“Funny thing about cars - they keep designing them to hurt less people.
Whereas, my gun is designed to be effectively and efficiently lethal.
Believe it or not, most folks can tell the difference between a product that's designed, produced, marketed and sold primarily for the purpose of intentionally inflicting bodily harm on another person (or persons), and an appliance like a car.”
Edge of the Edge on Jun 2, 2014 at 23:02:39
“Cars still kill more people than firearms, not to take away the safety designs of modern vehicles.
Every gun I have purchased was never advertised as some efficient killing device. I own many firearms and do not hunt or kill anything. I do some competitive shooting several times a year along with target practice in my off time.
A gun is a hand held mechanical thing that fires a projectile, the design of the projectile is what causes a lot of or very little damage, like hollow points Vs. ball ammo.”
“NRA: When open carrying firearms in crowded restaurants, supermarkets, banks, and schools, please wear clear identification that you are not a terrorist, criminal, or mentally disturbed, so that others exercising their 2nd Amendment rights will not mistakenly target you and open fire.”
“Like Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, Warren understands that the extreme concentration of wealth and growing income inequality ultimately undermines growth and economies. An enlightened capitalist approach ensures that earnings and profits are distributed so that the wage earners at the bottom have sufficient spending power to drive the economy.
In the 1980's the average income of top American corporations was about 30 times greater than the average income of their employees. In most countries around the world that's still true. But Bloomberg's recent survey finds it's now more than 450 times the average employee in the US, and growing dramatically each year - some are as high as 1500 times - while average incomes have remained static or fallen the last two decades.
Rewarding upper management with obscene compensation for keeping wages low simply takes money out of the consumer economy, creates unemployment, and ultimately limits growth and profits.”
FoundersWereConservative on Jun 2, 2014 at 21:11:07
“Tye, I did not read her credentials in your polite response, other than Warren understands an income inequality theory. BHO understands that theory too, and his track record as steward of the economy is horrible.
If I was king, I would make it a requirement for every politician to have spent 10 to 15 years in the private sector. That is the REAL world where people and companies compete to survive. Bureaucrats and academics are clueless in this regard.
Do you remember what happened the last time the Federal Government attempted to meddle in our free market economy? By the Federal Government forcing lenders to grant millions of mortgages to often irresponsible people (so called sub-prime mortgages), the artificial demand for homes that ensued inflated the "housing bubble" that ushered in the Global Financial Crisis.
Do you want to raise wages for all Americans? Do it the right way! Create a vibrant economy where the demand for labor exceeds supply, and not an artificial government-mandated income adjustment.
After Carter, during Reagan's administration the nation enjoyed a 7.5 growth rate. BHO did the exact opposite as Reagan. Warren would have done the same as BHO, or perhaps more extreme.
In a global economy, US wages are impacted by global wages. We're not in an isolated economic cocoon. Thus, there is a constant downward pressure on US wages because all other countries lag.
Read Milton Friedman (or watch him on U-tube). He is an Adam Smith disciple.
“To be fair, George Bush, a climate change skeptic, asked for a complete review of the science, and when he got it, reversed his position and became the first US President to acknowledge climate change was real, humans were involved in its cause, and making it American policy to combat it.
Folks always target Al Gore, but forget which American leader stepped up first and at least settled the political "debate" over whether it was real or not.”
Charles E Miller on Jun 2, 2014 at 17:06:54
“You're missing the point. The GOP is acting like a bunch of illiterate, uneducated yahoos while Progressives embrace the science that abounds.
That's great for Pres W, but his silence on the subject this past decade has been deafening.”
“You're citing the rate of increase in surface temperatures, not global temperatures for the past 17 years. Only 2% of warming is in the atmosphere, more than 60% is in the oceans, which is why sea levels are rising, ice is melting, etc. And even if there is a "pause" in surface temps, its meaningless, because short term changes fluctuate. The long range trend, including the past 17 years, shows rising temperatures.
If you want to believe that the dramatic spike in CO2 concentrations in the last 150 years is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with humans taking trillions of tons of carbon out of storage underground and releasing it into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, be my guest. Just explain where all that carbon has gone, if not into the atmosphere.”
“Meanwhile, Farmers Insurance is suing Chicago and 200 other municipalities for failing to take measures to protect against climate change and then filing claims for the damages it caused in a major storm last year.
It's a landmark step, and all other insurance companies are watching, because they're dealing with rising claims in the hundreds of billions now, and expect them to climb much higher as oceans continue to rise and weather events get more severe.
If Boehner was really worried about saving costs and jobs, he'd be looking to stop things from getting worse pronto.”
“Here's what you need to explain to the guy who runs the tv show, from actual scientists:
It's been known for a century that gasses like carbon dioxide trap heat on earth - if they didn't we'd be one huge ice ball.
It's well proven that in times past earth's climate has gone hot and cold (from so hot 80% of all life was wiped out, to so cold there was a mile thick layer of ice around the planet), and those changes are directly tied to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It's called "global warming" because the earth is warming. That's fact, no one disputes it, except non-scientists with agendas.
The climate is a giant engine that runs on heat energy. Add more heat, it changes, hence the term 'climate change'. Add enough heat, the climate goes off the rails.
The average climatologist in the US according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics makes $37,000 a year. The highest paid climatologist in the US gets $150,000. No scientist is "living well" on research money.
On the other hand, the average oil company exec gets paid more than $200,000, plus bonuses, perks, stock, and regular increases keeping folks burning their products and acting like nothing could possibly go bad doing it.
Today the level of CO2 is higher than its been in a million years, and rising fast.”
Peter Piasecki on May 29, 2014 at 10:42:16
“and apparently you have been living on those AGW pages, You really need to read what real scientist do and say, bot some web page
Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH).
Monday, July 1, 2013
Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby's work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change
Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby's hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change, detailed in his report Reconstruction of Murry Salby's theory that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven [Google translation].
Dr. Björnbom discusses his findings in this post from The Stockholm Initiative[Google translation + light editing]:”
The simple fact is, we're running a global experiment, none of the outcomes will be positive for humans, and there are a very large number of unknown variables, some of them (like methane clathrates in permafrost and expansive shallow undersea deposits) possible planet killers.”
“While it's certainly possible for humankind to put itself into a box it can't climb out of, I tend to have more confidence in human ingenuity.
There's no reason to assume that massive sequestration or other mitigating efforts would have no effect - albeit with unintended consequences to deal with - and consequently the cliff becomes a ramp, which makes it potentially more manageable. We may even get lucky and enter a period of unprecedented volcanic activity.
In any case, only good can come from addressing the problem head on, sooner than later.”
MrBadExample on May 28, 2014 at 16:41:12
“Sequestration while difficult for carbon might work (there's also geoengineering). But the hundreds of gigatons of methane entering the atmosphere from the melting permafrost in Siberia is something else altogether. There are numerous feedback loops going on right now and once they've started nobody knows how to stop them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do what we can, but we're really missing the sense of urgency we should have.”
“When scientists connected acid rain and destruction to coal plant emissions, the same wail and cry went up - it was the end of the world, too costly to fix, too strict, too fast....and then it was done, and the problem got fixed.
When scientists connected the growing ozone hole to certain refrigerants, the same wail and cry went up - it would cost too much, there were no alternatives, the public would pay through the nose, it would tank the economy...and then it was done and the problem got fixed.
Same old, same old.....the only question is how long the problem is allowed to continue before it's fixed, and the game plan is stall, stall, stall.”
MrBadExample on May 28, 2014 at 13:15:42
“There's a great deal of evidence in peer-reviewed papers that the problem is beyond fixing. Humans have not lived on this planet when baseline temperature is 3.5 centigrade above what it was prior to the industrial era. Some things cannot be fixed--if the 'clathrate gun' has been fired already, the gigatons of methane that bubble up from the arctic will be an extinction level event. http://brooklynculturejammers.com/2014/05/12/the-f...”
“You're right - after Congress passed the law giving blanket immunity to gun sellers and makers, the only thing they can be sued for is if the gun malfunctions.
That's my point.
The government had no business passing that law. Let the courts decide, like they do with alcohol.”
Sabrina Gray on May 26, 2014 at 01:04:22
“No they didn't give blanket immunity from lawsuits. If the product is designed improperly and causes death or dismemberment then they can be sued (example Remington)(but most companies initiate recalls even before something like that happens, Ruger I know has done it before) . And can you show me a case where alcohol companies have been sued for people drunk driving?”
Why? What does it matter? What does it have to do with guns?
Seriously, please try and explain what you're talking about.”
Sabrina Gray on May 26, 2014 at 00:16:43
“Because the only way you can sue a company is if the product is flawed. In this case the product both the car and the firearm were not flawed. The trigger was pulled, and a projectile was ejected from a metal tube.”
Let's consider two: an Abrams battle tank and a BMV hatchback.
Is there a difference between the two in your opinion? Most people would recognize one has been designed to inflict destruction, and the other has been designed to prevent it.
Does the person who sells tanks to strangers have any different responsibility in selecting who he sells them to, or how he sells them, than the BMW dealer?
And should we treat the tank dealer the same as the BMW dealer when it comes to liability if they are used to kill?
The common sense answer is obviously, yes to all the above questions, because there is a fundamental difference in the purpose and design and marketing and actions of the two vehicles - just as there are with guns and cars.”
Sabrina Gray on May 25, 2014 at 22:51:26
“That's not an answer, did the car malfunction in anyway shape or form?”
“It is very much the question. When a bar serves a drunk and lets him walk out and drive without taking precautions, the bar can be held liable and sued by third parties damaged by the drunk. Same exact principle.
And I don't see how folks like yourself pretend there's no difference between a 9mm and a toaster. Seriously? You don't know which one would you want to use for protection against an armed intruder?
And would you use it because it looks cute in your hand? Or because its a lethal weapon?”
Sabrina Gray on May 25, 2014 at 22:22:04
“Did the car malfunction in anyway shape or form?”
First, bars take responsible steps to actively police their patrons and ensure precautions, because if they don't they may face liability.
No such provision exists in the gun industry, because the government over-reached and passed blanket immunity. If sellers and gun companies can be held liable, they will take appropriate precautions to ensure they won't be. That 's the whole point.
Second, if bars can demonstrate they took suitable steps, the courts will not find them liable.
So, if gun sellers are absolutely certain they're not liable, they won't lose in court either.
So, why are they hiding behind the blanket immunity?”
That guy from that thing on May 25, 2014 at 23:07:27
“They absolutely do. They comply with the laws on record for background checks. FFLs do not sell without a background check.”