Another bombing in Austin tonight
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
The guy is on a high. Excited the coverage or frustrated with the lack of coverage.
Must be some ex-military guy who has gone off the rails. Very skilled in making this many IEDs and deploying in such a short space of time.
Must be some ex-military guy who has gone off the rails. Very skilled in making this many IEDs and deploying in such a short space of time.
Austinite here, local news is reporting the one tonight at the Goodwill is unrelated. Guy has already been treated and released.
Still pretty freaky, they shut down every street within half a mile for a bit.
I couldn't imagine going into work at a distribution center in Central Texas tomorrow.
Still pretty freaky, they shut down every street within half a mile for a bit.
I couldn't imagine going into work at a distribution center in Central Texas tomorrow.
So many explosions in such a short time, everyone will be on edge like crazy. They need to catch this(these) guy(s).
After watching Manhunt: Unabomber.... a needle in a haystack would sound even optimistic.
Highly Doubt he's ex military. Things would be a lot, lot worse then what's been done so far if he was.
It's a 17-24 year old loser who's done some light reading (in my opinion).
He won't last long.
The guy has literally drawn a map for law enforcement delineating his tactical area of operations. I'd give him two more weeks of freedom max...
It cant be some kid making that many bombs? He must have blown up something or himself accidentally by now. There is some level of expertise.
You were right.
Austin bombings suspect 'killed' after being tracked down by Texas police
Explosives control officials confirm they are on scene with FBI and police
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-police-shooting-attacks-latest-a8266071.html
I wonder, should we all be allowed to build bombs to defend ourselves from a bomber?
Of course not, we should ban nails and pressure cookers.
In other words, you mean yes, we should all be able to buy and build bombs to defend ourselves. If suicide vests are illegal only the terrorists will have them. Right?
Makes me think of the old SNL skit:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/nukes-in-dunkerton/2869160?snl=1
I will leave it to you and Marvin to figure out the relevance of pondering a bomb armed society as a deterent to potential future would be bombers. My answer to his question was and remains of course not.
My point in offering an equally stupid alternative was and remains that in a free society it is virtually impossible to prevent random acts of senseless violence.
My observation is that we are much better at seeking to make political points, whether with frivolous posts or impractical suggestions, in response to the events than we are at even recognizing that we have deep and complex societial problems.
The problem is, we can't have a serious discussion. We couldn't get congress to act with regard to people on the "no fly list". If we can't prevent people thought to be terrorists from legally buying guns, who can we prevent?
Except for the fact that there are many free societies without all the senseless violence. How do they do it? Hint: it isn't lower taxes; it isn't that they don't have deep and complex societal problems.
Maybe you didn't notice. The difference between the United States and other "free" countries is that this is a Representative Republic with our Constitution. Nowhere in the world will you find this form of government with this Constitution.. That should always be the starting point of comparison with other places.
Did you take the oath?
We all agree it's a multi pronged issue. But there is only one side that says nothing will work, so why should we even attempt a solution.
What in the great blue f*** does that have to do with the main point att is trying to make?
Are you saying the price for all our freedoms is random people having to take a bullet every once in a while?
The only similarity between the Austin bomber and the Unabomber is that they both used bombs to kill. Kaczynski's work was spread out over 17 years, across the country. The Austin bomber's activities were confined to one metropolitan area over a span of a few weeks. Also, with cameras everywhere these days--and few back in Kaczynski's time--identifying the Austin bomber was more like looking for the haystack rather than some needle inside it.
It sounds like his identification all started with good old-fashioned police work. They sorted through store receipts until they noticed a person who had a recent pattern of buying suspicious items. Apparently he was dumb enough to use his debit card?
It will be interesting to read the whole story once it's out, but it sure sounds like this guy was always destined to have a short shelf life.
Ladoga is like a see-and-say toy, but no matter which animal the spinner lands on, it just says, "But America is a REPUBLIC!"
Huh? So the higher level of violence in the U.S. is because of our form of government and our Constitution? I guess that must be why no one else has copied us in that regard?
So let's pick an easy one--what do you think is different about Canada's form of government and its constitution that causes them to have less gun violence?
He has a point. There are varying degrees of "freedom". So comparing a country that is more strict with their interpretation of freedom to one like ours with another, is not always going to be an apples to apples comparison.
There is an argument that we are too free w.r.t. guns. So while we may have societal rot that causes these shootings, if we take away gun freedoms (to some degree or other) we can reduce these shootings. The other school of thought says I like my freedom and am willing to take a chance that something bad might happen to me because of it. Bad people do bad things so knife, gun, hammer, whatever; I prefer to take my chances and keep guns.
So you're saying its the Constitution that makes us have all these mass shootings?
BAN THE CONSTITUTION!
I can't believe the answer has been right in front of us this entire time.
Thanks, Ladoga.
Your points about balancing freedom and safety are well-taken and important. But that's not what Ladoga was doing. Ladoga was just appealing to one of his standard talking points that he likes to fall back on when he doesn't know what to say, which generally translates to, "I'm a constitutional expert, and you're an idiot." I hope you noticed that his non sequitur started with the jackass introduction of "Maybe you didn't notice..."
Don't try to paste reasonable points onto the drivel he posts. You're giving him more credit than he deserves, and his stink will rub off on you unfairly.
The problem, though, is that by choosing "to take a chance that something bad might happen to" you, you have also taken away my opportunity to make that choice. In other words, you've chosen your own freedom over my right to live. Is your freedom to own a semi-automatic assault rifle with an enormous magazine more valuable than my right not to be shot by some lunatic with a semi-automatic assault rifle with an enormous magazine? Because unless you're going to follow me around wherever I go with your a semi-automatic assault rifle with an enormous magazine, you are not going to be there to stop the lunatic with a semi-automatic assault rifle with an enormous magazine who is aiming at my head.
Personally, I think my right to live is more important than your right to own a semi-automatic assault rifle with an enormous magazine. But hey, that's just me.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
My friend, we don’t learn how to make package bombs in the military. We learn how to blow doors open or destroy caches of weapons. We don’t learn how to kill using bombs.
I cannot follow you around with an enormous assault rifle because I do not own one.
To the rest of your point, we make those trade offs all the time. I know the argument that "guns are meant to kill" will get rolled out so I will just throw that out to start this off. I think killing people is one of their intended uses. Any weapon really has that as a potential intended use. They do have others. And yes, we are in agreement that they are the most efficient at it.
With that out of the way. Alcohol is abused by drunk drivers which is also a danger to my life. And in each instance the alcohol and the car are being used for their intended purposes. Let's ban alcohol. People who take medications that cause drowsiness are a similar danger behind the wheel. Let's take away their license while they are actively being prescribed those medications.
And of course you believe your right to life is more important. We all selfishly believe that our freedoms are more important than someone else. We entrust our lives to the freedoms of others everyday when we get in our car and drive, walk down the street, use an electric device, etc.
That is not to say that we do not have a system in place that allows us to regulate freedom, but you must understand that sometimes you give and take freedoms in a truly free society. If you have the freedom to have a quiet house, that comes into conflict with my freedom to be loud. If you have the freedom to be distracted while driving, that infringes upon my freedom to safely travel the nation's roads. And frankly, you are much more likely to meet your demise by a bad driver than a gunmen.
It's ironic that alcohol and medications (at least prescription medications) are arguably harder to get than a semi-automatic assault rifle with an enormous magazine. You have to be 21 to buy alcohol, can't go to a local booze show and buy a fifth without even showing an ID, and you can only legally obtain prescription drugs with the written authorization of a doctor who has determined you can safely take that medication. Maybe we can start with at least the same level of additional restrictions on buying a semi-automatic assault rifle with an enormous magazine.I cannot follow you around with an enormous assault rifle because I do not own one.
To the rest of your point, we make those trade offs all the time. I know the argument that "guns are meant to kill" will get rolled out so I will just throw that out to start this off. I think killing people is one of their intended uses. Any weapon really has that as a potential intended use. They do have others. And yes, we are in agreement that they are the most efficient at it.
With that out of the way. Alcohol is abused by drunk drivers which is also a danger to my life. And in each instance the alcohol and the car are being used for their intended purposes. Let's ban alcohol. People who take medications that cause drowsiness are a similar danger behind the wheel. Let's take away their license while they are actively being prescribed those medications.
And of course you believe your right to life is more important. We all selfishly believe that our freedoms are more important than someone else. We entrust our lives to the freedoms of others everyday when we get in our car and drive, walk down the street, use an electric device, etc.
That is not to say that we do not have a system in place that allows us to regulate freedom, but you must understand that sometimes you give and take freedoms in a truly free society. If you have the freedom to have a quiet house, that comes into conflict with my freedom to be loud. If you have the freedom to be distracted while driving, that infringes upon my freedom to safely travel the nation's roads. And frankly, you are much more likely to meet your demise by a bad driver than a gunmen.
In addition, if you buy too much sudafed your name goes to the authorities. There was a case in Indiana a few years back, a woman bought sudafed for her husband and bought a different type later in the week for her daughter. She was arrested and charged. I guess we don't have a constitutional right to not feel sick.
And when faced with those conflicts, isn't it worthwhile to compare the relative burdens?
If we restrict your right to own semi-automatic, high-throughput rifles, what exactly is the burden? Whatever it is, it pales in comparison to the burden placed upon Noodle by his death, wouldn't you agree?
Obviously you haven’t walked by my compound ...errr...ummm.... House
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnas...nthony-conditt?utm_term=.fgRRML4xR#.kbY0nB8O0
Cassia Schultz, 21, told BuzzFeed News that she ran in the same conservative survivalist circles in high school as Conditt.
Schultz said they were both involved in a group called Righteous Invasion of Truth (RIOT), a Bible study and outdoors group for homeschooled kids that included monthly activities such as archery, gun skills, and water balloon fights. Conditt and his younger sister would usually attend the activities along with 15 to 20 other kids, according to Schultz.
“A lot of us were very into science; we would discuss chemicals and how to mix them and which ones were dangerous,” said Schultz, who is now a house painter. “We were into weapons and stuff. A lot of us did role-playing, and RPG [role-playing games]; we’d have foam weapons and act out a battle.”
Schultz described Conditt as a "pretty normal kid." She said that a lot of children who were part of RIOT carried knives and learned how to shoot guns at gun ranges, but she didn't recall bombs or bomb-making being a specific topic of discussion at RIOT.
RIOT events also included 30 minutes to an hour of Bible study, Schultz said.
She said she attended Bible study at Conditt’s parents' home. She described the family as “more conservative, strictly religious.”
“[Mark Conditt] always had deep and interesting insights, from what I remember," Schultz said. "He thought really deeply about stuff."
Schultz said they were both involved in a group called Righteous Invasion of Truth (RIOT), a Bible study and outdoors group for homeschooled kids that included monthly activities such as archery, gun skills, and water balloon fights. Conditt and his younger sister would usually attend the activities along with 15 to 20 other kids, according to Schultz.
“A lot of us were very into science; we would discuss chemicals and how to mix them and which ones were dangerous,” said Schultz, who is now a house painter. “We were into weapons and stuff. A lot of us did role-playing, and RPG [role-playing games]; we’d have foam weapons and act out a battle.”
Schultz described Conditt as a "pretty normal kid." She said that a lot of children who were part of RIOT carried knives and learned how to shoot guns at gun ranges, but she didn't recall bombs or bomb-making being a specific topic of discussion at RIOT.
RIOT events also included 30 minutes to an hour of Bible study, Schultz said.
She said she attended Bible study at Conditt’s parents' home. She described the family as “more conservative, strictly religious.”
“[Mark Conditt] always had deep and interesting insights, from what I remember," Schultz said. "He thought really deeply about stuff."
