Hey bomb idiots!!!! Time to wake up!!!!

[Appliance Guy]

What do you say now?? What do you idiots have to say? Time to wake up and grow brains. The bombs need to be done!!! They have no place in this country. I hope Obama does everything in his power to get these bombs out of the hands of citizens and off the streets.


Sounds stupid, doesn't it Brutuscz? You see, there will always be terrorists- both domestic and foreign...and they will use anything as a weapon- a plane full of fuel, a knife, a gun, and a bomb. They'll use machetes, poison, anthrax, ammonium nitrate (OK City bombings) and any other explosives.

Ya can't stop violence by hoping for peace and disarming law abiding citizens. Ya can't stop hate. If someone is gonna hate and do anything possible in order to achieve the desired result- it can happen...No law will stop people from killing people. It's unfortunate, but that is how life has been for quite some time- even before guns and bombs if you can believe it...

[Brutuscz]

Classless....completely classless!! But, since you desire a reply. This just further displays the need to limit all forms of mass killing devices...Be it a machine gun or anything else capable of mass casualties. Nobody needs ANY device capable of such destruction!! Just as a bomb would not be used for personal protection...neither should an assault rifle. These killing devices should NOT be in the hands of civilians. This latest tragedy only supported my desire to have no civilian access to automatic weapons and other killing devices!! Actually....it sounds Very, very logical to me. The more dangerous weapons are in the hands of civilians...the more murders you can expect. It is very simple math...displayed by ALL the gun statistics I have listed. So...take your hillbilly, classless agenda...and shove it where the sun don't shine!!! You have only strengthened my case!! Classless moron!!

[dizzyfish]

This just further displays the need to limit all forms of mass killing devices...Be it a machine gun or anything else capable of mass casualties.

What you going to do Brutus? Outlaw pressure cookers and fertilizer.

[Brutuscz]

What you going to do Brutus? Outlaw pressure cookers and fertilizer.

Are you trying to equate a pressure cooker with an assault rifle?? Really?? Please forgive me if I sound belittling...Grow a brain!!

[HEADACHE6]

Thought some of you mite like this.

[Eugeneg]

What you going to do Brutus? Outlaw pressure cookers and fertilizer.

It looks as though black powder was used which you could not buy without a permit in Canada.
Amendments to Canada's Explosives Act passed in 2008 require a vendor of ammonium nitrate to record the purchases and who bought the fertilizer, and to alert police if they think there is something suspicious about a purchase.
U.S. bomber Timothy McVeigh used ammonium nitrate to blow up a government building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.
Regards
Eugene

[PapaBear]

It looks as though black powder was used which you could not buy without a permit in Canada.
Amendments to Canada's Explosives Act passed in 2008 require a vendor of ammonium nitrate to record the purchases and who bought the fertilizer, and to alert police if they think there is something suspicious about a purchase.
U.S. bomber Timothy McVeigh used ammonium nitrate to blow up a government building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.
Regards
Eugene

Ban the Black Powder altogether. It won't matter.

A Freshman H.S. Student with a C- in science class could mfg an equally destructive device to the one used in Boston with a few common household commodities available on the grocery and cleaning supplies aisles at a mini-mart. Give someone bent on murder a grocery sack filled with the right recipe and ingredients and it will happen.

You and O'Bobby can delude yourselves all you want. This is about murderous people, not your ignorant and irrelevant drivel.

[Brutuscz]

Yes..murderous people, who can be much more successful with a gun. Look at recent events....A stabbing spree in texas, and zero deaths!! A stabbing spree in china...and no deaths!! At the same time, look at Aurora, virginia tech and sandy hook!!! You want to put your head in the sand and say blah, blah, blah...more guns...then go right ahead. anyone with an ounce of sense knows you are wrong!! ..and what about this very real statistic....an inconvenient truth?? Talk about drivel...it is never ending with you and your type!!

