Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

The only thing that comes to mind is that it's Patriots' Day (observed). The Oklahoma City bombing was on Patriots' Day (the actual day), April 19, 1995.

I also note that Al Qaida is one of the few groups that does not "take credit" for an attack. Many groups do so to focus attention for whatever cause they pursue. Then again, the OKC bombers didn't push propaganda after the bombing, either.

Insufficient data to provide a meaningful answer.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I fail to see how an individual right is manifest as a militia, and so do most people not already wedded to personalizing the 2^nd.

Militias are organized military units, by definition. One of the inherent traits of a military unit is a chain of command and the existence of a command authority. A self-appointed command authority is indistinguishable from a mob boss or a gang leader, which implies that the unit must be sanctioned by a government or by God, if it is to be legitimate in the Constitutional sense of the term.

In which case, you are either arguing for an oxymoron, you are OK with the rule of the mob, or you are marching in God’s army. So which is it?

One has to be familiar with the tactics and methods of mobilization of the time to come up with a reasonable understanding of the 2nd Amendment. The English Civil War and American Revolution were reasonably recent memory. Militia units were not a match for regulars, but the militia had a real place on the battlefield. The King had a habit of trying to weaken the enemy by disarming the general population. The English Parliamentary faction and the American revolutionaries did not approve.

Given the military realities of the time, a well regulated militia was considered necessary to the security of a free state. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed.

This is not to say that the current current military situation is the same, that changes in technology ought not result in changes to law. It's just that I'd prefer to see the Constitution modified by legal means rather than through legislation written by the Supreme Court.

I'd note that during the Civil War, with much of the fighting taking place in the south, the Union Army came to dislike the sort of tactics the Minutemen used at Lexington and Concord. Civilians taking up arms at night and doing pinprick damage was not decisive, but forced the regulars to move troops from the front lines to the supply lines. While post revolutionary America romanticized the citizen soldier, Union veterans of the Civil War did not, thus Federal support for maintaining the militia dried up.

We have gotten used to Teddy Roosevelt's version of a reserve force. He was all in favor of foreign adventures, so he created the National Guard as part of the regular army. The militia can only be used to enforce the law, repel invasions and suppress insurrections. It cannot be used outside the nation's borders. Thus, TR had to create a new sort of reserve force. The National Guard is not the militia.

Too many people will leap into the gun debate without learning the history or the law.

Originally Posted by B Butler

One has to be familiar with the tactics and methods of mobilization of the time to come up with a reasonable understanding of the 2nd Amendment. The English Civil War and American Revolution were reasonably recent memory. Militia units were not a match for regulars, but the militia had a real place on the battlefield. The King had a habit of trying to weaken the enemy by disarming the general population. The English Parliamentary faction and the American revolutionaries did not approve.

Given the military realities of the time, a well regulated militia was considered necessary to the security of a free state. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed.

This is not to say that the current current military situation is the same, that changes in technology ought not result in changes to law. It's just that I'd prefer to see the Constitution modified by legal means rather than through legislation written by the Supreme Court.

I'd note that during the Civil War, with much of the fighting taking place in the south, the Union Army came to dislike the sort of tactics the Minutemen used at Lexington and Concord. Civilians taking up arms at night and doing pinprick damage was not decisive, but forced the regulars to move troops from the front lines to the supply lines. While post revolutionary America romanticized the citizen soldier, Union veterans of the Civil War did not, thus Federal support for maintaining the militia dried up.

We have gotten used to Teddy Roosevelt's version of a reserve force. He was all in favor of foreign adventures, so he created the National Guard as part of the regular army. The militia can only be used to enforce the law, repel invasions and suppress insurrections. It cannot be used outside the nation's borders. Thus, TR had to create a new sort of reserve force. The National Guard is not the militia.

Too many people will leap into the gun debate without learning the history or the law.

Until or unless somebody in caught for this, we will not know whether today's attack in Boston was internal or external. 911 was external, but the bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995 was internal. Until some verdict of responsibility is reached we will not know the answer here. My fear is that it may lead us further yet toward becoming a police state. I firmly remember growing up how fearful we were of the Communist police states.

I don't believe that the ang is a militia either...I think "reserve force" is the best description.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

My fear is that it may lead us further yet toward becoming a police state. I firmly remember growing up how fearful we were of the Communist police states.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

During World War II, the strategic bombing of cities by both sides was intended in part to break morale. In general it didn't work that way. The common result was to bond the victims together with firmer resolve. Terrorism seems to have a similar effect. September 11th changed the United States from a country that wasn't willing to risk its young men to resolve foreign problems to a nation ready to launch preemptive wars of choice.

One might wish that Ben Franklin's simple statement was as clearly true as its tone implies. Thing is, when bombs go off, the people will want revenge, will want it not to happen again, and that means taking a step or two towards the police state. That which does not kill us makes us stronger. I don't know that we want to be stronger in that context, or that our enemies are wise in striving to make us stronger.

Still, this is the spiral of violence thread. That is what spirals of violence do.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Nobody has posted on the bombs killing two and injuring dozens at the Boston Marathon today. Okay, I'll start. What the #$)(_% is going on?!

Tax day + the Sandy Hook parents in the VIP seating near the blast = Probably a right-wing gun-nut.

My wife thinks Aryan Brotherhood. I go with would be spree shooter.

Since yesterday afternoon, the person of interest has been a Saudi national in the US on a student visa. They liked the guy enough for the bombing to get a search warrant for his apartment last night.

As far as Benjamin Franklin's famous quote goes, dig up the context in which he wrote it. You might be surprised. (Hint: The "essential Liberty" had nothing to do with civil liberties, as it's frequently interpreted these days.) You might also be surprised that during the Revolution, Benjamin Franklin, like the other Founders, was comfortable with a degree of censorship and repression that would be unthinkable today. The Committees of Safety and related organizations banned stage plays (all stage plays, no matter what their content), the books and pamphlets of the Loyalist opposition, and unapproved public gatherings. Once the United States asserted independence, citizens were required to sign an oath of loyalty to the revolutionary government. Those who didn't were branded Loyalists. Actual and suspected Loyalists were disarmed as a matter of course. In New York, people could (and did) go to jail for not ratting out secret Loyalists. Those Loyalists who were turned in had their property seized and were sent to jail or, in some cases, hung without even the fig leaf of a trial. (The latter result was rare, to be sure, but it happened.) Public punishments meted out to Loyalists (again, suspected or actual) included things that would be considered torture today.

Franklin was a member of a Committee of Safety and, given that he neither spoke out nor wrote against those sorts of activities, it's reasonable to conclude that he had no problem with them. This idea that Franklin and the other Founders were guardians of civil liberties during war, which is usually the implication when that quote is trotted out, is flat out absurd.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Until or unless somebody in caught for this, we will not know whether today's attack in Boston was internal or external. 911 was external, but the bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995 was internal. Until some verdict of responsibility is reached we will not know the answer here. My fear is that it may lead us further yet toward becoming a police state. I firmly remember growing up how fearful we were of the Communist police states.

In some respects, we are edging closer and closer to a police state. We have already given up so many of our freedoms for the sake of "homeland security." Even little kids are being patted down at airports.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Since yesterday afternoon, the person of interest has been a Saudi national in the US on a student visa. They liked the guy enough for the bombing to get a search warrant for his apartment last night.

Source, please?

Originally Posted by B Butler

During World War II, the strategic bombing of cities by both sides was intended in part to break morale. In general it didn't work that way. The common result was to bond the victims together with firmer resolve. Terrorism seems to have a similar effect. September 11th changed the United States from a country that wasn't willing to risk its young men to resolve foreign problems to a nation ready to launch preemptive wars of choice.

One might wish that Ben Franklin's simple statement was as clearly true as its tone implies. Thing is, when bombs go off, the people will want revenge, will want it not to happen again, and that means taking a step or two towards the police state. That which does not kill us makes us stronger. I don't know that we want to be stronger in that context, or that our enemies are wise in striving to make us stronger.

Still, this is the spiral of violence thread. That is what spirals of violence do.

Cybersecurity + is allocated more than $13 billion in Obama's budget
President Barack Obama's fiscal 2014 budget proposal would increase spending by 2% for federal IT programs, including cybersecurity. "From a policy standpoint, it reflects the discussion and concern the administration places on cyber," said Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president of the trade group Professional Services Council.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Source, please?

Turns out they didn't like him enough afterward.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,4548564.story

Late Monday, police searched a Boston area apartment of a Saudi Arabian student who was injured in the blast, law enforcement sources said.

Today, law enforcement sources briefed on the case said that the evidence was indicating that the Saudi student, who had been temporarily considered a “person of interest” in the investigation, would be cleared of suspicion and was unlikely to shed any light on the attack.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

The only thing that comes to mind is that it's Patriots' Day (observed). The Oklahoma City bombing was on Patriots' Day (the actual day), April 19, 1995.

That's interesting. Aren't the Texas bombing thought to be aryan prison gang inspired? Not sure, can't remember.

Just on tumbler: AP : BREAKING: Person briefed on probe: Boston explosives made of pressure cookers with metal, ball bearings -MM

Pressure cooker and ball bearings? Speculation?

Originally Posted by jadams

That's interesting. Aren't the Texas bombing thought to be aryan prison gang inspired? Not sure, can't remember.

Just on tumbler: AP : BREAKING: Person briefed on probe: Boston explosives made of pressure cookers with metal, ball bearings -MM

Pressure cooker and ball bearings? Speculation?

Bombs are generally designed with a containment that holds things together until the explosive is well and truly ignited. A pressure cooker would do that and still look more mundane than a classic pipe bomb. The ball bearings would be there as shrapnel.

Sounds like a reasonably well thought out IED, and not an approach that I've heard of. If it is indeed a new design, they won't have a signature for it, a group that uses the design.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Source, please?

It was being reported on both CBS and NBC yesterday, at the very least. And I can't imagine they were alone. I was primarily watching television news, so I can't cite, but this kind of thing is pretty representative. As of this morning, everybody seemed to be carrying the news of the apartment search.

Originally Posted by jadams

That's interesting. Aren't the Texas bombing thought to be aryan prison gang inspired? Not sure, can't remember.

Just on tumbler: AP : BREAKING: Person briefed on probe: Boston explosives made of pressure cookers with metal, ball bearings -MM

Pressure cooker and ball bearings? Speculation?

Sounds like a loner to me. No affiliation or connection. Home made explosives are so cheap and easy to render, there's no reason to do this style of device unless you're just some guy who cooks a lot of chili and got a terrible idea.

The Boston bombing produces familiar and revealing reactions


As usual, the limits of selective empathy, the rush to blame Muslims, and the exploitation of fear all instantly emerge

The widespread compassion for yesterday's victims and the intense anger over the attacks was obviously authentic and thus good to witness. But it was really hard not to find oneself wishing that just a fraction of that compassion and anger be devoted to attacks that the US perpetrates rather than suffers. These are exactly the kinds of horrific, civilian-slaughtering attacks that the US has been bringing to countries in the Muslim world over and over and over again for the last decade, with very little attention paid.

In sum, even if the perpetrators of Monday's attack in Boston turn out to be politically motivated and subscribers to an anti-US ideology, it will still be a very rare event, one that poses far less danger to Americans than literally countless other threats. The most important lesson of the excesses arising from the 9/11 attacks should be this one: that the dangers of overreacting and succumbing to irrational fear are far, far greater than any other dangers posed by these type of events.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...otes-reactions

Originally Posted by Deb C

In some respects, we are edging closer and closer to a police state. We have already given up so many of our freedoms for the sake of "homeland security." Even little kids are being patted down at airports.

But come Fourth of July the flags will be waving and we will be preaching the gospel of freedom as strongly as ever and most likely not reminded of how much of the freedom we worship we have lost.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Sounds like a loner to me. No affiliation or connection. Home made explosives are so cheap and easy to render, there's no reason to do this style of device unless you're just some guy who cooks a lot of chili and got a terrible idea.

CNN had the following.

Originally Posted by CNN

The U.S. government has warned federal agencies in the past that pressure cookers -- airtight pots used to quickly cook or preserve foods -- have been packed with explosives and shrapnel and detonated with blasting camps. A law enforcement official said Monday's bombs were likely detonated by timers.

Such bombs are "very effective," terrorism expert Jeff Beatty told CNN. Taliban and al Qaeda militants "use them to make their IEDs," he said.

"That doesn't mean it was the Taliban -- other people can read about this," said Beatty, who served in the FBI, CIA and the military's Delta Force.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

I don't believe that the ang is a militia either...I think "reserve force" is the best description.

There are technical terms written into the law. The 'unorganized militia' as defined in TR's time would be all fit males of military age that are not part of the regulars. The 'organized militia' would be the National Guard.

There are of course exceptions, for example the vice president for some reason is not part of the unorganized militia, while the president is their commander in chief. Still, the above is true for the most part.

And the legal terms aren't used by the media as no one is familiar with the legal terms. It also seems the media doesn't like to confuse the issue with facts.

"Reserve force" is descriptive and factual enough.

This will shock the Boomer New Leftists who dominate this forum, but I don't think Muslims did it.

Think about it: April 15th is Tax Deadline Day - and it was also Patriot's Day, which used to be celebrated on its actual date instead of the third Monday in April.

And that actual date? April 19th - the holiest day on the far-right "liturgical calendar" (see Waco, Oklahoma City, etc.).

If it had been Muslims they would have proudly claimed credit for it by now.

Originally Posted by B Butler

CNN had the following.

Things like IEDs get used by Middle Eastern terror groups because they are working the people. The goal, overall, is to make people think they will be attacked. Middle Eastern terrorists in the US attack the symbol. They're not looking to affect our hearts and minds, they're trying to show how powerful they are to those people who's hearts and minds they want. The Boston Marathon is barely worth mentioning in the US, I doubt it would be a major hit internationally. Also, when you attack the symbol, a high kill count, rather than injury count, is preferred. It's not outside the realm of possibility that this is you traditional Middle Eastern terrorist group, but I doubt it.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Think about it: April 15th is Tax Deadline Day - and it was also Patriot's Day, which used to be celebrated on its actual date instead of the third Monday in April.

And that actual date? April 19th - the holiest day on the far-right "liturgical calendar" (see Waco, Oklahoma City, etc.).

Actually it could be unrelated. Columbine, Virginia Tech were also 3rd week of April Events. It maybe something stuck in the collective unconscious or a series of annoying coincidences.

But the fact that this one was April 15th adds a whole new dimension to it; and since Columbine and Virginia Tech were not pseudo-politically motivated, they in no way invalidate the theory.

And what has Barack Obama done lately to anger Muslim extremists? Get an anti-Semite of the crudest sort confirmed as Secretary of Defense? Go to Israel and shamelessly try and sell a "two-state solution" right in their faces?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

And what has Barack Obama done lately to anger Muslim extremists? Get an anti-Semite of the crudest sort confirmed as Secretary of Defense? Go to Israel and shamelessly try and sell a "two-state solution" right in their faces?

So you figure the Israelis set the bombs?

CNN goes into more detail regarding pressure cooker bomb instructions available on the internet. The recipe might originally have been put up by Al Qaida, but once on the net anyone might pick it up. Boston Marathon bombs have hallmarks of 'lone wolf' devices, experts say

The article goes into a bit more detail than I like.