WMD's Finally FOUND!

reply to post by MentorsRiddle


i saw nothing about a silencer and even then a silencer is not a weapon of mass destruction,from the article they found him with a jar of weed and cash(=sales) and a sawed off shotgun (loaded) with shells...and as a sawn off non blackpowder shot gun is a DD(still not getting mass destruction label) i fail to see how it could be considered a weapon of mass destruction.....dont get me wrong by the sound of it this guy didnt have the right to possess any weapons let alone these but charging him or lableing him to be in posession of weapons of mass destruction is lunacy

and re silencer i own one legally mounted on my .22 pistol with atf permits and the works i have it so i can shoot when ever i want and not harass the neighbors or my tenants with loud noises all the time so yeah they have their purpose as well as perserving the hearing of the shooter as after a while it takes its toll on the hearing

The officer conducted a search of a backpack in Harrison's possession and Welch said that a mason jar containing marijuana and currency, as well as a loaded sawed-off shotgun with live shells. While conducting the search, Welch said that a crowd of about 20 people gathered near the site of the arrest and became hostile toward the officer. Further Police Officers arrived at the scene and no further incidents occurred.

so where are people getting the silencer part from as i read bolth links in the op and i only found mention of a sawed off shot gun.....

Well, under strict definition of the term, the gun CAN "cause siginificant injury or kill a large number of people" so I would think that by strict definition, they are correct.

Now for the number one reason why this guy is a dumb ass that I have been saving for everyone in an overly bombastic rendition of the grand finale' !

The guy could get the same effect with a baby bottle nipple stretched over the end of his rifle. Cut the end off the nip to allow the bullet to pass of course. Works for the same exact effect.

They work great and not many cops would put the two together.

At least up until now.

ah so its the term weapons of mass DEATH and destruction not a wmd or at least under local law so hey i guess this means bush didnt lie and under at least this law sadam had machineguns(wmds) so i guess we werent lied to about that?

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
ah so its the term weapons of mass DEATH and destruction not a wmd or at least under local law so hey i guess this means bush didnt lie and under at least this law sadam had machineguns(wmds) so i guess we werent lied to about that?

See this thread was good for something in the end. That's a damn good point !

And I'm a truther. Tho be it of a lesser value now.

OP needs to petition the mods to have this thread moved to it's rightful arena. Where it would pss a lot people off and quite possibly gain national attention.


He sure had the title right.

LMAO

another point that i found while looking is the shot gun is only illegal in the sense that the 5 $ dd(destructive device) tax stamp was not payed would that not make this a tax issue (not paying defined taxes) would that be charged differently or are they completely ignoring the fact that the gun is only illegal due to size of barrel and fact he didnt have a stamp( or to be fair the legal right to own guns by the sound of it) so yeah i dont think he should have had them to beginwith but to say that hes posessing a wmd for not paying a tax is an interesting angle to look at this case in if that makes any sense(coffie is still kicking in so bear with me)

This may have been asked already...forgive my laziness.
So, if your are charged as having a WMD, does that mean the NDAA applies and you would be charged as being a terrorist?

reply to post by AFewGoodWomen


good question the only thing along those lines i found out was that this law is tied into the patriot act and that is why it is on the books? unsure about ndaa provisions but this has its root in the patriot act

This thread has been a little odd but in the end OP earns a star and a flag. Don't see threads like this everyday.

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by MentorsRiddle

 

i saw nothing about a silencer and even then a silencer is not a weapon of mass destruction,from the article they found him with a jar of weed and cash(=sales) and a sawed off shotgun (loaded) with shells..

That was the second link. Read the first link, or the quoted text.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


A "silencer" better called a suppressor, falls under NFA licensing along with machine guns and short barrel weapons. A suppressor does NOT silence the weapon entirely, all it does is trap the gasses and reduce the noise and recoil. In some countries, like Finland, a suppressor is required if you are going hunting for noise control.

"Silencers" are only illegal because some dumbass politician saw a movie where a bad guy was using one that made the weapon sound like a muffled fart and the moron freaked out and whipped out the ban hammer.

reply to post by stanguilles7


www.citizen-times.com...|newswell|text|Frontpage |p that is a differnt guy as the names of the arrested dont match up so thats another person being charged with a weapon of mass destruction gunnels(the man with the rifle)and Tommy Lee Harrison Jr. who was caught with the sawed off shotgun two diffrent cases

Hmmm,what next?A kitchen knife because they are silent killers or prehaps matches and a petrol can because you can burn a building with many occupants.This is a gross misinturpretation of the law and definition! Condone this and your next.

reply to post by 13th Zodiac


to be fair gasoline in any container other then a jerry can or other approved container could fall under DD restrictions(molitov cocktail any one?) as well even more so if you happen to be holding gas and matches at the same time as its in an "unapproved" container just saying

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

www.citizen-times.com...|newswell|text|Frontpage |p that is a differnt guy as the names of the arrested dont match up so thats another person being charged with a weapon of mass destruction gunnels(the man with the rifle)and Tommy Lee Harrison Jr. who was caught with the sawed off shotgun two diffrent cases

AGAIN, there are two DIFFERENT links to two DIFFERENT instances of this happening.

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
It was not the gun that was deemed a WMD - it was the silencer attatched to it.

While I personally do not consider this a type of WMD, others might - as there is really only one reason to want a silencer on your weapon.

However, in this state it is illegal to own a silencer.

Not owning a weapon.

A suppressor does not make ANY gun a WMD. A suppressor does not give a gun ANY more "killing ability" or make it any more deadly.

As far as there "being only one reason" for wanting a suppressor, again, this is complete BS. Many people want suppressors for their weapons, because many guns are REALLY loud. Even with hearing protection, some guns are uncomfortably loud. Also, even though you may be using hearing protection, people around you may not. Suppressors are extremely convenient to have, and they are NOT illegal, you just need a bit of extra paperwork and a tax stamp.

In addition to that, if you are using your gun for protection of the home, if someone breaks in, and you shoot at them inside your house, there is a very good chance you'll have some hearing damage. Using a suppressor, your shots will most likely still hurt your ears, but the chance of serious permanent hearing damage will be reduced.

If you are under the impression that the only reason people want suppressors is so that they can kill people and nobody can hear them, well you're just SO wrong on that. A suppressed weapon is still VERY loud. Unless we are talking about a suppressed .22lr rifle using sub-sonic ammo, then the suppressor doesn't matter, people will still hear your gun shots.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Okay, I guess what confuses me about this ( And please correct me if I am wrong, because I know very little about guns) is that I thought silencers were legal...Maybe you have to have some special license in order to own one, I don't know...But that would still be legal. Maybe he had one illegally...But still...That does not equal WMD.

Calling a rifle with a silencer, a WMD....That is a scary stretch being made...

Aren't WMD's supposed to be...Nuclear weapons, biological weapons etc?

A rifle with a silencer... How utterly insane.

That sounds like something a hunter would use, so as not to scare off other animals when shooting....

I don't know what else to say, other than, to me, calling a rifle with a silencer, a WMD, makes no sense....

Yeah, suppressors are legal, but you can't just go build one or buy one without first getting a tax stamp and filling out some paperwork. I'm guessing this guy didn't do that, and he is also 18, which I believe is too young to own a suppressor. I could totally be wrong on that, so don't quote me, but you have to be 21 years old to own a pistol, and I think the same age requirement also goes for owning select fire weapons, suppressors, short barreled shot guns, and short barreled rifles.

It's quite obvious the guy was in violation of several laws, and definitely should have been arrested, but no way in hell should he have a WMD charge against him. That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

I guess Iraq really DID have WMDs, because they sure as hell had guns and explosives, and evidently simple rifles and weak explosives are considered WMDs by the retards that are in charge of things.

reply to post by stanguilles7


perhaps you should have stated that in the op in the beginning as from reading the thread most people mention that guy or the guy with the shot gun as unless you read it carefully to find out that it was two separate people invovled and not just one case could have cleared it up and made it make a bit more sense just saying

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

perhaps you should have stated that in the op in the beginning as from reading the thread most people mention that guy or the guy with the shot gun as unless you read it carefully to find out that it was two separate people invovled and not just one case could have cleared it up and made it make a bit more sense just saying

Do you often skip over the bulk of an OP and only click on one of the links? Might wanna reconsider than half-assed approach to reading in the future. It makes you look pretty uninformed.

The headline, the quoted text, and the first linked article are about the guy with the silencer. The second link is to a SEPARATE case involving the same charges.

So, unless you didnt read the quoted bit, or the first link, it's really impossible to grasp how you came to that conclusion.



SMFH

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
It was not the gun that was deemed a WMD - it was the silencer attatched to it.

as there is really only one reason to want a silencer on your weapon.

However, in this state it is illegal to own a silencer.

Not owning a weapon.

There is? What about making the position of the shooter harder to track? Protecting your own ears, lowering the exit velocity of a military grade weapon in an urban setting?

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

You could throw bricks off of a church tower, hitting people or even killing them with it.... Should bricks be WMD's as well?

What about....bowling balls? Or glass? I could scatter glass on the street, some one could run over it their car, causing a wreck and killing people....

Should glass be a WMD?

I hear banana peels are slippery. What if I threw one on the ground, some one slipped on it, fell and died.....Should we classify bananas as WMD's?

Hmm

edit on 16-6-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

a silencer does not make a gun a WMD. On the tower issue? Have you ever heard of Charles Whitman?

en.wikipedia.org...

youtu.be...