You remind me of fatherjohn…
Christ on a pogo stick, you *know *how. They effectively turned *themselves *in before *any *forensics *could *have led to them.
Do you think this particular case is the *last *one there will ever be involving a gunpowder bomb? Or that bombers will *always *come out of hiding before they can be found by other means? So that there will never be any value in any future case from having more evidence for law enforcement to work with? That’s the only set of premises that allows your oppositionism to make any sense at all.
If you don’t think that, then why do you want to help murderers? :rolleyes:
No, I skipped by every other post in breathless anticipation of your immense wisdom and brilliant observations.
:rolleyes:
Yes, I read it and, surprisingly enough, you still appear to be a prime example of what the OP was pitting.
I am agnostic on taggants, I have nothing to hide and as long as you can prove that it will not impede the function of gunpowder or make it noticably more expensive, I don’t think they are effective but I don’t really give a shit. But how did they effectively turn themselves in before wwe knew who they were? I mean we had pipctures of them, we may not have had their names but I don’t see how taggants would have led to an earlier arrest.
I agree. The idea that they “turned themselves in” (with or without the weasel word “effectively”) is laughable. We had very good forensic evidence, eg. video, and if the police didn’t know their identities before they recovered Tamerlan, they would have had their names shortly-- their pics were being broadcast everywhere and there were plenty of local folks who knew them. Tamerlan was even on an FBI terror watch list.
There was a carjacking and a shootout. You might have heard something about it. :rolleyes:
John, for just once, can you *please *consider posting something both accurate and constructive? Or even one of those things? That would be much appreciated, thanks.
What was inaccurate about what I posted?
If you think I always post inaccurate and meaningless shit, put me on ignore, amigo. Otherwise, STFU.
Ms Maddow had a segment on that very point, in that he is also on the “no fly” list.
Now, she went totally overboard, I gotta admit. Really setting her up for a shellacking, because she said some whack shit.
I don’t know what she had been smoking, but she said that regardless of this status, Tamerlan could legally purchase weapons, ammo, and 50lbs of black powder gunpowder. Without even so much as a hint of a background check. Current estimates are that the Crock Pots from Hell had about three pounds each.
I most likely won’t be back, it pains me to see her crazy ass story ripped to shreds, so I will avert my eyes…
But hey! You guys? Don’t say I never gave you anything, here’s your chance to gloat your asses off!
He was on the T.I.D.E. list.
It’s a rather large list, but I’m not sure that just being on that list is enough to deny someone their constitutional rights. For instance, would we want the FBI to be able wiretap their phones without a warrant?
Also, keep in mind that the younger brother was on no such list, and was a US citizen, so he could’ve bought any of the at stuff TIDE or no TIDE for Tamarlan.
Still waiting for Elvis to tell me what was inaccurate in my post. Not holding my breath on that one…
Well that’s very reassuring, John! You see, when I heard it I thought it was totally nuts, and couldn’t possibly be true, just some of that wild-eyed gun grabber propaganda. Imagine my relief that it all makes perfect sense, and is the price we are privileged to pay for our well regulated militia. Wheew! Load off my mind, I can tell you!
I don’t get your meaning. Is it just the 2nd amendment that you want the FBI to ignore in this case, or can they throw out the entire constitution?
I’m as happy as the next guy to scrap the 2nd amendment, by amending the constitution. I’m not happy to give the FBI license to ignore any parts of the constitution.
Its a larger and somewhat non-specific point, John, that we have reasoned ourselves into a place where we accept what ought to be unacceptable. Why, no, we can’t do this, and no, we can’t do that other thing. We can’t demand background checks for weapons and such because of the slippery slope. Can’t restrict extravagantly designed ammunition magazines because it may take 30 rounds if you’re hunting Bambi’s mom with a Glock. Assault weapons? Oh, you better believe that’s a slippery slope.
Around the world, other people stare at us in stunned amazement. We have accepted and encouraged an armed and violent culture as if Deadwood were the Shining City on the Hill. And we talk about it with calm reasonability, as if we were discussing the country revenue plan for library hours.
Vast majorities of us want Something Done, and the Something to Do is as mild and tepid as yesterdays dishwater. And we can’t do it. With all our High Broderism and non-partisan reasoning, we can’t get anything done. Not the least little thing.
If that’s normal, John, keep it. I’ll maybe move a little further out on the radical and abnormal edge, to avoid contamination if nothing else.
Hahahaha. I’m not sure that you understand what the term, “turned themselves in” means, effectively or not.
Releasing pictures of monster #1 and #2 to the public certainly helped in the CAPTURE of these “alleged” murderers. Relying on information supplied by the public, and the stupidity of the two monsters (HEY! We’re the two assholes who murdered innocent people because they were watching the Boston Marathon), plus police use of radio communication and FLIR equipped helocopters along with the fact that there are police officers and emergency personel who are willing to run TOWARDS the danger, there is little doubt these two monsters would have been brought down.
It takes a really bizarre stretch of one’s imagination to think that these monsters effectively “turned themselves in” by shooting at police and hijacking cars.
(Duplicate post)
So, what happened? Did the clear and calm reasoning of Wayne LaPierre bring folks round to the sensible point of view? The people who still remain strongly in favor of background checks and the slippery, slippery Teflon Ski Jump, are there more of them than there were? Or less, do you think? The water has receded, has it receded below its previous mark?
Has the outrage died down, is that it? For how long, do you figure? Until it happens again?
Think it won’t? I’d be delighted, I’d be happy to chuck the whole thing if that were true. Any reason I should think so? Be tickled pink to hear it, lay it out for me.
Well, I have no interest in turning this into another gun control debate. We have more than enough of those. But sure, I agree that we are in a bad place because of that pesky 2nd amendment, but if you want to just bypass it, then you can’t complain when other people want to bypass other parts of the constitution.
Around the world they don’t have a 2nd amendment. We can bemoan that, and I’m with you every step of the way, but operationally, we have to face the fact that we, the USA, does have the 2nd amendment.
I agree. But when the cops wake up in the morning, they have to deal with reality, not some dream. I share your dream, and I know what you’re saying, but Americans are what they are. I try to focus on things that I can change, not things that I can’t.
I don’t know. You’re the one who made the claim about “vast majorities”. You tell us.
Hey, Elvis: What’s was inaccurate about my post? You coming back here, or are you slithering away like you usually do?
This is news to you, John? You’re surprised to hear such a claim bandied about without citation, is that it? Think maybe I’m trying to pull a slow one?
Sure I can. Are we pretending that we hold the Constitution absolutely inviolate, never did, never will? Please. We already have. If you are offering the absolutist position on the Big Second, then we already have infringed those rights. And for good and sensible reasons, we don’t need everybody running around with tommy guns.
So? Did the Constitution shatter into flinders? Has it collapsed around our ears, carnage, anarchy and penis ensues? Nope.
Has the 2nd been violated? Sure, if you say so. Or not, just as easily. But either way, these rather tepid regulations and restrictions are surely no more deadly to the Constitution than what we’ve already done. And without any noticeable dread consequences to our national integrity.
We owe considerable respect, even awe, for our Constitution. Doesn’t mean God wrote it. And sure doesn’t mean we can’t squint a bit, and read it in the most favorable light.