Do you think that ..

[Squibbs]

..if more people had access to bombs, the disaster that happened in Boston could have been prevented or at least stopped the 2nd terrorist bomb from going off?

Follow up question: What should be the legal concealed carry limit for bombs?

 

[Lorilei]

..if more people had access to bombs, the disaster that happened in Boston could have been prevented or at least stopped the 2nd terrorist bomb from going off?

Follow up question: What should be the legal concealed carry limit for bombs?

Well, of course! Any well-armed militia would have immediately set off opposing bombs, stopping that shit in its tracks. Killing a lot more people, but whatever. That is SO not the point.

 

[neci]

bombs and bangs
man likes his loud noises

Gave proof of the night that our Flag was still there;

it bothered me most that the news kept playing the first bomb over and over again.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I will defer to Lit God King Byron in Exile. He's the self-proclaimed expert on what constitutes "arms" vis-a-vis the Second Amendment.

 

[neci]

all bow to the leopard kitty drag fuzzy furry.

 

[neci]

here kitty, kitty.

 

[run_silent]

Apples and C-4 is the comparison that is being made. With a gun you pick your target. With a bomb you are just blowing up anyone and everyone nearby.

 

[CHNOPS]

Apples and C-4 is the comparison that is being made. With a gun you pick your target. With a bomb you are just blowing up anyone and everyone nearby.

This statement has holes so big you could drive a Colorado movie theater through it.

 

[run_silent]

This statement has holes so big you could drive a Colorado movie theater through it.

In one situation you pick your target and decide who lives or dies. Is someone hiding under a seat? Do want to shoot them? Does that guy or girl look like someone that rejected you. Does that one look like your little sister and you pass?

Bomb. Kaboom! Everyone dies.

 

[Byron In Exile]

all bow to the leopard kitty drag fuzzy furry.

Rob has always been jealous of my keen leopard-powers of observation, and my astounding ability to apply Scientific Kitty Wisdom in solving the most complex of Constitutional mysteries.

Plus I got to sail on a pirate ship.

 

[Byron In Exile]

here kitty, kitty.

Yikes!

The most creative way to use a cat as a weapon happened in World War II. The United States' OSS (Office of Strategic Services, the precursor of the CIA) needed a way to guide bombs to sink German ships. Somebody hit upon the inspiration that since cats have such a strong disdain of getting wet and always land on their feet that if you attached a cat to a bomb and drop it in the vicinity of a ship, the cat's instinct to avoid the water would force it to guide the bomb to the enemy's deck. It is unclear how the cat was supposed to actually guide a bomb attached to it as it fell from the sky but the plan never got past the testing stages since the cats had a bad habit of becoming unconscious mid-drop.

 

[run_silent]

Rob has always been jealous of my keen leopard-powers of observation, and my astounding ability to apply Scientific Kitty Wisdom in solving the most complex of Constitutional mysteries.

Plus I got to sail on a pirate ship.

I have always respected you but now I fear you because of all the things listed above.

 

[koalabear]

Look under your kitchen sink, we all have access to bomb materials.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Yikes!

The Bat Bombs were funny too.

 

[evesdream]

In one situation you pick your target and decide who lives or dies. Is someone hiding under a seat? Do want to shoot them? Does that guy or girl look like someone that rejected you. Does that one look like your little sister and you pass?

Bomb. Kaboom! Everyone dies.

All to the exclusion of the running, screaming crowd weaving around you and your targets and at a reasonable 45 rounds per minute.

 

[Squibbs]

All to the exclusion of the running, screaming crowd weaving around you and your targets and at a reasonable 45 rounds per minute.

Anything more could be dangerous.

 

[evesdream]

Anything more could be dangerous.

Essentially he's just pointing out the obvious. That people who shoot up movie houses, temples, and elementary schools are probably going to be more a reasonable, discriminating and responsible type than the people who plant bombs in those kinds of places.

 

[run_silent]

Essentially he's just pointing out the obvious. That people who shoot up movie houses, temples, and elementary schools are probably going to be more a reasonable, discriminating and responsible type than the people who plant bombs in those kinds of places.

Why yes I am. Do you disagree?

 

[subwannabe]

I'm not a gun lover by any means. In fact, I used to be an avid gun control person. On top of that, I'm not against any of the ideas being currently proposed. BUT - I am really pissed off that gun control advocates can't see the forest through the trees and think that gun control legislation is going to put a serious dent in the events that continue to happen again and again. Gun rights advocates have two things right:

1. guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns (or sometimes other things)

2. gun control laws are not going to keep guns out of the hands of people who do such things so passing gun control legislation is like trying to put out a very huge fire with one bucket of water. Many guns are stolen so gun control legislation isn't going to stop that.

