HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If a pressure cooker bomb...

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:34 PM

If a pressure cooker bomb is a WMD, why does that not apply to rifles like AR-15

That have killed by far more people?


Is a gun a WMD if a pressure cooker bomb is defined as one too?
1 vote, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
Yes
1 (100%)
No
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

44 replies, 4388 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply If a pressure cooker bomb is a WMD, why does that not apply to rifles like AR-15 (Original post)
itsrobert Apr 2013 OP
d_r Apr 2013 #1
supernaut Apr 2013 #2
hack89 Apr 2013 #3
kudzu22 Apr 2013 #4
G_j Apr 2013 #6
kudzu22 Apr 2013 #8
Crepuscular Apr 2013 #5
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #11
sarisataka Apr 2013 #7
spanone Apr 2013 #16
Bake Apr 2013 #18
City Lights Apr 2013 #25
Bake Apr 2013 #30
City Lights Apr 2013 #35
lob1 Apr 2013 #42
The Straight Story Apr 2013 #22
sarisataka Apr 2013 #32
Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #24
MattBaggins Apr 2013 #26
Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #29
MattBaggins Apr 2013 #31
City Lights Apr 2013 #27
sarisataka Apr 2013 #33
Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #34
sarisataka Apr 2013 #36
indepat Apr 2013 #41
Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #9
cali Apr 2013 #10
spanone Apr 2013 #17
cali Apr 2013 #38
jmowreader Apr 2013 #12
City Lights Apr 2013 #13
spanone Apr 2013 #14
The Straight Story Apr 2013 #15
Posteritatis Apr 2013 #19
Recursion Apr 2013 #20
think Apr 2013 #21
Hoyt Apr 2013 #23
Skittles Apr 2013 #28
Electric Monk Apr 2013 #37
Deep13 Apr 2013 #40
Deep13 Apr 2013 #39
Turbineguy Apr 2013 #43
HiPointDem Apr 2013 #44

Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:37 PM

1. I think a pressure cooker

not a crock pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:39 PM

2. Well..

 

Neither a crock pot, nor a pressure cooker are protected by the 2nd amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:40 PM

3. By that definition handguns are WMDs. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:40 PM

4. I'm not sure I'd call a cooker bomb a WMD either

I think people just say that to get headlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:42 PM

6. I believe he was charged

with using a WMD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:48 PM

8. I guess they have a different definition

I think of WMDs as things that wipe out whole towns -- chemical, biological or nuclear. I suppose it could be that WMDs are just weapons that kill indiscriminately, as opposed to ones with specific targets. That would explain why rifles and handguns are not WMDs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:41 PM

5. Using the logic employed by the OP

why does it not apply to automobiles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:00 PM

11. Certainly, automobiles have killed more people than crock pots.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:46 PM

7. US law says that is the case

Definitions:
(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a
4(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:07 PM

16. any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury ...gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:13 PM

18. If you can't tell the difference between a gun and a bomb, for cryin' out loud, I can't help you.

One bomb blast, multiple deaths. One bullet, one death.

Is that simple enough?

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:28 PM

25. So if one bomb blast = WMD, then Iraq had WMD.

Bush was right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to City Lights (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:35 PM

30. Frankly, I doubt the Boston bombs actually qualify as WMDs.

For the exact reason you cite.

But handguns and rifles definitely do not qualify.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #30)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:48 PM

35. IMO, the Boston bombs shouldn't qualify, but Tsarnaev was charged with

using them. IMO, it's a slippery slope. Based on the loose definition used in Boston, Iraq had them, and we are using them all over the Middle East.

On edit - I agree that handguns and rifles don't qualify either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to City Lights (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:51 PM

42. The definition of WMD is different from department to department.

The FBI calls a bomb a weapon of mass destruction, the pentagon doesn't. So no, Bush wasn't right even by accident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:20 PM

22. And pressure cooker. And cars. And planes. And lighters (catch a house on fire with one)

Shit, let's register everything we buy with the feds and have em ban everything they can.

Cause freedom sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:43 PM

32. Not according to 2332a

through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors


explosives are defined as such in 921

I don't write the laws

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:25 PM

24. It's an absurd definition of the term.

 

Is a soldier using a WMD when he fires a grenade?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph Ledger (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:30 PM

26. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattBaggins (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:35 PM

29. All right then...what weapons do soldiers use that *aren't* WMDs?

 

Anything besides bayonets?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph Ledger (Reply #29)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:39 PM

31. You will have to take that up with both the DoJ and DoD

See what definitions and categories they use. Ask them to reclassify grenades and your problem is solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph Ledger (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:31 PM

27. Agreed. Now we're dumbing down WMD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph Ledger (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:44 PM

33. Under US law

yes.

Internationally the definitions are different, through law and treaty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:46 PM

34. I certainly agree that's how US law defines it.

 

I just think it's a silly use of the term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph Ledger (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:52 PM

36. I agree

I do not like diluting the term WMD. Those who equate a firearm as such are very sadly misinformed as to what an actual WMD does. West is more akin to a very, very, very small WMD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph Ledger (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:21 PM

41. It's a definition giving big brother wide latitude to categorize any act by the un-cleansed

as using a WMD so maximum punishment can be levied?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:51 PM

9. You have a question I can't answer.

 

Bombs can throw a lot of shrapnel and kill many people. But bullets are the AR-15's shrapnel which kill many people. You could say, bombs use a lot of powder. But then so do a lot of bullets when added up. So I don't know this answer. Maybe our representatives do?

"The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:54 PM

10. you mean pressure cooker and no one has called pressure cookers wmds. NO ONE.

 

they've called bombs using pressure cookers wmds. there's a vast difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:11 PM

17. they were charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.

How Boston bombs qualify as ‘weapons of mass destruction


Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction, but two young Boston bombers did?

No doubt many Americans were a bit perplexed Monday when 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was federally charged with "using a weapon of mass destruction," even if the explosions at the Boston Marathon did result in three deaths and injuries to more than 170 people.

In the late 1990s, President Clinton and other top officials, in discussing the fears about the Iraq dictator, repeatedly used the term to describe chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons that could kill vast numbers in the Middle East.

The term grew to even greater currency with the Bush adminstration in the months before and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. President Bush used the term four times in his 2003 State of the Union speech, warning that Hussein had the capability to produce enough anthrax and botulinum toxin to kill millions.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-24/news/38766063_1_boston-marathon-mass-destruction-saddam-hussein

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:56 PM

38. yes, but is anyone calling pressure cookers wmd? fuck no.

 

they're calling a bomb that blew the limbs off people a wmd. they used a pressure cooker to manufacture it. they also used ball bearing and nails and black powder and a circuit board.

this is not tough to grasp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:02 PM

12. It was a pressure cooker bomb

A crock pot bomb is walking into the house and finding the $50 prime rib being turned into a pot roast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:02 PM

13. Bill Maher said last night that if a pressure cooker bomb is considered WMD,

then Iraq did indeed have WMD. There were bombs similar to this all over Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:03 PM

14. i have wondered the same. 26 murdered in newtown ....was that not mass destruction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:04 PM

15. At least one of them you can aim. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:13 PM

19. Read the legislation and then start emoting. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:17 PM

21. It doesn't fit their meme...../nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:21 PM

23. Because pressure cookers don't have the NRA, and millions of yahoos


needing them to function and feel tough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #23)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:34 PM

28. I am so sick of our resident DU yahoos

pimping for guns, day after day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:53 PM

37. Please tell the admins. They need to hear this until it sinks in. Most Dems are not gun nuts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #23)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:11 PM

40. I'm the NBA and I vote!

I don't want the govahment taking away my homemade bombs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:09 PM

39. Killing in succession is better than killing all at once?

Seriously, neither of them is a WMD. That term is generally limited to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The exception is that if there a place with oil the govt. wants to invade, then imaginary weapons also count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:55 PM

43. Because

the makers of such bombs do not pay the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:45 PM

44. good question.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread