Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Here is the first volley to take guns after Boston Bombing

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Seems they did not have a license.

Link




The Boston bombing suspects engaged in a deadly firefight with police last week, possessing six bombs, handguns, a rifle and more than 250 rounds of ammunition. But the Tsarnaev brothers did not have proper licenses to possess the firearms, according to the Cambridge Police Department -- a revelation that comes just days after the Senate voted against strengthening and expanding background checks for gun sales. Cambridge Police Department spokesman Dan Riviello told The Huffington Post that neither Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, nor Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, appeared to have a license to own a handgun.


This will spread like wildfire in the left wing MSM and I am sure this will be power for the CISPA rulings as well as executive orders on gun control.
edit on 22-4-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
you talking about Seattle?

Sorry your post was empty when i wrote that.
edit on 22-4-2013 by MrFuzzy because: empty post



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
And yet they passed the long series of background checks involved in the purchasing of bomb making materials. Oh, wait...



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Spread???

No, as it just shows that laws don't stop people.

If someone wants to kill others, they will always find a way. Regardless how many laws there are.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


So.

If they didn't have a license, then how would adding more regulation create a problem for those who purchase weapons illegally?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by esdad71
 


Spread???

No, as it just shows that laws don't stop people.

If someone wants to kill others, they will always find a way. Regardless how many laws there are.


No, but it might minimize or restrict a little, maybe save one life or two.
You know, like seatbelts in a car dosn't save everyone from dying in a carcrash, but some will survive



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Folks, it is another 'bullet' for the administration to use to pass gun laws. When I said spread, I meant watch the news today and this will be the top news article.

NOT that a person of interest on the terror watch list is being sent home.
NOT that there is an active investigation in Chicago
NOT that there was an incident at a nuclear plant with shots fired
NOT that there was a sabotage incident on the power grid outside San Fran

do I need to list more? I am sick of them using these incidents as agendas and not making anything better.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mianeye

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by esdad71
 


Spread???

No, as it just shows that laws don't stop people.

If someone wants to kill others, they will always find a way. Regardless how many laws there are.


No, but it might minimize or restrict a little, maybe save one life or two.
You know, like seatbelts in a car dosn't save everyone from dying in a carcrash, but some will survive


Isn't that the same reason the Patriot Act was enacted?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Where are the Ban Bookbag petitions?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Let me tell you kiddies, compared to most of the rest of the country getting a license and buying a gun here in MA ain't easy. That is, if you do it legally. If they weren't properly licensed then they didn't buy them legally and no amount of laws will change that. I'm a Class-A concealed license holder and tried buying a gun at a NH gun shop and because I was from MA they wouldn't sell to me. It's that much of a hassle.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


A fact is a fact. If you want to complain at someone for having your argument for absolutely no more controls on gun buying further eroded, blame those terrorists.

The fact is they didn't have any licenses for those weapons, how is that a conspiracy?

Here's a little tip for you, something that all the pro-gun preachers seem to conveniently ignore... the change in the law was not going to take your guns away. The change in the law was going to make it harder for the mentally ill and those with a violent history from getting guns.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


Here are some facts for you...read it and read it real slow and let it sink in. They did what you are saying in 1993. I do not blame the terrorists, I blame the 'current' administration and all of the house/senate. This is not Obama bashing. He is as clueless as most of America. Also, I am not complaing i am informing and making sure it does not change in my own ways.

The government started to take your guns away on June 26th, 1934. Since that say, they have released dozens of laws and bans which do all they can to kill the 2nd amendment. The right to bear arms will not go away, but if they tax and fine and restrict till all we have are pellet rifles, well, they won. They are not telling you you can't, they are just making it harder to get. This is when they created the first registry. Yes folks, it is already there.

At that time, they used gang violence. Like they did in the 80's...and passed laws...and in the 90's...and passed laws.

In 1968 they used the assassinations of JFK,RFK,MLK and Malcom X. They passed the Gun Control Act of 1968. this was a way to restrict even more people from being gun owners.

In 1993 they had the 'attempted assassination' (see a trend here) of Reagan that led to the Brady Hangun Violence Protection Act. This created back ground checks and another database. Do we really think there is no master list of all gun owners already? Of course there is.

This is the truth, Again, I am just here to inform and let the post flow...
edit on 22-4-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-4-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


No, they made bulletproof ones for kids. We are a reactive society, not proactive like, uh, Israel.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


So, your "Might" some how trumps MY Right?

Sorry, but None of the Anti-Gun rights laws have stopped anything but the lawful owner in pursuing their guaranteed right.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
so a bunch of foriegners used a bomb to kill a bunch of people at random and some retards think that gun control is the answer. the powers that be didn't even have their patsies shoot anybody and the gun grabbers are like "oooh shiney red ball." watch somebody is gonna punch a celebrity and they'll call for a gun ban



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The insignificant nobody me DO support the anti-gun lobby. Like even the pro-gun lobby, we all are only fellow humans sharing our planet and hope that one day, we may all live in Utopia/disneyland where no guns are needed, and thus, the 2nd Amendment can SAFELY be removed, for we would have progressed and evolved.

UNFORTUNATELY, that day is still far away.

The 2nd Amendment was there for a purpose, to prevent tyranny. Today, the govt may seem benevolent, but who can tell tommorrow? However, should that amendment be remove now, it will be forever, and when SHTF, it would be too late to look for arms to protect oneself and one's family, let alone the nation.

Futhermore, criminals and terrorists do not respect laws and have easy access to guns to make innocent humans kneel to their demands. Stripping innocents of their guns while letting the criminals go free, as the govt cannot ensure or even enforce anti gun laws in a huge landmass USA is, thus it is better citizens keep their arms and the amendment remains.

And worse - guns are NOT the sole cause of violence, but our minds are. President Obama did the right thing, to fund mental research and one day, we may find out how our mind works and how to prevent unnecessary violence. But till that day, the 2nd amendment stays, as nothing else is better to uphold that principle - protection of all americans in the huge landmass america is against crime and tyranny.

The anti gun lobby failed totally because they had been too ambitious - seeking for TOTAL BAN on guns initially, and then lowering it down to merely expanded checks. Unfortunately, that trust was gone, and thus its defeat, when it would have succeeded if gun checks was the initial proposal.

Till the day we all live in disneyland, the anti-gun lobby who deludedly thinks we all live in disney land today, will fail, no matter the crisises that arises as long as the PRINCIPLE of the 2nd amendment is not reconciled to realities of today.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 




please don't say our government is benevolent.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


You don't need a license to buy from a private seller. You don't need a background check either.

Well...depending on what state you live in.

I don't want to jump to conclusions and say how they may have been prevented from obtaining the weapons because I don't know how they acquired them.






top topics



 
1

log in

join