SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Jonathan Grant Thompson, the man behind the popular science-focused YouTube channel King of Random has been charged with two counts of second-degree felony possession of an explosive device.
Thompson, 37, runs the King of Random YouTube channel, boasting about 200 videos and 8.9 million subscribers. His videos are of science experiments and are in the vein of science-based shows on networks such as the Discovery Channel.
Thompson has been making videos and putting them on YouTube since 2010. His videos have garnered more than 1.6 billion combined views.
According to the article the first complaint "resulted from a citizen complaint via Facebook Messenger on June 15 about Thompson exploding a dry ice bomb", and for the second:
Thompson said a friend had left him a bag of powder, which he believed to be from a deconstructed firework.
After lighting a couple of small "control fires" Thompson and Timothy Burgess, 20, of Ontario, Canada, ignited a larger pile which exploded, the police report states. According to the report, firefighters heard the explosion from the nearby fire station.
Google Maps shows there is a South Jordan fire station 0.2 miles from Thompson's home.
The explosion left Burgess with small particles of burned material embedded in his arms, charges say.
Burgess was charged with one count of second-degree felony possession of an explosive device. Court records show prosecutors have asked a judge to issue a $15,000 warrant for his arrest
Originally spotted via AvE's channel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @12:55AM (10 children)
It is, but it is also covered by:
a. the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
b. national security requirements (many supreme court rulings overriding many constitutional rights)
A much more reasonable argument can be had for possession of machine guns and artillery. Gatling guns and cannons, which are obsolete versions of those, were personally owned by the people who put together our constitution. Those are absolutely intended to be allowable.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday January 19 2018, @01:08AM (7 children)
It's not a good argument.
Had they been available, the founders would undoubtedly have had access to Tanks, Bombers, and Tactical Nukes.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @04:21PM (6 children)
I'm not sure I understand your argument.
The AC asserted that, since the founding fathers owned the contemporary equivalent of modern weapons, they did not intend our modern weapons to be forbidden by the constitution. The logic there depends on the assumptions that our founding fathers retained ownership of their weapons after ratification, and were not considered criminals for doing so.
Your rebuttal then lists three more modern military weapons that the FFs presumably would have owned [1], and claim it as evidence that the ACs logic is unsound. This does not follow. If anything, you are simply providing evidence that tanks, bomber, and nukes should be legal under the constitution; you have proposed no other logical argument.
Did you mean to imply that since private ownership of nukes is an undesirable outcome that the logic leading to it is unsound? If so, your fallacy is Appeal to Emotion. [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] More specifically, it's an Appeal to Consequence, and there are plenty of people willing to explain to you [duckduckgo.com] why that is not an effective rebuttal.
[1] It is useful here to note that many private citizens at the time owned armed ships, which were the equivalent of modern Naval combat vessels, putting them in the same category as tanks and bombers at the time. It is absolutely arguable that the Founding Fathers would have owned mechanized infantry/cavalry/artillery platforms and/or flying gunships if automobiles or airplanes had been invented already.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 19 2018, @05:22PM (5 children)
AC made an exception for specific weapons covered by other rules (treaties and rulings), just before pointing out that stuff that the Framers owned would be considered reasonable.
I am pointing out his/her logical failure: That the Framers would have owned those things covered in his/her exception, which means that they would have intended to keep them (because the redcoats would have them too), and therefore they should naturally be protected by the highest law of the land, regardless of how absurd the idea seems.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @07:23PM (4 children)
I'm confused again; the words you're using sound like you agree with the AC, except for the words "logical failure". You appear to be attempting to disprove the AC's point via reductio ad absurdum, [logicallyfallacious.com] and doing it wrong.
To be absurd, the conclusion would need to be contradictory; for example, if the same premise would result in simultaneous conclusions that the Founders' personal arms were protected by the constitution via one argument and not protected via another argument. For example, it is absurd to claim that the founders would believe themselves to have the natural right to keep and bear arms, and also intend that the text of the Constitution they wrote be interpreted to prohibit their own behavior.
The conclusion that the founders would have considered private ownership of tanks and nuclear weapons is not absurd, it is a logical (if surprising) conclusion based on their writings, their actions, and the text of the constitution. The fact that subsequent exceptions were carved out via treaties and S.C. rulings has no effect on the A.C.'s line of logic regarding the Founders and the Constitution's original text (as amended, of course).
The takeaway from this for me is to recognize that the Supreme Court decisions would make the Founders criminals, and are therefore in contradiction to the Founders' intent when writing the Constitution. Whether this is appropriate or not ("living document" vs "originalism" theory for interpretation of the Constitution) is open to debate, and makes for lively conversations in Constitutional Law classes.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 19 2018, @07:42PM (3 children)
> The takeaway from this for me is to recognize that the Supreme Court decisions would make the Founders criminals,
> and are therefore in contradiction to the Founders' intent when writing the Constitution.
> Whether this is appropriate or not ("living document" vs "originalism" theory for interpretation of the Constitution) ...
You're catching up !
How did we get this started?
It's Reductio Ad Absurdum, but not about AC.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @08:27PM (2 children)
OK, I see where my confusion was coming from; I'd lost track of the original post for the thread, and without that context, the rest of the conversation seemed weird.
Let me see if I've got this straight:
* you hold that all arms up to and including nukes are protected by the Constitution
* AC doesn't agree re: nukes (citing treaties, S.C. rulings), but DOES agree re: automatic weapons and artillery, using a sound argument to explain their agreement
* You attack the A.C.'s argument as being logically unsound (??? I guess because they didn't take it far enough to include nukes?), and point out that if nukes were available to the Founder then the Founders would have them, too
* I come to the A.C.'s defense, saying that by the A.C.'s argument A.W.s and arty. should be constitutional, and so should nukes by the same logic
* you reply to me saying that the A.C. fails at logic, and that the Framers would have owned nukes if they were available
* lather/rinse/repeat
I hope you can see how those last three points could be confusing for me. I agree with you. The A.C. agrees with you, while also subscribing to a theory of constitutional interpretation slightly different from yours. I honestly thought from reading what you wrote that you were saying the A.C. was wrong to believe automatic weapons and artillery should be constitutional, since the A.C.'s argument only covered those platforms. Your method of violently agreeing with the both of us doesn't help your position; please stop alienating your allies.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @09:30PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @10:15PM
That is an interesting proposition, and one I can potentially get behind: restrict the legality of various arms based on the outcome of using them in a civil war. Long-lasting chemical agents and land mines would fall into the same category. It would be interesting to see a government willingly add that restriction to their own warfighting arsenal, using the logic that if the government has it then it could be used in a civil war.
Thanks, I'll be thinking about that for a while :)
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday January 19 2018, @03:57PM (1 child)
Nope.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @11:11PM
Maybe a puckle gun?
It was some sort of multi-shot thing.