Page 1 of 1

High Capacity Rock Sacks

Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:37 pm
by StewNTexas
I have never been to Tahrir Square in Egypt, but for a paved area in a urban setting, there sure are a lot of rocks. I took a good look earlier today when making a milk/bread run just ahead of the ugly Texas weather, and I did not see any rocks suitable for throwing laying around anywhere.

It appears to me that people must be bringing their own supply of rocks, which I think should be regulated by the government. A normal throwing supply should be somewhere between 8 and 10. A high capacity rock sack could probably hold up to 17 or 19.

Why would anyone need to have more than 10 rocks to defend themselves? Allowing then to use high capacity rock sacks would seem to endanger the public at large. I am sure that if this were to happen in America, politicans would be quick to make laws to limit rock sacks to the lower amount. I am sure the penalty would be quite large, and there would soon be a shortage of high capacity sacks, and there would be a supply shortage.

From the TV coverage last night where the streets were relatively smooth, todays view shows rocks to be at least 3" deep.

What 'ya think??

Re: High Capacity Rock Sacks

Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:51 pm
by RPB
When the new rock sack limitation bill reaches committee, we'll need to add that the low capacity rock sacks can't be easily modified by adding more material later to make them hi-caps.

Also they must be 80% recycled materials and be recyclable and not cause global warming, although today I could use some global warming.

Re: High Capacity Rock Sacks

Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:07 am
by StewNTexas
Okay, no more ironic posts from me. Thought this would go over way better than it did.

Re: High Capacity Rock Sacks

Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:57 pm
by RPB
StewNTexas wrote:Okay, no more ironic posts from me. Thought this would go over way better than it did.
Well, just don't let the anti-s remember that David only took 5 against Goliath, but only "needed" one
:biggrinjester:

Re: High Capacity Rock Sacks

Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:32 pm
by ZeeMan
RPB wrote:Well, just don't let the anti-s remember that David only took 5 against Goliath, but only "needed" one
:biggrinjester:

it's all about shot placement :anamatedbanana

Re: High Capacity Rock Sacks

Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:45 pm
by Mr.ViperBoa
RPB wrote:
StewNTexas wrote:Okay, no more ironic posts from me. Thought this would go over way better than it did.
Well, just don't let the anti-s remember that David only took 5 against Goliath, but only "needed" one
:biggrinjester:
He took 5 because Goliath had 4 brothers. One for each if they felt like jumping in.

Re: High Capacity Rock Sacks

Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:00 pm
by RPB
Mr.ViperBoa wrote:
RPB wrote:
StewNTexas wrote:Okay, no more ironic posts from me. Thought this would go over way better than it did.
Well, just don't let the anti-s remember that David only took 5 against Goliath, but only "needed" one
:biggrinjester:
He took 5 because Goliath had 4 brothers. One for each if they felt like jumping in.
More proof of the "deterrent effect" .... They didn't jump in ;-)

Re: High Capacity Rock Sacks

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:03 pm
by rmr1923
RPB wrote:
StewNTexas wrote:Okay, no more ironic posts from me. Thought this would go over way better than it did.
Well, just don't let the anti-s remember that David only took 5 against Goliath, but only "needed" one
:biggrinjester:
not sure what version of the story your book told, but in mine i'm pretty sure David did a double-tap... just to be sure