I won't be the least bit surprised to discover this perpetrator ends up
being an -- Anti-Government, Patriot wanna-be, honoring
the Battle of Lexington and Concord, by using a blackpowered homemade IED,
[pipebomb],seeking to sound a "shot heard 'round the world",
Can't take away MY right to bear any arms I want!, "Boston" Tea-Partier.It "shouldn't" destroy
our Freedoms, but those thinking they are defending Freedom and the
Constitution -- are actually the very one's trampling it faster than any
outside force possilbe ever could.
Agree!Now, I assume you also believe that horrific deeds by crazy
people should not be an excuse for destroying some of our other freedoms?Freedom comes with risks, and few guarantees as to safety, but not
everyone wants to give up liberty for some temporary security.
I agree. They 'win' when we react out of fear. Like we do at the
airport. Every time something like this happens I compare our reaction with the
steadfast stoic resolve of London during the IRA attacks in the 70's, or
even during the recent subway attacks.
To "battle this evil without abandoning what it holds dear", we will
have to "battle" our own governments, because we abandoned many of those
dear things long ago.
OlderGregUSA, CATo "battle this evil without abandoning what it
holds dear", we will have to "battle" our own governments,... -------It's thoughts like THAT that led to Timothy
McVeigh and the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing, and quite possibly this one
"On days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats," Obama said.
"We are Americans united in concern for our fellow citizens."Since FOX won't directly quote Obama...
How shameful that this tragedy will be exploited by those how actually seek to
destroy traditional American values. They will use the cry of "freedom"
to push for fewer restrictions on violent forms of entertainment. They will
scream that the public must have the freedom to view violent movies and play
violent video games. Hopefully, the general public will not fall for
these false references to freedom. When a society abandons restrictions on
violence and wanton sexual conduct, it actually places itself in bondage to the
resulting disease, crime, and broken families.Let us all resolve to
honor true freedom and the victims of this terrible tragedy by resolving to
abandon violent and sexually explicitly forms of entertainment. Instead, we must
return to the values that made this Country great, such as fidelity, honor,
chastity, and peacefulness.
@john charity spring funny that you would find it shameful for others to
use it as a platform for their agendas but then go on to do exactly that.
In the early 90s I used to travel to the UK on business often. While there, I
would stay with a friend who lived in Cevent Gardens section of London.... and
twice there were bombings like this. Once a Pub was bombed, another a bus stop.
The Brits were amazing in their resolve in not letting those who
would try to shape opinion and policy through acts of terrorism was amazing.
They did the tight british upper lip thing, and would not dignify the acts,
validating those horrific acts.I worry that in todays news hungry
world that ratings will eclipse the need to not encourgae or give air to those
who seek to exploit our feers. Today was a horrific act of cowardess. Patriots
used to give their own lives to achieve the greater good. These cowards take
others lives - forcing the sacrifce on others. Who ever they are - they are
weak and cowards.May the people of Boston stand united that they
will not be scared into reacting to these people. May they not bend to those
who would use violence and the sacrifice of others to gain their political ends.
Sole is to put yourself in someone else's shoes. I sympathizes with the
@ Open minded Mormon. Nice speculation on your part but have you considered it
might be a dope smoking, occupy Wall Street, Godless secular progressive that do
not know that good and evil are not relative, that they are accountable to no
one therefore who's life has no meaning, no purpose and therefore killing
people is the only way he can be "somebody" like Jared Loughner, Adam
Lanza, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine)? Or have you considered it
might turn out to be Al Qaida who hates and is at war with America precisely
because of Godless secular progressives? Now please remember to "keep an
open mind", right?
Our first concern should be for the people who were injured, their families and
the families of those who died. Have we remembered them in our
supplications?Then, we must not allow any level of government to use
terrorism to inhibit our liberties. We, the people of the United States, must
use our own eyes and our own ears to see those among us who cause fear and harm.
We must not allow the government to use this as an excuse to listen to our
conversations, to restrict our movements, to open our email or to infringe on
any liberty in any way. There is always a "trail" in any
crime. Those in law enforcement have the tools and the training to follow that
"trail". The criminals will be caught and they must be prosecuted, but
we must never let criminals cause us to run to government for security. Too many
corrupt politicians will embrace our fear as they make laws to take away our
@Mike So then you do plan to shamelessly use this as a platform?
Any rhetoric to the contrary, we are vulnerable to terrorist attacks and we will
remain so. We will have to trade some of our privacy rights to enhance public
safety. Maybe we should follow the London example and install surveillance
cameras in the downtown sections of our major cities.
The worst part of these disasters is that we never get to know the reason
why.It almost seems that the political propagandist like it that
way. They are free to spin the cause to their advantage. I find it
very incongruous that we place so much attention to the killing of people for
political reasons and very little attention to the killing of people by business
malfunction. We will spend millions of dollars to apprehend,
convict and punish the people who put the bombs in Boston along with other
millions of dollars of media coverage. Yet we know the people
responsible for the deaths of people by peanut butter, spinach and bad medicine
and have not seen any of them properly punished for ignoring the regulations of
our government. I think it was the cable news that said the Dentist
who use the unsanitary tools, might lose his license to practice.
I think that we need immediate legislation to ban bombs, right now. Oh wait.
We already have laws against bombs. Hmmm. Someone set two off without regards
to the law. Maybe we need a background check to keep bombs out of the hands of
law abiding citizens. Oh wait. Law abiding citizens are not going aroung
posessing bombs. Only criminals and terrorists.I'm guessing
that Open Minded Mormon is way off base. But keep living the dream.
MountanmanHayden, IDMike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah=======Time to but your rhetoric to the Constitutional
test...Just curious, Are you both willing to stick your necks
out and defend this nut-jobs 2nd amdendment "right" to keep and bear
bombs?Just so long as he doesn't blow anybody up?
@ airnaut aka openminded mormon aka lds liberal,What is your
solution? Would you live in jail so that the government can lock
you up safe from anyone who would harm you? Would you give up your
firearms because the government told you that only they had the right to keep
and bear arms? Would you give up your privacy because the government
wanted to listen to your conversations?You are advocating all of the
above when you mock the citizens of this nation who are free from government
oversight; free from government infringements; free from bureaucrats telling
them when they can travel, where they can go, what they can do.Laws
are on the books the restrict "bombs". You know that. You know that
those laws were broken in the Boston bombing, yet you mock honest citizens who
understand that they must speak responsibly against corrupt politicians who use
any excuse to take away our rights and that they must speak against ignorant
citizens who misunderstand their personal responsibility to defend our rights
against government intrusion.The Boston bombing was against the law.
The law did not stop the bomber(s). Government restrictions did not stop the
Why would it destroy our freedoms?My hunch is that this was a homegrown
terror act similar to McVey and OKC. During the Clinton years the nut jobs
formed thousands of militias to combat the federal government. Same thing is
happening during Obama's administration.A repub in the White House
can get away with anything without the far right even paying attention but once
a Dem is in the White House the extremists want to mix it up.If they find
the person who did this, I would wager it would be an anti-government militia
member who was quite happy when Bush gave us the Patriot Act.
Words are inadequate in describing the Boston tragedy. We are left with our
thoughts and prayers in behalf of those who suffer.The bombing
brings into sharp focus the horror of violence. While violence in theory may
appeal to some either as a weapon used aggressively or as a deterrent, in
reality, as we see in Boston, it is abhorrent in every regard and a marker of
the worst of times.Might this give us pause in our advocacy of
unlimited guns in America.
I fear we will become inured to such events, just as we have become inured to
violent gunshot deaths all around us all the time.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah@ airnaut aka openminded mormon aka
lds liberal,What is your solution? ========== Um - something called "restrictions".For example --
Keeping track as to who buys what.Someone walking in and buying 40 pounds
of black powder should at least be questioned as to why.You can buy
dynamite, but there are restrictions [what for, how much].You can buy
Pseduophed, but there are restitictions [what for, how much].Because
those over the counter purchase can be used for bad purposes.You and
your "shall not be infringed" for anyone for anything just allows whack
hobs like this to get away with murder.-----You this
everytime Mike -- you deflect and NEVER answer a direct question.It's your way of not incriminating yourself.Now please --
AGAIN, Are you both willing to stick your neck out and defend this
nut-job's 2nd amdendment "right" to keep and bear bombs?Your comments for months have been saying - Yes indeed.You've never
said you'd protect my "right" to keep and bear biological, chemical
or nuclear bombs...I just double-dog-dare you to "man-up",
show some integrity and stand by your comments and say so now.
lds liberal Are you in favor of putting yellow stars on all
"right wingers"? Would that make you feel better?
Regimes always use terrorism as a weapon to dispose of their political
@John Charity SpringsSo, on one hand the constitution is a god given
document that we must follow. On the other hand, ahhhhhh, that freedom of speech
thing, lets get rid of it. Couple of thoughts on that, the same freedom to
produce violent video games and movies is lumped in with religious freedom. For
better or worse, it's all in the 1st Amendment. The other thing I
don't get is why the 2nd amendment is some idea that must be protected at
all cost, with no restrictions whatsoever, but the 1st is only a good idea when
you agree with the opinion being expressed.
@ LDS LiberalFarmington, UT Definitely not Timothy McVeigh
level of thinking. My "battle" was in quotes. Think in
terms of public discourse, ballots, letters to politicians-- newspapers --
@Open Minded Mormon,Your "question" deserves no answer.
When you change the "right to keep and bear arms" to the right to keep
and bear bombs you are being both ludicrous and infantile. You mock the lives
that were lost and the injuries received when an impotent government could not
detect nor stop another terrorist attack on Americans in America.Diverting attention away from that bombing is not what a patriot would do nor
is it something that helps any American understand what he duty is to protect
himself and his family against any and all who would hurt him or them.We look to the police for protection but they can only be in one place at one
time and they can only respond to danger when they are made aware of that
danger. Our borders are not secure. Terrorists are inside the
borders of our nation. The TSA searches little old ladies but lets pass anyone
who fits the profile of a terrorist so that they are "politically
correct". The government has failed to do its job, yet you
demand that the government oversee our safety. Will you ever learn?
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah@Open Minded Mormon,Your
"question" deserves no answer.========= Mike --
Yes or No?
Definition of arms: noun, weapons and ammunition; armaments.I
don't see arms as specific to guns mike, and remember the rockets red
glare, bombs bursting in air?The constitution doesn't specify
so one must use common sense, right? or else LDS Lib is correct and his right to
bear arms, even bombs and drones, is being infringed upon.Like an
earlier commenter said, "why is the only time the word "regulation"
is used in the constitution, it's in reference to the 2nd Amendment?Because the founders expected that common sense would be used, not just
your interpretation set in concrete.
are you really calling others out for being deceptive through the use of
multiple sign ins Mike J White?
Happy Valley Heretic, you are absolutely correct. Arms very much includes, by
definition, all weapons, all amunition, all armament. (Armament, Arms, get
it?)ar·ma·ment /ˈärməmənt/NounMilitary weapons and equipment: "chemical weapons and other
unconventional armaments".The process of equipping military forces for
war.Synonymsarming - arms - weaponryIt is actually a
very reasonable question that has been asked of Richards. And all people who
insist on a literal reading of the constitution in all areas. The second is
clearly saying that the people have a right to all arms. And yet that was
written with an 18th century understanding of Arms. The drafters of the
Constitution saw absolutely no problem with people owning muzzle loading
muskets, or even cannons. Or, frankly, even the most powerful explosives of the
day: gunpowder. They had no understanding of the type of Arms we
would be dealing with today. So this puts conservatives in a bind.
If they admit that the 2nd allows regulation of some Arms, then the only
question is: where is the line drawn?