I owned my first rifle at age 6 (registered in MY NAME) and my first pistol at age 12.
Yes guns are dangerous, yes they can kill, that is in fact their primary use. No sane person can argue against that fact.
However, there are quite a few more people (more than most think at least) that are responsible enough to teach their children well to NEVER point ANY WEAPON, loaded or otherwise, at ANYTHING they DON'T intend to KILL!!
It really is this simple:
1. Never point a weapon at something you don't intend to kill
2. Never hand a loaded weapon to anyone, always verify the chamber is open and no rounds are in the mag/clip/butt
3. When you do find something (non-human in all but self-defense/war situations) to point your gun at, know what lies at least 2 miles beyond your intended target, as you may in fact miss
In 4 milliseconds, the reactor went prompt critical,
You meant Prompt Critical.
As long as you compare ALL life-cycle costs of EACH type of power plant, I could give a shit less how you stack them up. But coal, oil and natural gas, just don't magically show up at conventional power plants. They arrive there by the grace of OTHER FUCKING CARBON GENERATING PROCESSES, JUST LIKE NUCLEAR FUEL.
Your link stacks up all the carbon emissions produced to mine, process, refine, enrich, clad (and the emissions from mining, processing, smelting, casting and welding the cladding), assemble, ship and swap a nuclear plants fuel source.
Fair enough, just let me in on the fossil fuels refill fairy and your secret's safe with me!
Yeah, but just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should.
And just because I shouldn't do something, doesn't make it illegal to do so!!
People go on and on about the rights their society gives them without bothering to mention the responsibilities.
On this, we are in total agreement. But let us not forget that individuals are not the only ones with culpability. When our own president essentially says the "rule of law" doesn't apply to him or his staff, why should individuals be held to a higher standard. (yes, I know, straw-man, but still illustrative of the kind of brain dead thinking that allows these arguments to arise)
It's not that far a stretch to say that you have a responsibility to not wander around the President with a loaded gun or put the lives of the families of peace officers in danger.
As long as I'm abiding the law, I should be able to carry wherever I damn well please, as the 2nd amendment guarantees me that right. There is no law that says I can't be holding a loaded weapon within a specified distance of the president. Do I think you're example points out a situation in which it pays to err on the side of caution? Sure. However, by no means am I aware of any law that was broken.
Even if you knew for certain a cop was crooked, posting pictures of his house strikes me not only as obsessive, but also retributive without any court oversight, which is not what is supposed to happen in a society with the rule of law.
Another point we agree on. But you should have left out the 'court oversight' bit as there is never court oversight of vigilantism, and there are already laws on the books to deal with such crimes.
oh yeah, and quoting sanely appears to be hopelessly broken, even using paragraph or hard break tags,