Explosions At The Boston Marathon

The media needs to back the *** off these family members.

I understand its a story but they OBVIOUSLY dont want to answer your ungodly irrelevant questions.

Oh God! You're not drinking alone, are you? I have to agree with Shiroi.

bunch of jackals!

The media never asks the question "Do you think he/they did it" speaks volumes about the status of the constitution in times of stress.

The second uncle they just showed said "They are going to kill him... I know this."

No really, jokes aside if you're drinking out of sorrow you might have a problem and should seek advice from a medical professional.

It doesn't say anything about the Constitution. It does however posit a corrupt dichotomy between media and big business.

Freedom of The Press is HIGHLY misused.

YES, you can report anything you want but that does not mean you can blatently report fiction or try to create fiction with the facts and report it as news.

Well I'll be damned... you are right... my bad.

Strongly disagree that it is not a question that still needs to be asked... I respect your faith in the source of the information though.

I love that the family is completely calling for actual evidence or to be shown evidence that these two are the bombers.

Wont see that from most citizens of the united states.

Even though they are probably still in denial from shock, that is a great reaction.

Candlejack if you care to actually research rather than have an apparent knee jerk, "no American needs an AR or any other semi-automatic rifle for any purpose" it has been shown in a home defense situation under ANY conditions a CQB (Close Quarters Battle) style AR is safer and more effective than a handgun or shotgun.

Handguns lack stopping power, they do not lack lethality don't get me wrong, but a man or woman shot in the torso will bleed out before they are stopped in their tracks, baring a "lucky" hit to the heart or spine your attacker CAN just keep coming or flee the scene. Don't let the action sequences in the movies fool you, people don't fly backwards after getting hit with 9mm round and stay down.

A shotgun if loaded with shot (what I use for hunting) is more likely to just piss someone off before it stops them, dependant on range to target. Shotgun slugs and FMJ pistol rounds are quite possibly the worst home defense round that anyone can obtain. Both have a greater chance to pass through a target and any walls or home structure thereby endangering other people in the home, neighbors, and anyone else on the other side of your target. Hollow points, because of the physics of the round, are actually safer and less likely to pass through an assailant plus the home structure behind. The hollow point round mushrooms once it impacts something, increasing its own drag as it passes through an object, losing its inertia. A rifle round while "hi-power" is lighter than a pistol round. Again by the very physics of the round when it does hit an object its momentum is lost and it becomes less likely to over-penetrate hurting an innocent.

This is all without going into the mechanics of shooting a CQB weapon vs. a pistol or shotgun in a home defense situation. Youtube has a plethora of videos done by people and professionals take some time and watch them rather than assume Fox is telling you the unbiased truth.

There was a "test" done by a county sheriff that showed a man with I think it was 6 revolvers, shot all 6 guns with 6 rounds each faster than that same man with 3 or 4 13 round magazines and a semi-automatic pistol. Why do you want to limit magazine sizes again?

So many people think that a gun ban or w/e will solve criminals having guns... Hello.... wake up they are criminals they don't follow the laws now, wtf makes u think they will follow a gun ban...

The NRA is responsible.... laughable. the NRA is a body of people that stand up for something they believe in. That's like saying the steelworkers union is responsible for the price of steel... They simply stand up for the rights of the workers...

The journalistic code of ethics is not followed like it ought to be, yes, you are correct. Journalistic integrity has been obfuscated by intentional blurring of the lines between what constitutes journalism and opinion, which should never be blurred. It's a long standing issue that dates back to the late eighties, and had to do with the deregulation of the media industry.

The media is using the term "terrorist" far too early and far too incorretly at this point. So yea, I do agree if they didnt have something to fear they wouldnt have shot,but not that that will automatically mean they are terrorists.

http://www.infowars.com/boston-bombing-culprits-found/


anon sends hacked pictures to Info wars

multiple men around 10+ seen in same military clothing wearing black jackets, brown pants and brown boots, the middle eastern men, pin pointed in the pictures seen like they have the pressure cooker in the back pack bulging out

It should never be an issue to actually report the news and not claim "Freedom of The Press" when confronted about the "story" you just reported.

So an intelligent discussion where I had hoped to inform you of the flawed logic of your argument labels me as a gun nut? I don't even own an AR. I mean if thats the only issue you have with my post then wow I did better than I thought.

I agree.

The NRA is not a body of people that stands up for something they believe in (unless you meant profits)... they are a group of lobbyists that stand up for the profits of corporations...

Everyone who runs from cops and shoots at them are terrorists?

What people are trying to say (I think) is that it hasn't been proven that these men bombed the marathon on Monday. So, calling them terrorists rather than say...criminals is jumping the gun.

We do not have reason to believe this is a terrorist attack. This was a senseless attack made by serial bombers at this point. You cannot claim Terrorism if there is no basis for it. Every terror attack is claimed, politicized, and done to be so. These "terrorists" did not claim the act,they did not claim a reason for this act, nor has it been stated as such so "terrorism" is being used INCREDIBLY much so to create a story that will keep people watching. This is NOT "terrorism" "yet" is all im saying. The term "Terrorism" should only have been used after the attack was confirmed to have been committed as a terrorist act with all the facts behind it that define terrorist acts.

And better put:

exactly