Fortunately, the embassy IS in London, and protected by that British Explosives Suppressing Field. No bombs can go off there, so the embassy is safe. That's why we know that the subway bombings a few years ago were faked. No explosions in London!
The food part? Dogs are carnivores. They like meat and meat products. That kind of food is rather expensive. The most expensive feed for horses, miniature or otherwise, would be alfalfa. A miniature probably doesn't eat a lot more than a couple of sheep or goats. Since you don't actually "work" a miniature, you probably aren't going to give him much grain, if any. (added benefit of alfalfa is, it is high protein, very well digested, so there is less waste to deal with)
I realize that a service animal will probably be spoiled to some degree. His owner will buy apples, sweet feed, or grains. I'm quite certain that the service animal doesn't "need" any of that. Just plain old Bermuda grass hay, and a quarter cup of oats should be sufficient.
I think it's a close draw between the cost of feeding a miniature horse, or a dog.
Before I hit "submit", it occurred to me that the majority of service animals are used in cities. So, maybe I'm not entirely right about the cost of feed. In the city, you probably don't have room to store a huge round bale hay. Probably don't have ready access to a market. So, you'll to to some special pet care store, and pay more for a 120 pound square bale of hay, than I can buy a two ton round bale for.
The last bales I bought were 1100 pound rolls of mixed bermuda and coastal grass, paid $25 each for them. That is the "standard" size around here.
Depends on your location, I guess. A lot of horses around here are owned by lower middle class, and maybe upper poverty class. Some people DO still actually work horses.
I'll admit, most horses are owned by people who don't really have any use for them. My younger stepson has two. One was given to him, the other bought at such a low price it might as well have been a gift. In the past year, I've only seen his wife on a horse once, not seen him or the kids astride a horse. Pets - just big expensive pets.
I've owned horses in the past. My horses were part companion, part work, part social, and part chick bait. I never really NEEDED a horse, but I found occasional uses for them.
No, I've not owned registered thoroughbreds or anything like that. Only one of my rides was registered, and he was an Appaloosa. His papers didn't mean anything to him, or to me.
Seriously, if you visit my part of the country, you can find horses for a couple hundred dollars. Or, you can shop for the popular breeds, and try to find a 'Best of Show" horse for tens of thousands.
But, I'm not offering BS explanations. I'm stating, flat out, that our police state is fucked up. Kids don't need an excuse to act like kids. Cops need a rational reason for shooting a kid to death. In the case of Tamir Rice, we get no rational reason, only bullshit excuses. Have you watched the video? The cops all but drive over him before exiting the car. There is no two second, or five second, certainly not enough time to shout commands. They jump out, and shoot. Their minds were made up before they arrived at the scene. Get on top of the "nigga with a gun" and kill him. There is no other rational explanation for what we see on the video. Lots of excuses, but no rational explanation.
So-called "experts" are telling us that it is reasonable that children with toys are shot and killed. I insist that it is NOT reasonable for children with toys to be killed.
How 'bout that latest incident, in which a mentally handicapped boy was holding a TOY TRUCK, the officer shot at him, and instead hit the boy's caretaker/guardian/counselor?
Yeah, stupid kids get killed all the time, but it is unacceptable that we allow idiot cops to do the killing.
You seem to be quite adept at calling everyone racist. Three people have already responded, and they are very much on target. One of the AC's suggests that you've bullied and browbeat me, but that part is inaccurate. You have ATTEMPTED to bully and browbeat me, but failed.
Any violent person is subject to having lethal force used against them. It's the "violent" part that qualifies them. Some AC below suggests that the person punching another person shouldn't be subject to a violent and/or lethal response. Context matters, though. Some street tough is swinging on another street tough - there is no convincing reason for me to intervene. Same street tough is beating up on a woman, I should probably defend the woman, but probably not to the level of using lethal force. Same street tough on a different day is assaulting an elderly person - let's make this person female again. Two or three punches may well kill the feeble old gal. A higher level of response is called for, IMHO. Potentially lethal force is in order. Finally, in another scenario, the same rat bastard is using a hammer to hit a bunch of little kids in the head. He is definitely using potentially lethal force against people who are entirely defenseless. This time around, lethal force is clearly justified. I can, and will, pull whatever weapon is at my disposal, and do my damndest to ensure that he is no longer able to swing that hammer. In fact, I would be in favor of the famous "double tap". One bullet to the head, and another to the heart, to ensure that he doesn't get back up again.
What's that you say? I should have only shot him ONCE, so that the hospital might save him? Oh - sorry, he didn't fall fast enough after the first shot, I thought I had missed him, so I took the second shot. I didn't really MEAN to kill him, but it was necessary to stop him hitting any more little children in the head with that hammer.
And, finally, I don't give a flying fuck what color that bastard was. Nor do I care what color, race, or religion his victims were. Even if I know him, he's the same color, race, religion, and culture that I am, and he's attacking innocent people who are all different from me, I defend the innocents.
And THAT is what the police should be doing.
It is very unfortunate that the police are NOT doing that very thing. Race figures into their decisions very much. We don't read about young white males being killed in the playground because they are playing with a toy gun. We don't read of young white males being shot dead when they reach for their identification. We DO, however, read about young white males who are shot dead when they assault a police officer.
Now, you can make another stab at parsing words, correcting grammar, and making up bullshit excuses why no one should ever be shot dead by a cop. But, you cannot paint me as a racist. Trying to do so only marks you as an ignorant fool.
Sometimes, young black men perform actions for which they should be shot down. Other times, young black men are gunned down without justification. If you choose to defend BOTH GROUPS, then you are indeed a racist.
Dozens of young black males have been killed pointlessly by the police. Other young black males have been justifiably killed by the police. If you can pretend that all of their killings were UNjustified, then you are no less a racist than those who claim they were all justified.
Each and every case must be examined individually. Yes, it is reasonable that some of the most violent blacks are "put down". Some of them have less value to society than a stray dog. Others should result in the cops spending the rest of their lives in prison. First and foremost among those, is the killing of Tamir Rice.
Again, only a racist can fail to see the difference between Tamir Rice and the animal killed in Ferguson. It depends on which flavor of racist you happen to be, which side you come down on.
The whole "Black Lives Matter" failed to actually offend me, early on. Because, well, Black lives do matter. But when BLM hit back against "all lives matter", and again hit back at "blue lives matter", that set them apart as a bunch of racists.
Any, or all, of those seem to be safe to use. Try one, or try them all. They mostly duplicate each other's measures, but they aren't quite all the same, either.
Jesus Christ - it is YOU who is bizzare. You don't understand the difference between buying a company, and owning slaves? And, you want to shit on everything. Bizarre is an appropriate word for you.
Oracle didn't do any work on Java. Sun did. Sun invested a lot of time and money into Java, then ultimately, turned it over to outside developers. Sun still held "title" to Java, I suppose, but they did little to nothing to "protect" their copyright. Open sourced, freely distributed, outside developers encouraged to develop, and tacit consent given to use Java however the hell you want to use it.
Let's put this in perspective. You make something, and you allow all your neighbors to use that something. Let's say it's a water park. All the kids in town come to your place to play in the water. After a few years, I come along, and offer you some money for your water park, and you take the money. With the water park safely in my possession, I start suing all the families in town for using the water park.
Does that scenario make ANY sense to you? I sure as hell hope not.
In my most honest opinion, Oracle has no claim to anything that has been done with Java. If, and only if, Oracle develops some new aspect of Java, then Oracle will have full right and title to those newly explored aspects of Java. At least until someone reverse engineers it, and reproduces the results with different code.
Be careful with making absolute statements. Oracle has done a few things that seem to be worthwhile. Oracle has given in to pressure from outside groups. I don't like Oracle at all, but they can sometimes be reasoned with. Not much, but some, anyway. As I recall, SCO couldn't be reasoned with at all, on any issue. So, no, Oracle is not the most useless ever. I don't care to research historical companies that might have been worse than either Oracle or SCO, but I would guess that they can be found. You and I are simply unaware of them because they didn't affect us.
Not good enough an excuse, Bubba. The spouse of this Clinton signed a bill that established mandatory minimum prison sentences for crimes commonly committed by black folk - but didn't sign any similar bill for crimes more commonly committed by white people. As a result of those racist attitudes, millions of predominantly black young men have spent years, even decades, in prison.
The Clintons are far more racist that Trump.
BTW - "illegal alien" isn't a race. Get a clue, alright?
I'm grateful to Trent for all the nature videos. He takes a lot of terrible risks to educate people about animals. Wrestling 'gators, pythons, being charged by bison in Yellowstone - he even fought off a bear that opened his car door! Trent is one hell of a superhero!
I know, and I hope that you know, that if you walk into Wal-Mart, and ask for a box of.22 bullets, the sales clerk will reach for a box of bullets with a lable that says.22 He or she may ask if you want.22 Long Rifle, but probably not, because almost all.22 ammo sold these days is Long Rifle.
Now, if you purchase that box of.22 ammo, carry it home, and load your AR with it, you'll probably not be able to fire the damned thing at all. The.22 cartridges are going to rattle around in the magazine, and never make it into the chamber. Even if you stuff a.22LR into the chamber, close the breech, and pull the trigger, it probably isn't going to fire - it's a rimfire, vs the center fire firing pin.
Let us dismiss the common.22LR for now.
I know, and I certainly hope that you know, that chambering the wrong center fire round into your center fire rifle is quite likely to result in your serious injury or death. You can play cute with terminology here, but not all ".22 caliber rifles" are the same. As you point out, the chamber isn't.22 caliber at all - the damned chamber MIGHT BE as much as an inch in diameter. The chamber tells you what size the cartridge needs to be to fit the chamber.
So far, you've not made any points that aren't obvious to anyone who knows his weapons.
Perhaps in your state, the law says that you must use bullets that are.30 or greater - I don't know what your law actually says. But I find that hard to believe. I've taken big game with.243 and.270. My dad has taken big game with a.22 Hornet - that was the only rifle he could afford to buy all those years ago before WW2. That Hornet is a sweet little gun - but it wouldn't be legal to use for big game today in either my home state, or my adopted state. It is, indeed, a.22 The.222 and the.223 are legal. The weight of the bullet, the powder charge, and even the diameter of the bullet sets them all apart from the.22.
Just give it up - you mis-spoke, and now you're trying to justify what you said. You simply cannot push all those rounds you've mentioned through the barrel of a.22 rifle. Each of them will damage the barrel, if not the chamber. Eventually, the damned rifle might even blow apart in your hands.
There's a reason why shooters are taught to always check their weapon and their ammunition to see that they match.
.2A.22 is a relatively low powered rimfire cartridge.
An AR-15 is not a.22, it is a center fire rifle, commonly available in.223 (not to be confused with.22) 5.56x45mm.300, 7.52x39mm 5.45x39mm.45ACP 5.7x28mm 6.5mm 6.8mm.50 and.458
Cool. I didn't understand you, TBH, and I was just letting is slide as something stupid. But, now I see what happened - - - I browse everything. Sometimes those AC's write something worth reading, but you gotta wade through a lot of crap to get anything "good". And, TBH, I shouldn't have fed the troll to whom I replied.
Most advertising is offensive. That has been understood by the advertising industry since it's infancy. If you want to watch a movie, you "pay" by watching our advertising. If you want to read some online content, you "pay" by allowing us to use your bandwidth to serve offensive content. You'll get to the content that you wanted to see, as soon as you've finished wasting a minute or more of your time watching our offensive content. You've got to pay, or you don't get your content.
I've about decided to remove CNN from among my news feeds, for that reason. I want the news, I don't want to watch the drivel force fed to my computer by their stupid assed scripts. About one or two more annoying ads is all it will take, then their best click bait won't lure me in anymore.
Soooooo - the only "costs" you recognize are financial? That leaves me wondering just what kind of person you are. Among other things, you must be very shallow.
The internet isn't free. Taxpayers, like myeslf, have paid for much of it. Paying customers of ISP's, like myself, have paid for much more of it. Basically, all of us sitting on our asses in front of a computer screen have PAID FOR the internet.
Google Scholar and the like? There has been a lot of discussion about academic papers. Taxpayers, like myself, have paid for a great deal of that content. Virtually every research project in the nation has qualified for grants - taxpayer money. Many, if not most, research projects, wouldn't exist without those grants. We've PAID FOR that content. If we aren't whole owners, then taxpayers certainly have an interest in that content.
So, in effect, we have entire industries, capitalizing on the taxpayer's property.
Let us rephrase your question - When DID corporate America expecting free reign over America's property become acceptable?
Oh - the employer? Many of them DO expect you to work for free. Have you been keeping up with current events? Let's take Mickey D's. They take a decent worker, who is making one hell of a lot of money for Mickey's. He is much more profitable than the average dickweed, so they offer him/her a deal. "How would you like to be a manager trainee? In a few years, you can become a manager yourself!" Sounds good, huh? Except, the trainee actually gets a salary based on minimum wage for 40 hours per week - then is required to work 60 to 80 hours. Mickey's isn't alone, either. It's common practice around this nation to exploit more profitable employees in this manner.
Paperwork. Ever been told that you've got to clock out, but you've got to complete paperwork afterward? It happens.
Bosses everywhere will take advantage of you, if you aren't assertive.
First aid. Everyone uses it at some point, eventually. Yet, almost no one ever bothers to learn it. I spent the time and money, went to class at the University of Maine, Machias, to learn how to save lives. I did my ER hours at the Down East Medical Center, Bangor. I've never earned a dime with that knowledge. One might say it was a total waste of time and effort, for that reason.
But, the subject is coding, right? Computer skills that amount to more than "Learning the Microsoft Way". I agree with Cook (this time - the man does run at the mouth a lot). You can't go wrong by learning some computer skills. If for no other reason, it could save a kid's life one day. The poor frazzled IT guy who is trying to help the poor young fool to fix his computer will be far less tempted to shoot the ignorant shit if he can carry on an intelligent conversation.
Ideally, the kid won't ever have to call the IT guy, because he's smart enough to fix all the obvious problems, as well as most of the less obvious. He'll know enough to start by brewing a pot of coffee, pour a cup of that coffee, and place it in the cup holder provided on the front of the computer.
The schools are already busy teaching kids to be wimpy little fucks, and know-nothings. They don't need to be teaching "humanities" IMO. No, I don't want to swing the pendulum to far the other direction either. We don't need to turn kids into gangstas. How about something right down the middle. Teach boys to be boys, which includes a little rough and tumble, skinned knees, playing with knives, and other "boy" things. There's nothing wrong with encouraging little girls to pursue traditionally "masculine" goals, like sports, STEM, etc, but FFS stop emasculating little boys.
WTF are you trying to say? Is GPL the worst, or not? If not the worst, then what is worse? Never mind, you're just another fuckweed grousing about open source.
I don't pay for my desktop OS. I don't pay for my laptop OS. I don't pay for my phone OS. I don't pay any major carrier's price for my phone service - the resellers offer the same services, at about 80% discount.
No, I'm not about to pay for updates for my phone's OS. There are enough alternatives to avoid paying for either the OS or it's updates. Cyanogen mod hasn't started charging for access to it's servers, have they?
I might be willing to pay an extra dollar to my carrier, if they BLOCK all those updates, advertising, malware, etc. Might be willing, I say.
The question that I responded to asked "what kind of moron" - remember?
A smarter individual might go out and purchase a weapon openly and legally, knowing that he is going to dispose of the weapon anyway. Or - he may not.
Not every mercenary or assassin is really stupid, nor are all of them really bright. And, there remains an underground market for weapons in various states of legality, modification, and repair.
Now, if I desperately needed an untraceable weapon, I believe that I would consider burglarizing a pawn shop. Or, I would find some chump to do the strawman thing, so that my weapon appeared to be legal, until I could destroy it.
The kind of moron who feels the need to purchase an untraceable weapon will pay a premium for some POS that can't be tied to him. Serial number ground away? Good - rifling half shot out? Not a problem. The fancy woodwork needs to go - and I prefer blued steel to any shiny shit. Black anodizing is alright - specially if it's aged. The weapon isn't for show, it's for a mission.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately, the embassy IS in London, and protected by that British Explosives Suppressing Field. No bombs can go off there, so the embassy is safe. That's why we know that the subway bombings a few years ago were faked. No explosions in London!
The food part? Dogs are carnivores. They like meat and meat products. That kind of food is rather expensive. The most expensive feed for horses, miniature or otherwise, would be alfalfa. A miniature probably doesn't eat a lot more than a couple of sheep or goats. Since you don't actually "work" a miniature, you probably aren't going to give him much grain, if any. (added benefit of alfalfa is, it is high protein, very well digested, so there is less waste to deal with)
I realize that a service animal will probably be spoiled to some degree. His owner will buy apples, sweet feed, or grains. I'm quite certain that the service animal doesn't "need" any of that. Just plain old Bermuda grass hay, and a quarter cup of oats should be sufficient.
I think it's a close draw between the cost of feeding a miniature horse, or a dog.
Before I hit "submit", it occurred to me that the majority of service animals are used in cities. So, maybe I'm not entirely right about the cost of feed. In the city, you probably don't have room to store a huge round bale hay. Probably don't have ready access to a market. So, you'll to to some special pet care store, and pay more for a 120 pound square bale of hay, than I can buy a two ton round bale for.
The last bales I bought were 1100 pound rolls of mixed bermuda and coastal grass, paid $25 each for them. That is the "standard" size around here.
Depends on your location, I guess. A lot of horses around here are owned by lower middle class, and maybe upper poverty class. Some people DO still actually work horses.
I'll admit, most horses are owned by people who don't really have any use for them. My younger stepson has two. One was given to him, the other bought at such a low price it might as well have been a gift. In the past year, I've only seen his wife on a horse once, not seen him or the kids astride a horse. Pets - just big expensive pets.
I've owned horses in the past. My horses were part companion, part work, part social, and part chick bait. I never really NEEDED a horse, but I found occasional uses for them.
No, I've not owned registered thoroughbreds or anything like that. Only one of my rides was registered, and he was an Appaloosa. His papers didn't mean anything to him, or to me.
Seriously, if you visit my part of the country, you can find horses for a couple hundred dollars. Or, you can shop for the popular breeds, and try to find a 'Best of Show" horse for tens of thousands.
But, I'm not offering BS explanations. I'm stating, flat out, that our police state is fucked up. Kids don't need an excuse to act like kids. Cops need a rational reason for shooting a kid to death. In the case of Tamir Rice, we get no rational reason, only bullshit excuses. Have you watched the video? The cops all but drive over him before exiting the car. There is no two second, or five second, certainly not enough time to shout commands. They jump out, and shoot. Their minds were made up before they arrived at the scene. Get on top of the "nigga with a gun" and kill him. There is no other rational explanation for what we see on the video. Lots of excuses, but no rational explanation.
Many? You must have about a thousand links to back that up then?
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
What really gets me is this link - https://nypost.com/2015/10/11/...
So-called "experts" are telling us that it is reasonable that children with toys are shot and killed. I insist that it is NOT reasonable for children with toys to be killed.
How 'bout that latest incident, in which a mentally handicapped boy was holding a TOY TRUCK, the officer shot at him, and instead hit the boy's caretaker/guardian/counselor?
Yeah, stupid kids get killed all the time, but it is unacceptable that we allow idiot cops to do the killing.
You seem to be quite adept at calling everyone racist. Three people have already responded, and they are very much on target. One of the AC's suggests that you've bullied and browbeat me, but that part is inaccurate. You have ATTEMPTED to bully and browbeat me, but failed.
Any violent person is subject to having lethal force used against them. It's the "violent" part that qualifies them. Some AC below suggests that the person punching another person shouldn't be subject to a violent and/or lethal response. Context matters, though. Some street tough is swinging on another street tough - there is no convincing reason for me to intervene. Same street tough is beating up on a woman, I should probably defend the woman, but probably not to the level of using lethal force. Same street tough on a different day is assaulting an elderly person - let's make this person female again. Two or three punches may well kill the feeble old gal. A higher level of response is called for, IMHO. Potentially lethal force is in order. Finally, in another scenario, the same rat bastard is using a hammer to hit a bunch of little kids in the head. He is definitely using potentially lethal force against people who are entirely defenseless. This time around, lethal force is clearly justified. I can, and will, pull whatever weapon is at my disposal, and do my damndest to ensure that he is no longer able to swing that hammer. In fact, I would be in favor of the famous "double tap". One bullet to the head, and another to the heart, to ensure that he doesn't get back up again.
What's that you say? I should have only shot him ONCE, so that the hospital might save him? Oh - sorry, he didn't fall fast enough after the first shot, I thought I had missed him, so I took the second shot. I didn't really MEAN to kill him, but it was necessary to stop him hitting any more little children in the head with that hammer.
And, finally, I don't give a flying fuck what color that bastard was. Nor do I care what color, race, or religion his victims were. Even if I know him, he's the same color, race, religion, and culture that I am, and he's attacking innocent people who are all different from me, I defend the innocents.
And THAT is what the police should be doing.
It is very unfortunate that the police are NOT doing that very thing. Race figures into their decisions very much. We don't read about young white males being killed in the playground because they are playing with a toy gun. We don't read of young white males being shot dead when they reach for their identification. We DO, however, read about young white males who are shot dead when they assault a police officer.
Now, you can make another stab at parsing words, correcting grammar, and making up bullshit excuses why no one should ever be shot dead by a cop. But, you cannot paint me as a racist. Trying to do so only marks you as an ignorant fool.
Sometimes, young black men perform actions for which they should be shot down. Other times, young black men are gunned down without justification. If you choose to defend BOTH GROUPS, then you are indeed a racist.
Dozens of young black males have been killed pointlessly by the police. Other young black males have been justifiably killed by the police. If you can pretend that all of their killings were UNjustified, then you are no less a racist than those who claim they were all justified.
Each and every case must be examined individually. Yes, it is reasonable that some of the most violent blacks are "put down". Some of them have less value to society than a stray dog. Others should result in the cops spending the rest of their lives in prison. First and foremost among those, is the killing of Tamir Rice.
Again, only a racist can fail to see the difference between Tamir Rice and the animal killed in Ferguson. It depends on which flavor of racist you happen to be, which side you come down on.
The whole "Black Lives Matter" failed to actually offend me, early on. Because, well, Black lives do matter. But when BLM hit back against "all lives matter", and again hit back at "blue lives matter", that set them apart as a bunch of racists.
ALL LIVES MATTER, or you're just another racist.
https://www.grc.com/never10.ht...
https://voat.co/v/technology/c...
http://ultimateoutsider.com/do...
https://www.safer-networking.o...
Any, or all, of those seem to be safe to use. Try one, or try them all. They mostly duplicate each other's measures, but they aren't quite all the same, either.
Jesus Christ - it is YOU who is bizzare. You don't understand the difference between buying a company, and owning slaves? And, you want to shit on everything. Bizarre is an appropriate word for you.
Oracle didn't do any work on Java. Sun did. Sun invested a lot of time and money into Java, then ultimately, turned it over to outside developers. Sun still held "title" to Java, I suppose, but they did little to nothing to "protect" their copyright. Open sourced, freely distributed, outside developers encouraged to develop, and tacit consent given to use Java however the hell you want to use it.
Let's put this in perspective. You make something, and you allow all your neighbors to use that something. Let's say it's a water park. All the kids in town come to your place to play in the water. After a few years, I come along, and offer you some money for your water park, and you take the money. With the water park safely in my possession, I start suing all the families in town for using the water park.
Does that scenario make ANY sense to you? I sure as hell hope not.
In my most honest opinion, Oracle has no claim to anything that has been done with Java. If, and only if, Oracle develops some new aspect of Java, then Oracle will have full right and title to those newly explored aspects of Java. At least until someone reverse engineers it, and reproduces the results with different code.
Be careful with making absolute statements. Oracle has done a few things that seem to be worthwhile. Oracle has given in to pressure from outside groups. I don't like Oracle at all, but they can sometimes be reasoned with. Not much, but some, anyway. As I recall, SCO couldn't be reasoned with at all, on any issue. So, no, Oracle is not the most useless ever. I don't care to research historical companies that might have been worse than either Oracle or SCO, but I would guess that they can be found. You and I are simply unaware of them because they didn't affect us.
Not good enough an excuse, Bubba. The spouse of this Clinton signed a bill that established mandatory minimum prison sentences for crimes commonly committed by black folk - but didn't sign any similar bill for crimes more commonly committed by white people. As a result of those racist attitudes, millions of predominantly black young men have spent years, even decades, in prison.
The Clintons are far more racist that Trump.
BTW - "illegal alien" isn't a race. Get a clue, alright?
I'm grateful to Trent for all the nature videos. He takes a lot of terrible risks to educate people about animals. Wrestling 'gators, pythons, being charged by bison in Yellowstone - he even fought off a bear that opened his car door! Trent is one hell of a superhero!
I know, and I hope that you know, that if you walk into Wal-Mart, and ask for a box of .22 bullets, the sales clerk will reach for a box of bullets with a lable that says .22 He or she may ask if you want .22 Long Rifle, but probably not, because almost all .22 ammo sold these days is Long Rifle.
Now, if you purchase that box of .22 ammo, carry it home, and load your AR with it, you'll probably not be able to fire the damned thing at all. The .22 cartridges are going to rattle around in the magazine, and never make it into the chamber. Even if you stuff a .22LR into the chamber, close the breech, and pull the trigger, it probably isn't going to fire - it's a rimfire, vs the center fire firing pin.
Let us dismiss the common .22LR for now.
I know, and I certainly hope that you know, that chambering the wrong center fire round into your center fire rifle is quite likely to result in your serious injury or death. You can play cute with terminology here, but not all ".22 caliber rifles" are the same. As you point out, the chamber isn't .22 caliber at all - the damned chamber MIGHT BE as much as an inch in diameter. The chamber tells you what size the cartridge needs to be to fit the chamber.
So far, you've not made any points that aren't obvious to anyone who knows his weapons.
Perhaps in your state, the law says that you must use bullets that are .30 or greater - I don't know what your law actually says. But I find that hard to believe. I've taken big game with .243 and .270. My dad has taken big game with a .22 Hornet - that was the only rifle he could afford to buy all those years ago before WW2. That Hornet is a sweet little gun - but it wouldn't be legal to use for big game today in either my home state, or my adopted state. It is, indeed, a .22 The .222 and the .223 are legal. The weight of the bullet, the powder charge, and even the diameter of the bullet sets them all apart from the .22.
Just give it up - you mis-spoke, and now you're trying to justify what you said. You simply cannot push all those rounds you've mentioned through the barrel of a .22 rifle. Each of them will damage the barrel, if not the chamber. Eventually, the damned rifle might even blow apart in your hands.
There's a reason why shooters are taught to always check their weapon and their ammunition to see that they match.
.2A .22 is a relatively low powered rimfire cartridge.
An AR-15 is not a .22, it is a center fire rifle, commonly available in .223 (not to be confused with .22) 5.56x45mm .300, 7.52x39mm 5.45x39mm .45ACP 5.7x28mm 6.5mm 6.8mm .50 and .458
There probably are some AR-15's manufactured in .22 calibre, but it most https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... isn't "common".
Cool. I didn't understand you, TBH, and I was just letting is slide as something stupid. But, now I see what happened - - - I browse everything. Sometimes those AC's write something worth reading, but you gotta wade through a lot of crap to get anything "good". And, TBH, I shouldn't have fed the troll to whom I replied.
Most advertising is offensive. That has been understood by the advertising industry since it's infancy. If you want to watch a movie, you "pay" by watching our advertising. If you want to read some online content, you "pay" by allowing us to use your bandwidth to serve offensive content. You'll get to the content that you wanted to see, as soon as you've finished wasting a minute or more of your time watching our offensive content. You've got to pay, or you don't get your content.
I've about decided to remove CNN from among my news feeds, for that reason. I want the news, I don't want to watch the drivel force fed to my computer by their stupid assed scripts. About one or two more annoying ads is all it will take, then their best click bait won't lure me in anymore.
Soooooo - the only "costs" you recognize are financial? That leaves me wondering just what kind of person you are. Among other things, you must be very shallow.
The internet isn't free. Taxpayers, like myeslf, have paid for much of it. Paying customers of ISP's, like myself, have paid for much more of it. Basically, all of us sitting on our asses in front of a computer screen have PAID FOR the internet.
Google Scholar and the like? There has been a lot of discussion about academic papers. Taxpayers, like myself, have paid for a great deal of that content. Virtually every research project in the nation has qualified for grants - taxpayer money. Many, if not most, research projects, wouldn't exist without those grants. We've PAID FOR that content. If we aren't whole owners, then taxpayers certainly have an interest in that content.
So, in effect, we have entire industries, capitalizing on the taxpayer's property.
Let us rephrase your question - When DID corporate America expecting free reign over America's property become acceptable?
Oh - the employer? Many of them DO expect you to work for free. Have you been keeping up with current events? Let's take Mickey D's. They take a decent worker, who is making one hell of a lot of money for Mickey's. He is much more profitable than the average dickweed, so they offer him/her a deal. "How would you like to be a manager trainee? In a few years, you can become a manager yourself!" Sounds good, huh? Except, the trainee actually gets a salary based on minimum wage for 40 hours per week - then is required to work 60 to 80 hours. Mickey's isn't alone, either. It's common practice around this nation to exploit more profitable employees in this manner.
Paperwork. Ever been told that you've got to clock out, but you've got to complete paperwork afterward? It happens.
Bosses everywhere will take advantage of you, if you aren't assertive.
First aid. Everyone uses it at some point, eventually. Yet, almost no one ever bothers to learn it. I spent the time and money, went to class at the University of Maine, Machias, to learn how to save lives. I did my ER hours at the Down East Medical Center, Bangor. I've never earned a dime with that knowledge. One might say it was a total waste of time and effort, for that reason.
But, the subject is coding, right? Computer skills that amount to more than "Learning the Microsoft Way". I agree with Cook (this time - the man does run at the mouth a lot). You can't go wrong by learning some computer skills. If for no other reason, it could save a kid's life one day. The poor frazzled IT guy who is trying to help the poor young fool to fix his computer will be far less tempted to shoot the ignorant shit if he can carry on an intelligent conversation.
Ideally, the kid won't ever have to call the IT guy, because he's smart enough to fix all the obvious problems, as well as most of the less obvious. He'll know enough to start by brewing a pot of coffee, pour a cup of that coffee, and place it in the cup holder provided on the front of the computer.
The schools are already busy teaching kids to be wimpy little fucks, and know-nothings. They don't need to be teaching "humanities" IMO. No, I don't want to swing the pendulum to far the other direction either. We don't need to turn kids into gangstas. How about something right down the middle. Teach boys to be boys, which includes a little rough and tumble, skinned knees, playing with knives, and other "boy" things. There's nothing wrong with encouraging little girls to pursue traditionally "masculine" goals, like sports, STEM, etc, but FFS stop emasculating little boys.
WTF are you trying to say? Is GPL the worst, or not? If not the worst, then what is worse? Never mind, you're just another fuckweed grousing about open source.
I don't pay for my desktop OS. I don't pay for my laptop OS. I don't pay for my phone OS. I don't pay any major carrier's price for my phone service - the resellers offer the same services, at about 80% discount.
No, I'm not about to pay for updates for my phone's OS. There are enough alternatives to avoid paying for either the OS or it's updates. Cyanogen mod hasn't started charging for access to it's servers, have they?
I might be willing to pay an extra dollar to my carrier, if they BLOCK all those updates, advertising, malware, etc. Might be willing, I say.
The question that I responded to asked "what kind of moron" - remember?
A smarter individual might go out and purchase a weapon openly and legally, knowing that he is going to dispose of the weapon anyway. Or - he may not.
Not every mercenary or assassin is really stupid, nor are all of them really bright. And, there remains an underground market for weapons in various states of legality, modification, and repair.
Now, if I desperately needed an untraceable weapon, I believe that I would consider burglarizing a pawn shop. Or, I would find some chump to do the strawman thing, so that my weapon appeared to be legal, until I could destroy it.
Different strokes for different folks, you know?
The kind of moron who feels the need to purchase an untraceable weapon will pay a premium for some POS that can't be tied to him. Serial number ground away? Good - rifling half shot out? Not a problem. The fancy woodwork needs to go - and I prefer blued steel to any shiny shit. Black anodizing is alright - specially if it's aged. The weapon isn't for show, it's for a mission.