Are the Uniforms getting Darker?

[TDPerk]

There's no surveillance camera coverage of blast 2, including from before the event showing the suspects, very little smart phone pic and video from blast 2, and the press couldn't be bothered to walk 200 yards down the street where more people were killed or wounded. Then there's this little oddity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkHVuTL6v7Y

Why would there be any surveillance cameras pointed there? In fact, with the finish line so close, why would there be any cameras from anyone pointed at that event, especially when the first bomb had just gone off and would be drawing the attention of ALL cameras which could be pointed? In fact, the images of the second bomb I've seen were from someone pointing their camera at the first bombing, and happened to have an angle where they had the second in frame. Why do you imagine no one from the press went to the second bomb point? Where do you get the idea they didn't? I've seen pictures of it, all I did was follow events on the internet.

It would be far more suspicious if there were just as good a set of images of the 2nd explosion as the first.

Yes, I wasted 13 minutes of my life looking at that stupid video. The people they claim are the same people have differing moles, skin creases, hair color, eye color, eyebrow color, eyebrow placement on the orbital bossing, and voices.

One of them looked a lot like one of my colleagues, and she wasn't anywhere near Boston. So what?

WTF choff?

[choff]

The ladies(lady) in question have the same earrings too, but getting back to the coverage, buildings have surviellance cameras to prevent crime, not cover a marathon, so they should have been just as prevalent at blast 2 as blast 1. Maybe ongoing investigations have blocked release of images, but more people were killed or wounded at blast 2 and we see so little.

[Diogenes]

I just wonder if it's possible an overzealous bureaucrat would take an off the cuff joke by the president as a literal instruction to carry out.

"Will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest ?"

[hanelyp]

Yes, a bureaucrat might well take an off the cuff comment as marching orders if...
- they were already inclined to do it (a bureaucrat dependent on Big Government for their job hating small government advocates, you must be kidding me )
- the head of state otherwise gave the impression that lawlessness in service of the regime was tolerated (dismissal of the Black Panther case, overturning established bankruptcy procedures to favor union buddies ...)

If G. W. Bush had made a similar comment suggesting use of government powers against democrats he'd have been lucky to get out with his political skin intact. Had he given direct orders they'd have been leaked quickly.

[hanelyp]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/essential-liber ... your-guns/

“I have NO confidence whatsoever that some sort of gun registry doesn't already exist, in light of the NSA revelation, IRS revelation, AP wiretap revelation, etc.

...we assume background-check records get destroyed as required by federal law, per below:

In cases of NICS Audit Log records relating to allowed transactions, all identifying information submitted by or on behalf of the transferee will be destroyed within 24 hours after the FFL receives communication of the determination that the transfer may proceed. All other information, except the NTN and date, will be destroyed after not more than 90 days from the date of inquiry.

and from one of the comments:

One of my friends was visited by the ATF after a gun he sold several years back turned up at a crime scene. They had a list of every gun he ever bought going back to the 80's. So yeah, they do illegally keep those records.

[paperburn1]

interesting, you now do not have rights until you claim them.
http://news.yahoo.com/court-says-pre-mi ... 55241.html

[Stubby]

Love the police uniforms at the US Open. Sort of a cross between the Village People and the Gestapo.

[Diogenes]

‘Hell to pay:’ Residents angry as RCMP seize guns from High River homes

‘It’s just like Nazi Germany,’ says resident

HIGH RIVER — RCMP revealed Thursday that officers have seized a “substantial amount” of firearms from homes in the evacuated town of High River.

“We just want to make sure that all of those things are in a spot that we control, simply because of what they are,” said Sgt. Brian Topham.

“People have a significant amount of money invested in firearms ... so we put them in a place that we control and that they’re safe.”

That news didn’t sit well with a crowd of frustrated residents who had planned to breach a police checkpoint northwest of the town as an evacuation order stretched into its eighth day.

“I find that absolutely incredible that they have the right to go into a person’s belongings out of their home,” said resident Brenda Lackey, after learning Mounties have been taking residents’ guns. “When people find out about this there’s going to be untold hell to pay.”

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Hell+Resid ... z2XY6ajWDC


No Second Amendment for Canucks. You have my sympathies.

[choff]

The Prime Minister's Office has gotten involved and told the RCMP to return the guns ASAP. I don't think it was any sort of planned confiscation, they just wanted to make sure the guns were secured in case looters came through and stole them. T

[paperburn1]

Canucks are extremely polite that way, at least the ones I know.

[choff]

No history of civil war, slavery or revolution(excepting those on the losing side), makes for slight cultural differences.

[Diogenes]

The Prime Minister's Office has gotten involved and told the RCMP to return the guns ASAP. I don't think it was any sort of planned confiscation, they just wanted to make sure the guns were secured in case looters came through and stole them. T

Bloomberg's official reasons are likewise laudable. He wants to prevent gun crime.


Intentions are irrelevant to the point. Taking someone's guns is like touching someone's wife's hoo haa. Among some, it's probably worse.




Top 10 reasons a gun is better than a woman.

#10 You can trade an old 44 for a new 22 and even get money back!

#9 You can keep one gun at home and have another for when you're on the
road.

#8 If you admire a friend's gun and tell him so, he will probably
let you try it out a few times.

#7 Your primary gun doesn't mind if you keep another gun for a backup.

#6 Your gun will stay with you even if you run out of ammo.

#5 A gun doesn't take up a lot of closet space.

#4 Guns function normally every day of the month.

#3 A gun doesn't ask , "Do these new grips make me look fat?"

#2 A gun doesn't mind if you go to sleep after you use it.

And the number one reason a gun is better than a woman.

#1 YOU CAN BUY A SILENCER FOR A GUN




http://www.theospark.net/2008/01/top-10 ... woman.html

[Diogenes]

Update:



Matt Gurney: High River citizens right to be suspicious as RCMP changes story over removal of guns

On Friday afternoon, when Mounties responding to the recent major floods in southern Alberta sent out a media release concerning the force’s removal of firearms from flooded-out homes, the tone had changed.

Gone were the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s prior references to firearms having been “seized.” Now it was all about Mounties “taking possession” of firearms.

Also absent were all the earlier allusions to the RCMP having taken guns that had been “unsafely stored.” Now it was all about finding firearms that were “in plain view” and the force had “no way of assuring [would] remain secure.”

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... um=twitter

[choff]

Maybe some of the mounties attended police conventions in the states and picked up the idea from DHS types.

[choff]

Living in Richmond, I never have to say I'm Surrey.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-man-woman-c ... -1.1349944