HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Explosives in Boston coul...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:35 PM

Explosives in Boston could have been traced if not for the NRA?

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

This came across my Facebook via a group called Occupy the NRA. If true, that means the NRA is not just an impediment to public safety but national security as well.

"This type of technology, which has been around over 30 years, would help us solve cases like the Boston bombing.

But because the NRA says no, and continues to hold Americans hostage to the gun industry, we do not have this capability."




They cite these articles that followed the Oklahoma City bombing. Be sure to read below for additional information on the NRA's position and the type of explosives that would have been covered. If you believe this is a problem, remember that our representatives are complicit because they keep rolling over for the gun lobby.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-04-28/news/mn-59942_1_oklahoma-bombing
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950502&slug=2118763

137 replies, 20968 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 137 replies Author Time Post
Reply Explosives in Boston could have been traced if not for the NRA? (Original post)
BainsBane Apr 2013 OP
Cali_Democrat Apr 2013 #1
BainsBane Apr 2013 #4
femmocrat Apr 2013 #2
hobbit709 Apr 2013 #3
BainsBane Apr 2013 #5
sarisataka Apr 2013 #6
BainsBane Apr 2013 #7
hobbit709 Apr 2013 #15
sarisataka Apr 2013 #20
BainsBane Apr 2013 #39
Travelman Apr 2013 #106
hobbit709 Apr 2013 #8
BainsBane Apr 2013 #11
Jenoch Apr 2013 #27
BainsBane Apr 2013 #29
Jenoch Apr 2013 #34
BainsBane Apr 2013 #36
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #32
thucythucy Apr 2013 #58
slackmaster Apr 2013 #46
BainsBane Apr 2013 #64
slackmaster Apr 2013 #70
SoCalDem Apr 2013 #37
MineralMan Apr 2013 #49
SoCalDem Apr 2013 #50
MineralMan Apr 2013 #51
SoCalDem Apr 2013 #54
oldbanjo Apr 2013 #52
tclambert Apr 2013 #53
X_Digger Apr 2013 #83
BainsBane Apr 2013 #85
aikoaiko Apr 2013 #55
Chuuku Davis Apr 2013 #63
BainsBane Apr 2013 #75
Llewlladdwr Apr 2013 #81
calimary Apr 2013 #77
dothemath Apr 2013 #62
hobbit709 Apr 2013 #65
cvoogt Apr 2013 #9
BainsBane Apr 2013 #12
cvoogt Apr 2013 #14
BainsBane Apr 2013 #21
cvoogt Apr 2013 #24
BainsBane Apr 2013 #28
cvoogt Apr 2013 #30
BainsBane Apr 2013 #38
cvoogt Apr 2013 #40
stevebreeze Apr 2013 #43
oldhippydude Apr 2013 #10
bike man Apr 2013 #47
oldhippydude Apr 2013 #56
bike man Apr 2013 #93
LAGC Apr 2013 #57
NightWatcher Apr 2013 #13
Chuuku Davis Apr 2013 #66
BainsBane Apr 2013 #67
Chuuku Davis Apr 2013 #78
BainsBane Apr 2013 #80
Chuuku Davis Apr 2013 #82
BainsBane Apr 2013 #84
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #102
BainsBane Apr 2013 #110
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #118
BainsBane Apr 2013 #120
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #121
BainsBane Apr 2013 #122
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #128
BainsBane Apr 2013 #134
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #135
BainsBane Apr 2013 #136
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #137
thucythucy Apr 2013 #68
sarisataka Apr 2013 #16
BainsBane Apr 2013 #17
sarisataka Apr 2013 #25
BainsBane Apr 2013 #26
thucythucy Apr 2013 #59
BainsBane Apr 2013 #61
hack89 Apr 2013 #18
mikerose Apr 2013 #88
BainsBane Apr 2013 #89
hack89 Apr 2013 #92
Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2013 #19
Xithras Apr 2013 #22
BainsBane Apr 2013 #23
Xithras Apr 2013 #31
BainsBane Apr 2013 #35
valerief Apr 2013 #33
veganlush Apr 2013 #41
BainsBane Apr 2013 #112
Jerry442 Apr 2013 #42
BainsBane Apr 2013 #44
slackmaster Apr 2013 #45
thucythucy Apr 2013 #60
slackmaster Apr 2013 #69
thucythucy Apr 2013 #71
slackmaster Apr 2013 #73
BainsBane Apr 2013 #76
thucythucy Apr 2013 #96
slackmaster Apr 2013 #97
thucythucy Apr 2013 #99
slackmaster Apr 2013 #100
thucythucy Apr 2013 #115
slackmaster Apr 2013 #116
thucythucy Apr 2013 #117
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #104
thucythucy Apr 2013 #114
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #119
thucythucy Apr 2013 #125
Mitchell Apr 2013 #124
thucythucy Apr 2013 #126
Chuuku Davis Apr 2013 #79
Paladin Apr 2013 #95
apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #48
mountain grammy Apr 2013 #72
BainsBane Apr 2013 #74
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #86
BainsBane Apr 2013 #87
friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #90
BainsBane Apr 2013 #91
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #94
BainsBane Apr 2013 #108
mountain grammy Apr 2013 #98
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #101
mountain grammy Apr 2013 #103
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #105
BainsBane Apr 2013 #109
mountain grammy Apr 2013 #127
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #129
mountain grammy Apr 2013 #130
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #131
BainsBane Apr 2013 #111
BainsBane Apr 2013 #113
mountain grammy Apr 2013 #133
uponit7771 Apr 2013 #132
Blue Owl Apr 2013 #107
hepkat Apr 2013 #123

Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:40 PM

1. The NRA is also behind the blocking of the ATF director

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/atf-gun-laws-nra

This along with their desire to flood American streets with firearms, these guys are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:41 PM

4. absolutely

Far more lives are lost due to gun proliferation than Al Qaeda terror attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:40 PM

2. I wondered about that too.

Thanks for the info. May they rot in hell for preventing a potential lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:40 PM

3. Only if commercial explosives were used.

i can easily make a dozen different types of explosives from easily available materials. I learned this 40 years ago-before the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:42 PM

5. What about the fertilizer type bombs?

Could those be traced? Isn't that what was used in OK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:46 PM

6. Theoretically yes

but fertilizer batches a so widely used all over the country that realistically it would not help much. Too many farmers and garden stores would have samples of any given batch of fertilizer.

You are correct about OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:47 PM

7. as an aside

It doesn't say much for our food supply that we fertilize with something that can be used to make a bomb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:54 PM

15. Ammonium nitrate NH3 is absorbed by plants as a nutrient.

While there are natural methods of adding Nitrogen compunds to plants, the plants themselves cannot take it directly from the atmosphere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:57 PM

20. The properties of nitrates are widely useful

but they are volatile in many circumstances.
One way to dispose of old gunpowder is to (widely) spread it in a garden. It will rapidly break down into compounds the plants will absorb and enhance their growth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #20)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:36 PM

39. wow, I think I'll stick with compost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:26 PM

106. The water you pour onto your houseplants can also be used to make a bomb

It takes nothing more than a stable power supply and some water to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is what blew up in the Hindenburg.

Composting doesn't get you away from explosive elements, either. One natural by-product of composting is methane, better known as "natural gas," as in the stuff that gets piped into a lot of people's homes to run their furnace, stove, etc. Compost piles have been known to spontaneously combust, because there is also a lot of heat generated in the composting process, sometimes igniting pockets of methane. Many moons ago, a compost pile of grass clippings in my back yard burned up this way, fortunately not burring anything else in the process.



It's no use sitting around worrying about what may or may not be explosive or could be turned into an explosive. You have explosive elements in your body at this very moment. Ever seen what happens to sodium when you put it in water? Potassium, another vital element in your health, is that explosive in air, but you would die without potassium in your diet, and it's coursing through your veins at this very moment.

There's nothing inherently "wrong" or "disturbing" about nitrates helping plants to grow. Sure, they need to be handled with a reasonable amount of care, but so does anything else. It's just chemistry. Nothing particularly magical about it, and it's neither good nor evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:48 PM

8. Only if the fertilizer has a tracer in it.

The other main ingredient is diesel fuel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:49 PM

11. Isn't the point that the NRA has opposed such tracers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:13 PM

27. The NRA was opposed to putting the

tracers in gun powder because they would change the ballistics. They had nothing to do with the opposition to tracers in fertilizer. The Farmers Union was opposed to that because of the onerous record keeping to farmers. That and fertilizer is widely available.

I'm not a member of the NRA, but it would make sense to wait until we know what the explosive was that was used in the Boston explosive device.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #27)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:15 PM

29. A number of members, including yourself,

have contributed additional information. I at least have learned a lot from this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #29)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:18 PM

34. I should have read the entire thread before posting.

My post was redundant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #34)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:20 PM

36. I believe you were the first to mention the farmers union

Or the first I saw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:16 PM

32. Only in firearms propellants.

Like black powder, smokeless powder, etc.

There are other mechanisms to watch bulk purchases, etc, that don't do anything to the chemical composition of the propellant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #32)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:23 PM

58. Last information I heard was that the Boston bombs used black powder.

This was on TV news about two hours ago.

So in this case it might have helped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:41 PM

46. It was agriculture interests that opposed taggants in fertilizer

 

Including Senator Tom Harkin (D) of Iowa. The recordkeeping requirements for tagged fertilizers would have been onerous. Farmers literally buy ammonium nitrate by the truckload.

The NRA opposed use of taggants in cannister smokeless powders used for reloading, because the foreign substances of different size, shape, and density than the powder itself could cause inconsistent and potentially dangerous results. Cannister powders are very carefully made and tested. The particles are physically very uniform.

Smokeless powder is not a good choice for a bomb. Besides being very expensive, it is engineered not to accelerate too quickly even when kept confined.

Black powder, the stuff the Chinese invented about 3,000 years ago, doesn't have that problem. It is much less expensive, and can be improvised easily from commonly available ingredients.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #46)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:46 PM

64. yes, but taggants are used in Switzerland

in all explosives without problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #64)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:07 PM

70. Yes, and the taggant contents are changed only every few months.

 

Residue from a bombing can be traced only to a rather large batch made over a period of time. Under the Swiss system it is not possible to connect explosive residue to a single retail purchase.