Gun control advocates are so quick to want to take away the constiutional rights of law abiding citizens to own guns but they refuse to do the one thing which could really put a dent in everyday gun violence and mass murders - to take away the freedom of certain individuals who are an obvious threat to society - BEFORE THEY DO SOMETHING, instead of letting them murder and then throwing the book at them afterwards. I'm not talking about locking up everyone, I'm talking about detaining people with long violent criminal histories who are constantly making proven threats to others or people who have serious mental issues that could be violent. Evalluate them and release them only when medical professionals deem that they are no longer a threat to anyone.

We live in a society where we let people have the freedom to murder but if they don't kill themselves in the process then by damn, we are going to throw the book at them afterwards. Lot that does for the victims. They're still dead! Also, we put restraining orders against violent people who might harm others. What good does that do? They still kill their girlfriends, wives or families and then in addition to murder we charge them with violating their restraining order. How stupid is that? Again, I'm not talking about detaining everyone who might get a restraining order but there are those with violent histories with proven threats of violence. How many women out there don't even bother to get a restraining order beause they know if they do that then they're dead anyway?

Gun control advocates need to step up to the plate and take care of some issues which could really help instead of trying so hard to pass gun control legislation that won't have much effect anyway. If they were to get what they want they will think that their job is done and it won't even be close to helping with the real problem.

 

[Squibbs]

Essentially he's just pointing out the obvious. That people who shoot up movie houses, temples, and elementary schools are probably going to be more a reasonable, discriminating and responsible type than the people who plant bombs in those kinds of places.

Why yes I am. Do you disagree?

Personally, I'd rather be killed by an unreasonable psychopath.

If I was killed by someone who could have been reasoned with I'd be pissed.

 

[CHNOPS]

Actually, I just googled and found out no one has ever been killed with a gun by accident. Everyone who dies from a bullet, has been aimed at intentionally by the shooter. I was completely wrong and I apologize.

 

[neci]

Rob has always been jealous of my keen leopard-powers of observation, and my astounding ability to apply Scientific Kitty Wisdom in solving the most complex of Constitutional mysteries.

Plus I got to sail on a pirate ship.

wait, a pirate ship? was there a mermaid on the bow?

Yikes!

i know! just a tad freaky.

I'm not a gun lover by any means. In fact, I used to be an avid gun control person. On top of that, I'm not against any of the ideas being currently proposed. BUT - I am really pissed off that gun control advocates can't see the forest through the trees and think that gun control legislation is going to put a serious dent in the events that continue to happen again and again. Gun rights advocates have two things right:

1. guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns (or sometimes other things)

2. gun control laws are not going to keep guns out of the hands of people who do such things so passing gun control legislation is like trying to put out a very huge fire with one bucket of water. Many guns are stolen so gun control legislation isn't going to stop that.

Gun control advocates are so quick to want to take away the constiutional rights of law abiding citizens to own guns but they refuse to do the one thing which could really put a dent in everyday gun violence and mass murders - to take away the freedom of certain individuals who are an obvious threat to society - BEFORE THEY DO SOMETHING, instead of letting them murder and then throwing the book at them afterwards. I'm not talking about locking up everyone, I'm talking about detaining people with long violent criminal histories who are constantly making proven threats to others or people who have serious mental issues that could be violent. Evalluate them and release them only when medical professionals deem that they are no longer a threat to anyone.

We live in a society where we let people have the freedom to murder but if they don't kill themselves in the process then by damn, we are going to throw the book at them afterwards. Lot that does for the victims. They're still dead! Also, we put restraining orders against violent people who might harm others. What good does that do? They still kill their girlfriends, wives or families and then in addition to murder we charge them with violating their restraining order. How stupid is that? Again, I'm not talking about detaining everyone who might get a restraining order but there are those with violent histories with proven threats of violence. How many women out there don't even bother to get a restraining order beause they know if they do that then they're dead anyway?

Gun control advocates need to step up to the plate and take care of some issues which could really help instead of trying so hard to pass gun control legislation that won't have much effect anyway. If they were to get what they want they will think that their job is done and it won't even be close to helping with the real problem.

um... this thread is about bombs. take your guns somewhere else.

 

[Liar]

People who dabble in bombs when they have no business to, have a tendency to now and again inadvertently forfeit their right to bear arms.

 

[BotanyBoy]

People who dabble in bombs when they have no business to, have a tendency to now and again inadvertently forfeit their right to bear arms.

Anyone who has no business playing with bombs but does anyhow isn't around long enough to forfeit any rights.

I always used to get a chuckle out of the EOD office, they had a sign that read "No one in this office has ever fucked up." and well...it's true.

 

[run_silent]

Personally, I'd rather be killed by an unreasonable psychopath.

If I was killed by someone who could have been reasoned with I'd be pissed.

Then when you get blown up randomly at someplace you go. You will think at least I didn't die because someone didn't specifically want to kill me. RIP. It will help your family deal with your loss.