US federal climate change report warns of threat to US economy and lives

[carpedm9587]

Well I never heard of them until then and many other people here on tweb said the same thing, as well as friends on facebook. And various news reports have mentioned it.

You have this habit of citing personal experience as "data." While it is indeed a data point, it is not adequate to support the claim "most people had not heard of them." At best, you can say, "most people in my circle of friends and acquaintances."

https://wamu.org/story/18/12/14/subs...-bans-in-2018/

But I doubt there was any official poll or anything. It was a simple statement.

Yes, that is how it works. When people think a law is unconstitutional they will not obey it.

It's called "civil disobedience," which has a long and honorable tradition in our country. But we don't live in a country where individuals get to decide what is and is not "constitutional" with impunity. If the law is passed, and it passes judicial review, then you will be in violation of the law and the judicial process of the country. You cannot then claim to be "law abiding citizens." You've given up that claim when you've decided to follow your own opinion instead of the rule of law.

Although personally I don't care about bump stocks. They are a novelty, not a real tool or weapon.

[Sparko]

You have this habit of citing personal experience as "data." While it is indeed a data point, it is not adequate to support the claim "most people had not heard of them." At best, you can say, "most people in my circle of friends and acquaintances."

I also quoted an official stating the same thing. It was just me stating my opinion in the first place. You do this a lot. When you don't want to accept some statement you make a point of asking for "data" and refusing to accept someone's word on the matter, and then later you do the very same thing yourself and say something like "so? you don't have to believe me" - and here we are. You don't have to believe me Carp, I really don't give a flying fart. I really don't.

It's called "civil disobedience," which has a long and honorable tradition in our country. But we don't live in a country where individuals get to decide what is and is not "constitutional" with impunity. If the law is passed, and it passes judicial review, then you will be in violation of the law and the judicial process of the country. You cannot then claim to be "law abiding citizens." You've given up that claim when you've decided to follow your own opinion instead of the rule of law.

Oh you mean like illegal aliens being actual criminals who have broken the law and deserve to be in jail or deported and all that?


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.

[Roy]

i will bring bacon.

Bacon's worth shooting some-one for, right?

[Sparko]

Bacon's worth shooting some-one for, right?

hmm maybe I didn't think this through very well...

[carpedm9587]

I also quoted an official stating the same thing. It was just me stating my opinion in the first place.

I respond out of a simple philosophy - an opinion that is not backed by information is not worth a great deal. That is the problem with the atmosphere we find ourselves in today: people generate all sorts of opinions that are information free and simply dig them further and further into their bubble. So when I see it - I call it. You are invited to do the same for me.

You do this a lot. When you don't want to accept some statement you make a point of asking for "data" and refusing to accept someone's word on the matter, and then later you do the very same thing yourself and say something like "so? you don't have to believe me" - and here we are.

When state an opinion about a philosophical issue - you don't have to accept it. When I make a statement about an external reality and I don't bother to back it up with resources and citations, you have every right to call me on it - and if I ever respond "you don't have to believe me" about such a statement, you should be calling me on it. I don't think I have ever responded to such a change with "you don't have to believe me."

I HAVE responded to places where someone is telling me what I think and my motivations with that response. I will continue to do so. Anyone who thinks they know what I am thinking or what is motivating me better than I has a screw or two loose, frankly. And around here, it happens all the time.

You don't have to believe me Carp, I really don't give a flying fart. I really don't.

Whether or not you care is not relevant. If you make a claim about an external reality, I will ask for citations if it does not align with what I think I already know. If all you have is anecdotes about your experience - it won't be enough to support your claim and you won't convince. It's as simple as that. If you don't care about convincing, then that shouldn't bother you. If you do, then it should.

Oh you mean like illegal aliens being actual criminals who have broken the law and deserve to be in jail or deported and all that?

As we have noted multiple times, illegal immigration is a misdemeanor. It deserves exactly the same amount of legal attention as any other misdemeanor. And we should be expending a similar amount of effort and cost to deal with the misdemeanor as we do with other misdemeanors.

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.

And when you are providing arms in support of a well regulated militia, you can make an argument about the need for us to have a proliferation of arms. Until then, I will continue to advocate for arms being controlled so that people who have them are held responsible for having them, are qualified to have them, and do not pose a danger to society.

[Sparko]

I respond out of a simple philosophy - an opinion that is not backed by information is not worth a great deal. That is the problem with the atmosphere we find ourselves in today: people generate all sorts of opinions that are information free and simply dig them further and further into their bubble. So when I see it - I call it. You are invited to do the same for me.



When state an opinion about a philosophical issue - you don't have to accept it. When I make a statement about an external reality and I don't bother to back it up with resources and citations, you have every right to call me on it - and if I ever respond "you don't have to believe me" about such a statement, you should be calling me on it. I don't think I have ever responded to such a change with "you don't have to believe me."

I HAVE responded to places where someone is telling me what I think and my motivations with that response. I will continue to do so. Anyone who thinks they know what I am thinking or what is motivating me better than I has a screw or two loose, frankly. And around here, it happens all the time.



Whether or not you care is not relevant. If you make a claim about an external reality, I will ask for citations if it does not align with what I think I already know. If all you have is anecdotes about your experience - it won't be enough to support your claim and you won't convince. It's as simple as that. If you don't care about convincing, then that shouldn't bother you. If you do, then it should.

LOL! It was a throwaway side comment that I mentioned. And you are getting all worked up over it demanding data and such.

Remove it from your consideration, Carp. It doesn't change my post in the least.

As we have noted multiple times, illegal immigration is a misdemeanor. It deserves exactly the same amount of legal attention as any other misdemeanor. And we should be expending a similar amount of effort and cost to deal with the misdemeanor as we do with other misdemeanors.

You seem to have double standards again.

And when you are providing arms in support of a well regulated militia, you can make an argument about the need for us to have a proliferation of arms. Until then, I will continue to advocate for arms being controlled so that people who have them are held responsible for having them, are qualified to have them, and do not pose a danger to society.

The amendment doesn't make having a militia a requirement, it mentions that is a reason congress can't infringe on our right to have guns. We may need to FORM A MILITIA one day, and so we have guns. AND I argue that also means that it is talking about owning MILITARY style weapons in order to be used in a militia if need be, so banning automatics and bump stocks or military style weapons is exactly what the 2nd amendment is protecting us against. It isn't talking about sport shooting or hunting. It is talking about military use. Where you would want as much of an advantage as possible.

[rogue06]

Bacon's worth shooting some-one for, right?

Much wiser to use a flamethrower. That way you can cook the bacon at the same time.

[Cow Poke]

Much wiser to use a flamethrower. That way you can cook the bacon at the same time.

And it will get crispy just like the bacon we used to get before the war?

[rogue06]

And it will get crispy just like the bacon we used to get before the war?

That's the idea

[Cow Poke]

That's the idea

My wife and I are used to adding the word "crispy" when we order bacon with our breakfast, but we recently found an old-style diner that has a GREAT breakfast for $5.99. We ordered the breakfasts, and I told the waitress "crispy bacon".

The bacon was a wee tad on the almost TOO crispy side, so next time we ate there, I didn't ask for "crispy". What we got was the $5.99 breakfast - 3 eggs, fried taters, biscuits & gravy and FOUR "crispy like we used to get before the war" pieces of bacon. I mentioned to the waitress that the bacon was PERFECT, and she said, "yeah, if you want it limp, you have to ask for it that way, and our cook really hates that".

[carpedm9587]

LOL! It was a throwaway side comment that I mentioned. And you are getting all worked up over it demanding data and such.

I'm curious why the length of my post is confused with "getting worked up?" I'm naturally verbose (ask CP) and I post on subjects that interest me. There are relatively few things that get me "worked up." (well, my children can achieve it, and do so fairly regularly). It is doubtful that too many things here will achieve that level of emotional involvement.

Remove it from your consideration, Carp. It doesn't change my post in the least.

Consider it removed. It just means your post doesn't convince, in the least. I know what your opinion is - but not that it is grounded in reality.

You seem to have double standards again.

I'm at a loss for how that statement in any way can reflect "double standards."

The amendment doesn't make having a militia a requirement, it mentions that is a reason congress can't infringe on our right to have guns.

And there is substantial historical evidence that the intent of the amendment was to ensure adequate arms for a nation that did not want a formal military, a position that was reversed after the Bill of Rights was ratified as the early leaders discovered the impossible logistics of protecting a nation with a "well regulated militia." I realize the NRA and gun advocates love to dismiss that history - or claim it doesn't exist (because, after all, it would substantially undermine the "I have a right to guns" message), but that doesn't actually make it go away.

We may need to FORM A MILITIA one day, and so we have guns.

Doubtful - we have a formal military and paramilitary now. Meanwhile, your guns are threatening my safety. So...

AND I argue that also means that it is talking about owning MILITARY style weapons in order to be used in a militia if need be, so banning automatics and bump stocks or military style weapons is exactly what the 2nd amendment is protecting us against.

For a well regulated militia. No such thing exists. Circumstances have changed.

It isn't talking about sport shooting or hunting. It is talking about military use. Where you would want as much of an advantage as possible.

And we have a military and there are no limits to what they use that I know of. Want to use a gun for defense? Join the military or become a cop. If not - then your gun should be permitted if you are trained, if you are licensed and renew the license appropriately, if the gun is registered, if the gun is safely stored, and we need due-diligence laws and red flag laws so people who see a danger have recourse to addressing it. We also need to limit anything that makes a gun "super lethal" (limited magazine size, bump stocks, automatic weapons, etc. I have no problem with having such weapons at a licensed gun range used under supervision. They do not belong in the public sector.

And I will fight as hard as I can to make those things a reality. And if it is possible to repeal the second amendment, I will be lining up to do so.

[seer]

And I will fight as hard as I can to make those things a reality. And if it is possible to repeal the second amendment, I will be lining up to do so.

Good luck. Americans tend not to be anti-freedom. Except of course leftists...

[carpedm9587]

Good luck. Americans tend not to be anti-freedom. Except of course leftists...

Freedom ALWAYS comes with limits. We're simply debating where to set those limits.

[Cow Poke]

Freedom ALWAYS comes with limits. We're simply debating where to set those limits.

Freedom should also always come with responsibility.

[seer]

Freedom ALWAYS comes with limits. We're simply debating where to set those limits.

Not when you want repeal to the second amendment, perhaps we should put more limits on speech by repealing the first amendment, or put limits on search and seizure protections by repealing the fourth amendment.