I thought I explained this to you before. When I present something to the Institute, it's not always an argument. Sometimes I just throw something out there because I think it might be a subject of mutual interest, like the Vietnam War. I don't expect that either one of us will ever change our opinions about that and, even if we did, it's too late because that ship sailed a long time ago. It's kind of like we are two old veterans, who were in different theaters of operation, swapping war stories. It wouldn't be nearly as interesting discussing it with any of those young whippersnappers running around today who weren't even alive at the time.
I thought I made it clear that I was not doubting your word when I didn't believe something you posted. It's not you who I am doubting, it's your source that I am doubting. I often doubt my own sources too, especially when I don't remember what they are. I recall something that I believe to be relevant to the discussion, so I throw it out there to see if it will fly. I'm here because I'm interested in this stuff, and I don't always have an axe to grind.
Anyway, I think I have a solution to our impasse on the subject of climate change. I will accept your assertions for the purposes of this discussion only to enable the discussion to move forward. Whether or not I accept them in real life remains to be seen. Like I've said, I try to keep an open mind about stuff like. For all I know, your assertions may be correct, since I'm in no position to conclusively confirm or refute them, but that doesn't matter for our purposes here. So let's assume, for the purposes of this discussion only, that the global climate is changing and it's all our fault. The next question would seem to be: What do we want to do about it? I know that your people want to raise the price of fossil energy to encourage us to use less of it. I'm not crazy about that idea, so let me propose the following alternative:
As I understand it, a lot of brilliant scientists have been studying this problem for a long time. I have seen it on the TV news (NBC, CBS, and The Weather Channel. Certainly not FOX!) several times over the last few days that an esteemed panel of these guys has recently submitted a conclusive report to our president, and anybody else who will listen. It would seem, then, that the subject has been studied enough, and no further studies should be necessary. I therefore propose that they take all the money and other resources that they have been using to study the problem and redirect them towards developing a clean, cheap, and efficient energy source that works. Once this source has been developed, require them to release it to the public and allow somebody to produce it and put it on the market. No fair sitting on it for decades like they have done with hydrogen fuel cells and cold fusion.
I was going to say something about the smoking issue, but I seem to have forgotten what it was. No matter, if it's important it will come back to me, maybe tomorrow.
I read your link on the gun issue, and I think I can address your questions about it. I am not grinding any axes here, I'm just trying to explain what these people are about. Theoretically, it has always been legal to openly carry a loaded gun down Main Street, as long as you don't fire it in the city limits, most municipalities have a law against that. Just try it, though, and you will likely be stopped and questioned by the police. They will claim that you are creating a disturbance and frightening people and ask you to take your gun home. If you argue about it, they will arrest you for disturbing the peace or something like that. They probably won't file charges, because they know it won't stand up in court. They will just take you to the station and hassle you until you agree to leave your gun home next time you come to town. This is the main reason why the push was made for the concealed carry permits. Previously, most jurisdictions would not issue a permit unless you had a good reason for it, like you need it for your job because you routinely carry large sums of money, or something like that. The new laws generally say that they have to issue you a permit unless they have good reason not to, like you're a convicted felon or a mental patient.
I think what's happening now is that, flush with their concealed carry victory, the gun people are now focusing on the open carry issue. I doubt that they plan to shoot up Dodge, I think they are just trying to prove their point. It seems, though, that they wouldn't need to prove their point with loaded guns. I was always taught that you should keep your gun unloaded whenever you don't have a good reason to keep it loaded, and then treat it as if it was loaded anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment