You didn't read what I said. Try reading the law instead, or even the charge. It's for being in the business of manufacturing explosives without a license. A license isn't needed to manufacture explosives. One is needed to manufacture them as a business venture. They are claiming since he got a little money from Youtube or viewers he was in the business and that was illegal.

This failed when they tried it with FPSRussia.

====== re: below due to throttling ======

>I think "I make explosives for YouTube revenue" falls squarely within the business territory.

Different than what you said initially which was merely making them, which is why I clarified.

>> Licensed manufacturer. A manufacturer licensed under this part to engage in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for his own use.

engaging in business of your own use is not same as non-business of your own use. It's not uncommon for a business to use explosives for their own use as course of operations. It is also not uncommon for people to synthesize and use tannerite recreationally without a license, legally, for non-business use.

>I did read what you said; that's why I quoted part of it.

If you read it then you know you maliciously selectively quoted it then. If that were the end of it and that made it legal, I would have stopped there, but you cut it off there because it was more convenient to your rebuttal to ignore the rest. I only thought you had not read it, because I was being charitable to try and assume good faith.

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I did read what you said; that's why I quoted part of it.

I think "I make explosives for YouTube revenue" falls squarely within the business territory.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/555.161

> Licensed manufacturer. A manufacturer licensed under this part to engage in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for his own use.

▲

ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If you read it then you know you maliciously selectively quoted it then.

No. I quoted one part that was just deeply goofy logic.

The presence of a video on YouTube is, quite simply, not evidence of the behavior in it being legal. YouTube is full of illegal shit.

	▲	mothballed 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The presence of a video on YouTube is, quite simply, not evidence of the behavior in it being legal. It is evidence of looser temporal relationship to the timing of the NOLA bombing, leaning more towards it released as general education rather than prepared for the NOLA bomber. Hence, supporting but not direct evidence of the behavior not violating the law regarding intentional instruction of terrorists. Therefore I assert it is relevant to the legality. It's only when you maliciously quote it out of context that you can misrepresent my argument to be the sole fact that it was on youtube for years means it is legal. The fact it's not sole direct evidence of being legal doesn't mean it's not useful accompanying information. >I quoted one part that was just deeply goofy logic. It was only deeply goofy logic when you isolated and then straw manned what I'd claimed. If you feel the need to save face, then sure. Simply saying "it was on youtube for years" does not mean something is legal. Though I don't think that was ever in contention.