I don’t think I disagree with a single thing you stated.
I was arguing from a position of… Shock and incredulity…
I was being very swift to comment, and wasn’t thinking too much about people’s feelings. So sue me, it’s an very charged debate, and it takes a lot of effort on everyone’s part to stay level headed, and I slipped up a little.
SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Stop whining. Start gathering petitions. Contact your lawmakers. If it is so important, and if you can get enough people to agree with you, then get the law changed.
And, until it is changed, it is STILL the law of the land.
We are. We are sharing new data/research, we are trying to find a point of consensus, and we are working together to debunk the argument that deadly force isn’t dangerous.
Hell, over-the-counter pill bottles come with safety caps.
So is this
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
Pretty sure that every time a firearm is brandished it denies someone else at least one of these rights. Some of those justified (defense of self or property) some of those not. Guess it’s a good thing that the framers decided arms should be “well regulated,” and thus subordinate to those inalienable rights.
Are those truths really that self-evident, though?
Plenty of people are quite happy to deny rights to other people.
If human rights really were all that self-evident, countries wouldn’t have to codify them everywhere they think people should have them to protect them. And they wouldn’t vary from country to country. And the government wouldn’t deny them to their own citizens.
I’m a believer.
(for extra fun, open all of those links in tabs at once. auditory funtimes.)
Everything I need to know, I learned from Rocky.
To clarify; at the end of the scene, I’m meant to be rooting for Drago, no?
I know people who are convinced that the price of bullets has gone up because “Obama’s having parts of the government, like the POST OFFICE fer Chrissakes, buy them all up. He can’t take away our guns, so he’s trying to take away bullets instead.”
What I’ve gathered, though, is that the price has gone up because yes, supplies are limited, but that’s because so many paranoid gunowners are fearfully stocking up on bullets. 
that’s the heart of it.
pre-ten-tious!
I hate critiques which dwell upon whether or not they are “supposed to” like something.
What is “self-evident” does seem to vary from culture to culture and time period to time period, but some truths are simply unassailable. To wit:
Go forth, and kill! Zardoz has spoken.
Yeah, who’s this asshole that tells me I’m “supposed to” like a hernia.
and it’s also not stored in ideal conditions, thus slowly degrading it.
Are you pretending I my intent is to say: “don’t make any ammunition”, Rather than “don’t make it available the way guns are”
First album I ever bought.
That’s why I explicitly specified rotating the in-gun vs in-long-term-storage stock.
Let’s pull the numbers out of our somewhere for the sake of a simple argument and easy calculation. Say we have stock of 100 magazines worth of rounds. In-gun the round lifetime is 10 years, in-storage 100 years. Assume linear characteristics of degradation of the material. Say we are rotating the rounds every year, so they spend 1 year in-gun. Assume no losses on shooting on a range.
One year in gun is equal 10 years in storage. By rotation we therefore reduce the lifetime of post-rotation round to still fairly acceptable 90 years.
Specific lengths of allowable in-gun time, and the minimum amount of rounds for the desired total storage time, will depend on actual predicted-lifetime numbers. I feel too tired to derive the equations for you, maybe somebody else will be in the mood.
Using a revolver will be a prudent measure in case of longer storage times, when the reliability of individual rounds may be called into question; then instead of a jammed gun that requires many seconds of attention you get just one more trigger pull to do.
And we still have the parallel option of parylene-coating the bullets before storage whether in or out of the weapon. A friend when asked suggested it could actually work.
(Edit: Parylene is commonly used as a vapor-deposited biocompatible conformal coating for implants, and even a few of higher-end tattoo/piercing studios have their own coater. Not so out-of-reach tech. And there may be quite some better conformal coatings available for the ammo storage purposes; more research is needed. If all y’all will keep prodding me, you may even result in getting some done.)
Your nonideal-storage-conditions argument is valid but easy to work around.
Actually, Phillip is a Prince consort, not King. We won’t have a king again until Good queen Bess v. 2.0 kicks it and we then have King Charles the whatever number if it is (I’m sure nice Brit can tell me what number he’ll be).
No worries, I am in particular not offended, I have just grown tired of the impunity with which “my kind” is insulted in our culture. 
If he calls himself Charlie III I’ll be amazed.
Georgie VII is my guess (note George VI was actually called Albert)
Wait, is naming a King/Queen like the Pope, they pick an official, meaningful name to go by on being crowned? Interesting. I always thought they just named their kids with that in mind. The new baby is Prince George, right? So the order of succession is Charles, William, George, at this point… All names with previous kings.
Also, to keep it on topic (too late), does Prince George get a hunting rifle and some hunting dogs when he’s old enough? Does queen elizabeth hunt?
