Quote Originally Posted by losttrail View Post
What if Bostonians were not 99% disarmed?

What if our politicians had created a national, state and local attitude that ALL CITIZENS are responsible for our own, our family and our neighbors welfare instead of relying on a telephone and hiding under the bed?

What if we lived in a nation where it was known that 50% or more of the adult populace was potentially armed and trained?

What if we lived in a nation where terrorism of any kind was not tolerated?

What if we lived in a nation that did not coddle criminals or criminal behavior?

What if we lived in a nation where the death penalty was used as a deterent not just an opportunity for criminals to have access to law books that most lawyers cannot afford, unlimited appeals, 10, 15, 20, 40 years of free room and board, free healthcare, free education, now free sex change operations?

What if we lived in a nation of people that believed in their own personal freedom and personal responsibility?

I for one never called the SIP request an order. I simply called into question whether or not this could have been viewed as a training exercise for seeing how the masses will react to potential martial laws scenarios in the future. I believe that some of the measures were prudent. But timing and other measures make me wonder.
What if we didn't live in a country where we're free to vote in the politicians that pass the laws that cause some of the above things to happen? The people of MA are by and large very liberal and mostly agree with the gun laws and such. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to live as they choose? Isn't that the point of our system of gov't?

Just like in Colorado. The people spoke and the likes of John Morse and Rhonda Fields and Evie Hudak were, as far as I know, lawfully elected. I find people with their views to be very distasteful and I wouldn't piss on any of 'em if they were on fire. But they were elected as lawmakers through our system of government. The argument can be made that they are doing what their constituents want.

And how can you imply terrorism is tolerated here? On the one hand you're saying the gov't has overreached in the pursuit of a terrorist and and on the other you're saying (or at least implying) that terrorism is tolerated. Which is it?

And personally, I think the death penalty is meant to be punishment, not a deterrent. It might serve as a deterrent to some, but that's not what it's designed to do. It's the ultimate punishment.