…some questions.
Don’t expect any thoughtful or logical answers. To the degree that these people are actually sincere in their motivations, and not just power mongers, they operate on pure emotion. They say they want to have a “conversation,” but they don’t. They just want to lecture us, and disarm us.
He gave a talk on human spaceflight in Jacksonville a few weeks ago, and it was recorded.
John Hare has a question.
…would make a great stimulus and green energy project.
From my point of view, just think what the demand for that much material lifted from earth would do for launch costs. Unless they used SLS, of course.
A lot of people have them, but Larry Correia’s are particularly worth reading, for those willing to be rational on the subject.
…with word games.
But word games are all they have, really. There are certainly no facts or logic involved.
“Why I did it.”
It’s a dumb reason. He provides reasons why someone might want to claim the moon, but none for why anyone else should pay any heed whatsoever to such a claim.
Even ignoring the fact that it would be a blatant violation of the Outer Space Treaty, there is no traditional or even historical basis on which the nation could claim the entire body, nor is it necessary. Even if we could get an international consensus that off-planet property rights, or even sovereignty claims, are a good thing, we have to establish some criteria for making such claims beyond the fact that we stuck a flag on it four decades ago. Traditional claims, at least in modern times, involve actually occupying and improving the claim. For the U.S. to claim the entire moon without having even bothered to do anything significant on any part of it for almost half a century would rightly be viewed as almost as ludicrous as the Eros claim a few years back. It’s a planet too far.
Can someone point me to links in the past few days with the idiotic nonsense that the Founders didn’t anticipate semi-auto weapons?
[Update a while later]
Folks, I’m not asking for arguments against it. I have a devastating piece to do that. I’m looking for links to historical and illogical ignorami who argue for it.
He has two posts up now, one on why it’s hard to prevent mass shootings, and one on why bans on “assault weapons” (a phrase that means nothing to the gun community, and that no one can define with any coherence) will do nothing to do so.