A 22 long rifle bullet has a weight from about 2.3 to 3.9 grams a 223 2.6 to 5.8 grams the shape of the bullets are also different with the 223 coming to a point. With 22 LR you get a maximum pressure 24,000 PSI a 223 has maximum pressure 50,000 PSI. So a 22 bullet on the heavy end would fall about mid rage for a 223 bullet (to be fair people generally don’t use the lighter 223 rounds). But the 223 has a larger powder charge giving the 223 about twice the speed of a 22 lr. and thus far more power.
Ok, be realistic. I can walk into a Cabelas and buy a semi-automatic rifle for less than a thousand dollars. In 1789, the firearms you are describing were obscure boutique weapons that would have cost fifty dollars or more, that a person would have to go to great lengths to get, if they even could. Just one long rifle would probably be the equivalent of a year’s wages for a peasant. So, yeah, not much of a comparison. The fact that these guns were theoretically available for purchase did not mean that the average citizen actually could buy them.
Now this thread has really wandered off it’s topic, so I’ll leave the rest of you to it. I gave my reason for liking Trump, and while you might not agree with me (in fact I’d be worried if everyone did I don’t like to live in an echo chamber where my opinions are fed back to me) but I will tell you what I told everyone before the election, no matter who gets in I’m screwed.
Well, you might want to drop this “gem” of a post and run off, but the post isn’t getting let off lightly.
I’ve said it thousands of times in my life and at least once on this board: Yes, everyone’s entitled to an opinion. A ridiculous and unsupported opinion is not entitled to anything other than ridicule. So, you’ve put forth your opinion that you like Trump. Fine; the rest of the question was, “Why?” You say you don’t want to live in an echo chamber, but your ending comment was nothing but echoing a lame excuse usually advanced by people who can’t be bothered to vote.
You say that no matter who won the last election, you’d be screwed. Okay, how? How would Hillary Clinton have screwed you and why wouldn’t you support her if you think the other candidate, Trump, would screw you? Why are you supporting someone you just said is screwing you anyway?
It’s overwhelming, I realize, to respond to all the posts critical of Trump’s faults, past and present. So please clarify for the sake of our understanding: Are you saying that you’re a single issue voter - pro coal - and that you voted for Trump knowing, but choosing to ignore all the negatives? If so, are you still absolutely certain you understood the subject of coal energy and all the associated social, environmental and economic factors well enough to have made the correct decision? Do you still stand by your decision, knowing what you know now?
In the now soon-to-be-unused coal mines? And stuff the rest of our garbage on top? That would mean jobs in coal country.
How many heads on the dragon?
Let’s quote the whole thing so you can stop lying about it.
Wow, when you quote the whole thing, it’s almost as if she was aware that modernization and cleaner, cheaper energy sources are going to have an affect on the coal industry and she advocated not forgetting the workers in that industry, and to offer retraining and other methods to ensure they still have jobs, just not in coal.
Strange.
So for example, I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?
And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.
Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on."
Where’s the lie? Her party had policies in place the end coal and in that statement she was supporting those policies. Coal is already dying, is has been for years. So her party and their policies want to put coal miners and coal companies out of business.
A
And trump so loved the country that he gave them Trump University.
What we have here is either Class AAA trolling or complete disconnect with reality. I’m assuming it’s not a thousand monkeys banging away at a thousand keyboards, so I’m going to go with the trolling option as the likely case.
Where’s the lie? Right here in this part I quoted to highlight your dishonesty. No, she and her party do not want to “put the coal miners and coal companies out of business”. What they want to do is to retrain the miners and re-purpose the coal companies. They want to put them out of the coal business, not out of business.
No wonder you support Trump. You’re just as honest as he is.
The Democrats also put buggy whip makers, butter churn makers, and anvil makers out of business too, with their anti-19th century technology policies.
As I keep telling people, I am really bad at subtext. I mentioned this to Shodan the other day (and I’m afraid to say he, for whatever reason, declined to reply), but I guess I just need to keep saying it.
So do me a favor. When you quote Hillary Clinton as having said this:
“Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
What do you think this means? What’s the subtext here? What, exactly, are you trying to communicate to us? What do you think that quote means? And do you think it’s possible that there are some implications contained in that quote snippet that you or Clinton don’t intentionally mean?
How was I screwed no matter what and why support them. Easy, I look at the way congress spends money it doesn’t have (that whole promise of a balance budget long forgotten after congress convinced people there was no need for a balance budget amendment, kind of like that whole immigration promise in the 1980’s) If Hillary got in spending would go up (and while that wouldn’t be her fault because as I’ve pointed out the president can’t spend a dime she would encourage it) and she make more trade deals like NAFTA (which I feel wasn’t the greatest deal for America). She would have continued policies that I don’t agree with. And with Trump spending would go up, (again congress spends at the encouragement of the president only Trump spends it on different things) The social security fund really has no funds as the government spent that money a LONG time ago (both parties are to blame and it does have a nice stack of IOU’s) so we are going to be taxed to payback the money we paid into the system. So I look at Greece and see where we’re heading. Greece 's debt is about 180% of it’s GDP we are at about 104% (it worst than that as some of those IOU’s don’t show up on the books) so spending goes up every year, taxes have to go up, the debt goes up we pay more interest and our debt to GDP goes up. At some point the bill will have to be paid and I’m betting I’ll be one of the many people who get the short end of the stick.
Like I said no matter who’s in I’m screwed, it a matter of how bad.
Careful, this comes dangerously close to blaming poor, unemployed people for their own problems.
A few little problems here. (And by “A few little problems,” I mean “Please stop recycling economically impossible nonsense from half a decade ago.”)
Virtually none of the problems Greece had could happen to the US. Greece was stuck in a situation where they were deep in debt with a strong currency they could not devalue. They also weren’t a particularly strong economy to begin with, so there was reason to believe that they would default on those debts. This simply doesn’t apply in the US - we’re one of the world’s largest economies, and US treasury bonds are so rock-solid that for a while, people were literally paying us to hang on to their money - lending us money at a negative interest rate. “This, as you might have guessed, didn’t happen in greece” is the kind of tongue-in-cheek understatement a person who is good at comedy might make.
So you voted for the person that will screw the most people in the worst way possible.
And FYI, it’s not about getting rid of coal, it’s about protecting the environment. That happens to be the place where we all live, and we kinda need it.
The difference is, Trump signed the tax cut for the rich that reduced revenue. So not only does he increase spending, he reduces the revenue available to pay for it. If debt is an important issue to you, you must realize Trump is twice as bad as Hillary in that respect.
And not only that, but more advanced designs of nuclear reactors can burn up the actinides pretty well, leaving behind only the shorter lived fission products that will only need a couple hundred years to be rendered safe.
But, if you quote the whole thing, then it doesn’t say what they want it to say. Taking it out of context lets them vilify her.