Ahso!;1425655 wrote: It's already been said: "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Agreed, but what has that to do with this thread? No one had guns except the police.
Here's some good advice for you, Ahso:Ahso!;1425416 wrote: Try staying on topic.
Lock Down
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Lock Down
Try following along.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Lock Down
Ahso!;1425655 wrote: It's already been said: "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Try staying on track.
You said
Ahso!;1425655 wrote: Yeah, so the gun lobby can make the case that these two would have been caught or gunned down a lot sooner had Massachusetts had more LIBERAL gun laws. Phucking liberals.
Try staying on track.
You said
Ahso!;1425655 wrote: Yeah, so the gun lobby can make the case that these two would have been caught or gunned down a lot sooner had Massachusetts had more LIBERAL gun laws. Phucking liberals.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Lock Down
Ahso!;1425662 wrote: Try following along.
You're trying to pull the thread off topic and onto your little pet peeve. You have a dozen or so threads already dedicated to your hoplophobia. This is about a terrorist bombing.
You're trying to pull the thread off topic and onto your little pet peeve. You have a dozen or so threads already dedicated to your hoplophobia. This is about a terrorist bombing.
Lock Down
Accountable;1425665 wrote:
This is about a terrorist bombing.
Not strickly No it's not.
It is about the way a country that insists it's citizens remain free to arm themselves against tyranical government rolled onto their back like a puppy, while a military style police force ran riot through their town.
The 'Terrorist ' threat was really two disillussioned young Americans with roots elswhere.
A problem exacerbated by a show of arms, wouldn't you say ?
This is about a terrorist bombing.
Not strickly No it's not.
It is about the way a country that insists it's citizens remain free to arm themselves against tyranical government rolled onto their back like a puppy, while a military style police force ran riot through their town.
The 'Terrorist ' threat was really two disillussioned young Americans with roots elswhere.
A problem exacerbated by a show of arms, wouldn't you say ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Lock Down
pretty much. but that's TV for ya .
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Lock Down
Bruv;1425680 wrote: Not strickly No it's not.
It is about the way a country that insists it's citizens remain free to arm themselves against tyranical government rolled onto their back like a puppy, while a military style police force ran riot through their town.
The 'Terrorist ' threat was really two disillussioned young Americans with roots elswhere.
A problem exacerbated by a show of arms, wouldn't you say ?
If they had taken hostages I'd likely be agreeing with you. I agree with your description of the situation, but how was it exacerbated by a show of arms? I assume you mean by the police, since no one else showed any.
The biggest problem here, imo, is that the rest of the country is generally supportive of the police-state tactics. That wasn't exacerbated by a show of arms; it was revealed by it.
The young Americans would have been disillusioned with or without the show of arms.
It is about the way a country that insists it's citizens remain free to arm themselves against tyranical government rolled onto their back like a puppy, while a military style police force ran riot through their town.
The 'Terrorist ' threat was really two disillussioned young Americans with roots elswhere.
A problem exacerbated by a show of arms, wouldn't you say ?
If they had taken hostages I'd likely be agreeing with you. I agree with your description of the situation, but how was it exacerbated by a show of arms? I assume you mean by the police, since no one else showed any.
The biggest problem here, imo, is that the rest of the country is generally supportive of the police-state tactics. That wasn't exacerbated by a show of arms; it was revealed by it.
The young Americans would have been disillusioned with or without the show of arms.
Lock Down
The disillusionment is partly if not completely due to America's military stance throughout the world.
That stance is aimed at Muslim radicals, if you were a Chechen youth you might take it personal.
The sight of a para military police force searching for a muslim youth might recruit more disilussioned youth to the cause.
The use of military force has done the same everywhere else it has been used in the world.
That stance is aimed at Muslim radicals, if you were a Chechen youth you might take it personal.
The sight of a para military police force searching for a muslim youth might recruit more disilussioned youth to the cause.
The use of military force has done the same everywhere else it has been used in the world.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Lock Down
Accountable;1425687 wrote: If they had taken hostages I'd likely be agreeing with you. I agree with your description of the situation, but how was it exacerbated by a show of arms? I assume you mean by the police, since no one else showed any.
The biggest problem here, imo, is that the rest of the country is generally supportive of the police-state tactics. That wasn't exacerbated by a show of arms; it was revealed by it.
The young Americans would have been disillusioned with or without the show of arms.
When you say 'the rest of the country' , does that exclude the people of boston or are they riled up about this now? I really don't know , as I've been busy in the real world lately.:-3
I'm still trying to figure out what would have been the better response to the situation.
The biggest problem here, imo, is that the rest of the country is generally supportive of the police-state tactics. That wasn't exacerbated by a show of arms; it was revealed by it.
The young Americans would have been disillusioned with or without the show of arms.
When you say 'the rest of the country' , does that exclude the people of boston or are they riled up about this now? I really don't know , as I've been busy in the real world lately.:-3
I'm still trying to figure out what would have been the better response to the situation.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Lock Down
flopstock;1425691 wrote: When you say 'the rest of the country' , does that exclude the people of boston or are they riled up about this now? I really don't know , as I've been busy in the real world lately.:-3
I'm still trying to figure out what would have been the better response to the situation.
I can't comment on the majority of Bostonians, but the media portrayed them as being in full support of the lockdown.
As for a better response, Bruv has commented several times on how similar situations were handled without martial law. (I typed "marital law" twice before getting it right. Freudian? :yh_think)
I'm still trying to figure out what would have been the better response to the situation.
I can't comment on the majority of Bostonians, but the media portrayed them as being in full support of the lockdown.
As for a better response, Bruv has commented several times on how similar situations were handled without martial law. (I typed "marital law" twice before getting it right. Freudian? :yh_think)