Hello Bluenote: You sound like a knowledgeable kind of man, do you think the response to the Boston Bombing was handled properly and what would you suggest would be measures to prevent something like this happening again? Or is it just about impossible to know everything about all the 'radicals' who are wandering around freely in the US even with all the various 'listening' stations (which I presume is what the FBI does) for 'flagged' words etc.?
I see also that you are not in favour of any of the parties, what would be your choice of government as anarchism really wouldn't be any improvement if you think all the parties are equally bad.
Lets start with the latter. Perhaps you'd like to show us wherein I made a blanket indictment of the " PARTIES" , I believe what I stated is the fact that I detest our current crop of POLITICIANS , across the board without regard to party.
Did I not?
And nope I don't think the Boston Bombing was handled properly , a response that utilised 9000 personell running around like chickens with their heads cut off , trampling on the basic rights of the citizens who would support them is not expeditious.
And frankly the REALITY is that there is no way of insuring that this can't/won't happen again , has Great Britain managed to prevent the IRA from doing as it damn pleases when it decides to? Did the Russians with their abusive extremes manage to prevent similar in Chechnya , has military presence in either the Iraq of Afghan theaters prevented even worse?
And YES it is most certainly impossible to know for certain what every radical is doing at all times , would you wish to live in a society wherein every citizen was tracked from womb to tomb at all times?
And you misunderstand the primary role of the FBI , you are aware of certain other agencies in this country are you not?
Look , here's what it comes down to...........Law enforcement is NOT there to protect you , regardless of the rhetoric put forth by any given side , they are merely present to pick up the pieces , as witnessed in this specific incident.
You carry a degree of responsibility for **self protection** , yes it's relatively speaking impossible to protect yourself against bombs and the like , but not against other things.
As an example , and though it may sound vicious , take the crime of rape , if more rapists got shot in the groin during the commission of their crime or got their dangly bits sliced off and were left to bleed out slowly and painfully there'd be a lot less of that crime.
And while most assuredly I don't feel that *everyone* should go armed you will note the common thread within the mass shootings in the news.........they across the board happened in *** no firearms zones***.
Examine if you will the Aurora incident , Holmes didn't pick the venue closest to his home , he didn't choose the venue with the most targets , instead he chose a venue with a strict *no firearms policy* , even for legally licensed carriers.
The Newtown shootings happened in a state with some of the most restrictive firearms laws in this country.
And as an aside , magazine capacity limits would have been of no benefit in either incident , Holmes initially opened up with with an 870 in Aurora , with his AK platform he used the notoriously unreliable 100 drum , which as they always do failed to function early on , he limpwristed his Glock and stovepiped it and had to swap out mags.......that comes *directly* from responding officers that I have queried *directly*.
Newtown , the magazines found at the scene still containing from 9 to 21 rounds left in the mags indicate frequent mag changes..
Across the board in this nation the worst crime and the most firearms utilisation within the context of those crimes is to be found in the locales with the most restrictive firearms statutes.
The Sullivan Act went into effect in 1911 , how is that working for NYC nowadays?
