For my fellow Libertarian, Tiny

Look at your post above. Then look in mirror!

oopsie Originally Posted by winn dixie

You are not only naive but gullible too.

You are not only naive but gullible too. Originally Posted by WTF

Dude

Stream of consciousness posting - wtf.


DPST/ccpers do not look in mirrors

Reason - medusa complex - one of the many reasons for their total lack of introspection into their ideology, and the complete lack of understanding that actions have consequences.


Let them and the LSm bleat and howl for fiden all they want - let them do as much damage as they can.

let them try to restrict 2022 elections - and find that marxist repressive actions have consequences

DPST/ccpers do not look in mirrors

Reason - medusa complex - one of the many reasons for their total lack of introspection into their ideology, and the complete lack of understanding that actions have consequences. Originally Posted by oeb11

I'd argue the opposite - it's Narcissism with a dash of Borderline Personality Disorder.

They have to feel important and that they are a "good person" which is why they virtue signal constantly - they have to make sure everyone knows how great and smart they are. And when it comes to other people, they objectify them based on an arbitrary thing, and then either idealize or demonize that person depending on how well they fit the mold they have been put into.

I'd argue the opposite - it's Narcissism with a dash of Borderline Personality Disorder.

They have to feel important and that they are a "good person" which is why they virtue signal constantly - they have to make sure everyone knows how great and smart they are. And when it comes to other people, they objectify them based on an arbitrary thing, and then either idealize or demonize that person depending on how well they fit the mold they have been put into. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

they're following the alinsky's rules for radicals, the objectivication part.

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. Originally Posted by WTF

I am sad to see that this thread, which was supposed to be all about me, Tiny, has gotten so far off track.

First, Japan gets along just fine without oil, natural gas or coal. If politicians decide to leave our oil and gas buried in the ground we'll get by, we'll just be poorer.

Second, Democratic politicians fit into three categories. Your class A Democrats like Maxine Waters are wasteful and stupid. So the oil and gas companies have sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into offshore platforms, pipelines, gas plants, field developments, exploration expense, and lease bonuses on federal lands and federal offshore leases. And so if you stop all development activity on those leases and just allow existing wells to deplete, you're flushing many billions down the drain. And you're taking away peoples' jobs. And depriving Wyoming schools of their primary source of funding. Who gives a fuck. We can just print money. Hey, it's just like the stimulus bill. Put a lot of people in places like New Mexico and Mississippi out of work with a $15 minimum age, and we'll just pay them more in government benefits for not working than they were getting before. Pump another 160 billion into the schools, and another 350 billion into subsidizing state and local governments -- just double up on the Biden stimulus. Full speed ahead, the national debt be damned.

Then you've got your Class B Democrats, like Mark Warner. They realize banning fracking or development of federal lands and offshore leases is plain stupid economically. But they also realize you've got a lot of one issue voters, who believe in climate change like a religion. It's like abortion. If you can get 15% of the electorate to vote for you solely for the reason that you're "enlightened" on this issue and the opposing party is not, you win the election. And what if you're actually increasing carbon emissions, when USA natural gas production falls off a cliff because fracking was banned? Who gives a fuck. We can always import coal to provide our baseload electricity. Just go for the votes stupid.

Finally you've got your Class C Democrats, vindictive politicians who want to punish the opposition or the people they hate. For example, Elizabeth Warren and Barrack Obama have it in for businessmen and rich people. Liz said on a Sunday morning show that if we had all the money in the world she'd still want a wealth tax. Charles Gibson asked Barrack if he would raise the capital gains tax to the point where it reduced government revenues. (Example: With a 75% capital gains tax, people don't sell anything, because they don't want to pay the tax. Since they don't sell, there are no capital gains to tax.) He said yes, because that would be fairer. Well, people who work in oil and gas are overwhelmingly Republicans. It doesn't matter whether they're black, Hispanic, Asian, suburban college educated white women, they vote Republican. People in Wyoming, where huge amounts of natural gas are produced from fracked wells on Federal lands, are Republicans. If you want to fuck a lot of Republicans you're not going to find many ways to do that better than fucking the oil and gas industry.

So call me Chicken Little. When I see friends put out of work because of market forces, so be it. When they lose their jobs because of pointless policies of politicians I get pissed.

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. Originally Posted by WTF

Should we have unrestricted sales of semiautomatic assault weapons? Weapons created solely for the purpose of killing people? Well I used to be kind of ambivalent about that. Then someone pointed out to me that if Jews in Germany had assault rifles, rocket propelled grenades, mortars, and anti-tank missiles, maybe they wouldn't have been wiped out by Hitler. Anyway, I'm not sure about the heavy armor, or even the small stuff like mortars, but just don't believe semiautomatic rifles are that big of a problem. I bet less than a hundred people a year in the USA are killed by them annually.

If you're going to ban something, ban handguns. Something like 35,000 die from handguns in America every year. About twice as many die from suicide by handgun than homicide from handgun. It's a big public health problem. Just as I'd abandon Libertarian principles and support a requirement in Texas for people to wear masks or receive fines, so I think I might support fines for owning handguns.

I fully realize that those on both the left and the right will attack me for my position on this, just as they attacked you. They however have no life experience. Have they ever gotten drunk with their buddies and decided to play Russian roulette, with a rifle? Of course not. You use a pistol. And after your dog died or your girlfriend dumped you and told you it was because your penis matched your name (tiny), did you ever try to stick a shotgun in your mouth and blow your brains out? Well I'll tell you it's pretty damn hard to do. Something like 20X more people die from handguns than from rifles and shotguns. Happily I've never owned a handgun, so I'm still alive.

UHH

I If you want to fuck a lot of Republicans you're not going to find many ways to do that better than fucking the oil and gas industry.

. Originally Posted by Tiny

Is that similar to fucking a bunch of Democrats by taking away the State income tax deduction?

>Should we have unrestricted sales of semiautomatic assault weapons? Weapons created solely for the purpose of killing people?

1.) "Assault Weapon" is not a real term. Proper definitions are Battle Rifles, Assault Rifles, Submachine Guns, Personal Defense Weapons, and Machine Pistols. Each is a bit different, but they're all select-fire w/ an option to be Automatic or Burst-Fire.

2.) Semi-Automatic weapons are just rifles or pistols.

3.) Semi-Automatic weapons are pretty much the standard for civilian use for the last 100 years. The only guns that are not semi-auto are bolt actions, pump actions, lever actions, and most revolvers.

4.) We should have unrestricted sales of actual Automatic Weapons because that is what is needed to fulfill the 2nd Amendment. There are other countries that do, such as Belarus, and they don't have a mass shooting problem.

>I bet less than a hundred people a year in the USA are killed by them annually.

It's a bit more than that, but yeah, you're right.

>If you're going to ban something, ban handguns. Something like 35,000 die from handguns in America every year. About twice as many die from suicide by handgun than homicide from handgun. It's a big public health problem.

1.) 39,470 died from firearms in 2018, 24,432 were suicide, 13,958 were homicides. 11,052 of those homicides were Gang Related. It's worth noting that gun homicides are going down, and gun suicides are going up across the last 40 years.

2.) You are right that most gun crimes are committed with a handgun.

>Just as I'd abandon Libertarian principles and support a requirement in Texas for people to wear masks or receive fines, so I think I might support fines for owning handguns.

Absolutely not for both. And more people are gonna die enforcing those rules if you did.

>Have they ever gotten drunk with their buddies and decided to play Russian roulette, with a rifle? Of course not. You use a pistol.

1.) I have a hard time believing people actually play russian roulette.

2.) You need a revolver to play it, and revolvers are a tiny fraction of owned handguns.

>And after your dog died or your girlfriend dumped you, did you ever try to stick a shotgun in your mouth and blow your brains out?

No. I've gotten mad and cried about it, but never wanted to kill myself for something so trivial.

I have been suicidal in the past about other things.

And I support a person's right to end their own life if they see fit.

>I've never owned a handgun.

With the information provided, I can tell.

GG and Tiny - thank you for reasonable and factually backed posts.

Thoughts- 'assault weapons" can be defined as those with full auto fire capability - the sale of which (manufactured after 1986) is restricteds to military, police, and some Federal Firearms Licensees .
Those automatic weapons in Civilian hands are regulated by teh NFA at of 1986 - and at this point - there has never been a crime committed by an individual using a legally transferred tax stamped FA weapon.



AR-15 rifles are not military weapons - no Fa capability - and are no different from any other semi-auto rifle with a wood stock. There are close to 20 million legally owned Ar-15 rifles in America - and if fiden and beta beto think they will 'Come for our weapons": they are sadly mistaken.



Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws outside of kalifronia and ny - which results of thousands of illegal handguns in the hands of gangs and criminals committing mayhem in Chicago - and Mayor Lightfoot wants to ban AR-15's - which will do nothing for the issue of handguns in the hands of criminals.


Many of these gangs are composed of 'people of color" - which under DPST/ccp doctrine - means Caucasians and Conservatives are at fault - and should be sent to the AOC re-educations camps.


Give the DPST/ccp nomenklatura credit- they know what jeopardizes their grasping for Absolute power in their socialist / totalitarian orwellian Amerika - it is an armed people. And they will do their best to remove that threat - both weapons and people. An armed militia serves to protect the people against exactly the marxist criminals who voter frauded themselves into office. And Rule by EO edicts - and their pet bureaucracy .

G


Give the DPST/ccp nomenklatura credit- they know what jeopardizes their grasping for Absolute power in their socialist / totalitarian orwellian Amerika - it is an armed people. . Originally Posted by oeb11

Oh yea...it has so protected the people... just look at how successful the "Stop the Steal" folks were.

Look at the Branch Davidians.

Hell look at Tim McViegh and that movement.

Ruby Ridge.

You stand no chance when the power of the Federal Government comes crashing down on you.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think the 2nd amendment protects you from the government.

Is that similar to fucking a bunch of Democrats by taking away the State income tax deduction? Originally Posted by WTF

I was able to deduct less than 20% of the state income taxes I actually paid because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Am I bitching? No. I favor flattening tax rates, removing loopholes, and simplifying the tax system. Removal of the state income tax deduction while lowering the rates would have been a step in that direction. But they still allow $10,000 in deductions for state income, sales, and property tax, so they didn't go far enough.

UHH Originally Posted by winn dixie

I know what you're thinking. You honestly are one of the more diplomatic posters on this board, and don't get enough credit for that.

4.) We should have unrestricted sales of actual Automatic Weapons because that is what is needed to fulfill the 2nd Amendment. There are other countries that do, such as Belarus, and they don't have a mass shooting problem. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

I believe people in Switzerland are actually encouraged to take rifles issued by their militias home for defense of their country. That may be part of the reason why they haven't had any invaders in centuries. Neutrality and staying out of other people's shit would be a bigger reason. Switzerland doesn't have a problem with gun violence.

1.) 39,470 died from firearms in 2018, 24,432 were suicide, 13,958 were homicides. 11,052 of those homicides were Gang Related. It's worth noting that gun homicides are going down, and gun suicides are going up across the last 40 years.

2.) You are right that most gun crimes are committed with a handgun. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

That's a good description and fair presentation of the situation.

>Just as I'd abandon Libertarian principles and support a requirement in Texas for people to wear masks or receive fines, so I think I might support fines for owning handguns.

Absolutely not for both. And more people are gonna die enforcing those rules if you did. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

How many people have died because of Governor Abbott's fines for failing to wear masks? Please note I said "fine", not jail sentence. You can get 10 years in jail for owning a fully automatic firearm, which I don't think is just.

>I've never owned a handgun.

With the information provided, I can tell. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

I do own a shotgun, rifle, and a third weapon that is 100% legal but which I choose not do describe here. When the hordes from Canada rain down upon us, those will be sufficient along with my other supplies and ammunition to take to the hills, and feed and protect my loved ones and myself.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws outside of kalifronia and ny - which results of thousands of illegal handguns in the hands of gangs and criminals committing mayhem in Chicago - and Mayor Lightfoot wants to ban AR-15's - which will do nothing for the issue of handguns in the hands of criminals. Originally Posted by oeb11

This argument Oeb, as it relates to handguns, is the biggest Achilles heal in my argument. It would be nice IMHO if handguns weren't readily available to every person who's suicidal, drunk or pissed off at his wife. But then to do that you potentially have to take handguns away from shooting enthusiasts, piss off people hugely who believe it's their right to own them, and leave handguns with gangs and criminals who aren't going to turn them in voluntarily.

Tiny - to address a part of your post - handguns in the hands of gangs of minors, criminals, felons are illegal.
of course the criminals will not voluntarily turn in their illegally posessed handguns.

The crime of illegal posession is a police matter - but the DPST managed cities refuse to enforce the law against their own gangs, antifa, and OBLM terrorists.



One who commits a crime with a handgun - deserves to be arrested and tried before a jury of peers.



There are some issues i am for - all gun sales should be through a Federal Firearms Licensee - with background check - and no more exempt gun show or intrastate sales.
red Flag laws - any hearing declaring a person unfit ot hold weapons must be with the accused present, confronting the accusers , and with benefit of an attorney. Some states hold and rule on these hearings without notifying teh accused there is even a hearing regarding them.



we need to update and keep accurate the national database of felons and others legally prohibited from buying/possessing weapons - and that would help in the illegal diversion of weapons to those ineligible to possess them.



to require all those who would purchase or hold a weapon in america to go through a system such as the BATFE tax stamp qualification to hold a true FA weapon - is a bit much.

However - we may come to a system such as to hold a Concealed handgun license to own a weapon.

I do not refer to the socialist states of kalifornia and ny - they already are attempting to completely subvert the Second amendment - the better to control the People .



i am open for reasonable and logical proposals to decrease weapons in the hands of those prohibited from possessing them , and help to cut down gun violence.



The DPST/ccp party is fixated on the 'scary AR-15' - which is used in few crimes compared to handguns. it is just a ploy to disarm teh legal gunowning population - while keeping weapons in the hands of gangs, criminals, and politicians who want to strip American people of their defense against overreaching socialist marxist DPST/ccpers who would take our freedoms and liberties - and so far - are doing a an evil job of destroying both the first and Second Amendment - with the Constitution and bill of Rights to follow.


As I have written before - there are now likely 20 million Ar-15's in america - legally held - and if beta beto and fiden/harris think they will come to confiscate those weapons - they are sadly, foolishly mistaken.

Actions have consequences - and an attempt by the arrogant, self-important , egotistical DPST/ccpers who know better than anyone - will provoke mass violence of a magnitude unimaginable to the fools in DC who think they hold power - and know they were not elected to serve the people - but to Rule the People in perpetuity.


an armed People - causes government officials to rest uneasily - and that is a good thing -

Legal weapons are the best protection against marxist DPST/ccp thugs, criminals, and politicians.