Shocker: Tsarnaevs didn’t have gun permits

posted at 10:01 am on April 22, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Take some comfort in the fact that this will almost certainly be the last dumb meme in the gun-rights debate for a long time to come.  After the Tsarnaev brothers allegedly planted bombs at the Boston Marathon, shot a cop to death in an ambush, and then wounded several more in a gun battle, the fact that the two didn’t have Massachusetts handgun permits has apparently made national news:

The two brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings, who police say engaged in a gun battle with officers early Friday after a frenzied manhunt, were not licensed to own guns in the towns where they lived, authorities said on Sunday.

In the confrontation with police on the streets of a Boston suburb, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were armed with handguns, at least one rifle and several explosive devices, authorities say.

But neither brother appears to have been legally entitled to own or carry firearms where they lived, a fact that may add to the national debate over current gun laws. Last week, the U.S. Senate rejected a bill to expand background checks on gun purchases, legislation that opponents argued would do nothing to stop criminals from buying guns illegally.

And which last week proved. Criminals rarely go to the trouble of applying for gun permits because (a) previous convictions would keep them from getting one anyway, and/or (b) they don’t want to establish paper trails to themselves for police to find.  Criminals, especially those who want to commit high-profile crimes, usually steal their weapons (or buy them illegally, as Reuters notes) and discard them after the crimes so that investigators can’t tie them to the weapons.

So why would this “add to the national debate over current gun laws”? It won’t.  Dzhokhar was already ineligible for a handgun license, being under 21, and Tamerlan probably would have been ineligible because of his conviction for domestic assault.  Did those laws prevent the Tsarnaevs from getting handguns and explosives? That’s a rhetorical question, unless you’ve been asleep for a week.

Furthermore, one would have to have a national debate over gun control for this to contribute to it.  As The Hill reports today, Democrats want to get as far away from that debate as possible after their abject failure to pass legislation:

Democrats in Congress have quickly changed the subject from gun control to immigration reform and are relieved to be moving past an issue that divided them to more solid political ground.

The political momentum from the resounding victories of Election Day stalled earlier in the week when Republicans punched out all three pillars of Obama’s gun-control agenda. …

Until the tragic shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, Democrats never envisioned gun-control would be the first major issue out of the gate this year. The subject barely came up on the campaign trail in 2012.

While the White House officials and Democratic leaders claimed the politics of gun control had changed, vulnerable incumbents saw it as a dangerous issue in rural states.

Sen. Mark Begich (Alaska), one of the Democrats facing a difficult re-election, said expanded background checks would have undermined Alaska values and fundamental rights.

The last thing Democrats want to have right now is a debate on gun control with the Tsarnaevs as Exhibit A.  In fact, they’d like to change the subject to almost anything else.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Honestly, the lefties are running with this. Don’t just smirk, ridecule them long and hard.

Tom C on April 22, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I can’t think of single thing.

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Sure you can! (32 ounce sodas!)

VegasRick on April 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Hey Ed Morrissey… too soon, man.

Trying to score political points on a tragedy is a progressive/Obama/Rahm move.

Not impressed with the way this blog is headed. I have been a loyal reader (VERY rare commenter) for 6+ years and it’s sad to see the decline of civility.

jdoubleu on April 22, 2013 at 10:32 AM

In the aftermath of the Gabby Giffords shooting, her chief-of-staff was out there claiming that the shooter suffered from post-Iraq PTSD before the blood was even dry on that parking lot. This fit the anti-Iraq agenda of the left even though none of it was true.

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, the first of the funerals hadn’t even occurred before the rat-eared coward pledged that he was going to get the guns off the street.

In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon shooting, the left was quick to make the unidentified bombers into anti-tax right-wing domestic terrorists. An unrelated fire at the JFK library caused Chris Matthews to launch into a minutes long rant against right-wingers and the way they attacked that library to bring down the symbol of the modern Democrat party.

Exploiting tragedy is a tool of the left. Pointing out relevant facts are not.

And don’t think that immigrants blowing up Americans won’t make it into the discussion of immigration reform. I think that perhaps unfair without a better understanding of how the immigration process for the Tsarnaevs relates to what they did but…. using these events for legislative agendas is to be expected.

Finally, as to civility. Blame the rat-eared coward for any polarization. The left has painted their positions as the only ones that are morally superior and worthy of consideration. Civility begins with respectful dialougue and you just can’t have that with a toxic partisan socialist in the White House.

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM

to me, this just means that the only effective gun legislation must be a national ban on all guns.

these piecemeal background legislation will not do anything.

nonpartisan on April 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Hmmmm, nice post.

let’s see if others (me) can play that game.

The above post (yours) just means that the only effective
measure we have is to ban all leftist
idiots from posting on this website,
This piecemeal Moderation will not rid us of
being subjugated to your Stupidity in type written form.

ToddPA on April 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Like laws against robbery…worthless, never stops thieves.

Pablo Honey on April 22, 2013 at 10:44 AM

You know full well you are comparing apples to scallops, right? Nice try though.

“Shall not be infringed.”

dogsoldier on April 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Trying to score political points on a tragedy is a progressive/Obama/Rahm move.

jdoubleu on April 22, 2013 at 10:32 AM

I have no qualms pummeling the political left with their own tactics and their vapid stupidity when the situation presents an opportunity for it. They’re wrong on this issue, always have been, and always will be. Innocent people are maligned and injured from the stupidity these people bloviate into our body politic, and they need to be reminded of their own words and repeatedly called out on it.

They’re wrong. It’s time they knew it. If we have to hit them over the head with a political sledgehammer until they acknowledge it, then so be it.

Good Lt on April 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM

If a law can be broken then the law should be done away with.
Amirite?
Like laws against robbery…worthless, never stops thieves.
Pablo Honey on April 22, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Isn’t that what happened with abortion? Gay marriage?

Skywise on April 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM

stefanite on April 22, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Exactly. Take somewhere like Chicago or DC, where they ban guns already. When people point out that they have higher crime rates than most everyone, they always say, “well criminals are getting their guns out of state and bringing them here.” So, following that logic, the only way to be safe would be to ban guns everywhere else as well. For liberals, the only way it works is if you get rid of ALL the guns.

Free Indeed on April 22, 2013 at 10:53 AM

How come no one is pointing out that there may be a reason these two men decided to attack Boston rather than a place like, say Houston? Might it have been that they knew it was a soft target with a disarmed citizenry? How far do you think they would have gotten if there had been a few citizens with their mug shots and the power to do something about it?

JoseQuinones on April 22, 2013 at 10:53 AM

The Left is really nagging about guns at this point, they’re so obsessed with and butthurt from having lost in the Senate. They don’t even care about the bombings any more. Their entire nagging focus is on the ILLEGAL guns the Bomber Brothers had.

Can you imagine being married to a liberal like these gun-banners? I’m certain they nag in their private relationships about many things other than guns.

Liam on April 22, 2013 at 10:53 AM

If a law can be broken then the law should be done away with.

Amirite?

Like laws against robbery…worthless, never stops thieves.

Pablo Honey on April 22, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Not necessarily, because you see there are perfectly normal, rational, legal uses of robbery.

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Apparently there were multiple “Bomb Free Zone!” signs posted in the area where those jackwads placed their bombs. The administration is appointing a panel of experts to ascertain why those signs, which were union-produced at a cost of $3 million per sign, had no effect on the perps.

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Because, as a product of unionized labor, they actually read “Bob Free Zone.” Neither of the Tsarnaevs are named Robert.

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Democrats in Congress have quickly changed the subject from gun control to immigration reform and are relieved to be moving past an issue that divided them to more solid political ground.

Really? Given the immigration misadventures of not only these two terrorists but the many people surrounding them, it may not be a conversation Democrats want to have.

Hence the big rush to push this through. Visions of Obamacare anyone? One should ask themselves- what’s the hurry?

Besides the obvious onerous fiscal issues created by the immigration legislation now circulating on the Hill, we must now add the equally disconcerting security issues.

Notwithstanding the fact that illegal immigrants have by their very definition broken the law, we have an extraordinary amount of these people in our prison system or in other trouble with US law enforcement agencies. Add to that a security dynamic created by people from Latin America potentially associated with cartels that have been embracing terrorist factions and OTM’s from nations who are unfriendly to the US and her citizens.

In the end, this makes a case for careful, deliberate and slow action so all citizens can understand and pass wise judgement on any legislation.

Marcus Traianus on April 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Did those laws prevent the Tsarnaevs from getting handguns and explosives?

That’s the whole point…

ITguy on April 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Because, as a product of unionized labor, they actually read “Bob Free Zone.” Neither of the Tsarnaevs are named Robert.

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Ah, I stand corrected.

Look for the Onion Labul.

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM

How come no one is pointing out that there may be a reason these two men decided to attack Boston rather than a place like, say Houston? Might it have been that they knew it was a soft target with a disarmed citizenry? How far do you think they would have gotten if there had been a few citizens with their mug shots and the power to do something about it?

JoseQuinones on April 22, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Yep, I agree, but then I don’t think the south would have stood for being locked into their houses like Boston was either. Furthermore, the police took alot of leeway with the people’s civil liberties in the “name of searching for the suspect.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM

If a law can be broken then the law should be done away with.

Amiritedumb?

Like laws against robbery…worthless, never stops thieves.

Pablo Honey on April 22, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Yes.

Dusty on April 22, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Furthermore, the police took alot of leeway with the people’s civil liberties in the “name of searching for the suspect.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Interesting point. Now I wonder if cops will return to some places, with a warrant, to make seizures and arrests for things discovered during their searches for the bombers.

Liam on April 22, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Interesting point. Now I wonder if cops will return to some places, with a warrant, to make seizures and arrests for things discovered during their searches for the bombers.

Liam on April 22, 2013 at 11:08 AM

That was the first thing I wondered as well.

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM

They got the guns the same way I got mine, woke up one morning and there they were, sitting at the kitchen table drinking coffee and having a cigarette.

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 10:18 AM

So, you’re saying you have a smoking gun?

JohnGalt23 on April 22, 2013 at 11:10 AM

to me, this just means that the only effective gun legislation must be a national ban on all guns.
these piecemeal background legislation will not do anything.

nonpartisan on April 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Well of course! Why didn’t we think of that?
Total bans have worked so incredibly well on alcohol, heroine, cocaine, MJ, and LSD (and many other substances). Why, you can’t can’t get any of those things anywhere in this country, can you?

So when we ban ALL guns in the US, every other country in the world is going to follow our lead and stop manufacturing those evil things, right? And there’s NO WAY any of those things could ever possibly get across our incredibly secure border, right?

Rush, Manhattan Project, “big shots try to hold it back, fools try to wish it away“.

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2013 at 11:10 AM

How come no one is pointing out that there may be a reason these two men decided to attack Boston rather than a place like, say Houston? Might it have been that they knew it was a soft target with a disarmed citizenry? How far do you think they would have gotten if there had been a few citizens with their mug shots and the power to do something about it?

JoseQuinones on April 22, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Not likely. Other than travel to and from Dagestan, I haven’t seen anything showing these two traveled outside the NE enclave. They hit the marathon because it was close – it was what they knew. Besides getting on an airplane, almost all the ‘homegrown’ bad guys have planned for local targets.

GWB on April 22, 2013 at 11:14 AM

It also seems these Hat Brothers were the only students allowed on campus to be carrying a firearm. I bet the other students right now are rethinking their position on firearms.

Limerick on April 22, 2013 at 11:14 AM

to me, this just means that the only effective gun legislation must be a national ban on all guns.

these piecemeal background legislation will not do anything.

nonpartisan on April 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM

So. Tell me np, who are these Christians you say hear from God?

davidk on April 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM

yes of course it was and then it was to ban unicorn horns and pixie cannons

Dave Rywall on April 22, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Wait, I thought we are not allowed to do anything negative towards teh gheys.

Nutstuyu on April 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM

If a law can be broken then the law should be done away with.

Amirite?

Like laws against robbery…worthless, never stops thieves.

Pablo Honey on April 22, 2013 at 10:44 AM

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/how-to-stop-rape/

davidk on April 22, 2013 at 11:16 AM

There is a reason they are called “outlaws”.

Well, duhhh.

Id’jit Libs.

kingsjester on April 22, 2013 at 11:16 AM

How come no one is pointing out that there may be a reason these two men decided to attack Boston rather than a place like, say Houston? Might it have been that they knew it was a soft target with a disarmed citizenry? How far do you think they would have gotten if there had been a few citizens with their mug shots and the power to do something about it?

JoseQuinones on April 22, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I don’t think “disarmed citizenry” entered into the thinking significantly. Boston has a large Chechen community and that was where they lived. Everything about their circumstances made it easier than elsewhere, knowledge and familiarity of the community, blending in and not looking like tourists, having transportation and shelter that blends in, too, and has a less noticeable footprint. They knew, or believed, they were on the FBI’s radar, so a move could pique interest.

But as I’ve said before, everything should be on the table. Or at least it should start out that way until it is taken off it.

Dusty on April 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I love when someone talks about civility. Leahy just said ” Let no one use this incident to derail immigration reform.” So if you use it to derail it-you are horrible, but if you use it to push it- you’re great..

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Liam on April 22, 2013 at 10:11 AM
You had to invite the trolls in, didn’t you?

Steve Eggleston on April 22, 2013 at 10:22 AM

It’s like scratching a bug bite.

Nutstuyu on April 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/the-lives-of-the-boston-bombers-what-we-do-and-dont-know/

Excellent article that clears up a lot of the misinformation. His sisters are jerks, too.

Blake on April 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM

to me, this just means that the only effective gun legislation must be a national ban on all guns.
these piecemeal background legislation will not do anything.

nonpartisan on April 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM

http://olegvolk.net/blog/2013/03/18/so-called-logic-of-gun-bans/

http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html

davidk on April 22, 2013 at 11:22 AM

So, you’re saying you have a smoking gun?

JohnGalt23 on April 22, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Get out!

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Boehner must be sweating heavily and hoping the Senate keeps his patudy out the fire.

Limerick on April 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM

jdoubleu on April 22, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Ban worthy? Who is SWalker?

Nutstuyu on April 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM

nonpartisan

Nonpartisan, usually I agree with you on most things you say, but in this case you are dead wrong. Dead wrong.

I live on an island. Guns are outlawed. No private citizen can have one unless that can prove a compelling need – which does not include collections or hunting. The process to get one is long, complicated, and incredibly hard. Even when you are allowed to own a weapon privately, you must keep it under lock and key at the gun range and are not allowed to take it from that location without a specific permit (like being a bodyguard or private security guard). A friend of mine was a police officer in Minnesota for 40 years, unblemished record, and when he retired here it took him two years and $5000 to get a permit for his service weapon; in the meantime it was locked up in the police station. He was also not allowed to take it out of its locked case anywhere in his home, and was not allowed to have any rounds in his possession.

Okay, so that’s the story with legal guns.

Yet last year, almost 1200 people died in gun violence. There is no state next door selling easy guns. We’re an island. I think I mentioned this. The closest island is the Dominican Republic, which also has incredibly tight gun laws, and which also suffers from awful gun mayhem.

You see my point yet? The Second Amendment doesn’t apply here. Yet just this morning the news was talking about the fact that of the almost 1200 dead from gun violence last year, at least 400 were innocent children, bystanders, etc. In one case, a guy walked into a restaurant and opened fire, killing 12. Of that, four were minors. None had anything to do with him – he was mad at his girlfriend, and he didn’t even manage to hit her.

The streets run with blood on this island, and the only people who have guns are the thugs killing people with them. It’s time to open your eyes and realize that the argument about only bad men having guns applies anywhere that the Second Amendment does not exist. Stop being so small-viewed and provincial. Open your eyes to the WORLD, man. The governments of the world are systematically disarming their people, and the people are paying a heavy price. You do not know the value of liberty because you believe it’s your birthright and you have never experienced what it is like not to have it.

JoseQuinones on April 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I love when someone talks about civility. Leahy just said ” Let no one use this incident to derail immigration reform.” So if you use it to derail it-you are horrible, but if you use it to push it- you’re great..

[melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM]

I say let no one use this incident to continue ramming an faultily crafted and deficient immigration reform with amnesty provision for people illegally in this country down our throats without Obama style thoughtful consideration and deliberation*.

*Average time for Obama style thoughtful consideration and deliberation runs from six months to one presidential term and still counting.

Dusty on April 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I do have to admit though, while I’m a solid 2nd Amendment guy, there are some people who just should not have guns.
At the range yesterday 2 guys and a kid came in and set up next to me and my wife. The fat heavily pierced guy seemed to be the one in charge and teaching the kid and other guy (badly). RSO had to tell him the rules, including no holstered pistols allowed (twice), so he finally took his pistol out of the holster and waved it around at everyone showing the RSO that it apparently wasn’t loaded, then set it on the shooting stand. When the range went back hot, I went to my stand and he to his, and he picked up the pistol and pointed it down the firing line as he loaded and cocked it – and I yelled at him to point it down range. At that point, I packed up and pulled back from the firing line, ready to leave, and talked to Gunny the RSO – no way I’m gonna shoot next to an idiot like that. They then proceeded to put a 20 gauge shotgun in the hands of an 8 year old kid (guessing) for a few shots, and then the other adult guy proceeded to wave the shotgun around the firing line – twice, despite being told by RSO to keep guns pointed downrange at all times (at least twice), so RSO finally told them to leave.
I figure we’ll be reading about those people in the near future.

Maybe the Form 4473 should have some sort of intelligence test – as should voter registration.

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Color me confused, you mean criminals don’t obey the law?

Can we pass another law that says criminals have to obey the laws we already passed? That should straighten this out!

IndieDogg on April 22, 2013 at 11:27 AM

The driver of the SUV that the Bomb Brothers hijacked the other night:

The victim told police he was driven to a Shell Gas Station on Memorial Drive in Watertown. Inside the car, the brothers “declared to [the victim] that they were the Boston Marathon bombers and would not kill him because he wasn’t American,” the report said.

Yup, they were definitely Reich-Wing Tea Partiers.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Say, wasn’t one of the three the Islamokazis managed to kill a Chinese national?

Steve Eggleston on April 22, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Aren’t bullets just small bombs used in conjunction with a mechanical directional device?

Here is my gift talking point to the guntards.

BL@KBIRD on April 22, 2013 at 11:31 AM

So… the jihadi bombers didn’t obey the law? Thank you, Captain Obvious of the MSM! I can see where this was certainly newsworthy.

ghostwalker1 on April 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Tsarnaevs didn’t have gun permits

That’s okay, they probably didn’t have bomb permits either.

Or do liberals expect that they would?

GarandFan on April 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM

That should be “…three the Islamokazis managed to kill at the Marathon…”

Steve Eggleston on April 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM

What we need is an additional question on the 4473 such as “Do you intend to use the firearm(s) to battle the police after you bomb a public gathering?”

That way anyone who might try to buy a gun in the future for such reasons will be stopped in their tracks.

“I’m sorry sir but you answered yes to number 15, I can’t sell the gun to you.”

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM

What we need is an additional question on the 4473 such as “Do you intend to use the firearm(s) to battle the police after you bomb a public gathering?”

That way anyone who might try to buy a gun in the future for such reasons will be stopped in their tracks.

“I’m sorry sir but you answered yes to number 15, I can’t sell the gun to you.”

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM

When I asked about the questions on the form, like “Are you a fugitive from justice?”, “Are you a convicted felon?”, etc, a gun store clerk told me “you’d be surprised how many people actually answer “yes” to those.

So apparently the system does actually work… semi/
Well – at least when criminals are honest….

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Last time I bought a handgun I asked the salesman if anybody ever answers ‘yes’ to “are you a fugitive from justice?” and he said he has had that happen a couple of times. Never underestimate human stupidity.

Fenris on April 22, 2013 at 11:50 AM

What we need is an additional question on the 4473 such as “Do you intend to use the firearm(s) to battle the police after you bomb a public gathering?”

That way anyone who might try to buy a gun in the future for such reasons will be stopped in their tracks.

“I’m sorry sir but you answered yes to number 15, I can’t sell the gun to you.”

Unless they happen to have approval from our WH admin & DOJ. Under the right circumstances some people can get anything they want.

hawkeye54 on April 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Say, wasn’t one of the three the Islamokazis managed to kill a Chinese national?

Steve Eggleston on April 22, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Under Shariah, Allah will sort that out. And any good Muslim will tell you she is a polytheist and deserved death on principle.

BL@KBIRD on April 22, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Because, as a product of unionized labor, they actually read “Bob Free Zone.” Neither of the Tsarnaevs are named Robert.

Happy Nomad on April 22, 2013 at 10:55 AM

OH…I see how it is now. Why don’t you guys just say you don’t want me around anymore?

Well, you won’t have Bobmbx to kick around anymore.

BobMbx on April 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM

The victim told police he was driven to a Shell Gas Station on Memorial Drive in Watertown. Inside the car, the brothers “declared to [the victim] that they were the Boston Marathon bombers and would not kill him because he wasn’t American,” the report said.

So how Lil’ Joker survive the rage of his older brother? Isn’t he an American?

BobMbx on April 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Did they respect the pressure cooker and ball bearing laws?

Did they respect the law about not shooting a cop?

Did they respect any laws?

Meaningless detail about gun permits in a terrorist mass-murder plot.

profitsbeard on April 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Last time I bought a handgun I asked the salesman if anybody ever answers ‘yes’ to “are you a fugitive from justice?” and he said he has had that happen a couple of times. Never underestimate human stupidity.

Fenris on April 22, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Could also be that was a moonbat anti-2nd organization trying to set him up. Apparently that happens regularly to dealers.

slickwillie2001 on April 22, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Take some comfort in the fact that this will almost certainly be the last dumb meme in the gun-rights debate for a long time to come.

No Ed, sorry, it most definitely won’t be the last. While filmed already, I am intrigued to see the AR-15 report I think on CNN or MSNBC (yeah, i’m shocked about caring about a program there.) I’m curious if there’ll be any balance to it or if global warming will be linked to the use of America’s favorite gun.

But neither brother appears to have been legally entitled to own or carry firearms where they lived, a fact that may add to the national debate over current gun laws. Last week, the U.S. Senate rejected a bill to expand background checks on gun purchases, legislation that opponents argued would do nothing to stop criminals from buying guns illegally.

And that’s the kicker. From here on out, ANY use of ANY handgun or really any firearm in the commission of a crime will get that last tagline. It’ll slowly morph into GOP-led or NRA-backed to get the Dems off the hook and appear above the fray. I personally think it’s funny how the media’s responding to the CO shooting at the pot rally, you’d think that would garner some attention nationally too. I wonder if the fact that everyone there was technically breaking the law is what’s keeping the lid on the shooting angle.

smfic on April 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Here is why it is easy to hide in the Boston Urbs.

There are so many people in some of these urban Boston areas, that are not in compliance on a lot of accounts. First, they don’t always have proper legal status or green cards, they don’t have proper driver’s licenses and they also don’t have proper car registrations, or they have phony documents, or they have a number of documents and identities none of them theirs; obviously with no identity they have no gun permits; and they also put plates from some other car on the stolen vehicle they pick up hot off of thieves. It is easy for other offenders to hide amongst them, and when they hear complaints targeted at them, the phrase you always hear, is that you are picking on a particular group, and “they all do it, why pick on us, it’s profiling.”

So they don’t go looking for weapons in Boston where the perps live and kill each others teenagers, over drugs or other turf. Gov. Deval Patrick Averts his eyes.

And if these two were drug dealers, they get stolen guns, and here is why: these guns are not resold by their owners, their owners would be looking for the price they paid, don’t blame the owners. The criminals cannot afford full price guns, permits, and they won’t qualify anyway…What you beat your wife???…they give some guy cash for a stolen gun priced lower than in a store because it’s hot.

Fleuries on April 22, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Did they respect the pressure cooker and ball bearing laws?

Did they respect the law about not shooting a cop?

Did they respect any laws?

Meaningless detail about gun permits in a terrorist mass-murder plot.

profitsbeard on April 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM

I think the pressure-cooker people are in trouble for not adding warnings on the device, something like “not to be used as a bomb”.

If the proggies can go after gun manufacturers, why not pressure-cooker manufacturers?

slickwillie2001 on April 22, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Could also be that was a moonbat anti-2nd organization trying to set him up. Apparently that happens regularly to dealers.

slickwillie2001 on April 22, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I suppose, but that would be even more brain dead. Do they really think FFL dealers don’t do the paperwork? On second thought, given the way the lefties operate their cherished baby killing institutions, they probably do think just that.

Fenris on April 22, 2013 at 12:05 PM

So how Lil’ Joker survive the rage of his older brother? Isn’t he an American?

BobMbx on April 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Well isn’t that just one gonzo whopper of a moral dilemma?
Maybe that’s the real reason why Joker finally tried to kill himself – he was supposed to kill Americans – and he are one.

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2013 at 12:15 PM

They got the guns the same way I got mine, woke up one morning and there they were, sitting at the kitchen table drinking coffee and having a cigarette.

Bishop on April 22, 2013 at 10:18 AM

So, you’re saying you have a smoking gun?

JohnGalt23 on April 22, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Well played, sir.

CurtZHP on April 22, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Aaaand were they literally caucasian?

The MSNBC BrainTrust demands answers

workingclass artist on April 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM

But not as white as those evil White Hispanics(tm).

Nutstuyu on April 22, 2013 at 12:20 PM

The last thing Democrats want to have right now is a debate on gun control with the Tsarnaevs as Exhibit A. In fact, they’d like to change the subject to almost anything else.

Who know, maybe they could talk about jobs…oh wait.

AUINSC on April 22, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Criminals rarely go to the trouble of applying for gun permits

True, but how about mentally disturbed teenagers?

Do you think either of these guys was going to drive into the hood to buy a gun from a thug?

http://intellihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Adam-Lanza.png

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/07/what-we-know-about-colorado-shooter-james-holmes/54844/

bayam on April 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Criminals rarely go to the trouble of applying for gun permits

 
True, but how about mentally disturbed teenagers?
 
Do you think either of these guys was going to drive into the hood to buy a gun from a thug?
 
http://intellihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Adam-Lanza.png
 
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/07/what-we-know-about-colorado-shooter-james-holmes/54844/
 
bayam on April 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM

 
So you only care when white people are getting killed?

rogerb on April 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM

ROFL who would have thought they would? Maybe they had permits for their explosives too…….

unseen on April 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM

True, but how about mentally disturbed teenagers?
Do you think either of these guys was going to drive into the hood to buy a gun from a thug?
bayam on April 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Of course they would – or do you have the standard racist liberal belief that only inner city blacks have illegal guns – which of course doesn’t concern you as long as they just shoot each other – like in chicago.

But in reality, they were probably given the guns, along with the bomb-making materials and their training by their Islamic terrorist handlers.

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Laws will not protect you from law breakers. Laws only make law abiding people stop doing something.

gun free zones will not protect you from those with guns.

unseen on April 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM

to me, this just means that the only effective gun legislation must be a national ban on all guns.

these piecemeal background legislation will not do anything.

nonpartisan on April 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Using your logic… the only way to effectively prevent police station bombings is to ban liberals from America.

dominigan on April 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM

…..AND not a peep that I’ve heard in the National Media of holding the FBI or others in this administration accountable for the failure to get these two out of the country.

PappyD61 on April 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM

…..AND not a peep that I’ve heard in the National Media of holding the FBI or others in this administration accountable for the failure to get these two out of the country.

PappyD61 on April 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Our affirmative action prezzy gets an automatic pass on anything that goes wrong.

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2013 at 1:04 PM

It’s bad enough that they didn’t have bomb permits, but THIS is the most horrible crime of all!

Good Lt on April 22, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Nope, we’ll probably find out they were smokers.

katy the mean old lady on April 22, 2013 at 1:06 PM

So you only care when white people are getting killed?

rogerb on April 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM

That would be Obama who doesn’t care about black people getting killed, in Chicago for example.

Fenris on April 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM

…..AND not a peep that I’ve heard in the National Media of holding the FBI or others in this administration accountable for the failure to get these two out of the country.

PappyD61 on April 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Don’t you know, the whole point of immigration reform is so that we can get the illeg…oh sorry “undocumented immigrants” out of the shadows, so we know who they are…

…so the government bureaucracy can THEN do nothing about kicking the felons and terrorists out. But at least we’ll KNOW who the felons and terrorists ARE. They’ll still be here, of course. Just “documented”.

Meople on April 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/feds-searching-home-boston-terror-suspect-pals-article-1.1324099

Update on Azmat and Diaz – funny how the Feds need to comb the apt for mere immigration violations and check the drain pipes.

djl130 on April 22, 2013 at 1:23 PM

“undocumented immigrants” out of the shadows, so we know who they are…
Meople on April 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM

That’s “undocumented democrats”.

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Do you think either of these guys was going to drive into the hood to buy a gun from a thug?
 
bayam on April 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM

 
Holmes, white, Aurora Theater shooting, Colorado, killed 12 people and wounded 58 others.
 
http://www.9news.com/images/640/360/2/assetpool/photogallery/278897/master-memorial-640×360333333333333.jpg
 
Lanza, white, Sandy Hook shooting, Connecticut, 26 people killed.
 
http://letsfindthem.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/sandy_hook_victims.jpg
 
Note what is similar about the victims. Then note the annual report on one urban area:
 

Since Jan. 1, Chicago police have recorded 2,364 shooting incidents and 487 homicides, 87 percent of them gun-related. Shootings have increased 12 percent this year and homicides are up 19 percent.
 
Young people are often targets. In the school year that ended in June, 319 Chicago public school students were shot, 24 of them fatally.

 
Note that the tally only goes through the end of last school year.
 
319 students shot.
 
24 killed.
 

Do you think either of these guys was going to drive into the hood to buy a gun from a thug?
 
bayam on April 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM

 
The sound you hear is crickets.

rogerb on April 22, 2013 at 1:28 PM

I wonder if the fact that everyone there was technically breaking the law is what’s keeping the lid on the shooting angle.

smfic on April 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Probably has more to do with the suspects being non caucasian. Ruins the narrative.

Aviator on April 22, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Fleeing the thread already, bayam?
 
I don’t blame you.

rogerb on April 22, 2013 at 1:43 PM

The political momentum from the resounding victories of Election Day stalled earlier in the week when Republicans punched out all three pillars of Obama’s gun-control agenda. …

Sen. Mark Begich (Alaska), one of the Democrats facing a difficult re-election, said expanded background checks would have undermined Alaska values and fundamental rights.

Hmmmm….why do republicans get all the blame when the only named senator who voted against was a democrat? Who was the obstructionist again?

runawayyyy on April 22, 2013 at 1:48 PM

The cops fired over 80 rounds when they took the first guy down. I can’t understand that since the Boston Mayor joined other mayors in saying that NOBODY needs more than TEN bullets to protect themselves. Guess the cops didn’t get the memo.

Redglen on April 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I can hear it now…Gov. Cuomo, “You don’t need 10 rounds to kill a terrorist!”

Meople on April 22, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I can hear it now…Gov. Cuomo, “You don’t need 10 rounds to kill a terrorist!”

Meople on April 22, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Sorry, my mistake, Gov. Cuomo wouldn’t know to use the word “rounds”. He would use “bullets” instead.

Meople on April 22, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Hey Ed Morrissey… too soon, man.

Trying to score political points on a tragedy is a progressive/Obama/Rahm move.

Not impressed with the way this blog is headed. I have been a loyal reader (VERY rare commenter) for 6+ years and it’s sad to see the decline of civility.

jdoubleu on April 22, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Ain’t life just a b!tch.

Solaratov on April 22, 2013 at 2:15 PM

The cops fired over 80 rounds when they took the first guy down. I can’t understand that since the Boston Mayor joined other mayors in saying that NOBODY needs more than TEN bullets to protect themselves. Guess the cops didn’t get the memo.

Redglen on April 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I can hear it now…Gov. Cuomo, “You don’t need 10 rounds to kill a terrorist!”

Meople on April 22, 2013 at 2:06 PM

And did you guys notice in EVERY photo of the police and FBI in Boston almost every one of them had an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine loaded?

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2013 at 2:21 PM

yes of course it was and then it was to ban unicorn horns and pixie cannons

Dave Rywall on April 22, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Well, well…drywall. And still stupid.

I thought he was dead.

Oh, well. :-(

Solaratov on April 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Well, well…drywall. And still stupid.
I thought he was dead.
Oh, well. :-(

Solaratov on April 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Well, I have heard “ya cain’t fix stupid”….
For drywall – “here’s yer sign”.

dentarthurdent on April 22, 2013 at 2:32 PM

The governments of the world are systematically disarming their people, and the people are paying a heavy price. You do not know the value of liberty because you believe it’s your birthright and you have never experienced what it is like not to have it.

JoseQuinones on April 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Well said.

Solaratov on April 22, 2013 at 2:37 PM

“Criminals rarely go to the trouble of applying for gun permits ”

For f’s sake that is not the point and it was never was the point.

Dave Rywall on April 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM

The least aware statement of the day,.. it’s EXACTLY the point. You lefties hate guns, can’t do a damn thing to control the mentally unstable or terrorists, so you dump your impotent rage on the law abiding gun owners for no other reason than you detest folks who like or are completely comfortable with guns.

I grew up the son of a cop, a competition skeet and trap shooter, also firing in handgun competitions. Guns were my childhood, my brother is a career cop as well, and I was an Air Force SP, while I don’t currently own a weapon, I have in the past, and will again.

Probably the AR-15 since it’s familiar to me, similar to the M-16 I used, same action, and I can still field strip one.

The one thing which is certain, is much of the raving lunacy of the gun banners, is their hatred for people like my family. They think guns are icky, and turn people into killers just because they are in the home, a mindless, thoughtless bigotry not supported by facts.

The point is, not a single gun law passed will stop a mass killer, and you know it.

So you harass honest law respecting gun owners, because you can’t get over your prejudices. Convincing yourself there is something wrong with people who enjoy sport shooting and are comfortable with guns as tools.

12 gauge shotgun for home defense double ought buckshot, and hollow point deer slugs., AR-15 for outside,.. my right as a citizen.. There’s a drug dealer on my street, who waves a Nichol plated Beretta around like a party favor.. he just moved, but I’ve already had an addict camp on my doorstep, and had to have him removed..

and I will protect my family, even if it OFFENDS you people.

I’d like more than a buck knife to do so,..

mark81150 on April 22, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I don’t even allow my son, nephews to point toy guns directly at each other.. Gun safety was that engrained in me as a child.

mark81150 on April 22, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Well, you won’t have Bobmbx to kick around anymore.

BobMbx on April 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Nah. It’s OK.

You just can’t watch the Marathons; or, evidently, run in one. In Boston.

Solaratov on April 22, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Do you think either of these guys was going to drive into the hood to buy a gun from a thug?
 
bayam on April 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM

 
So you only care when white people are getting killed?
 
rogerb on April 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM

 
Fleeing a thread after you’ve tried to swim in the deep end of the pool again, eh bayam?
 
You make
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/24/federal-govt-hey-green-jobs-didnt-work-out-but-maybe-green-education-will/comment-page-2/#comment-5772869

 

a noticeable
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/27/sebelius-well-yeah-actually-obamacare-is-causing-insurance-premiums-to-rise/comment-page-2/#comment-6835759

 
bit
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/08/onward-obamacare/comment-page-5/#comment-6493691

 

of a habit
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/28/video-rare-american-who-can-afford-to-buy-chevy-volt-vows-to-buy-one/comment-page-2/#comment-5546327

 

of that technique, don’t you?
 
One might almost think you don’t understand the topics.

rogerb on April 22, 2013 at 6:50 PM

And crickets still.
 
Don’t worry, bayam. None of your fellow progressives understand the issues well enough to debate even the most simple aspects, either.
 
Obama 2013!

rogerb on April 23, 2013 at 7:04 AM

If a law can be broken then the law should be done away with.
Amirite?
Like laws against robbery…worthless, never stops thieves.
Pablo Honey on April 22, 2013 at 10:44 AM

There are good reasons to own guns, and bad reasons to own guns… so we try to restrict but not ban gun ownership entirely.

There is no good reason to own crack; so laws outlawing crack only affect criminals. Robbery likewise is always illegal.

Whereas laws restricting gun ownership are always and inevitably more onerous to law-abiding citizens with “good” reasons to own guns; and don’t significantly affect criminals with “bad” reasons to own guns.

How is this not clear? Why is passing a law that doesn’t target or significantly affect the bad people; while significantly harming the good people a net benefit?

gekkobear on April 23, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3