Zero Hour turns in pipe bomb builder

[Garys]

Hey, if I deserve a -1 for a post, I have no problem getting it. It's childish to go through the entire forum and -1 every post I've ever written just to drive it down to zero, though.

You're right. Someone anonymously gave me a negative point with the comment "idiot". Unless they were talking about themselves. I think you're dead wrong on this issue, but no one should subtract points from you for stating your beliefs.

Gary

 

[vellnueve]

You think pipe bombs should be legal because they're fun? Or because its on their own private property? Incest for some sick people is the same way (fun, and on their own private property) but it's clearly disgustingly and revoltingly wrong. As is storing a large amount of explosive devices in your basement that could potentially cause damage to more than your own house.

 

[vellnueve]

Interesting thread. I understand completely the concern about privacy rights, and the hesitancy about "turning someone in" who wasn't hurting anyone, and has no record of doing so. It almost seems like you're convicting someone, not for committing a crime, but for "thinking" about that crime. Look out for the Thought Police!

But in this particular instance, I would look at the potential for doing massive damage to other people and property - by ACCIDENT. You can't really compare it to firearms - if someone has an "accident", they usually end up hurting themselves, or one or two others. They have to be doing something INTENTIONAL in order to cause a mass casualty.

Explosives, on the other hand, are different (you can also fill in here "plutonium", or "Ebola Virus", or the like). Take it from someone who spent 10 years as a Combat Engineer in the Army, and had the opportunity to deal with explosives measured in tons, not pounds - the slightest mistake can kill many. And being careful while fully alert and sober is tough enough, never mind when you're drunk!

I don't like ratting out victimless crimes - if you want to cause your own self-destruction, that's up to you. But if you are doing something that has the potential to cause MASSIVE damage if you're not careful, I think I should have a say in things.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
Carry on.

Excellently stated.

 

[Martlet]

That's fine. My point is that no one likes a tattletail but everyone has to draw a line somewhere. I will draw the line when I feel someone could be seriously at risk of danger. Building bombs is not in the same category as speeding or jaywalking IMO. I do see you point... a little but I'll size with the Zero guy for now. I would feel like complete shit if I did nothing and this guy ended up harming someone.

I think we all would. But he's pretty screwed now. Why doesn't anybody feel like shit about that? He didn't harm anyone. He didn't threaten to. He has no history of doing so or given an indication that he would.

 

[RHJJ]

Drunk making pipe bomb's, I am glad he is not my next door neighbor.

 

[Homer]

Who's the douche that went through and left me negative for every one of my posts? At least have the sack to leave your name.

Knock it off whoever did this...Martlet has given us two of the best thread discussions in a long time and he should not be penalized for it.

 

[Martlet]

You're right. Someone anonymously gave me a negative point with the comment "idiot". Unless they were talking about themselves. I think you're dead wrong on this issue, but no one should subtract points from you for stating your beliefs.

Gary

I think I've only ever given one negative rep point and that was for a personal insult and I signed my name. Purposefully giving me over 50 negative rep points on unrelated posts because someone disagrees with me is cowardly. I suppose that's indicative of their character.

 

[vellnueve]

Besides the restraining order?

Legalities aside, this guy clearly had some issues with judgement. I don't care how drunk you are, you're still responsible for everything you say and do. That includes dragging your kid into a gun store and boasting about blowing stuff up. He reaped what he sowed, IMO.

 

[rscalzo]

left me negative

What is "leaving a negative"?

 

[Garys]

I think I've only ever given one negative rep point and that was for a personal insult and I signed my name. Purposefully giving me over 50 negative rep points on unrelated posts because someone disagrees with me is cowardly. I suppose that's indicative of their character.

It usually is.

Gary

 

[Lugnut]

I think we all would. But he's pretty screwed now. Why doesn't anybody feel like shit about that? He didn't harm anyone. He didn't threaten to. He has no history of doing so or given an indication that he would.

Good point. However I'd be very surprised if he does any time INAL but I don't think his life will be ruined. Wrt guns... they'll be gone.

And heck I'll be honest... who wouldn't like building things that blow up? I bet all of us do... but we don't actually do it.

 

[jar]

That's fine. My point is that no one likes a tattletail but everyone has to draw a line somewhere. I will draw the line when I feel someone could be seriously at risk of danger. Building bombs is not in the same category as speeding or jaywalking IMO. I do see you point... a little but I'll size with the Zero guy for now. I would feel like complete shit if I did nothing and this guy ended up harming someone.

+1. I agree with you completely. If I found out somebody was building bombs in an outbuilding on a big piece of property, I'm not gonna say a word. If it's in a house with children in a residential neigborhood, I'd probably do the same thing. Especially if I saw him in public (like at ZHA) drunkenly bragging about it.

Also, responsible gun shop owner turns in bomb maker reads a hell of a lot better in the paper than 'drunken man blows up his house, wife, and kids...8 guns found in burned out house'.

 

[gene]

Lesson
1 - Don't put bombs together in advance
2- Don't get drunk or talk about getting drunk and making them.
3- Dont put them togther unless you have reason to do so.

Conclusion: I feel better knowing the guy does not have pipe bombs.

 

[ijw]

Some people consider incest to be fun. Should that be legal?

Of course it should be. What right do you have to regulate what two consenting people do so long as they are not harming anyone?

 

[Martlet]

You think pipe bombs should be legal because they're fun? Or because its on their own private property? Incest for some sick people is the same way (fun, and on their own private property) but it's clearly disgustingly and revoltingly wrong. As is storing a large amount of explosive devices in your basement that could potentially cause damage to more than your own house.

I think pipe bombs should be legal because it's none of your business. As it should be none of your business if I store powder for reloading, primers, or a bunch of ammo.

 

[.40Smith&Wesson]

You think pipe bombs should be legal because they're fun? Or because its on their own private property? Incest for some sick people is the same way (fun, and on their own private property) but it's clearly disgustingly and revoltingly wrong. As is storing a large amount of explosive devices in your basement that could potentially cause damage to more than your own house.

I never said pipe bombs should be legal.

I said people shouldn't be rats. And people shouldn't be hypocrites.

I think it would be safe to say that at least one round sold from a Massachusetts gun shop has killed an innocent person.

For all we know, it could have been ZHA where the latest Boston gangbanger obtained their ammunition. If not obtained directly, possibly through a straw purchase.

So since this man makes his living selling ammunition and firearms which kill, he is a complete hypocrite. Don't get me wrong. I love gun shops. But when you cross the line and rat somebody out for something like this you are a hypocritical piece of shit.

I say boycott ZHA.

 

[vellnueve]

The difference being that having a store of gunpower, primers, and ammo go off is much less likely to cause catastrophic damage to adjacent dwellings and people than a bunch of pipe bombs.

It absolutely is my business.

 

[vellnueve]

I say boycott ZHA.

Good luck with that.

I'm done with this thread, it is going nowhere good.

 

[jdubois]

Of course it should be. What right do you have to regulate what two consenting people do so long as they are not harming anyone?

+1. I think incest is disgusting and revolting, but I also think eating ox penis is disgusting and revolting. Should that be illegal?

 

[john m]

I think we all would. But he's pretty screwed now. Why doesn't anybody feel like shit about that? He didn't harm anyone. He didn't threaten to. He has no history of doing so or given an indication that he would.

NOT YET! The guy Went to a gun shop and bragged about making bombs. would like to see them ,WTF!!!!!! Thank You Jim for Doing the right thing.

 

[gene]

Your neighbors may say the same thing about the "gun nut" next door. Good thing guns aren't illegal........yet.

More than likely they would if they saw you running around with an AR or AK in your own yard!

 

[.40Smith&Wesson]

Good luck with that.

Take a lap.

 

[vellnueve]

Of course it should be. What right do you have to regulate what two consenting people do so long as they are not harming anyone?

Because a six year old can't consent?

 

[Martlet]

The difference being that having a store of gunpower, primers, and ammo go off is much less likely to cause catastrophic damage to adjacent dwellings and people than a bunch of pipe bombs.

It absolutely is my business.

It absolutely is not. I don't need another Dad, thanks. That being said, Jim only saw 1 pipe bomb, according to his interview. One pipe bomb isn't more likely to go off, damage adjacent anything, or cause catastrophic damage than the black powder I have in my basement left over from muzzleloader season.

 

[theGringo]

As is storing a large amount of explosive devices in your basement that could potentially cause damage to more than your own house.

I've read reports of seized "arsenals" consisting of 10 or fewer guns. I work with people everyday who would consider "1000 rounds" of ammunition to be a shocking quanitity that only a madman planning a massacre would have on hand. Primers? They're explosive? And black powder? Criminy! He had how many pounds?!

My gut feeling here is that the guy in EB is probably a little flaky, but will get much more punishment than he deserves in the scheme of things.

 

[jdubois]

Because a six year old can't consent?

Huh? Are you talking about pedophilia or incest?

 

[.40Smith&Wesson]

 

[Martlet]

Because a six year old can't consent?

You said incest, not child molesting. Big difference.

 

[economist]

Interesting thread. I understand completely the concern about privacy rights, and the hesitancy about "turning someone in" who wasn't hurting anyone, and has no record of doing so. It almost seems like you're convicting someone, not for committing a crime, but for "thinking" about that crime. Look out for the Thought Police!

But in this particular instance, I would look at the potential for doing massive damage to other people and property - by ACCIDENT. You can't really compare it to firearms - if someone has an "accident", they usually end up hurting themselves, or one or two others. They have to be doing something INTENTIONAL in order to cause a mass casualty.

Explosives, on the other hand, are different (you can also fill in here "plutonium", or "Ebola Virus", or the like). Take it from someone who spent 10 years as a Combat Engineer in the Army, and had the opportunity to deal with explosives measured in tons, not pounds - the slightest mistake can kill many. And being careful while fully alert and sober is tough enough, never mind when you're drunk!

I don't like ratting out victimless crimes - if you want to cause your own self-destruction, that's up to you. But if you are doing something that has the potential to cause MASSIVE damage if you're not careful, I think I should have a say in things.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
Carry on.

Nicely said.

This is absolutely a gray area. Illegality is irrelevant (ratting out anyone for nothing other than breaking the law is subservience to the government and a betrayal of free men). The question is whether this guy's actions represented a real danger to others beyond just the potential for danger inherent to the exercise of freedoms we hold dear (and this is why a comparison to guns is appropriate). In the end, given what we know, I can't say who is right here. Large pipe bombs with significant potential for massive damage -- I say turn him in. Little homemade firecrackers -- let him be. In the middle -- ???

 

[gene]

I met the guys at Zero Hour once and that was enough to know they were not pussies. The guy put them on the spot when he discussed his business end with them.