"RShultz - The 18th Amendment was amended. Keep your head in the sand like those that passed the 18th Amendment. Then you will be crying the blues. I have sent more rounds downrange than you ever will."
And you think because you MAY, I say MAY, shoot more than I do that you know more about what's going to happen, and the general attitude of American gun owners than I do? Fine. You just keep thinking that. And when they come for your gun you just go right ahead and give it to them. I'm sure they'll probably get mine too, but they'll need an oven mitt because they'll be taking it barrel first, empty, and hot. My gun is not locked up, it's locked and loaded and it stays that way. And there's somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million Americans who think the same way I do.
Zableed my friend, don't worry about fairmon, Rickaroo, the ever amusing mr.Provancher, and the rest of these liberals in here. They are all bat guano crazy and NONE of their "proposals" least of all confiscation, will EVER fly. Confiscation in particular would be nigh unto impossible. The BATFE(and however many more letters they tack on) would lose so many agents they couldn't function as a cohesive unit after the FIRST DAY, and THAT assumes that a majority of their agents would even obey an order to try to confiscate their friends and neighbors guns, or the army or anyone else this slack-eyed silly bunch of yahoos tries to turn to. And not one letter of the second amendment will ever be changed because as du-mb as these drooling hydrocephalic f00ls are, they KNOW if they EVER tried that, their days of sitting in a recliner f@-r-ting through silk would be OVER! Not only would they lose their jobs, they would probably lose their lives.
Well we will just have to see what happens I guess. The five boils on the collective butt of the Geheim Staats Polizai that you have so aptly described will just have to be lanced and drained no matter how painful it is. Since the citizens were allowed no input in the process, we will just have to wait and see if Herr Fletcher has the cajones to make it happen. Maybe we should help Mr. Fletcher with a little information. So just in case you don't have a good grip on what torture is for example, maybe we can help. ... "For the purposes of the UN Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as intimidating or coercing him." Like spraying a foreign substance in his face that inflicts severe burns and extreme pain, or blasting a person with 50,000 volts at 19 Hz/Sec for the same purpose. These shenanigens have to stop or sooner or later the whole situation will deteriorate into armed confrontations like we are seeing out west. As TirnaNOG said, none of the so-called reporters at the news media outlets had the courage to ask any of the questions I have posed. We need to hear answers from SOMEONE.
I wish dearly that the open constitutional carry law had been passed in Tennessee. It was our great chance to actually be able to exercise our 2nd amendment right as we SHOULD be able to instead of having it turned into a privilege we have to pay for, and take some trumped up safety course that really doesn't teach basic gun safety but just political indoctrination on when you can actually shoot and when you can't. I can shoot a gun and take care of it just fine and I've known the basic safety rules since I was a kid in the Boy Scouts. What part of "shall not be infringed" does the State of Tennessee have so much trouble understanding?
Here's to the future huh? Does this future include him reining in the Gestapo? Stopping the beatings, the unnecessary use of batons to break people's bones, the use of TASERs and pepper spray when they are not called for? The continual violations of the UN Convention Against The Use Of Torture? The total lack of respect that these Neanderthals he graciously chooses to call police officers show the citizens of this city? Is he going to hire more berserkers like Emmer and Cooley? How about answering all THESE questions there Fred? The ones that didn't get asked at your welcome to Auschwitz On The Tennessee party?
I don't quite know how to answer because I think that we are still not "on the same page" so far as the cycle I am talking about. Let me try a slightly different way here. I would be the first to agree that the 11 year cycle of solar activity has been thoroughly taken into consideration by climatologists. They are intelligent people but I think their viewpoint on the significance of the MILLIONS of MEGAWATTS of heat that is being added over the 30 year cycle that I speak of isn't being given the consideration it SHOULD be given because of the political view of climatologists who are allowing their acceptance and consideration of data that should be given more weight to be affected by their agenda. I think we could agree here that both sides are likely guilty of this to some extent. I definitely don't blame JUST the left for this. But they ARE one of the two biggest groups involved. In addition, there are more cycles involved in this than just the 30 year 3% cycle. There are in fact several more of differing lengths that go all the way out to 2000 years. The 30 year cycle simply happens to be the one whose effect is most easily seen because of its short length and the large amount of heat involved. My sources for the number and length of the cycles are the calculations of several different astrophysicists at several different institutions. I hope this has been helpful.
I will answer your argument because you are not political and/or outright insulting as are all the other commenters in this forum.
I respect you for your politeness and civility. I think you may have misunderstood my use of the term "cycle" or "cyclic". When I use this term in my post I am simply referring to periods of time and not to periods of change in the radiation or heat output of the Sun due to solar storms, coronal mass ejections, or sunspots. These have not been ignored, but have been taken into account. What I refer to is changes in irradiance resulting ONLY from movement of the sun and planets in relation to each other, and the fact that the center of mass of the whole system does NOT remain in the same place due to the movement of the sun around the point defined in my post as the 'barycenter'. I also refer to irradiance in the sense of the heat that the WHOLE portion of a planet which faces the sun receives. There are MANY cycles of change in irradiance for EACH planet, but the 30 year cycle which relates only to Earth involves a 3% change in irradiance over that 30 year period that amounts to 1.0305 x 10 to the 10th power MEGAWATTS of heat(or half the area of Earth in Square meters times 40 watts)and this is a HUGE amount of heat that is NOT accounted for by the climate change alarmists. I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Rickaroo I will not argue my political philosophy with you as it is apparent from your statements that you have the same knee jerk reaction full of preconceptions as to what anarchy is or is not that almost everyone has. It useless to argue with anyone who has already made up his mind and I don't do it.
You know allahsyoungerbrother, you seem to me to be sadder than
conservative is or ever has been. You spend all of your time composing poorly thought out insults rather than useful or coherent comments. Conservative certainly has some strong opinions, but certainly no stronger than some others who comment here. I believe homosexuality to be abnormal and immoral, but I limit my comments to that simple statement and I don't go out of my way to insult those who practice that lifestyle. It is not my place to judge them or to hate them. I don't believe they should be allowed to legally marry, but I would not deny them anything else. Does this opinion make you believe that I wish to have a
"religious North Korea"? Or that I am "sad" in some way?
There are 2 reasons why the Democrats will call you ignorant and stupid if you don’t believe their explanation and question it. 1) That’s just the way liberals argue, and 2)Not every science that has something to do with it is being used to argue the cause of climate change. Climatology, while a respectable science, is not the only science that helps explain climate change. Astrophysics, which deals in part with change in the motions of the sun and all the major planets is just as likely a candidate, but it is ignored. If it matters at ALL, it happens that I am neither a right-winger or a leftist. I am actually a rational anarchist who feels that the truth is more important by far than
politics. “Greenhouse” gasses have been in our atmosphere over the history of this planet as has been shown in ice core samples. And the figures we get from these that approximate temperature before direct measurement began don't always correlate with the amounts of these gasses at any particular time. If you look at astrophysics, you find that Newton's work doesn’t quite cover the motions of the sun or the planets as observed. The reason is that the center of the sun is NOT the center of mass of the solar system. A point known as the "barycenter" is the actual point that all the planets and moons orbit. The barycenter is the point between two objects where they balance each other. It is the center of mass where a moon orbits a planet or a planet orbits a star. Both bodies actually orbit around a point that lies outside the center of the larger body. The moon doesn’t orbit the exact center of the Earth. It actually orbits a point on a line between the center of the Earth and the Moon that’s about 1,710 km below Earth’s surface. The solar system also has a barycenter and, depending on the current locations and masses of all the planets, the barycenter of the solar system is either below the surface of the sun or more than twice the sun’s diameter outside it. So the sun does a wobble around it. If you’d like to see it, go to:
This results in cycles of changing irradiance of all the planets, including Earth, which has several cycles one of which is a 30 year cycle in which the heat the side facing the sun gets is changing by about 3% which doesn’t sound like a lot until you realize that’s about 40 watts per square meter. That comes out to a total of 1.0305 x 10 to the 10th power MEGAWATTS of heat;an amount which could not be added to the atmosphere by any human activity including what the GAIA worshippers add in hot air.
Richard W. Shultz