REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Boston suspects did not have gun licenses

POSTED BY: NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
UPDATED: Friday, May 3, 2013 12:31
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1845
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, April 22, 2013 4:21 PM

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?

Wouldn't have stopped the bombing, of course. But they also shot 2 cops, jacked a car, and held up a 7-11. And got in 2 gunfights with other cops.


And, I think, neither one was a legal citizen. 'Course, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to only CITIZENS, does it? They were PEOPLE, so maybe they had a 2Nd Amendment right?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 22, 2013 6:10 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Dzhokhar became a U.S. citizen in 2012 ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 22, 2013 6:17 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

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


I did not know that. Last report I saw, he was only a permanent legally resident alien.

E-T-A: I got 'em confused. Little Brother was the legally resident alien.
Big Bro was Naturalized on Sept 11,2012, I heard that maybe a dozen times on the TV news. I fergot.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 22, 2013 9:06 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Oops. Wrong way about.

Tamerlan (which spells a lot to me like Tamerlane, a Khan in Asia during the 1400's, I use it as a mnemonic to remember who was who), was the elder. Due to his being pointed out to the FBI and then being subsequently interviewed, he was unable to become a naturalized citizen, but was legally a resident alien (according to a few stories I've read). His younger brother Dzhokhar did become a naturalized citizen in 2012.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:07 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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?




If they didn't have licenses, they could not legally purchase firearms in Mass. from anyone. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140
/Section131


Per the Washington Post,

"Authorities are trying to trace a handgun recovered from the suspects. Law enforcement sources said the effort has been delayed because the serial number was removed. Technicians are working to determine the numbers, after which the weapons will be traced by a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives facility in West Virginia."

So it's likely stolen, and was probably bought illegally. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/alleged-bombers-aunt-tamerlan-t
sarnaev-was-religious-but-not-radical/2013/04/22/ca8f3214-ab5c-11e2-a198-99893f10d6dd_story_1.html





"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:08 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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?"



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?


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:32 AM

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

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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.



Well, if they didn't have a Mass. license, they couldn't have bought a gun legally in Mass. and since they're Mass. citizens, they couldn't have bought them legally in any other state, so I'd say the likelyhood of them having obtained the guns illegally is pretty high. Could have been a straw purchase instead of buying stolen guns, but given the license needed in Mass., it'd have to be out of state. And straw purchases are illegal too.


Quote:

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


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?" since they could have bought from none of those places.


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?


But it's early on. Not knowing the types of guns you really can't say.

However, if folks who are buying guns to use in a terrorist attack don't have an escape plan, seems that they wouldn't really care much about the future financial ramifications of spending next month's rent money.



"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:22 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

they could have bought from none of those places.
Bullshit. Although Massachussets, along with a few other states, "requires" individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns, you can buy anything you want at a gun show without a license, permit or background check. It's been proven over and over, and of course these guys' looks wouldn't stand in their way.


Colin Goddard, a student who was shot four times at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, talks about his experience going to gun shows across America.

After being shot, he decided to do something to help make America safer. He took a hidden camera to gun shows to show Americans just how easy it is to buy assault weapons and handguns without a criminal background check and without even having to show a driver's license.


There have been numerous people who have done this to show you can buy just about anything at a gun show without showing a license or permit, if you want to. Would be nice if we could stop pushing that particular lie and started dealing with REALITY. Just a thought.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:53 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


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?"





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.

Rather different from weasel-worded STATEMENTS with " likely" and "Probably" in them.

I will admit that I assume that they bought the guns somewhere, somehow, legally or otherwise. I do not assume that they stole them somewhere, without any evidence.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:02 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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



If the only dangers were folks running from thousands of armed law enforcement personnel, you might have a point.

Stuff like home invasions, where law enforcement can't get there in time to do any good, on the other hand, might give one reason to want to be armed. For example:

http://wtop.com/41/3270719/Retired-officer-shoots-kills-would-be-intru
der-in-Md



"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.



And when I suggested probabilities, based on Mass. and Federal law, you rejected it because it doesn't fit what you want to hear. And now you're playing word games.

If you want a discussion, I'll be glad to have one. If you want to disregard anything that doesn't agree with your preconceptions, just go ahead and talk to the folks who agree with everything you think.

Bye.




"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:21 AM

STORYMARK


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?




So, you're saying wulfenstar wasn't in town.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:45 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



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

... if they didn't have a Mass. license, they couldn't have bought a gun legally in Mass. and since they're Mass. citizens, they couldn't have bought them legally in any other state ...


It looks like Massachusetts has a gun show loophole. I couldn't find anything about internet sales.

So old man, care to defend your obviously WRONG ASSumptions? And that's the nicest way I can interpret your posts, b/c the other explanation is you flat-out lied. But by your history, that's not beyond you either.

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



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD MAN!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:01 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


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?



This just in-- it mighta been their own, sort of. Or Uncle Sam's. Tammy's money seems to have come from his wife working 60 to 70 hours a week as a home care giver and he seems to have collected WELFARE... ( Hoo, boy, are we gonna hear about that soon from the right wingers...). He seems also to have worked as a pizza guy, and driver. Dee Joker, though, seems to have grasped American entrepreneurism and free enterprise--- he sold weed. Which is a high income proposition. Probably had enough cash to buy guns, which, of course, are a necessary prop and auxilliary tool in the drug business.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 27, 2013 3:46 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

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

... if they didn't have a Mass. license, they couldn't have bought a gun legally in Mass. and since they're Mass. citizens, they couldn't have bought them legally in any other state ...


It looks like Massachusetts has a gun show loophole. I couldn't find anything about internet sales.

So old man, care to defend your obviously WRONG ASSumptions? And that's the nicest way I can interpret your posts, b/c the other explanation is you flat-out lied. But by your history, that's not beyond you either.




"No person shall sell, give away, loan or otherwise transfer a rifle or shotgun or ammunition other than (a) by operation of law, or (b) to an exempt person as hereinafter described, or (c) to a licensed dealer, or (d) to a person who displays his firearm identification card, or license to carry a pistol or revolver. "

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140
/Section129C


It's illegal in Mass. to sell a firearm to anyone who doesn't have a permit. Anywhere. Any time.

ETA: And, as noted above, it's illegal for anyone on Mass who doesn't have the proper permit to possess a firearm.

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 ?




Doesn't matter if there was no background check performed. Any sale at a gun show in Mass. would still require the purchaser to have and produce the required permit, as noted above. Since neither of the Tsarnaevs had such a permit, they couldn't legally buy firearms in Mass.



"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:14 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thank you, Pizmo, for the definitive statement those of us on the side of some minimum gun restriction are making:
Quote:

That's why I would strengthen registration and make the crime for someone using your registered gun much more severe. If you funnel more and more gun ownership through registration then at the very least you will to reduce the illegal guns available. There is no perfect solution, there will still be shootings, but more guns sure as hell isn't it.
Just as simple as that. If ONLY we could keep the discussion to that level, which is all that's been proposed.

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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.




And unfortunately, 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. 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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:52 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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."



Because our great leader has deemed it priority # 1. He flew in families of the victims of Newtown, as live campaign props, even though he's not campaigning any more ( or does refuse to acknowledge that ? ) Barry said he'd do something, and by Allah, he's going to DO something!

Even if it's completely futile and does nil to stop the violence he claims he wants stopped.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:26 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


".... 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.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD MAN!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 28, 2013 4:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.>



http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-30/news/sns-rt-us-usa-guns-
congress-prosecutionsbre90u00f-20130130_1_gun-crimes-checks-for-gun-purchases-gun-laws


"Obama's Justice Department has shown little appetite to prosecute what it considers low-level firearms crimes at the expense of time spent on sweeping investigations, officials with the department said.

Investigators are also working under the shadow of a botched gun probe known as "Operation Fast and Furious," an investigation into gun trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border that developed into a political scandal in Obama's first term.

'PAPERWORK' CRIME

Thousands of potential federal gun crimes go unprosecuted each year, the result of efforts by the Justice Department and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, to determine which ones are most important, according to studies funded by the department.

The most common lead that agents pass up is a "paperwork" crime.

In those instances, someone with a criminal conviction or other disqualifying factor tries to buy a gun but does not disclose his past, either because he lied or forgot to do so. A background check finds him ineligible and bars him from getting a firearm, but he can be prosecuted for trying."


http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/28/chicag
o-los-angeles-new-york-prosecuted-fewest-federal-gun-crimes


http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/307/

Note the table at the bottom of this article. Only 7,520 Federal prosecutions for violations of firearms laws in all of 2012. Then look at the number of possible charges.


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 28, 2013 6:46 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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?



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD MAN!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 28, 2013 6:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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?




I have.

The fact that you have liberal dyslexia, and are unable to make sense out of a statement like, "Obama's Justice Department has shown little appetite to prosecute what it considers low-level firearms crimes at the expense of time spent on sweeping investigations, officials with the department said.", or, " Thousands of potential federal gun crimes go unprosecuted each year, the result of efforts by the Justice Department and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, to determine which ones are most important, according to studies funded by the department." doesn't mean I haven't proved my point.


Then there's a few programs like Richmond Va.'s Project Exile, where Federal and local systems did increase Federal prosecutions of firearms violations and significantly reduced gun crimes. All without new laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile




"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:06 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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



Looking more and more like "guns" should be "gun".

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.



http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/miller-tsarnaev-brothers-killed-
mit-officer-because-they-needed-a-gun
/

And apparently, only the one gun has been recovered.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/single-gun-recovered-accused-boston-bomb
ers/story?id=19028841



"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:08 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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.


* 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.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD MAN!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 29, 2013 2:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.



Okay.

So your "There was a gunshow loophole" line was proven false, and your "Show me where there's little federal prosecution" question was answered.

Now you want me to explain to you how having more federal prosecutions for gun possession and trafficking crimes might have prevented the gun possession and trafficking crimes that the Tsarnaevs (and whoever sold the gun to them) committed. I'd think you could figure that out yourself.


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.


You might have trouble explaining that minor detail to the family of Sean Collier, or to Richard Donohue Jr., when he gets out of the hospital. The as-yet un-named fellow who was carjacked at gunpoint might not see it as a minor detail either.


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 29, 2013 9:31 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Monday, April 22, 2013 6:10 PM

Dzhokhar became a U.S. citizen in 2012 ...



Monday, April 22, 2013 9:06 PM

1KIKI
Oops. Wrong way about.

Tamerlan (which spells a lot to me like Tamerlane, a Khan in Asia during the 1400's, I use it as a mnemonic to remember who was who), was the elder. Due to his being pointed out to the FBI and then being subsequently interviewed, he was unable to become a naturalized citizen, but was legally a resident alien (according to a few stories I've read). His younger brother Dzhokhar did become a naturalized citizen in 2012.



Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:45 PM

It looks like Massachusetts has a gun show loophole. I couldn't find anything about internet sales.

So old man, care to defend your obviously WRONG ASSumptions? And that's the nicest way I can interpret your posts, b/c the other explanation is you flat-out lied. But by your history, that's not beyond you either.

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.



"Not seeing much point in piling on more laws that will seldom be enforced. .... 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.



Sunday, April 28, 2013 6:46 AM

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?



Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:08 AM

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.

* 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.


So your "There was a gunshow loophole" line was proven false ..."

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.

"... and your "Show me where there's little federal prosecution" question was answered."

Way to not answer the actual question! Just answer the question you want to answer instead! In this context "And when I suggested probabilities, based on Mass. and Federal law, you rejected it because it doesn't fit what you want to hear. And now you're playing word games" 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?




ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD MAN!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.



Your cited link does not say this. It's just a list of state law links. Perhaps if you provided a link to the particular law you're citing...

Sorta like this:

"No person shall sell, give away, loan or otherwise transfer a rifle or shotgun or ammunition other than (a) by operation of law, or (b) to an exempt person as hereinafter described, or (c) to a licensed dealer, or (d) to a person who displays his firearm identification card, or license to carry a pistol or revolver. "

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140
/Section129C


You know, the law that says "NO PERSON may sell, give away, loan or otherwise transfer a rifle or shotgun or ammunition other than ... to a person who displays his firearm identification card, or license to carry a pistol or revolver." Doesn't say licensed dealer, just "no person". So a private individual selling a firearm still needs to see the buyer's firearm identification card, or license to carry a pistol or revolver. Since the Tsarnaev brothers had neither, they couldn't legally be sold a firearm in Mass. If they bought one elsewhere, they couldn't legally bring it into the state.




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?


Sorry. I thought you could connect the dots.

If federal laws are used to prosecute firearms sale and possession crimes, the rate of those crimes goes down, as noted in the reference to "Project Exile" above. That's because folks who sell or use firearms illegally have an additional cost/benefit analysis besides profit and loss. They also have to weigh the possibility of jail time, as well as how much and where. Now if Federal prosecutors were putting away the folks who sell illegal guns at a brisk rate and for long sentences, then some of the sellers would either be jailed, or decide the risk wasn't worth the reward and do something else. Now this wouldn't absolutely guarantee that folks like the Tsarnaevs wouldn't be able to make an illegal gun purchase, but it'd certainly reduce the possibility.

And here are 18 USC 922

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

and 18 USC 924

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/924

With all the laws and penalties.

Also look at "Table 1. Number of Federal Criminal Prosecutions by Lead Charge, FY 2008 - FY 2012" about halfway down this page: http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/307/
and note how few prosecutions there are for the various categories relating to unlawful sale or delivery.



"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:19 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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.

"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?




ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT OLD MAN!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:01 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.



This applies to people who purchase a firearm. If they don't buy it from a licensed dealer or buy it out of state, they have to report the purchase. ETA: The Tsarnaevs probably broke this law as well, by not reporting their illegal purchase.

As noted above, no person in Mass. can sell a firearm without seeing the buyer's firearm identification card, or license to carry a pistol or revolver.

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?



Apparently I'm the only one who can. The list of laws under 18 USC 922 and 18 USC 924 covers a lot more than failing background checks, and the list of prosecutions shown on the TRAC report also covers many more firearms related crimes. I stated "firearms sale and possession crimes", which covers a lot more ground that failing a background check. Considering that the Tsarnaevs did not legally purchase their gun, a background check wouldn't even come into the picture anyway.



I'm not sure what your point is anymore. It's pretty much established that without the proper permits, which they did not have, the Tsarnaev brothers could not have legally bought a firearm in Mass., and that if they bought one elsewhere the could not have legally brought it into the state. Both the USC cites and the TRAC report list any number of Federal laws that both the Tsarnaevs and the person who sold them a gun would have broken. If they stole it, there's Federal laws relating to that as well, all in the USC titles cited.

So do you even have a point? Trying to show that the Tsarnaevs got their gun legally is a fail.


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:42 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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.

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

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

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



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT OLD MAN!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 2:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.



I proposed several scenarios, all of which end up with laws being broken. Gun bought in-state, gun bought out of state, gun stolen either in or out of state. All are illegal under current law.

Quote:

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


That's because laws don't prevent crime, they deter crime by threatening punishment. If the government decides not to carry through with that threat when crimes are committed, then folks are more likely to commit them.

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).


If you can come up with a scenario where the Tsarnaevs were involved with a background check, please do so.

Quote:

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


My argument is that the Tsarnaevs obtained their gun illegally, and that there are laws in place that might have reduced the chances of them obtaining that gun, if the laws were enforced regularly.

Quote:

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


In other words, you were wrong about 'gun show loopholes', Federal Prosecution of gun crimes, the Tsarnaev's gun being a "minor issue", and pretty much everything else, so you're gonna take your ball and go home.

Bye.


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 2, 2013 7:54 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 4:37 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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



Umm.

Kiki.

Without licences - either a Firearms Identification Card or a Handgun License - the Tsarnaevs could not legally purchase a firearm in Mass. No one in Mass. could legally sell the Tsarnaevs a firearm since thay did not have either a Firearms Identification Card or a Handgun License. I've cited and quoted the state laws that apply to this.

You have shown nothing to indicate that a firearms transaction can happen legally in Mass if the buyer does not have the proper a Firearms Identification Card or a Handgun License.


"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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 3, 2013 12:31 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!




The Boston patsies employed by CIA did not have gun licenses because they did not have guns.

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)


The medical college student was arrested uninjured so the Israeli joo doctors cut his voice box out to prevent him pleading NOT GUILTY and winning a trial by jury:



His brother was arrested naked and unarmed and uninjured, then the Israeli joo death squad executed him. Nor did they have bombs.
http://168.215.229.9/mthread.aspx?tid=54700

Now give up your black powder muskets to the Joo World Odor you stoopid goy sheeple!!!!!!!!




In Firefly the Alliance merged the US flag with the flag of Communist China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(Firefly)


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL