If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Russia Today)   Youtube video of explosions? We're gonna go ahead decide that's an illegal explosives manufacture, peon. Because we can   (rt.com) divider line 311
    More: Asinine, YouTube, FPSRussia, ATF, sniper rifles, explosions, explosives  
•       •       •

5338 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Mar 2013 at 5:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



311 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-30 09:16:07 PM

Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

There's no reason to believe illegal weapons or explosives were in the possession of a popular entertainer who explicitly states what he's using for each effect in a number of videos.

This was a pointless raid conducted in bad faith by an untrustworthy agency against the wrong kind of target contrary to the stated goals of our very nation. How are you not outraged?
 
2013-03-30 09:17:34 PM

IlGreven: "But they aren't allowed to look!"


You're right, without probable cause, they aren't.

::No-knock:: FREEZE! We're here because we have reason to believe you are growing marijuana because your car was seen at Home Depot buying more than 6 planting pots!

Yeah, not ok with this either and it's the same principle.
 
2013-03-30 09:19:23 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?


So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?
 
2013-03-30 09:19:43 PM
Oh and this:

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-30 09:21:56 PM
We're about to get some awesome names for people though out of this:

FPSrussia
ATFhitler
GBIcletus
 
2013-03-30 09:22:02 PM

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?


I have not. I doubt he has, and I doubt anyone will ever see the full copy until long after the fact. However given the ATF's hamfisted and often completely idiotic way of doing things, I would be extremely surprised if they actually got the process right.
 
2013-03-30 09:25:47 PM

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?


Funny, the article doesn't even mention a warrant.

/I really hope they had one though, or this will get really fun.
 
2013-03-30 09:26:50 PM

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?



Where's their oath and affirmations? Where's the illegal guns? Where's the illegal explosives? Where's the backlash for bearing false witness against those people who gave the oaths?
 
2013-03-30 09:28:43 PM

redmid17: Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?

I have not. I doubt he has, and I doubt anyone will ever see the full copy until long after the fact. However given the ATF's hamfisted and often completely idiotic way of doing things, I would be extremely surprised if they actually got the process right.


Hey, when I see something to be angry about, I'll be angry.

But I'm not going to assume all these agents from several different agencies were just bored and wanted to harass someone so they made up a bunch of shiat and got some stupid or drunk or bribed judge to sign off on it...because they could.

I'm no apologist for these guys, but I'm not going to assume that their actions are some kind of Keystone Kops meets the KGB farce until I see a reason to.
 
2013-03-30 09:28:55 PM
Side note:  Got a meeting at the ATF's Houston field office Tuesday.

Can anyone get me a "Free FPSRussia" t-shirt by then?  :0
 
2013-03-30 09:30:37 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Crocodilly_Pontifex: Corvus: So now people in this thread believe that we can't regulate explosives anymore?

That everything is a "second amendment right"? A tank, an RPG and a nuke is ok too.

Sorry guys we have munition laws on explosives we always have.

you must have missed the part where a government agency raided a guys property looking for illegal stuff and couldn't find any. Then you must have also missed the part where, because he videotapes shiat blowing up, they want him to get a manufacture license.

cause if you missed that, what oyu said would be totally legit.

Do you get pissed off when a Doctor orders an X-ray and then doesn't find anything?


If the Doctor came to my house and forced me to get an x-ray... Yeah, I'd be pretty pissed.
 
2013-03-30 09:30:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Oh, so he can't say it's Tannerite if it's really TNT, right? That's like, impossible to do!


He's sponsored by a company that sells Tannerite.  He has a video where he does a tour of the facility where they make the Tannerite he uses in his videos.  He shows himself setting up the Tannerite.

Why, when he's getting free Tannerite and money for using Tannerite, would he instead spend money (thus digging into his monetized YouTube account profits) to use TNT?

It's almost as if you have no idea WTF you are talking about.
 
2013-03-30 09:32:35 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Lionel Mandrake: They looked, they found nothing, they did nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now do you see the outrage?

So you've seen the warrant and you know it didn't do those things?


Where's their oath and affirmations? Where's the illegal guns? Where's the illegal explosives? Where's the backlash for bearing false witness against those people who gave the oaths?


Oh right...you have to know something illegal is there before you can get a warrant to see if there's anything illegal there.  In order to get the proof, you need to already have it.

If it comes out that there was no warrant or something, believe me, I'll be plenty mad.  Until I have a reason to be pissed, I think I'll just remain calm.
 
2013-03-30 09:33:18 PM

cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions


You're not going to find anybody on that end of the political spectrum that likes the ATF.  In fact, most of them have wanted to disband the entire agency for decades, back to at least the Waco and Ruby Ridge era.

ATF is a bunch of worthless morons running around doing the bidding of a handful of political appointees who are full-blown malicious jackbooted thugs.  And they apparently have lots of backing because they can even run guns to Mexican drug cartels, get border patrol agents murdered, and never have to face any serious consequences.
 
2013-03-30 09:37:42 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I'm no apologist for these guys, but I'm not going to assume that their actions are some kind of Keystone Kops meets the KGB farce until I see a reason to.


Do you not see where it's the ATF?

The ATF was formerly part of the United States Department of the Treasury, having been formed in 1886 as the "Revenue Laboratory" within the Treasury Department's Bureau of Internal Revenue. The history of ATF can be subsequently traced to the time of the revenuers or "revenoors"[6] and the Bureau of Prohibition, which was formed as a unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1920, was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department in 1927, was transferred to the Justice Department in 1930, and became, briefly, a division of the FBI in 1933.

When the Volstead Act, which established prohibition in the United States, was repealed in December 1933, the Unit was transferred from the Department of Justice back to the Department of the Treasury where it became the Alcohol Tax Unit (ATU) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Special Agent Eliot Ness and several members of The "Untouchables", who had worked for the Prohibition Bureau while the Volstead Act was still in force, were transferred to the ATU. In 1942, responsibility for enforcing federal firearms laws was given to the ATU.

In the early 1950s, the Bureau of Internal Revenue was renamed "Internal Revenue Service" (IRS),[7] and the ATU was given the additional responsibility of enforcing federal tobacco tax laws. At this time, the name of the ATU was changed to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD).

In 1968, with the passage of the Gun Control Act, the agency changed its name again, this time to the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division of the IRS and first began to be referred to by the initials "ATF"



They were formed by the tax men, bounced around a bit and given the mandate to swing the bick dick of the Volstead Act around and fark good honest Americans who just want a damn beer after work right up the ass. Their accomplishment was busting Capone. Oh wait, they never did that and had to rely on the IRS to cover their asses. Anyway, after they failed at their one job horribly they were bounced some more and given more responsibilities and pretty much wound up in charge of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. But god knows why because they're perpetual fark ups and they're horrible at every job but catching the smallest of small fry.

The Past 40 Years of Failure
 
2013-03-30 09:38:41 PM

Phoenix87ta: The ATF raided this guy's property for doing something that was 100% legal.  I'm inclined to wonder how they got a warrant based on that weak shiat in the first place.


I'm guessing the unsolved murder was the tipping point in getting the warrant okayed whether that was the given reason or not.

The real reasons are probably slightly more complicated.

In the eyes of the ATF this guy's top 10 youtube video channel is probably seen as "part of the problem" and they have probably been looking for an excuse to do this for a while. How they imagined this would turn out making them look like the good guys is anybody's guess. If they were trying to justify their agencies budget by mounting a largish operation on a high profile target with the actual result of making anyone safer then they did a piss poor job of it.

End of the day this kind of tactic just makes their job harder by confirming the suspicions of gun grabbin' federales held by the real whackjobs out there and upping their already too-high paranoia levels . Which *is* a form of job security for the ATF, I guess. So there's that.

/And before anyone points it out, yeah, I know they didn't actually grab any guns here but threatening to do so really isn't helping anyone's cause.
 
