Are we fighting a war or is this recent bombing just a crime?

[nw_hunter]

 

Here is what the JBS has to say about the Boston Bombing

Liberty Versus Security
 The Boston Marathon bombing has revealed exactly the type of constitutional usurpations that one would expect when the government deems itself in sole control of security.
 
 As Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
 To some, that may sound a bit harsh. After all, isn't the government instituted to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence? Certainly, but as George Washington is said to have stated, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
 
 Washington's quote equates what the Founders saw central government as: a negative force that needed to be controlled. Not a positive force to be used for the benefit of some and detriment of others.
 
 Because the Founders knew that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, (as attributed to Lord Acton a hundred years after the Constitution was written), they limited the duties of the federal or central government as stated within the Constitution in Article I, Section 8. They further defined what the federal or central government was not to do in the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments to the Constitution).
 
 One doesn't need to be a Constitutional scholar, attorney or judge to understand that what happened in the Boston area in pursuance of the bombers at the heavy hand of government was indeed a series of flagrant Constitutional abuses.
 
 In fact, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated today, "But we live in a complex word (sic) where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."[/size][/font]
 
 Actually, with the passage of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act regarding indefinite detention of citizens, the droning of foreign and American citizens, and the demonizing of sections of Americans with a hate label have all contributed to destroying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Most despicably, American jurisprudence has backed this up based upon layer after layer of precedence.



I agree!  with the John Birch Society .It would appear some of our so called Conservatives would agree with Bloomberg.
 

[Oldshooter]

Thats real eloquent and informative.
 
Not sure how any of it plays out in this discussion. Seems we have those that think the bombing ia just another "crime" like FT Hood. and others that think its a new attack by elements of Al queda, or radical islam.
 
No one that I have seen here in  this thread thinks we need to change the constitution or ursurp any liberties. Seems DHS has that taken care of already. What DHS isnt doing is protecting the "homeland"
 
The only thing the "government" is supposed to do per the constitution is protect the homeland, and deliver the mail, and they cant seem to do that
 
I am just not getting your point,I guess! 
 
 

[powderman]

Some want to broaden them to include Muslims worldwide

your coffee is weak! I would think that the recent attack in Boston and the foiled attack in Canada bound for New York, and the past "nonattacks" in this country would indicate     that "some" Muslims worldwide think they are at war with us.
 
Might try some Community Dark roast!   

 
OS. Fact is, muslims murdered innocents in 26 countries again last month, thats pretty well worldwide war against ALL humanity from muslims. Thats why we are involved with the GWOI, or GLOBAL war on islam. POWDERMAN. 

[SHOOTALL]

Is it right to remind folks your security is your responsibility ? We battle over the second amnd. but do we really use it to an extent that keeps us secure ? I mean really ? There were several times the bombers could have been shot but no one was armed . How many times have we heard someone tell another "if I get to my truck you will pay" are many here today reall unarmed and just think they will be protected ?
 All Americans should be ready to protect themselves and when crime shows its face things will be different in many cases . No we won't stop bombings or crime 100% but when the police show up to fill out the report they will check off different boxes .

[powderman]

SHOOTALL. Good point, but this was Boston Mass, a very gun unfriendly state. Had somebody shot them he or she would still be in jail chgd with murder, and the libbys whining to high Heaven about the murdering muzzies rights being violated. POWDERMAN.

[SHOOTALL]

SHOOTALL. Good point, but this was Boston Mass, a very gun unfriendly state. Had somebody shot them he or she would still be in jail chgd with murder, and the libbys whining to high Heaven about the murdering muzzies rights being violated. POWDERMAN.

  Yes we need to re-think some things .

[powderman]

SHOOTALL. My brother heard on a talk radio show a couple days ago that there were way over 78,000 muzzie students here and less than %40 can be accounted for. Cancelling ALL student or work visas from ALL muslim nations, rounding them up, then shipping them out would be a good start, then ban all visas or immigration from muslim countries as well. Then of course we still have to deal with the ones living here, one bombing at a time.
No doubt in my mind these punks did NOT acts alone without help right here in America. POWDERMAN. 

[SHOOTALL]

I think anyone here under false pretense should be rounded up and sent packing. And those here on the up and up should have regular checks.

[Oldshooter]

+ 1 on that with one addendum. If you came here to study bring your own blessed money. If you run out go back home or work at mickey D's or sumpn. no welfare for foreigners!

[two-blocked]

Is our Constitution weak? What if our Muslim citizens form a Constitutionally allowed well armed militia?
 
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-24-2013/weak-constitution
 
 
Let's fix it as the experts at FOXy suggest.
 
For reference, the first 10 amendments are:
 
1 - Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government.
2 - Protects a militia's and an individual's right to bear arms.
3 - Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime.
4 - Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause.
5 - Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
6 - Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel.
7 - Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law.
8 - Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.
9 - Protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
10 - Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution.
 

[mcwoodduck]

Two- Blocked.
The 5th amendment also protects the indivedual from the rath of the government in trying to convict a person over and over again, guilty or not.
 

[Oldshooter]

Is our Constitution weak? What if our Muslim citizens form a Constitutionally allowed well armed militia?
 
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-24-2013/weak-constitution
 
 
Let's fix it as the experts at FOXy suggest.
 
For reference, the first 10 amendments are:
 
1 - Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government.
2 - Protects a militia's and an individual's right to bear arms.
3 - Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime.
4 - Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause.
5 - Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
6 - Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel.
7 - Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law.
8 - Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.
9 - Protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
10 - Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution.

A real nice topic for your very own thread!

[BAGTIC]

A crime... plain and simple.

[BAGTIC]

Militias don't have any rights.  The term "Rights" applies only to individuals.

[BAGTIC]

The world is not at war with Islam. It is at war with terrorism. Doesn't matter what faith. White supremacists, KKK, radical Greens, Luddites, neo-Naziis, IRA, etc.

[powderman]

The world is not at war with Islam. It is at war with terrorism. Doesn't matter what faith. White supremacists, KKK, radical Greens, Luddites, neo-Naziis, IRA, etc.

 
I disagree Sir, islam is what these animals feed on. We are deeply involved in the GWOI. Name another cult that murders innocents DAILY worldwide?? POWDERMAN. 

[nw_hunter]

Thats real eloquent and informative.
 
Not sure how any of it plays out in this discussion. Seems we have those that think the bombing ia just another "crime" like FT Hood. and others that think its a new attack by elements of Al queda, or radical islam.
 
No one that I have seen here in  this thread thinks we need to change the constitution or ursurp any liberties. Seems DHS has that taken care of already. What DHS isnt doing is protecting the "homeland"
 
The only thing the "government" is supposed to do per the constitution is protect the homeland, and deliver the mail, and they cant seem to do that
 
I am just not getting your point,I guess! 

No Problem Watch this video of Art Thompson, CEO of The JBS.
Might shed some light on the subject.

http://www.jbs.org/home/behind-the-terror-a-look-at-the-terror-of-the-boston-bombing

 

[Oldshooter]

OK I watched and I will study on this some more before I make a decision. I am aware of all the terrorism since I could remember and understand. Our governmnt may be using this to take our liberties, wouldn't surprise me but It aint how its supposed to be.
 
So by yelling this is a war and demanding an accounting we promote subjugation. Hmmm! seems no matter what we do we are screwed. I'll investigate more and get back to ya.
 
Thanks for the info and video! I love to learn and seems I have a lot to learn.     wish you wudda posted that video in the first place I couldn't figger where you were coming from. I will study more!

[nw_hunter]

Sometimes I don't know where I'm coming from Old Shooter LOL!
At times my brain has a hard time communicating with the mouth. Or in this case......The key board

[Oldshooter]

I understand,.......... well sometimes I don't     

[FPH]

A crime... plain and simple.

Nothing plain and simple about it.

[coyotejoe]

Governments make wars, individuals commit crimes. I think we have plenty of damn wars going already and I am certain that to call the Boston bombing an "act of war" would only become yet another excuse for government usurpation of civil liberties. It was totally wrong headed of "W" to call the 9/11 attack an act of war and to use it to justify the badly misnamed "Patriot Act" and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Every Time I hear that "Homeland" carp I think I should raise my right arm and shout "sieg heil".  I totally agree that the Muslim religion promotes, even demands violence against all non-believers but only a few take that so far as acts of terror.  When the KKK was lynching blacks and burning black churches was that an act of war?  When some misguided Christian bombs an abortion clinic is that an act of war?

[nw_hunter]

I think Coyotejoe hits the nail on the head with this statement

Governments make wars, individuals commit crimes. I think we have plenty of damn wars going already and I am certain that to call the Boston bombing an "act of war" would only become yet another excuse for government usurpation of civil liberties.

I think by now, this should be becoming obvious.If we continue to keep our heads buried, and let Uncle and it's trained monkey's (The Media)have their way, we truly don't deserve our freedom.

We have given up so many of our civil liberties! How many more do we have to lose?

So called terrorists are in fact (Enablers) for certain entities.
The DHS, NSA,DEA,CIA and other police departments at the local, State and Federal level. Terrorism gives them a an ideal excuse to practice control.We are by our very nature a country of "SOFT TARGETS"it has to be that way in a free society.

Over 30 thousand people died in 2011 in traffic accidents. Did we hear for confiscation of auto's? But let several people die at the hands of a so called terrorist or terrorists, and "WHAMMO" We must give up some of our rights to prevent this from ever happening again.It's impossible to prevent things like this from happening!.......................Unless we are willing to live under a total police state.

I would rather take my chances with civilian terrorists than Government ones.

[BBF]

..
..........
................
We have given up so many of our civil liberties! How many more do we have to lose?

.............
............................

The more you loose the harder to keep the rest.

[BAGTIC]

 
I disagree Sir, islam is what these animals feed on. We are deeply involved in the GWOI. Name another cult that murders innocents DAILY worldwide?? POWDERMAN. 

Strange but I don't have any problems with Muslims, or Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc. I don't have any problems with "THOSE" people regardless of color.
I do have a problem with bigots, fascists, statists and other oppressors.

[BAGTIC]

Actually the government is not required to deliver the mail. It is only authorized to deliver the mail. Whether it does so is optional. It is a case of 'You may' versus 'You must'.

[Oldshooter]

Actually the government is not required to deliver the mail. It is only authorized to deliver the mail. Whether it does so is optional. It is a case of 'You may' versus 'You must'.

Thanks for clearing up that technicality!