skypuppy

then why'd one of them get interviewed a couple of years ago by the fbi? By the FBI's own admission, the FBI was warned about Tsarnaev in 2011 by a foreign government (presumably Russia). The foreign government told the FBI that Tsarnaev had become "a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer and that he had changed drastically ... as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country's region to join unspecificied underground groups." In response to this warning, the FBI says it checked databases and interviewed Tsarnaev and other family members in the summer of 2011 but found no evidence of "terrorism activity." Then the FBI says it "requested more information" about Tsarnaev from the foreign government but never received it. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-warned-about-boston-bombing-suspect-2013-4#ixzz2R2Y9KwJN early 2011, a foreign government asked the FBI for information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-warned-about-boston-bombing-suspect-2013-4#ixzz2R2Yfl2nz If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I'll take some of your drugs for sure. The older brother was out of the country for 6 months last year. You're deluded if you believe this is not part of jihad... Yes, it's so apparent they were backed by a very rich and powerful terrorist group who planned and funded their well-coordinated escape from the city, provided them with sophisticated weapons and equipment, and gave them plenty of money and vehicles with which to make their getaway. Oh wait.... since when did anyone ever say that terrorists had to be rich and powerful, or that they needed well-coordinated escapes plans, sophisticated weapons? Osama Bin Laden was pretty rich and that helped his organization a lot, I'm sure, but for hundreds of years terrorists have existed because they were often downtrodden. Again, as I said, the older brother was investigated in 2011 for having links to terrorists. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Where are you getting this information about the bombers? It appears to be a load of bunk. The older brother was actually questioned by the fbi in 2011 after being fingered by another gov't as possible terrorist links. Then last year he left the us for 6 months. About the time it takes to attend terrorism 101? There are lots of reports about how long it takes to move a disaffected youngster from even another religion(and totally different lifestyle) over to islam, radicalize them, train them to fight, and have at some gov't authorities in the us or elsewhere. And that is considerably less than a year. These guys were already Muslim and grew up in that part of the world. There's also reports in cdn media that although the older brother married a christian, she converted to islam. On of the trademarks of this type of radicalization seems to be that as they get drawn in to it, they avoid friends and even family members as much as they can. Their fellow jihadists become their 'family'. Most of these people claiming they knew the brothers from high school, or distant family members, haven't seen them in at least a couple of years. Easily long enuf for them to have become rock-hard believers in jihad. Admittedly the younger brother seemed less likely to have been hard-core, but he obviously went along with it. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I thought it a bit of overkill, but maybe locking everyone into their homes resulted in no civilians shot up the way they were in dorner's pursuit. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

The canadian-resident aunt of the perps stated that the older brother had married into a Christian family yesterday when denying his links to jihad, however other media here were reporting she had converted to islam herself... OK, he found a nut there: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311953/FBI-interviewed-Boston-Marathon-bombing-suspect-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-26-possible-extremist-ties-years-ago-incriminating-information.html Something else I learned today is that Tamerlan also had a wife and kid, (but she lived with her family): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/tamerlan-tsarnaev-wife-family_n_3119679.html If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Charlie Manson said the devil made him do it. This 19 yr old blew people up. Who cares why. And why better alive than dead. He certainly didn't give his victims any choice. In fact, they were planning on even more killing but plan got interrupted due to being spotted. It was good Feds got him, as if MA got him he'd only get life. MA doesn't have state death penalty for murder, only life without parole. First, take your hate and bloodlust and shove it. I don't like yours any better than his. Second, his motivations are important because you need to know your enemy. Dismissing his motivation is doing your security a disservice. Third, alive there is a chance he will answer questions which could lead to other involved parties or information that will help predict or prevent other bombers. Fourth, you have no idea whatsoever what they were planning. I'm really freaking sick of you just making shit up. Fifth, it's still possible he will only get life. Sixth, don't act like it was a race to see who would catch him; state, local, and federal agencies were working together to catch him, and I'm sure they discussed in advance who would take him once he was caught. Seventh, do you wonder why it is that people here would be happier if you would just go away? Does that ever impact your train of thought? Manson was a life-long criminal, in alcatraz for a spell long before he got out to lead the cult. One of his mentors in alcatraz was Alvin Karpis of the Ma Barker gang. I think right now it's pretty clear why this happened. Other cases have shown jihadists can be formed in less than a year from disaffected -- we just had a group here in canada, fresh out of high school, two of whom wound up dead in those gasfield in africa and one in jail for terrorism. It's typical that as they transform to radicals they drop out of other relationships they'd formed, so it's not unusual that people who went to high school with them, or distant family members, wouldn't remember them being particularly religious... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I'll take some of your drugs for sure. The older brother was out of the country for 6 months last year. You're deluded if you believe this is not part of jihad... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Maybe you haven't heard about what the Russians did to the Chechen civilians. It was a horror show. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/russ-atrocities.html What the Russians did in Chechnya was nothing short of genocide. Treat people as inhuman and that is what they will become. hence my statement in another thread human nature has remained unchanged over the 200 years (or 2 millenia)... so-called 'civilization' is nowhere near as ingrained around the world as liberals like to think it is. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

One of the links from aphid's column leads to another young canadian boxer killed in russia as a jihadist and tells how he went from converting to islam to joining the movement to dead in just over a year. All these people saying they don't believe it just hadn't seen him in a while. One of the traits is that converts withdraw from previous relationships as they surround themselves with similar jihadist followers and orthodoxy... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

for an Aussie you seem to have very specific knowledge of US requirements. Or did you get that off a political website? I question its accuracy and will also point out that California alone represents more than 10% of the population. Treating it at 2% is an error. You're also quick to dismiss the NRA material, without having even viewed it. Seems a bit closed minded. But yes, my opinion is that your (not really spelled out) proposal will have no measurable incremental impact on accidental shootings, but will burden millions. Wikipedia was the source (take that as you will), scrolling through all the states requirements I only counted 6 states with mandatory training as a condition of purchase. The 88% just came from dividing 6 into 50, but in hindsight you're correct that isn't an accurate indicator of population per se. RE: The NRA material, fair enough, I'd be open to reading what was proposed. I found their website to be over the top propagada, but that doesn't mean that's all they do... With the last point, I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. It would be nice to see it trialled at least to see if there's an impact, and hey if I'm wrong the ditch the requirements. I know that's an unrealistic fantasy. Ah well... when was the last time you saw a gov't repeal something because it didn't work. It took us about 20 years of fighting to get the canadian gov't to repeal the long gun registry, and we're still fighting provincial firearms officers who don't believe repealing that law effects their agendas... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

but if it saves one kid... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

If you want to make a fire with gasoline, you're right. If you want to make an explosion with gasoline, you're wrong. But if you want to make explosions with gasoline vapors, your right... Edited to add: All you need is a pressure cooker.... I think the OP's point was that controlling things is not the solution because those bent on doing harm will just go down the thing list to something else. I don’t know if anyone really answered one of the early questions about what a pressure cooker is for. Water boiling under pressure boils at a higher temperature. Food will cook faster if boiled under pressure. This can be very important if you are at higher elevations trying to cook. and here I thought it was to cook it with steam so as not to lose the nutrients by boiling them away... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

That number came from a summary of a summary of a poll. The original poll question was about supporting more background checks. 84% of the respondents (a little over 1000 people) said yes. Someone summarized that to about 85% and someone else summarized that to 90%. So when you say 90% of those polled support more stringent controls, you're using a bad number and the wrong poll question. 84% of those polled supported more background checks. There is also a gallup poll that shows that only 4% of those polled (again, a little over 1000) felt that gun control was the most important issue facing the country. That's a very specifically written question. So while the two numbers may appear to be diametrically opposed, they really can not be compared. The poll question authors are the best liars. You can make statistics fit almost anything if you try hard enough. That's one of the drawbacks of any sort of analysis like this. However, 84%, and 90%? They're still 'most' in my view and is a reasonably fair rounding. Even if they rounded DOWN to 80%... so be it. It's still 'most'. I'm not going to get into an argument over statistically insignificant percentage points. Doing that in this case will only hurt your argument. The gallup poll information is interesting... I haven't heard that before. While it's deplorable that we don't tackle every problem in precisely the most important order as defined by opinion poll, the reality of the situation is that THIS is the issue on the table right now, rightly or wrongly. It's been brought about by actual events and political pressure, so that's what we're questioning... The same type of shifting arguments are made by people who say 'but cars kill more people than guns!' and my answer is the same - why pick and choose what we have to target first. Put resources into both... It's irrelevant if only 4% of the polled people think it's the most important issue at the moment. It's the issue on the table... and given that, if 80% of those then polled are in favor of more control and that isn't realized in policy then I suggest that there is a problem. yup, and again the problem you have is that the bill the senate voted on didn't answer most of the concerns of the people in the poll. and infringed a lot on the rights of many people who weren't asked. answer the question about how mentally insane people are allowed to remain in society when they are known to be a danger to themselves and others, as it seem loughner, holmes and lanza at least were, and then you'll start to find an answer to how to stop mass killings. But of course that would go against the policy of turning all the crazies loose from the insane asylum as happened in the 80's and 90's. After all, crazies have rights too. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Will you please stop saying this? 'Human Nature' is not equivalent to one mans opinions, ideals or beliefs. If it were 'Human Nature' then we'd all (or the vast majority) share that trait... You're using a term that implies fait accompli to bolster an argument that is ENTIRELY based on beliefs. Franklins BELIEFS on safety vs freedom, and your BELIEF that it is impossible that this might have changed over the course of a quarter of a century. and you seem to be doing exactly the same thing. Are you implying that coco's beliefs are only 'one man's beliefs'? human nature has remained the same, many many humans still believe they are entitled to defend themselves against abuse from gov't or from criminals, and just because you don't doesn't mean that you can simply discount the beliefs of millions of americans to suit your own fancy. These polls of 90 % are a fallacy. It may be that a majority of americans want better laws, but it is also obvious that laws these people offered were not what the majority wanted. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I actually said the opposite. But let's not have facts stand in the way. It is silly to blindly believe that a person could not change his ideas in 220 years. Specially when the technology that fueled the idea has drastically changed. I also understand that to an American the idea of a founding father changing his mind is akin to a catholic being told there might not be a jesus. just as likely that hitler and stalin and mao would change their minds and come out more forcefully and evilly malevalent than they were in the first place. Hitler might have won if he'd pressed on to the west and left russia be... Making up stories about people 'might' change their minds is the ultimate in ridiculous... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

man nature has not changed. Look at rwanda. look at yugoslavia. look at chechnya. look at things going on in south america every day. look at north korea. no. human nature has not changed. yugoslavia was a developed country ranked among the tops in the world, hosted the olympics, only to be torn asunder. no human nature has not changed. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Right,however in your scenario you wouldn't use your handgun to scare your prey. You would use it to kill it. That is what the tool is designed for. The point is, bill von and others have been saying the purpose, what it was designed for, was to kill 'people'. That is untrue. The gun is a tool, yes. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

You're already contradicting your strawman, now. You had said their only purpose was to kill people. Now you've added several more. It's almost a certainty that when someone makes a stupid statement like X's only purpose is to do Y (and Y is bad, therefore X is bad), that they're trying to avoid a significant part of the issue. And you still forgotten about their role with non human animals. (Ever see Jaws?) Well, no, he didn't - he called someone else out on stating that was their 'only' purpose, quite firmly. He also covered the animal part when he differentiated between the primary suited purpose of rifles vs handguns. Who goes hunting with a pistol as their primary weapon?? No one, it's the wrong tool for the job. I reckon Bill made a spot on assessment splitting the two out. ETA: I'm not stating that either type of weapon is inherently good or bad. A sports shooter is not using their weapon to kill someone when they shoot targets, they're demonstrating a skill. Doesn't change the fact that the device they use to demonstrate that skill was originally conceived and designed to kill, whether for noble purposes or evil ones. then I reckon you'd both be wrong. One purpose of a handgun was to be there after you shot your prey and approached it, in case it either wasn't dead, or some of it's family was still around. or for those times when you're busy doing something else, and some other animal interrupts you. Or for those times when you were out riding the range and you came upon one of your herd who had broken a leg and needed to be put out of its misery. Yes, it wasn't your 'primary' weapon, but it was certainly your secondary. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

We could actually start listing off all the mad bombers in us and world history in order to show how ill thought out that statement is, but it pretty stands out all by itself as being ridiculous and one-sided... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Here I thought they were invented to kill rattlesnakes, mountain lions or bears when you're too far from your long gun. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

NY law amounts to a blanket ban. "Sure, we won't outlaw the carrying if guns, just let us regulate by permitting." "Psst, nobody tell them we just won't issue any permit except to the politically connected." Equal rights and protection? Sure, and the darker part of my lily white smells like roses. Effective?!? Are you freaking kidding me? Effective against those not inclined to break the law maybe. Certainly not against those who commit "the scourge of gun violence that all too often plagues our communities.” Self contradictory hypocrisy much? Doesn't surprise me. They're obviously getting pressure from the white house about what they can do... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

or tomorrow at Thatcher's funeral... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I agree, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved, we just have different ideas of how to accomplish that and what those improvements are. You honestly don't see any problem with the idea that people are so willing to kill others to hold onto their guns, and think that this is the only way to protect those rights? Martin Luther King and Ghandi would be turning in their graves... There are always alternatives. Actually, martin luther king believed in guns "One adviser, Glenn Smiley, described the King home as “an arsenal.” William Worthy, a black reporter who covered the civil-rights movement, almost sat on a loaded gun in a living-room armchair during a visit to King’s parsonage." So did the black panthers... "The eighth-grade students gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols. The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late. Seale then turned to the others. “All right, brothers, come on. We’re going inside.” He opened the door, and the radicals walked straight into the state’s most important government building, loaded guns in hand. No metal detectors stood in their way." http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ And Ghandi would have been too busy sleeping with his granddaughter to care... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

A universal background check does not stop you buying the gun. It just ensures that said citizen IS law abiding. So you should have no problem with it. Come on folks, its really not that hard. A background check, or buying card would not be a problem, so long as it didn't infringe upon a person's right to privacy with regards to medical conditions, etc. and as long as it was not a 'registration' which supplies a list to authorities of private property owned by all citizens. In other words, if it's a background check for a buy, the information is supposed to be destroyed within a week. Or it could be a 'buying' card, indicating the individual has passed a background check and is approved to buy 1 or 10 or 15 guns, whatever he wants. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Now you're just sounding ridiculous... Who cares about history? This isn't a grey area we're discussing. If a law was passed by a legal government in this democratic country then resisting it, especially with lethal force is both criminal and immoral. You can put whatever justification you want on it - it's not like you're living in some dictatorship where rebellion might be be justified. This would simply be a case of 'no, I've decided I'm outside the law and I'll kill anyone who tries to impose it'. How would that, in any measure of reality or sanity, be the RIGHT thing to do? Why do you get to pick and choose what applies to you? Either you reap all the benefits of living in society and share the burdens, or you get none of either... Once again - this will never happen. Precisely because you don't see a problem with this scenario. That's just batshit crazy to me. hmmm. let;s see. I think the nazis actually passed laws before they started taking property and freedoms from jews, and then herding them off to concentration camps. Those actions had the full backing of the law. I think that putting japanese americans in camps on the west coast was done under law. Slavery was legal. Are you saying the north had no right to invade the southern states to free slaves those states' citizens legally owned? Prohibition was legally passed too, it worked out well didn't it. The fact remains that it is possible for minorities to (seem to) pass laws infringing on the majority. The majority would be perfectly right in fighting back against such laws until they can be examined and determined to be out of line. Or in fact, as the 2nd says, to fight back against a tyrannical government... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone