Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Does This Anti-Tank Weapon Make Me Look Fat?

Posted by on Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Just in case the Seattle Times editorial board ever acquires a tank, Im prepared.
  • Rick Hegdahl
  • Just in case the Seattle Times editorial board ever acquires a tank, I'm prepared.

I'm not saying it's easy to acquire anti-tank weapons, but, you know, I now have one, so how hard could it be?

 

Comments (59) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Come on, man! That's not even legal.

And you already have a dog.
Posted by floater on February 5, 2013 at 11:19 PM · Report this
brian 2
Can you take that into a bar?
Posted by brian on February 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM · Report this
Goldy 3
@2 Apparently.
Posted by Goldy on February 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 4
@2,
I don't think that the Montlake Ale House is really concerned about a fake AT-4.

Goldy, does that bitch that embezzled the Northwest Actors Studio funds to pay some Nigerian scammer for her lottery winnings still go to drinking liberally?

Also you are getting fat. You never really looked good...but you look bad.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on February 5, 2013 at 11:58 PM · Report this
Simply Me 5
How hard is it to get ammunition for that thing?
Posted by Simply Me on February 6, 2013 at 12:16 AM · Report this
Westlake, son! 6
I had no idea what Goldy looked like until now.

Very interesting.

Keep up the dark beer. *nod*
Posted by Westlake, son! on February 6, 2013 at 12:19 AM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 7
@5
The AT-4 is a preloaded single shot unit, it can not be reloaded.

But in general explosives require a giant ATF background check and a $200 NFA tax stamp both for the launcher and per round.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on February 6, 2013 at 12:25 AM · Report this
scary tyler moore 8
unless you come up with verifiable proof of that accusation regarding northwest actors studio, @4, you are a big fat liar.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on February 6, 2013 at 12:26 AM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 9
@8

Maybe Goldy should do that, he is the one who calls himself a fucking journalist.
I suggest starting at their 401c3 number. Former students might also prove to be a good lead.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on February 6, 2013 at 12:31 AM · Report this
seatackled 10
I'm surprised that Cascadian Bacon has not mentioned anything about penises or black men; maybe I"m mistaking this persona for one of the other ones.
Posted by seatackled on February 6, 2013 at 12:37 AM · Report this
scary tyler moore 11
you brought it up, YOU do the research, pal.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on February 6, 2013 at 1:48 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 12
Can he take that into a bar? He can take a bar out with that!
Bubbe with an attitude!
Posted by Pope Peabrain on February 6, 2013 at 3:31 AM · Report this
13
Wait!!! Goldy is a man?!?!
Posted by Erstegeiger on February 6, 2013 at 4:40 AM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 14
No, I think it's the beer.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on February 6, 2013 at 4:45 AM · Report this
15
gaaaawd dammmmn that is one ugly piece of shit....
Posted by OUCH! our eyes!.... on February 6, 2013 at 4:50 AM · Report this
16
Love it, Goldy! Any time a gun nut stats talking about their very abbreviated second amendment, I no longer argue. I just say, "I want a bazooka."

Their logic starts falling apart at that point.

And you look fine, Goldy - very writerly. CB is an ass and he can kiss mine.
Posted by DawginExile on February 6, 2013 at 6:27 AM · Report this
17
Okay, now you're ready for an alien invasion.
Posted by Bugnroolet on February 6, 2013 at 6:32 AM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 18
Yes.
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on February 6, 2013 at 6:47 AM · Report this
19
I don't know about fat, but you look kinda drunk.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on February 6, 2013 at 7:06 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 20
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on February 6, 2013 at 7:23 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 21
@4, 7: yeah, pretty sure that's a fake AT-4B, not an AT-4, so every point you've ever made on Slog is now invalid.
Posted by Max Solomon on February 6, 2013 at 7:27 AM · Report this
22
Getting it to that angle is a fine achievement for a fellow your age.
Posted by gloomy gus on February 6, 2013 at 7:51 AM · Report this
The Accidental Theologist 23
What next, Goldy? Skeet-shooting?
Posted by The Accidental Theologist http://accidentaltheologist.com on February 6, 2013 at 7:59 AM · Report this
24
Every teacher should have one of those. The big green weapon thing, not the ale. Or the journalist.
Posted by originalcinner on February 6, 2013 at 8:04 AM · Report this
25
By the way, the only "tank" your weapon is going to "protect" you from is likely to be this kind.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on February 6, 2013 at 8:12 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 26
@16

Yes indeed. You hit the nail right on the head there.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 6, 2013 at 8:16 AM · Report this
lark 27
Goldy,
You're sporting an anti-tank gun. But, what I want to know is are you "tanked"?
Posted by lark on February 6, 2013 at 8:22 AM · Report this
Goldy 28

@27 Does it matter? The 2nd and 21st amendments protect my right to be both.

Posted by Goldy on February 6, 2013 at 8:41 AM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 29
Phallic in the extreme! That's why guns are so popular with men.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on February 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 30
You do not have an anti-tank weapon. You have a plastic tube.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with guns and/or the 2nd Amendment.

I don't understand the point of this post. What's your point Goldy?
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 31
That looks like what I fired when I was in the Army. They are fun. Why wouldn't the second amendment apply to bearing that sort of arm?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on February 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM · Report this
Goldy 32
@21 It's inert, but it's not fake. It's an M136 AT4 84-mm unguided, portable, single-shot anti-tank missile launcher. The model number "AT4 13229861" is clearly printed on the side.
Posted by Goldy on February 6, 2013 at 10:42 AM · Report this
Rujax! 33
@30...

You wouldn't.
Posted by Rujax! http://rujax.blogspot.com/ on February 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM · Report this
34
Well, I'll say this much. You look an awful lot like the typical Stranger reader demographic.
Posted by nouvelle on February 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM · Report this
Lew Siffer 35
I've shot 5 or 6 of those. When someone shoots one a few feet your left or right and slightly behind you it feels like a slap across the face. It's a nice rush though.

I always thought Goldy was in his 20's. Usually people dump ridiculous notions by age 30.
Posted by Lew Siffer on February 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM · Report this
36
"It's an AT-4" "No it's not, it's an AT-48" "Dude, it is totally an AT-4"

That's why gun nuts can't have nice things. They don't even know what things are.
Posted by originalcinner on February 6, 2013 at 11:16 AM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 37
@35: "Usually people dump ridiculous notions by age 30."

You've clearly never watched FOX news.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM · Report this
Goldy 38
@35 Oh no! You called my notions "ridiculous"!!! You sure put me in my place!

Posted by Goldy on February 6, 2013 at 12:08 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 39
Why does the 2nd amendment NOT apply to Goldy's "Rocket-launcher-minus-the-rocket?"

Well, does the second amendment apply to this?:
http://shop-qwebstores.com/Content/Produ…

How about these?:
http://www.tapplastics.com/uploads/produ…

Watch out pot heads.... you might get blown up by this anti-tank weapon:
http://www.rhinogifts.co.uk/product_imag…

HOLY SHIT!!! A WHOLE FUCKING ROOM FULL OF ANTI-TANK WEAPONS!!!
http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00gBC…

Understand yet?

Goldy does NOT have an anti-tank weapon.
He has a plastic tube.

Understand?

It's not a gun. No matter how much you want to scare people into thinking it's a gun. You couldn't kill anyone with that thing.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 6, 2013 at 12:13 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 40
@38
Well you do have the politics and life experience of a college sophomore.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on February 6, 2013 at 12:22 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 41
I also find it a bit ironic that Goldstein looks far creepier than anyone in his gun buy back article. I certainly wouldn't sell him a gun, he looks like he would use it to molest children, or hold up a pie shop.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on February 6, 2013 at 12:26 PM · Report this
COMTE 42
@4:

Ann Graham died last October, so it's unlikely she would still be drinking - well, anywhere.

@8:

@4's version, while certainly antagonistic (perhaps with cause) toward the late Ms Graham, is nevertheless, essentially correct.

Ann wasn't exactly at her mental peak the last several years NWAS was in existence, and she DID in fact get suckered into a Nigerian Email Scam sometime in early 2007, to the point that she actually went to Sea-Tac to meet the "courier" who was supposed to be arriving with the magic check.

After letting her skate on rent for several months, her landlord Anne Michelson, finally gave her an eviction notice in June 2007; Annex Theatre moved in the following month and basically cleaned out the detritus that had collected there over 20 some-odd years - including "Bob, the friendly tweaker" who was living in a tiny back space on the second floor, at Ann's invitation.
Posted by COMTE http://www.chriscomte.com on February 6, 2013 at 12:27 PM · Report this
COMTE 43
@4,9,41,42:

"The Ministry of Information wishes to inform you that your '2 Minute Hate' limit has been exceeded for the day. In future, please restrict your daily hate to 2 minutes, no more, no less. Otherwise, you will leave the Ministry of Information no choice but to recommend you to the Ministry of Love for Room 101 Intervention."
Posted by COMTE http://www.chriscomte.com on February 6, 2013 at 12:46 PM · Report this
COMTE 44
Correction:

Comment @43 is addressed to @4,9,40,41.

This comment to supercede comment @43 & relevant citations are subject to Memory Hole disbursement, per Ministry of Information Policy.
Posted by COMTE http://www.chriscomte.com on February 6, 2013 at 12:50 PM · Report this
lark 45
Goldy,
True dat. But, I wouldn't want you "tanked" and operating an anti-tank gun at the same time. You might miss your target.
Posted by lark on February 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 46
39, The second amendment says "arms", not "guns". By definition, a shoulder mounted rocket launcher is an arm.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on February 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 47
@46,
It's not a shoulder mounted rocket launcher. It's a plastic tube. There's no rocket in it.

It's not a gun or an arm. It's a tube.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 6, 2013 at 3:33 PM · Report this
COMTE 48
IT'S NOT A TUBER!
Posted by COMTE http://www.chriscomte.com on February 6, 2013 at 5:02 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 49
@42
Thanks for the info, I'm kinda sad to hear the crazy old bat died.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on February 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 50
If you had a bunch of them, it'd be a series of tubes
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 6, 2013 at 7:52 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 51
47, Regardless of what's in the picture with Goldy, why shouldn't people be able to bear arms in the form of shoulder mounted rocket launchers?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on February 7, 2013 at 5:09 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 52
@51,

Why shouldn't people be able to own rocket launchers? I think they should be able to own them.

I think arms of any type should be legal to own... that said,

I also think that arms should be heavily regulated, such that anyone wanting to purchase a rocket launcher would have to be thoroughly grilled and checked out by the BATF.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 7, 2013 at 8:50 AM · Report this
undead ayn rand 53
Fuck da L.A.W.
Posted by undead ayn rand on February 7, 2013 at 9:53 AM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 54
Arms of any type? Nuclear, biological, and chemical arms included?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on February 7, 2013 at 10:09 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 55
@54,
As long as you're deemed responsible enough to keep them, yes.

I don't think any one person is responsible enough to keep NBC weapons though. I'm pretty sure the only private owners of those kinds of things are corporations and foundations.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 7, 2013 at 3:05 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 56
55, So you don't trust individual citizens with NBC weapons, and you think they should be prevented from owning such arms because you deem them not responsible enough?
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on February 7, 2013 at 3:48 PM · Report this
Rob in Baltimore 57
Also 55, You're just engaging in bullshit double speak. You say citizens who are responsible enough should have NBC arms, then you go on to say that no citizens are responsible enough. Cutting through your twisting and spinning, that means you're for banning some types of arms from citizens.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore http://www.wishbookweb.com/ on February 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 58
@Rob,
Well, not because I deem them not responsible enough... I wouldn't want to have the burden of deciding who is or is not capable of owning something like that. But a group of elected officials, or a group appointed by elected officials, with knowledge and experience in these matters, could decide who is responsible enough for NBC weapons.

Saying I don't believe anyone is responsible enough isn't the same as banning. Banning means "No, under no circumstances, no matter what." There's a chance I could be incorrect and there actually is a single person responsible enough for those weapons, I just highly doubt it.

Why does there have to be an overarching blanket "ban" of something? Why can't things like this be taken on a case by case basis?
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 8, 2013 at 10:21 AM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 59
Personally I don't think anyone is responsible enough to own chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, especially not governments.

Though to be fair, every well stocked cleaning cabinet has the potential to make WW1 era chemical weapons.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on February 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy