I've had my fingerprints taken several times in my life. The first time I was in grade school and everyone in class was marched into the "music room" (just another classroom but this one had grade school equivalents of real musical instruments) only to be met by two people in uniform and were were fingerprinted without really telling us why. I found out later that the sheriff was dong this, he was giving the parents the fingerprint cards supposedly as a measure to identify children that were abducted. Years after that I found out that fingerprints are rarely used in identifying children as missing children are rarely found with viable fingerprints, such as in being dead. DNA tests did not exist then, but dental records did.
I was fingerprinted again for the Army. Again to get a concealed weapon permit. Both times the person taking my fingerprints were in uniform, acted professionally, and were very meticulous in taking the prints.
The last time I had my fingerprints taken was for a concealed weapon permit in another state. The class was held in what most people would consider a shack in a small town on a private club's shooting range. The instructor offered to take our fingerprints for no additional fee. He took fingerprint cards out of a folder, handed them to each of us, and instructed us in how to fill in the blanks on the top. He then produced an ink pad, much like one would see used by a librarian to wet the little stamp to mark the check out date, and told us how to make a clear impression on the cards. He then filled out his own contact information on the forms. While we were doing this I started to ask what kind of training he had in taking fingerprints. None. I asked what kind of authority he carried in taking fingerprints. None. He was wearing a sheriff shirt or cap that indicated he worked for a local county sheriff but when I asked what he did there he was very vague. He could have been a deputy, a trainer of some sort, a jailor, or just some paper pusher. It appears my fingerprints were all OK since I got my permit.
That conversation held in a Midwestern shack destroyed the illusion I had on the validity of fingerprinting as a crime prevention or crime solving tool. To further erode the confidence I have in fingerprinting I was asking some questions about another concealed weapon permit. (To those that have been keeping count, yes, this is my third application for a concealed weapons permit. This is necessary since so few states will recognize permits from another state.) The sheriff was charging only $15 to process the permit and only $10 to process the fingerprints. That did not add up since the other states were charging considerably more than that. I came to the conclusion that the sheriff was not submitting the fingerprints to the FBI like the other states did. The FBI charges something like $30 to process fingerprints. There is no way the sheriff is going to be taking general funds to process fingerprints for concealed weapon permits. This county sheriff office made the newspapers for how much in the hole his budget was running, which probably led to getting a new sheriff. The fingerprints cost next to nothing for him to take and shove in a drawer while at the same time getting $10 from each person wanting to carry a concealed firearm.
I was in awe on how this all must work. On TV and in movies they show people in white coats comparing images with large computers in impressive stone buildings. Nope, it's dudes in ball caps and blue jeans in a shack out by a corn field looking at fingerprints with a magnifying glass and a keychain light.
I live in the American Midwest and we would occasionally see temperatures that low. I recall one time my brother wanted to take the family car to go visit some friends from school. Dad protested that it was too cold, and since the sun had already set, it was only going to get colder. I think that Dad did not put up too much of a fight because he didn't think the car would even start. It did, and my brother was able to get it started again to get back home.
Some time later, perhaps that same winter, we were all sitting in the house one Saturday because it was too cold to really do anything. Dad decided he needed to make a quick run to the feed store only a couple miles away. This time the sun was shining but it was still bitterly cold. The truck started and got Dad home but the transmission was shot. I don't know what the specific problem was but after that the truck was stuck in first gear. I suspect the cold made some critical part or another so brittle that it snapped. A similar thing happened to me in college. One cold night I was driving home from campus and the car started OK but at the first stop sign I met the transmission decided to die. It was like it shifted into park. I informed the campus police of my situation and decided to walk home since the buses had stopped running by then. I don't recall how cold it was but it was well below zero and I should not have walked that far in that weather.
All the diesel tractors on the farm had block heaters. The newer tractors had glow plugs and the older ones had starting fluid injectors. It was rare to have the tractors with the glow plugs not start even if the block heaters weren't powered. We would have power outages, the timer switches to turn on the block heaters would fail, or someone would simply forget to plug the tractor back in after parking it. They would not like to start in the cold without the block heaters but they would, and it would take a few minutes to warm up before the power steering ran smooth and the engine would rev up to full speed.
When I was in high school Dad bought a new tractor with block heater, glow plugs, AND a starting fluid injector. It started so well with the glow plugs that we didn't bother with the block heater or starting fluid. That was our "go to" tractor on the coldest days. It was the back up if some other tractor would not start. I recall asking Dad what we would do if we could not get that tractor started. He said that if that happened we probably wouldn't need the tractor that day, meaning if it got that cold the livestock would have very likely frozen to death and would not need to be fed.
I've seen all kinds of cars and tractors start in temperatures getting near or below -40 degrees. Some times that meant the transmission got busted. I also saw a tractor have it's hydraulic pump crack from the cold. We didn't fix it since the leak was internal, causing it to lose power until it got warm enough to seal the crack.
I also saw a few occasions where cars did not start. My last car decided several times last winter to not start. I'd have to give it a jump start from a battery I kept on a charger in the basement. It got to be such a habit that I prepared for it. Sometimes even that didn't work, like when my car got stuck in the street right in front of my house. I didn't get it started until it had been sitting in the sun all day with a charger on the battery. That car had electrical problems ever since I bought it, which is why I don't have it any more. I also had to drive a co-worker home after her diesel car would not start one bitterly cold day. Her car was the only one left in the parking lot that night so everyone else was able to drive home.
I believe that part of the problem here is democracy. The majority has ruled that not believing the same things as them is an offense worthy of punishment. I am glad that the United States of America is not a democracy, it is a republic. Here I can say things that the majority does not like and still enjoy the protection of the law preventing arrest for what I have said.
nobody goes after weapons manufacturers and suppliers to prevent and prohibit weapons manufacturers and suppliers from putting the means to kill people into the hands of "irresponsible" people.
That's because that makes as much sense as going after car manufacturers for dangerous drivers. Do we go after spoon and fork manufacturers for making people fat?
Your premise also has the flaw that all killing is bad. I don't remember the exact words but I recall reading something to the effect of, "There are four kinds of homicide, felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy."
Denying people access to what has been shown to be a very effective tool against thieves, murders, rapists, and all kinds of violent animals that walk on four legs or two legs just because some insane individual MIGHT go shooting up a school is very dangerous to a free and peaceful society.
People have gone after the manufacturers of weapons by attempting to bankrupt them in a quagmire of lawsuits. Congress stepped in to stop that practice. There are various reason why Congress would do this, one being more philosophical in that people have the right to arms, another being more pragmatic in that if the manufacturers are driven out of business then military and police would be reduced to using clubs to defend the peace.
I know this is "bumper sticker logic" but it seems appropriate here...
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that did not."
The only two reasons people would move off of land to be out in the ocean is out of profit or necessity. I don't believe anyone wants to induce people out to sea from necessity. By necessity I mean things like the land becomes undesirable from crowding, pollution, corruption, war, or flooding. Then people will move out to sea to be subsistence fishers, pirates (making a living by stealing from those that have stuff, which can only last so long as there are people with stuff worth stealing), or perhaps some other unforeseen profession. The move out to sea from necessity will not be pleasant, and is not likely to be "green" since people in survival mode are more concerned about today than tomorrow.
If people are going to move out to sea for profit then there needs to be a product. We already see ships that can create a comfortable environment for months without a need to return to shore. When they return to shore they do so for trade for things that can be found more easily at sea for things that can be found more easily on land. If there is desire to create a "city" out in the sea then one must find a way to economically produce more things that can currently only be profitably produced on land.
One reason that all current ships need to return to shore is for fuel. This is one key aspect in my mind for sustainable living at sea. Nuclear powered ships can stay at sea for fifty years. If there is a way to draw nuclear fuel from the sea then that need can be fulfilled without returning to shore. The ocean is full of uranium and thorium dissolved in the water as salts. If someone can figure out a profitable way to extract those fissile materials from the water then the ships can fill their own reactors and perhaps have some extra to sell to people on land.
Nuclear power is fine for very large ships but smaller ships will need diesel fuel. This can be drilled from the seabed or synthesized from nuclear power. If we ever figure out fusion power then the ocean can be mined for fusion fuels like hydrogen, lithium, and boron.
The other reason people need to return to shore is for food. There is plenty of fish out there, and we have plenty of experience in extracting fish from the sea. People will need water, but we also have plenty of experience in making sea water fit to drink. When it comes to things like grains, fruits, and vegetables that will have to be traded for with land based economies or we will have to develop the technology to grow it at sea. If we have come to the point where we can economically produce food and energy then it is a small step to produce cotton, wool, and other materials for clothing.
Once we have developed the basics to provide food, water, shelter, heat, light, and such we can concern ourselves with more luxurious items. Cruise ships built only to entertain people are already in existence. The only difference now is that with the infrastructure of ships producing food and energy then the ship will not need to go to any port. People will wish to have the means to get from ship to shore quickly so there might be a floating airport in this developing flotilla. Then people on these ships might have a desire for protein other than fish. We might see floating dairy farms and chicken coups for fresh milk, eggs, chicken, and beef.
I don't think that a floating city will ever be developed until all the technologies have been proven on other ships for many years. I think that a sustainable floating economy will just happen in time. It will start with fishing boats, oil rigs, and cruise ships looking for ways to cut down on costs and improve living conditions. At some point it will develop into a flotilla of mutually beneficial ships traveling together in a manner much like "Battlestar Galactica".
We could see fishing boats, hospital ships, retired aircraft carriers converted into civilian floating airports (and given enough time ships built specifically for this purpose), rescue/repair/recovery ships (a floating combination tow truck, repai
In the US, ranchers commonly sell "their" wildlife to hunters. The hunters have to get a permit, but the ranchers are deluded enough to think that they own the wildlife. The government lets them do it since in the US you can't just go onto somebody else's property without permission.
So, what you are saying is that the ranchers aren't really selling the wildlife but are selling access to their land. The government is selling the wildlife.
That's a false dichotomy. There are other choices. We can build more nuclear power plants, which is my favorite solution. Then there is producing more oil domestically. (Some people claim we could produce all the oil we need if we desired. I'm not sure I believe that but I'm quite certain we can produce much more oil than we do now.) We have only begun to harness wind and solar.
I'm not a big fan of solar since it tends to use up land that could be used for food, current technology has long payback periods, and solar can only work while the sun shines. Some solar technologies are better than others in the above listed drawbacks, such as molten metal collection and storage, but it still seems to me that solar will remain a last resort source of power for a very long time.
Another problem with your statement is that very little of our electricity comes from oil. Changing out our incandescent bulbs with LED and CFL will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. More domestic oil will. That oil does not need to be pumped from the earth but it can also be synthesized from coal and nuclear power. I suppose we could get our oil from soybeans and other crops but then we'd be shipping supertankers of cash to other countries for soybeans and canola.
I believe it was Ronald Reagan that said something to the effect of, if more government is the answer then it must have been a stupid question. We don't need more regulations, we need more choices. More choices means less government.
3) even if both airports have cat 3, you still need to account for alternate landing plans
Oh bah! When has anything like that ever happened? There's always going to be a properly equipped runway when you need one. It's not like people will attempt to land a plane on a RIVER....
The code requirement for licensing went away, but if you want to do EME you'll be using code.
There are other modes to use besides CW for EME. The use of morse code does not require the ability to decode by ear either, computers can do it too. Depending on the quality of your ears and the quality of your hardware and code the computer just might be able to "hear" what you cannot.
Wouldn't there be a bit of nuclear fission and/or fusion involved if one could impact Earth with such a large object? What I'm saying is that if someone was to create a sufficient shock wave or massive enough impact the mass of Earth itself could be used as fuel in a nuclear explosion. This would be especially true, I would think, if there is a collision of masses moving at relativistic speeds. It'd be hard to NOT create a nuclear reaction.
My point is that your calculations could be off by many orders of magnitude without taking into account the potential for nuclear reactions. I'm not sure on where to even begin in computing how such nuclear reactions would affect your computations.
Neon has a lower atomic mass than O2 and N2 but is it low *enough*? The nice thing about neon is that it tends not to float out of the atmosphere so it can be recycled from the atmosphere through fractional distillation of the air. Because of it's rarity it costs much more than helium right now. That, it would seem, could change soon enough.
I have to wonder about the amount of energy required for fusion created helium. What kind of fusion device produces helium? Can such devices be scaled to where it makes economic sense as a helium source? Of course the answer to that question is based on market demands. What alternatives are there to helium? Hydrogen is cheap but has this nasty habit of burning in the presence of heat and oxygen. With the current prices of helium I imagine that few use it if alternatives did exist.
The solar sourced helium does not come into play since it never reaches far enough into the dense atmosphere of Earth to where it can be captured. I may be wrong and I'd be pleased if I was since all we would have to do is squeeze the helium out of the air using existing technologies. Argon is already being produced by distilling it from the air, same with oxygen, nitrogen, and perhaps a few other gases.
The only real option available to reduce our carbon footprint, and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, is nuclear power.
There is another option, and that is energy efficiency.
Energy efficiency does not keep the lights on. If we wish to reduce the dependency on foreign energy then we need more domestic energy. There is going to be growth in energy consumption as the population increases and the desire for a higher standard of living continues. There was someone on Slashdot that summed it up nicely.
Pick one: 1. Fossil fuels. (The status quo with all of its drawbacks.) 2. Nuclear power. 3. Agrarian society.
The USA could become energy independent but it's going to take more than compact fluorescent lamps, properly inflating our tires, and turning down the thermostat in winter. We import 70% of the oil we consume. I seriously doubt we can save 70% on fuel use through efficiency advancements alone.
Human civilization managed to grow (and at an exponential rate) well enough without using any fossil fuels.
That was true as long as human population was low enough that wood for fuel was sustainable. Many civilizations have failed and disappeared once the trees ran out. It is because of fossil fuels that we have advanced to the point that we can now use nuclear power. It took centuries of burning coal to get where we are, it will take centuries to move beyond fossil fuels.
With the engineering knowledge we have now, our standard of living can be vastly higher, without much more in the way of energy use. However, infrastructure has to be designed to conserve energy rather than prioritize convenience or aesthetics. Probably one of the best ways to do that is to gently ramp up energy costs with taxes until the ROI of energy efficient investment becomes a no-brainer. This can be done without causing too much in the way of pain by lowering income and sales taxes in proportion as taxes on energy are raised.
I'm in favor of consumption based taxation for many reasons. It's a delicate balance though since if the taxation on energy is too high then it might result in the stagnation and slow rot of the economy. It takes a lot of energy to make things like hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants. A crushing taxation on energy could discourage any investment in new infrastructure.
I'm none to happy about seeing the government take a heavy hand on the economy through taxation to impose social policy. I realize it is impossible to avoid all influence taxation and regulation has on the economy but we should minimize it when we can. A free market is a healthy market. What happens when energy taxes are raised the poor end up paying an inequitable portion of the taxes. The poor don't have the funds to pay for up front costs to save on energy in the long run, such as more efficient but more expensive appliances. Also, the poor tend to already pay a larger portion of their budget on energy than the more wealthy. While a more wealthy family will spend spare funds on electronics and fancy foods the poor will take comfort in raising the thermostat above freezing.
That's just a long way to say, be careful what you wish for.
Converting natural gas to electricity using boilers is old tech. Turbines are more efficient.
Yes, moving to natural gas turbines would be more efficient. However there is a sunk cost in the existing boilers. Those boilers can be switched over to the less "polluting" (assuming the claim that CO2 is pollution has merit) with essentially no cost. If the change to natural gas has a long lasting merit then we can expect the power plants to be switched to combined thermal turbines.
Even then we can expect the boilers to exist on site for as long as it is a no cost effort as a for profit organization is reluctant to destroy capital. That boiler may be idle for decades before it is torn down as there may come a day that they will need to burn coal again.
We should all realize that there is more to the operating cost of a power plant than fuel. It may be more profitable to run a less efficient electric generator even though the fuel cost is higher because the more efficient generator may need more capital investment, man power, or maintenance.
In college I took a tour of a couple power plants as part of my courses. One of the power plants had this tower of a boiler where the coal dust was blown in the bottom and the soot was tossed out the top. The tour guide pointed out that the boilers had to be pre-heated with natural gas before the boiler could switch over to coal dust as fuel. Another power plant I toured had a more conventional, and less efficient, boiler that also used natural gas to get the fires going. It took me a split second to realize that these boilers could just as easily run on natural gas all the time if they chose to do so.
Not part of my tours but I have read about how some diesel powered generators have been converted to using natural gas or propane as fuel by injecting the gaseous fuels into the combustion cylinder much like how a conventional gasoline engine does. The ignition of the fuel still requires a small amount of diesel fuel to be injected into the cylinder. With this conversion just about any diesel cycle engine can use just about any ratio of diesel fuel to gaseous fuel to run.
Power plants have for the longest time have been flexible in what fuel they use. They will burn what ever is cheapest or whatever is available. One of those power plants I toured still had it's old wood burning boiler as a last resort backup. I would guess they figured it would cost money to dismantle and remove the thing and as long as they had no need for the room in the plant it did no harm in keeping it there. Oh, that boiler could burn coal just as easily as wood. It could probably also burn straw, corn, soybeans, discarded plastic, old tennis shoes, grass clippings, dispatched zombies, or whatever else you could think of. As long as the fuel met certain minimum conditions then it should work as fuel. Might have to mix the fuels a bit to achieve a proper burn but the boiler shouldn't care if you put the old tennis shoes in with the zombies.
The reason these power plants have not already switched to natural gas should be obvious, it's cheaper. Not only that but with the threat of "cap and tax" hanging over their heads few will switch to natural gas even if it is cheaper. They need the history of being "dirty" so that if a cap on CO2 emissions is placed upon them the reduction of CO2 output can be done as easily, and cheaply, as throwing a switch over to natural gas.
Then there is the issue of how to get the natural gas. Natural gas tends to be in the same places as the oil. If we can't drill for oil then we can't drill for natural gas. If we burn the natural gas for fuel what are we to do with all that oil? Obviously we'd burn that too. If the government imposes a "cap and tax" scheme on industrial scale uses of coal and oil the price of natural gas will climb to adjust for supply and demand. That will make coal and oil cheaper for the smaller scale uses.
I've been telling people that if "cap and tax" passes into law then I'm buying a coal fired furnace for my home.
When it comes to CO2 output per kilowatt hour produced nuclear power is second only to hydroelectric. We've dammed up all the rivers we can. Wind power requires the use of carbon heavy materials like plastics and aluminum. (The aluminum does not contain the carbon but the carbon is used to reduce the aluminum ore to pure aluminum releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the air. Also there is much heat and electricity required typically meaning burning large amounts of fossil fuels in the process.)
The only real option available to reduce our carbon footprint, and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, is nuclear power. The problem is politics are killing both nuclear power and domestic fossil fuels. The politicians want so hard to please everyone in the country but something has to give or we are going to find ourselves capped and taxed out of an economy. I find evidence in human caused global warming unconvincing so I really don't care if the powers that be permit more drilling or more nuclear power plants
Arrested with 3 gas cans, an axe handle, baseball bat, sticks, a chainsaw, a crossbow, and various other items in his trunk.
Those items sound like something a person would bring if they were going camping. It's hard to get firewood without a chainsaw, some fuel for that chainsaw, and an axe. (Well it was an axe handle but the axe head could have worked loose or was broken off.) The sticks could have been for starting the campfire. The baseball bat could be for, you know, playing baseball. The crossbow could either be used for more idle amusement, as in some target practice, or for use against animals for protection or food.
When I go camping I tend to bring things much more deadly, such as rifles and knives. But this is Canada we're talking about. A rifle would be completely out of the question so people have to fall back to a less effective means to protect themselves, such as a crossbow.
"The law is the law -- it hasn't changed under these circumstances," he said.
"But quite clearly if an individual comes down into the area, is engaged in protest activity and is carrying things that could be used as a weapon, that matter's going to be investigated by the police and those items can be removed from that individual in the interests of maintaining a safe environment for everybody."
So anything that could be used as a weapon? "I'm sorry sir, you cannot bring that picket sign into this area as it could be used as a weapon. Also, you will need to leave your belts and shoelaces behind. Can't allow you to go strangling people."
Don't forget that a log of British citizens stand to lose a large chunk of their retirement if BP goes belly up.
There are roughly just as many shareholders in the USA as there are in the UK. Plenty of Americans stand to lose a large chunk of their retirement if BP goes tits up. They stopped calling themselves "British Petroleum" for a reason.
First of all rights are not "granted". Permission can be granted but rights cannot. A right can be protected or it can be infringed. I hate to be pedantic about that but it can become dangerous if people get too used to the idea of rights being "granted" by the Constitution.
The argument that people should be held accountable if they damage someone else's property is flawed as well. It doesn't take into account that it's very likely that the person who damaged the property doesn't have the means or ability to repair that property. If they kill or severely injure someone then there's no way to make reparation.
How does requiring a license ensure that the person driving that car has insurance unless enforced diligently? The law already prohibits the construction of checkpoints for the checking of licenses and for good reason.
There is nothing we can do to stop everyone from doing anything stupid. The only thing we can do is punish those that act maliciously towards others. Requiring a license, insurance, and car inspections does nothing to those that have nothing to lose and everything to gain by driving illegally. Someone living paycheck to paycheck to buy food and shelter will drive to work without insurance since the alternative is death from starvation or exposure to the elements. If caught the worst that can be done to this person is state funded food and shelter in one of our penal facilities. The best outcome is the person living under the radar long enough to avoid the crushing fines of violating the law and lift him/herself out of poverty.
I had been in that situation for a time. I drove without insurance. I had even been driving, unknowingly, for years on a revoked license for not paying fines. Since I had not been caught with any violation outside of an expired license plate for years no one knew, including myself, of the laws I was breaking. That just gives a sample of one on how licenses do next to nothing to assure drivers can be held accountable for the harm they might do.
The constitution you speak of was written by men. These men were not perfect. They might have done a pretty remarkable job but I believe they made mistakes. I also believe that your constitution has been challenged before and will be challenged again. Arguing that your constitution gives you certain rights is different from saying that this is what should be. Defending a right because it is enshrined in your constitution is valid in your courts but it doesn't mean that the right should have been granted in the first place.
Yes, the Constitution is flawed and was authored by flawed beings but it's the best we have come up with in a very long time. It's not just because I found these things in the Constitution that I advocate them. I do so because in the few years since I've awakened to the need to fight for my freedom at every turn I have seen the wisdom in that document. We have seen the need to amend that document over time, a feature that has permitted it to define this country for so long and another example of the wisdom of those flawed beings that created it.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'd also prefer that the government doesn't interfere or that it interferes as little as possible when it comes to individual rights. I'm just trying to explain why your arguments have failed to convince me.
I appreciate the feedback but it will take more than the expression of doubt in my claims to convince me my thoughts are flawed. What I would need to change my mind on the freedoms protected in our Constitution is a better idea on how to address your concerns. I can understand your points and concerns but I don't have all the answers. There is much truth in the bumper sticker that reads, "If government is the answer then it must have been a stupid question." We can make all the laws we want but in the end it comes down to those that do not wish to follow the law will not. Making more laws only
I have nothing but contempt for people who don't have the guts to ban something outright but try to make it de facto banned by forcing people to jump through hoops.
Does that apply only to guns? How do you feel about driving a car? Don't you agree that people should pass some kind of test before they are allowed to drive a car on a public road?
I don't believe that the idea is to ban driving or guns outright. Some of these hoops are just sanity checks to limit the number of careless and unqualified drivers and gun owners.
We have the right to arms, says so right in the Constitution. We have the right to travel, it may not be listed explicitly in the Constitution but there is enough judicial precedent that few even dare to infringe on that right.
Since those rights exist and are legally protected then it follows, in my mind, that it would take a trial by jury to remove those rights. Requiring the permission of the government to exercise the right to arms or the right to travel is, again IMHO, a violation of our rights as protected under the Constitution. Any testing or licensing to travel or obtain arms is a violation of our most basic rights.
So, no, I don't believe that people should be required to obtain a license to drive a car on a public road. But driving is a privilege, not a right I might be able to agree to that but then there is still the issue of enforcement. If a person drives without a license there is no probable cause to search that person unless or until that person has violated some law. If that person is driving dangerously or has damaged property with their vehicle then they will still be accountable for the traffic violations and/or damages with or with out that license. What purpose does the license serve? It assures us that people were informed of the laws and that they can operate a vehicle safely. Does it? People are required to know the law, ignorance is no defense. Also, it would seem that driving safely is the best test of being able to do so in the future. Like so many rights and privileges we have in this country it should be assumed that a person can drive safely until proven otherwise. It should be up to the individual to decide if they are able to safely operate a car.
But machine guns are dangerous. Yes, yes they are, which is what makes them "arms". If they were not arms then the government could constitutionally restrict their trade and ownership. Since they are dangerous then they are arms and therefore the government cannot, IMHO, constitutionally restrict their ownership and trade. If you want to play the "danger to society" card then that would mean the government should have much greater restrictions on car ownership than that on firearm ownership. The most dangerous device in modern society is the automobile. There are more guns in the USA than cars and yet cars kill many times more people.
History shows that it is enforcement that maintains a free and polite society, not licenses. I advocate that people do get training before operating dangerous devices like cars, guns, chainsaws, and coffeemakers. I just don't believe it is the government's job to provide that training, provide proof of that training, and therefore dictate the terms of that training.
I suggest everyone reading this with a debit card transfer all of their money to my account. I do not have a debit card so it will be free from this sort of attack.
Sure, I'll do that. Please post your routing number and account number so that I can complete the transaction.
Basically, the idea that adding a tax on gasoline will increase government spending doesn't seem to be based on any kind of actual data. The government is already spending.
That's not what I said. I was pointing out the inherent dichotomy in raising taxes with the expectation of both increasing revenue and decreasing consumption. What tends to happen when taxes are raised to increase revenue consumption does go down, and when it does politicians are baffled why revenue did not increase. What tends to happen when taxes are raised to decrease consumption and consumption does not go down but revenue increases, politicians are then happy to use that increased revenue as an excuse to increase spending.
Instead of looking for new ways to tax people into poverty the government needs to find ways to reduce spending. Getting rid of all those agencies created under the guise of the "commerce clause" would be a great place to start. Get rid of the tax enforcement agencies that turned into jack booted thugs for one, like the ATF, and DEA. Returning to the direct apportionment of federal taxes among the states, by repealing the 16th Amendment among other things, would remove the need for these agencies. The states would then be responsible for their own law enforcement, calling upon the FBI or some other federal law enforcement only when it concerns matters that cross state or national boundaries. Get rid of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education. The Department of Homeland Security has a mandate that covers ground already covered by the Departments of Justice, Defense, Commerce, and State. The Department of Education only adds bureaucracy that takes money from people to then be handed out to schools with strings attached. Education is a local matter, federal oversight of education is dangerous to our liberties and our quality of education.
Oh, BTW, did you hear about the Department of Education buying short barreled shotguns? Even the Department of Education is getting in on the law enforcement that should be a local matter. Short barreled shotguns? What in the realm of Hades do they needs those for?
Taxing petroleum is also disproportionately burdensome on the poor. Of the basics of life is the need for heat, light, food, and transportation. Those things, in modern society, are dependent on petroleum. Reducing the tax on petroleum will lower the burden on the poor so that they can perhaps save a bit of money over time and get things like a newer more fuel efficient car, new windows, new insulation, a new stove/refrigerator/water-heater/appliance, or other items that improve their quality of life and reduce our need for (foreign) oil.
Reduce the government spending, reduce the taxes, and the invisible hand of the marketplace will find new ways to solve the problems of oil consumption.
Oh, and not bailing out old dinosaurs that produce the gas guzzling cars in the first place would have been a good idea.
I agree. People that committed a felony, or were addicted to some drugs, are prohibited from owning firearms. Denying a person the ability to obtain the most basic of tools of self defense is, IMHO, cruel and unusual punishment. Not everyone can go live in a nice white picket fence neighborhood where crime is unheard of. Some people, out of obligations to family, lack of available work, etc. just cannot pick up and move in next door to June and Ward Cleaver.
This armed robber and registered sex offender might be able to find a job out in the woods as a lumberjack. That would keep him away from the children. That would also put him in proximity to bears, lions, wolves, coyotes, and any of a number of four legged critters that will tear anyone to pieces because they don't look like they belong or they smell a bit tasty.
In the city you might be safe from the four legged animals but that puts you in danger of the two legged ones. Either way the denial of the tools of self defense can be a death sentence. That is not justice, that is cruel.
One theory I have on the high rate of repeat offenders is that the justice system is way out of alignment. When people do go to jail it tends to be for too short of a time for proper punishment and rehabilitation. When they get out a felony record bars them from gainful employment and the ability to defend themselves legally. They are left with the Hobson's choice of returning to crime or ending up dead.
The problem with raising the taxes on gasoline is that the government becomes addicted to the income. We are already addicted to gasoline, we don't need the government to double down on its addiction to the revenue from taxing its use.
If the government was serious on reducing the consumption of gasoline then it would take a serious look in the consequences of the loss of revenue from its reduced consumption. Not only should the government not raise taxes on gasoline, but it should lower it so it can wean itself from the revenue loss over time.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had my fingerprints taken several times in my life. The first time I was in grade school and everyone in class was marched into the "music room" (just another classroom but this one had grade school equivalents of real musical instruments) only to be met by two people in uniform and were were fingerprinted without really telling us why. I found out later that the sheriff was dong this, he was giving the parents the fingerprint cards supposedly as a measure to identify children that were abducted. Years after that I found out that fingerprints are rarely used in identifying children as missing children are rarely found with viable fingerprints, such as in being dead. DNA tests did not exist then, but dental records did.
I was fingerprinted again for the Army. Again to get a concealed weapon permit. Both times the person taking my fingerprints were in uniform, acted professionally, and were very meticulous in taking the prints.
The last time I had my fingerprints taken was for a concealed weapon permit in another state. The class was held in what most people would consider a shack in a small town on a private club's shooting range. The instructor offered to take our fingerprints for no additional fee. He took fingerprint cards out of a folder, handed them to each of us, and instructed us in how to fill in the blanks on the top. He then produced an ink pad, much like one would see used by a librarian to wet the little stamp to mark the check out date, and told us how to make a clear impression on the cards. He then filled out his own contact information on the forms. While we were doing this I started to ask what kind of training he had in taking fingerprints. None. I asked what kind of authority he carried in taking fingerprints. None. He was wearing a sheriff shirt or cap that indicated he worked for a local county sheriff but when I asked what he did there he was very vague. He could have been a deputy, a trainer of some sort, a jailor, or just some paper pusher. It appears my fingerprints were all OK since I got my permit.
That conversation held in a Midwestern shack destroyed the illusion I had on the validity of fingerprinting as a crime prevention or crime solving tool. To further erode the confidence I have in fingerprinting I was asking some questions about another concealed weapon permit. (To those that have been keeping count, yes, this is my third application for a concealed weapons permit. This is necessary since so few states will recognize permits from another state.) The sheriff was charging only $15 to process the permit and only $10 to process the fingerprints. That did not add up since the other states were charging considerably more than that. I came to the conclusion that the sheriff was not submitting the fingerprints to the FBI like the other states did. The FBI charges something like $30 to process fingerprints. There is no way the sheriff is going to be taking general funds to process fingerprints for concealed weapon permits. This county sheriff office made the newspapers for how much in the hole his budget was running, which probably led to getting a new sheriff. The fingerprints cost next to nothing for him to take and shove in a drawer while at the same time getting $10 from each person wanting to carry a concealed firearm.
I was in awe on how this all must work. On TV and in movies they show people in white coats comparing images with large computers in impressive stone buildings. Nope, it's dudes in ball caps and blue jeans in a shack out by a corn field looking at fingerprints with a magnifying glass and a keychain light.
I live in the American Midwest and we would occasionally see temperatures that low. I recall one time my brother wanted to take the family car to go visit some friends from school. Dad protested that it was too cold, and since the sun had already set, it was only going to get colder. I think that Dad did not put up too much of a fight because he didn't think the car would even start. It did, and my brother was able to get it started again to get back home.
Some time later, perhaps that same winter, we were all sitting in the house one Saturday because it was too cold to really do anything. Dad decided he needed to make a quick run to the feed store only a couple miles away. This time the sun was shining but it was still bitterly cold. The truck started and got Dad home but the transmission was shot. I don't know what the specific problem was but after that the truck was stuck in first gear. I suspect the cold made some critical part or another so brittle that it snapped. A similar thing happened to me in college. One cold night I was driving home from campus and the car started OK but at the first stop sign I met the transmission decided to die. It was like it shifted into park. I informed the campus police of my situation and decided to walk home since the buses had stopped running by then. I don't recall how cold it was but it was well below zero and I should not have walked that far in that weather.
All the diesel tractors on the farm had block heaters. The newer tractors had glow plugs and the older ones had starting fluid injectors. It was rare to have the tractors with the glow plugs not start even if the block heaters weren't powered. We would have power outages, the timer switches to turn on the block heaters would fail, or someone would simply forget to plug the tractor back in after parking it. They would not like to start in the cold without the block heaters but they would, and it would take a few minutes to warm up before the power steering ran smooth and the engine would rev up to full speed.
When I was in high school Dad bought a new tractor with block heater, glow plugs, AND a starting fluid injector. It started so well with the glow plugs that we didn't bother with the block heater or starting fluid. That was our "go to" tractor on the coldest days. It was the back up if some other tractor would not start. I recall asking Dad what we would do if we could not get that tractor started. He said that if that happened we probably wouldn't need the tractor that day, meaning if it got that cold the livestock would have very likely frozen to death and would not need to be fed.
I've seen all kinds of cars and tractors start in temperatures getting near or below -40 degrees. Some times that meant the transmission got busted. I also saw a tractor have it's hydraulic pump crack from the cold. We didn't fix it since the leak was internal, causing it to lose power until it got warm enough to seal the crack.
I also saw a few occasions where cars did not start. My last car decided several times last winter to not start. I'd have to give it a jump start from a battery I kept on a charger in the basement. It got to be such a habit that I prepared for it. Sometimes even that didn't work, like when my car got stuck in the street right in front of my house. I didn't get it started until it had been sitting in the sun all day with a charger on the battery. That car had electrical problems ever since I bought it, which is why I don't have it any more. I also had to drive a co-worker home after her diesel car would not start one bitterly cold day. Her car was the only one left in the parking lot that night so everyone else was able to drive home.
Make sure your democracy stays one
I believe that part of the problem here is democracy. The majority has ruled that not believing the same things as them is an offense worthy of punishment. I am glad that the United States of America is not a democracy, it is a republic. Here I can say things that the majority does not like and still enjoy the protection of the law preventing arrest for what I have said.
nobody goes after weapons manufacturers and suppliers to prevent and prohibit weapons manufacturers and suppliers from putting the means to kill people into the hands of "irresponsible" people.
That's because that makes as much sense as going after car manufacturers for dangerous drivers. Do we go after spoon and fork manufacturers for making people fat?
Your premise also has the flaw that all killing is bad. I don't remember the exact words but I recall reading something to the effect of, "There are four kinds of homicide, felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy."
Denying people access to what has been shown to be a very effective tool against thieves, murders, rapists, and all kinds of violent animals that walk on four legs or two legs just because some insane individual MIGHT go shooting up a school is very dangerous to a free and peaceful society.
People have gone after the manufacturers of weapons by attempting to bankrupt them in a quagmire of lawsuits. Congress stepped in to stop that practice. There are various reason why Congress would do this, one being more philosophical in that people have the right to arms, another being more pragmatic in that if the manufacturers are driven out of business then military and police would be reduced to using clubs to defend the peace.
I know this is "bumper sticker logic" but it seems appropriate here...
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that did not."
The only two reasons people would move off of land to be out in the ocean is out of profit or necessity. I don't believe anyone wants to induce people out to sea from necessity. By necessity I mean things like the land becomes undesirable from crowding, pollution, corruption, war, or flooding. Then people will move out to sea to be subsistence fishers, pirates (making a living by stealing from those that have stuff, which can only last so long as there are people with stuff worth stealing), or perhaps some other unforeseen profession. The move out to sea from necessity will not be pleasant, and is not likely to be "green" since people in survival mode are more concerned about today than tomorrow.
If people are going to move out to sea for profit then there needs to be a product. We already see ships that can create a comfortable environment for months without a need to return to shore. When they return to shore they do so for trade for things that can be found more easily at sea for things that can be found more easily on land. If there is desire to create a "city" out in the sea then one must find a way to economically produce more things that can currently only be profitably produced on land.
One reason that all current ships need to return to shore is for fuel. This is one key aspect in my mind for sustainable living at sea. Nuclear powered ships can stay at sea for fifty years. If there is a way to draw nuclear fuel from the sea then that need can be fulfilled without returning to shore. The ocean is full of uranium and thorium dissolved in the water as salts. If someone can figure out a profitable way to extract those fissile materials from the water then the ships can fill their own reactors and perhaps have some extra to sell to people on land.
Nuclear power is fine for very large ships but smaller ships will need diesel fuel. This can be drilled from the seabed or synthesized from nuclear power. If we ever figure out fusion power then the ocean can be mined for fusion fuels like hydrogen, lithium, and boron.
The other reason people need to return to shore is for food. There is plenty of fish out there, and we have plenty of experience in extracting fish from the sea. People will need water, but we also have plenty of experience in making sea water fit to drink. When it comes to things like grains, fruits, and vegetables that will have to be traded for with land based economies or we will have to develop the technology to grow it at sea. If we have come to the point where we can economically produce food and energy then it is a small step to produce cotton, wool, and other materials for clothing.
Once we have developed the basics to provide food, water, shelter, heat, light, and such we can concern ourselves with more luxurious items. Cruise ships built only to entertain people are already in existence. The only difference now is that with the infrastructure of ships producing food and energy then the ship will not need to go to any port. People will wish to have the means to get from ship to shore quickly so there might be a floating airport in this developing flotilla. Then people on these ships might have a desire for protein other than fish. We might see floating dairy farms and chicken coups for fresh milk, eggs, chicken, and beef.
I don't think that a floating city will ever be developed until all the technologies have been proven on other ships for many years. I think that a sustainable floating economy will just happen in time. It will start with fishing boats, oil rigs, and cruise ships looking for ways to cut down on costs and improve living conditions. At some point it will develop into a flotilla of mutually beneficial ships traveling together in a manner much like "Battlestar Galactica".
We could see fishing boats, hospital ships, retired aircraft carriers converted into civilian floating airports (and given enough time ships built specifically for this purpose), rescue/repair/recovery ships (a floating combination tow truck, repai
In the US, ranchers commonly sell "their" wildlife to hunters. The hunters have to get a permit, but the ranchers are deluded enough to think that they own the wildlife. The government lets them do it since in the US you can't just go onto somebody else's property without permission.
So, what you are saying is that the ranchers aren't really selling the wildlife but are selling access to their land. The government is selling the wildlife.
That's a false dichotomy. There are other choices. We can build more nuclear power plants, which is my favorite solution. Then there is producing more oil domestically. (Some people claim we could produce all the oil we need if we desired. I'm not sure I believe that but I'm quite certain we can produce much more oil than we do now.) We have only begun to harness wind and solar.
I'm not a big fan of solar since it tends to use up land that could be used for food, current technology has long payback periods, and solar can only work while the sun shines. Some solar technologies are better than others in the above listed drawbacks, such as molten metal collection and storage, but it still seems to me that solar will remain a last resort source of power for a very long time.
Another problem with your statement is that very little of our electricity comes from oil. Changing out our incandescent bulbs with LED and CFL will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. More domestic oil will. That oil does not need to be pumped from the earth but it can also be synthesized from coal and nuclear power. I suppose we could get our oil from soybeans and other crops but then we'd be shipping supertankers of cash to other countries for soybeans and canola.
I believe it was Ronald Reagan that said something to the effect of, if more government is the answer then it must have been a stupid question. We don't need more regulations, we need more choices. More choices means less government.
3) even if both airports have cat 3, you still need to account for alternate landing plans
Oh bah! When has anything like that ever happened? There's always going to be a properly equipped runway when you need one. It's not like people will attempt to land a plane on a RIVER. ...
Oh. Never mind.
The code requirement for licensing went away, but if you want to do EME you'll be using code.
There are other modes to use besides CW for EME. The use of morse code does not require the ability to decode by ear either, computers can do it too. Depending on the quality of your ears and the quality of your hardware and code the computer just might be able to "hear" what you cannot.
Wouldn't there be a bit of nuclear fission and/or fusion involved if one could impact Earth with such a large object? What I'm saying is that if someone was to create a sufficient shock wave or massive enough impact the mass of Earth itself could be used as fuel in a nuclear explosion. This would be especially true, I would think, if there is a collision of masses moving at relativistic speeds. It'd be hard to NOT create a nuclear reaction.
My point is that your calculations could be off by many orders of magnitude without taking into account the potential for nuclear reactions. I'm not sure on where to even begin in computing how such nuclear reactions would affect your computations.
Now if you want to lay claim to believing Obama was born in Kenya and is a secret muslim terrorist, you can have that title back.
I don't think that Obama being a Muslim terrorist is a secret. :D
If you think you're just going to get a ton of granite and stick it under a tarp for a few days, you're way, way off base.
Well... there goes my grand money making scheme. Now, what am I supposed to do with all this granite?
Neon has a lower atomic mass than O2 and N2 but is it low *enough*? The nice thing about neon is that it tends not to float out of the atmosphere so it can be recycled from the atmosphere through fractional distillation of the air. Because of it's rarity it costs much more than helium right now. That, it would seem, could change soon enough.
I have to wonder about the amount of energy required for fusion created helium. What kind of fusion device produces helium? Can such devices be scaled to where it makes economic sense as a helium source? Of course the answer to that question is based on market demands. What alternatives are there to helium? Hydrogen is cheap but has this nasty habit of burning in the presence of heat and oxygen. With the current prices of helium I imagine that few use it if alternatives did exist.
The solar sourced helium does not come into play since it never reaches far enough into the dense atmosphere of Earth to where it can be captured. I may be wrong and I'd be pleased if I was since all we would have to do is squeeze the helium out of the air using existing technologies. Argon is already being produced by distilling it from the air, same with oxygen, nitrogen, and perhaps a few other gases.
The only real option available to reduce our carbon footprint, and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, is nuclear power.
There is another option, and that is energy efficiency.
Energy efficiency does not keep the lights on. If we wish to reduce the dependency on foreign energy then we need more domestic energy. There is going to be growth in energy consumption as the population increases and the desire for a higher standard of living continues. There was someone on Slashdot that summed it up nicely.
Pick one:
1. Fossil fuels. (The status quo with all of its drawbacks.)
2. Nuclear power.
3. Agrarian society.
The USA could become energy independent but it's going to take more than compact fluorescent lamps, properly inflating our tires, and turning down the thermostat in winter. We import 70% of the oil we consume. I seriously doubt we can save 70% on fuel use through efficiency advancements alone.
Human civilization managed to grow (and at an exponential rate) well enough without using any fossil fuels.
That was true as long as human population was low enough that wood for fuel was sustainable. Many civilizations have failed and disappeared once the trees ran out. It is because of fossil fuels that we have advanced to the point that we can now use nuclear power. It took centuries of burning coal to get where we are, it will take centuries to move beyond fossil fuels.
With the engineering knowledge we have now, our standard of living can be vastly higher, without much more in the way of energy use. However, infrastructure has to be designed to conserve energy rather than prioritize convenience or aesthetics. Probably one of the best ways to do that is to gently ramp up energy costs with taxes until the ROI of energy efficient investment becomes a no-brainer. This can be done without causing too much in the way of pain by lowering income and sales taxes in proportion as taxes on energy are raised.
I'm in favor of consumption based taxation for many reasons. It's a delicate balance though since if the taxation on energy is too high then it might result in the stagnation and slow rot of the economy. It takes a lot of energy to make things like hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants. A crushing taxation on energy could discourage any investment in new infrastructure.
I'm none to happy about seeing the government take a heavy hand on the economy through taxation to impose social policy. I realize it is impossible to avoid all influence taxation and regulation has on the economy but we should minimize it when we can. A free market is a healthy market. What happens when energy taxes are raised the poor end up paying an inequitable portion of the taxes. The poor don't have the funds to pay for up front costs to save on energy in the long run, such as more efficient but more expensive appliances. Also, the poor tend to already pay a larger portion of their budget on energy than the more wealthy. While a more wealthy family will spend spare funds on electronics and fancy foods the poor will take comfort in raising the thermostat above freezing.
That's just a long way to say, be careful what you wish for.
Converting natural gas to electricity using boilers is old tech. Turbines are more efficient.
Yes, moving to natural gas turbines would be more efficient. However there is a sunk cost in the existing boilers. Those boilers can be switched over to the less "polluting" (assuming the claim that CO2 is pollution has merit) with essentially no cost. If the change to natural gas has a long lasting merit then we can expect the power plants to be switched to combined thermal turbines.
Even then we can expect the boilers to exist on site for as long as it is a no cost effort as a for profit organization is reluctant to destroy capital. That boiler may be idle for decades before it is torn down as there may come a day that they will need to burn coal again.
We should all realize that there is more to the operating cost of a power plant than fuel. It may be more profitable to run a less efficient electric generator even though the fuel cost is higher because the more efficient generator may need more capital investment, man power, or maintenance.
In college I took a tour of a couple power plants as part of my courses. One of the power plants had this tower of a boiler where the coal dust was blown in the bottom and the soot was tossed out the top. The tour guide pointed out that the boilers had to be pre-heated with natural gas before the boiler could switch over to coal dust as fuel. Another power plant I toured had a more conventional, and less efficient, boiler that also used natural gas to get the fires going. It took me a split second to realize that these boilers could just as easily run on natural gas all the time if they chose to do so.
Not part of my tours but I have read about how some diesel powered generators have been converted to using natural gas or propane as fuel by injecting the gaseous fuels into the combustion cylinder much like how a conventional gasoline engine does. The ignition of the fuel still requires a small amount of diesel fuel to be injected into the cylinder. With this conversion just about any diesel cycle engine can use just about any ratio of diesel fuel to gaseous fuel to run.
Power plants have for the longest time have been flexible in what fuel they use. They will burn what ever is cheapest or whatever is available. One of those power plants I toured still had it's old wood burning boiler as a last resort backup. I would guess they figured it would cost money to dismantle and remove the thing and as long as they had no need for the room in the plant it did no harm in keeping it there. Oh, that boiler could burn coal just as easily as wood. It could probably also burn straw, corn, soybeans, discarded plastic, old tennis shoes, grass clippings, dispatched zombies, or whatever else you could think of. As long as the fuel met certain minimum conditions then it should work as fuel. Might have to mix the fuels a bit to achieve a proper burn but the boiler shouldn't care if you put the old tennis shoes in with the zombies.
The reason these power plants have not already switched to natural gas should be obvious, it's cheaper. Not only that but with the threat of "cap and tax" hanging over their heads few will switch to natural gas even if it is cheaper. They need the history of being "dirty" so that if a cap on CO2 emissions is placed upon them the reduction of CO2 output can be done as easily, and cheaply, as throwing a switch over to natural gas.
Then there is the issue of how to get the natural gas. Natural gas tends to be in the same places as the oil. If we can't drill for oil then we can't drill for natural gas. If we burn the natural gas for fuel what are we to do with all that oil? Obviously we'd burn that too. If the government imposes a "cap and tax" scheme on industrial scale uses of coal and oil the price of natural gas will climb to adjust for supply and demand. That will make coal and oil cheaper for the smaller scale uses.
I've been telling people that if "cap and tax" passes into law then I'm buying a coal fired furnace for my home.
When it comes to CO2 output per kilowatt hour produced nuclear power is second only to hydroelectric. We've dammed up all the rivers we can. Wind power requires the use of carbon heavy materials like plastics and aluminum. (The aluminum does not contain the carbon but the carbon is used to reduce the aluminum ore to pure aluminum releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the air. Also there is much heat and electricity required typically meaning burning large amounts of fossil fuels in the process.)
The only real option available to reduce our carbon footprint, and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, is nuclear power. The problem is politics are killing both nuclear power and domestic fossil fuels. The politicians want so hard to please everyone in the country but something has to give or we are going to find ourselves capped and taxed out of an economy. I find evidence in human caused global warming unconvincing so I really don't care if the powers that be permit more drilling or more nuclear power plants
Arrested with 3 gas cans, an axe handle, baseball bat, sticks, a chainsaw, a crossbow, and various other items in his trunk.
Those items sound like something a person would bring if they were going camping. It's hard to get firewood without a chainsaw, some fuel for that chainsaw, and an axe. (Well it was an axe handle but the axe head could have worked loose or was broken off.) The sticks could have been for starting the campfire. The baseball bat could be for, you know, playing baseball. The crossbow could either be used for more idle amusement, as in some target practice, or for use against animals for protection or food.
When I go camping I tend to bring things much more deadly, such as rifles and knives. But this is Canada we're talking about. A rifle would be completely out of the question so people have to fall back to a less effective means to protect themselves, such as a crossbow.
"The law is the law -- it hasn't changed under these circumstances," he said.
"But quite clearly if an individual comes down into the area, is engaged in protest activity and is carrying things that could be used as a weapon, that matter's going to be investigated by the police and those items can be removed from that individual in the interests of maintaining a safe environment for everybody."
So anything that could be used as a weapon? "I'm sorry sir, you cannot bring that picket sign into this area as it could be used as a weapon. Also, you will need to leave your belts and shoelaces behind. Can't allow you to go strangling people."
Don't forget that a log of British citizens stand to lose a large chunk of their retirement if BP goes belly up.
There are roughly just as many shareholders in the USA as there are in the UK. Plenty of Americans stand to lose a large chunk of their retirement if BP goes tits up. They stopped calling themselves "British Petroleum" for a reason.
First of all rights are not "granted". Permission can be granted but rights cannot. A right can be protected or it can be infringed. I hate to be pedantic about that but it can become dangerous if people get too used to the idea of rights being "granted" by the Constitution.
The argument that people should be held accountable if they damage someone else's property is flawed as well. It doesn't take into account that it's very likely that the person who damaged the property doesn't have the means or ability to repair that property. If they kill or severely injure someone then there's no way to make reparation.
How does requiring a license ensure that the person driving that car has insurance unless enforced diligently? The law already prohibits the construction of checkpoints for the checking of licenses and for good reason.
There is nothing we can do to stop everyone from doing anything stupid. The only thing we can do is punish those that act maliciously towards others. Requiring a license, insurance, and car inspections does nothing to those that have nothing to lose and everything to gain by driving illegally. Someone living paycheck to paycheck to buy food and shelter will drive to work without insurance since the alternative is death from starvation or exposure to the elements. If caught the worst that can be done to this person is state funded food and shelter in one of our penal facilities. The best outcome is the person living under the radar long enough to avoid the crushing fines of violating the law and lift him/herself out of poverty.
I had been in that situation for a time. I drove without insurance. I had even been driving, unknowingly, for years on a revoked license for not paying fines. Since I had not been caught with any violation outside of an expired license plate for years no one knew, including myself, of the laws I was breaking. That just gives a sample of one on how licenses do next to nothing to assure drivers can be held accountable for the harm they might do.
The constitution you speak of was written by men. These men were not perfect. They might have done a pretty remarkable job but I believe they made mistakes. I also believe that your constitution has been challenged before and will be challenged again. Arguing that your constitution gives you certain rights is different from saying that this is what should be. Defending a right because it is enshrined in your constitution is valid in your courts but it doesn't mean that the right should have been granted in the first place.
Yes, the Constitution is flawed and was authored by flawed beings but it's the best we have come up with in a very long time. It's not just because I found these things in the Constitution that I advocate them. I do so because in the few years since I've awakened to the need to fight for my freedom at every turn I have seen the wisdom in that document. We have seen the need to amend that document over time, a feature that has permitted it to define this country for so long and another example of the wisdom of those flawed beings that created it.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'd also prefer that the government doesn't interfere or that it interferes as little as possible when it comes to individual rights. I'm just trying to explain why your arguments have failed to convince me.
I appreciate the feedback but it will take more than the expression of doubt in my claims to convince me my thoughts are flawed. What I would need to change my mind on the freedoms protected in our Constitution is a better idea on how to address your concerns. I can understand your points and concerns but I don't have all the answers. There is much truth in the bumper sticker that reads, "If government is the answer then it must have been a stupid question." We can make all the laws we want but in the end it comes down to those that do not wish to follow the law will not. Making more laws only
I have nothing but contempt for people who don't have the guts to ban something outright but try to make it de facto banned by forcing people to jump through hoops.
Does that apply only to guns? How do you feel about driving a car? Don't you agree that people should pass some kind of test before they are allowed to drive a car on a public road?
I don't believe that the idea is to ban driving or guns outright. Some of these hoops are just sanity checks to limit the number of careless and unqualified drivers and gun owners.
We have the right to arms, says so right in the Constitution. We have the right to travel, it may not be listed explicitly in the Constitution but there is enough judicial precedent that few even dare to infringe on that right.
Since those rights exist and are legally protected then it follows, in my mind, that it would take a trial by jury to remove those rights. Requiring the permission of the government to exercise the right to arms or the right to travel is, again IMHO, a violation of our rights as protected under the Constitution. Any testing or licensing to travel or obtain arms is a violation of our most basic rights.
So, no, I don't believe that people should be required to obtain a license to drive a car on a public road. But driving is a privilege, not a right I might be able to agree to that but then there is still the issue of enforcement. If a person drives without a license there is no probable cause to search that person unless or until that person has violated some law. If that person is driving dangerously or has damaged property with their vehicle then they will still be accountable for the traffic violations and/or damages with or with out that license. What purpose does the license serve? It assures us that people were informed of the laws and that they can operate a vehicle safely. Does it? People are required to know the law, ignorance is no defense. Also, it would seem that driving safely is the best test of being able to do so in the future. Like so many rights and privileges we have in this country it should be assumed that a person can drive safely until proven otherwise. It should be up to the individual to decide if they are able to safely operate a car.
But machine guns are dangerous. Yes, yes they are, which is what makes them "arms". If they were not arms then the government could constitutionally restrict their trade and ownership. Since they are dangerous then they are arms and therefore the government cannot, IMHO, constitutionally restrict their ownership and trade. If you want to play the "danger to society" card then that would mean the government should have much greater restrictions on car ownership than that on firearm ownership. The most dangerous device in modern society is the automobile. There are more guns in the USA than cars and yet cars kill many times more people.
History shows that it is enforcement that maintains a free and polite society, not licenses. I advocate that people do get training before operating dangerous devices like cars, guns, chainsaws, and coffeemakers. I just don't believe it is the government's job to provide that training, provide proof of that training, and therefore dictate the terms of that training.
I suggest everyone reading this with a debit card transfer all of their money to my account. I do not have a debit card so it will be free from this sort of attack.
Sure, I'll do that. Please post your routing number and account number so that I can complete the transaction.
Basically, the idea that adding a tax on gasoline will increase government spending doesn't seem to be based on any kind of actual data. The government is already spending.
That's not what I said. I was pointing out the inherent dichotomy in raising taxes with the expectation of both increasing revenue and decreasing consumption. What tends to happen when taxes are raised to increase revenue consumption does go down, and when it does politicians are baffled why revenue did not increase. What tends to happen when taxes are raised to decrease consumption and consumption does not go down but revenue increases, politicians are then happy to use that increased revenue as an excuse to increase spending.
Instead of looking for new ways to tax people into poverty the government needs to find ways to reduce spending. Getting rid of all those agencies created under the guise of the "commerce clause" would be a great place to start. Get rid of the tax enforcement agencies that turned into jack booted thugs for one, like the ATF, and DEA. Returning to the direct apportionment of federal taxes among the states, by repealing the 16th Amendment among other things, would remove the need for these agencies. The states would then be responsible for their own law enforcement, calling upon the FBI or some other federal law enforcement only when it concerns matters that cross state or national boundaries. Get rid of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education. The Department of Homeland Security has a mandate that covers ground already covered by the Departments of Justice, Defense, Commerce, and State. The Department of Education only adds bureaucracy that takes money from people to then be handed out to schools with strings attached. Education is a local matter, federal oversight of education is dangerous to our liberties and our quality of education.
Oh, BTW, did you hear about the Department of Education buying short barreled shotguns? Even the Department of Education is getting in on the law enforcement that should be a local matter. Short barreled shotguns? What in the realm of Hades do they needs those for?
Taxing petroleum is also disproportionately burdensome on the poor. Of the basics of life is the need for heat, light, food, and transportation. Those things, in modern society, are dependent on petroleum. Reducing the tax on petroleum will lower the burden on the poor so that they can perhaps save a bit of money over time and get things like a newer more fuel efficient car, new windows, new insulation, a new stove/refrigerator/water-heater/appliance, or other items that improve their quality of life and reduce our need for (foreign) oil.
Reduce the government spending, reduce the taxes, and the invisible hand of the marketplace will find new ways to solve the problems of oil consumption.
Oh, and not bailing out old dinosaurs that produce the gas guzzling cars in the first place would have been a good idea.
I agree. People that committed a felony, or were addicted to some drugs, are prohibited from owning firearms. Denying a person the ability to obtain the most basic of tools of self defense is, IMHO, cruel and unusual punishment. Not everyone can go live in a nice white picket fence neighborhood where crime is unheard of. Some people, out of obligations to family, lack of available work, etc. just cannot pick up and move in next door to June and Ward Cleaver.
This armed robber and registered sex offender might be able to find a job out in the woods as a lumberjack. That would keep him away from the children. That would also put him in proximity to bears, lions, wolves, coyotes, and any of a number of four legged critters that will tear anyone to pieces because they don't look like they belong or they smell a bit tasty.
In the city you might be safe from the four legged animals but that puts you in danger of the two legged ones. Either way the denial of the tools of self defense can be a death sentence. That is not justice, that is cruel.
One theory I have on the high rate of repeat offenders is that the justice system is way out of alignment. When people do go to jail it tends to be for too short of a time for proper punishment and rehabilitation. When they get out a felony record bars them from gainful employment and the ability to defend themselves legally. They are left with the Hobson's choice of returning to crime or ending up dead.
The problem with raising the taxes on gasoline is that the government becomes addicted to the income. We are already addicted to gasoline, we don't need the government to double down on its addiction to the revenue from taxing its use.
If the government was serious on reducing the consumption of gasoline then it would take a serious look in the consequences of the loss of revenue from its reduced consumption. Not only should the government not raise taxes on gasoline, but it should lower it so it can wean itself from the revenue loss over time.