Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the random.choice() dept.

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.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:22PM (16 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:22PM (#624432)

    First. A dry ice bomb isn't legally an explosive.
    Second, I'm assuming he has a permit? what?
    Third: wtf government. this is NOT OK.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:31PM (14 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:31PM (#624435) Journal

      You assume he has A permit for dry ice?

      Guy finds random bag of powder "left by a friend".
      He has no real idea of what it actually was.
      Lights same.

      They might be actually doing the guy a favor by putting him in jail for a month or two.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by arcz on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:40PM (9 children)

        by arcz (4501) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:40PM (#624446) Journal
        You don't put people in jail for a month or two over a felony. I think we ought to carefully consider whether we the people should be exercising our second amendment rights and starting to fight back against the feds. Federal Government is so corrupt it's not even funny.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Friday January 19 2018, @02:14AM (8 children)

          by Magic Oddball (3847) on Friday January 19 2018, @02:14AM (#624516) Journal

          Thought about it? Sure, plenty of people have — even I have, very briefly.

          The problem is that if you really do think about it, you realize it would be a matter of a small percentage of the citizen population, using citizen-owned firearms, against the combined forces of the police, FBI, National Guard, and if necessary the military. (Even if it was most of the population, the difference in firepower & training would make it on par with little kids trying to get rid of the Mafia.) There's also the question of how the rebellion would be carried out, who they'd actually be attacking, etc. let alone the many issues regarding what happens after the battle.

          As the old saying goes: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo." It's generally a good idea to use them roughly in that order if you're hoping for some measure of success rather than just a bloody massacre…

          • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday January 19 2018, @07:26AM (2 children)

            by Unixnut (5779) on Friday January 19 2018, @07:26AM (#624608)

            > The problem is that if you really do think about it, you realize it would be a matter of a small percentage of the citizen population, using citizen-owned firearms, against the combined forces of the police, FBI, National Guard, and if necessary the military. (Even if it was most of the population, the difference in firepower & training would make it on par with little kids trying to get rid of the Mafia.)

            In reality, those police and military forces would not stay united. After all, they are human, and some of them may be sympathetic to the cause, others may have family/friends to take care of, and a third may simply point out they did not sign up to oppress their fellow citizens, and resign.

            As a result, the full forces will not be available. More to the point, some of them would defect to the "other side", and usually take their weapons with them. Normally the first to splinter is the local cops, as they are usually locals themselves. Second would be local military forces, for similar reasons.

            The last to splinter are the military itself, but they are more likely to stay out of it entirely (as it is not in their remit to opress the locals, rather their remit is defense of the nation).

            Those that defect to the other side will bring weapons, but more importantly, their skills and training, with which they can start training willing recruits. Before you know it you have an army, and what started off as an easy oppression has become more evenly matched civil war,

            Not I don't know what it is like in the USA, but I doubt USA citizens are that different to the rest of the world, so I suspect it would play out similar to above. Especially as the US has a history of war, and has already had their own civil war in the past,

            The one thing that would be needed, is a separatist government formed quickly, capable of organising land and resources under control, handling finances/taxation, keeping the peace (policing still needs to be done to prevent crime derailing your goals), directing military champagnes and dealing with diplomatic side of things (specifically negotiating with the "other side" in the war).

            Without that, you end up with a rabble, and any rebellion would peter out quickly. Likewise, rebellions rarely start without some charismatic leader(s) getting together to get the ball rolling,

            • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday January 19 2018, @03:39PM (1 child)

              by Freeman (732) on Friday January 19 2018, @03:39PM (#624721) Journal

              Military champagnes doesn't mean what you think it means. Military campaigns is what you were thinking of. It is a Friday though.

              --
              Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:51PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:51PM (#624730)

                Military champagnes doesn't mean what you think it means. Military campaigns is what you were thinking of. It is a Friday though.

                Or it was a Freudian slip from a high ranking officer?

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday January 19 2018, @02:29PM (4 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 19 2018, @02:29PM (#624685) Journal

            As the old saying goes: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo."

            I have lost faith in the second one. It has utterly failed [imgur.com]. The problem isn't with "the government" or "the person in office", in any particular office, even. It is the fact that there are enough voters to put unqualified clowns into office and be proud of doing so. People who will brazenly lie about their their agenda. Who, even during a campaign, where you would expect consistency, flip flop according to whichever way the breeze is blowing.

            Just a slight rant for a moment . . .

            I would strongly point the finger at people who are or claim to be Christians who would vote in someone who is so openly like the very things they (we, I) claim to abhor. No humility. Bragging at sexual harassment and assault. Openly advocates violence. The bible repeatedly addresses bribery. Helping the widows and orphans. Having uneven scales. I'm just sayin' it is amazing how people can claim to be Christian and yet vote for this guy. And I could go on further along this line, but . . .

            (end rant)

            The problem isn't "the government" in some abstract sense. It is all of us, or some of us, who put people into power that don't have the common good, the public interest in mind. They protect the extremely wealthy 1%. The corporations which are simply concentrations of wealth and power unimagined by our founders. They fool the ignorant into voting for or supporting policies that will actually hurt their very own interests.

            The real question is who would be going to war against who? I know talk of starting some kind of rebellion is fun because everyone is frustrated. But a civil war would be the actual result. And it would be bloody. Unlike the "civil war" which had a geographical dividing line, and a fairly clear identifiable issue (despite some people's denial of that), this civil war would be neighbor against neighbor who have opposing political candidate signs in their front yards.

            Just sayin'

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 1) by MindEscapes on Friday January 19 2018, @03:31PM (3 children)

              by MindEscapes (6751) on Friday January 19 2018, @03:31PM (#624714) Homepage

              It is quite easy to see actually, who was he running against?

              The media have made it near impossible for a 3rd party candidate to get any coverage or traction. (media being controlled by the wealthy after all who have bought off both primary parties)

              Pretty much every one of those caveats your pointed out also applied to Hillary.
              The swagger, near definite pride that the election was already a given. Also having the DNC rigged in her favor to prevent Sander's from getting the primary, so much for fairness. All about protecting the top 1% wealth, etc.

              With the added position of supporting abortion which to many Christians is akin to murdering children.

              So yeah, no surprise they decided to vote what appeared to them to be the lesser of evils. When there are no good candidates promoted (ie, not just running but actually able to get coverage so most average people even KNOW they are running), you will not get a good outcome.

              --
              Need a break? mindescapes.net may be for you!
              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 19 2018, @04:10PM (2 children)

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 19 2018, @04:10PM (#624749) Journal

                What I hear you saying is, and agree with is: people didn't so much vote for Trump as they voted for "NOT Hillary".

                But I see it as voting for "NOT Trump".

                If we get into a situation where people are voting for (NOT X) versus (NOT Y), we are in real trouble. And here we are.

                --
                People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @11:17PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @11:17PM (#624978)

                  I didn't want Trump because I felt that he would make no attempt to deliver on his promises.

                  On the bright side, he was making the most patriotic promises, and Hillary was making abhorrent ones. That made it easy to vote for Trump.

                  I'm shocked by what Trump has been doing. He actually delivers! WTF, this didn't seem likely at all. Now I am a huge fan of him.

                  The saddest thing is that we can't keep him forever. We only have 7 years left.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by arcz on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:46PM (3 children)

        by arcz (4501) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:46PM (#624452) Journal
        I'm assuming he has an explosives permit. He talks about how they are required in one of his gunpowder videos. What kind of idiot would make gunpowder, post it on youtube, and talk about how the law requires you to have a permit, who didn't themselves have a permit?
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:13PM (2 children)

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:13PM (#624462) Journal

          To be specific:
          You don't need a permit to have gun powder. Either modern smokeless gun powder or black powder

          You need a permit to manufacture or import it in quantity.

          Black Powder is something of a legal oddity:

          Black powder is an explosive material for purposes of Federal explosives laws and regulations. However, the law exempts from regulation commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not exceeding 50 pounds (as well as percussion caps, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quills, quick and slow matches, and friction primers) intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16) or in antique devices exempted from the term "destructive device" in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4). However, persons engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in black powder in any quantity must have a Federal explosives license, and comply with recordkeeping, storage and conduct of business requirements. [18 U.S.C. 841(c), 841(d), 845(a)(5); 27 CFR 555.11: definitions of "explosives" and "explosive materials", 555.141(b)]

          https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/black-powder-subject-regulation-under-federal-explosives-laws [atf.gov]

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:28PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:28PM (#624468) Homepage

      First. A dry ice bomb isn't legally an explosive.

      The article's not clear. At one point it says "Burgess was charged with one count of second-degree felony possession of an explosive device."

      Second, I'm assuming he has a permit? what?

      Why do you assume that?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:23PM (8 children)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:23PM (#624433) Homepage Journal

    - at UC Santa Cruz.

    "Where did you steal the chemicals?" asked my arresting officer.

