To open the whole new disussion on the 2nd amendment: Yes, if I lived in the 17th, 18th century with wild animals, the possibility of Native American raids, no indpendent police force and under a corrupt regime, I would want to carry arms and defend my family. However, things have changed. People should be allowed to bear arms, I do not challenge this right. But how do background checks etc. infringe on this right? Why is it necessary to get machine guns? Do you really need your gun so bad, so that you couldn't wait until your demand has been approved? Again, I do not have a problem with people having guns for sport, hunting or in their homes but why carry it in malls, schools or on-campus? I am honestly scared by the idea that any person regardless of his or her state of mind or psychological problems, can just enter a store in Texas and by a semi-automatic weapon.

Yes, I know that externatilities are not internalized (hence the name), but, forced climate change rules also have other externalities. What of the families in China and India who won't be able to feed their families because of our green policies? Why do we spend so much time worrying about people in the future when there are people suffering today? This is my main problem with climate change, no action can be made without consequences, and climate change actions tend to lead to bigger problems than the destruction climate change could cause. Bangladesh will be under water by 2100 if we don't do something? Well, if we continue on our current path, Bangladesh will be as wealthy as the Netherlands by 2100, and they've been dealing with the problem of being below sea level for a long time.

Which recent developments will convince me otherwise? Lots of companies have started going "green" recently. If you look beyond the PR statements, and see what they say to the investors, it's because they know that by cutting waste, they can reduce costs. When Tesco started replacing the freezers in their stores, they didn't do it for the environment (although their PR said this), they did it because the reduced energy costs were going to save them millions in the long run. Cars are constantly getting more energy efficient, because that's what the market dictates (and hybrids, natural gas, electricity cars are already starting to carve niches), because energy costs go up.

The fact of the matter is, the West have now reached a point where the amount of carbon emitted per dollar generared is on the decline. This is a fundamental cornerstone, but it would have been reached no matter who was in charge, as its a product of economic development. The same is true of other environmental issues, as countries get richer, they get more efficient, and they can pay to treat waste. As a result, things like water and air pollution in developed countries are starting to improve.

Basically, if you're worried about climate change, let the world grow rich. It's not moral to say to countries that they must stay poor, and produce nothing, so we have to engage in policies that let them get as rich as possible. Forcing us to buy energy-efficient lightbulbs, and having a swath of unnecessary environmental regulations don't solve this issue.

---

"What is government for if not to actually lead and educate people in some areas? "

The role of the (Federal) Government is to protect our rights, nothing more, nothing less. 

Samuel I have no idea why you think the department of education is something to look up to or actually think has something to do with the education of our children.  At best it is an unneeded entity that works as a middle man, but at it's worse it is an agency like any other exists only to grow.  Not that you can blame it for what it has become, anything that is created will always work to grow,it is a basic function: grow, create, increase spending to compensate for growth and creation, and so on and so on.

The true solution to better education lies at the state and city level where local solutions to problems can be implemented.  What will work in a large city will be uneeded in a rural community and the federal goverment is incapable of handling those micro issues.

To open the whole new disussion on the 2nd amendment: Yes, if I lived in the 17th, 18th century with wild animals, the possibility of Native American raids, no indpendent police force and under a corrupt regime, I would want to carry arms and defend my family. However, things have changed. People should be allowed to bear arms, I do not challenge this right. But how do background checks etc. infringe on this right? Why is it necessary to get machine guns? Do you really need your gun so bad, so that you couldn't wait until your demand has been approved? Again, I do not have a problem with people having guns for sport, hunting or in their homes but why carry it in malls, schools or on-campus? I am honestly scared by the idea that any person regardless of his or her state of mind or psychological problems, can just enter a store in Texas and by a semi-automatic weapon.

Spoken like a true person who has never been around gun culture.

Go look at our data on allowing more firearm freedoms in states vs. those which successively restrict firearm ownership. States that have very lax laws are generally safer than those with excessive laws. Even the anti-gun Brady campaign has shown it, as states with more restrictions have more murders with firearms. When states allow carrying concealed weapons (CCW), crime has consistently decreased, because criminals are afraid their lives would be taken if they attempted a robbery. Comparatively, when you have areas with heavy firearm restrictions, such as university campuses, you've had many school shootings in 'gun-free zones'.

Finally, we do have many kinds of checks that ensure that mentally unstable people cannot own firearms.