Ted Nugent and the 2nd Amendment

POSTED BY: RIPWash
UPDATED: Friday, August 28, 2009 21:35
VIEWED: 2666
PAGE 1 of 1

RIPWASH

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:26 PM

Thought this was worth sharing.

I agree with a lot of what he says here, though sometimes it interferes with the whole "Thou Shall Not Kill" thing

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:32 PM

Btw,.....

Its "Thou shalt not MURDER"

not

"Thou shalt not kill"

BIG

DIFFERENCE.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:32 PM

I stand corrected, sir.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:41 PM

You should look into how Ted Nugent, that great patriot, stayed out of the Vietnam War. It's pretty enlightening.

I never had any respect for him in the first place, but that horseshit "Damn Yankees" supergroup that he was in pretty much sealed the deal as far as him being a proven douchbag. If he were any bigger a douche, he'd be heir to the Massengil empire.

Mike

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:43 PM

Nugent over-simplifies the issue. The examples he cites for his position are powerful, but then again so are the true, everyday stories of accidental deaths and deaths of children by un-responsible parents and their guns. Then of course there's all the murders by guns, many committed in the throes of emotional rage. These episodes often escalate into murder because a gun is handy.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Then of course there's all the murders by guns, many committed in the throes of emotional rage. These episodes often escalate into murder to a large degree because a gun is handy.

Same could be said of a kitchen knife. Or a lead pipe. Or a wrench. Or a candlestick for that matter.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:48 PM

Jong,

Which is why its important to understand the difference between "Thou shalt not Murder" and "Thou shalt not Kill".

Is it wrong, for example, to kill a pedophile that you caught molesting your child? Or to defend yourself, and your family from a home invader?

RIPWASH

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You should look into how Ted Nugent, that great patriot, stayed out of the Vietnam War. It's pretty enlightening.

I never had any respect for him in the first place, but that horseshit "Damn Yankees" supergroup that he was in pretty much sealed the deal as far as him being a proven douchbag. If he were any bigger a douche, he'd be heir to the Massengil empire.

Mike

I know . . . I know . . . he's just covering his rear end, but I found this at contactmusic.com:

Quote:
TED NUGENT insists he has paid his dues for avoiding the draft to fight in Vietnam - he spent "a couple of weeks ready to rock" with a giant machine gun in Afghanistan two years ago (04). The Republican rocker feels awful about avoiding the army in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but he believes he has more than made up for it. He says, "Do I feel guilt and embarrassment? Yes. "I wish I'd understood how important America's fight against our enemies was. "But did I go to Fallujah two years ago? Damn right I did. "And was I in Afghanistan, manning a 50-calibre machine gun in a Chinook, ready to rock? Yes. "Was I there for years? No, a couple of weeks. But I am not a coward."

At least he has admitted his wrong-doing, feels guilt over it and has tried to make up for it.

Not so much of a douche in my book.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Then of course there's all the murders by guns, many committed in the throes of emotional rage. These episodes often escalate into murder because a gun is handy.

Same could be said of a kitchen knife. Or a lead pipe. Or a wrench. Or a candlestick for that matter.

Right, so why do you need a gun then?

RIPWASH

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:57 PM

Why a knife? Why a candlestick?

See what I'm saying? It's not the implement, but the one wielding it.

Swords, for example, are extremely dangerous, but I don't know of any particular law that forbids someone from owning one or having to leap through all sorts of legal hoops in order to buy one (I admit upfront I'm ignorant about that kind of stuff - there very well be such laws). Crossbow? Bow and arrows? Where would it end?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Jong,

Which is why its important to understand the difference between "Thou shalt not Murder" and "Thou shalt not Kill".

Is it wrong, for example, to kill a pedophile that you caught molesting your child? Or to defend yourself, and your family from a home invader?

We have a right to self-defense. I do not believe that right gives you the right to kill anyone however. You can subdue, immobilize, whatever, but killing is not a right.

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:01 PM

Quote:

At least he has admitted his wrong-doing, feels guilt over it and has tried to make up for it.