2013-03-30 09:41:21 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dr. Goldshnoz: Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.

Because ATF should totally kick in everyone's door to look in on them just to be sure.

Or, everyone who  posts videos of sh*t exploding on YouTube. I'd be alright with that.


NO. There is a reason why there are very specific rules, guidelines, laws and procedures for police to kick in people's doors, and there's a reason the founding fathers thought it was important enough to deal with in the constitution. And raiding people solely on the knowledge of LEGAL activity, with no actual evidence which would suggest illegal activity, is a no-no. A big old no-no.

And this is a big problem right now. And it's not just that FPSRussia guy. This kind of shiat happens WAY TOO OFTEN. Notice in that link the only way the police could have gotten a warrant was under false pretenses, as the only possible way they could have suspected he was growing pot was from either randomly using FLIR to invade his privacy or by raiding him on the basis of perfectly legal and normal activity - both of which are prohibited. So the police used an illegal warrant (I'm sure there's a more precise way of phrasing that) in both of these cases.

How do we as a country start to crack down on this?
 
2013-03-30 09:42:55 PM
Satanic_Hamster: Side note:  Got a meeting at the ATF's Houston field office Tuesday.

Can anyone get me a "Free FPSRussia" t-shirt by then?  :0


*points at Satanic_Hamster*

You. You, I like!

:>D
 
2013-03-30 09:45:27 PM

Phoenix87ta: Lionel Mandrake: Phoenix87ta: I'm a filthy liberal and I'm not personally a fan of firearms, but even so...

Fark the ATF.  Follow the law just like the rest of us, assholes.

What law did they break?

As far as I can tell, they completely lacked any kind of probable cause for the raid, and while considering confiscating his legal weapons because there were "too many" isn't against the law because they didn't actually DO it, it's still particularly troubling that they 1) considered it, and 2) quite happily announced that they were considering it, as if it were perfectly acceptable.

Basically, the ATF has repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence and their willingness to do whatever the fark they want.  That bothers me.


When a prosecutor charges someone and doesn't win, there's some loss of face.  It's news.  In the papers.  When a judge approves a search warrant and there is a failure (like cops go to wrong address which is on the warrant, cops shoot the dog, there's tomatoes where there should be MJ, etc.) it's really hard to find out which judge approved the search warrant and at least vote against him in the next election.
 
2013-03-30 09:45:47 PM

doglover: Do you not see where it's the ATF?


I don't see where that justifies jumping to conclusions.
 
2013-03-30 09:48:59 PM
You don't carry out investigations where there has been no evidence of a crime with an armed raid like this. Videos of tannerite are not evidence of a crime. This is farking scary. I mean yes, lots of criminals are stupid. But this is why I rail against prohibitory laws. They can be used very easily to justify just about any action through the principle of adjacency. We outlaw red cars, this one looks orangish so let's see if we can get it off the streets. We ban 44 ounce sodas, this place is selling 32 ounce drinks, let's break down their doors and see if they have illegal 44oz cups in the back. We ban yardsticks, let's send in the FBI on a raid to see if anyone's rulers are too long.

By the way, I would like to know how much damage was caused in this raid. Because insurance policies don't cover law enforcement actions.
 
2013-03-30 09:50:27 PM

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Do you not see where it's the ATF?

I don't see where that justifies jumping to conclusions.


So when the perpetual fark up agency is perpetually farking up and something they're doing yet again goes wrong you don't think it's safe to logically assume this is yet another go round in a well know cycle of fark ups and instead have infinite faith that this time it's not their fault and they did a good job for once?

Man, I wish I was you. Every morning when the sun comes again up must blow your freakin' mind.


For the rest of us:

In May 2008, William Newell, Special Agent in charge of the Phoenix ATF Office, said: "When 90 percent-plus of the firearms recovered from these violent drug cartels are from a U.S. source, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to stem the illegal flow of these firearms to these thugs."[27] According to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, "ATF told the OIG that the 90-percent figure ... could be misleading because it applied only to the small portion of Mexican crime guns that are traced."[28] Under Operations "Fast and Furious", "Too Hot to Handle", and "Wide Receiver", indictments show that the Phoenix ATF Office, over protests from the gun dealers and some ATF agents involved and without notifying Mexican authorities, facilitated the sale of over 2,500 firearms (AK-47 rifles, FN 5.7mm pistols, AK-47 pistols, and .50 caliber rifles) to traffickers destined for Mexico.[29][30][31][32][33] Many of these same guns are being recovered from crime scenes in Arizona[34] and throughout Mexico,[35] which is artificially inflating ATF's eTrace statistics of U.S. origin guns seized in Mexico. One gun is alleged to be the weapon used by a Mexican national to murder Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.
 
2013-03-30 09:51:36 PM
Have the people whose property was raided made any comments?
 
2013-03-30 09:53:45 PM

Lionel Mandrake: And if they did that do you think that would be the end of it?  The first judge who asked for an explanation and didn't get one would give the guy all his guns back, there would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired.


You do realize that the government has basically made all government agents immune from legal action even if they knowingly and willfully violate your rights, don't you?
 
2013-03-30 09:54:04 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Have the people whose property was raided made any comments?


i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-30 09:54:29 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Do you not see where it's the ATF?

I don't see where that justifies jumping to conclusions.

So when the perpetual fark up agency is perpetually farking up and something they're doing yet again goes wrong you don't think it's safe to logically assume this is yet another go round in a well know cycle of fark ups and instead have infinite faith that this time it's not their fault and they did a good job for once?


I don't know where you got that idea...

But I think it's safe to avoid jumping to conclusions.

Good for the blood pressure, too.
 
2013-03-30 09:55:56 PM

Lionel Mandrake: doglover: Do you not see where it's the ATF?

I don't see where that justifies jumping to conclusions.


If I had a rap sheet that looked like the list of ATF fark ups, every LEO (hell, every person) would always assume that whatever I was doing it was no good and going to end very badly.

They are a completely mismanaged organization existing with a jurisdiction so vague yet wide-reaching they basically just troll around doing whatever the fark they want to.

The shiat they should be doing they aren't allowed to both due to Congressional neutering and the fact every other LEOrganization doesn't trust them to go for coffee w/o shooting a few innocent people or getting the government's pants sued off for some colossal clusterfark.

The FBI has to babysit them which doesn't work when they just go off and do whatever the fark they want. They have no regard for other elements of law enforcement or people actually educated and trained to do the job they pretend to do.

It's a retirement home for the LEOs that can't cut it at any other Federal Agency with a proven track record of abysmal failure. You might not see where that justifies jumping to conclusions, and you would be in the minority in that regard.

They are at the absolute top of the list for organizations that need shut the fark down. There is nothing they do that can't be done better by the FBI or local LE.

In fact, if their duties were rolled into those of the FBI's their duties would actually get fulfilled, which is the very reason why shiat-kicking redneck retarded congressmen insist on keeping them alive but neutered.
 
2013-03-30 09:56:17 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lionel Mandrake: And if they did that do you think that would be the end of it?  The first judge who asked for an explanation and didn't get one would give the guy all his guns back, there would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired.

You do realize that the government has basically made all government agents immune from legal action even if they knowingly and willfully violate your rights, don't you?


So is it time to grab our guns and overthrow the tyrants?
 
2013-03-30 09:58:02 PM

Lionel Mandrake: odinsposse: Dr. Goldshnoz: Lionel Mandrake: The ATF looked into some weird guy with an explosives fetish?

OMFG!!1!  IT'S THE GODDAM FOURTH REICH!!!!


I'd be worried if they weren't looking into guys like that.

Because ATF should totally kick in everyone's door to look in on them just to be sure.

Baseless no-knock raids are okay when they happen to people I don't like.

You guys sound so oppressed.  How can you live in this Stalinist Hellhole?


It's awful!  The window's dirty, the mattress stinks.  This ain't no place to be a man!

/Don't get me started on the filthy floor and the thin walls!
 
2013-03-30 09:58:43 PM

Lionel Mandrake: But I think it's safe to avoid jumping to conclusions.


You're the one jumping to conclusions.

The ATF is a horrible agency and they've been the lynchpin in every boondoggle from the St Valentine's Day Massacre up through Waco and the retaliatory Oklahoma City Bombing all the way on though to Operation: Help Mexican Criminals Kill Border Patrol Agents

Their track record speaks for itself. It's jumping to any conclusions to assume they are in violation of SOP and the Constitution, because they usually are.
 
2013-03-30 09:59:20 PM

Lionel Mandrake: So is it time to grab our guns and overthrow the tyrants?


Who said anything about that?

Absolutely rich coming from a guy that just went off on not jumping to conclusions.
 
2013-03-30 10:07:19 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Do you get pissed off when a Doctor comes into your home(uninvited), and orders an X-ray, because he saw that you had fallen off of your skateboard in a youtube video, and then doesn't find anything?


Yes.
 
2013-03-30 10:09:01 PM

Snapper Carr: cman: I am gonna wait for the "Better safe than sorry" portion of the Right to come out and defend ATF actions

Actually the ATF is one of the few agencies that both the left and the right generally agree should be taken out back and shot.


Nope.  The ATF is a fabulous agency that enforces the 2nd Amendment ban on gun ownership unless you belong to a well-regulated militia.  Now if only Commerce would do their job and restrict the production of these illegal weapons.
 
2013-03-30 10:09:39 PM

MurphyMurphy: Lionel Mandrake: So is it time to grab our guns and overthrow the tyrants?

Who said anything about that?

Absolutely rich coming from a guy that just went off on not jumping to conclusions.


It was a joke, skippy.  Although I am genuinely curious about what the breaking point would be.

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: But I think it's safe to avoid jumping to conclusions.

You're the one jumping to conclusions.


How so?

All I said is that I see no reason to assume that they broke laws or did anything horrific.  And I also said that if further information came out that indicated they had, I would be pissed off like you guys.

So what conclusion did I jump to?
 
2013-03-30 10:11:01 PM

Lionel Mandrake: How so?

All I said is that I see no reason to assume that they broke laws or did anything horrific



That's how.

The ATF is like the TSA of LEOs.
 
2013-03-30 10:13:32 PM

JosephFinn: 2nd Amendment ban on gun ownership unless you belong to a well-regulated militia.


Or, as the text would actually have it, you are one of "the people".

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Militia is made up of people.

The people is NOT made up of the militia.

That said, it is an add on, and subtraction is an option.
 
2013-03-30 10:15:30 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Lenny_da_Hog: The Second Amendment was never intended for homeowners to own canons!


What's a canon?

Oh, you meant cannons. Well, history might disagree...
 
2013-03-30 10:18:27 PM

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: How so?

All I said is that I see no reason to assume that they broke laws or did anything horrific


That's how.


What?  Are you f*cking serious?

Well, enjoy your outrage.

As additional info comes out, I may or may not be raging right along with you in the next thread about it.

Do forgive me for not just assuming something terrible happened.  I'm one of those people who likes to have evidence before making conclusions.  You'll thank me if I'm ever a juror at your trial.
 
2013-03-30 10:18:57 PM

Lionel Mandrake: It was a joke, skippy. Although I am genuinely curious about what the breaking point would be.


That breaking point, the moment a populace turns rebellious against it's government, has never occurred as a shift or break from ideological fundamentals.

Historically, rebellion always has been and always will be a result of current or imminent wealth disparity and unacceptably low quality of life.

You can piss on the constitution, declare martial law nation-wide... as long as people are fat and feel like they are getting enough of the pie to keep them that way you can get away with just about anything.

Despite what rhetoric everywhere would have you believe, people don't stand up and fight for what they believe in. They fight when they have absolutely no other option left.
 
2013-03-30 10:19:15 PM

Lionel Mandrake: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lionel Mandrake: And if they did that do you think that would be the end of it?  The first judge who asked for an explanation and didn't get one would give the guy all his guns back, there would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired.

You do realize that the government has basically made all government agents immune from legal action even if they knowingly and willfully violate your rights, don't you?

So is it time to grab our guns and overthrow the tyrants?


You stated that there "would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired".  I was pointing out that you're not in touch with reality, because there are laws on the books preventing exactly what you claim would happen.  Why you jumped to the "overthrow the tyrants" shtick, I have no idea.
 
2013-03-30 10:40:40 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lionel Mandrake: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lionel Mandrake: And if they did that do you think that would be the end of it?  The first judge who asked for an explanation and didn't get one would give the guy all his guns back, there would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired.

You do realize that the government has basically made all government agents immune from legal action even if they knowingly and willfully violate your rights, don't you?

So is it time to grab our guns and overthrow the tyrants?

You stated that there "would probably be a lawsuit and a shiatload of people would get fired".  I was pointing out that you're not in touch with reality, because there are laws on the books preventing exactly what you claim would happen.  Why you jumped to the "overthrow the tyrants" shtick, I have no idea.


Seems like he jumped to conclusions on that one, before he had evidence of you wanting to overthrow a tyrant.
 
2013-03-30 10:43:44 PM
An article from Russia Today, subby?

I guess you don't get prisonplanet.com articles greenlit anymore?
 
2013-03-30 11:01:50 PM

Ed Grubermann: He's not a terrorist and he's not stupid.


How many videos show him wearing eye/ear protection?
 
2013-03-30 11:07:00 PM

Kaybeck: How many videos show him wearing eye/ear protection?


Keep in mind, a number of his videos use video editing software; he's not actually firing guns in real life in some of them.
 
2013-03-30 11:07:47 PM

Kaybeck: Ed Grubermann: He's not a terrorist and he's not stupid.

How many videos show him wearing eye/ear protection?


Only the ones that require ear protection have it. When he's indoors or has a large weapon, he wears ear mufflers. Outdoors the sound can't reverberate so it's not so important to wear hearing protection. You only get one hit from the wave.

The glasses are omnipresent so I assume they're safety glassed. They make those, you know. Just because it's for protection doesn't mean it has to look like ass.

images1.opticsplanet.com
 
2013-03-30 11:09:15 PM

doglover: Only the ones that require ear protection have it. When he's indoors or has a large weapon, he wears ear mufflers. Outdoors the sound can't reverberate so it's not so important to wear hearing protection. You only get one hit from the wave.

The glasses are omnipresent so I assume they're safety glassed. They make those, you know. Just because it's for protection doesn't mean it has to look like ass.


That and they also make some damn small / non-obvious ear plugs.
 
2013-03-30 11:09:52 PM

Kaybeck: Ed Grubermann: He's not a terrorist and he's not stupid.

How many videos show him wearing eye/ear protection?


A: Several
 
2013-03-30 11:13:31 PM
 
2013-03-30 11:22:26 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: I'm beginning to understand why H.S.T. topped himself. 

"No more Games. No more Bombs. No more Walking. No more Fun . . . Relax -- This won't hurt."

The New Left depresses the shiate out of everyone but themselves.


The New Left?  This isn't 1973 any more.  The New Left fizzled.  Even the New Left Review has about like 5 subscribers left.
 
2013-03-30 11:27:02 PM

doglover: Outdoors the sound can't reverberate so it's not so important to wear hearing protection. You only get one hit from the wave.


It doesn't seem so important.

Until you hit your 30's and realize (in between the episodes of ringing tinnitus) that in situations with any ambient sound you can't always make out a person talking that is standing right in front of you.

Just because you're not firing an AK in a concrete hallway doesn't mean it's not incredibly bad for your hearing.
 
Displayed 50 of 311 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report