Two huge explosions at finish line of Boston Marathon

[silverscreenselect]

And then there is this thing called the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. It is part of a thing called the Bill of Rights. Our Rights. It kind of says that the Federal Government is specifically not allowed to infringe upon OUR rights to keep and bear arms. What they are trying to do seems an awful lot like infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms to me.

It's interesting that the same Bill of RIghts also contains provisions guaranteeing trial by jury and the right against self-incrimination but the same people who don't want to pass a law that might have prevented or limited that carnage don't seem to care about the rest of the Bill of Rights and are more than willing to send the suviving brother off to Gitmo.

[silverscreenselect]

And the decision to draw on an unsuspecting individual includes the analysis of while I'm shooting this one who has only an illusory chance to outdraw me, I wonder how many of the others nearby who will have a very real advantage (should they be armed) of getting their sights on me before I can finish off Joe #1 and re-target.

Well, I can only speak about anecdotal experience but it's pretty good anecdotal experience since I've had the opportunity to literally stare at death on two occasions and I'm still around to talk about it despite not having a gun either time. If I had a gun and tried to use it on the guys who robbed me, I might well not be around now.

[flockofseagulls104]

And then there is this thing called the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. It is part of a thing called the Bill of Rights. Our Rights. It kind of says that the Federal Government is specifically not allowed to infringe upon OUR rights to keep and bear arms. What they are trying to do seems an awful lot like infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms to me.

It's interesting that the same Bill of RIghts also contains provisions guaranteeing trial by jury and the right against self-incrimination but the same people who don't want to pass a law that might have prevented or limited that carnage don't seem to care about the rest of the Bill of Rights and are more than willing to send the suviving brother off to Gitmo.

pass a law that might have prevented or limited that carnage

What law is that?

SSS, I am against anyone who ignores the Constitution regardless of what political party they are in. And those people are in both parties. That is what the Tea Party is all about, man. Not the bullshit you hear from the media. Can you get your head around it?

[Bob Juch]

Sean Collier was not sticking his neck out unnecessarily; he probably never knew what hit him & he actually was a real police officer; had been through the same training as real police & was 1st in line for the next position to open on the Somerville police roster. Says the mayor of Somerville.

Yet another sad recent example of a well armed, well trained victim unable to defend himself against armed assailants who, as usually happens, have the element of surprise in a fatal confrontation. Yet the NRA continues to spin the yarn that the only thing we can do about this is to give ordinary law abiding citizens a rather illusory opportunity to arm oursevles as well as the Tsarnaev brothers so we'll have a sporting chance to outdraw and outshoot them. I'd rather we take more steps to deny them the firepower to engage in massive shootouts with police.

And by the way, the shootout didn't end with the cops outdrawing and outshooting the Tsarnaevs. It ended when the older brother ran out of ammunition and tried to surrender before the younger brother ran him over with the SUV.

What's your source for your last paragraph? BTW, the police fired over 2000 rounds at the bombers, some using full-auto weapons. They must be terrible shots; they shot through many walls of surrounding houses. I saw an interview with one couple who had to lie flat on their kitchen floor while many rounds came over their heads.

[Bob Juch]

Yet another sad recent example of a well armed, well trained victim unable to defend himself against armed assailants who, as usually happens, have the element of surprise in a fatal confrontation. Yet the NRA continues to spin the yarn that the only thing we can do about this is to give ordinary law abiding citizens a rather illusory opportunity to arm oursevles as well as the Tsarnaev brothers so we'll have a sporting chance to outdraw and outshoot them. I'd rather we take more steps to deny them the firepower to engage in massive shootouts with police.

And by the way, the shootout didn't end with the cops outdrawing and outshooting the Tsarnaevs. It ended when the older brother ran out of ammunition and tried to surrender before the younger brother ran him over with the SUV.

I'll take the sporting chance, how small you may think it be, vs. no chance at all.

And the decision to draw on an unsuspecting individual includes the analysis of while I'm shooting this one who has only an illusory chance to outdraw me, I wonder how many of the others nearby who will have a very real advantage (should they be armed) of getting their sights on me before I can finish off Joe #1 and re-target.

In Boston, that decision is pretty easy. No chance of others getting the advantage on me. In Houston, not so much.

And no law on the book, proposed, or imagined by your small mind would have prevented these guys from getting guns.

And then there is this thing called the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. It is part of a thing called the Bill of Rights. Our Rights. It kind of says that the Federal Government is specifically not allowed to infringe upon OUR rights to keep and bear arms. What they are trying to do seems an awful lot like infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms to me.

If a state or locality wants to ban firearms, then they can go for it. If the Federal Government wants to make ANY law that has to do with limiting the right of a citizen to have a firearm, regardless of their background check or perceived mental state, they need to first amend the Constitution. Obama and Congress do not care about the Constitution that every one of them has sworn to protect, defend and uphold.

And, even that aside, the law that is proposed, which includes all the unrelated crap they always add to it, would not have prevented Newtown or anything like it. People that break the law will not comply with any of it and they will get their weapons regardless of any law. The guy who attacked Sandy Hook School stole his weapons from someone who got them in accordance with the laws.
The only thing making a new law does is create more people who may not be in compliance with the new rules. So it basically just creates new criminals.

But the talking points that Obama is creating blames the defeat of his gun control bill on the NRA and attacks the lawmakers and citizens who realize it does not address or fix anything. Obama's rants on this subject are particularly offensive, even by his standards. He does not represent me, and he seems to have no regard for my values and point of view. Obama is the most partisan and mean spirited President I have seen in my lifetime.

You're forgetting the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment. Also when that was passed they didn't envision guns that could fire many rounds per second.

[silverscreenselect]

And by the way, the shootout didn't end with the cops outdrawing and outshooting the Tsarnaevs. It ended when the older brother ran out of ammunition and tried to surrender before the younger brother ran him over with the SUV.

What's your source for your last paragraph? BTW, the police fired over 2000 rounds at the bombers, some using full-auto weapons. They must be terrible shots; they shot through many walls of surrounding houses. I saw an interview with one couple who had to lie flat on their kitchen floor while many rounds came over their heads.

I was a bit off in what I posted earlier based on my misunderstanding of what I'd heard this morning. Here's what CNN had to say:

Eventually, Tamerlan Tsarnaev emerged from cover and began walking toward officers, firing as he went, the chief said.

When he ran out of ammunition, officers tackled him and tried to handcuff him, Deveau said Saturday.

But then, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev came barreling at them in the stolen vehicle, the chief said. The officers scrambled out of the way, and the vehicle then ran over the older brother and dragged him for a short distance.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev also had explosives on his body, officials have said.

200 rounds fired, not 2,000, but in a ten minute stretch.

He wasn't surrendering, apparently, but he did run out of ammo. And it's pretty clear they were looking for cops to kill.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/22/us/boston ... index.html

[flockofseagulls104]

I'll take the sporting chance, how small you may think it be, vs. no chance at all.

And the decision to draw on an unsuspecting individual includes the analysis of while I'm shooting this one who has only an illusory chance to outdraw me, I wonder how many of the others nearby who will have a very real advantage (should they be armed) of getting their sights on me before I can finish off Joe #1 and re-target.

In Boston, that decision is pretty easy. No chance of others getting the advantage on me. In Houston, not so much.

And no law on the book, proposed, or imagined by your small mind would have prevented these guys from getting guns.

And then there is this thing called the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. It is part of a thing called the Bill of Rights. Our Rights. It kind of says that the Federal Government is specifically not allowed to infringe upon OUR rights to keep and bear arms. What they are trying to do seems an awful lot like infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms to me.

If a state or locality wants to ban firearms, then they can go for it. If the Federal Government wants to make ANY law that has to do with limiting the right of a citizen to have a firearm, regardless of their background check or perceived mental state, they need to first amend the Constitution. Obama and Congress do not care about the Constitution that every one of them has sworn to protect, defend and uphold.

And, even that aside, the law that is proposed, which includes all the unrelated crap they always add to it, would not have prevented Newtown or anything like it. People that break the law will not comply with any of it and they will get their weapons regardless of any law. The guy who attacked Sandy Hook School stole his weapons from someone who got them in accordance with the laws.
The only thing making a new law does is create more people who may not be in compliance with the new rules. So it basically just creates new criminals.

But the talking points that Obama is creating blames the defeat of his gun control bill on the NRA and attacks the lawmakers and citizens who realize it does not address or fix anything. Obama's rants on this subject are particularly offensive, even by his standards. He does not represent me, and he seems to have no regard for my values and point of view. Obama is the most partisan and mean spirited President I have seen in my lifetime.

You're forgetting the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment. Also when that was passed they didn't envision guns that could fire many rounds per second.

They envisioned a tyrannical government that would take away weapons from the citizenry. If you have doubts, look back at the historical discussions on how and why the Bill of Rights was constructed. But if you still have doubts, then amend the friggin Constitution. They made it a living document, but you have to go through a process, not change it willy nilly based on the prevailing winds of the temporary politicians. If there is any question about what it means, then amend it to make it more specific. Don't ignore it.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

As I recall my history, during the American Revolution a significant portion of the populace had Kentucky Rifles superior in firepower to the muskets of the government forces.

[ghostjmf]

I haven't combed the reports, but I would bet that the analysis of "bullets that went whizzing through apartment walls in Watertown" will show that they were not all police bullets shot by, as someone in this thread has said, "police with bad aim". The bomber brothers had their share of guns, in addition to more pressure-cooker bombs, which they lobbed at police during the chase, & an apartment in Cambridge stuffed with pipe bombs.

Also, it is pretty clear that the initial chase into Watertown involved "whatever police were available", not a select FBI task force. That stuff came later, after "suspect 2" escaped.


I have my own many thoughts on all this, as well as a little unexpected extra time right now.


I thought it was a bad idea to release the photos to the public, as it could inspire executions of look-alikes, as well as tip off the bombers that the law had their pictures.


Obviously, they were tipped off, as they were in an agitated mood & ready for killing more people Friday am. But I hear from radio reports today that the law thought it necessary to release the pictures because there had already been a sickening amount of vigilante picture-release, all of the wrong people, on "social media". A student who disappeared within the past few months, & is possibly dead somewhere, was cited as one of the bombers on, I believe, Reddit. The owner of Reddit has apologized. Big woo. People who were pictured who aren't disappeared people were in a lot more danger.


I know a Turkish grad student who looks enough like the surviving brother to be mistaken for him. He looks more like Bomber Brother 2 than Bomber Brother 1 does.


Also, while the public is of course under no obligation to turn their friends in just because said friends resemble a “wanted” poster, everybody interviewed on local media who recognized Bomber Brother 2 from his picture leaving the bomb said “oh, he’s such a nice guy, it can’t be him” & didn’t turn him in for that reason.


I’ve read that at least one of the brothers was eventually ID’d by his driver’s license. A Mass driver’s license. Which makes me wonder why they didn’t do the license check before releasing the pictures.


Also, it’s been covered a lot in local media lately that Bomber Brother 1 was checked out by Homeland Security a few years ago because Russia asked them to. He wasn’t found to be a danger *at the time*, but they certainly had to have kept his picture?

[BackInTex]

Also when that was passed they didn't envision guns that could fire many rounds per second.

Nor did they envision men would actually want to stand up in public and commit to one another in marriage. Or that a cross in a jar of urine would be called speech. Or that there would be a black president. Or that he would mandate that those that work pay for the health care of those that refuse to.

Or the the highest paid Americans earn their living playing games, playing guitars or acting.


What a bunchof idiots.

[silverscreenselect]

Also when that was passed they didn't envision guns that could fire many rounds per second.

Nor did they envision men would actually want to stand up in public and commit to one another in marriage. Or that a cross in a jar of urine would be called speech. Or that there would be a black president. Or that he would mandate that those that work pay for the health care of those that refuse to.

Whatever they did or did not envision, they felt it necessary to qualify the Second Amendment by adding the phrase: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" which gets conveniently read out of the Amendment by those who enjoy the thought of arming themselves to the teeth to ward off the next coming of the Tsarnaev brothers. Instead of a well regulated militia, they would rather entrust our security to a completely unregulated pack of overgrown juveniles with unfulfilled John Wayne fantasies.

I become aware of this every New Year's Eve when I don't venture outside around midnight and stay away from windows because I don't care to get hit by a stray celebratory bullet fired off by one of these idiots.

[Estonut]

Another classy move by Chicagoans:
‘Random act of pizza’: Chicago Tribune staffers buy lunch for Boston Globe newsroom

[flockofseagulls104]

Also when that was passed they didn't envision guns that could fire many rounds per second.

Nor did they envision men would actually want to stand up in public and commit to one another in marriage. Or that a cross in a jar of urine would be called speech. Or that there would be a black president. Or that he would mandate that those that work pay for the health care of those that refuse to.

Whatever they did or did not envision, they felt it necessary to qualify the Second Amendment by adding the phrase: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" which gets conveniently read out of the Amendment by those who enjoy the thought of arming themselves to the teeth to ward off the next coming of the Tsarnaev brothers. Instead of a well regulated militia, they would rather entrust our security to a completely unregulated pack of overgrown juveniles with unfulfilled John Wayne fantasies.

I become aware of this every New Year's Eve when I don't venture outside around midnight and stay away from windows because I don't care to get hit by a stray celebratory bullet fired off by one of these idiots.

Here's the deal. SSS. I will try and reason with you. Mostly that's a lost cause when dealing with a liberal, but, what the hell?

You seem to have a problem in your neighborhood. Maybe it extends to your whole city or even your whole state. I don't have that problem where I live. Maybe it's because it's more rural here, maybe it's because the people here are brought up where they respect firearms and are more familiar with them, and criminals are more wary about their victims. That's not to say we don't have problems, but they're different than yours.

If you have that problem with guns, then solve it locally. Ban whatever you want locally, put whatever local regulations you want into effect, and take away whatever freedoms you want locally. Most politicians when confronted with a problem resort to figuring out what freedoms need to be restricted or taken away, and I don't like that, but that's another issue. Anyway, especially on this issue which is specifically addressed in the Constitution, solve it locally, not federally. If your solutions work to actually solve the problem you have, perhaps other places in the country that have the same problem will adopt them. The places that don't have that problem don't have to.

I live on the border of Arkansas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma allows a lot of freedom in carrying firearms, Arkansas not so much. Even with this difference, the world hasn't come to an end. People aren't killing each other right and left in either Arkansas or Oklahoma. (like they are in Chicago, which has local laws like the federal government wants to impose on everybody).

There are too many national politicians supported by people like you, who want to solve a local problem, that think their solution needs to be national law. And they ignore the Constitution to implement these laws. It has been going on for generations, and once one law ignoring the Constitution is enacted, that is used as the precedent for the next law that steps over the border even further. That is where we are. We have to reimpose the limits of the Constitution now before it becomes, if it isn't already, completely irrelevant.

[BackInTex]

I become aware of this every New Year's Eve when I don't venture outside around midnight and stay away from windows because I don't care to get hit by a stray celebratory bullet fired off by one of these idiots.

They should make firing guns straight up in the air illegal, especially in uban areas. Oh wait, it is. But these folks choose not to obey that law. But you think they would obey the new ones. Or as you might say, "it will make it tougher for them to get the guns". But they will.

[ghostjmf]

Well, it's an interview by a Globe reporter with the carjacked guy. Which I haven't read yet, but was able to see the local Fox 25 interview with the interviewer, where he told "things I couldn't fit into the Globe story, & it's a very long story for the paper". About the 1st, & last, time I will probably ever recommend something from Fox news. Stunningly, at the end, the Fox person makes a crack about conspiracy theories on the Marathon bombing. Doesn't he know where he works? Will he still be working there after that?


At any rate Danny, or Dani, or however he spells it, the name used by the Chinese national student at Northeastern who was carjacked, was taken for quite a ride. Danny was driving a rented or leased Mercedes SUV; I'd guess he's not your average exchange student. Probably comes from "money in China". But because the Bomber Brothers found out he was Chinese, & they believe China likes Chechnya, they let him live. They wouldn't let him talk or text in Chinese to his roommate, though. At one point, Younger Bomber Brother asked "does that port play music" & at some point, through some port, the Bomber Brothers were playing a CD of probably-Chechen music. Just your average cruise on Soldiers Field Road etc (part of a network of local narrow, treacherous parkways you'd have to point a gun at me to get me onto even in daylight) with an SUV loaded up with bombs they'd tranferred from their own car.

[Bob Juch]

Well, it's an interview by a Globe reporter with the carjacked guy. Which I haven't read yet, but was able to see the local Fox 25 interview with the interviewer, where he told "things I couldn't fit into the Globe story, & it's a very long story for the paper". About the 1st, & last, time I will probably ever recommend something from Fox news. Stunningly, at the end, the Fox person makes a crack about conspiracy theories on the Marathon bombing. Doesn't he know where he works? Will he still be working there after that?


At any rate Danny, or Dani, or however he spells it, the name used by the Chinese national student at Northeastern who was carjacked, was taken for quite a ride. Danny was driving a rented or leased Mercedes SUV; I'd guess he's not your average exchange student. Probably comes from "money in China". But because the Bomber Brothers found out he was Chinese, & they believe China likes Chechnya, they let him live. They wouldn't let him talk or text in Chinese to his roommate, though. At one point, Younger Bomber Brother asked "does that port play music" & at some point, through some port, the Bomber Brothers were playing a CD of probably-Chechen music. Just your average cruise on Soldiers Field Road etc (part of a network of local narrow, treacherous parkways you'd have to point a gun at me to get me onto even in daylight) with an SUV loaded up with bombs they'd tranferred from their own car.

Here's the link to the Globe's story: http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04 ... story.html

[ghostjmf]

OK, you shamed me into looking it up; usually that gets me nowhere with local broadcast news stories (including a story where I was interviewed, once, on the CBS affiliate), but Fox, uh, knows they have a keeper here because of the subject matter:

http://www.myfoxboston.com/category/233 ... rning-news

Its a doozy.

Oh, crap, I tried the link & it only brings you to the "morning new" site. But at least for today, you can pick out the right story: "Boston Globe writer shares carjacking victim's story"

[flockofseagulls104]

OK, you shamed me into looking it up; usually that gets me nowhere with local broadcast news stories (including a story where I was interviewed, once, on the CBS affiliate), but Fox, uh, knows they have a keeper here because of the subject matter:

http://www.myfoxboston.com/category/233 ... rning-news

Its a doozy.

Oh, crap, I tried the link & it only brings you to the "morning new" site. But at least for today, you can pick out the right story: "Boston Globe writer shares carjacking victim's story"

Wow. ghost, you probably have to get your ears cleaned by a professional and get your eyes checked after viewing anything from Fox News! ewwww! But I'm sure most of your friends will forgive you, seeing you were appropriately condescending and insulting towards them. But still, they know you actually watched it. You must be so ashamed.

[Spock]

>>>I become aware of this every New Year's Eve when I don't venture outside around midnight and stay away from windows because I don't care to get hit by a stray celebratory bullet fired off by one of these idiots.
<<<

I have always wondered every time you post this-What is the cultural background and immigration status of the celebratory gunfirees?

[ghostjmf]

flock says:

Wow. ghost, you probably have to get your ears cleaned by a professional and get your eyes checked after viewing anything from Fox News! ewwww! But I'm sure most of your friends will forgive you, seeing you were appropriately condescending and insulting towards them. But still, they know you actually watched it. You must be so ashamed.

Yeah, when tuning in my VCRs to record shows that will be aired later on Fox that I watch, which these days are Bones & Touch, I often get barraged with their idiotic comments, which often extend even to the weather, which as we all know is politically controlled by "enemies of Fox". Yesterday, however, I got a heads-up about this interview. And I really am surprised the Fox staffer who was interviewing the Globe reporter who had interviewed the hi-jacked person kept his questions so on-topic, & even made jokes about conspiracy theories at the end, rather than delving into whatever is Fox's current such theory.

[ghostjmf]

A remark (prolly processed somewhat by me in memory) by one of NPR's "On Point" panelists (probably Jack Beatty) in response to why Adam Lanza gunning down tiny children (Newtown, CT) is not referred to in the media as terrorism, while the Boston Marathon bombings are: "The National Pressure-Cooker Association doesn't have such a good lobby in Washington". I might add (so I will) that in coverage of the blowing up of the Murrah Bldg in Oklahoma City, Big Fertilizer doesn't have quite as effective a lobby as it would like to, either.

[silverscreenselect]

>>>I become aware of this every New Year's Eve when I don't venture outside around midnight and stay away from windows because I don't care to get hit by a stray celebratory bullet fired off by one of these idiots.
<<<

I have always wondered every time you post this-What is the cultural background and immigration status of the celebratory gunfirees?

I'm not out there asking for green cards.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Nor did they envision men would actually want to stand up in public and commit to one another in marriage. Or that a cross in a jar of urine would be called speech. Or that there would be a black president. Or that he would mandate that those that work pay for the health care of those that refuse to.

Whatever they did or did not envision, they felt it necessary to qualify the Second Amendment by adding the phrase: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" which gets conveniently read out of the Amendment by those who enjoy the thought of arming themselves to the teeth to ward off the next coming of the Tsarnaev brothers. Instead of a well regulated militia, they would rather entrust our security to a completely unregulated pack of overgrown juveniles with unfulfilled John Wayne fantasies.

I become aware of this every New Year's Eve when I don't venture outside around midnight and stay away from windows because I don't care to get hit by a stray celebratory bullet fired off by one of these idiots.

Here's the deal. SSS. I will try and reason with you. Mostly that's a lost cause when dealing with a liberal, but, what the hell?

You seem to have a problem in your neighborhood. Maybe it extends to your whole city or even your whole state. I don't have that problem where I live. Maybe it's because it's more rural here, maybe it's because the people here are brought up where they respect firearms and are more familiar with them, and criminals are more wary about their victims. That's not to say we don't have problems, but they're different than yours.

If you have that problem with guns, then solve it locally. Ban whatever you want locally, put whatever local regulations you want into effect, and take away whatever freedoms you want locally. Most politicians when confronted with a problem resort to figuring out what freedoms need to be restricted or taken away, and I don't like that, but that's another issue. Anyway, especially on this issue which is specifically addressed in the Constitution, solve it locally, not federally. If your solutions work to actually solve the problem you have, perhaps other places in the country that have the same problem will adopt them. The places that don't have that problem don't have to.

I live on the border of Arkansas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma allows a lot of freedom in carrying firearms, Arkansas not so much. Even with this difference, the world hasn't come to an end. People aren't killing each other right and left in either Arkansas or Oklahoma. (like they are in Chicago, which has local laws like the federal government wants to impose on everybody).

There are too many national politicians supported by people like you, who want to solve a local problem, that think their solution needs to be national law. And they ignore the Constitution to implement these laws. It has been going on for generations, and once one law ignoring the Constitution is enacted, that is used as the precedent for the next law that steps over the border even further. That is where we are. We have to reimpose the limits of the Constitution now before it becomes, if it isn't already, completely irrelevant.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer ... advocates/

A Guide for the Left: Using Abortion to Understand the Passion of 2nd Amendment Advocates

[Bob Juch]

Whatever they did or did not envision, they felt it necessary to qualify the Second Amendment by adding the phrase: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" which gets conveniently read out of the Amendment by those who enjoy the thought of arming themselves to the teeth to ward off the next coming of the Tsarnaev brothers. Instead of a well regulated militia, they would rather entrust our security to a completely unregulated pack of overgrown juveniles with unfulfilled John Wayne fantasies.

I become aware of this every New Year's Eve when I don't venture outside around midnight and stay away from windows because I don't care to get hit by a stray celebratory bullet fired off by one of these idiots.

Here's the deal. SSS. I will try and reason with you. Mostly that's a lost cause when dealing with a liberal, but, what the hell?

You seem to have a problem in your neighborhood. Maybe it extends to your whole city or even your whole state. I don't have that problem where I live. Maybe it's because it's more rural here, maybe it's because the people here are brought up where they respect firearms and are more familiar with them, and criminals are more wary about their victims. That's not to say we don't have problems, but they're different than yours.

If you have that problem with guns, then solve it locally. Ban whatever you want locally, put whatever local regulations you want into effect, and take away whatever freedoms you want locally. Most politicians when confronted with a problem resort to figuring out what freedoms need to be restricted or taken away, and I don't like that, but that's another issue. Anyway, especially on this issue which is specifically addressed in the Constitution, solve it locally, not federally. If your solutions work to actually solve the problem you have, perhaps other places in the country that have the same problem will adopt them. The places that don't have that problem don't have to.

I live on the border of Arkansas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma allows a lot of freedom in carrying firearms, Arkansas not so much. Even with this difference, the world hasn't come to an end. People aren't killing each other right and left in either Arkansas or Oklahoma. (like they are in Chicago, which has local laws like the federal government wants to impose on everybody).

There are too many national politicians supported by people like you, who want to solve a local problem, that think their solution needs to be national law. And they ignore the Constitution to implement these laws. It has been going on for generations, and once one law ignoring the Constitution is enacted, that is used as the precedent for the next law that steps over the border even further. That is where we are. We have to reimpose the limits of the Constitution now before it becomes, if it isn't already, completely irrelevant.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer ... advocates/

A Guide for the Left: Using Abortion to Understand the Passion of 2nd Amendment Advocates

That's a bad analogy: The Kermit Gosnell case points out how abortions will be performed if they're outlawed. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Roe and that some restrictions to gun ownership are constitutional.

[Vandal]

"It was him."

Full Story

The trial of alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev enters its second day today, but the defense has already made a curiously blunt admission: "It was him."

One of the first things Tsarnaev's attorney Judy Clarke told the court Wednesday was that he was responsible for the "senseless, horrific, misguided acts." The defense would only contest the "why" of it all, she said, indicating it was Tsarnaev's late older brother, Tamerlan, who pushed her client down the dark path.

All day the defense did not cross examine witness after witness from the prosecution while they recounted the horror of that April 15, 2013 day when three were killed -- including an eight-year-old boy -- and 260 injured after dual explosions ripped through the crowds near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

The defense's move surprised many federal officials who said today they are asking why a court should spend potentially months proving what the defense has already admitted.