News:

Please take a stand against our terrible values

Main Menu

Unlimited Ferguson Thread of police state nightmare fuel.

Started by Da6s, August 14, 2014, 07:09:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Johnny

Flamethrowers as biological warfare are supposedly banned practices.
<<My image in some places, is of a monster of some kind who wants to pull a string and manipulate people. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are manipulated; I just want them to be manipulated more effectively.>>

-B.F. Skinner

minuspace

Californians just would not keep their nozzles clean.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Raz Tech on August 22, 2014, 11:54:53 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on August 22, 2014, 11:34:41 PM
What about flamethrowers?

I think they're considered "any other weapon" and are legal pretty much anywhere but California and a few other states.

Fun fact, a hand-cranked gatling gun is technically semi-automatic, and doesn't require any special permits to own.

Not legal in Arizona, so probably not legal anywhere.  My state is insane.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Cain

I'm a little surprised at that.  One of those small kitchen flamethrowers would be easy to conceal-carry on a person, which I would've thought is the only reason Arizona wouldn't allow flamethrowers in the first place - not out of concern for safety, but because they're cumbersome.

Then again, being out of the shade in most of the state probably has the same overall effect as a kitchen flamethrower, so they might have taken that into account.

von

Quote from: Raz Tech on August 22, 2014, 11:54:53 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on August 22, 2014, 11:34:41 PM
What about flamethrowers?

I think they're considered "any other weapon" and are legal pretty much anywhere but California and a few other states.

Fun fact, a hand-cranked gatling gun is technically semi-automatic, and doesn't require any special permits to own.

They're not Any other Weapons. AoWs are defined right off the bat as being able to discharge a shot through the energy of an explosive...flamethrowers don't do this, thus they aren't regulated as AoWs.
They're 100% unregulated at the federal level...as they should be: I mean really, regulating them makes about as much sense as regulating chainsaws or machetes. They're agricultural tools.

von

Quote from: Cain on August 23, 2014, 08:01:27 AM
I'm a little surprised at that.  One of those small kitchen flamethrowers would be easy to conceal-carry on a person, which I would've thought is the only reason Arizona wouldn't allow flamethrowers in the first place - not out of concern for safety, but because they're cumbersome.

Then again, being out of the shade in most of the state probably has the same overall effect as a kitchen flamethrower, so they might have taken that into account.

Well, arizona (and cali, the other state I know of that's banned them) is a state with an arid climate, and flame throwers are largely used as defoliants in the US.

Wouldn't it make sense to ban something that could start a wild fire in such an arid climate?


Cain

No, because that implies Arizona's politics make sense.

von

Quote from: Cain on August 23, 2014, 08:25:03 AM
No, because that implies Arizona's politics make sense.

that's a whole nother can a worms right there...

still, something about broken clocks being right at least once during the day.

Bruno

The cop that shoved Don Lemon has been suspended, but not because of that. Because of a video of a speech he made at an Oathkeepers' meeting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/dan-page-st-louis-police-officer_n_5702000.html
Formerly something else...

Cain

You mean the Oathkeepers sworn to protect America from tyrannical government?   :lol:

von

Quote from: Cain on August 23, 2014, 01:29:19 PM
You mean the Oathkeepers sworn to protect America from tyrannical government?   :lol:

That group (and radical constitutionalists) irks my nerves like fuck.

They claim to be about upholding enlistment oaths, ostensibly by resisting the federal government.
But in the text of the enlistment oath, it specifically states that one is to follow the orders of the president and all officers appointed above oneself...

Bruno

Quote from: Cain on August 23, 2014, 01:29:19 PM
You mean the Oathkeepers sworn to protect America from tyrannical government?   :lol:

To be fair, the Qathkeepers do seem to be distancing themselves from this guy.
Formerly something else...

Cain

Yeah, but is that because he's a dickweed, or because he's bad press?  I somehow suspect if this hadn't been made public, they'd do fuck all.

Just for comparison, check out the response of most militias to Bundy Ranch, and compare with the response to Ferguson.  I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what their concern in all this is.

ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞

P E R   A S P E R A   A D   A S T R A

Bruno

#299
The Female/Sodomite army will DESTROY US ALL!

DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!
DESTROY US ALL!



(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9KGfgg-d8s)
Formerly something else...