It's time for our regular segment in which @Gafgarian (AKA Jeremiah Palmer) provides answers to the burning questions left unanswered in each episode of the Rooster Teeth Podcast. Read on to get closure for Who Cares About Szechuan Sauce? – #461.
Can you have honey with Whole30?
You cannot. While other similar diets like paleo do allow natural sweeteners, such as honey, Whole30 does not allow it. According to their FAQs, the reason for this decision is because honey is typically used as an artificial sweetener which modifies the natural taste of food. Since one of the goals of Whole30 is to help you appreciate the "natural taste of food" even natural sweeteners like honey or maple syrups are to be avoided.
How much were movie tickets in the 1980s?
According to the MPAA, the average cost of a movie ticket in the 1980s was approximately $3.42. This is in contrast to the previous decade where the average was only $1.98 and our current decade in which the current average is trending at nearly $8.50.
Guns in the UK?
Gun control has been a part of their history for hundreds of years. The first legislature banning a gun in the United Kingdom occurred in 1594 as a response to the assassination of William of Orange in 1584. Queen Elizabeth I, feared her own assassination and banned wheellock pistols near a royal palace. Further legislation in the following centuries would be levied against crossbows and rifles. It would not be until 1870 that a law requiring a person to obtain a license to carry would be drafted. Created with the intention of raising operational funding for the state, the license was only required when carrying a weapon off your own property however no sort of license was required to actually purchase the gun. The Pistol Act of 1903 would see the first regulation limiting the sale of a firearm followed by the Firearms Act of 1920. This act was in direct response to the mass availability of firearms after World War I. In addition to requiring the registration of all purchased firearms the license also listed the maximum amount of ammunition the owner could purchase, and own, at any point in time. The punishment for being found in violation of this act was a £50 fine or three months imprisonment however it did not specifically make it illegal for criminals to possess nor specifically identify criminal uses and subsequent punishments if the firearms were used during the commission of a crime. 1933 would see the first law which outlined the punishments for anyone using "a firearm or imitation firearm to resist arrest." Actual possession of the firearm was also made illicit unless the owner could prove a valid and lawful use for possession. While a few other formal acts would be put in place over the next fifty years providing additional regulation around purchasing age and, in 1968, combining all firearm legislation into a single Firearms Act which also added restrictions on shotgun ownership, it would not be until the Firearms Amendment Act of 1988 that a blanket ban would go into effect.
This ban was a direct result of the August 19th, 1987 shooting across Hungerford, Berkshire, United Kingdom which took the lives of 16 people and injured 15. It was discovered, afterwards, that the perpetrator legally owned two shotguns, three pistols, and two semi-automatic rifles. This realization led to extreme limitations on the legal ownership of certain firearms. Along with making the registrations of shotguns a requirement it also made all semi-automatic and pump action centerfire rifles, magazine loaded shotguns, "military weapons" with explosive ammunition, and all pump-action and self-loading rifles illegal. Two firearm amendments in 1997 would further restrict gun ownership. These would be in response to the deadliest mass shooting in British History which led to the deaths of 16 children, a teacher, and the gunman. These two acts would essentially restrict all handgun ownership listing the only exceptions as pistols with "historic interest," starting and signal pistols, muzzle-loaders, and shot pistols for pest control. The passing of these acts led to over 162,000 forfeited pistols and over 700 tons of accompanying ammunition. Under special circumstances it is possible to get a Personal Protection Weapon license which would allow one to own a restricted weapon for protection purposes, this is a relatively rare occurrence.
It should be noted that, despite these strict regulations, a 2010 shooting spree left 13 dead, including the shooter, who legally owned the two weapons he used to commit the crime. Additionally, a 2016 Home Office report listed a total of 27 homicides and 579 attempted murders by gun in 2015. Cumulatively, the report listed 8,399 crimes committed with a firearm during that same year; however, over half of those involved air rifles or some other "imitation" firearm. Thoughts? Is it working? What are the gun laws where you are at?
Can you monetize hunting videos on YouTube?
As of August, YouTube no longer allows the monetization of videos with any firearm content. It is immediately flagged as non-advertiser friendly content and while a manual review can be requested, it follows the same review guidelines as any other request. While some content creators have claimed that their videos have remained flagged as non-advertiser friendly even after a manual review, stating that "any content glorifying guns" will remain non-monetized, this is not an official YouTube stance on the content.
Large gun-related content creators, such as Military Arms Channel, have been vocal about the dangerous precedent auto-demonetizing firearm videos will set for the future of our second amendment rights. In direct response, and in anticipation of, Military Arms Channel have launched Full30.com which is an independent video hosting and sharing platform that is dedicated exclusively to firearm related videos. Proponents of this move have pointed out that, while it is fantastic that there is a place which creators can freely host their videos with monetization and without fear of persecution, the biggest draw of YouTube is the sheer enormity of video content which can easily lead to natural discovery of content that would be otherwise never seen. It will take some time for Full30 to reach this level, if ever.
How does the triple crown shotgun work?
Chiappa Firearms, is the manufacturer of the triple barrel shotgun line which includes the Triple Crown (seen above), Triple Magnum, and Triple Threat. The respective rifle's webpage state that the firing mechanism for all use a single trigger pull for a semi-automatic-like firing. By contrast, the original triple-barrelled shotgun, a custom made firearm, seen below, from 1891 was sold for £43,000 in 2012. This triple trigger monster has never been reproduced and, while its new owner claims that it is fully capable of safely hitting three birds with three different barrels from three different trigger pulls, no modern firearm manufacturer has been brave enough to tackle the reproduction of the three trigger mechanism.
Are states allowed to secede?
The short answer is no.
Occasionally, opinionated proponents of secession will point to Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution as a quick answer to the law of secession. This brief statement reads: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." After quoting this clause, they will also point to the historical record for West Virginia, Vermont, Kentucky, and Maine which are all sometimes incorrectly referred to as "secession states." This is because all four states were created by the "partitioning" of existing states, as instructed by the above clause.
There is no legal precedent for a state's secession from the union. No, not even the Civil War is recognized as "legal precedent." In the eyes of the US Government, there was never a true secession from the union by the southern states because secession is not a legally recognized state's right. In the 1869 case, Texas v. White, then Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase ruled in favor of Texas on the grounds that the Confederate state government in Texas had no actual legal existence and, furthermore, when Texas, or any state, entered the United States, they become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." A later ruling in the 1877 case of Williams v. Bruffy, regarding debts created during the Civil War, the court ruled that "The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation."
This means that, while the short answer has to be "no" because the United States would never formally grant a state the ability to withdraw from the union and therefore cannot recognize it as even being an option, it does recognize, at least logically speaking, that if a state were to ever successfully do something it can't do because it doesn't exist, then it would HAVE to recognized then... but ONLY then.
So, are they "allowed"? No! But we weren't "allowed" to secede from the British Empire either... just sayin'.
What was the Marvel and Northrop Grumman thing?
Very few details were released about the now cancelled partnership between Marvel and defense contractor Northrop Grumman. Among the items that were shown publicly was the flyer above and a free comic book featuring the Avengers and a brand new group of high-tech heroes known as NGENS. The cover of the controversial issue can be seen below. This partnership was presumably created with the intention of drawing children towards the idea of working for the weapons manufacturer.
Predictably, any fan who had seen the first Iron Man movie was less than thrilled about the idea of Marvel partnering with what many perceive to be the Obadiah-led Stark Enterprises of the real world. In response to the fan backlash, Marvel announced “The activation with Northrop Grumman at New York Comic Con was meant to focus on aerospace technology and exploration in a positive way. However, as the spirit of that intent has not come across, we will not be proceeding with this partnership including this weekend’s event programming. Marvel and Northrop Grumman continue to be committed to elevating, and introducing, STEM to a broad audience.”
The moral of the story is, if you were lucky enough to nab one of those limited edition NGENS comics, you should make it your mission to get a few autographs on the cover then put it away for a few decades because it is nothing more than an elusive collector's "misprint" at this point.
How many BB8s did they make?
There were eight BB8s created for the filming of The Force Awakens. However, of these eight only one, dubbed the "red carpet version," was seen to be the full realization of J.J. Abrams vision of the little rolling R2-replacement. This was the one on display during the Star Wars Celebration prior to Episode VII's release and is the only one which is picture perfect true-to-life replication of the droid's on-screen presence. The other seven, while obviously versions of BB8 all contain various attributes which allowed the filmmakers to properly utilize them as props for the various scenes. These range from a highly configurable and articulate head, to the rod-puppet used for various character interactions.