Boston Marathon Explosions

[carlfense]

Its perfectly relevant because how on earth would you know what LEO's or soldiers deal with on a day to day basis?

How on earth would you know what the US Constitution means? You don't deal with it on a day to day basis.

 

. . . I wouldn't be as disrespectful as to tell you that you're not very good at your job.

I can't recall saying that.

 

What if I told you that you we're a sh*tty husband and father?

I'd defer to my wife on the former . . . and if I'm a father I'm admittedly a sh*tty one because I'm completely unaware of it . . .

 

How is that different from what you said to BRI?

Because I have a clearly articulable reason for saying what I said. A police officer who says that a US citizen who is accused of (and almost certainly committed) a crime "deserves no rights" should take a step back and reevaluate. BRI subsequently explained his thoughts in more detail.

 

Now on what basis would you say that I'm a sh*tty husband and father?

 

There's your difference.

 

I expect better of you Carl...

I don't really know why you would expect better of me.

[walksalone]

How on earth would you know what the US Constitution means? You don't deal with it on a day to day basis.

 

I swore to defend it, how about you?

[QMany]

How on earth would you know what the US Constitution means? You don't deal with it on a day to day basis.

I swore to defend it, how about you?

If he is a Nebraska licensed attorney, yes he did.

You do solemnly swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this state . . .

[StPaulHusker]

How on earth would you know what the US Constitution means? You don't deal with it on a day to day basis.

 

I swore to defend it, how about you?

Besides, there are only 27 amendments if you count the Bill of Rights. Not hard to know some things about it even if not dealt with on a daily basis

[StPaulHusker]

How on earth would you know what the US Constitution means? You don't deal with it on a day to day basis.

I swore to defend it, how about you?

If he is a Nebraska licensed attorney, yes he did.

You do solemnly swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this state . . .

No to nitpick but support and defend are very different

[QMany]

How on earth would you know what the US Constitution means? You don't deal with it on a day to day basis.

I swore to defend it, how about you?

If he is a Nebraska licensed attorney, yes he did.

You do solemnly swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this state . . .

No to nitpick but support and defend are very different

Good point, this is true. Some are choosing to "defend" it but don't "support" it.

[StPaulHusker]

No argument from me

[carlfense]

How on earth would you know what the US Constitution means? You don't deal with it on a day to day basis.

I swore to defend it, how about you?

Which doesn't mean that you were required to understand it.

 

Keep in mind that I'm not actually saying that you need to be an attorney to have a valid opinion on the US Constitution. I'm trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to make a point.

 

But hey, if you'd like to play "who has done more to keep their community/state/country safe" I'm game.

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require background checks to be run on anyone buying explosive powder, a reaction to last week's Boston Marathon bombing.

 

Reid introduced the bill, S. 792, for Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who has been out sick for much of the year. But in a press statement, Lautenberg said the Boston bombing shows that background checks are needed for explosive materials.

 

"It defies common sense that anyone, even a terrorist, can walk into a store in America and buy explosive powders without a background check or any questions asked," Lautenberg said Tuesday. "Requiring a background check for an explosives permit is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of our communities.

Read more: http://thehill.com/b...s#ixzz2RPXPBvip

 

 

Ok.....

 

Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev walked into a New Hampshire fireworks store two months before his deadly attack and asked for the “biggest and loudest” kit — then got another set for free, the Daily News has learned.

 

In a chilling twist, the company that sold Tamerlan the fireworks is the same one that sold Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad the firecrackers he used to build his failed car bomb.

 

The fireworks Tsarnaev bought contained about 3 pounds of black powder — enough, experts say, to build one of the two pressure-cooker bombs he triggered at the Boston Marathon on April 15.

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1325504

 

 

Wait, what? So we're gonna require background checks on fireworks now?

 

Come the f#*k on....

 

 

Anything to protect the citizens.

So stupid. It is much easier to obtain black powder in ways other than tearing apart 1000 fireworks.

[Someone]

I think it fair to refer to it as silence. In some cases, some leaders will publically condemn these types of acts but I have not witnessed a widly held condemnation and it never seems to rise to the level of the gravity of the situation. I want to feel bad that the good are being lumped in with the bad but they sure aren't doing much to help their cause. It's easy to see how people can blur that line when it's not all that distinct of a line.

Whatever the motive of a terrorist is, it isn't important. In fact, it's the least important thing. What matters is not giving creedence to the effort that this individual is and not giving any concession to that person's cause. Terrorism can be defeated by not changing our daily lives or our viewpoints. They WANT us to freak out; we must not do so. Boston absolutely won. Destroyed the terrorist motives. Flying colors.

 

Unfortunately for the good Muslims, the majority of terrorists so far have turned out to be bad Muslims. Hopefully that group will figure their sh#t out before sh#t is figured out for them.

 

Not to undermine your argument which I agree with, but motive should be of significant important to counter-terrorism efforts.

 

Motive should be the most important thing, but when was the last time you saw a buddist run on to a bus with a suicide vest? It just happens that the "bad" Muslims are the group usually invovled in terroristic acts, it gives the rest of those that are Muslim a bad name.

 

What is a bit baffling to me though, are those Muslims that are peaceful, appear not to be as proactive about trying to "clear" their names, for lack of a better term. If I was Muslim, and these a'holes were running around, doing horrible things, giving my belief system a bad name, I'd want to do something about it....

I would like to see the Mullahs and Imans in the US and issue a statement against this form of "jihad". If it is not in line with main stream Islam, then speak out, condemn. Silence looks like acceptance..................

The statements above seem consistant with wearing blinders.

 

Use Google and look for Muslim Group Speaks out against violence.

 

Then do the same search on Fox News.

 

Any person who tries this will see that the later doesn't seem to cover the many. many examples found in the former.

 

I don't know where some people both get their news, but it might be filtered.

[knapplc]

Friendly reminder that we're discussing TOPICS, not the people we're talking to, here.

 

If your post contains a lot of "you," you may want to re-think what you're writing. Personal stuff doesn't belong in this forum, including analyses of our fellow HuskerBoard members.

[carlfense]

Friendly reminder that we're discussing TOPICS, not the people we're talking to, here.

Noted.

 

Here's a kid/dog gif to lighten the mood.

[walksalone]

How on earth would you know what the US Constitution means? You don't deal with it on a day to day basis.

I swore to defend it, how about you?

Which doesn't mean that you were required to understand it.

 

Keep in mind that I'm not actually saying that you need to be an attorney to have a valid opinion on the US Constitution. I'm trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to make a point.

 

But hey, if you'd like to play "who has done more to keep their community/state/country safe" I'm game.

 

I don't have to play it, I've been there, done that, and I own the t-shirt.

 

But what you still failed to understand is that how can you tell somebody they're not doing a good job, when you've never done the job yourself? You don't understand a man until you walked a mile in his moccasins.

 

Sorry for going off topic, I apologize, but this is just something I feel strongly about.

[Ziggy]

Breaking news, Female DNA has been supposedly found on parts of the bombs.....

[zoogs]

It wouldn't shock me if other people used those pressure cookers for cooking before they were turned into bombs.