Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Dzhokhar became a U.S. citizen in 2012 ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombing-suspects-did-not-valid-handgun-li
censes-234648018.html

Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licenses
By Jonathan Allen | Reuters – Sun, Apr 21, 2013

Wonder how they got the guns? Bought 'em at a local gun store? Maybe on the internet? Or from a dealer at a gun show? Or a friend/relative/family member/ or private party?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
How come some responsible gun owners didn't take these guys out? Isn't that the plan? "A better armed America is a safer one?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

So it's likely stolen, and was probably bought illegally.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

So it's likely stolen, and was probably bought illegally.

---

"Likely" and "probably" don't carry a lot of weight.

---

Quote:

---

But it's early on. Let's wait until we get some actual facts on that question.

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, that does raise a serious question: I've been a skilled worker all my life, and I don't have enough cash to buy the guns I'd like to have. Where did these guys get the money to purchase, legally or otherwise ( and illegal guns are more expensive than legal ones, aren't they?) handguns, and a rifle or rifles? Whose money was behind them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:



Okay. so we can ignore your suppositions that they..., "Bought 'em at a local gun store? Maybe on the internet? Or from a dealer at a gun show? Or a friend/relative/family member/ or private party?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
So no need for a mass armed citizenry - check.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Where did you learn to read? Ya see that funny hook shaped thing at the end there? 'S called a question Mark. It asks a question. It does not make a supposition. I don't know the answer. I suggest those as possibilities, hypotheticals, asking for validation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


Because they were law-abiding citizens and followed the order to stay at home? Perhaps because they have better sense than to start shooting at someone based on a blurry photo? Or to be out on the street armed when there's thousands of cops on hair-trigger looking for anyone with a gun?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:


Meanwhile, that does raise a serious question: I've been a skilled worker all my life, and I don't have enough cash to buy the guns I'd like to have. Where did these guys get the money to purchase, legally or otherwise ( and illegal guns are more expensive than legal ones, aren't they?) handguns, and a rifle or rifles? Whose money was behind them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

---

Quote:

---

Gun Show Loophole WIKI
Seven states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts...). but not long guns

Massachusetts governor offers new gun laws after Newtown Reuters
Jan 16, 2013
The proposed Massachusetts legislation would require gun buyers to undergo background checks even when they made purchases at gun shows ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Obviously they could have gotten the guns easily, if not "legally", through gun shows or "private sales". The video above shows that, as have numerous like it, as well as numerous examples of other people going to gun shows and buying whatever they want, no questions asked.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Not seeing much point in piling on more laws that will seldom be enforced.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
".... the Federal laws already on the books that could be used to put both the buyer and the seller in jail are very rarely used."

Which laws are those? A working link, please.>

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Old man, they're talking about where background checks worked and the bad guys were denied their gun purchases. This is an argument for expanding background checks.

Care to try to post something relevant that actually supports your position, not mine?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Wonder how they got the guns?

---

Quote:

---

The original question is they walked up to that car and appeared they shot the officer in the head unprovoked, that it was an assassination. But why? How did that fit into their plan? The operating theory now in the investigation is they were short one gun. The older brother had a gun. They wanted to get a gun for the younger brother and the fastest and most efficient way they could think of doing it was a surprise attack on a cop, to take his weapon and go. Officer Collier had a locking holster, it’s like a three-way lock. If you don’t know how to remove the gun, you’re not going to get it out. There was apparently an attempt to yank it and they couldn’t get it and left.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
If you can't make a concrete step-by-step argument how this would have prevented the brothers Tsarnaev from getting that single pistol (no 'arsenal' as reported earlier) * then you're doing that preacher voodoo thing where we're supposed to take it on faith and believe HALLELUJAH! that it will somehow all work out if we just have faith in your word.

---

Quote:

---

* That single pistol BTW is a minor detail in the whole story, as the pistol had nothing to do with the bombs, which were the real problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Well, actually no, my 'gun show loophole' was not proven false.
http://www.goal.org/masslawpages/masslaws.html Licenses to sell are only required for dealers. A private-party sale doesn't require that the seller have a license, only that s/he report the sale after the fact. It also doesn't require that the seller check to see of the buyer has a license. For the license to purchase requirement to apply, you must receive the firearm in Massachusetts. A person who wishes to purchase a firearm MAY (not shall) apply for a license to purchase.

---

Quote:

---

the question to be answered was which RELEVANT FEDERAL laws that COULD HAVE PREVENTED them getting a gun is the question to answer. You know - to back up your claim that they were covered under Federal laws. That WAS your claim, was it not?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And then you get to PRIVATE SALES:


http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140
/Section128B

Any resident of the commonwealth who purchases or obtains a firearm...
and receives such firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, within the commonwealth ...

So all the words under private sales only apply to people who receive the gun in Massachusetts. You have to read the fine print. Therer are other caveats, holes and limitations which I mentioned.

---

Quote:

---

"Now if Federal prosecutors were putting away the folks who sell illegal guns ..."

Except your example wasn’t for an actual SALE OF GUNS. It was for a NON-SALE WHERE A BACKGROUND CHECK REVEALED THE PERSON WASN'T ELIGIBLE TO MAKE THE PURCHASE. Hence, no sale took place.

Can't you read your own posts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
In Massachusetts. The selling, the buying AND the receiving have to take place in Massachusetts for the laws to apply. Funny that, that thing about state laws only applying within the state's boundaries.

Now, there's no public evidence about where the gun was obtained (last I read the FBI was working on recovering the filed-off SN and might have a good idea, but they're not telling), but you have absolutely no evidence for your scenario either - that the brothers made an illegal purchase within the state.

---

Quote:

---

And everything else you post simply indicates that the federal government has no laws in place that could have prevented the purchase...

---

Quote:

---

...and that background checks do work (hey, they kept a lot of people from getting guns who didn't qualify to be able to purchase them).

---

Quote:

---

Simply assuming as you do that somehow your argument is relevant is pointless.

---

Quote:

---

I'm done with you. You can spew and stew all you want.>

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
This was your argument - remember?

"If they didn't have licenses, they could not legally purchase firearms in Mass. from anyone."

Yes, you've done a lot of dodging and weaving, shifting the topic, trying to obscure your error, and so on, but this was your argument. Which I have proved wrong. goodbye

---

Quote:

---

Boston Suspect was unarmed when shot and arrested.

A new crack in the official story in the Boston bombing was revealed this week, when officials finally admitted that suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was actually unarmed when he was shot and arrested inside the boat that he was found in.

According to the Boston Press Herald:


Two U.S. officials say the surviving suspect in the Boston bombings was unarmed when police captured him hiding inside a boat in a neighborhood back yard. Authorities originally said they had exchanged gunfire with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for more than one hour Friday evening before they were able to subdue him.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation, say investigators recovered a 9 mm handgun believed to have been used by Tsarnaev’s brother, Tamerlan, from the site of a gun battle Thursday night, which injured a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority officer. Dzhokhar was believed to have been shot before he escaped.

The officials tell The Associated Press that no gun was found in the boat. Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said earlier that shots were fired from inside the boat.

As we reported yesterday New Hampshire State Representative Stella Tremblay has recently suggested that the Boston Bombings could be a “Black Ops” government job, and says that people should think for themselves in coming to conclusions.

Additionally, earlier this week we reported that, in so many words, Obama told the public not to come to any conclusions about the Boston bombings until the government has put together their official version of events.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Officials-Suspect-unarmed-when-arreste
d-in-boat-.html

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/apr/24/officials-suspect-unarmed-whe
n-arrested-in-boat/

http://intellihub.com/2013/04/25/ officials-admit-boston-suspect-was-unarmed-when-arrested-in-boat/

---

Quote:

---

This Friday, April 19, 2013 image made available by the Massachusetts State Police shows 19-year-old Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, hiding inside a boat during a search for him in Watertown, Mass. He was pulled, wounded and bloody, from the boat parked in the backyard of a home in the Greater Boston area. Two U.S. officials say the surviving suspect in the Boston bombings was unarmed when police captured him hiding inside a boat in a neighborhood back yard. Authorities originally said they had exchanged gunfire with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for more than one hour Friday evening before they were able to subdue him. (AP Photo/Massachusetts State Police)

---