>> ^chingalera:

>> ^spawnflagger:
Looks like a GM product

Nope- Companys' called Force Protection Inc. and that's their Cougar HE 6X6.....falling the fuck apart from the ground up! (guys inside are still protected from blast-shrapnel!!!)


The guys inside are gonna need protection because the fucking thing is a STATIONARY TARGET!!!

>> ^spawnflagger:

Looks like a GM product


Nope- Companys' called Force Protection Inc. and that's their Cougar HE 6X6.....falling the fuck apart from the ground up! (guys inside are still protected from blast-shrapnel!!!)

Look at the shock trail behind the shrapnel that nailed camera-guy

>> ^TheDreamingDragon:

And imagine our Gross National Product if we STOPPED tossing money at these other nations.America need Noone in the end.
But,I dream. America was an interesting experiment:give common people the Vote and they'll vote for the happiest Fiction they are shown,and soon our politicians will just do away with that illusion of choice and bring us into the new Corporate Feudalism where we'll be serfs enthralled to the yokes of global conglomerates.


I agree with the corporate feudalism.. With dubya the republicans already rediscovered medieval European monarchy.

As for tossing money at other nations though, 50c in the dollar is tossed in the form of explosives and shrapnel. It doesn't make friends. And that's why there is such a need for security, and THAT's why control is being lost to fear at the political level. (nothing demented right wingers like more than a red alert situation).

It's never too late to stop killing people. Eventually, they will stop trying to kill you. Then you save half your money!

>> ^PlayhousePals:

Grab your chocolate square, some graham crackers and add a marshmallow to the end of the stick ... voilà ... the ultimate S'more =oD

S'more shrapnel, maybe...

Possibly not, he'd have to get more scars to hide it. When I say "an unrecognisable mess", I mean his swastika, not his whole face. He's not going to win any beauty contests but it's better than what would have happened to him if the Basterds hadn't intervened, getting blown up in a theatre or if he's lucky, spending his life running from Nazi hunters.

(What's up with quotes? Videosift seems to be mucking them up.)

>> ^alien_concept:

Were skin grafts that great back in the 40s? If he had to scar his whole face up, that'd still be terrible for a character like him

>> ^Quboid:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Quboid:
>> ^kymbos:
I watched this film again recently, having absolutely loved it the first time, and found myself enjoying it less than I expected. Mainly because of the excessive use of the 'person is dead / no they're not not they're really just pretending' trick, which I thought was a bit cheap. It happens at least twice at key points in the film (the woman in the bar fight scene, and then the German war hero in the cinema scene).
Don't get me wrong - Tarantino is a God, and the suspense he creates in scenes is brilliant, and the Jew Hunter was pure awesome - but there were a few bits that I found a bit cheap on second viewing. I don't think it hangs together as a film as well as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
So there.

Spoilers
This bugged me but what really annoyed me is this: what did the Basterds actually achieve? The only difference they made to the big ending is that they helped the main baddie! Landa (Christoph Waltz, in a superb performance) to survived, and got a nice life in the U.S. because of them screwing up the assassination attempt, at the cost of some plastic surgery. They were counter productive!

Survive with a fat swastika on his head

That could be fixed with plastic surgery, or if that wasn't available, he could get more slices in his face to change it into an unrecognisable mess. Claim he was hit by shrapnel while saving children from Nazis.
.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Quboid:
>> ^kymbos:
I watched this film again recently, having absolutely loved it the first time, and found myself enjoying it less than I expected. Mainly because of the excessive use of the 'person is dead / no they're not not they're really just pretending' trick, which I thought was a bit cheap. It happens at least twice at key points in the film (the woman in the bar fight scene, and then the German war hero in the cinema scene).
Don't get me wrong - Tarantino is a God, and the suspense he creates in scenes is brilliant, and the Jew Hunter was pure awesome - but there were a few bits that I found a bit cheap on second viewing. I don't think it hangs together as a film as well as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
So there.

Spoilers
This bugged me but what really annoyed me is this: what did the Basterds actually achieve? The only difference they made to the big ending is that they helped the main baddie! Landa (Christoph Waltz, in a superb performance) to survived, and got a nice life in the U.S. because of them screwing up the assassination attempt, at the cost of some plastic surgery. They were counter productive!

Survive with a fat swastika on his head

That could be fixed with plastic surgery, or if that wasn't available, he could get more slices in his face to change it into an unrecognisable mess. Claim he was hit by shrapnel while saving children from Nazis.


Were skin grafts that great back in the 40s? If he had to scar his whole face up, that'd still be terrible for a character like him.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Quboid:
>> ^kymbos:
I watched this film again recently, having absolutely loved it the first time, and found myself enjoying it less than I expected. Mainly because of the excessive use of the 'person is dead / no they're not not they're really just pretending' trick, which I thought was a bit cheap. It happens at least twice at key points in the film (the woman in the bar fight scene, and then the German war hero in the cinema scene).
Don't get me wrong - Tarantino is a God, and the suspense he creates in scenes is brilliant, and the Jew Hunter was pure awesome - but there were a few bits that I found a bit cheap on second viewing. I don't think it hangs together as a film as well as Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
So there.

Spoilers
This bugged me but what really annoyed me is this: what did the Basterds actually achieve? The only difference they made to the big ending is that they helped the main baddie! Landa (Christoph Waltz, in a superb performance) to survived, and got a nice life in the U.S. because of them screwing up the assassination attempt, at the cost of some plastic surgery. They were counter productive!

Survive with a fat swastika on his head


That could be fixed with plastic surgery, or if that wasn't available, he could get more slices in his face to change it into an unrecognisable mess. Claim he was hit by shrapnel while saving children from Nazis.

Thanks for the thought out response MMD. Actually, my father and grandfather owned guns and kept them in the house. They were former marine and army, and definitely believed in the 2nd amendment. My father even gave me a rifle for a birthday as a child and taught me basic safety and maintenance.

But I never saw them use their guns in an emotional outburst to make some argumentative point. They had too much discipline for behavior like that. The guy in the video is clearly very angry and emotional (from the timbre in his voice) before and while using the gun.

As far as the legality of him doing what he was doing. From my experience, cops can make up a charge if they really want to, and maybe they (and child services) would at least bother the guy enough to make sure he thinks twice before brandishing a gun in this manner and putting it on youtube.

Yeah people shoot at things all the time, but a laptop? I know how they are assembled, and there are several layers of components that make up the machine, including many brittle materials that can easily shatter. Not to mention toxic materials like solder, etc. I doubt this guy has been taking laptops down to the quarry for target practice regularly enough to know how they take a hollow point.>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^longde:
Thinking about it more, what really bothers me about this video is the gratuitous use of the gun. To display that level of intimidation and violence in his home is one thing, but to broadcast it to other youth in his community is reckless.
One unintentional lesson that kids will take from this is that it's acceptable to wave a gun around and shoot off a few rounds to vent your anger and resolve a problem.
If I were a parent in this community, I would be making a few calls to the authorities.
And I'm the guy who supported belt whipping guy. I think gun guy is way worse than belt beating guy.
(also, how did this genius know that there would be no flying shrapnel from the components in the laptop?)

I fully understand and appreciate your concerns here, but once again I'm on the other side of the fence. Maybe just because I grew up on a farm in a rural area where a very high percentage of households owned at least one firearm and most kids in those homes were taught how to responsibly use a gun.
A lot of people think that there isn't really any justification for owning a gun outside of being a soldier or policeman, and that therefore the only way to practice being responsible with a gun is to simply never own or fire one. I would disagree, but if that is the mindset I'm not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise.
Anyway, I don't see his use of the gun as displaying any "intimidation" or "violence", so I don't have any problem with his posting the video on his daughter's facebook and/or youtube or whatever. By shooting the laptop, he wasn't telling his daughter "straighten up or next time its YOU!" (intimidation), he was telling her that actions have consequences and since the laptop is his property he can do whatever he wants with it -- including destroying it rather than have her feel like she is entitled to it.
There are plenty of freely available videos on the internet (even here on the sift, say) where people use firearms in genuinely reckless and irresponsible ways orders of magnitude beyond this one. And that is before considering ubiquitous reckless or malevolent use of firearms in fictional media like movies, etc.
If you were a parent in his community, you would be welcome to call and complain to the authorities, but they would tell you that he definitely didn't do anything against the law. So you'd pretty much be wasting your breath.
About the risk of flying shrapnel, I think that he "knows" that there wouldn't be any (or at least that the risk is acceptably minute) because he has used firearms before. Part of learning to use a gun responsibly (at least, how I would define responsibly) is shooting at things and seeing what happens to them. You shoot a BB gun at cans or bottles set up on posts. You shoot a rifle or handgun at targets at a shooting range or in a rural area with nothing in front of you. You shoot a shotgun at an empty 2-liter bottle thrown up in the air, or at clay pigeons.
While doing those things, you notice that whatever you are shooting at generally doesn't explode like it does in the movies. If any fragments fly off (not likely), they won't have much mass, they won't be traveling very fast (vastly slower than the bullet), and they will most likely be traveling in the same general direction as the bullet -- not back towards you. Physics dictates that his shooting the laptop was relatively safe, even at close range like that.

>> ^longde:

Thinking about it more, what really bothers me about this video is the gratuitous use of the gun. To display that level of intimidation and violence in his home is one thing, but to broadcast it to other youth in his community is reckless.
One unintentional lesson that kids will take from this is that it's acceptable to wave a gun around and shoot off a few rounds to vent your anger and resolve a problem.
If I were a parent in this community, I would be making a few calls to the authorities.
And I'm the guy who supported belt whipping guy. I think gun guy is way worse than belt beating guy.
(also, how did this genius know that there would be no flying shrapnel from the components in the laptop?)


I fully understand and appreciate your concerns here, but once again I'm on the other side of the fence. Maybe just because I grew up on a farm in a rural area where a very high percentage of households owned at least one firearm and most kids in those homes were taught how to responsibly use a gun.

A lot of people think that there isn't really any justification for owning a gun outside of being a soldier or policeman, and that therefore the only way to practice being responsible with a gun is to simply never own or fire one. I would disagree, but if that is the mindset I'm not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise.

Anyway, I don't see his use of the gun as displaying any "intimidation" or "violence", so I don't have any problem with his posting the video on his daughter's facebook and/or youtube or whatever. By shooting the laptop, he wasn't telling his daughter "straighten up or next time its YOU!" (intimidation), he was telling her that actions have consequences and since the laptop is his property he can do whatever he wants with it -- including destroying it rather than have her feel like she is entitled to it.

There are plenty of freely available videos on the internet (even here on the sift, say) where people use firearms in genuinely reckless and irresponsible ways orders of magnitude beyond this one. And that is before considering ubiquitous reckless or malevolent use of firearms in fictional media like movies, etc.

If you were a parent in his community, you would be welcome to call and complain to the authorities, but they would tell you that he definitely didn't do anything against the law. So you'd pretty much be wasting your breath.

About the risk of flying shrapnel, I think that he "knows" that there wouldn't be any (or at least that the risk is acceptably minute) because he has used firearms before. Part of learning to use a gun responsibly (at least, how I would define responsibly) is shooting at things and seeing what happens to them. You shoot a BB gun at cans or bottles set up on posts. You shoot a rifle or handgun at targets at a shooting range or in a rural area with nothing in front of you. You shoot a shotgun at an empty 2-liter bottle thrown up in the air, or at clay pigeons.

While doing those things, you notice that whatever you are shooting at generally doesn't explode like it does in the movies. If any fragments fly off (not likely), they won't have much mass, they won't be traveling very fast (vastly slower than the bullet), and they will most likely be traveling in the same general direction as the bullet -- not back towards you. Physics dictates that his shooting the laptop was relatively safe, even at close range like that.

Thinking about it more, what really bothers me about this video is the gratuitous use of the gun. To display that level of intimidation and violence in his home is one thing, but to broadcast it to other youth in his community is reckless.

One unintentional lesson that kids will take from this is that it's acceptable to wave a gun around and shoot off a few rounds to vent your anger and resolve a problem.

If I were a parent in this community, I would be making a few calls to the authorities.

And I'm the guy who supported belt whipping guy. I think gun guy is way worse than belt beating guy.

(also, how did this genius know that there would be no flying shrapnel from the components in the laptop?)

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Offensive to Christians, but who cares about them, right?
Pretty much. It's perfectly fine to be proud of your idendity if you're a Muslim, or a Jew, African-American, Hispanic, Atheist, or whatever. But when a Christian is open about their identity then they must be stopped at all costs, mocked, and told to keep it to themselves. The hypocrisy of society towards Christianity never ceases to amaze me with its breathtaking lack of self-awareness. Even worse are the retards who justify it with such idiotic mental diarrhea statements as, "Hey - it's OK because they're the 'majority'.
Do this skit about Muslims with Mohommed and you'd have suicide bombers blowing up the studio in a week. And the SNL staff would be apologizing for hurting the bombers with studio shrapnel. And the rest of our PC enslaved society would apologize for having offended them in the first place.
But let ONE Christian so much as say, "Your skit is offensive to me" and the same people would jump down every Christian's throat for being a jerk, using thier faith as a club to suppress free speech, and for just plain being a dirtbag with no sense of humor. Ah - hypocrisy - thy name is prejudice against Christians.


Awww, is the most powerful socio-economic group on the planet upset because someone is making fun of them? Cry me a river.

and as for the whole tired "you won't make jokes about muslims" line....



and

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Offensive to Christians, but who cares about them, right?
Pretty much. It's perfectly fine to be proud of your idendity if you're a Muslim, or a Jew, African-American, Hispanic, Atheist, or whatever. But when a Christian is open about their identity then they must be stopped at all costs, mocked, and told to keep it to themselves. The hypocrisy of society towards Christianity never ceases to amaze me with its breathtaking lack of self-awareness. Even worse are the retards who justify it with such idiotic mental diarrhea statements as, "Hey - it's OK because they're the 'majority'.
Do this skit about Muslims with Mohommed and you'd have suicide bombers blowing up the studio in a week. And the SNL staff would be apologizing for hurting the bombers with studio shrapnel. And the rest of our PC enslaved society would apologize for having offended them in the first place.
But let ONE Christian so much as say, "Your skit is offensive to me" and the same people would jump down every Christian's throat for being a jerk, using thier faith as a club to suppress free speech, and for just plain being a dirtbag with no sense of humor. Ah - hypocrisy - thy name is prejudice against Christians.


Oh boohoo, your sins are forgiven. Get over it. The rest of us are going to hell.

Offensive to Christians, but who cares about them, right?

Pretty much. It's perfectly fine to be proud of your idendity if you're a Muslim, or a Jew, African-American, Hispanic, Atheist, or whatever. But when a Christian is open about their identity then they must be stopped at all costs, mocked, and told to keep it to themselves. The hypocrisy of society towards Christianity never ceases to amaze me with its breathtaking lack of self-awareness. Even worse are the retards who justify it with such idiotic mental diarrhea statements as, "Hey - it's OK because they're the 'majority'.

Do this skit about Muslims with Mohommed and you'd have suicide bombers blowing up the studio in a week. And the SNL staff would be apologizing for hurting the bombers with studio shrapnel. And the rest of our PC enslaved society would apologize for having offended them in the first place.

But let ONE Christian so much as say, "Your skit is offensive to me" and the same people would jump down every Christian's throat for being a jerk, using thier faith as a club to suppress free speech, and for just plain being a dirtbag with no sense of humor. Ah - hypocrisy - thy name is prejudice against Christians.