It's better than nothing for tracing, but it's not very precise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:25 PM

37. Why do "normal" people want/need to know how to make explosives?

I am 64, and no one I have ever met in my entire lifetime, has ever voiced a need to learn how to make explosives..

Is there a recessive mayhem-gene that some people have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:01 PM

49. I learned to make gunpowder

from a science book I read at age 10. Since i had a chemistry set, I made some. I made some firecrackers with it, following directions in another book, which described how to make fuses. Both books came from my local library. I showed them to my father, who was proud of my initiative.

They blowed up real good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #49)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:03 PM

50. It must be a guy-thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #50)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:08 PM

51. More a science geek thing.

That was me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #51)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:11 PM

54. This Mom is glad her sons were not into blowing stuff up



although my oldest once set tumbleweeds on fire because he was too lazy to chop them up ..He was lucky to not light himself on fire

the fire department was not amused

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:10 PM

52. I'm 67 we used to make it in school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:10 PM

53. What if you have to fight a Gorn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #53)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:43 PM

83. Thread win. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #53)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:19 AM

85. Tribbles are the real danger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:11 PM

55. Science. And homemade fireworks can be fun if done safely.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:43 PM

63. You don't live on a farm

Homemade explosives work well for removing boulders and stumps
And are CHEAP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:28 PM

75. I don't know about normal

but I've read that it's possible to make a nuclear bomb from information publicly available. Maybe that's an urban legend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #75)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:03 PM

81. The mechanics of building an atomic bomb are pretty straightforward.

I've seen schematics for the Fat Man and Little Boy devices used in WWII. The hard part is obtaining the physical materials needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:43 PM

77. It does make the eyebrows go up, doesn't it, SoCalDem! I'm with ya.

I'm gonna be 60 in a month. OMG! I just realized - EXACTLY a month! Nobody I know has ever expressed that wish, either, although no one can know what people are thinking. I certainly haven't imagined making my own. I'm a crafter but that's a little much. Never have been all that inclined toward the wonders of blowing stuff up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:42 PM

62. what a waste my life has been

 

40 years ago I was in my 30s, trying to establish a career, working to support my wife and children and it never dawned on me to spend every other moment learning how to make bombs that could kill and not be traced to me. Where did I go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dothemath (Reply #62)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:48 PM

65. I wasn't interesting in making bombs.

I was experimenting with rockets and just liked things that went boom out in the middle of nowhere.
There's not much difference between some solid propellants and explosives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:48 PM

9. Don't blame the NRA

Blame our politicians for bowing to the NRA's demands / pressure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cvoogt (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:50 PM

12. I blame both nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #12)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:52 PM

14. Fair enough

.. my take is if people would stop giving the NRA power by yielding (i.e. actually risk their political career over it), the NRA would no longer have power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cvoogt (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:00 PM

21. I agree with that

Of course it has to do with the weakness of the politicians and the fact that many rely on money from the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:06 PM

24. it is totally entrenched

and of course goes beyond the NRA. I expect special interest groups like the NRA to advocate extreme views .. but our politicians should be held to a higher standard. I think the NRA are a vile bunch of selfish individuals, but hey, that's just one person's opinion and apparently not one shared much by our Congresscritters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cvoogt (Reply #24)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:13 PM

28. public financing of elections

is necessary for any real change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #28)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:15 PM

30. wholeheartedly agree

and it should be mandatory - no private financing allowed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cvoogt (Reply #30)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:28 PM

38. The Supreme Court

Is the obstacle to that one. Prohibiting private financing would currently be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of (cough, cough) the First Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #38)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:41 PM

40. yeah, because money = speech

.. and corporations are people, and stuff. /end sarcasm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #28)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:24 PM

43. public funding of elections is necessary for democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:49 PM

10. tangents have been used before, on an experimental basis

in fact they have proven useful in the conviction of at least one bomber... the argument cost/ benefit.... not so sure whether its a congressional problem, or a case of regulatory capture... however explosives remain untagged

this is a lot like not letting the rest of law enforcement use finger prints or DNA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippydude (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:49 PM

47. Sines have also been helpful, but cosines, not so much. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bike man (Reply #47)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:14 PM

56. my bad.. relied on a spell checker that overcompensated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippydude (Reply #56)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 07:38 AM

93. I know what you mean. I hate it when the spell checker can't figure out

 

what I meant, and doesn't put in the correct word for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bike man (Reply #47)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:15 PM

57. ...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:52 PM

13. I thought I heard it was smokeless black powder

If so its sold at gun and sporting goods stores and Wally World for people who reload their brass shells. I don't think taggants are used in gun powder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #13)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:57 PM

66. You were told wrong

Smokeless is not black powder
Black powder makes a LOT of smoke

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chuuku Davis (Reply #66)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:00 PM

67. Do you know what the explosive was?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #67)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:44 PM

78. A mixture of sulphur, saltpeter, and charcoal

Is my educated guess
The videos look like a low velocity explosive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chuuku Davis (Reply #78)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:52 PM

80. based on watching the videos?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #80)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:23 PM

82. Yes

I am guessing you have not seen many true explosions
They are not like the TV and movies
And the smoke color depends more on what oxidizer is used than anything

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chuuku Davis (Reply #82)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:04 AM

84. No, why would I have seen explosions?

Most people don't. I guess we'll find out for sure as the FBI learns more and releases information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #84)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:12 PM

102. Videos have been all over the internet.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #102)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:24 PM

110. ah, seeing it on TV

Why would anyone need more expertise than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #110)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:54 AM

118. The videos do show a lot of smoke with the explosion.

Face it. You got PWN3D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #118)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:47 AM

120. Are you talking about the Senate vote today?

Because I never claimed to know shit about explosives. Amazingly, I haven't spent my life learning how to kill people.

Wow, there was smoke. What a revelation. Such a relief you've got the case solved. Who needs the FBI when guys who sit around watching TV have figured it all out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #120)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:57 AM

121. Nobody claimed to have it all figured out.

The only claim made was that the type of explosion was consistent with black powder, mainly due to the large amount of smoke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #121)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:03 AM

122. That didn't stop you from insulting me

Because I don't have an intimate knowledge of mass murder techniques.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #122)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:43 AM

128. You threw the first insulting snark in your post #110.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #128)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:15 AM

134. It has nothing to do with taking it

My point related to your absurd claim that seeing something on TV means anything. Yours was gratuitous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #134)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:20 PM

135. By your argument, the store surveillance videos were also meaningless.

The various videos established that the explosion did have a lot of smoke. From that some conclusions can be drawn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #135)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:34 PM

136. No, by your argument

There is no difference between something being useful to a trained professional and watching something on TV or the internet making a person an expert. If that was all it took, anyone could be a doctor or a scientist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #136)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:11 AM

137. Not everything requires a PhD.

And many of us here at DU do have experience in a wide variety of fields of knowledge. Several of us happen to know that black powder is very smokey. None of us have claimed any greater expertise.

If you saw a video of a lion chasing and killing a hyena, you would not need a PhD in zoology to conclude that you were not watching a video of a common domestic cat catching a mouse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chuuku Davis (Reply #66)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:04 PM

68. I also heard black powder.

And from the videos I've seen the Boston explosions indeed made a lot of smoke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:54 PM

16. It is true and not...

The NRA did oppose taggants post OKC. Not much testing had been done on how taggants affected the burn rates of small quantities of gunpowder e.g. bullets. There was legitimate concern that taggants could cause failure to fire, or overpressure while firing. Both would be dangerous.
It fell out of the news so I do not know if there ever was follow up research done one way or the other.

Depending on the actual explosive used, some types do have taggants, it could help trace the source. It sounds totally homebrew so the exact composition of the explosive is important. If gunpowder is a main component the statement is likely true. If the explosive is made of other ingredients it maybe true, as taggants are not widespread due to opposition primarily led by the NRA, or it may not be true as taggants would not be in the components even if the legislation passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #16)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:55 PM

17. yeah, I'm confused about the bomb

I hear about pressure cookers, nails, and such but not about what made the thing explode.

The the NRA just oppose taggants in gunpowder? Because that's not what the OK bombers used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:06 PM

25. Had to look it up

It appears from VPC reference and Businessweek that the NRA opposition was only to taggants in black powder. I am assuming it also includes smokeless powder, which is far more common than black powder.
They did not oppose taggants in commercial explosives or agricultural chemicals. Interestingly, Switzerland is the only country which requires taggants in all explosives and requires six month changes to help identify batches.

Businessweek Archives
An End To Anonymous Bombs?
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/1996-08-11/an-end-to-anonymous-bombs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #25)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:08 PM

26. Thank you so much

I knew people would fill this in with more information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:26 PM

59. Latest I heard is that black powder was used

as the explosive, packed into a pressure cooker, with nails and other metal included to cause maximum damage to human flesh.

So taggants in gunpowder would absolutely have helped in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #59)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:36 PM

61. Interesting

I expect we'll learn more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:56 PM

18. The National Acadamy of Science recommended not to put taggants in blackpowder

RECOMMENDATION: Detection markers in black and smokeless powders should not be implemented at the present time.

X-ray systems and dogs currently provide a strong capability for detecting bomb containers and unmarked black and smokeless powders in the scenarios considered by the committee, and most powder bombings currently take place at locations in which deployment of bomb detection systems is not practicable (see Table 1.4 in chapter 1). Therefore, the committee believes that the effectiveness of a marking program would be limited at the present time. Institution of a marking program would incur significant costs. At the current level of fewer than 10 deaths and 100 injuries per year and very few terrorist incidents, the committee believes that the benefits are not sufficient to justify such a marking program. If the threat were to increase substantially in the future and test data were available, benefits might exceed costs, and a marking program might be warranted. A marking program for black and smokeless powders would be justified only if three criteria were met: the frequency and severity of black and smokeless powder bombs were found to be high enough to justify marking; the markers first were thoroughly tested and found to be safe and effective under conditions likely to be encountered in the legal and illegal uses of the powders; and the social benefits of markers were found to outweigh the costs of their use.



http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6289
This study was in response to a request from Congress following the OK City bombing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:56 AM

88. That was for detection (pre-explosion)

For use in identification following the explosion (e.g., the situation in Boston) their recommendation was slightly different (I've left out the supportng explainations for the sake of brevity, but they can and should be read starting here):

RECOMMENDATION: Identification taggants in black and smokeless powder should not be implemented at the present time.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Research should be conducted to develop and test taggants that would be technically suitable for inclusion in black and smokeless powders should future circumstances warrant their use.

RECOMMENDATION: If the type or number of bombing incidents involving black and smokeless powders increases in a way that leads policymakers to believe that current investigatory and prosecutorial capabilities must be supplemented, the committee recommends that use of taggants, additional record keeping, or a combination of both actions be considered, provided that the chosen taggant technology has satisfactorily met all of the appropriate technological criteria. Research on taggants, as recommended above, is therefore essential to develop options and demonstrate the technical viability of any taggant system that may be considered for implementation at a future date.


Note, these recommendations were made in *1998*. Had that further research been implemented 15 years ago, I'd suggest, with perfect hindsight, that the then "future circumstances" might have changed the later recommendations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikerose (Reply #88)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:18 AM

89. Thanks for that clarification

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikerose (Reply #88)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 07:33 AM

92. But have future circumstances warranted their use?

it is not like black powder bombings are anything but an extremely rare event. The government has better things to spend their money on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:57 PM

19. The claim is that the taggants reduce effectiveness by a tiny fraction? Guessing 1%? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:01 PM

22. Untrue. I dislike the NRA, but that's misleading to the point of being a lie.

The NRA did block taggant proposals in the mid-90's, but they relented after the OKC bombing under one caveat. The government had to first allow a nonpartisan third party agency to research taggants to determine that they were safe, effective, and that they would actually help to solve crimes.

The National Academy of Sciences researched the issue and did a full study with full access to all law enforcement data. They found that taggable explosive materials were only found in a small portion of bombing events, that no taggant system existed that could be reliably used for explosive gunpowders, and that the system would be very expensive and incur a huge cost that would be passed to farmers and landscapers (and to consumers, via higher food prices).

Given the costs involved and the lack of major law enforcement benefit from the program, the NAS committee bluntly recommended that taggants not be mandated. They gave that recommendation to Congress, which then dropped the issue.

FWIW, I used to be a big supporter of taggants, and supported the proposals when they first came out. Once it became clear that it imposed a large cost with little benefit, I (like Congress and most people who had argued for it) gave up on the idea. The idea has been brought up again a few times since then, but the supporters always get pointed back to the National Academy of Sciences research, and the proposals don't go anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:04 PM

23. Thanks for your explanation

I have no additional knowledge of this. I just happened to see it on Facebook. Someone else posted an excerpt from the panel that said if bombings become more common, the National Academy of Sciences could change their recommendation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #23)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:15 PM

31. It would be nice to get an updated NAS look at the topic.

The NRA opposed the bill as a whole, but it was actually the farming industry that fought the propsals to a standstill. The NRA was worried about taggants in gunpowder, but the farmers were being asked to carry the cost of tracing every pound of tagged fertilizer sold, from the factory to the field. There was also a small pushback from the environmental community because fertilizer taggants are designed NOT to degrade (for obvious reasons), and much of it would eventually make it into our waterways via ag runoff. There had been NO research done to determine the effects of taggant buildup in our lakes, streams, and oceans (not to mention farmland) after years or decades of use.

The NAS findings on black powder taggants, which was the NRA's concern, mostly demonstrated that they were ineffective. Because gunpowder is designed to burn cleanly and completely, they molecular taggants were ineffective and were nearly always incinerated during the firing process. Their finding, at that time, was simply that there was no possible way to tag gunpowder using the technology at that time. It would be nice if that bit of research could be conducted again...things may have changed a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #31)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:18 PM

35. 18 years is a long time in terms of technological development

It's quite possible there would be more effective methods today. Hopefully the President will ask for this to be looked into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 06:17 PM

33. Seems to me like Congress is the one blocking this from happening. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to veganlush (Reply #41)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:22 PM

112. Thanks for the link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:24 PM

42. But the good news is....

...you are now totally safe at any public venue from being pelted with dozen of boxes of Sudafed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jerry442 (Reply #42)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:33 PM

44. The scourge of Sudafed

Endless paperwork for Sudafed but not guns or explosives. Makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:36 PM

45. Has the FBI announced that it is unable to trace the explosives used in the Boston Marathon bombing?

 

I must have missed the presser.

That was sarcasm of course. But seriously, forensic experts will be able to piece together how the bombs were made and what they were made from. It's just a lot of work, and based on what information has been released it's likely that no commercial explosives or fertilizer were used. Or smokeless gunpowder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #45)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:30 PM

60. Last I heard black powder WAS the explosive used,

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

packed inside pressure cookers, stuffed with nails and other metal objects to maxiumize injuries.

Whether the FBI will be able to trace the explosives or not remains to be seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #60)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:05 PM

69. "Smokeless" and "black powder" are mutually exclusive. Smokeless powder makes a little smoke.

 

Black powder makes lots of smoke.

Black powder is a mixture of potassium nitrate, carbon, and sulfur. Smokeless powder consists of nitrocellulose and binding agents. They are quite different in their behavior.

Whether the FBI will be able to trace the explosives or not remains to be seen.

It probably won't make any difference - Nobody has ever proposed adding taggants to any substance at such granularity that single retail packages would be traceable; only batches. That could be useful for ruling out groups of suspects, but it isn't essential for finding the perpetrator of a crime like this.

They'll figure out the make and model of the pressure cookers, the duffel bags or backpacks, etc. Imagery will be analyzed, witnesses interviewed. They will find the perpetrators. It's only a matter of time.

ETA black powder of good enough quality for a bomb is very easy to make from non-traceable materials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #69)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:18 PM

71. I distinctly heard "smokeless black powder"

on tonights's TV news (as did at least one other on this thread), but perhaps the newscasters aren't as well informed as you are. Probably it was the NewsHour, but tonight I also watched NBC Nightly.

Come to think of it, though, the videos of the explosions I saw did involve a good deal of smoke. So black powder seems to be a definite possibility.

"Nobody has ever proposed adding taggants to any substance of such granuality that single retail packages would be traceable..."

Maybe it's time we did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #71)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:34 PM

73. Yes, anyone who said "smokeless black powder" is not knowledgable about the subject.

 

Come to think of it, though, the videos of the explosions I saw did involve a good deal of smoke. So black powder seems to be a definite possibility.

I agree.

"Nobody has ever proposed adding taggants to any substance of such granuality that single retail packages would be traceable..."

Maybe it's time we did?


That's a predictable reaction from the "More restrictions, less freedom, more bureaucracy, bigger government is always the answer to every perceived crisis" people. But it wouldn't do anything to stop people from making their own black powder from scratch, and even in cases where people used commercial powder it wouldn't prevent a crime from occurring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #73)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:29 PM

76. An ex FBI guy just said "maybe smokeless powder"

on the Chris Hayes show. He didn't say black. The information about what the precise explosive agent was either isn't yet know or not released. People seem to speculating right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #73)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:06 AM

96. How does putting taggants in black powder add up to "less freedom"?

As for the rest of it, well, what can I say that hasn't been said on these threads a thousand times already? I see your broad brush attack as just another example of your "hates government, loves guns, knee-jerk spouting of NRA right wing talking points in response to any proposal to address increasingly horrific atrocities" people. "Bigger government is always the answer to every perceived crisis." What a lovely characterization. Isn't that an almost word for word quote from Newt Gingrich?

Nothing we do will ever prevent all crimes, which, BTW, wasn't the subject. What this OP is talking about, and what I was responding to, was a proposal to make identifying perpetrators more easy.

But please, tell me how putting taggants in black powder restricts your precious "freedom."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #96)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:12 AM

97. Must government respond to EVERY major crime by enacting new laws?

 

Is there ANY indication that the lack of taggants in black powder have had ANY effect on the investigation into the Boston Marathon bombing?

Some people on this forum seem to have no imagination. Whenever something bad happens, government must "DO SOMETHING." Government doing something ALWAYS involves more restrictions, or implementing some kind of controls that require MORE people working for government and therefore higher taxes.

THAT'S what it's all about, thucythucy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #97)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:47 AM

99. So basically, you can't answer the question.

Putting taggants in black powder would, evidently, not restrict your freedom by a single iota. So the whole "freedom" issue you raise in response to this is bogus.

As for indications such taggants might have helped, the proposal seems logical enough to me. If identifying taggants had been in the black powder used to make these bombs, the FBI would at the very least be able to track down the batch of powder used, thus, possibly, narrowing down the point and time of purchase. In an investigation of this sort, I would think any possible lead or clue might help. Timothy McVeigh was caught because the rental truck he used had an identifying number embedded on its axle. Big government! Our freedoms to drive unidentifiable vehicles impinged! Think of the expense!

"Some people on this forum seem to have no imagination."

Okay, so wow me. Come up with some brilliantly imaginative idea for identifying and apprehending the perpetrators of this atrocity that doesn't involve government, and "big government" at that.

"Government doing something ALWAYS involves more restrictions."

Bullshit. Right wing libertarian bullshit. Again, how does putting taggants in black powder restrict you in any way, shape or form? And higher taxes? Really? Putting taggants in black powder means "higher taxes?" Pray tell, what is the cost imposed on our society--in taxes and otherwise--by the deaths and maiming of so many people? You think level I ER care comes free? You think the life long rehab. that some of the survivors will no doubt need from here on comes from the tooth fairy?

What "it's all about" is three people dead, and more than a hundred injured, some of them maimed for life. What it's all about is a society in which every congregation of people, including sporting events and primary schools, is now a target for horrific violence.

