In the aftermath of the Pulse nightclub massacre, the forces of civilian disarmament have slipped the leash. The mainstream media’s baying for gun control is deafening. But if you listen carefully [closed course, professional blogger] you can hear a strange undercurrent to their “arguments” for gun control laws (e.g., “universal background checks,” “an assault weapon ban” and “No Fly, No Buy” prohibition). Even as the antis howl with righteous indignation they admit that there’s no hard evidence that any of these laws would have an appreciable impact on crime, terrorism or global warming (just thought I’d put that in there). But WTH! As Gary Gilmore famously pronounced in his last moments on earth, let’s do it!
The National Rifle Association and other extremists use a form of this jujitsu every time a mentally ill person or a hater uses the efficient killing machines known as guns to inflict mass death. But in an era of lone-wolf radicalization, the aftermath of a homegrown terrorist attack is exactly the time to talk about sensible limits on gun ownership. After Sandy Hook would have been the right time. After Umpqua would have been the right time. Headline-grabbing mass shootings remind us of how good guns are at killing people. They also remind us — or should — that a rational government would regulate such dangerous products, just as it regulates cars, pharmaceuticals and other more useful things.
Of course the government cannot legislate an end to gun violence. But it can take measures that would reduce gun violence without infringing on constitutional rights.
Congress is debating ways to end gun sales to suspected terrorists, a policy that lawmakers realize must come with due-process protections for those under suspicion. Even if it would not have prevented Orlando, this reform might force the next homegrown terrorist to work harder to find his firearms, raising attention as he does, or to give up. Another proposal would deny guns to people who have misdemeanor hate-crime convictions, which poses fewer due-process issues.
I take a serious exception to The Washington Post’s assertion that gun control laws can reduce “gun violence” (a poorly defined term that lumps suicides with firearms-related homicides) by an unjustified, unspecified amount without violating the Second Amendment. Just for the record, all gun control laws violate the Second Amendment.
Be that as it is, you can hear the fatalism in their editorial. We don’t know if these laws will work, we can’t know if these laws will work, but they’re sensible God damn it! If they save one life . . . Ignoring the obvious, indeed inescapable fact that disarming people leads to unnecessary bloodshed. On a very large perhaps unimaginable scale.
In this — and the use of tragic images to underpin their “arguments” — the WaPo is not alone. Many media outlets make the same metaphorical shoulder shrug along with their clarion call for civilian disarmament. I guess it helps them convince themselves (if no one else) that they are “reasonable.” Truth be told, the discrepancy between antis’ disarmament desires and the probable non-outcome makes gun control advocates look like the proto-fascists that they are. The end justifies the means — even if it doesn’t! Oy.
And this undercurrent is why this whole thing is going to blow over, without a single significant piece of legislation being passed. Further, the longer the “debate” and handwringing drags on, the lower the probability goes of passing anything negative to our side.
They didn’t have the votes after Newtown, and they have fewer votes now. If killing babies with an “assault weapon” provides insufficient momentum to pass gun control legislation, and actual Islamic terrorist killing gays is almost certain to not move the needle in their favor.
Killing babies with surgical assault weapons is a crime near and dear to liberal/progressives hearts (if it can be proved they have any) so let’s compromise, we’ll give you a five year ban on AK47’s and you give us one week a year open season on abortionists. Fair?
Only if we can also hunt religious breeders, starting with the Douggars.
No need. Simply change the existing tax laws and welfare system. You get two child allowances on your taxes, no more. If you are on welfare, you get support for two children, no more. If you enter the country illegally, you get support for the children you entered with and a free ride back to your own country, as it should be. If you drop a kid here, it’s not a citizen and you don’t get to stay. You want more than two kids, pay for them yourself.
How about:
-Flat tax
-No welfare
Stop the government handouts and let free citizens rise and fall of their own accord.
not so sure….dead kids don’t vote…homosexuals do.
Your first claim is probably not entirely accurate for Democrats
“Further, the longer the “debate” and handwringing drags on, the lower the probability goes of passing anything negative to our side.”
You couldn’t be more *WRONG*. Allow me to explain:
The grabbers will use time on camera to rail against ‘gun violence’ that continues to ‘skyrocket’.
Yes, we know that isn’t true, but as the ‘ole propaganda slogan says: “Tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth”.
They will use that to program the low-information voters. Those same voters will begin to vote accordingly, against gun rights.
Wake the fvck up to the reality that they are in it for the long game…
“Wake the fvck up to…reality….”
Please do not.
Too late, pal…
Gun rights are ascendant. 🙂
Hillary LOST because of her pro gun control stance.
Remember to vote democrat in the 2018 primaries…and for the most leftist radical anti-gun candidate.
“They didn’t have the votes after Newtown, and they have fewer votes now.”
That will change, in a very bad way, if Hillary wins the election in November.
(Democrats riding on her coattails will win lots of House and Senate seats and most likely win at least a slim majority of both.)
I don’t recall passing any background check to buy a car, and in fact I don’t need to have a driver’s license to purchase one as my intent to use it is irrelevant to the purchase of a piece of personal property. Nor does my doctor apparently care much about prescribing me brain changing meds without any follow up for suicidal or homicidal side effects. These people have one goal only and will continue to use, or create if need be, any excuse to take away guns from citizens who are constitutionally lawful in owning and carrying them.
You also omitted the fact that a felon can purchase any vehicle they want … and without a background check.
“that a rational government would regulate such dangerous products (guns), just as it regulates cars, pharmaceuticals “.
The rational government doesn’t seem to be doing a very good job since I understand both cars and pharmaceuticals kill more people than guns.
Probably?? Not a snowballs chance in hell they will do anything at all. Save a life?? I doubt it sincerely. Just make honest folks into criminals Probably… For sure.
Call me what you will folks. The only thing Id go for and with a heck of a lot of “ifs” is No guns if on the no fly list. With the main proviso of Due Processes. Not that then no new anything.
It will save lives. The lives of the terrorists and criminals who will still have guns while they prey upon the disarmed.
You see clearly the path the gun grabbers are on when they talk about No Guns due to Misdemeanors. It will , in record SHORT time , turn into ALL misdemeanors. Speeding ticket …? No gun for you. Caught with a beer underage ?
No gun for you. Hey , you got in a minor scuffle 20 years ago and were handed a ‘ Disorderly Person ‘ ticket ……YEP , No gun for YOU ! — Any excuse to deny gun owners Rights will be tried , while unvetted & unknown ‘ refugees ‘ are Fast Tracked into our country.
An armed population makes the rulers ….. uneasy.
Given that hate crime laws are demonstrably selectively enforced, the republicans should demand that black on white hate be treated equally. Time to fire up facebook and worldstar, and prosecute everybody therein.
“Hate crime” is bull plain and simple, yet another way to cause further divisiveness amongst the gullible. We started out crying for “equality” and ended up with ever tinier slices of the population demanding their “rights” and special status. We were supposed to erase the color line and ended up with a plethora of boxes to check that in more than one way resembles a rainbow. No we’re inventing newer and crazier minorities to grant special rights to.
Hate crime? Assault is assault, murder is murder, I never hit anyone I liked, so are not all crimes against another “hate crimes” Why should anyone be punished more for targeting a person of another race, gender, religion, sexual preference? Is that not in and of itself discrimination? Where is fair and equal treatment under the law?
So treat all crimes equal, and apply hate crimes sentences to every crime that can have a hate crime enhancement. After all, we’re all equal right? Put these people on the defensive, for once. Make them explain to us why – if we are all truly equal – we need harsher penalties based solely on the race/gender identity/etc. of the offender and/or victim.
Totally agreed. “Hate crime” enforcement is discrimination, pure and simple. Here’s an easy test to find out if the government is discriminating:
-If a [white] person [assaults a black person], it is/could be [a hate crime].
-If a [black] person [assaults a black person], it is not [a hate crime].
Ironically, gun control won’t work for the simple reason that it was due to Progressive policies that created this to begin with. I simply point to the absolute mess the Progressives have made in Mexico and how easy it is for people, drugs, crime, and real assault rifles to flow into the U.S., yet the Progressive press is remarkably silent about this. Should a country like Mexico border socialist countries like the E.U., the population would reel in horror… even IS and Syria as a whole is probably far better than the Mexican cartels and government. If you ever need to change a rational person’s mind to not vote for Billary, just forward them to borderlandbeat.
I submit that anyone who is seriously considering a vote for Hillary is, by definition, not a rational person.
Unfortunately, “rational” is viewpoint dependent. A totally insane person acts “rationally” within the framework that is their mind. Problem is that the insane person doesn’t know they are insane, and it is we who appear to be insane. If I were a big government supporter, it is very rational to vote for Hillarious. Voting for someone who will not give me what I want is thereby irrational.
If the Government could actually eliminate firearms or make them very difficult to obtain, the terrorists would simply switch to arson and bombings to kill us.
How about a “no fly – no buy (gasoline or diesel)” without due process. Let’s see Congress do that.
“Just for the record, all gun control laws violate the Second Amendment.”
Not according to the Heller decision, and not according to the latest decision from the 9th Circuit Court. Courts determine what is or is not constitutional, not individuals or groups.
Just thought I’d drop that in here.
Except that the only thing the Heller and Peruta decisions prove is that courts can be, and in fact often are, wrong. We, The People — as individuals — decide what is or is not Constitutional, not some political activist judicial appointees with their own completely different and separate agendas to push from the bench.
Just though I’d drop that in here.
Do I understand correctly that you believe you alone (and those of like-mind) can determine that a law is unconstitutional, and thus you are immune from obeying, and immune from legal consequences, and you can do anything you like, whenever you like because you determine what is a valid law?
That concept is different from the law of the jungle, in what way?
Do you really want someone who declares, “I am the law unto myself” to have a gun?
You just described 1776 America. Good job. Yes, it is people that follow laws and rules. People require no persuasion when laws worthy of respect are legislated. Make unjust laws and they will be broken – definitely – and with indignation.
The people of America today are not a patch on those of 1776. But I do not remember reading where those fellows believed they could ignore the law without penalty. You described a situation where everyone determines what laws to follow, and simultaneously demand no response from authorities. Please relay your experience at the bar when you are hauled to court for violating whichever law you are arrested for violating. Very interested in your experience telling the judge you are the final arbiter of which laws are legal, valid constitutional.
Thanks for that one. In my region, I have never seen or heard of the usage of the phrase “not a patch on.” It was quite unusual and I had to educate myself on it. Definitely agree, the majority of today’s people are certainly “not a patch on” the people of 1776. And Unfortunate at that.
Oh there is definitely a penalty, but that penalty dissipates with how many others just like you think it unjust, and how many others just like you choose civil disobedience.
For example, the stamp act of 1765. The colonial Americans didn’t want British troops stationed for protection and didn’t want to pay for their stay with taxes, especially those levied for any printed material where they had to buy special paper by law. Soon after the distributors of the paper were intimidated, the law ignored, and the tax never effectively levied.
And likewise, many laws today are blatantly ignored and disregarded. Especially if they are seen as unjust, nanny statist, and difficult to enforce:
Examples:
1) Connecting to unsecured wifi
2). Playing poker/gambling within the home
3). Driving without a seat belt buckled
4). Using cell phones while driving
5). Underage drinking
6). Smoking weed
7). Peeing outside
8). Not updating your drivers license when you move and/or vehicle registration.
9), Sharing prescription medications
10). Jaywalking
11). Not getting a dog license
12). Bicycling on the sidewalk
13). Not cleaning up dog poo
14). Smoking where prohibited
15). Driving through a red light
16). Carrying a concealed weapon where prohibited
“Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.”
–ANDREW JACKSON
If it’s good for the servant, it’s good for the sovereign.
I do not often see “Ol’ Hickory” sourced as example of much. He doesn’t stand among the pantheon of leaders like Washington, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, and the like. In fact, wasn’t Jackson responsible for uprooting an entire nation of original occupants in the eastern US, then transporting then to desolation and ruin? Not someone I would look toward for inspiration.
The point is that ANY just government derives it’s power only by the consent of the governed. Anything else is tyranny to one degree or another. The tipping point has already been reached and it seems that people of all political stripes are pretty pissed off about it – those who love liberty are, at least.
Indeed,but you forgot the biggie, Dred Scott…..
Hello, Troll.
The Supreme Court of the United States has been wrong in the past and will eventually be found to have been incorrect on this point as well.
SCOTUS is comprised of 9 individuals appointed by politicians for political reasons. Of the 300+ million Americans it takes only 5 of those SCOTUS justices to decide whether or not what the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution means what they intended it to mean or whether it means what those Justices WANT it to mean.
SCOTUS has ruled in the Heller decision and we the people can ignore this only at our peril. The same does not seem to be the case for the government entities supposedly enjoined by this ruling as can be seen in Washington D.C. still doing everything it possibly can to not abide by the ruling and continue restricting the Second Amendment protected rights of their residents.
For a refresher: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
In those 27 words SCOTUS managed to find the concept that even though it quite explicitly states, “…shall not be infringed.” that somehow this still allows the government to regulate, not the militia, which SCOTUS in the Heller decision carefully explained was not the operative clause of the amendment, but to regulate how, when, where and what kind of firearms the people could keep and bear.
So we can see that the Supreme Court in this decision did itself act unconstitutionally, since they have no Constitution authority to re-write the Constitution, and unless this country descends into a complete non-constitutional Progessive anarchy this portion of the Heller decision will eventually be struck down.
There is a wide ocean between “right” and “legal”. On a simple basis, courts determine what is/is not lawful (legislatures create the laws). One does not have the constitutional or legal position to selectively determine which laws valid. Changes in the law will seem to make earlier law appear to be “wrong”, but in reality, law before the change was legitimate if courts declared so. People here are quite fond of declaring that this or that is unconstitutional, as if that declaration gives them leave to ignore those laws without penalty. The law is what the courts say it is, until it is changed legislatively, or by subsequent court ruling. So…..according to Heller and the 9th Circuit, no one has a constitutional right to carry a firearm concealed. That is fact. Statements to the contrary (OK, 9th Circuit rulings apply only to the 9th Circuit), are null and void until those statements are enshrined in law or court ruling.
Or until those justices or legislators are replaced. Or if juries all over repeatedly acquit the victims of bureaucracies exactly like they did during prohibition. Or if another government is formed.
Just saying.
I see no disagreement here. You describe how the game is to be played.
It’s only a game to politicians. For rights to be preserved, they must be constantly fought for, and there are legal and illegal ways to do that.
Well regulated in the 18th century meant well functioning not restricted and controlled.
Your comments won’t mean anything brah.
I’ve watched countless individuals tear these peoples claims and beliefs many times over with facts and statistics.
Only for these brainwashed gun-slaves repeat their debunked mental gymnastics many times.
Ttag has a way of censoring opposing comments and statistics and links to try to make us as if were in the wrong.
I’ve witnessed the site’s admins and mods let ttag commenters post racists, homophobic comments get a free pass while those who call these creeps out on their perverse behavior get punished.
Yeah right. Pick one. Any one. We can debate and discuss it here. Your baseless and unsubstantiated assertion is considered null until you do so.
Debunked what?? Unsubstantiated nothingness is what you provide with this statement.
TTAG doesn’t censor anything other than blatant ad hominems against the site or other commenters.
Many of us come from a different culture and don’t always detect a microaggression brewing within an adversary – apologize in advance for this. Blatant insults usually get removed with a “flame deleted” tag left behind. If by perverse behavior meaning ownership of guns – no unlike most news outlets – they will not be silenced, you’ll have to deal with that.
I must say, TTAG has been greatly tolerant of my participation, even letting one of my notes to staff be published for comment. Will keep a sea eye out, however.
The same cannot be said for Everytown, the Demanding Mothers, or The Coalition for Infringing Legislation. If we gun owners were actually “nuts” without valid points then why do they fear our words so badly? I’m of the opinion that stupid and insane thoughts are best exposed for all to see as opposed to festering in secrecy.
The courts are our formal means of determining constitutionality of laws. Yet, that is not the end of the discussion. It is, after all, the power of the People to ratify Constitutional amendments. We act through our respective State legislatures.
Informally, the People also express their individual and collective judgement as to the Constitutionality or justness of the laws. Legalization of medical pot – and even recreational pot – are the most significant manifestation of this phenomena. Jury nullification is another. Sometimes it takes place today, albeit obscurely. It was conspicuous during Prohibition and the Fugitive Slave Laws era.
There are legal consequences for violating the law; sometimes, there are physical consequences for defying the police. We don’t say that whatever the police get away with is Constitutional. Rather, we say that in a doubtful case, a police officer apparently violated his Constitutional duty with impunity and got away with it. If it happens often enough, we become a police-state. When we the People defy laws we will not accept (55 mph speed limit, pot laws, Prohibition, Fugitive Slave Laws) how shall we characterize such behavior? Shall we say that we the People have violated the Constitution? Or, shall we say that we have exercised our natural right to alter or abolish a law that does not comport with our sense of justice?
Not so cut and dried as we might wish.
We should say that we are acting in accordance with the Declaration of Independence.
“If they save one life . . . ”
– This is where the anits stop us cold. The counter argument is some lives don’t matter because we want our gun rights. No matter how we dress it up, failure to agree that all lives matter, all the time, puts us in a hole no amount of logic can overcome.
“Ignoring the obvious, indeed inescapable fact that disarming people leads to unnecessary bloodshed. On a very large perhaps unimaginable scale.”
Another place they nail us. Except for Mexico, where else in the disarmed world do we see wholesale slaughter of the unarmed populace? We claim disarmed leads to unrestrained government or criminal killings. We have very few relevant examples to the contrary (and make no mistake, the racism of the left is mind-boggling… deaths in Mexico do not foretell what will happen in America because, well, Mexico, don’t you now; backward, ignorant, primitive; doesn’t count).
Maybe you didn’t realize that more half of all crime in the states bordering Mexico are spillover. The only reason why it isn’t higher is because we don’t tolerate criminals here in society or the government. Yes, the 2nd Amendment works. Go fix Mexico and get back to us.
If you did not understand my comments, that is my error. Communicating an idea is the responsibility of the initiator.
I am pointing out where and how the anti-gun gang puts into untenable defensive positions. The point about Mexico is the anti-gun faction is unimpressed with theoretical ideas about unarmed populations being slaughtered by government because they don’t believe it will happen. Because they look to all the disarmed countries of the world, and do not see that happening. No way it would happen in the US. Even with Mexico bordering us, they see that chaos through the eyes of a superior civilization, not subject to the chaos evident in such a backward nation as Mexico. That means we can’t point to Mexico as support for a position that only armed citizens prevent slaughter by the state.
you sure cannot! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
What about the lives lost for lack of a gun? This is a problem of things seen and unseen. Mass murder and other high profile crimes make for good TV and splashy news. Crimes averted and little old ladies who are not murdered in their homes because they pointed a gun at a criminal breaking in make boring stories.
Orlando will get wall to wall national coverage for ages. Cases where someone saved themselves with their gun will get a one-time, 15 second mention on local news, maybe.
“If it saves one life” is a cost/benefit analysis where only the costs of guns and only the “benefits” of gun control are considered. There’s nothing reasonable about it and we should never let them get away with using it.
“If they save one life . . . ”
No, that is actually where we stop them cold. The counter to this (non)argument is that no lives will be saved at all, which is unquestionably true, as much as gun-grabbing mongrels love to delude themselves into thinking otherwise. No matter how they dress that up, failure to agree that restricting the civil liberties of all is in nobody’s best interests puts them in a hole no amount of special pleading and emotionally-driven bullshit can dig them out of. It forces them to confront the fact that they are anything but Progressive liberals, though we all know that their first and only reaction is denial of this. Whatever. Not our problem.
“Ignoring the obvious, indeed inescapable fact that disarming people leads to unnecessary bloodshed. On a very large perhaps unimaginable scale.”
Again, that is actually where we nail them. Besides Mexico, we can point to most all of Central and South America, Africa, and the Arabian Peninsula and the outlying regions where we do see the wholesale slaughter of unarmed people by both criminals and governments. All we have to do is tell them to google the term “democide,” and actually take the time to honestly research its history — for once. We rightly claim that disarmament leads to unrestrained government and criminal mayhem, and we have virtually countless examples of exactly that. Hell, there are quite a few we can pull from U.S. history, for crying out loud.
All these fascist lefties (as if there’s any other kind) have to do is, for once in their miserable little lives, crack open a history text. Just about any of them, in fact. But, we all know that they won’t. Facts and logic are their kryptonite. We’re not interested, or at least we shouldn’t be, in convincing gun-grabbing mongrels. We’re interested in grabbing the attention of the fence-sitters, period.
The repetition of logic, reason and history does not advance our position. The majority of humans do not operate in a realm heavily influenced by logic. As an experiment, find someone you know who is neither pro or anti gun ownership. Ask them if there was a possibility that even one less death could result from strong restrictions on gun ownership, would they be in favor of trying to implement such restrictions, or would they prefer that gun owners be left untouched in any effort to reduce mass shootings. Those non-aligned people are humans first. They will be inclined to experiment with something that might save their life, or the life of a family member. Once they have decided that if one restrictive law doesn’t work, try another….they will be hard pressed to see any value in preventing even the slightest encroachment on a natural and civil right to have a gun for self-defense.
It is all about emotion, and we better get a clue about how to respond.
“Except for Mexico, where else in the disarmed world do we see wholesale slaughter of the unarmed populace?”
Just for starters, and the list is by no means complete, the MSM (I prefer BSM – Brown Stream Media) routinely and almost completely ignores anything that happens in the Philipines or the entire continent of Africa other than Libya and Egypt.
And that further ignores the historical events of the last 100 years or so. It has been repeatedly shown throughout history that a government not held in check by the threat of armed revolt can and all too often does become a totalitarian state intolerant of ANY dissent with the result of violent suppression of the dissenters.
When government has all the guns it is no longer government by the people; it becomes a government by the ruling class and their whims.
Racism, of the most craven sort, is the reason you don’t see or hear the left talk about lack of “gun violence” in places other than Europe, where people are so much more enlightened, elevated, educated, sophisticated, sensible about guns. The backward and ignorant in other nations simply need American elites to show them the way, and keep them in servitude while doing so.
All that “government by the people” nonsense??? Elitists know that the masses are really incapable of ruling themselves.
The recent shooting in Paris comes to mind. Not to mention 3 of the top 6 mass shootings occurred in Europe. Anders Breivik shot and killed a lot of people in Oslo back in 2011. There are plenty of examples of mass shootings occurring in modern 1st world countries that also have restrictive gun laws. http://archive.is/f4gbv
You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. AKs are being made one at a time around the world, as is ammo, in crude shops using files, hammers, drill presses, etc.
“Gun Control measures” measures are essentially symbolic gestures intended to assuage the anxieties of socially insecure groups. That they don’t actually control guns (or fail to accomplish the miraculous transformations they promise) is not really the point. They are enacted, particularly in times of public anxiety, to make people feel good about themselves.
Yep. Right up there with other feel-good nonsense like “hashtag” campaigns.
All these big brains want is no guns for anyone. No retreat-no surrender…
I’ll just leave this link to Popehat talking about honest “gun control” and definitely follow the internal links.
https://popehat.com/2016/06/16/in-support-of-a-total-ban-on-civilians-owning-firearms/
Ken doesn’t like gun control any more than the average TTAG reader, and his analysis is brilliant.
‘…there’s no hard evidence that any of these laws would have an appreciable impact on crime, terrorism or global warming…’
Anthropogenic global warming is a really, really good thing, actually. All this carbon (oil, coal) we’re pulling up out of the ground used to be part of the carbon cycle. You know, plants breath in CO2 and use the sun’s energy to scramble the atoms of CO2 and water to make sugar (photosynthesis). Throw in a little nitrogen and you’ve got protein, etc. We eat the plants and reverse the process to generate energy. The carbon has been being trapped for hundreds of millions of years and before we came along the earth starving for CO2. In fact, CO2 was at it’s lowest level since complex multi-cellular life appeared on the planet. Plants grow faster, produce more food and require less water in the presence of more CO2. We’re making the earth much, much healthier and should continue to do so.
And if it makes the world a touch warmer than good. Winter sucks anyway.
Just sayin’…
I’ll side with the environmental scientists on this one Gov. I don’t think you are qualified to decide anything pertaining to the environment.
Opinion? Sure, of course.
But you are wrong on so many levels, speaking as an environment scientist.
I can’t say what the ‘environmental’ scientists say but the ‘climate’ scientists aren’t nearly as unified as you think and the ‘solar’ scientists have a completely different view. It’s the politicians that uniformly believe that burning oil and coal is a bad thing. But if you educate yourself a little you’ll find there’s little to worry about if the CO2 concentration raises to 1000 or 1200ppm (which will take many centuries). Plants do grow faster and produce more food and require less water with more CO2 – this is a fact. CO2 was at it’s lowest lever in 600 million years before man came along – this is a fact. We are living in an era known as the Pleistocene Ice Age and the glaciers will be coming back in 10 or 20 thousand years – another fact. When the glaciers come back the world will look like it did 20,000 years ago – there won’t be a single living organism north of Des Moines, NYC will be buried under 5000 feet of ice and sea level will be 390 feet lower than today. What an ecological disaster it would be if we made the earth warmer and prevented the glaciers from coming back!
Here’s a good place to start; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
So true…..but TX, LA, MI and FL will me MUCH bigger tho colder than today. Mexico too. Unfortunately, your prediction is almost a certany, unlikely to be stoppable at today’s level of technology. We will need to be able to increase the average temp of the Earth by about 5 deg. F. and o do that we will need to release an almost unimanagable amount of energy.
It’s pretty hard for man to compete with the sun when it comes to influencing the climate. But there are a few things we could do to open up the ocean currents to carry warmth from the equator to the higher latitudes and stop the glaciation. First we could rip out Panama and let the currents run through where the isthmus is now. Many scientists blame the isthmus for starting the current ice age in the first place. We could move Antarctica and Greenland and widen the Bering Straight to allow the currents through. Some scientists think the Himalayas are responsible so we could try tearing them down. Or we could just try the CO2 thing. I read that if we up it to 750ppm it might delay the glaciation for 50,000 years. Probably lessen the severity too.
Not that I’m likely to be around to find out (you never know), but then I’m not likely to be around in 100 years to find out if sea level rises 3 inches or 3 feet either.
They also remind us — or should — that a rational government would regulate such dangerous products, just as it regulates cars, pharmaceuticals and other more useful things.
The government regulates the design and marketing of such products, to safeguard an individual from malfeasance. Firearms don’t tend to have the problems that other regulated industries have, so they don’t need regulation by the government to protect the end-user.
What the antis’ want is simply regulation to restrict the end user, and possibly, protect other individuals.
I’ve heard of many many medical device, or vehicle, recalls due to mistakes by massive companies that push very hard to get product to market in a very low profit margin (yes there is a large gross profit in those industries, but but the margin is low) and harm the public at large due to their mistakes. Most firearms don’t tend to have that problem, they work as advertised, it’s all on the end user to do bad things with the product.
WaPo hypocrites can FOAD, repeatedly.
It’s the typical cry of citizens to do something, and the politicians’ response of looking like they are doing something. Damn if it doesn’t work, and who cares if it infringes on a person’s rights or freedom.
“If [gun laws] save one life…”
Gotta love how antis who use this line don’t recognize (or care about) the thousands of lives that firearms save every year.
Ban fertilizer, for the children.
Here’s a “sensible” proposition… Since we know terrorist are now using social networks for communication, recruiting and propaganda, I would suggest to simply ban and close social networks such Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube (to name few). I know it would be restricting billion of people, but if it can only save one life…
Since I’m not using any social network, I don’t give a damn… That’s the exact same approach as antis regarding guns anyway… except that guns save way more guns than social networks.
At least, let’s do it for the children…
Comments are closed.