The "I Don't Want To Live On This Planet Anymore" thread

[2Stonedbirds]

[QUOTE=combustiblefuel;5689025]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Is that 2000 yards?

Is that smart?

Are you a functioning bipedal organism?[/QUOTE]

My aruguement was and still is you could be a suicide bomber to use the 2 together.

Resorting to name calling in an arguement is never a good thing. It juat means you may be wrong anf frustrated by facts you have no other logical retort. And should probably step away from the keyboard.

And my argument is any asshat can do whatever he pleases outside of the confines of the law, and that's up to him. But hes not obtaining tannerite or other binary explosives outside of the confines of the law. And as it stands today, using tannerite within a prescribed set of regulations is legal. But you couldn't find your ass with both hands so I'm done here.

[AC]

Oh I wonder what's going on in this thre---

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by AC

Oh I wonder what's going on in this thre---

Yeah. That kind of got pretty heated.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Coulda fooled me.

.224 WBY mag...

This rifle shoots a small bullet behind a large amount of propellent. .224 caliber or for us normal shooting folk, is commonly known as twenty two cal. The .224 WBY mag is a absolute barrel burner. Super fast.... AT THE MUZZLE.

Lets use for example a very common .224 cal bullet. 50 grain hornady Vmax bullets which have a G1 ballistic coefficient of .242. Lets go with a slightly hot load which produces a MUZZLE velocity of 3750FPS. Which is stupid fast. Ok.

We know how fast we are at the muzzle.

At 100 yards we are at 3294 FPS.

At 300 yards we are at 2511 FPS.

At 500 yards we are at 1851 FPS. Not fast enough to reliably set off tannerite.

At 900 yards we have dropped below subsonic speed. We are now at 1026 FPS. Bullet wobble is introduced.

At our argued point of being able to shoot and blow up targets at 2000 yards, we are now at the velocity of 559 FPS. Barely above what is allowed for non regulated air rifles.

So no, we are not detonating tannerite at 2000+ yards. Also, we basically have no hope in hell of hitting that target since we dropped subsonic over 1000 yards ago.

Shall I pick apart the other examples you have presented?

Still my point remains that I have made this whole time stand right next to the payload and fire away.

The 2000 yard thing was between you and another poster. Your losing track of who and what you are arguing now. Stwp aside and smoke a thai stick to compose yourslf then come back to continue the debate.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Yeah. That kind of got pretty heated.

Just a friendly debate. I guess it could be procieved as a heated arguement which I understand but hold no ill will.

[CaptainCrunch]

Long range rifles

.50 calibre Barrett m82 2800 fps 2000 yards.

C14 timber wolf uses a .338 fires at 2700 fps effective range of 1500 meters

The MSWP that comes out of Georgia you know the Russian one can do it using a .338

The Russians and Chinese have weapons that can hit from 2000 at a high muzzle velocity.

You can sit there and say, that some terrorist or someone that's angry and wants to do harm can't get a hold of theses weapons, but we see a lot of Chinese and other national armory weapons showing up due to the US' complete incompetence in securing their ports and borders.

Again calm down, go back to the video where they were blowing up 100, 150 and 164 pounds of that stuff.

20 or 30 or 40 pounds of that stuff in a public place would be bad news.

You say that there haven't been terrorist events, but I showed two stories where this material was a component in their plans. If they're thinking of it, so are other people who probably have a higher IQ then these people.

You can't say that they're effectively limiting access to it when we have people blowing up houses and cars and pigs with this material and not in 1 or 10 pound lots but in 50 100 and 160 pound lots, and clearly nobody is knocking on their doors asking them why they're buying so much.

Surely you as an intelligent human being can see the problem here.

[llwhiteoutll]

People need to stop arbitrarily swapping back and forth between the US and Canada when discussing stuff like this. It would also help if the educated themselves on the law before trying to discuss it. Saying that you don't care because you don't use it and then trying to argue why it should be banned doesn't work.

But unfortunately it is acceptable for some reason to be 100% ignorant on the subject and still discuss things as if you have read the FA and Explosives Act.

But by all means, explain to all of us why you're more educated than the lawmakers and stuff like this needs to be banned, even though it would be 100x easier to make an explosive device without using dozens of tiny tannerite packs.

And tannerite doesn't actually create flames when it explodes. So the videos posted are cases where someone has added fuel to their target. And guess what is illegal?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Long range rifles

.50 calibre Barrett m82 2800 fps 2000 yards.

C14 timber wolf uses a .338 fires at 2700 fps effective range of 1500 meters

The MSWP that comes out of Georgia you know the Russian one can do it using a .338

And all of these rifles, while capable of engaging targets at that range, are not capable of setting off tannerite at that range. At the yardage YOU seem to be concerned about. Cuz terrorism. Never mind the fact that having a rifle capable of reaching out that far doesn't make you capable of hitting jack squat at that range. Did you ever have to factor coriolus effect when dialing up your dope?

If you throw a rock, is it travelling just as fast when it hits the ground as it is when it leaves your hand?

Starting to have a hard time believing our military put a rifle in your hands.

The Russians and Chinese have weapons that can hit from 2000 at a high muzzle velocity.

You can sit there and say, that some terrorist or someone that's angry and wants to do harm can't get a hold of theses weapons, but we see a lot of Chinese and other national armory weapons showing up due to the US' complete incompetence in securing their ports and borders.

That's a complete separate issue.

You should google the California senator who was smuggling in everything from AKs to RPGs. Same guy who lobbied to have firearms banned in California.

Clean up your own backyard before worrying about mine.

Again calm down, go back to the video where they were blowing up 100, 150 and 164 pounds of that stuff.

20 or 30 or 40 pounds of that stuff in a public place would be bad news.

You say that there haven't been terrorist events, but I showed two stories where this material was a component in their plans. If they're thinking of it, so are other people who probably have a higher IQ then these people.

You can't say that they're effectively limiting access to it when we have people blowing up houses and cars and pigs with this material and not in 1 or 10 pound lots but in 50 100 and 160 pound lots, and clearly nobody is knocking on their doors asking them why they're buying so much.

Surely you as an intelligent human being can see the problem here.

And surely you can see, how I have pointed out, that people who know far, far more about this sort of thing have determined it's ok for civilian use, so far as a set of conditions are met at the time of purchase.

What burns me up is a segment of the population thinks we need to ban chicken because you could choke on the bones. So what? If it becomes an issue, then the law changes.

I wonder if Paris and Brussels were carried out with tannerite, or there is a guy who knows how to mix commonly available products in proportions that make bang bang. Legislate that good sir.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

But by all means, explain to all of us why you're more educated than the lawmakers and stuff like this needs to be banned, even though it would be 100x easier to make an explosive device without using dozens of tiny tannerite packs.

I wouldn't waste your time, trying to explain how this stuff works is irrelevant when your debating with someone who would have us all clothed in bubble wrap if they were legislators.

[PepsiFree]

This whole argument seems pretty pointless but I'd just like to point out that something being legal is not a defence towards it's merit.

Plenty of awful things are legal.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This whole argument seems pretty pointless but I'd just like to point out that something being legal is not a defence towards it's merit.

Plenty of awful things are legal.

What is boils down to is this.

- It's a legal product in Canada
- There are controls on who can manufacture, sell and buy it
- There are laws regarding it's use
- If the directions are followed, it's safe

Calling for something to be banned because of occasional criminal misuse or the remote possibility that it might be misused in a way contrary to the law is ridiculous.

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be of the opinion that if something won't directly impact them, it's fair game to be banned. For some reason, there is a belief that they know better than the people who put laws in place, despite having zero knowledge of the subject at all.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This whole argument seems pretty pointless but I'd just like to point out that something being legal is not a defence towards it's merit.

Plenty of awful things are legal.

And who determines if it has merit or value?

You?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

And who determines if it has merit or value?



You?

Of course not. Clearly this is a sensitive issue for you but calm down and stop acting petulant about it.

I AGREE that it being regulated is enough. You can't protect everyone without going into the realm of restricting personal freedom in the name of terrorism or stupidity. My point was simply that "It's legal and until it's not..." is a bad argument. You've got a good argument about regulation, so stop going back to the worthless one.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Of course not. Clearly this is a sensitive issue for you but calm down and stop acting petulant about it.

I AGREE that it being regulated is enough. You can't protect everyone without going into the realm of restricting personal freedom in the name of terrorism or stupidity. My point was simply that "It's legal and until it's not..." is a bad argument. You've got a good argument about regulation, so stop going back to the worthless one.

The sensitive issue for me is when someone plays mother hen and decides there should be rules banning objects to save me from myself. While not having a clue what it is or how it works. People have it in their heads its a free for all. Its not.

Tannerite, before it could be imported into the country for private use, was examined by the public safety minister with consultation from the RCMP while examining the explosives act. After determining it does not violate the explosives act, they drafted regulations pertaining to who can own it, and the explosives act quite clearly states how much can be stored in your dwelling. I cannot sit on a few hundred pounds of the stuff.

You seem to be fine with regulations being in place to control its movement and who owns it. As am I, there should be controls on it and I believe the parameters set prescribing its use and who can obtain it are responsible and effective. I also stated that about 3 pages back.

In the end, if it is determined to be a hazard to public safety, it will become a prohibited substance, the laws will change regarding tannerite and that is where it stands.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Calling for something to be banned because of occasional criminal misuse or the remote possibility that it might be misused in a way contrary to the law is ridiculous.

Have you been to the dog-attacks thread?

[Regulator75]

This thread being de-railed really grinds my gears...

[btimbit]

I have nothing else to add than tannerite is fun as hell

[PsYcNeT]

'Berta

[Zevo]

'Net

[PsYcNeT]

Anyway, this thread has begun generating it's own content.

Back on off-site topic:

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/l...373630311.html

An annual PEZ Easter egg hunt ended earlier than expected after pushy parents didn't listen to the rules of the game, the general manager told NBC Connecticut.

By the time I found my 4-year-old, he was hysterically crying," Nicole Welch of West Haven said.
"Somebody pushed me over and take my eggs and it's very rude of them and they broke my bucket," Vincent Welch said.

This year, parents were on the "kids only" fields and going to the next hunt well before the designated start times. The signs on each field were taken or trampled on, Peterson explained.

Predictably, the comments for every article related to this are equal-parts race-baiting and millennial-blaming.