Slashdot Mirror
Ricin Tainted Letter Sent to Senator and Possibly the President
An anonymous reader writes "A letter addressed to Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) was tested and found to contain ricin, a highly toxic, inexpensive, and easily produced substance derived from castor beans. The letter was intercepted at the U.S. Capitol's off-site mail facility and nobody has been injured. The letter was postmarked Memphis, Tennessee, but listed no return address. Sen. Claire McCaskill told reporters that a suspect has been identified."
And, this morning, a letter addressed to the President was discovered containing a suspicious substance. Update: 04/17 16:25 GMT by U L : And the substance is ricin. Apparently, air filters at another facility have also tested positive for ricin.
Source.
Its someone stupid enough to think a Senator opens his own mail. (Shamelessly stolen from Twitter)
Test your net with Netalyzr
Obviously we must ban all Assault Beans. Even though castor beans aren't even really legumes at all. All that matters is that word "bean" is used, which qualifies them as Assault Beans.
Just because the Lima Bean ban back in the 1990's didn't reduce the number of assault bean attacks doesn't mean that a properly configured law - which we'll have to pass in order to find out what's really in it, of course - won't save "at least one life."
Next, we'll have to focus on deaths related to soccer and other Assault Sports. I'm looking at you, Kayaking.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I imagine he gets these every single day. It goes with the job.
Oh, wait, we have to take advantage of the bombings! We're still at war with Eastasia, remember!
This whole every-aspect-of-our-lives-must-be-in-the-context-of-1984 conspiracy stuff has really gotten out of hand ...
I've been wondering about that! Man, Walter trying to kill the president?! The finale of Breaking Bad is gonna kick ass!
If we could create legislation that could keep unstable people from bombs, we would. Since we can with guns, we will.
Really? The owner of the guns in the CT killings would have passed any of the newly proposed background checks. She owned the guns legally. They were stolen from her by someone not allowed to have the, who killed her before moving on to kill other people and himself. Which restraint on the 2nd being tossed around would have prevented that crazy guy from being crazy? Please be specific. Thanks.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Have you noticed that whenever something bad happens in America, to normal people, the next day or the same day, a letter with a "suspicious substance" is sent to a politician in D.C.?
They must have a special unit called "All About Us" that just sends these out as needed.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
one Walter White, described as a mild-mannered, former High School Chemistry teacher.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Yes, it's obviously false flag. Or obviously Middle Eastern. Or obviously domestic. Or obviously FBI-inspired conspirators that they didn't stop in time. Or any other "obviously" thing. *eyeroll*
we're proposing a ban on the ultimate object that makes pulling a trigger the difference between life and death.
Ah, so you're proposing a ban on people. I approve!
I'm truly curious what background check will keep someone from stealing another person's legally obtained weapon?
Are you suggesting that if you have a family member with issues (I wanted to type "crazy", but that's derogatory IMO) then you shouldn't be able to pass a background check? Where does this kind of logic end and what personal liberties are you willing to forgo to allow a database of this size to happen?
21st Century Renaissance Man
You miss the point of background checks. It is not to stop individual crimes. It is to make it harder - ON AVERAGE - for people with a history of violent and/or criminal behavior to acquire firearms. Think abusive spouses who don't like their ex's being with someone new. Or a stalker who wants to take their obsession to the next level. Or a thug with a record who wants to pick up the latest in thug technology. WIthout a federal background check, states that allow people to carry concealed weapons into bars and schools in the name of "freedom" would do nothing to stop such individuals from acquiring firearms.
The 20 children killed in the Newtown massacre (say that out loud if you are unsure of why people want action) are a drop in the bucket when it comes to gun violence. THOUSANDS have been killed by guns since then, and many of those crimes would almost certainly not have occurred if the US had two things: 1) effective and universal gun regulations, 2) a less fanatical obsession with violence as a solution to people's problems (think "War on ___" or how every "action" movie poster includes someone holding a weapon). I am not one to shy away from criticizing the entertainment industry for their pandering, and hope the increasing number of large-scale public tragedies involving guns will begin to turn the tide against this long-standing trend.
But i digress.
The ridiculous meme that says something like: "Chicago has strict gun laws and they have lots of gun violence" completely ignores the fact that many if not all of the guns used in Chicago come from outside the city's jurisdiction. The same goes for NY, Washington DC, Miami, etc. These cities know what the problem is, but they cant do anything about it because neighboring states ignore it in the name of "freedom". Recent studies have shown that a large percentage of the guns used in NY-Metro area crimes originate as legit purchases in states like Virginia where the gun lobby has fear-mongered the local legislature away from even the most basic regulations.
Consider what would happen if you couldn't go to a "gun show" in someone's backyard and pick up a bunch of handguns to sell on the black market in Chicago. Where would the average street thug get their weapons? Russian arms dealers? 3D printing? Granted there are plenty of weapons already out there, but is "it's hard so what's the point" really an excuse?
And background checks do not address the problem of what you can buy once you pass. Why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle with armor piercing rounds and a 30-round magazine?!? For that entire heard of delicious armor-plated deer you ran out of standard rounds trying to slaughter? To shoot at UN tanks when they invade Idaho?
Please explain...
So the perpetrator was either immeasurably stupid and thoughtless
Do you really think that is implausible?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Premeditated murder does not mean one is insane.