they forgot the whole thing happened.
This is typical, when there is evidence for global warming there's all kinds of people that get amped up on it being "proof" but when there is evidence against they make excuses. Slashdot is complicit in this, they will post on articles that talk about extreme heat, at times when temperatures are not all that extreme and when the proof of these temperatures being extreme is pretty dubious. When later evidence shows that the extreme heat was not in fact all that extreme there is no follow up to correct the record and allow people to discuss it. When there is "proof" of global warming Slashdot will post it, when the "proof" ends up being not so proven Slashdot won't post anything about it. Global warming is news for nerds but when there is evidence against global warming that is stuff that doesn't matter.
I can't tell whether you're just using this topic to vent about your coworkers, or whether you actually have an opinion on global warming (or the lack thereof), or if you're just very disappointed that we haven't had a bunch of Category 5 hurricanes. ;p
A bit of both really. I wanted to vent because this reaction to "proof" of global warming is all over the place when temperatures just happen to peek above the norm or when there is a big storm. Well here's a news flash, the law of averages means that there are going to be the odd extremes here and there but the rest of the data points will cancel them out.
Also, for some strange reason hurricanes fascinate me. Since I don't live any where close to a coast I can watch them safely from home on TV. Not having any big hurricanes for so long is disappointing in a way.
HRC intentionally kept State e-mails on her private server. Those e-mails are "born classified". There's your intent.
It was about five years ago and I read on Slashdot on how, at about this same time of year, the year had record setting high temperatures. This made for an interesting discussion at work. I had co-workers tell me that this is for certain proof of global warming. I countered with a wager that by the end of the year the temperatures would be nothing of note. The wager was accepted.
January rolled around and I went to collect on my wager. Wouldn't you know that the co-worker that accepted the wager had no recollection of the article, the wager, or the discussion. I was told that even if the past year was a completely average year that I was not to equate weather with climate. You see, I was told, just because one year produced a completely nominal temperature average world wide that this was not evidence that global warming isn't happening. The heat was merely sunk into the ocean to appear in a later year, or something like that. For certain this "hidden" heat that didn't show in air temperatures was still there in water, rocks, or something. I was told that this heat would still result in some major hurricanes in the future, or some other extreme weather events.
Let's look at this again in six months, when we know the entire year's temperatures, before we make claims of global warming. I'd wager that this year, like so many in recent history, will be just as much a nonevent as it was those five or six years ago.
Oh, and where were those Category 5 hurricanes we were supposed to see?
Privatize security? You mean like dismantle the TSA and have airport security run by the airlines? As in having the government issue letters of marque and reprisal? Where privateers/mercenaries/whatever fight our wars for profit?
Tell me something, how are these people supposed to arm themselves? Would this not require people to be able to buy the same weapons as those available to the standing army? If not then what are people supposed to fight with, VP Biden approved double barrel shotguns?
The ability for people to fight the battles that our government gets us into was the reason for the Second Amendment. Minutemen were people of the unorganized militia that came to battle with their own weapons. That's why they were called "minutemen", because they were ready to fight on a minute's notice.
One big problem I have with your proposition is the privatization of all military. The reason the Second Amendment is there is to allow the people to protect themselves from the government. What concerns me is with no government funded military there is nothing to protect the government from the people. The mutual respect of the authority of the people and the authority of the government is supposed to keep both in check, if that fails the natural instinct to not get killed in a battle between the two was supposed to keep them in check. Disarming one or the other is dangerous, disarming both is impossible.
Trump may be supportive of our right to keep and bear arms, and he may see some value in handling many aspects of the government like a business, what I don't see him doing is privatizing the military. I believe he has enough respect of the people in uniform to believe they will do the right thing when called upon.
I did laugh at loud at your proposal, if only because it reminded me of a scene from Iron Man 2 where an irreverent billionaire told a bunch of stuffy government officials to fuck off because he just privatized national defense. In some way I see that coming. Technology is enabling people with even a few thousand dollars to spare to produce weapons on par with anything the government has. An M-16 is almost trivial to produce now in a basement shop. I believe it won't be long before larger and more complicated weapons, like a passable battle tank, can be mass produced in an amateur machinist garage.