Making a difference with climate change
Jonathan Brockopp’s piece in the Aug. 4th edition of the CDT concerning the ethics of climate change was very interesting, but did not go far enough. He did not mention an ethical way to solve the problem of human caused global warming. He mentioned that we should each minimize our carbon footprint, but that is, as we know, the bare minimum. He also mentioned helping others rebuild who have been devastated by global warming, but that is not fixing the problem. Helping others rebuild is like putting a bucket under a leaky roof, the leak will just get worse as time goes on.
A way we can all make a difference in this country is to actively support politicians who will take action to reduce carbon emissions. Contact your congressional representative and senators and tell them to support H.R. 763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.
This bipartisan solution will reduce America’s emissions by at least 40% in the first 12 years. It will improve health and save lives. Additionally, the carbon dividend puts money directly into people’s pockets every month to spend as they see fit, helping low and middle income Americans. This policy will create 2.1 million new jobs, thanks to economic growth in local communities across America.
The fees collected on carbon emissions will be allocated to all Americans to spend any way they choose. The government will not keep any of the fees collected.
Go to the Citizens Climate Lobby web page for details.
How would an assault weapons ban be different?
In response to the appalling mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, Governor Tom Wolf and Sen. Bob Casey have predictably and foolishly proposed another ban on “assault weapons,” without revealing what makes/models or types of firearms they have in mind. They don’t explain why they apparently believe it would be more effective than the previous ban.
That original “assault weapons” ban was enacted in 1994 by Democrat majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, over strenuous objection of Republican minorities. It prohibited manufacture, transfer or possession of “semi-automatic assault weapons,” which were identified by make/model or a variety of cosmetic features. It also banned transfer and possession of “large capacity ammunition feeding devices”, i.e., magazines, capable of holding more than 10 cartridges. Firearms and magazines that were lawfully possessed by Americans on the date of enactment were exempt from the act’s provisions, i.e., “grandfathered.” President Bill Clinton signed the legislation on Sept. 13, 1994.
The ban expired in 2004 in accordance with a “sunset” provision in the legislation. The U.S. Justice Department subsequently funded an evaluation of the ban’s impacts by Christopher S. Koper, an associate professor at George Mason University. Koper’s primary conclusions were that the ban “did not appear to affect gun crime during the time it was in effect” and “a new ban on assault weapons and/or large-capacity magazines will certainly not be a panacea for America’s gun violence problem nor will it stop all mass shootings.”
The person, not the weapon, is the problem
First, my heartfelt condolences to the families of the recent tragic mass shootings. What has happened to “right” and “wrong” and the way citizens of the United States think and act? What has happened to our society? However, denying law-abiding citizens a constitutional right to bear arms is not going to stop mass killings. These weapons do not pull the trigger themselves! The person holding the weapon must pull the trigger to make it fire. Should we ban and protest knives? There have been mass killings with knives. What about vehicles? There have been mass casualties by vehicle, too. How about airplanes? My point is, if someone is determined to commit a heinous crime such as these terrible mass shootings, they will figure out a way with or without a gun. It’s not the weapon being used that is the problem, it’s the person. I’ll continue to use my Second Amendment rights with respect and responsibility.