For my fellow Libertarian, Tiny

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Jam3768

Well said rd. I have this argument with a good friend of mine all the time. He owns an M-16 and I am forever asking him why does he need such a thing. His response is usually along the lines that guns like this are necessary to combat the government if it becomes oppressive. And then I always ask if he is fucking kidding me. I bring up Hungary in 1956, Prague in 1968 and Tiananmen Square in 1989. I remind him that the government forces used tanks, armored personnel vehicles and military assault rifles in each of these instances. And you want to go up against that with your little machine gun??? Knock yourself out.

However, at least my friend is a responsible gun owner and does take every precaution to ensure that some nut case can't steal his weapons and use them in a mass shooting. I think that anyone that allows their guns to be stolen and then used in a mass shooting should be prosecuted as if they pulled the trigger themselves.

Well by that same token should someone who allows their car to be stolen be charged with vehicular homicide if the perpetrators are involved in a vehicular accident in which an innocent motorist is killed?

[GastonGlock]

Originally Posted by WTF

I want people held responsible when they misuse a gun just like they take you rights away to use a car after you have abused that right.

1.) You don't have a right to use a car.

2.) Even if the government revokes your ability to drive legally, they have no devices to prevent you from doing it. You can only be caught in the act.

3.) It's unconstitutional for the government to deny you the right to be armed simply for abusing that right. They do it, but it's unconstitutional. It's the only right ex-cons are denied.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

WTF. Poor analogy and I expect better of you. I'm a car guy. We can't drive most race cars on the street for a lot of good reasons, but the gist is they are made for one purpose (competing in whatever specific event) and are not suited to "drive" on public roads. Not anti gun, but also reasonable. No one needs a tank, machine gun, anti ballistic missle, F15 fighter, etc. to provide self protection or even hunt game. Or even an automatic rifle capable of many rounds per minutes (if you need that for defense, you're likely involved in things normal people would avoid). Another prime example of how the chest-thumping "right" is going to dig their own Graves and lay in them soon. Nothing wrong with guns per se, but the nut case with an armory IS a threat. Back to my central theme, learn to compromise, or risk losing ground. In poker terms, a split pot is better than no post and way better than losing an all in bet.

1.) Again, you don't have a right to drive a car.

2.) The 2A is not about hunting, it's about the common man standing against a tyrannical government.

3.) a tank, machine gun, anti ballistic missle, F15 fighter, etc. would be helpful in stopping a tyrannical government, so I should be able to own those if I can afford them.

4.) No compromise. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

Originally Posted by Jam3768

Well said rd. I have this argument with a good friend of mine all the time. He owns an M-16 and I am forever asking him why does he need such a thing. His response is usually along the lines that guns like this are necessary to combat the government if it becomes oppressive. And then I always ask if he is fucking kidding me. I bring up Hungary in 1956, Prague in 1968 and Tiananmen Square in 1989. I remind him that the government forces used tanks, armored personnel vehicles and military assault rifles in each of these instances. And you want to go up against that with your little machine gun??? Knock yourself out.

However, at least my friend is a responsible gun owner and does take every precaution to ensure that some nut case can't steal his weapons and use them in a mass shooting. I think that anyone that allows their guns to be stolen and then used in a mass shooting should be prosecuted as if they pulled the trigger themselves.

1.) It's called the "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of Needs".

2.) Vietnam & Afghanistan, two great examples where common men with military smalls arms, no armored cavalry, and no air support beat a modern army

3.) Abiding Tyranny because you might lose is called "cowardice"

4.) To echo L17, should I be similarly punished if someone steals my truck and plows it into a crowd of people? Or if a thief steals my chef's knives and goes on a slashing spree at a kindergarten, like happens in Asia? Is it my fault if my neighbor asks to borrow my weed killer, and without telling me puts it in his wife's drink and kills her?

[dilbert firestorm]

great example of circular logic! lol!

[pfunkdenver]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

That's a cowardly statement. The unborn are defenseless. A good firefight is what makes a man feel vital.

So it's a good thing when some kid murders a dozen high schoolers?

[pfunkdenver]

Originally Posted by GastonGlock

2.) The 2A is not about hunting, it's about the common man standing against a tyrannical government.

Has that ever happened, in the US, since 1776?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

So it's a good thing when some kid murders a dozen high schoolers?

Well if Population Control is what Liberals seek I suppose it is. But just because somebody uses a firearm to commit a crime that doesn't mean Law abiding gun owners who have never committed a crime should lose their right to bear arms or the survivors of gun violence have the right to sue a Firearms manufacturer. Don't you think it's about time we confronted the criminal instead of the methods they use to commit crime?

[pfunkdenver]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Well if Population Control is what Liberals seek I suppose it is.

Dumbest thing you've posted so far.

Abortion is legal, so that women, who make a mistake, aren't forced to bear children. It's not population control.

[Jam3768]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Well by that same token should someone who allows their car to be stolen be charged with vehicular homicide if the perpetrators are involved in a vehicular accident in which an innocent motorist is killed?

Originally Posted by GastonGlock

...

4.) To echo L17, should I be similarly punished if someone steals my truck and plows it into a crowd of people? Or if a thief steals my chef's knives and goes on a slashing spree at a kindergarten, like happens in Asia? Is it my fault if my neighbor asks to borrow my weed killer, and without telling me puts it in his wife's drink and kills her?

Perhaps -- if they leave the car unlocked and the keys in the ignition. That's the kind of irresponsibility I was talking about. Surely you guys are intelligent enough to know the difference

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

Dumbest thing you've posted so far.

Abortion is legal, so that women, who make a mistake, aren't forced to bear children. It's not population control.

Just because politicians make killing the unborn legal doesn't make it right. It's a form of population control no matter how you look at it.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Jam3768

Perhaps -- if they leave the car unlocked and the keys in the ignition. That's the kind of irresponsibility I was talking about. Surely you guys are intelligent enough to know the difference

It might be irresponsible but it's not a criminal act unless the car is still running unattended. Which would pose a public safety threat. Now if that circumstance resulted in a theft and the perpetrator was involved in a fatal car accident the owner of the vehicle could be sued civilly for negligence. Do you know the difference between civil and criminal?

[pfunkdenver]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Just because politicians make killing the unborn legal doesn't make it right. It's a form of population control no matter how you look at it.

We disagree on whether abortion is moral...Oh well...It's been happening since humans began.

It would be population control if the government forced people to have children, or not have children. They don't.

One woman (or a couple) deciding, on her (their) own, to terminate a pregnancy is not population control, no matter how you look at it. Sorry!

[GastonGlock]

Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

Has that ever happened, in the US, since 1776?

Yes, it was called Shay's Rebellion, and it was the reason the Articles of Confederation were dropped, and the Constitution was written.

Originally Posted by Jam3768

Perhaps -- if they leave the car unlocked and the keys in the ignition. That's the kind of irresponsibility I was talking about. Surely you guys are intelligent enough to know the difference

So, instead of punishing the perpetrator, you think it's better to punish one of the perpetrator's victims?

Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

We disagree on whether abortion is moral...Oh well...It's been happening since humans began.

One woman (or a couple) deciding, on her (their) own, to terminate a pregnancy is not population control, no matter how you look at it. Sorry!

Huh, unless my memory is failing, I could have sworn in another thread that you said that killing a human being was wrong.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

Fossil Fuels Aren’t Going Anywhere
By Irina Slav - Feb 05, 2021, 6:00 PM CST
“There is no scenario where hydrocarbons disappear,” the chief executive of Baker Hughes, Lorenzo Simonelli, said during his keynote speech at this year’s annual meeting in the company. Like other executives from the industry, Simonelli acknowledged and welcomed the energy transition, but he noted that a 100-percent renewable energy scenario was simply not possible. There is plenty of evidence this is indeed the case, despite the hopes and ambitions of many environmental advocates.

These hopes and ambitions imagine a world where human activity is powered from electricity only, and this electricity in turn is being generated using only renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower.


Such a world, however, is unrealistic.

Take Germany, for example. The country, which is among the EU members with the most renewable energy capacity, has not produced a single Watt of solar energy since the start of this year. The reason: it’s winter. It is producing solid amounts of wind power, that’s for sure, but it is also generating power from the most despised fossil fuel of all: coal.

At the time of writing its carbon intensity was 264 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh. That was comparable to the carbon intensity of another poster girl for renewables in Europe, Denmark, which is currently getting most of its energy from wind power.

So, it seems building renewable capacity in itself is not a silver bullet solution to the emissions problem. In fact, if you build it too quickly without adding substantial storage capacity, it could backfire. This was most recently evidenced by a narrow miss of a major blackout in Europe prompted by a minor problem at a Croatian substation that rippled through the continent, highlighting the importance of maintaining the grid at a constant frequency—something renewables cannot do because of their intermittent generation.
Related: Canada Oil And Gas Deals Surge 468%

Even Denmark has thermal power plants to secure the baseload any grid needs to function properly and eliminate or at least reduce the risk of blackouts.

But back to Simonelli’s prediction about the guaranteed future of oil and gas. This future won’t be like the past. The world is firmly on course to change the way it generates and uses energy. Both Simonelli and the other keynote speaker at Baker Hughes’ AM2021, IHS Markit’s Daniel Yergin, recognized that. It is simply that this change will not be limited to a build-up of solar- and wind-generating capacity.

Energy efficiency, for one, will be a big part of the transition.

Efficiency has been pushed out of the spotlight recently, replaced by things like green hydrogen and the constant emission-reduction narrative, but it has not gone away. According to Baker Huges’ Simonelli, efficiency alone could help meet as much as 27 percent of the Paris Agreement climate change targets. On a global scale, this is a massive amount of emissions cut, at a rate of half a gigaton annually.

The road to a nonpetro based economy will be paved with petrol fuels. I believe I posted a Youtube TED talk by a former eco-warrior who admitted the sustainable, zero emmission energy eco system was unattainable.

Originally Posted by WTF

.... I don't wanna go off on a rant but California and the world as far as I'm concerned has a population problem. Solve that and all other problems shrink.

We kinda agree on this. The whole "climate change" scam is rooted in the Zero Population Growth movement.

Originally Posted by WTF

Libertarians believe in the 2nd amendment....hell I believe we shout be able to buy tanks if we want.

I don't want any gun restrictions. I want people held responsible when they misuse a gun just like they take you rights away to use a car after you have abused that right.

I want some gun restrictions for much of the American population. Should a convicted gun murderer be allowed a firearm? These libertarians who say "You should be able to own a nuclear bomb if you want" are nuts.

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Oh you can buy a Tank Arnold Schwarzenegger has one.

We had a thread on this. There are all types of Federal regs around owning a tank, especially one with functioning main gun.

Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

...
It would be population control if the government forced people to have children, or not have children. They don't.

...

You ever hear of China's "one child" policy?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Just because politicians make killing the unborn legal doesn't make it right. It's a form of population control no matter how you look at it.

So is jacking off...Jesus.

Early term abortion is similar to birth control. Do you call that murder?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

We disagree on whether abortion is moral...Oh well...It's been happening since humans began.

It would be population control if the government forced people to have children, or not have children. They don't.

One woman (or a couple) deciding, on her (their) own, to terminate a pregnancy is not population control, no matter how you look at it. Sorry!

They don't have to force it. Women are indoctrinated to feel that it is ok. The sad thing about it is years later a women who has had an abortion may have complications in the event she wants a pregnancy to go to term.