Then you have the nerve to complain about murderous people....but, are against health care reform. The ultimate contradiction. Complain about the mentally ill....but, don't give them coverage so they can get treatment and meds. Simply complain after they do something. But...be pro-active?? Not the conservative way!!! Better to b!tch and moan later...than pay to fix things now. Such a hypocrite!!

[PapaBear]

Funny how easily the weak minded people like you always default to the lowest common denominator. It is entirely too difficult for you to exercise "sound judgement" when making decisions. Oh no, we must dumb everything down to a level even you and those who think like you can cope with. Listening to your whining little zero of a Presidunce cry to the camera's that those mean old Republicans won't even give him a bill that won't do anything to prevent crimes. How terrible and selfish they are to vote against a worthless and ineffectual piece of crap.

Do you or yours ever listen to this fluff closely enough to hear the words? It was a completely useless piece of legislation that even those who were voting FOR IT knew would have done absolutely nothing to prevent or even temporarily interrupt any of the recent violence. We have literally thousands of gun laws on the books, and a Justice Department that has prosecuted less than 00.5% of the cases it has been presented with.

Presidunce O'Bomber and A.G. BagHolder are just like Klinton. They're "comfortable with a certain level of violence because it keeps the narrative going".

PrezBozo couldn't care less about these shootings, except as a means to push his narrative. Laws violated but never prosecuted, because high crime gives them a pulpit to pound. Murders rampant everywhere his policies are already in place, but no criminals prosecuted because he NEEDS the headlines to grind his axe with. The shooters all look like you and yours O'Bobby. Haven't you noticed that? Registered Democrats, voting for PezBozo, and going on killing spree's. It ain't the Tea Party we have a problem with twerp. Its people who vote and think just like You!

Of course this is the same Presidunce who thinks selling guns to Mexican Drug Cartels by the thousands and giving F-16 Fighter Jets to the Muslim Brotherhood is good policy, so what kind of expectations can any sane person really have other than the nonsense we're being fed

[dizzyfish]

Meanwhile progressives like Brutus are hoping the bomber was a white male........so they can advance their theories on white privilege.
Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American - Salon.com

TUESDAY, APR 16, 2013 06:24 PM CDTLet’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

There is a double standard: White terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats

BY DAVID SIROTA Timothy McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden

(Credit: AP/David Longstreath)

Updated: Sirota responds to critics of this piece over here.
As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.
This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.
Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.
“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”
Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.
To know that’s true is to simply consider how America reacts to different kinds of terrorism.
Though FBI data show fewer terrorist plots involving Muslims than terrorist plots involving non-Muslims, America has mobilized a full-on war effort exclusively against the prospect of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the moniker “War on Terrorism” has come to specifically mean “War on Islamic Terrorism,” involving everything from new laws like the Patriot Act, to anew torture regime, to new federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to mass surveillance of Muslim communities.
By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite — according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating — the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)
Enter the Boston bombing. Coming at the very moment the U.S. government is planning towithdraw from Afghanistan, considering cuts to the Pentagon budget, discussing civil liberties principles and debating landmark immigration legislation, the attack could easily become the fulcrum of all of those contentious policy debates — that is, depending on the demographic profile of the assailant.
If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.
It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world. As we know from our own history, when those kind of individuals break laws in such a high-profile way, America often cites them as both proof that entire demographic groups must be targeted, and that therefore a more systemic response is warranted. At that point, it’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties.
If that sounds hard to believe, just look at yesterday’s comments by right-wing radio hostLaura Ingraham, whose talking points often become Republican Party doctrine. Though authorities haven’t even identified a suspect in the Boston attack, she (like other conservatives) seems to already assume the assailant is foreign, and is consequently citing the attack as rationale to slam the immigration reform bill.
The same Laura Ingraham, of course, was one of the leading voices criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for daring to even report on right-wing domestic terrorism. In that sense, she perfectly embodies the double standard that, more than anything, will determine the long-term political impact of the Boston bombing.
At 1:30 p.m. ET Wednesday, David Sirota will be debating Breitbart.com’s Ben Shapiro on guns here.