Actually, most US states have very little to say about gun storage, mostly because proposed laws have been successfully recognized and opposed for what they are: incremental steps to paramount to prohibition.
So, about 0.011% of the population died from a car accident last year. Whoop-tee doo. It's totally crazy fucking dangerous, Mr. Little! It's inevitable: you're going to die. Your family, and everyone you ever knew, they cannot escape this fate. Are too many killed by vehicle? Sure.
It's especially upsetting when this happens to the young and those full of potential. But, you're right, a car can't make a man free, even if it can be a significant, even enjoyable part of his life. The Freest man I ever met knew of his mortality, and yet had no fear of it. Fear of injury or death is after all fear of life, and for me at least, being afraid of life is no way to live.
In my neighborhood, you're extremely lucky if you've got a 3/8" tap coming off the main--you know after the pipe has filled up with corroded crap over the decades. My house had maybe a 1/16" hole, out of what was at one point a 3/4" tap.
You could have 3" piping to the bathroom and it's not going to help in that situation:)
The bullets were never intended to fragment, such round are prohibited, that's why we use jacketed slugs.
I don't know your level of experience in the matter--however, not to be blunt... You're wrong, on a few counts.
The reason.223 / 5.56 NATO was ever an attractive solution was fragmentation. Without it, this ammo couldn't be satisfactory under any circumstance. I've read analysis after analysis, written by people with letters after their names, a few of whom were graduates of a war college. They all agree, 100%.
As to this fragmenting feature being prohibited, this is also a myth. The relevant section of the Hauge convention: "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions." We're not really a party to it, but we stupidly go along with it anyway, for NATO commonality purposes.
evidence: Even for 7.62mm OTM (open tip match) bullets, which go one step further, and actually do have an opening in the tip of the jacket, was approved by the Army JAG for combat use.
Your green tip ammo, however, fits the above description to a T, but the fact is: at short range and high velocity, it will often yaw (tumble) and proceed to fragment in soft tissue, creating a much larger wound than otherwise possible for the caliber. I've shot pigs with M193 (55gr copper tip), and the destruction can be pretty surprising, and the bits of bullet can be tough to track down. Without fragmentation as a primary wounding mechanism, 5.56 NATO would be next to useless... The Russian version of this design philosophy (5.45x39) even has a void at the tip which helps the bullet to yaw, making it fragment more readily.
Thirdly, the penetrator in your issued green tip ammo (M855) is steel, not tungsten. If you don't believe me, take a magnet to it. Every other NATO member calls it SS109, and yeah it's everywhere. It was designed for future wars (with real armies), where the brass assumed the enemy would be wearing armor. The problem is, it sacrifices a lot of fragmenting ability to be an armor penetrator.
That's the reason for Mk 262, 77gr OTM ammo. Even though it actually shoots a bit slower, it extends the fragmentation envelope considerably, especially compared to M855 from M4 length rifles. It really should be in greater circulation. It's a better bullet for the war we're in, and it's crazy accurate. I understand the special forces guys love it.
Third with proper shot selection, the M4 is just as accurate as the M-16, some would say even more so as it's stock length can be adjusted to the user
You won't find me argue against this point. You're right. I shoot long distance matches, and barrel length alone really doesn't have much to do with accuracy. Actually, short barrels are intrinsically stiffer, and can actually have better physical repeatability, all else being the same. If a rifleman can anticipate the greater bullet drop caused by reduced velocity, he should shoot just as well.
I think antipersonnel mines are just fine for a properly advertised DMZ and even for temporary area-denial, providing they will be destroyed eventually. Beyond that, they're indiscriminate... It doesn't matter if it's a soldier on a battlefield, or a 10 year old kid/farmer trying to live off the earth, long after the war has ended... It's an equal opportunity munition, unlike even the most poorly designed slug.
As for the 5.56mm bullet, it's really down to the bullet design, and the rifles in which they're used. The steel tipped bullet most often used by our soldiers does indeed have problems, if it doesn't manage to hit the target at a high enough velocity that it fragments. The shorter M4 (14.5 inch barrel) doesn't get the bullet up to speed in the same way the 20" M16 barrel can, and the bullets don't fragment as intended.
The main problem is, the army is now issuing lots of M4 carbines, favoring mobility instead of firepower... And like in every other area, the military is often 10 years behind current trends. Bullets better suited to the weapons are just now being fielded to non-SOCOM units.
Don't worry... The Russians already have and will surely market effectivecountermeasures to this missile system. But, so does every other country with a navy budget capable of supporting aircraft carriers and other strategic naval systems.
Interesting observations. Actually, I've long thought it would be amusing if a puritan artist designed a piece as an allegory of chastity-intending perhaps to evoke a sense of purity, but it instead had a rather ironic effect for most people; upon experiencing the piece, for some non-obvious or magical quality, it usually caused spontaneous sexual arousal and ultimately orgasm. Maybe, it really is about what the audience experiences.
Well, that's the thing: in my locale at least there's a couple journalists who would take this on. Your point is well made, though. It's going downhill fast.
In times like this, I think the media is your best friend. Surely, there has to be some local investigative TV reporter who likes going after government excesses. If I were involved, I'd play it to the max and do everything humanly possible to get this retarded governmental behavior plastered all over the the 6:00 news, and use the investigator to go after the state reps and senators to put pressure on these buffoons.
You and your daughter deserve public apologies and reparation from everyone involved (who in return each deserve a firm kick in the ass) The only way it's going to happen is to make it visible. Just sayin'
I think in many ways, video games have superseded film as an artform... Although, I admit, my definition of art is sort of all-encompassing: basically, anything designed to affect ones' emotions is art.
The last few generations of games (possibly by virtue of immersion that's simply not possible with film) have become vastly more capable of influencing my emotions than most of the (repetitive & derivative) dreck shown on movie screens today. For example, I recently played through Modern Warfare 2... At more than a few instances in the game, (for me at least) it really transcends 'entertainment' and makes you feel just what the developers intended... Perhaps a sense of acrophobia, hatred, camaraderie, loss, and eventually victory...
I honestly can't remember the last fiction movie that moved me so much.
All true. It's less profitable for the industrial agricultural complex to feed cows grass (all things considered), making it more expensive to consumers. The way I look at it: if grain (and the requisite steroids, antibiotics and other chemicals fed to cows) shortens the lives and decreases the health of OUR food, it's probably not doing us much good either. Plus, the taste just doesn't compare.
Cows get more fat as a result of eating grain more than anything else, (especially intramuscular fat, which gives oh so precious marbling). Grain fed cows are just more fatty compared to those eating grass, but grass fed cows are much more tasty. In fact, if you feed cows too much grain they get sick (since they evolved to eat grass) but breeders are working to remove this quality from the gene pool.
The UDSA may grade the grain fed meat higher, but the grass fed cow will be far better tasting, even if it is less fatty... And, it's better for you, since much less of the fat is saturated, there are also more omega-3 acids in grass fed beef. Cows are supposed to move around a bit, even if they are grazing machines. I don't see that a bit of exercise is going to be very detrimental to quality. Might even be better.
I bet that the cops actually tazered the kid, causing him to fall off of the overpass to begin with--and the rest of the story is just some bullshit they worked up on the spot to cover up the truth!
Not a cop, but I've done a bit of security work. I wasn't purposefully leaving out the (boron carbide) ceramic plates. It's just that most ballistic armor users outside the military won't ever experience the joy of strapping on yet another 10-16+ lbs of rigid plates. Like the OP's metal plates, they also serve to distribute the impact of a bullet over larger surface areas, so it was kind of tangential to the discussion.
Actually, just thinking about it: A bunch of thin, individually flexible layers of this boron ceramic matrix could go a long way in improving the wear-ability of SAPI type systems... But you still need to have a good mass of it to protect vital areas. Maybe when they perfect the exo-skeleton stuff, our guys will have a chance to carry all of this armor.
As for the journalists... My guess is, maybe the steel plate(s) make the system a bit more concealable, compared to some thicker trauma plates? Ah ha... in the product description you linked to: Utilizing trusted Kevlar Correctional materials, the Talon series provides enhanced protection for correctional duties. Looks like this particular vest is targeting correctional users. In an environment where you're much, much more likely to be stabbed than shot, I could see where it would make sense to sacrifice kevlar intended for ballistic threats, and wear something like this. It specifies the stab resistant rating, but I don't see a ballistic rating, could be level 2, vs 3a (which most cops wear these days). Who knows?
