Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh.

Pentagon Developed 'Laughing Bullets' 286

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the we-must-not-have-a-hysteria-gap dept.
plasmadroid writes "It might sound like a joke, but documents unearthed by New Scientist show that the Pentagon actually funded research into 'non-lethal' bullets that would also hit a target with a dose of laughing gas. That way, they'd not only be stunned but incapacitated by fits of giggles. Another idea was to put stink bombs inside rubber bullets. I guess it would work, but the idea of crowds of rioters giggling uncontrollably while being pelted with rubber bullets is truly bizarre..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pentagon Developed 'Laughing Bullets'

Comments Filter:
  • by east coast (590680) on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:35AM (#19716421)
    I know I laugh every time I pull the trigger.

    That's just the way we roll, in my hood.
  • freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flar2 (938689) on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:37AM (#19716441)
    The freest and most democratic country on Earth spends far too many of its resources on novel ways to control people.
    • Re:freedom? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Fizzl (209397) <fizzl@@@fizzl...net> on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:42AM (#19716499) Homepage Journal

      The freest and most democratic country on Earth

      LOL
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by JK124 (1116989)
        LOL LOL LOL! O Shit! I've been hit!
      • Re:freedom? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DrDitto (962751) on Monday July 02, 2007 @11:23AM (#19717817)
        In Germany you go to jail if you speak the words "the holocaust never happened".
    • Re:freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MarkPNeyer (729607) on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:51AM (#19716591)
      Would you rather they just used lead bullets when rioters take to the streets?
      • Re:freedom? (Score:4, Funny)

        by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:55AM (#19716647) Homepage Journal
        Obviously not, lead is toxic to the environment.
        • by Torvaun (1040898)
          Good point. Steel shot, like you have to use for hunting waterfowl around here.
        • by xENoLocO (773565) *
          Killing said environment's inhabitants would do far more for the environment's benefit than would the destructiveness of lead. ... did that make sense? That was way way out of my grammar league.
      • What happened to those wonderful water fountain trucks they used to use here? They were pretty efficient when it comes to cooling rioters down.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by soren100 (63191)

        Would you rather they just used lead bullets when rioters take to the streets?

        America is a very peaceful country -- we don't have "rioters taking the streets" every day, or every year, or even every decade. When was the last significant riot in America? . So "Rioters" is a straw-man argument. So why spend huge amounts of time, energy, money on a rare problem that actually costs less than the solution?

        "Political Protesters" is the target of these non-lethal systems. As Americans get more and more unhappy with the direction the country is taking, and it is becoming increasingly clea

    • Bullshit!! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The US currently spends about 4% of GDP on defense. That is a lot lower percentage than during the Cold War days.

      In other words, we have so many resources, we can spare it for military purposes. Don't forget, the US military is the de-facto security force for NATO, the UN, and countries like Japan and Korea.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I think you would find it interesting were you to read more on the Delian League (aka the Athenian Empire) [wikipedia.org]. There are some interesting parallels between the ancient Delian League and the post-Cold War United States of America, especially regarding political power structures, foreign policy, and economics. If you can get your hands on Thucydides' History, and read through the first half, you might find that especially educational.
  • ...Oblig (Score:5, Funny)

    by Karganeth (1017580) on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:38AM (#19716443)
    You can't have manslaughter without laughter!
  • I feel safer already (Score:5, Interesting)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:38AM (#19716459)
    Between stuff like this and a CIA who wasted millions of $ over 25 years on a program employing psychics [wikipedia.org] (I kid you not), don't you feel so much safer?

    I wonder who the lucky contractor is who is going to be making a fortune off this one? Must be nice to make big money and never have to deliver anything which actually works. We have a military that was having to jerry-rig their own humvee armour and raise money from their parents to buy decent body armour--while contractors like this play around with nitrous bullets and loudspeakers.

    • by Moraelin (679338) on Monday July 02, 2007 @10:17AM (#19716967) Journal
      The question is: would it even work? Or would those contractors get big bucks for possibly the dumbest idea in history?

      Laughing gas not only doesn't make people actually laugh, and certainly not in the minute quantities you can fit in a rubber bullet (doubly so considering that you'll aim at the chest, not pump the gas over their nose), it gets people euphoric (a sort of high, basically), might even cause slight halucinations, and it dulls the sensation of pain.

      So shoot enough of these in an angry crowd, and now you have a crowd that's (A) angrier, since you just shot at them, (B) manic enough to do dumber things than normally, and (C) a lot less sensitive to pain. Just so, you know, they won't be as deterred by further rubber bullets or tear gas or a police batton. It sounds to me like just what you need to turn some unruly demonstrators into an outright riot. Or an outright riot into hell broken loose.

      Especially B scares me. Being high even on nitrous oxide might just impair people's judgment just that tiny little bit needed to do something really dumb. Like "heehee, let's throw a big rock at the cops." Or "heehee, let's get their guns and shoot a bystander." Sure, it's no LSD, but we're talking the kind of situations where it often takes just a spark to go downhill fast. You might need just one guy getting over his inhibitions or thinking he saw or heard the awfully wrong thing, to spark everyone else into going berserk.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by isdnip (49656)
        Not only would it not work, but recall nitrous oxide's other chemical properties.

        It's a nitrogen compound. Lots of explosive potential. Indeed it can be made by carefully heating ammonium nitrate (see McVeigh, Timothy). But if you apply too much heat, the nitrous oxide can blow up too (see Oklahoma City). How you'd get that stuff to survive a bullet-ride intact is a bit of a mystery to me.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DeepHurtn! (773713)
        Y'know, the very stuff you describe may in fact be the point of the whole line of research. It would save their budget on agent provocateurs.
      • So shoot enough of these in an angry crowd, and now you have a crowd that's (A) angrier, since you just shot at them, (B) manic enough to do dumber things than normally, and (C) a lot less sensitive to pain. Just so, you know, they won't be as deterred by further rubber bullets or tear gas or a police batton. It sounds to me like just what you need to turn some unruly demonstrators into an outright riot. Or an outright riot into hell broken loose.Seems like this could actually be pretty usseful...

        Imagine su
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by badasscat (563442)
      Between stuff like this and a CIA who wasted millions of $ over 25 years on a program employing psychics (I kid you not), don't you feel so much safer?

      Non-lethal weapons are hardly a waste of money. Nor are they really intended to protect anybody but the people they're being fired at. That's the point - society has all the "protection" it needs provided by police and military using lead bullets, but are we still so barbaric that we want police to shoot lethal weapons into a group of college kids who had a
      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by grasshoppa (657393)
        Non-lethal weapons are hardly a waste of money. Nor are they really intended to protect anybody but the people they're being fired at. That's the point - society has all the "protection" it needs provided by police and military using lead bullets, but are we still so barbaric that we want police to shoot lethal weapons into a group of college kids who had a little too much to drink while celebrating their team's championship victory one night and end up a little too rowdy in the streets? Should the penalty
    • by Puls4r (724907)
      "Captain Picard, I sense he is full of doubt...., and he may be hiding someething he doesn't want us to know"
  • by borizz (1023175) on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:39AM (#19716463)
    The article claims that the bullets would be safe over the entire range. I wonder how they made the bullets strong enough to survive the force of being fired, but weak enough to disintegrate harmlessly when striking flesh at point blanc.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kiffer (206134)
      maybe they are only safe for the shooter, not the target...
    • by east coast (590680) on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:50AM (#19716581)
      Perhaps it's like a Simunition FX [wikipedia.org].

      And please, don't misunderstand the non-lethal aspect of the technology. Non-lethal doesn't mean harmless. These rounds would likely cause bruises and sometimes breaks of the skin. I guess it's still better then being dead.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by apparently (756613)
        And please, don't misunderstand the non-lethal aspect of the technology. Non-lethal doesn't mean harmless. These rounds would likely cause bruises and sometimes breaks of the skin. I guess it's still better then being dead.

        Acquantances of Victoria Snelgrove [wikipedia.org] might disagree with your definition of non-lethal.

        • by Dan Ost (415913) on Monday July 02, 2007 @10:51AM (#19717417)
          A baseball could cause the exact injuries that the pepper spray dispenser did to that poor girl.

          If we were to define non-lethal as not possible to kill someone with, we couldn't even define marshmallows as non-lethal due to their choking hazard.

          I would still rather get shot by a bean bag or teargas dispenser than a bullet or lead slug. Sure, it could kill me, but it is much less likely to.
          • I would still rather get shot by a bean bag or teargas dispenser than a bullet or lead slug. Sure, it could kill me, but it is much less likely to.

            The problem is that in any situation where they would have shot you, now that they have non-lethal weapons, they're.....still going to shoot you.

            So comparing the effects of lethal and non-lethal weapons is a pointless exercise, don't you think? You could compare non-lethal weapons to other methods of crowd control, or to negotiations. That might make more sense.

            • by Dan Ost (415913)
              How do you negotiate with a rioting mob?

              As for other non-lethal weapons, they all have their pros and cons. Water cannons, for example, can drown people. Tear gas can have horrible long-term effects on people who can't get away from it or where it's not sufficiently ventilated. Bean bags and batons can crush bones, wind pipes, and put out eyes. Tazers can be lethal to people with pacemakers or weak hearts.

              Even so, there are conditions where each one of these options is the optimal choice. Even when applied
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by eth1 (94901)
            "If we were to define non-lethal as not possible to kill someone with, we couldn't even define marshmallows as non-lethal due to their choking hazard."

            This is exactly why police departments, etc. don't ever refer to these things as "non-lethal" (at least not in an official manner). They're properly called "LESS-lethal."
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by east coast (590680)
          Not to downplay the deaths of people involved in these incidents because you're absolutely right; the term 'non-lethal' has been challenged time and time again because of instances such as this. Note that the Wikipedia article does refer to the technology as 'less-lethal' as is being adopted elsewhere.

          So, sure, you're right but the overall use of these technologies are certainly much better then an outright firefight or some of the more physical methods used in the past. If it weren't for the development o
      • Very true. The term "less lethal" seems more apropos.

        Good call on the Simunition. IIRC, they do require modifications to some weapons ( semi-automatic pistols require weaker recoil springs to handle the lower pressure rounds and still cycle ) so it seems less likely that overpenetration ( i.e. internal organ damage / broken bones ) would be a problem.

        Perhaps a similar paintball formula might be useful. Instead of paint, something mixed with dimethyl sulfoxide ( like GHB, Rohypnol, et. al. ) might make an
      • by c6gunner (950153)
        No, paintballs leave bruises, simmunition has a tendency to break skin quite nicely. Heck, I've seen it take chunks out of drywall and wooden doors, so I try to avoid getting hit with the stuff as much as possible.
    • They probably haven't. The supposedly safe rubber bullets which were used extensively in Northern Ireland as partof crowd/riot control measures still managed to kill quite a lot of people, particularly those shot in the head or at close range, not to mention all the serious injuries caused.
    • That's why the project died in 2002. This is old news. Anything fired from a rifle at close range is likely to have some lethal characteristics.
    • Almost all bullets have a 'jacket' which protects them from deforming during the discharge and focuses the explosion. It gets cast off almost immediately.

      Also the range could be set as 10 meters to 200 meters...

      Also 'harmlessly' does not mean 'without effect'. You can propel anything at 100 MPH and it's going to cause some damage....
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by djh101010 (656795) *

        Almost all bullets have a 'jacket' which protects them from deforming during the discharge and focuses the explosion. It gets cast off almost immediately.

        OK, I just burned 5 mod points by responding to this, but, What the Hell are you talking about? Jacketed bullets don't "cast off" anything. The copper jacket is to keep it from deforming in the barrel and in flight, and to control expansion when it hits the target.

        The only thing you could possibly mean is a "sabot", which is a usually plastic "shoe" type thing that is very occasionally used to protect the bullet from the rifling of the barrel, and that does fall off early in the flight of the bullet. B

  • The Joker (Score:5, Funny)

    by boristdog (133725) on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:39AM (#19716471)
    The Joker is working for DARPA now?
  • Paintball fills (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Baljet (547995) on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:40AM (#19716481)
    I thought the use of paintballs filled with CS gas and permanent markers was already fairly wide spread by law enforcement...
    • I thought the use of paintballs filled with CS gas

      I live in Deep Ellum, an arts/entertainment district in Dallas. The cops here have used mace filled paint balls for crowd control in the past. After last call the clubs would empty into the streets and everyone would just be milling about drunk and ready to fight ( we use to have a pretty bad gang problem in the neighborhood ). The cops would roll up on bikes and shoot a barrage of mace at everyone's feet to get them moving. mace sucks.
  • by trolltalk.com (1108067) on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:41AM (#19716489) Homepage Journal

    Now THAT had me laughing ... except for the price tag - $7.5 million. I guess they wanted to add a whole new meaning to the term "comrades-in-arms."

    http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.h tml [cbs5.com]

    Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'

    (CBS 5) BERKELEY A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

    Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb. Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

    As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."

    The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

    "The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviewing the documents.

    "The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.

    The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994.

    "The Department of Defense is committed to identifying, researching and developing non-lethal weapons that will support our men and women in uniform," said a DOD spokesperson, who indicated that the "gay bomb" idea was quickly dismissed.

    However, Hammond said the government records he obtained suggest the military gave the plan much stronger consideration than it has acknowledged.

    "The truth of the matter is it would have never come to my attention if it was dismissed at the time it was proposed," he said. "In fact, the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to promote non-lethal weapons, and in fact they submitted it to the highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider."

    Military officials insisted Friday to CBS 5 that they are not currently working on any such idea and that the past plan was abandoned.

    Gay community leaders in California said Friday that they found the notion of a "gay bomb" both offensive and almost laughable at the same time.

    "Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction," said Geoff Kors of Equality California. "So, it's just offensive that they think by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of doing their job. And its absurd because there's so much medical data that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be changed."

    • "The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another,"

      Why would that change anything? Seems that someone at Ohio Air Force lab hasn't heard of Alexander the Great or The Sacred Band of Thebes [wikipedia.org]. Now IF a gay bomb could be developed, I think the resulting gay army would probably be more effective against those homophobes in Pen
    • by tukkayoot (528280)
      This is what came to mind for me to well, as well as the also previously mentioned forays of the CIA into physic espionage, the MKULTRA efforts at brainwashing and mind control, etc.

      I see it as a symptom of the scientific illiteracy pervasive in our culture, which apparently penetrates the military and our "intelligence" agencies to some degree.

      We pay for an educational system does tries only weakly to teach of vital critical thinking skills and the basic methodologies and facts of science (and in some ways
      • Think of the stakes involved. I'm sure some portion of their budget is slated for "very benefical but very unlikely" projects. For instance, if they thought they could make a satellite that could read thoughts from space, and it only cost $15 million to run a feasibility study, what % chance do you think they would need to make it a wise investment?

        I'd probably say that ability is worth (depending on the accuracy) at least $60 billion, so at least 0.025% chance of success. When you think like that, it's

    • They also had a confetti howitzer round, whoopee cushion humvee seat, and google eyes nightvision goggles in the works. A certain Gen. Cheaplaffs was in charge of DARPA at the time.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    "Laughing Gas" won't incapacitate you from fits of laughter. It's a hypnotic agent.

    Actually quite a good idea for a payload if the delivery system works.
    • If the delivery system is a can of Reddy Whip, I can tell you from experience that it works. Well, actually not me, but I knew these guys in school that used to sneak in the cafeteria cooler...
    • We can probably thank cartoons (Loony Toons in particular) and one of the Lethal Weapon movies for perpetuating this myth. I wouldn't even really call it a hypnotic agent. It's an anesthetic...it tends to make you really lightheaded and groggy. I've only had it twice, both right before a complicated dental procedure like a root canal. I guess some people can get giggly when they get lightheaded/groggy...but that's a function of that person, not the "laughing gas". They'd get just as giggly when really
  • Hee Hee Hee (Score:5, Funny)

    by SEWilco (27983) on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:44AM (#19716517) Journal

    crowds of rioters giggling uncontrollably
    They're called "Jokerz [wikipedia.org]".
  • I don't know if any other /.ers have been dosed with the stuff, but nitrous oxide didn't make me laugh. Rather, I just felt like I was wrapped in cotton batting and floating, yet fully awake and able to move[1]. Maybe the dental assistant just did a good job of getting the level right.

    [1] Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike being drunk.
    • by e2d2 (115622)
      "laughing gas" is kind of a misnomer, it won't give you a fit of giggles, as anyone that's ever done "hippy crack" out of a balloon at a dead concert can attest to. It's a serious mind numbing, almost complete euphoria.

  • "Laughing gas" isn't (Score:5, Informative)

    by CoolVibe (11466) on Monday July 02, 2007 @09:53AM (#19716625) Journal
    Nitrous Oxide, also known as "Laughing gas" does not make people laugh. Read more here on WikiPedia [wikipedia.org].
  • by SirStanley (95545) on Monday July 02, 2007 @10:00AM (#19716717) Homepage
    The Stink Bomb Bullets Project was scrapped because of the ineffectiveness against Hippies.
  • The celebrated British artist drew one of his comic sketches exactly about this during the 1914-18 war.
  • Cast Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter.
  • If a person breathes Nitrous Oxide mixed with air, he generally neither laughs or loses consciousness. A combatant would have to get several unadulterated lungfuls of N20 to pass out, and then would recover within a minute. How useless would this be as a weapon? How stupid can some in the military be? (I suspect the answer to both questions may be the same.)

    By the way, in light doses N2O is an analgesic. That's right, help the enemy endure their aches and pains!

    Geez we are talking bright here.

    • by db32 (862117)
      Whoa whoa whoa now. Let me point out VERY clearly here that the vast majority of the military is not this stupid. The ones that ARE this stupid tend to be the senior officers and government officials that make these retarded decisions to go through with these kind of idiot plans. The problem is due to the structure when one General (who by the way, like all other officers are college graduates) makes a dumb ass choice like this, it effectively causes everyone underneath him in the chain related to that p
  • by rlp (11898) on Monday July 02, 2007 @10:19AM (#19716991)
    From the "Killer Joke" skit:

    "All through the winter of '43 we had translators working, in joke-proof conditions, to try and produce a German version of the joke. They worked on one word each for greater safety. One of them saw two words of the joke and spent several weeks in hospital. But apart from that things went pretty quickly, and we soon had the joke by January, in a form which our troops couldn't understand but which the Germans could".
  • I can just see the hippies have one more reason to want to start a protest. Can't you just picture them fighting to see who can be in front when the police start using those! We might as well be pummeling them with baggies of mj and poppy seeds!
  • by bigattichouse (527527) on Monday July 02, 2007 @10:24AM (#19717057) Homepage
    Can't you see the rioting/giggling meme is just part of the viral marketing for the next Batman movie!?!?
  • http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.h tml [cbs5.com]

    The Pentagon sought to build a "gay bomb" that would turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and thus reduce a potent military force into a twisting pile of sweating, spurting young men.

    Anyone else seem concerned that the Pentagon is hitting up the Joker for ideas?
  • Prior Art (Score:5, Interesting)

    by delete (514365) on Monday July 02, 2007 @10:48AM (#19717371)
    Conclusive proof, as if it were needed, that Monty Python were ahead of their time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IysnS5wO60g [youtube.com]
  • by dwheeler (321049) on Monday July 02, 2007 @10:55AM (#19717469) Homepage Journal
    That project needs to be stopped right away. What's the use of just temporarily incapacitating people? We need to make sure that anyone on the other end of the gun is dead, dead, dead, so we can forever enjoy the sorrow of their wives, children, and parents! Weeee! (boggle!)

    For the sarcasm-impaired: The previous paragraph is obviously lunacy. Since it's lunacy, I think having non-lethal alternatives is a GOOD idea. Foes of yesterday may be friends tomorrow (think Japan of WW II, etc.), so even if you're in a war, you may NOT need to kill your foe. It'd be great to avoid killing in many cases. Wouldn't it be great if there were LESS carnage in the future, not MORE? Wouldn't it be great if after a confrontation, most wives / children / parents got their loved ones back?!?

    Now this particular approach may not be very effective; maybe another one needs to be investigated instead. The term "non-lethal" is misleading; they DO kill occasionally (they just kill less often), and since they kill sometimes, they need to be reserved for serious situations the way lethal approaches are. That said, if you do not NEED to kill all your foes, having a "mostly non-lethal" alternative would be WAY better than the "mostly lethal" approach we have now.

    Yes, there's a risk that non-lethal approaches would be employed to create a police state. But you can have police states with lethal approaches too, and in fact, I'd argue that lethal approaches are more effective at countering civilians. Dead civilians don't try again. If there's a non-lethal approach, the civilians can try again later, something you can't say about lethal approaches.

    • It'd be great to avoid killing in many cases.

      Yes, shoot-to-injure is a great strategy in traditional warfare -- your enemy must expend resources on treating injured personnel, plus injured or disabled troops returning home are a great morale buster.

      But you can have police states with lethal approaches too, and in fact, I'd argue that lethal approaches are more effective at countering civilians.

      I disagree. If police can use lethal force, there is much more objection to the use of that force -- this leads

  • by Guerilla* Napalm (762317) on Monday July 02, 2007 @11:02AM (#19717559) Homepage
    to the laughing gas version, they're also working on a bullet filled with laxatives - but that story was probably started for shits and giggles. *** I'll get my things ***
  • I would think there would be a risk of overdose.
  • Someone should tell them that Warner Brothers' cartoons lied to them. 'Laughing gas' doesn't really work that way. I'd think they'd have gotten less naive about drug names after all those years of disappointment with the anticlimactic effects of sodium pentothol 'truth serum'.
  • If they can get them smarty-pants scientists to figure out how to make emo bullets, all of the enemy combatants will come out all depressed and demoralized.
  • Lord knows they need a sense of humor.

  • Of course before they use this they'll have to warn the crowd.

    "Don't try anything funny, or you'll be laughing for sure"

    Let's see, the Islamic terrorists are working on shemical and nuclear weapons and we're working on -- ways to make them laugh and become gay? What then, are they supposed to want to stop fighting and start redecorating their houses?

    Try as I might, I just can't see John Wayne hosing down a group with a bunch of funny bullets.

    "Stop right there, partner, or I'm going to make you laugh like yo

Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two.

Working...