User talk:72.207.247.50: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:36, 4 March 2010

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Help pages
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (72.207.247.50) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Abductive (reasoning) 03:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DU Trolling?

Um, I am actually actually interested in use of heavier-than-lead ammunition, for the ballistic properties. There is a wide community on the Internet that has similar interests. I've seen tungston ammunition sold, but I haven't see any discussion about DU ammo for the public. Is it cost prohibitive? Is it banned under anti-armor-piercing rules? Is it banned under anti-incendiary rules? Is it banned under health restrictions? If it is not banned, is it sold to the public? And if the military uses it, why would the public also not get to use it? Since I don't have the answers to these questions, I posted on the "discussion" page. I don't see how bringing up these questions, which I honestly hold, and should be addressed in a complete article on the topic, is "trolling."72.207.247.50 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you were trolling, since you're obviously not dumb and you obviously already have a lot of general info. If tungsten-core rounds are illegal for civilians, of course DU core rounds would be illegal for all the same reasons, plus pyro plus tox, plus (minimal) radiation. But even if so, wikipedia is not the place to ask general info questions. There's USENET for that. You say, if the military gets to use it, would the public also not get to use it? What? You can ask the same questions about RPGs, mortars, nerve gas and nuclear weapons. Anyway, even the military has no DU rounds at less than 20 mm, that I know of. There are tungsten core rounds for body armor penetration all the way down to 5.56 mm (.223), but nothing in DU. They're essentially the same density as tungsten, so there's no point in small arms DU bullets. S B H arris 22:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering my question. I've found if I have a question, it is something that multiple people have wondered about, and possibly should be addressed in a relevant article. I've seen tungsten rounds for the .22lr as well. IANL, but from what I can tell, the legal "right" for US persons to have "arms" is limited to weapons that a single infantry soldier uses, and can be subject to other many restrictions (similar to restrictions on 1st Amendment rights) -- and currently only applies to restrictions in the federal law. As for if this is what it *should* be? That is a topic of much debate. The Heller case (decision, dissenting opinion, transcript, and amicus curae briefs) outline a number of well-reasoned arguments on both sides. I assume the McDonald case has a similar set of legal documents. 72.207.247.50 (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Um, I am actually actually interested in use of heavier-than-lead ammunition, for the ballistic properties.  There is a wide community on the Internet that has similar interests. I've seen tungston ammunition sold, but I haven't see any discussion about DU ammo for the public. Is it cost prohibitive?  Is it banned under anti-armor-piercing rules? Is it banned under anti-incendiary rules? Is it banned under health restrictions?  If it is not banned, is it sold to the public?  And if the military uses it, why would the public also not get to use it?  Since I don't have the answers to these questions, I posted on the "discussion" page. I don't see how bringing up these questions, which I honestly hold, and should be addressed in a complete article on the topic, is "trolling."[[Special:Contributions/72.207.247.50|72.207.247.50]] ([[User talk:72.207.247.50|talk]]) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 :I figured you were trolling, since you're obviously not dumb and you obviously already have a lot of general info. If tungsten-core rounds are illegal for civilians, of course DU core rounds would be illegal for all the same reasons, plus pyro plus tox, plus (minimal) radiation. But even if so, wikipedia is not the place to ask general info questions. There's USENET for that. You say, if the military gets to use it, would the public also not get to use it? What? You can ask the same questions about RPGs, mortars, nerve gas and nuclear weapons. Anyway, even the military has no DU rounds at less than 20 mm, that I know of. There are tungsten core rounds for body armor penetration all the way down to 5.56 mm (.223), but nothing in DU. They're essentially the same density as tungsten, so there's no point in small arms DU bullets. [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]][[User:Sbharris|arris]] 22:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
+::Thanks for answering my question. I've found if I have a question, it is something that multiple people have wondered about, and possibly should be addressed in a relevant article. I've seen tungsten rounds for the .22lr as well. IANL, but from what I can tell, the legal "right" for US persons to have "arms" is limited to weapons that a single infantry soldier uses, and can be subject to other many restrictions (similar to restrictions on 1st Amendment rights) -- and currently only applies to restrictions in the federal law. As for if this is what it *should* be? That is a topic of much debate.  The Heller case (decision, dissenting opinion, transcript, and amicus curae briefs) outline a number of well-reasoned arguments on both sides.  I assume the McDonald case has a similar set of legal documents. [[Special:Contributions/72.207.247.50|72.207.247.50]] ([[User talk:72.207.247.50#top|talk]]) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)