Ye old flak vests had metal. However, in my experience, no modern vests have metal plates at all. If a vest has a metal component, it is usually kept in a pouch *on the front* of the vest, where a bullet simply passes through, to be absorbed by the kevlar/aramid/textile component--offering virtually no benefit against bullets or their blunt trauma.
What it does, however, is give protection against stabbing and puncture weapons, which traditional vests alone do not protect against. Even then, the metal insert stuff is two or three generations ago--haven't seen it in ages, really. I think most of the current anti-stab products incorporate layers of lexan/acrylic, possibly as well as additional bullet resistant material.
Anyway, getting back to the point: there are a number of blunt trauma pads/products generally meant to cover the sternum area, which go in behind the vest. Addressing one other post in this thread: there is at least one such product that incorporates non-Newtonian fluids. The steel layers went away because they were too inflexible, too ineffective, and they really made you sweat--even more so than a vest already does.
It's not a fine line in the least. These are completely disparate ideas. Paranoia is a delusion marked anxiety and or fear. Preparedness is what it is: a state of being prepared. The point is, if you're prepared in mind (being disciplined and resolute), body (being fit and trained) and material needs (such as having a supply of goods beneficial to survival*), you need not be afraid.
Natural disaster? Foreign invasion? Domestic insurrection? Zombie attack? (that's a joke, son) Your life is simply made easier if you've taken the necessary steps to become generally prepared, whereas paranoia is useless to the survivalist.
However my point - that people having guns everywhere are not somehow automatically braver than those that don't - still stands.
You mean having a gun in hand doesn't make you instantly brave? Well, I don't know... There's ghettos in this country that my white ass would not walk through unarmed. However, I can definitively say that my confidence would be greatly expanded, if I were rolling through behind an M2 machine gun turret.
*serviceable weapons as applicable to militia use would certianly be counted.
That's false. If the internal temperature rises to 155, the steak is no longer rare
And you'll note that I'm talking medium rare, though a fine enough line, I reckon. (I personally can't stomach anything rarer than medium). Secondly, temperature is only a symptom of the action going on inside a piece of cooking meat, and is a result of the amount of water present (and it's pressure). The temperature of the food is allowed to rise at some rate proportional to the rate of water displaced, or so I imagine.
You can cook a piece of meat with high temperature so that its internals reach medium temperature quickly, without thoroughly cooking it. (Although it's likely to coast, as the TV cooks say, and become more done as it cools) You can also cook meat at much lower temperatures for much longer duration, and get meat with a greater level of done-ness. i.e. boiling, low temperature barbecuing, smoking, and even braising.
Bottom line: temperature is only one factor that influences the cooking process. As you hinted to yourself, it doesn't happen instantly as the meat (or whatever) reaches the prescribed temperature... Even if you could instantaneously inject enough kinetic energy into the material to homogeneously raise its temperature to some temperature appropriate for cooking, it's still not going to instantly cook.
I'm sure like other reactions, the reactions behind the cooking processes are driven by probability at some level, but I decided early on in my career that there was a threshold for my desire to learn about chemical engineering, and this is approaching it.
The USDA recommends ground meets be held at 155F for 15 seconds. A sustained internal temperature of about 145F makes for medium rare steaks, but it's likely that they hit 155 for at least 15 seconds towards the end. Shouldn't be dangerous.
Yeah, well they'll just use the commerce clause to get their fingers into it like so many other things--because if you tried hard enough, at some level you could probably vaguely connect assisted suicide with commerce "among the several states".
There's a difference between paranoia and preparedness. I think the long prevailing position of the Swiss is that they don't especially care for violence, but simultaneously, they know it has its place.
Well, it only follows: If martial law is imposed, as in The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.*, then your rights pretty much go out the window. In that case, you have no expectation of any kind of constitutional protection whatsoever, no less congress passing a law allowing soldiers to demand quarter.
But that's why we have the second amendment: To give teeth to the rest of the bill of rights, and to make this sort of action so full of consequences that at the level of an individual soldier, you'd be a fool to invade someone's home. It'd be like a bunch of well armed rats demanding shelter and three squares from a den of badgers--might work for a while, but it's going to be bloody in the end.
Tell me one right that's not taken away under certain circumstances.
Ideally... None, unless under due process of the law. Unfortunately, this idea is all but eroded under our legislature. But that still doesn't make a right "just" a privilege.
Most states outlaw the use of a pistol or other handgun for hunting because they are far more likely to would big game than kill it and that as any hunter knows is tragic not helpful
Like the other responder to your grossly mal-informed post said, most states allow handgun hunting (in fact, I can't think of one that doesn't). Some states combine handgun hunting season with archery season, by virtue that they're similar activities--both are fairly short ranged by nature, require more skill in stalking, good shot placement for an ethical kill, etc. Other states group handgunners in with rifle season. Most states do have an energy threshold for handguns, e.g. 500 lb-ft at 50 yards, which requires hunters to use a appropriately powerful handgun... Some of which, like a Thompson Contender which shoot rifle cartridges through a much shorter barrel--versus the traditional automatic pistol or revolver.
I also think there's a few states which actually DISALLOW rifle hunting, because they're *too* powerful for the type of terrain you're likely to encounter. Even a.30-06 rifle is of limited utility in the heavily wooded forests back east, and some of those states lean towards shotguns loaded with slugs. I'm not really interested in hunting, and I'll admit that I'm no authority in that regard.
Secondly, the second amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". I mean, it's a fucking single sentence with two commas; not exactly the most complicated legal obligation ever invented... Only the most attention-deficient doofus can't understand what the authors meant--and I don't see "weapons" in there, do you?
Thirdly, regarding your other post: "Handguns were developed for a specific purpose. That being that they were close to hand. The only reason for having a gun close to hand is defense from a large carnivorous animal or a similarly armed animal."
Wrong. Handguns were first developed because they allowed greater firepower for close quarters combat. Before the advent of revolvers and cartridge-based rifles, military officers and especially officers on vessels often carried many pistols, and they carried a sword for when the pistols ran out or got wet... Before that, they were a weapon of the nobility, because they were relatively expensive, and a lot less effective compared to a musket.
Today, they're just a lot easier to carry, and in most respects, it's a lot more polite to carry a pistol than it is to carry rifle. You want to do away with pistols, just because they're modern convenience, fine. Good luck with that. Personally, I'd love to see everyone sling a rifle over their shoulder--it'd be a great deterrence to hooligans.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, most US states have very little to say about gun storage, mostly because proposed laws have been successfully recognized and opposed for what they are: incremental steps to paramount to prohibition.
So, about 0.011% of the population died from a car accident last year. Whoop-tee doo. It's totally crazy fucking dangerous, Mr. Little! It's inevitable: you're going to die. Your family, and everyone you ever knew, they cannot escape this fate. Are too many killed by vehicle? Sure.
It's especially upsetting when this happens to the young and those full of potential. But, you're right, a car can't make a man free, even if it can be a significant, even enjoyable part of his life. The Freest man I ever met knew of his mortality, and yet had no fear of it. Fear of injury or death is after all fear of life, and for me at least, being afraid of life is no way to live.
Dangit, so that's my problem!
In my neighborhood, you're extremely lucky if you've got a 3/8" tap coming off the main--you know after the pipe has filled up with corroded crap over the decades. My house had maybe a 1/16" hole, out of what was at one point a 3/4" tap.
You could have 3" piping to the bathroom and it's not going to help in that situation :)
The bullets were never intended to fragment, such round are prohibited, that's why we use jacketed slugs.
I don't know your level of experience in the matter--however, not to be blunt... You're wrong, on a few counts.
The reason .223 / 5.56 NATO was ever an attractive solution was fragmentation. Without it, this ammo couldn't be satisfactory under any circumstance. I've read analysis after analysis, written by people with letters after their names, a few of whom were graduates of a war college. They all agree, 100%.
As to this fragmenting feature being prohibited, this is also a myth. The relevant section of the Hauge convention: "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions." We're not really a party to it, but we stupidly go along with it anyway, for NATO commonality purposes.
evidence: Even for 7.62mm OTM (open tip match) bullets, which go one step further, and actually do have an opening in the tip of the jacket, was approved by the Army JAG for combat use.
Your green tip ammo, however, fits the above description to a T, but the fact is: at short range and high velocity, it will often yaw (tumble) and proceed to fragment in soft tissue, creating a much larger wound than otherwise possible for the caliber. I've shot pigs with M193 (55gr copper tip), and the destruction can be pretty surprising, and the bits of bullet can be tough to track down. Without fragmentation as a primary wounding mechanism, 5.56 NATO would be next to useless... The Russian version of this design philosophy (5.45x39) even has a void at the tip which helps the bullet to yaw, making it fragment more readily.
Thirdly, the penetrator in your issued green tip ammo (M855) is steel, not tungsten. If you don't believe me, take a magnet to it. Every other NATO member calls it SS109, and yeah it's everywhere. It was designed for future wars (with real armies), where the brass assumed the enemy would be wearing armor. The problem is, it sacrifices a lot of fragmenting ability to be an armor penetrator.
That's the reason for Mk 262, 77gr OTM ammo. Even though it actually shoots a bit slower, it extends the fragmentation envelope considerably, especially compared to M855 from M4 length rifles. It really should be in greater circulation. It's a better bullet for the war we're in, and it's crazy accurate. I understand the special forces guys love it.
Third with proper shot selection, the M4 is just as accurate as the M-16, some would say even more so as it's stock length can be adjusted to the user
You won't find me argue against this point. You're right. I shoot long distance matches, and barrel length alone really doesn't have much to do with accuracy. Actually, short barrels are intrinsically stiffer, and can actually have better physical repeatability, all else being the same. If a rifleman can anticipate the greater bullet drop caused by reduced velocity, he should shoot just as well.
I think antipersonnel mines are just fine for a properly advertised DMZ and even for temporary area-denial, providing they will be destroyed eventually. Beyond that, they're indiscriminate... It doesn't matter if it's a soldier on a battlefield, or a 10 year old kid/farmer trying to live off the earth, long after the war has ended... It's an equal opportunity munition, unlike even the most poorly designed slug.
As for the 5.56mm bullet, it's really down to the bullet design, and the rifles in which they're used. The steel tipped bullet most often used by our soldiers does indeed have problems, if it doesn't manage to hit the target at a high enough velocity that it fragments. The shorter M4 (14.5 inch barrel) doesn't get the bullet up to speed in the same way the 20" M16 barrel can, and the bullets don't fragment as intended.
The main problem is, the army is now issuing lots of M4 carbines, favoring mobility instead of firepower... And like in every other area, the military is often 10 years behind current trends. Bullets better suited to the weapons are just now being fielded to non-SOCOM units.
Don't worry... The Russians already have and will surely market effective countermeasures to this missile system. But, so does every other country with a navy budget capable of supporting aircraft carriers and other strategic naval systems.
Well met, fellow freedom loving, gun toting, liberal atheist American... Well met indeed.
Interesting observations. Actually, I've long thought it would be amusing if a puritan artist designed a piece as an allegory of chastity-intending perhaps to evoke a sense of purity, but it instead had a rather ironic effect for most people; upon experiencing the piece, for some non-obvious or magical quality, it usually caused spontaneous sexual arousal and ultimately orgasm. Maybe, it really is about what the audience experiences.
Well, that's the thing: in my locale at least there's a couple journalists who would take this on. Your point is well made, though. It's going downhill fast.
Wow... Just wow.
In times like this, I think the media is your best friend. Surely, there has to be some local investigative TV reporter who likes going after government excesses. If I were involved, I'd play it to the max and do everything humanly possible to get this retarded governmental behavior plastered all over the the 6:00 news, and use the investigator to go after the state reps and senators to put pressure on these buffoons.
You and your daughter deserve public apologies and reparation from everyone involved (who in return each deserve a firm kick in the ass) The only way it's going to happen is to make it visible. Just sayin'
I think in many ways, video games have superseded film as an artform... Although, I admit, my definition of art is sort of all-encompassing: basically, anything designed to affect ones' emotions is art.
The last few generations of games (possibly by virtue of immersion that's simply not possible with film) have become vastly more capable of influencing my emotions than most of the (repetitive & derivative) dreck shown on movie screens today. For example, I recently played through Modern Warfare 2... At more than a few instances in the game, (for me at least) it really transcends 'entertainment' and makes you feel just what the developers intended... Perhaps a sense of acrophobia, hatred, camaraderie, loss, and eventually victory...
I honestly can't remember the last fiction movie that moved me so much.
All true. It's less profitable for the industrial agricultural complex to feed cows grass (all things considered), making it more expensive to consumers. The way I look at it: if grain (and the requisite steroids, antibiotics and other chemicals fed to cows) shortens the lives and decreases the health of OUR food, it's probably not doing us much good either. Plus, the taste just doesn't compare.
Cows get more fat as a result of eating grain more than anything else, (especially intramuscular fat, which gives oh so precious marbling). Grain fed cows are just more fatty compared to those eating grass, but grass fed cows are much more tasty. In fact, if you feed cows too much grain they get sick (since they evolved to eat grass) but breeders are working to remove this quality from the gene pool.
The UDSA may grade the grain fed meat higher, but the grass fed cow will be far better tasting, even if it is less fatty... And, it's better for you, since much less of the fat is saturated, there are also more omega-3 acids in grass fed beef. Cows are supposed to move around a bit, even if they are grazing machines. I don't see that a bit of exercise is going to be very detrimental to quality. Might even be better.
I bet that the cops actually tazered the kid, causing him to fall off of the overpass to begin with--and the rest of the story is just some bullshit they worked up on the spot to cover up the truth!
Not a cop, but I've done a bit of security work. I wasn't purposefully leaving out the (boron carbide) ceramic plates. It's just that most ballistic armor users outside the military won't ever experience the joy of strapping on yet another 10-16+ lbs of rigid plates. Like the OP's metal plates, they also serve to distribute the impact of a bullet over larger surface areas, so it was kind of tangential to the discussion.
Actually, just thinking about it: A bunch of thin, individually flexible layers of this boron ceramic matrix could go a long way in improving the wear-ability of SAPI type systems... But you still need to have a good mass of it to protect vital areas. Maybe when they perfect the exo-skeleton stuff, our guys will have a chance to carry all of this armor.
As for the journalists... My guess is, maybe the steel plate(s) make the system a bit more concealable, compared to some thicker trauma plates? Ah ha... in the product description you linked to: Utilizing trusted Kevlar Correctional materials, the Talon series provides enhanced protection for correctional duties. Looks like this particular vest is targeting correctional users. In an environment where you're much, much more likely to be stabbed than shot, I could see where it would make sense to sacrifice kevlar intended for ballistic threats, and wear something like this. It specifies the stab resistant rating, but I don't see a ballistic rating, could be level 2, vs 3a (which most cops wear these days). Who knows?
Ye old flak vests had metal. However, in my experience, no modern vests have metal plates at all. If a vest has a metal component, it is usually kept in a pouch *on the front* of the vest, where a bullet simply passes through, to be absorbed by the kevlar/aramid/textile component--offering virtually no benefit against bullets or their blunt trauma.
What it does, however, is give protection against stabbing and puncture weapons, which traditional vests alone do not protect against. Even then, the metal insert stuff is two or three generations ago--haven't seen it in ages, really. I think most of the current anti-stab products incorporate layers of lexan/acrylic, possibly as well as additional bullet resistant material.
Anyway, getting back to the point: there are a number of blunt trauma pads/products generally meant to cover the sternum area, which go in behind the vest. Addressing one other post in this thread: there is at least one such product that incorporates non-Newtonian fluids. The steel layers went away because they were too inflexible, too ineffective, and they really made you sweat--even more so than a vest already does.
just my $0.02
A very fine line.
It's not a fine line in the least. These are completely disparate ideas. Paranoia is a delusion marked anxiety and or fear. Preparedness is what it is: a state of being prepared. The point is, if you're prepared in mind (being disciplined and resolute), body (being fit and trained) and material needs (such as having a supply of goods beneficial to survival*), you need not be afraid.
Natural disaster? Foreign invasion? Domestic insurrection? Zombie attack? (that's a joke, son) Your life is simply made easier if you've taken the necessary steps to become generally prepared, whereas paranoia is useless to the survivalist.
However my point - that people having guns everywhere are not somehow automatically braver than those that don't - still stands.
You mean having a gun in hand doesn't make you instantly brave? Well, I don't know... There's ghettos in this country that my white ass would not walk through unarmed. However, I can definitively say that my confidence would be greatly expanded, if I were rolling through behind an M2 machine gun turret.
*serviceable weapons as applicable to militia use would certianly be counted.
That's false. If the internal temperature rises to 155, the steak is no longer rare
And you'll note that I'm talking medium rare, though a fine enough line, I reckon. (I personally can't stomach anything rarer than medium). Secondly, temperature is only a symptom of the action going on inside a piece of cooking meat, and is a result of the amount of water present (and it's pressure). The temperature of the food is allowed to rise at some rate proportional to the rate of water displaced, or so I imagine.
You can cook a piece of meat with high temperature so that its internals reach medium temperature quickly, without thoroughly cooking it. (Although it's likely to coast, as the TV cooks say, and become more done as it cools) You can also cook meat at much lower temperatures for much longer duration, and get meat with a greater level of done-ness. i.e. boiling, low temperature barbecuing, smoking, and even braising.
Bottom line: temperature is only one factor that influences the cooking process. As you hinted to yourself, it doesn't happen instantly as the meat (or whatever) reaches the prescribed temperature... Even if you could instantaneously inject enough kinetic energy into the material to homogeneously raise its temperature to some temperature appropriate for cooking, it's still not going to instantly cook.
I'm sure like other reactions, the reactions behind the cooking processes are driven by probability at some level, but I decided early on in my career that there was a threshold for my desire to learn about chemical engineering, and this is approaching it.
The USDA recommends ground meets be held at 155F for 15 seconds. A sustained internal temperature of about 145F makes for medium rare steaks, but it's likely that they hit 155 for at least 15 seconds towards the end. Shouldn't be dangerous.
Yeah, well they'll just use the commerce clause to get their fingers into it like so many other things--because if you tried hard enough, at some level you could probably vaguely connect assisted suicide with commerce "among the several states".
There's a difference between paranoia and preparedness. I think the long prevailing position of the Swiss is that they don't especially care for violence, but simultaneously, they know it has its place.
Well, it only follows: If martial law is imposed, as in The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.*, then your rights pretty much go out the window. In that case, you have no expectation of any kind of constitutional protection whatsoever, no less congress passing a law allowing soldiers to demand quarter.
But that's why we have the second amendment: To give teeth to the rest of the bill of rights, and to make this sort of action so full of consequences that at the level of an individual soldier, you'd be a fool to invade someone's home. It'd be like a bunch of well armed rats demanding shelter and three squares from a den of badgers--might work for a while, but it's going to be bloody in the end.
*(Article 1 Section 9, US Constitution)
Tell me one right that's not taken away under certain circumstances.
Ideally... None, unless under due process of the law. Unfortunately, this idea is all but eroded under our legislature. But that still doesn't make a right "just" a privilege.
Most states outlaw the use of a pistol or other handgun for hunting because they are far more likely to would big game than kill it and that as any hunter knows is tragic not helpful
Like the other responder to your grossly mal-informed post said, most states allow handgun hunting (in fact, I can't think of one that doesn't). Some states combine handgun hunting season with archery season, by virtue that they're similar activities--both are fairly short ranged by nature, require more skill in stalking, good shot placement for an ethical kill, etc. Other states group handgunners in with rifle season. Most states do have an energy threshold for handguns, e.g. 500 lb-ft at 50 yards, which requires hunters to use a appropriately powerful handgun... Some of which, like a Thompson Contender which shoot rifle cartridges through a much shorter barrel--versus the traditional automatic pistol or revolver.
I also think there's a few states which actually DISALLOW rifle hunting, because they're *too* powerful for the type of terrain you're likely to encounter. Even a .30-06 rifle is of limited utility in the heavily wooded forests back east, and some of those states lean towards shotguns loaded with slugs. I'm not really interested in hunting, and I'll admit that I'm no authority in that regard.
Secondly, the second amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". I mean, it's a fucking single sentence with two commas; not exactly the most complicated legal obligation ever invented... Only the most attention-deficient doofus can't understand what the authors meant--and I don't see "weapons" in there, do you?
Thirdly, regarding your other post: "Handguns were developed for a specific purpose. That being that they were close to hand. The only reason for having a gun close to hand is defense from a large carnivorous animal or a similarly armed animal."
Wrong. Handguns were first developed because they allowed greater firepower for close quarters combat. Before the advent of revolvers and cartridge-based rifles, military officers and especially officers on vessels often carried many pistols, and they carried a sword for when the pistols ran out or got wet... Before that, they were a weapon of the nobility, because they were relatively expensive, and a lot less effective compared to a musket.
Today, they're just a lot easier to carry, and in most respects, it's a lot more polite to carry a pistol than it is to carry rifle. You want to do away with pistols, just because they're modern convenience, fine. Good luck with that. Personally, I'd love to see everyone sling a rifle over their shoulder--it'd be a great deterrence to hooligans.