With all of the "shootouts", why havent we heard about the suspects' guns and how they were acqui

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The media keeps reporting that there were shootouts between the Boston bombing suspects and police.

So why havent we heard about the alleged guns used by the alleged suspects, allegedly...


The establishment is jumping on every opportunity to yell about guns and why every citizen should be disarmed.

By now, we would know which model guns they owned, how those specific guns are especially evil, how "easy" they were to acquire etc.

How about the gun used to shoot the MIT cop or rob the 7-11 or carjack the Mercedes...

Or has the trustworthy media just been too busy with "everything else". They just havent had time to push their gun confiscation agenda.

Yeah right.


More to come. Count on it.




posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
That would complicate the coverup,but this is why they are so lousy at them.The right wing has been doing them for decades with success.These guys just seem to slap it together,it indicates a total lack of strategy and planning.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I remember asking a friend this very question yesterday:

Where are their guns?



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Maybe cause the FBI is running the investigation and are holding back info , while they search for others involved ??



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by conspiracytheoristIAM
 

Holding back info?

Would seem to me that theyve dug up every conceivable detail about these guys...



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The one person who can answer everything is still unconcious and intubated in the hospital.
When he wakes up and when he starts talking, we may know more.

My guess ... older brother used cash to gather the arms and munitions and bombs.
The younger brother was seen the week of the bombings in $700 sneakers.
These guys were NOT POOR. They had cash .. lots of it.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
They couldn't have acquired these firearms legally.

Suspect #1 was disqualified from receiving any Massachusetts firearm permit because he had a domestic abuse charge. He is statutorily ineligible. On top of that, even if he didn't have the charge on his record, a non resident permit is extremely hard to get and have only recently been awarded to anyone.

Suspect #2 Would be eligible as a US citizen, but only for an FID permit, which only allows purchase of small capacity long rifles, because he was under 21. That means no AR's, AK's, handguns of any kind. Think hunting rifle.

In Massachusetts, firearms permits are not "Shall Issue". They are "May Issue". That means the chief of police of your town may deny you for ANY REASON AT ALL. He could deny you because he didn't like your shoes, and that is completely legal.

On top of all that, Cambridge doesn't like to give permits even if you qualify, show you have a need and you are Captain America. The city just doesn't give out many of them. If by some miracle you actually did aqcuire a permit, there is the state's "Assault Weapons Ban" in place.

OMG the laws didn't stop them! More laws please!
edit on 21-4-2013 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



What sort of guns did these "terror brothers" have and use? Why don't we know? That this is still unknown to the public is rather telling. No, it doesn't point to a conspiracy or False Flag but, what it does point to is that the powers that be don't want to muddle the fuzzy logic that has been used in their effort to bring about gun control in the US.

The Terror Brothers used bombs as their primary weapon. As we all know, it is already illegal to possess or to make bombs. In spite of all the laws on the books prohibiting bombs, these brothers made and used bombs. No law stopped this behavior.

If the media focused their attention on the guns that they might have used in the shoot-outs that the the Terror Brothers fought with police, people might begin to realize that if laws banning gunnings had been in force, it would probably have made no difference whatsoever. After all, if bombs were already illegal and, yet, bombs were used, it becomes all to obvious that laws in of themselves do not stop illegal behavior.

Disarming the population means disarming law-abiding citizens. Criminals and/or those with terror on their minds clearly would disregard any number of laws to do their nefarious intentions. So the media has not reported on the guns the brothers used because, in part, the media -- the liberal media -- doesn't want this connection to be made.

Disarm law abiding citizens and only criminals will have guns. extra DIV



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Very good point. Something I also question. Just show the damn guns already, its not like that would hinder the investigation in ANY way whatsoever.

Also, why didn't they shoot the alleged carjacked victim? They just shot two cops, don't they WANT chaos and death? That is the whole deal with bombing innocent people at a marathon. But lets let this nice car jack victim live = not buying it.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by unknown known
Very good point. Something I also question. Just show the damn guns already, its not like that would hinder the investigation in ANY way whatsoever.

Also, why didn't they shoot the alleged carjacked victim? They just shot two cops, don't they WANT chaos and death? That is the whole deal with bombing innocent people at a marathon. But lets let this nice car jack victim live = not buying it.


Very good point!!

I thought I was the only one who thought about that.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


How about ,like I said, anyone else of interest?



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracytheoristIAM
 


How does showing, even stating the weaponry they were using, affect the investigation into anyone else of interest?

You say they had such and such glock, such and such rifle and thats it. Its not crucial to the on going investigation to identify the weapons used.
edit on 21-4-2013 by unknown known because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Apparently they did NOT have permits for firearms. Shocking!



Police: Marathon bomb suspects didn't have gun permits

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. —A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn't have gun permits.


www.wcvb.com...





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join