Maybe you can show me where he actually joined up, trained, and served, rather than where he just went over to play "Wango Tango" for both of his fans over there, and used the trip as an excuse to pull a stunt and cost the taxpayers more money - money that HE no doubt is pissed about having to pay in taxes.

So yeah, still a douche.

Maybe he should go door to door and apologize to the families of everyone who got sent to 'Nam and killed after he "opted out" by - quite literally, according to interviews he did way back when - shitting in his pants and pissing himself like the true coward he really is.

THEN maybe I'll be willing to listen to anything he has to say about bravery, integrity, or honor, because until he does that, he has none.

Mike

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:03 PM

nugent's claim to fame - co-authored "Kill It & Grill It"

i agree with Kwicko - this douchebag is a total douche-nozzle

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
... rather than where he just went over to play "Wango Tango" for both of his fans over there

That's pretty damn funny! You made me laugh.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:23 PM

Not gonna fault him for dodging a dumbass, counterproductive war that Lyndon B deliberately dragged out to kill off the "undesirables" we were sending to fight it, knowing it was all but lost well in advance.

That said, he's an asshole, a douchebag and a jerk.

Those things don't necessarily count against his opinions, or his right to hold em though.

As for why a gun instead of a knife or pipe ?
Because it gives a puny old cripple like me the ability to stand off someone bigger, healthier and stronger - it levels the playing field, is what it does.

Why the Gun Is Civilization
http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/civilization.aspx

Believe me, if I have Forquet in hand, it's in your best interests to negotiate even if you DID bring your posse with you.

-F

RIPWASH

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:32 PM

All I can say is that from what I read, he claims to have made that all up and to have had a 1Y deferrment for school. Add to that, he does a lot of charity work and does whatever he can to support the military now.

More from the interview I posted above:

Quote:
At 18, he was called up to serve in Vietnam. "In 1977 you gave an interview to High Times [the cannabis user's journal of record] where you claimed you defecated in your clothes to avoid the draft."

("I got 30 days' notice of the physical," Nugent told them. "I ceased cleansing my body. Two weeks before the test I stopped eating food with nutritional value. A week before, I stopped going to the bathroom. I did it in my pants. My pants got crusted up.")

"I never *** my pants to get out of the draft," says Nugent, good-naturedly.

"You also told them you took crystal meth [methamphetamine, the highly destabilising drug sometimes described as poor man's crack] before the medical - as a result of which, and I quote: 'I got this big juicy 4F.'"

"Unbelievable. Meth," he replies, in a tone of deep sarcasm. "Yes, that's my drug of choice. You've got to realise that these interviewers would arrive with glazed eyes and I would make stories up. I never did crystal meth. And I never pooped my pants."

"But you did dodge the draft." "I had a 1Y [student deferment]. I enrolled at Oakland Community College."

"You said then that you wanted 'to teach the stupid bastards in the military a lesson'. I'd have thought you'd have loved the army. Guns. Travel. Danger." "Back then, I didn't even understand what World War II was."

"So basically," - I admit that I have, unaccountably, started to speak Nugent - "you didn't want to get your Michigan ass blown off in Vietnam." "Correct. I did not want to get my ass blown off in Vietnam."

"I know you do a lot of charity work for wounded veterans. Has it occurred to you that someone else may have died in Saigon because you didn't go?"

"Absolutely."

Nugent's name, as I am sure he's aware, appears, along with those of Cheney, Bush and many of their fellow Republicans, on a website called chickenhawks.com. It lists those who have evaded or abbreviated their own military service then, later in life, developed an appetite for war and machismo, either personally or by proxy.

"So has this made you..." "Certainly. Because I failed to serve in Vietnam, I feel an obligation now, to do everything I can to support those defending our freedom. Do I feel guilt and embarrassment? Yes."

"You missed your calling."

"I wish I'd understood how important America's fight against our enemies was. But did I go to Fallujah two years ago? Damn right I did. And was I in Afghanistan, manning a 50-calibre machine gun in a Chinook - ready to rock? Yes. Was I there for years? No. A couple of weeks. But I am not a coward."

