• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2nd amendment and protection

Upchurch said:
I know this counter to the right wing echo chamber narrative, but Rittenhouse isn’t the victim in the analogy, Zig.
Click to expand...

Exactly he is the hero, he went looking for trouble to get some notches in his gun stock and got them. Like a boss!
 
Lurch said:
Our boy Kyle interjected himself with his weapon, thereby adding an aggravating factor. If he didn't have that gun, he wouldn't have been attacked and thus would not have needed it.
Click to expand...

If she didn't wear that dress, she wouldn't have been raped.

This stunningly brainless American notion that everyone needs a gun to protect themselves
Click to expand...

This is a straw man. I've never claimed everyone needs a gun to protect themselves. Currently I don't have the need for a gun to protect myself, and I don't have a gun, but some people do have the need. So your starting premise is wrong, it's not a question of whether or not everyone needs a gun. The relevant question is, should people have the right to a gun to protect yourself? If people have the right, then those who need one can legally get one. If people don't have the right, then only those lucky few whom the government favors can legally get one.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
They're not unavoidable. We burned fossil fuels for two reasons, because it was easy, and because it was cheap.
Click to expand...

You have some pretty damn strong delusions about the nature of industrial society and the history of technology. There was never, ever the possibility of leapfrogging from wood fires to solar panels.

It was only cheap because the government heavily subsidized extraction, essentially mandating that the nation would be built on fossil fuels. Had this not happened, then we'd have had electric cars from the start. What do you think electric cars would have looked like after a hundred years of development like the gasoline/diesel cars had? All of that carbon-free industry was possible in the past, and was actively being pursued.
Click to expand...

Electric cars have never, ever been carbon-free. Where do you think electricity comes from? This is pure fantasy. And we've been burning fossil fuels long before the automobile.

Here's a little clue for the clueless. Forests cover more of the United States today than they did 100 years ago. Why?
 
Wow you really going to run with the whole "Being a racist vigilante murderer is the exact same thing as being a rape victim" thing aren't you?

I mean keep going it's utterly hilarious, but I don't know if that's what you are going for.
 
arayder said:
Raid the National Guard Armory?
Click to expand...

Not a joke, but while I was dropping out of The Citadel (the military college of South Carolina) one upperclassman that was taking me from person to person described how our parade rifles only lacked firing pins and ammunition, both easily ordered. Just up the river there is a national guard armory that he described as “easy” to take with a couple dozen gunmen, and then the thousand members of the Corps of Cadets could hold the river and the school.

I just nodded politely
 
ponderingturtle said:
He went there to have a confrontation, he got what he wanted. He got to live the dream of all gun owners.
Click to expand...

Well, hardly all gun owners, nor even all AR-15ers, although I confess I can't figure out what they think they're up to, besides wasting ammo.

But it was clearly little Karl Rottenass's treasured wet dream, and if anybody wants to call him a pudgy-butt fascist punk, that's okay with me.
 
Ziggurat said:
Forests cover more of the United States today than they did 100 years ago. Why?
Click to expand...
Because roughly 100 years ago was close to peak deforestation. What did that have to do with gasoline versus electricity as the power source for cars & trucks?
 
Delvo said:
Because roughly 100 years ago was close to peak deforestation. What did that have to do with gasoline versus electricity as the power source for cars & trucks?
Click to expand...

Yes... but why? Why were we cutting down so many trees?

Because we needed fuel, even before gasoline. And we largely stopped burning wood because of fossil fuels. Human society requires energy. The past alternative to fossil fuels was never some sort of environmental utopia.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes... but why? Why were we cutting down so many trees?

Because we needed fuel, even before gasoline. And we largely stopped burning wood because of fossil fuels. Human society requires energy. The past alternative to fossil fuels was never some sort of environmental utopia.
Click to expand...

This is being asserted without evidence. How much of the deforestation was for fuel, vs lumber, vs clearing land for crops?
 
ponderingturtle said:
This is being asserted without evidence. How much of the deforestation was for fuel, vs lumber, vs clearing land for crops?
Click to expand...

https://science.time.com/2013/07/04/from-forests-to-fossil-fuels-u-s-energy-consumption-since-1776/

Wood fuel usage peaked in the late 1800's.

If you don't want to believe we cleared a lot of land for fuel, fine. But there was never any possibility that we could have industrialized without the use of fossil fuels. Our modern world is built on fossil fuels. Even under the most optimistic projections of what might be possible in the future, we could never have gotten to that point without going through a period of intense fossil fuel usage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom