Archive

Explosion during Boston Marathon (political discussion)

  • WebFire
    gut;1432232 wrote:Because the arguments interest me? I never said I opposed gun ownership, I said the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee that right. You equated that with being against guns. You made a bad assumption.
    Like I said, the only think I can make an assumption on is your postings here.
  • gut
    WebFire;1432234 wrote:Like I said, the only think I can make an assumption on is your postings here.
    I didn't say it was a stupid assumption, just that it was wrong. :p
  • WebFire
    gut;1432259 wrote:I didn't say it was a stupid assumption, just that it was wrong. :p
    LOL
  • Footwedge
    WebFire;1432058 wrote:How about Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Boston.com News ‏@BostonDotCom16m
    Report: Bombing suspects motivated by US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan http://www.boston.com/news/source/2013/04/report_bombing.html … via @BostonDotCom

    Slate ‏@Slate24m
    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev reportedly cited the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as motivations for the #Boston bombing: http://slate.me/15Et6cM


    Will McAvoy     ‏@WillMcAvoyACN    30m
    Washington Post reporting the suspect in the Boston Bombing is claiming the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were motivation.




    So the motives had to do with us invading Iraq, starting a war, killing hundreds of thousands of their people and the 12 year occupation of Afghanistan. Gee...what a fucking shocking revelation.
  • WebFire
    gut;1432129 wrote:There is a clear and unambiguous factual reading of the 2nd amendment...and then there is your opinion, your inference, - based on no historical context - that the 2nd amendment gives non-militia the right to bear arms.

    My opinion is that your opinion the 2nd amendment gives everyone the right to bear arms is baseless.
    George Washington disagrees with you, FWIW.

  • FatHobbit
    WebFire;1432583 wrote:George Washington disagrees with you, FWIW.

    Gut has history on his side. But as is frequently the case, if we imagine something long enough it becomes a fact.
  • queencitybuckeye
    gut;1432129 wrote:and then there is your opinion, your inference, - based on no historical context - that the 2nd amendment gives non-militia the right to bear arms.
    A supreme court ruling that it is so is enough historical context for me. In fact it is the ONLY historical context that really matters.

    With all of the subjects open to debate, I'm confused as to why people choose to debate one where a winner has been declared.
  • QuakerOats
    TAXPAYER-FUNDED TERROR?
    BOSTON BOMBERS ON WELFARE...
    Headed to NYC to 'party'...
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Your point?
  • believer
    ptown_trojans_1;1432884 wrote:Your point?
    seems obvious enough
  • ptown_trojans_1
    believer;1432923 wrote:seems obvious enough
    Dudes were on welfare.
    Yet, hated America.
    Typical terrorist double speak.

    Seems like a footnote though more than a story.
    Honestly don't care. I am more interested in their motive, and the story about the CIA/ and the watch-list...
  • gut
    ptown_trojans_1;1432930 wrote: Seems like a footnote though more than a story.
    Really a different thread. The story is why do we give welfare to illegals, and why do we give citizenship to people that are going to be burden on the system? We have enough poor people of our own now, we maybe shouldn't continue taking everyone else's poor people.
  • BGFalcons82
    ptown_trojans_1;1432930 wrote:Seems like a footnote though more than a story.
    Honestly don't care. I am more interested in their motive, and the story about the CIA/ and the watch-list...
    Good luck with that interest. Maggot #2 has lawyered-up thanks to Barry, Holder, and Big Sis' refusal to treat him as a treasonous American. Surely politics trumps national defense in Obamaland.
  • Cleveland Buck
    BGFalcons82;1432956 wrote:Good luck with that interest. Maggot #2 has lawyered-up thanks to Barry, Holder, and Big Sis' refusal to treat him as a treasonous American. Surely politics trumps national defense in Obamaland.
    The Constitution applies to all citizens. It even specifies that traitors get a trial.
  • BGFalcons82
    Cleveland Buck;1433002 wrote:The Constitution applies to all citizens. It even specifies that traitors get a trial.
    The Constitution is also crystal clear in regards to treason. The penalty is death and the sooner Maggot #2 is swinging from the gallows the better.
  • Cleveland Buck
    BGFalcons82;1433014 wrote:The Constitution is also crystal clear in regards to treason. The penalty is death and the sooner Maggot #2 is swinging from the gallows the better.
    I don't disagree, but let him have his trial first. The Constitution is there to protect us, not people like him.
  • gut
    Cleveland Buck;1433002 wrote:The Constitution applies to all citizens. It even specifies that traitors get a trial.
    I don't know if the analyst I heard is right, but they said citizenship can be revoked if you lied on your application. And he lied when he promised not to do harm to the US to get his citizenship 6 months ago.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    gut;1432942 wrote:Really a different thread. The story is why do we give welfare to illegals, and why do we give citizenship to people that are going to be burden on the system? We have enough poor people of our own now, we maybe shouldn't continue taking everyone else's poor people.
    That is the story of American.
    BGFalcons82;1432956 wrote:Good luck with that interest. Maggot #2 has lawyered-up thanks to Barry, Holder, and Big Sis' refusal to treat him as a treasonous American. Surely politics trumps national defense in Obamaland.
    He is an American, and thus us entitled to the same rights as you and me. It is the way the framers intended.
  • gut
    ptown_trojans_1;1433054 wrote: He is an American, and thus us entitled to the same rights as you and me. It is the way the framers intended.
    I doubt the framers intended on granting citizenship to terrorists.
  • believer
  • Heretic
    gut;1433191 wrote:I doubt the framers intended on granting citizenship to terrorists.
    Heh, considering that it'd be pretty tricky to tell if someone has terroristic plans when they're going for their citizenship (I mean, I'm just guessing that they're not holding a lit bomb while screaming "DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!", while signing paperwork), I'd say that would be a tricky comment to bring into play in this situation.
  • gut
    Heretic;1433477 wrote:Heh, considering that it'd be pretty tricky to tell if someone has terroristic plans when they're going for their citizenship (I mean, I'm just guessing that they're not holding a lit bomb while screaming "DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!", while signing paperwork), I'd say that would be a tricky comment to bring into play in this situation.
    They lied on the application. Do they still deserve citizenship and its protections when they obtained it fraudulently?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    gut;1433624 wrote:They lied on the application. Do they still deserve citizenship and its protections when they obtained it fraudulently?
    So, then what?
    No trial? Military trial? Gee, how those working out in GITMO, shoddy history so far.
    I'd rather go with the proven system of civilian trials and legal system we have used for crimes like this since our foundation.
    It has proven sufficient in the McVey case, the blind sheik, the Unabomber, and all the back to anarchists and traitors back in the 19th century.
    Plus, a civilian trial will be over quicker.
  • gut
    ptown_trojans_1;1433628 wrote:So, then what?
    He can still be tried, just not as a citizen. It's not like foreigners that commit crimes in the US are simply deported or put thru military courts.
  • BoatShoes
    ptown_trojans_1;1433628 wrote:So, then what?
    No trial? Military trial? Gee, how those working out in GITMO, shoddy history so far.
    I'd rather go with the proven system of civilian trials and legal system we have used for crimes like this since our foundation.
    It has proven sufficient in the McVey case, the blind sheik, the Unabomber, and all the back to anarchists and traitors back in the 19th century.
    Plus, a civilian trial will be over quicker.
    ^This. You would have to have a trial just to remove his citizenship. I imagine they could've found some federal charge but prior to 9/11 I think there is a good chance this is just a state-law murder case, etc.