What the OP is suggesting is that one method that might possibly have aided in the investigation of the latest atrocity has been consistently blocked by lobbyists serving anything BUT the public interest. You seem to be supporting their position, using the usual "government is always the enemy" rhetoric straight out of a Newt Gingrich/Cato Institute handout, despite the fact that this proposal would do nothing whatsoever to impinge on your personal freedom.

What's THAT about?

As for preventing such atrocities--as raised in your previous post--the quick apprehension of the perpetrator(s) of this crime would at the very least prevent them from planting another bomb.

If taggants in black powder would help in that effort, I can see no coherent reason to be in opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #99)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:58 AM

100. It would hurt my freedom in two ways: 1. By raising the price of powder, and 2. Causing taxes...

 

...to increase. And it wouldn't PREVENT any crimes.

I thought I made myself clear in my previous reply. Many of the knee-jerk responses I'm seeing here are authoritarian.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2687321

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #100)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 04:55 PM

115. Oh you poor poor thing!

Having the cost of your precious black powder increased, and only because we want to make it easier to track down thugs who kill children and blow the legs off of innocent bystanders, and keep them from killing and maiming again! Oh, the humanity!

And I thought I made MYSELF clear in MY previous reply, but I guess not. The cost of treating the people maimed by this atrocity will be borne by all of us, whether it be through increased health insurance premiums, or--heaven forfend!--taxes at the state and federal level. As will the cost of tracking down the assailants without the help of identifying taggards. Nothing is free, you know. Your "tax break" comes at the expense of everyone else's insurance premiums and taxes, not to mention safety and pain.

And the OP--as I stated before--said nothing about PREVENTING crimes. It's about making it easier for authorities to track down criminals once the crimes are committed. Please try to keep up.

"Authoritarian" my ass. I suppose the FBI keeping a fingerprint file is "authoritarian?" Not to mention forcing the poor, oppressed car manufacturers to put an identifying number on every vehicle they produce. Oh my Lord! Think of the oppression! Think of the increase in costs to innocent car buyers! Better to let a thousand Timothy McVeighs go free than to inconvenience, even marginally, one "slackmaster" defender of freedom!

The only "knee jerk" responses I've seen on this OP are from NRA/lobbyist apologists. "Big government" "authoritarian" etc. etc. The only way to stop a bad man with explosives is a good man with explosives! Untraceable black powder for everyone! It's in the Constitution, people!

Really, how bizarre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #115)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:00 PM

116. You seem pretty upset about this.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #116)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:07 PM

117. And you're not?

An eight year old child is killed? A man who was doing nothing more than watching a great Boston sports tradition (and I lived in Boston and love that city) has to be carried off after both his legs are blown off, and you're NOT upset? Three dead, more than a hundred injured, some of them maimed and disabled probably for the rest of their lives, and this doesn't bother you?

Instead, you're concerned that the price of black gunpowder might be raised in an effort to make it easier to track down the thug or thugs who did this? THAT's what's got you riled?

Really, I think your priorities are quite skewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #99)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:18 PM

104. Black powder is easily made at home.

Charcoal, sulfur, saltpeter, ground to a fine powder, mixed in proper portions and you have black powder. Recipe was discovered hundreds of years ago - NOT cutting edge chemistry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #104)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 04:33 PM

114. So fine, then the terrorists who plotted this attack

would have had to make the powder at home.

One more step for these murderous thugs to have to go through. How inconvenient for them.

And that's what we're all about, right? Making life easier for people who plan such attacks?

Jesus, you NRA apologists are amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #114)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:58 AM

119. I am pointing out how ineffective the laws that you want would be. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #119)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:06 AM

125. You are arguing for the convenience of bomb makers.

Yes, a savvy bomb maker would have to manufacture his own black powder. One more step they would have to take to produce such a bomb. You have a problem with this?

The more steps we put in a bomb maker's way, the better the odds that someone somewhere might learn their plans, or might otherwise inform the authorities.

The only argument I've seen against this is that it compromises the "freedom" to buy cheap black gunpowder (which, in fact, it probably wouldn't). Which you've pointed out would make no difference to you anyway, since you can easily produce all the black gunpowder you want in your basement.

Why not just sell time-bombs on the open market then, if all our laws are "ineffective"? Making time bombs illegal obviously didn't stop this bomber, so what's the point?

Honestly, you gun enthusiasts are amazing. There is, evidently, not a single step you're willing to take for the common good. Evidently, even universal background checks is a step too far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #99)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:39 AM

124. Problem

The problem with taggants is they make the powder thermally unstable, the reason this isn't used anywhere is technically the two substances don't mix. I don't see why they wouldn't want to use it if they could, the science still needs to catch up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mitchell (Reply #124)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:16 AM

126. So let's put some real effort into researching ways

this can be done without compromising the effectiveness of the powder.

You've offered a solid technical reason for not using taggants, which I appreciate. As opposed to those here arguing that their use would compromise their "freedom" and represents "big government" tyranny and all the rest of that Cato Institute BS.

If there are technical problems for not going with this idea, then let's see if these can't be solved. If they CAN be solved, then the use of taggants would provide one more useful tool for investigators. Not a cure-all, not a guarantee that such atrocities won't happen again, but one more useful tool. Personally I have confidence in American ingenuity, and think some solution can be scraped together, but perhaps not.

In any case, thank you Mitchell for making a rational counter argument, one that doesn't rely on BS about "freedom" and "higher taxes" and the like.

Best wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #71)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:47 PM

79. Stupid fucking ignorant reporters

There is NO SUCH THING
American media sucks dingleberries
They do not research a damn thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chuuku Davis (Reply #79)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 09:18 AM

95. Why don't you take a little break? Sounds like you need it..... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 07:52 PM

48. Yep - and we got a whole basement full of Popgun Fondlers here who defend the NRA every step of

the way right here on DU.

Support = complicity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:28 PM

72. The point is this technology could have advanced to the point where it was useful,

just like research into gun violence, the NRA shuts it down. Time to shut down the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #72)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:51 PM

74. Yes, they impede research

safety developments for guns, anything that might jeopardize one penny of profit for the gun lobby. They actively work against the safety and security of Americans. They do need to be brought down, and we do that by making sure politicians who vote with them are punished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #72)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:38 AM

86. You seem to be very eager to throw away the First Amendment.

When you give a government power to suppress groups that you don't like, don't be surprised if one day that government suppresses groups that you do like, and then suppresses you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #86)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:47 AM

87. Bullshit

We exercise our First Amendment rights. He meant shut them down politically and you know it. He said nothing about state intervention. The NRA subverts democracy at every turn and perpetrates pure evil. The fact we have trouble getting simple background checks passed when over 90% of the population supports them demonstrates as much. The NRA is determined to ensure criminals have ready access to guns. That is the only reason to oppose background checks. We make the NRA and their cronies pay politically for fomenting murder in order to generate profits. 3300 Americans have died from guns since Newtown. It's time people stop carrying the water for a right-wing organizations with absolute contempt for human life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #87)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:46 AM

90. They've got ca. 4 million members. How do you propose to shut them down?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #90)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 04:30 AM

91. to fund their opponents

and vote the assholes that support murder for profit out of office. Make it clear that voting with the NRA ends their careers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #87)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 08:52 AM

94. That isn't what he said.

I make no claim to be a mind reader. I simply took him at his word. Since he has not replied yet, I continue to take him at his word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #94)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:19 PM

108. He said nothing about using the govt

And there was no reason for you to invent that charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #86)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:22 AM

98. You know what, pal, the NRA is suppressing everyone's free speech with wads of money

that buys their agenda! This group has done more to advance the corruption of our government than any other, buying legislators who pass laws protecting gun manufacturers and sellers from any liability and prohibiting any government studies on gun violence.
If someone gets drunk in a bar, then drives and causes death and destruction, the bar is liable. If someone goes to a gun shop yelling about everyone who needs killing, and the shop owner sells him a gun, and it's used to cause death and destruction, the shop owner is immune from any liability. That is also true if the gun blows up in your face.
I say, and will continue to say, shut them down. They are nothing more than a terrorist group advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. What they can't buy with money, they will take with force; "second amendment remedies."
Even free speech is limited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #98)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:03 PM

101. You have said some things that aren't true.

...and the shop owner sells him a gun, and it's used to cause death and destruction, the shop owner is immune from any liability. That is also true if the gun blows up in your face.

You are wrong about the bolded part. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 does not protect gun manufacturers from liability for defective products. The shop owner would not be sued in any case as it is unlikely that he has deep pockets.

My free speech has not been limited by the NRA, or by any other group.

You do seem ready to trash the Constitution. What will protect you when the government, not limited by the Constitution, comes for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #101)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:18 PM

103. Enough! The NRA is suppressing the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #103)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:19 PM

105. How are they suppressing it? I still have all my rights, and so do you. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #105)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:22 PM

109. The First Amendment

Doctors are not allowed to ask patients about guns in FL. They made sure ACA contained provisions prohibiting doctors from documenting anything related to guns.

They also have succeeded in impede our rights to sue by carving out an exemption for the merchants of death to civil liability.

I'm pretty sure we've talked about this before and, If I recall correctly, those aren't rights that concern you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #105)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:36 AM

127. The NRA minority is suppressing my right for an up or down vote on background checks.

now, go shoot something. It'll make you feel all powerful and manly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #127)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:48 AM

129. Please show where that right is listed in the Constitution.

You don't have the right to an up or down vote on any particular bill or issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #129)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:54 AM

130. show me your right to own a weapon if you're not part of a "well regulated militia."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #130)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:55 AM

131. That horse is dead. You can quit beating it.

The Heller and McDonalds decisions killed your horse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #103)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:42 PM

111. you forgot

The only part of the constitution that matters is the Second Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #101)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:06 PM

113. tell that to doctors in Florida

The constitution doesn't just protect your rights. It's for all of us. To say the NRA has not infringed on the First Amendment is clearly false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #113)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:09 AM

133. Clearly! Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #72)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:04 AM

132. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:45 PM

107. NRA = Terrorism Enablers

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:06 AM

123. Yep saw this on the last word tonite

 

death cult

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread