

	Can you say, "I get more background radiation from living in
Denver or having an office in a limestone building than I do standing
next to a power reactor at full power or standing next to a nuclear
warhead that is armed?"  Look up "shielding" in your dictionary.  You
don't need six feet of lead to make decent shielding; your dead skin
cell layer does an excellent job on alpha particles, and neutrons
are slowed by mere *water*.  What do you think 75% of you is?


	If the militia has as its job the overthrow of an illegal
government, they are indeed useful weapons to the militia.  They
won't be too useful in certain areas, but leveling the Pentagon
would be a "good thing" for said overthrow and it's likely one man
carrying a backpack would stand a better chance than one thousand
armed with Colt Peacemakers.  Don't let self-defense become the
only reason you can have a gun and your sole means of justification.
Myself, I won't overthrow my government until it ceases to be my
legal government, but if I need to I want every weapon I can get.

	One can just as easily say no rifle larger than a .22 is
needed to kill a human being.  They are right.  When that human
being is wearing armor and riding in an APC, things get a bit
different.  I don't see where the weapon is a problem.  It's not.
Only the manner of use is in contention here.


	I guess you either don't have an alarm clock or have never
heard the terms "timer" or "martyr" either.  Don't forget remote
detonation devices.  That CB radio in the pickup next to you can
easily transmit ten miles in decent weather.  That's out of the
blast radius of many portable nuclear devices.

	Just what is it about radioactive decay that has you worried?