Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night?

@Moment-in-Time,

Today's antiAmericanism is government sponsored... our president is not 'normal'.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

A common view by someone posting from the loony bin.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

WH, are you enjoying the padded cell and the meds they feed you?

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Today's antiAmericanism is government sponsored... our president is not 'normal'.

He's the most normal one you've had for a long time, unlike his immediate predecessor he has opposable thumbs.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

Hey guys, we gotta quit feeding these trolls. They offer nothing on a2k. Let's let them die of their own accord.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

If I had been stupid enough to have checked the boat out myself the young man would had been looking at the wrong end of a 357 revolver.

He would have then two choices he could had follow my directions in every details or he could die.

So you are saying that you assume you have the right to order another person to follow your instructions, and if they do not, you believe you have the right to kill them?

Why is that?

3 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

So you are saying that you assume you have the right to order another person to follow your instructions, and if they do not, you believe you have the right to kill them?

Why is that?

Why is it that you assume the fugitive Islamic Jihadist murderer has the
right to break into another persons personal property on private land?

Why is that?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

He's the most normal one you've had for a long time, unlike his immediate predecessor he has opposable thumbs.

Ah, Izzy, I could not have said it better! Too bad the US Congress is so terribly dysfunctional.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Well, since Insurance companies regularly pay out billions of dollars for claim the plan isn't quite working.

An insurance policy is a contract. It has terms and conditions. There are things they are willing to cover and other that they are not. Since an insurance company can't retroactively price for a risk, they really don't like to pay for anything that wasn't predictable when they set the original rate.

One of the things they don't want to insure for is intentional damage. Why would they, and as importantly why would society want them to?

If a company has been dumping toxic waste in a river for any period of time, do you think that it did so with a reasonable ignorance of the consequences?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

One of the things they don't want to insure for is intentional damage. Why would they, and as importantly why would society want them to?

German (and other European) insurance offer such insurances. And it's actually thought to be a bit stupid, if you aren't insured against this risk.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Jizzy, you are unable to speak the truth.

Being a troll must be a family genetic trait for you, Jizzy.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

The US Congress is over lorded by a dysfunctional democrat manchild of a president.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

You are unable to comprehend the truth. Stupidity is certainly a genetic trait with you, and is probably the result of too shallow a gene pool

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Your self portrait is as you have described it above.
It's your pathetic life Jizzy, own up to it.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Well, since Insurance companies regularly pay out billions of dollars for claim the plan isn't quite working.

Mort tables are all worked out with a basis of HOW LONG they get to keep your money. Dont be so sure about how much money they DONT pay each year based upon beind sued by thge policy holders

0 Replies

North Korea has offered to buy the boat... they want (NEED) it for their NAVY.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02506/kim-jong-un-boat_2506851k.jpg

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

So you are saying that you assume you have the right to order another person to follow your instructions, and if they do not, you believe you have the right to kill them?

Why is that?

The young bomber is what is known under Florida law as a forcible felon being a bomber and is likely under most states laws and any needed force up to deadly force can be used to capture such a person.

But if you could get a DA to prosecuted or a jury to convicted a citizen that killed the young man in trying to captured him in any state in the US I would be amazed.

As far as the moral question there is none in dealing with a mass murder, bomber and cop killer.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

So you are saying that you assume you have the right to order another person to follow your instructions, and if they do not, you believe you have the right to kill them?
Why is that?

Because he understands his rights when it comes to self-defense against violent criminal trespassers?

Americans aren't serfs.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

I am still shaking my head over the idea that there would be any moral of legal problem with a citizen stopping a mass killer/cop killer who is in open and ongoing warfare with all of society.

Throwing bombs and bullets at cops in order to escape within a few miles of where he was found in the boat. Hell even running over his own brother and of course trying to run over the police then taking his brother into custody.

Giving him a chance to surround given how dangerous he had proven to be is far more then he deserve.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

As a Bostonian, I would have been quite upset with any bozo amateur who had killed the bomber. I want him to have the chance to give the information he has about any other groups to police.

Killing him would have been really stupid. This is why we have trained agents to take care of it.

Bostonians aren't hotheaded idiots.

3 Replies

Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know