    "I bought them at Bryant Labs in Berkeley. Here's the receipt."

    I was in the police station for a while, during which I sang like a bird. My reason? The cop who interviewed me left the California Criminal Code on my side of his desk, open to the explosives section.

    I could readily see that I had committed five felonies, each of which had a three-year minimum sentence.

    At my arraignment I was released on my own recognizance. That means I didn't have to pay bail.

    At the first preliminary hearing the prosecutor laughed and said "He was just doing over-eager research." Then he proposed I plead guilty for possession of noxious chemicals with the intent to teargas a theater. That was the closest they could come to explosives while charging me only with a misdemeanor.

    The judge very sternly said to me "I urge you to use your powerful intellect for the benefit of society.

    That's one of the reasons I write so much, on a variety of topics.

    In the end I got sixty hours of community service. I devoted that time to making geometric sculptures out of painted wooden dowels and hot glue.

    A friend who was into making latex masks was given community service when he was caught siphoning gas out of a truck that belonged to UCSC. He devoted his "service" to making masks for a theater company. They paid for the materials; he got to keep the molds.

    I was making Hexamethyline Triperoxy Diamine. It is dead-sample to make and so is the most popular detonator for suicide bombers. One of the ingredients is any flavor of Kool-Ade mix other than lemon.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:33PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:33PM (#624470)

      Here, we're always being told to never talk to cops, and it worked out for both of us. I know another person, not even committing a crime, who refused to talk and thus spent some time in jail.

      My story:

      I also made HMTD. I set a small amount off in my room on purpose, but then an open container about a foot away got hit by the shockwave. That was about 4 grams, enough to make a crater 1/4 inch deep in a concrete floor and spread my blood on all 4 walls and the ceiling. The hospital called the cops, a detective questioned me, and that was the end of that. My home didn't even get searched, and now I have a security clearance.

      A key factor may be that I was 17 years old and it was 1991 or 1992, back before the Oklahoma City bombing and long before the World Trade Center got hit. Go back another 30 years, and I'm told you could take a rifle to many schools. There was a time when dynamite could be bought at every hardware store.

      FYI, Kool-Ade is a terrible source of acid. Good preparation involves sulfuric acid and 30% peroxide, but citric acid and 6% peroxide will do nicely. For example...

      Avoid all metal, particularly that which contains copper. Tape a 1-cup container into a bowl. Put ice water in the bowl to be extra safe, not that you likely need it with citric acid and 6% peroxide. Put a half cup of 6% peroxide into the cup. Crush up hexamethylene tablets, commonly available as solid camp stove fuel. Put 2 tablespoons and 2/3 teaspoon of hexamethylene into the cup. Stir it to dissolve. In case your fuel tablets contain wax, stir with a motion that won't get wax stuck to the container. Add a quarter cup of citric acid, then stir to dissolve. Immediately filter it with a coffee filter, keeping the liquid. (this removes bits of wax and other crap) Let it sit for a day or two, forming crystals. Filter it again, with a new clean filter, this time keeping the solids. Wash it several times, first with water and then with alcohol. Let it dry.

      HMTD is hard to set off by impact. I couldn't do it with a hammer. It is very easy to ignite. If in a very thin layer, it will flash like gunpower, but more energetic. If slightly confined, for example in an unsealed pen cap or under a credit card, it will transition to Mach 25 detonation. It becomes inert after a couple months.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 19 2018, @12:19AM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday January 19 2018, @12:19AM (#624487) Homepage Journal

        Go back another 30 years, and I'm told you could take a rifle to many schools.

        If you didn't see at least a quarter of the trucks there with a shotgun and a rifle in their gun rack at my highschool on any given day, it's because school wasn't in session. This wasn't but twenty-some-odd years ago.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 19 2018, @06:15AM

          by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday January 19 2018, @06:15AM (#624593) Homepage Journal

          They actually set up a shooting range inside the gym.

          This was in Moscow, Idaho. The instructor told us that hunting was so popular in Idaho that everyone agreed that gun safety should be taught in schools.

          --
          Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
        • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday January 19 2018, @06:05PM

          by captain normal (2205) on Friday January 19 2018, @06:05PM (#624803)

          I was in high school way back in the late 1950s, in West Texas. The guys who had Pickups all had gun racks. Even those of us who had regular cars had at least a 22 rifle in the trunk.

          --
          When life isn't going right, go left.
      • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 19 2018, @06:12AM

        by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday January 19 2018, @06:12AM (#624591) Homepage Journal

        The same compound is the active ingredient in Ortho Snail And Slug Death. Under the name Methenamine it's used to treat women's urinary tract infections.

        The guy at Bryant labs knew what HMTA was, and said he'd get a two kilogram bottle sent up from their warehouse in LA. It was quite cheap, and enough precursor to make a huge explosion.

        Fortunately for me I knew how dangerous it was and so only synthesized a very small amount at any one time. The prosecutor told the judge that it was "The explosive equivalent of an ounce of black powder".

        I was very fortunate in that I planned to buy a fifty pound sack of Ammonium Nitrate as well as several cans of powdered aluminum - but I had not made the actual purchases.

        I would have gotten the aluminum for a paint store. It's available with many different tints for mixing up your own metallic paint.

        --
        Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @08:22AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @08:22AM (#624616)

        Let me make a random statement that I believe is true: GP is white, and so are you.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @09:19AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @09:19AM (#624626)

          If that made any difference, it was only because we knew not to tell the cops "Fuck yo ass I'ma kill yo muthafucker." and charge at them. We were not raised to misbehave in this foolish manner.

          That's enough racism for me today. Hopefully you can stop as well. There was no need to assume that race played any role in that interaction.

      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday January 19 2018, @05:58PM

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday January 19 2018, @05:58PM (#624800) Journal

        But that it "worked out" for you and MDC... what is that attributable to? If the prosecutor involved in your case had wanted to bolster his or her public image to appear "tough on bombmakers" do you think it would have worked out so well? If you had been friends with the cop or prosecutor and/or had a parent who was politically connected, might you have not been prosecuted at all? And, if you had stood mute or demanded that you have representation, would that have changed your sentences or could it have not mattered in that sense? Could you have gotten off entirely with the right lawyer?

        That said, I sympathize. If I'm breaking a traffic law and a cop pulls me over, I'm very inclined to admit to the cop that I was busted fairly. (Or be genuinely confused if I really didn't know what was up.) At least twice I've walked away unticketed / with a warning, and I'd like to think it was because I was cooperative. (The second circumstance was driving without seatbelt on my way home from the hospital three weeks after surgery in a region the belt was on.) On a third occasion I know that the department's policy was to always let a first offense with no immediate priors go with a warning.

        --
        This sig for rent.
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:24PM (53 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:24PM (#624434)

    > second-degree felony possession of an explosive device

    How is that constitutional ? A bullet is an explosive device. Is one legal? How about 500 bullets? How about the powder to refill 500 cartridges ?
    My tactical nuke shell is definitely covered by the 2nd amendment!

    • (Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:31PM (18 children)

      by arcz (4501) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:31PM (#624436) Journal

      While explosives obviously should be protected under the 11th Amendment, they aren't.

      That being said, this charge is ridiculous and the prosecutor ought to be shot. Good thing I don't live nearby.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Snow on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:35PM (6 children)

        by Snow (1601) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:35PM (#624439) Journal

        He from Ontario. Your amendments are meaningless here.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @01:00AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @01:00AM (#624503)

          Our amendments do not grant rights to the people. Our government does not grant rights to the people. As understood by the framers of our constitution, the rights are granted by God.

          We added the amendments as extra assurance. The amendments place redundant restrictions on government. This is not quite the same as granting rights to the people.

          So a person in Ontario does have these rights. They are however being violated by his government.

          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:13AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:13AM (#624541)

            Then your rights are fairy tale. Just like the fairy tale that they think granted them.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @04:05PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @04:05PM (#624742)

              So I guess that means you don't want yours, right?

          • (Score: 2) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @09:12PM

            by arcz (4501) on Friday January 19 2018, @09:12PM (#624905) Journal
            Actually it was only a few revolutionaries that really believed that. Most of the people who actually wrote the fucking constitution were deists, just saying.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by http on Friday January 19 2018, @02:51AM

          by http (1920) on Friday January 19 2018, @02:51AM (#624532)

          From Canada, but in Utah. The accused doesn't have that much venue choice.

          --
          I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:04AM (#624538)

          This happened in Utah. Grant is from there and lives there. I have been watching his vids for a long time. He usually has his ducks all lined up before anything goes wrong. He has done this many times before. He even said in the interview that people from the local police and fire department watch his video and he has a relationship with them.

          My *guess* someone new moved into the neighborhood. Got all pissy and went all HOA on them. The HoA was like go away so the guy got police involved. Grant strikes me as 'the nice guy' in the neighborhood. That will not end will for 'the new guy'.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by arcz on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:35PM (1 child)

        by arcz (4501) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:35PM (#624440) Journal
        *2nd Amendment
        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @02:09AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @02:09AM (#624513)

          You were right the first time, you ammosexual wanker!

      • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:31PM (7 children)

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:31PM (#624469) Homepage

        While explosives obviously should be protected under the [2nd] Amendment, they aren't.

        "Obviously"?

        --
        systemd is Roko's Basilisk
        • (Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 19 2018, @12:22AM (2 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday January 19 2018, @12:22AM (#624488) Homepage Journal

          The guys who wrote the amendment in question personally owned cannons.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @02:12AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @02:12AM (#624515)

            *Citation Needed*

            And, more details? Smoothbore, or rifled? Breechloading? Round ball, or canister, or chain? Marine, or terrestrial? Professional, or amateur? And who are you talking about? Hamilton? Was his cannon nothing but a large caliber piece?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:38AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:38AM (#624555)

              big ones... the kind with wheels on the side, pulled by horses

              Look, what does the exact type matter? That doesn't place a limit on the second amendment.

              Or, if you insist that it does: the type was "very latest modern military technology", and thus our second amendment gives us everything from stealth bombers to ICBMs.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @12:43AM (3 children)

          by arcz (4501) on Friday January 19 2018, @12:43AM (#624497) Journal
          The whole point of the second amendment is to make rebellion against the government through armed conflict viable. If you think otherwise you are nuts.
          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @12:53AM (1 child)

            by arcz (4501) on Friday January 19 2018, @12:53AM (#624499) Journal
            "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" -- Benjamin Franklin "Constitutional republic: Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep electing two wolves and a sheep who vote on what to have for dinner, but are restricted by a Constitution that says they cannot eat sheep. The Supreme Court then votes 5 wolves to 4 sheep that mutton does not count as sheep." -- unknown
          • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday January 19 2018, @08:09PM

            by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday January 19 2018, @08:09PM (#624866) Homepage

            It tends to mean whatever whoever is currently quoting it wants it to. It's not even 30 words. There's a lot of room for semantic manoeuvring. If it was that "obvious" there wouldn't be such a ruckus about it all the time.

            --
            systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @04:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @04:42PM (#624766)

        Pretty sure the 11th isn't relevant to the case. He isn't suing another state.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:32PM (11 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:32PM (#624438) Journal

      A bullet is an explosive device.

      No its not.
      Its a projectile and a case full of a progressive burning solid. Not an explosive.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 5, Funny) by bzipitidoo on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:38PM (1 child)

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:38PM (#624443) Journal

        Seems every owner of a combustion powered vehicle should be charged with possessing explosives.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:44PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:44PM (#624448)

          Following that logic, if you wait long enough, and most people Transport Explosives Across State Lines.
          To the Fed Pen, evil people!

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:38PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:38PM (#624444)

        Its a projectile and a case full of a progressive burning solid. Not an explosive.

        Much safer, less likely to cause accidental death or permanent maiming, I'm sure. Also, when combined with a gun, can cause accidental death or permanent maiming at a much greater distance...

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:15PM (2 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:15PM (#624463)

        Its a projectile and a case full of a progressive burning solid. Not an explosive.

        Actually, that's not true.

        A "bullet" in the modern sense of a "cartridge" is 4 components:
          - a casing, usually brass
          - a projectile, usually lead, frequently with a copper jacket
          - a powder that fills much of the space inside the casing not filled by the projectile; this powder as you say burns progressively, creating expanding gas which pushes the projectile
          - something called a "primer", which is a device containing a high explosive that is ignited when the primer is compressed by the firing pin.

        So yes, actually, a bullet is an explosive device, it contains HE (high explosive). There's not very much of it in there though, only enough to ignite the main powder charge.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @10:58AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @10:58AM (#624641)

          Yes the primer of a cartridge contains a small amount of explosive material needed to set off the primary charge of deflagrating powder. A bullet is NOT an explosive device. To be an explosive, as opposite to say a deflagrant, the detonation velocity (that is the speed of the wave of detonation) through the solid material has to exceed the speed of sound in that material. That is the defining feature of an explosive. Gunpowder is a deflagrant. It can burn rapidly, sometimes so rapidly that it appears to explode, but it is not an explosive.

          In addition, They aren't putting TATB or RDX in those primers, they are using comparatively (to other explosives) low power explosives. Something like the tried and true RDX has nearly double the explosion velocity and is 40% more dense (meaning you need less to get the same amount of bang). When it comes to the total amount of energy contained within that primer, Most guns wouldn't even be able to completely cycle their action.

          On the topic of these idiots and their powder, Im wondering if it truly was an explosive. I've messed with smokeless gunpowder and black powder many times and if you have the right stuff it can deflagrate fast enough to produce a very loud report even when the explosion isn't contained. I can't think of any common explosives that actually explode when you light them either. Every modern explosive, whether its military use or industrial, is quite insensitive to heat and shock and requires the use of a detonator to actually get the reaction started. Im by no means a expert in pyrotechnics but im skeptical this was a true explosive. Are all forms of deflagrating powders illegal? Can you be charged with possession of an explosive device even if its just gunpowder? As I wrote that I realized that the law isn't as pedantic as I am and doesn't consider the explosion wavefront velocity. As I recall you can be charged with possessing a weapon of mass destruction if you have a pipebomb with enough black powder in it.

          Either way those two morons should know better than to set off stuff like that without being in a more controlled environment than his goddamn backyard.

          • (Score: 2) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @09:18PM

            by arcz (4501) on Friday January 19 2018, @09:18PM (#624910) Journal
            Legally black powder is classified as an explosive, but dry ice isn't, since they list chemicals (such as those mixtures containing potassium nitrate) and etc.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday January 19 2018, @01:57AM (4 children)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday January 19 2018, @01:57AM (#624510) Journal

        As usual, frojack is right, about the details, partially. A "bullet" is a projectile. What projects it is either a low explosive, like black powder, or a propellent, like "smokeless powder." The combination of a bullet, propellant, case and primer is called a "cartridge" or a "round". Now the difference between propellents and explosives is sort of like this. Uncontained ignition of a propellant results in a "whoosh", as oft happens here on SoylentNews. High explosives will produce an explosion, even if unconstrained, as seems to have been the case here.

        So for all the semi-educated ammosexuals, it is kind of like propellants are "semi-explosives", but regular explosives are "full-auto". But if you put the wrong stuff in your chamber or bore-hole, you may experience catastrophic pressures, and possibly a "banana-peel" failure, rather like trying to be a heroin addict, and you accidently do some fentaynal.

        Oh, I see that arcz is marching to the Plains of Abraham. Not a good idea, son.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Friday January 19 2018, @03:30AM (3 children)

          by Whoever (4524) on Friday January 19 2018, @03:30AM (#624547) Journal

          Now the difference between propellents and explosives is sort of like this. Uncontained ignition of a propellant results in a "whoosh", as oft happens here on SoylentNews. High explosives will produce an explosion, even if unconstrained, as seems to have been the case here.

          The difference between regular "explosives" like gunpower and high explosives is that the rate of expansion of high explosives is greater than the speed of sound: the air surrounding the explosive mass provides the constraint necessary for a high explosive to explode and not merely burn.

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 19 2018, @08:02AM (1 child)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Friday January 19 2018, @08:02AM (#624613) Journal

            Curious. So are you saying that C4, in the vacuum of space, would only go "whoosh"? Because in Space, no one can hear you explode. Interesting. ISS experiment in order, by our bad boy, King of Random?

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @09:22AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @09:22AM (#624627)

              If you have C4, then you no longer have empty space. There is thus a speed of sound.

              It is speed of sound IN THE EXPLOSIVE that matters, not the speed in any surrounding medium.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @11:52AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @11:52AM (#624650)

            Just a small nitpick, its actually about the speed of sound in the material (explosive) as opposed to the air surrounding the material. Its all about the speed of the reaction moving through the material, is that wavefront moving through the explosive material faster than sound would move through that material. Deflagrants (like rocket propellants and gunpowder) burn at a rate slower than the speed of sound of their material so aren't said to "detonate" but rather "deflagrate". I'm not sure the air surrounding an explosive provides any "constraint" and it certainly doesn't change whether an explosive deflagrates or detonates. C4 will detonate in space, underwater, in your mum's undies, wherever. Its got all the ingredients it needs contained within to detonate and expand outward a large amount of gas at high speed. Even a deflagrant like gunpowder will burn in the vacuum of space, deflagrants just burn so slowly that their energy is dissipated over a long period of time. Containing a deflagration inside a container allows pressure to build and then releases it all instantaneously when the container ruptures, resulting in a bigger boom (same amount of energy just concentrated into a smaller pulse).

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:35PM (10 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:35PM (#624442)

      But, he blew it up like a bomb, and a fireman heard, and saw that he hurt himself... think of the children! We have laws to protect people from themselves, if only somebody speaks up to encourage enforcement...

      I just cringe at the sloped playing field: how much permitting and safety officer fees did the major TV series have to pay for before they bounced a cannonball through somebody's car? Now, we can't make a YouTube production of some gunpowder going poof without having a legal book thrown at the producer? Cm'on folks, plenty of New Year's celebrators did stupider things with explosives and shared their exploits via Facebook - why do we single out this guy? Just because he's easy to catch, I expect.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:40PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:40PM (#624447)

        > popular science-focused YouTube channel

        Science-men are dangerous to The Agenda.

      • (Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:44PM

        by arcz (4501) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:44PM (#624449) Journal
        Let's sue the prosecutor for interfering with our First Amendment rights to watch these videos. It's also malicious prosecution, you can't arrest someone because they might possibly have committed some crime.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:47PM (4 children)

        by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:47PM (#624453) Journal

        Careful, they might learn something!

        Can't have teenagers thinking science can be fun! (Suspect Mythbusters would have trouble getting made, if they were starting today.)

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:11PM

          by looorg (578) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:11PM (#624460)

          They started it up again, it's just that the new guys are not as entertaining as Adam and Jamie. They seem to be doing the same type things. Taking silly things from movies and blowing shit up.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:17PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:17PM (#624465)

          Can't have teenagers thinking science can be fun!

          Exactly right. We don't need people getting interested in science. This can hurt the profits of various incumbent industries, especially in the energy sector, and besides, we need more people employed in the finance industry. You can never have too many people in banking and finance. We also need more managers; you can never have enough of those either.

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday January 19 2018, @03:46PM

          by Freeman (732) on Friday January 19 2018, @03:46PM (#624727) Journal

          Please note that Mythbusters was created by 2 professionals who knew what they were doing. You'd have something, if they'd made it big on YouTube with little to no training. Whenever Mythbusters does anything with explosives, they have a permit, and / or a real professional helping them. Explosives aren't something you should be toying around with. That given, the whole thing reeks of government overreach. Yes, it's stupid for them to do some of that. $15k warrant / felony charges for injuring themselves and disturbing the peace seems way out of line. Maybe, something needs to happen, so they don't escalate to something stupidly dangerous. I just think charging them with a felony or two and putting a $15k warrant out on them is a bit much. Please leave felonies for real criminals.

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
        • (Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Friday January 19 2018, @05:33PM

          by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Friday January 19 2018, @05:33PM (#624785)

          The Mythbusters were more responsible. They often notified police or did their experiments in areas specifically to reduce the potential for damage. This was infrequently shown on screen because it's not as interesting but they have discussed it in other channels. Occasionally they had law enforcement experts or medical personnel on screen for this or that reason (typically when they had an interesting angle - at least one experiment I seem to recall the FBI was genuinely curious about the result). They wore protection and did not run their more experiments in suburbs... at least not without taking precautions.

          Accidents still happened of course, because it's still work that entails some danger, but they were generally good about at least trying to be responsible. It helps that they've been in the business of doing such things a very long time though.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by PlasticCogLiquid on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:39PM (2 children)

        by PlasticCogLiquid (3669) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:39PM (#624475)

        We need laws to protect people from prison or jail.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:43PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:43PM (#624477)

          Robocop!

          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 19 2018, @12:23AM

            by Bot (3902) on Friday January 19 2018, @12:23AM (#624489) Journal

            Hello there. Remember we follow directives, all fou... three of them.

            --
            Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @12:55AM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @12:55AM (#624501)

      My tactical nuke shell is definitely covered by the 2nd amendment!

      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)

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 19 2018, @01:08AM (#624504)

        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)

          by Spook brat (775) on Friday January 19 2018, @04:21PM (#624757) Journal

          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.

          It's not a good argument.
          Had they been available, the founders would undoubtedly have had access to Tanks, Bombers, and Tactical Nukes.

          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)

            by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 19 2018, @05:22PM (#624776)

            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)

              by Spook brat (775) on Friday January 19 2018, @07:23PM (#624845) Journal

              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.

              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)

                by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 19 2018, @07:42PM (#624853)

                > 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?

                Title: Call the NRA! (bob_super, Score: 1, Troll)
                My tactical nuke shell is definitely covered by the 2nd amendment!

                It's Reductio Ad Absurdum, but not about AC.

                • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @08:27PM (2 children)

                  by Spook brat (775) on Friday January 19 2018, @08:27PM (#624881) Journal

                  How did we get this started?

                  Title: Call the NRA! (bob_super, Score: 1, Troll)
                          My tactical nuke shell is definitely covered by the 2nd amendment!

                  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)

                    by arcz (4501) on Friday January 19 2018, @09:30PM (#624919) Journal
                    I would say nukes should not be constitutionally protected for the simple reason that they aren't useful in civil warfare, which to me is the intent of the constitution's second amendment (to arm the people to overthrow a corrupt government)
                    • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @10:15PM

                      by Spook brat (775) on Friday January 19 2018, @10:15PM (#624955) Journal

                      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)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 19 2018, @03:57PM (#624736)

        Gatling guns and cannons, which are obsolete versions of those, were personally owned by the people who put together our constitution.

        Nope.

        The Gatling gun is one of the best-known early rapid-fire spring loaded, hand cranked weapons and a forerunner of the modern machine gun. Invented by Richard Gatling, it is known for its use by the Union forces during the American Civil War in the 1860s

        The Gatling gun was designed by the American inventor Dr. Richard J. Gatling in 1861 and patented on November 4, 1862.

        Prior to the Gatling gun, the only weapons available to military forces capable of firing many projectiles in a short space of time were mass-firing volley weapons, like the Belgian and French mitrailleuse of the 1860s and 1870s, and field cannons firing canister shot, much like an upsized shotgun. The latter were widely used during and after the Napoleonic Wars.

        The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815)

        Transmitted to the United States in Congress Assembled then sitting in New York City, the new Constitution was forwarded to the states by Congress recommending the ratification process outlined in the Constitution. Each state legislature was to call elections for a "Federal Convention" to ratify the new Constitution. They expanded the franchise beyond the Constitutional requirement to more nearly embrace "the people". Eleven ratified in 1787 or 1788, and all thirteen had done so by 1790.

        --
        "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

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @11:11PM (#624976)

          Maybe a puckle gun?

          It was some sort of multi-shot thing.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:07PM (1 child)

    by looorg (578) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:07PM (#624459)

    I guess this is why all the "professional" shows on Discovery tell you to not try this at home. It might not be so much about safety (even tho that clearly is a thing) but more about liability and getting the appropriate permissions. If one takes something like Mythbusters they tend(ed) not to blow shit up in places where there could be other people but far out in the middle of nowhere in some special test site / Fire department training facility / Police department bomb disposal area etc. That said I seem to recall Mythbusters fucking up once or twice and sending projectiles into residential areas and there was much problems with that. Which probably made them move even further out into the desert for any such experiments.

    So he had a "mystery" bag of some kind of powder which he believed might be from a firework (so some kind of gunpowder then?) and he thought it was a great idea to light some of it in a residential zone? Sure. Genius. Unless his home was some kind of remote farm or UNABomber style shack out in the woods that was just stupid and a horribly bad idea.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by captain normal on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:36PM

      by captain normal (2205) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:36PM (#624474)

      That is one thing I find funny. Why do stuff like this in your backyard when there is so much open space nearby in that part of Utah?

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:39PM (3 children)

    by NewNic (6420) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:39PM (#624476) Journal

    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.

    Gunpowder isn't a high explosive: it needs to be contained in order to obtain an explosion.

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:56PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:56PM (#624480)

      Nobody claimed it was gunpowder. Modern fireworks do not normally contain gunpowder.

      The larger fireworks can be 8, 12, or 16 inches in diameter. Normal cities use the 8-inch ones. The safety sheets for these fireworks include a specification called the "death radius".

      I'm guessing it was flash powder, or a mix of powdered metal with an oxidizer. It would be composed of 1 of each of the following:

      Fuels: aluminum, magnesium, sugar

      Oxidizer anions: chlorate, perchlorate, nitrate

      Cations: ammonium (also serves as fuel), sodium, potassium

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:59AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:59AM (#624567)

        Yeah, that's the stuff I used in my preteen years for bomb development; plus gasoline and acetone. Had my glasses blown off ones and the whole face covered with iodine dots. Could not see for an hour, but no permanent damage to anybody.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @09:26AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @09:26AM (#624628)

          I got that. It's from a very different type of explosive.

          I stepped on it. I melted my shoe, stung my eyes, made my ears ring, and got covered in purple-brown dots.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Friday January 19 2018, @04:12PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 19 2018, @04:12PM (#624750) Journal

    If you can't have an explosives permit, then at least have an explosive personality.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(1)