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:36 PM

"We have a right to self-defense. I do not believe that right gives you the right to kill anyone however. You can subdue, immobilize, whatever, but killing is not a right."

So.

A 200lb banger, intent on raping you till you bleed sideways... you would shoot them in the leg? Then call the cops?

ETA: Lets even say you could do that feat of physics...shooting them in the leg... I hope they dont have a hold out piece.

NIKI2

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:47 PM

Quote:
Same could be said of a kitchen knife. Or a lead pipe. Or a wrench. Or a candlestick for that matter

Fallacious argument. Even assuming it's not, you can't off a dozen people in a few minutes with any of those.

Somewhere in there Nugent said "I'm crazy". That I'll go along with.

The proliferation of guns in our society sickens me. The ease of acquiring them and "carry" laws as well.

All you need is one idiot in a bar with a gun, or one idiot getting into an argument ANYWHERE, and a gun IS more dangerous than pipe or knife. Might be observers would tackle someone with one of those...who's gonna tackle a guy with a gun?

Bah.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:56 PM

"Fallacious argument. Even assuming it's not, you can't off a dozen people in a few minutes with any of those.

Somewhere in there Nugent said "I'm crazy". That I'll go along with.

The proliferation of guns in our society sickens me. The ease of acquiring them and "carry" laws as well.

All you need is one idiot in a bar with a gun, or one idiot getting into an argument ANYWHERE, and a gun IS more dangerous than pipe or knife. Might be observers would tackle someone with one of those...who's gonna tackle a guy with a gun?

Bah."

Then there's me.

Some douchebag gets into an argument in a bar, decides that the best way to end it is to pull a gun, and shut the other idiot up permanently.

But.

I decide that I dont want blood in my bourbon that night, and put a gun to the drunken idiots head. Explain to him that maybe, this go around, he should sleep it off before pulling the trigger.

Light against dark.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
Same could be said of a kitchen knife. Or a lead pipe. Or a wrench. Or a candlestick for that matter

Fallacious argument. Even assuming it's not, you can't off a dozen people in a few minutes with any of those.

Somewhere in there Nugent said "I'm crazy". That I'll go along with.

The proliferation of guns in our society sickens me. The ease of acquiring them and "carry" laws as well.

All you need is one idiot in a bar with a gun, or one idiot getting into an argument ANYWHERE, and a gun IS more dangerous than pipe or knife. Might be observers would tackle someone with one of those...who's gonna tackle a guy with a gun?

Bah.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

I disagree that's it's fallacious because those items CAN kill someone else in the heat of the moment which was the argument I was presented with.

If you're scared of guns then, by all means, don't buy one or learn how to operate one. I may not be comfortable around guns, but I sure would like people I know and trust to be able to buy and operate them at their discretion than I would a criminal who, let's face it, will get his hands on one by any means he has to. The law in that regard means nothing to those who want to buy a gun to kill/murder innocent people. You think gang members, the mafia, what have you, are worried about a waiting list in order to buy a gun? Do they walk into gun shops and fill out the paperwork, wait the 30 days and then go pick it up? I don't think so. Those are the types of people I worry about having guns, but no amount of laws our legislators pass will keep them from obtaining whatever the heck they want to buy and use.

I may not be comfortable around guns, but I sure do want to be able to go and get one if the mood strikes me (in order to defend myself, recreational target shooting, whatever). And you can bet your bottom dollar I'll take all the classes I can to make sure I'm ready for such responsibility.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

STORYMARK

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Fallacious argument. Even assuming it's not, you can't off a dozen people in a few minutes with any of those.

Somewhere in there Nugent said "I'm crazy". That I'll go along with.

The proliferation of guns in our society sickens me. The ease of acquiring them and "carry" laws as well.

All you need is one idiot in a bar with a gun, or one idiot getting into an argument ANYWHERE, and a gun IS more dangerous than pipe or knife. Might be observers would tackle someone with one of those...who's gonna tackle a guy with a gun?

Bah."

Then there's me.

Some douchebag gets into an argument in a bar, decides that the best way to end it is to pull a gun, and shut the other idiot up permanently.

But.

I decide that I dont want blood in my bourbon that night, and put a gun to the drunken idiots head. Explain to him that maybe, this go around, he should sleep it off before pulling the trigger.

Light against dark.

That's all well and good in fantasy land where you know ahead of time what's going to happen, or where you're the fastest draw in forever and can do what you propose before the trigger is pulled.

But I realize, this scenario you present is a wet dream for many gun enthusiasts.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

STORYMARK

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

I disagree that's it's fallacious because those items CAN kill someone else in the heat of the moment which was the argument I was presented with.

Maybe fallacious in that one particular instance. But you still avoid addressing the point that was raised - those items cannot kill multiple targets.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

RIPWASH

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:20 PM

True, but Jonstraw started off the discussion by stating:

Quote:

murders by guns, many committed in the throes of emotional rage. These episodes often escalate into murder to a large degree because a gun is handy.

I took that as in a heated arguement between two people and one pulls a gun and fires simply because the gun was handy. Multiple victims, in my mind was not part of that particular equation. Thus, in a one-on-one situation, in an emotional rage, any of those other items are just as deadly as a gun. Niki then said my argument was fallacious and I don't think it is.

It's quite obvious that a person can not go into a school, for example, wielding a candlestick and pose any realistic threat to the student body. That said, my other argument holds true in that a person intent on going into a school to shoot up as many people as possible will not particularly worry about gun laws since he has a much darker agenda in mind that will get him into far worse trouble than not waiting the 30 days to pick up a gun.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
All I can say is that from what I read, he claims to have made that all up and to have had a 1Y deferrment for school. Add to that, he does a lot of charity work and does whatever he can to support the military now.

More from the interview I posted above:
Quote:
At 18, he was called up to serve in Vietnam. "In 1977 you gave an interview to High Times [the cannabis user's journal of record] where you claimed you defecated in your clothes to avoid the draft."

("I got 30 days' notice of the physical," Nugent told them. "I ceased cleansing my body. Two weeks before the test I stopped eating food with nutritional value. A week before, I stopped going to the bathroom. I did it in my pants. My pants got crusted up.")

"I never *** my pants to get out of the draft," says Nugent, good-naturedly.

"You also told them you took crystal meth [methamphetamine, the highly destabilising drug sometimes described as poor man's crack] before the medical - as a result of which, and I quote: 'I got this big juicy 4F.'"

"Unbelievable. Meth," he replies, in a tone of deep sarcasm. "Yes, that's my drug of choice. You've got to realise that these interviewers would arrive with glazed eyes and I would make stories up. I never did crystal meth. And I never pooped my pants."

"But you did dodge the draft." "I had a 1Y [student deferment]. I enrolled at Oakland Community College."

"You said then that you wanted 'to teach the stupid bastards in the military a lesson'. I'd have thought you'd have loved the army. Guns. Travel. Danger." "Back then, I didn't even understand what World War II was."

"So basically," - I admit that I have, unaccountably, started to speak Nugent - "you didn't want to get your Michigan ass blown off in Vietnam." "Correct. I did not want to get my ass blown off in Vietnam."

"I know you do a lot of charity work for wounded veterans. Has it occurred to you that someone else may have died in Saigon because you didn't go?"

"Absolutely."

Nugent's name, as I am sure he's aware, appears, along with those of Cheney, Bush and many of their fellow Republicans, on a website called chickenhawks.com. It lists those who have evaded or abbreviated their own military service then, later in life, developed an appetite for war and machismo, either personally or by proxy.

"So has this made you..." "Certainly. Because I failed to serve in Vietnam, I feel an obligation now, to do everything I can to support those defending our freedom. Do I feel guilt and embarrassment? Yes."

"You missed your calling."

"I wish I'd understood how important America's fight against our enemies was. But did I go to Fallujah two years ago? Damn right I did. And was I in Afghanistan, manning a 50-calibre machine gun in a Chinook - ready to rock? Yes. Was I there for years? No. A couple of weeks. But I am not a coward."

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

Keep researching. There's documentation of him being on the road, out on tour, playing gigs while he was supposedly "at school" on that student deferment.

My problem with Nuje the Douche isn't that he dodged the draft - it's that he's a chickenshit, lying cocksucker about it. I had a math tutor who became a good friend of mine, a big ol' biker boy named Don. He was older, and he DID dodge the draft; he headed for Canada, and only came back to the U.S. when Ford granted amnesty to the draft dodgers. I respect his choice, because he made it, and he stands by it. He's not apologetic about it, he knew very well what he was doing when he split, and why he was doing it. He also doesn't go around playing dress-up in military gear now, waving a machine gun around, and screaming "Looka me, ever'body - Ah'm a PATRIOT! Fuck Yeah!" He's as passionately anti-war now as he was then.

If you're gonna do it, OWN IT. Don't back away when it becomes an inconvenient truth

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:27 PM

Quote:

It's quite obvious that a person can not go into a school, for example, wielding a candlestick and pose any realistic threat to the student body.

People who resort to this tack in an argument about guns are missing the salient point, I think.

It's not so much about the GUN, as about WHY DID THAT KID FEEL THE NEED TO KILL SO MANY OTHERS?

Might oughta look into that a little bit, eh?

Mike

RIPWASH

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:32 PM

Just an example to get my greater point point across. That a candlestick can not kill multiple people at the same time.

I'm worried. Did folks really not get my "Clue" reference?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:28 PM

No, no - it's a fine reference. My point is that when someone gets so into their own head (or out of their mind) that they feel the only way out is to kill a whole bunch of people...

...HOW they do it is rather less important.

Just as a hypothetical (and because I have a very twisted imagination), if I wanted to take out a school, I wouldn't need a gun. And if that school was a "gun free zone", that's one law I *wouldn't* be breaking, despite my having several guns at my disposal.

Nope, I'd go and make a whole bunch of Molotov cocktails. Lob one outside each exit, then start lobbing them through the windows.

Does that make me a LESS horrific person than if I'd used a gun to accomplish the same goal?

Or shall we outlaw gasoline now?

That's a really simple little example, but the REAL issue remains: How do you deal with someone who wants to kill people BEFORE they start laying out plans? How do you spot them and "talk them down" and get them help before they've gone too far over that particular cliff? If you can't figure that part out, it doesn't matter what you do or don't outlaw, because the horrors will continue unabated.

Mike

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:29 PM

And by the way, they CAN pose a real threat with a candlestick, at least in the library.

Mike

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:49 PM

Hello,

I was going to say that a person with a candlestick could kill a room full of people, but someone beat me to it.

It is harder to kill a bunch of people with a lead pipe, though. Or a kitchen knife. I have it on good authority you can take out a mortar team with a knife, but that's hardly typical of the capabilities of the average assailant.

In any event, I find that people who abhor guns are not really afraid of guns. They are afraid of people. People can not be trusted with guns.

Unless, of course, those people work for the government. Government people have proven time and again that they are prone to misuse their authority, but they will be presumed individually innocent anyway, while I am presumed collectively guilty because some yahoo shot up a school.

Unfortunately, gun control advocates are rarely anxious to argue for parity. They don't want everyone to carry a nightstick. They want one group to have the weapons, and the rest of us to have nothing.

And I rarely ever hear them express concern about crippled people or old people or weak people, who are unable to resist even bare-handed abuse. If these folks have to get knocked around, that is lamentable and awful... it is also usually considered an acceptable price for the security inherent in having society disarmed.

Well, most of a society, anyway. Authority and criminals will still have weapons, of course. Just not you and me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GEEZER

Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Fallacious argument. Even assuming it's not, you can't off a dozen people in a few minutes with any of those.

How about a car, or a can of gasoline? plenty of examples of mass killing with either one of those. Timothy McVeigh killed a bunch of folks with fertilizer and diesel fuel.

I'd suggest that the whole anti-gun movement has been developed as a political tool, sort of like Prohibition was in the early 20th century, or the Drug War in the mid-20th.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Fallacious argument. Even assuming it's not, you can't off a dozen people in a few minutes with any of those.

How about a car, or a can of gasoline? plenty of examples of mass killing with either one of those. Timothy McVeigh killed a bunch of folks with fertilizer and diesel fuel.

I'd suggest that the whole anti-gun movement has been developed as a political tool, sort of like Prohibition was in the early 20th century, or the Drug War in the mid-20th.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Geezer and I find ourselves in a rare moment of complete agreement.

I know - try to pick your jaws up off the floor.

Oh, and someone remind me - Exactly how many guns were used in the hijackings of September 11, 2001?

Mike

PIRATENEWS

Friday, August 28, 2009 12:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Not gonna fault him for dodging a dumbass, counterproductive war that Lyndon B deliberately dragged out to kill off the "undesirables" we were sending to fight it, knowing it was all but lost well in advance.

That said, he's an asshole, a douchebag and a jerk.

Those things don't necessarily count against his opinions, or his right to hold em though.

Roger that.

I got conned into a Nugent concert 15 years ago, and it was 20 years out of date back then. Music sucked, venue sucked, then Nugent started ranting about how wonderful Bush was. Bush the Elder. I'd just escaped the military after 10 years after Desert Storm, so I knew the real story behind that fiasco with Iran-Contra arming Iraq and runnin dope for the White House.

For Nugent to do that in a concert sounds more like a paid political advert = OPERATIVE. NRA board is run by operatives who WANT handgun bans and WRITE THE LEGISLATION. Its the National RIFLE Association...

If he hated Nam how is any other war different? Why does he now recruit for the Pentagon?

Or maybe he got da cat scratch fever. Now he's just another psycho with a gun who likes to kill things that can't shoot back.

Note how doctors kill 2-million people in USA every year, but the media mafia tells you to bend over for your red-hot flu shot...

RIPWASH

Friday, August 28, 2009 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I was going to say that a person with a candlestick could kill a room full of people, but someone beat me to it.

I keep trying to wrap my brain around that concept and the only way I can possibly see that happening is if everyone else in the room was:
A - tied up
B - unconscious
C - completely and totally preoccupied to the exclusion of everything else going on around them
D - brain dead

Or if the candlestick had mystical boomerang ability.

Or if the attacker was fast like a freak.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

ANTHONYT

Friday, August 28, 2009 5:19 PM

Hello,

How to kill a room full of people with a candlestick:

Step 1) Light candles.

Step 2) Ignite drapes/fabric/flammable material of preference.

Step 3) Step Outside.

Step 4) Secure the exit.

Step 5) Listen as people die in horrified panic, trampling one another to exit the room while their flesh crisps.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RIPWASH

Friday, August 28, 2009 5:29 PM

Well . . . I didn't know a lit candle was part of the equation

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 28, 2009 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
C - completely and totally preoccupied to the exclusion of everything else going on around them
D - brain dead

What, you've never been to the supermarket on a Friday evening ?

Seriously, it'd be easier than clubbing baby seals.

-F

STORYMARK

Friday, August 28, 2009 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

How to kill a room full of people with a candlestick:

Step 1) Light candles.

Step 2) Ignite drapes/fabric/flammable material of preference.

Step 3) Step Outside.

Step 4) Secure the exit.

Step 5) Listen as people die in horrified panic, trampling one another to exit the room while their flesh crisps.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Even that requires the utter stupidity or paralyzation of everyone in the room after step 2. Not to mention, since the example started as a school library - where everything but the books is flame-retardant, and even they would need an excellerant to really spark any sort of conflagration - well, it just doesn't really hold up.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

ANTHONYT

Friday, August 28, 2009 9:35 PM

Hello,

My example was not a library, but rather 'everyone in a room.' In any event, having recently been in a discussion where people discuss the potential of causing mass murder merely by screaming 'Fire!' one would imagine a real actual burning fire is much more effective. I maintain that buildings frequently burn down, even through causes that absent themselves the necessity of accelerant. So, I reject your rejection.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner