Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
Your implication is that it was ****ing pathetic that Boston had to go into a police state to stop a terrorist attack. That's what it takes when you don't want a police state to prevent an attack.
What makes your argument flawed is that it doesn't consider the alternatives. We could have avoided this by a heavy police state to prevent it. I don't want that. We could have avoided a police state in hunting down the criminal, nevermind that this could have increased the likelihood that the scumbag could have gotten away or at least prolonged the hunt.
There was nothing pathetic about how it was handled. It was a remarkable partnership between citizens, businesses, and the police to capture two guys in a crowd. In fact, it was really remarkable.
To piggyback on my own point...
There are a lot of good parallels to the gun control debate. Gun advocates focus so much on keeping the government from taking firearms out of their hands that they brush off morons (or often even defending those) who use them inappropriately. To me, that is like brushing off what these terrorists did as anything but disgusting. If you support gun rights, you should also be dead serious about laying the hammer on those who use them stupidly. This is consistent with the NRA's stance but very inconsistent from what I've seen among gun owners.
In this instance, we didn't have a police state to prevent a bombing, so we were swift and just to bring scumbags who abused that privilege to justice. I like it that way. In the same way, if we don't want a police state to prevent a shooting, then we should support a heavy hammer of justice to those who abuse this privilege. That doesn't happen today.