Boston bombing suspects did not have valid handgun licenses

Comments (218)

So as usual, a state with insanely strict gun laws and permits does NOT stop a bad guy from getting a gun. And before the nuts go on about background checks, its already illegal in MA to buy a gun without one.. so National Registration AKA Background checks stop no crime either.

Apr 21, 2013 8:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

So as usual, a state with insanely strict gun laws and permits does NOT stop a bad guy from getting a gun. And before the nuts go on about background checks, its already illegal in MA to buy a gun without one.. so National Registration AKA Background checks stop no crime either.

Apr 21, 2013 8:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
kjatexas wrote:

Uh…..they’re terrorists…..do you really think they were going to apply for gun licenses, Reuters? DUH !!!!

Apr 22, 2013 4:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
eagle0542 wrote:

Simply, DUH!!!! There criminals!!!

Apr 22, 2013 7:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
eagle0542 wrote:

Let’s register pressure cookers, yeah that will work!

Apr 22, 2013 7:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
f00 wrote:

OMG! They didn’t have a license to carry their guns!? Clearly we need to toughen those gun laws. Let’s make it illegal to do anything illegal! Yeah, that’s the ticket! /snark

Apr 22, 2013 7:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
freods wrote:

This is hilarious. Mass murdering terrorists didnt have a gun license. Who would have thought? Howabout this for the next headline. Mass murdering terrorists did not obey traffic laws during police chase. Obviously, we need more traffic laws.

Apr 22, 2013 7:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
freods wrote:

This is hilarious. Mass murdering terrorists didnt have a gun license. Who would have thought? Howabout this for the next headline. Mass murdering terrorists did not obey traffic laws during police chase. Obviously, we need more traffic laws.

Apr 22, 2013 7:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
adultskeptic wrote:

What, you mean to tell me that those criminals didn’t abide by the gun laws before they committed their crimes?? They ought to get the book thrown at them, even the dead one. So in addition to the death sentence, the one still alive will get his guns confiscated. Now that’s liberal justice at work.

Apr 22, 2013 7:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Word on the street is that they used pressure cookers in a manor inconsistent with suggested operating procedures as well. It’s almost as if they were criminals.

Apr 22, 2013 7:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
acpa4u wrote:

Liberal thinking totally confounds me.

Apr 22, 2013 7:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bolo52 wrote:

Seriously doubt if the bombs were registered with ATF either. Does anyone there have an ounce of logic in their brains? Besides all the other charges, not having a gun permit should get him the death sentence.

Apr 22, 2013 7:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Rascal69 wrote:

The irony behind the push for more and more gun laws. Criminals and terrorists really have no respect for such laws…THAT’S WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS!!!

Apr 22, 2013 7:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Rascal69 wrote:

The irony behind the push for more and more gun laws. Criminals and terrorists really have no respect for such laws…THAT’S WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS!!!

Apr 22, 2013 7:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MrWills wrote:

They didn’t have proper licenses for the bombs either. Once again, they fail to see that money spent in prevention, versus laws that only honest people obey is the answer. 2010, the White House started cutting back Home Land Security funds for Terrorism. Why isn’t that being looked at?

Apr 22, 2013 7:37am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ahso wrote:

Oh my goodness! Stop the presses! Criminal murdering bombers failed to follow gun laws! We must have more gun laws to stop this madness of criminal murdering bombers ignoring and breaking laws.

Apr 22, 2013 7:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RetiredVet101 wrote:

4 1/2 million rabbits hiding in their holes…..

Brave Boston…..

Apr 22, 2013 7:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse

“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.”

As soon as they were identified the cops could have revoked the licenses and the guns would have disappeared, right? All better, magically!

Apr 22, 2013 7:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
KeepBNFree wrote:

The only person that can keep you safe is yourself. Once you pick up the phone the crime has already been committed in most of the cases. Keep in mind that more laws is not he answer. We have had a war on drugs for over 30 years and spent billions. According to the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, it costs approximately $450,000 to put a single drug dealer in jail. More laws will never make you and your family safer. Look at drug use and it has not any better than when we started.

We he have the Mexican drug cartel operating in all 58 states that I have visted :) You can register every gun sold and the bad guys will still get them. Just another product for the cartel to add to add to the menu.

Apr 22, 2013 7:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gobnait06 wrote:

Is this column some kind of a joke or carefully crafted sarcasm? They’re T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S. Do you seriously believe that a mundane control such as having to obtain a license would have changed a single event from the last horrible week?

Apr 22, 2013 7:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
allen1960 wrote:

This situation gives us a perfect example of how restrictive gun laws do not stop crime. Reading the story gives you the sense the Reuters is trying to gin up the idea that stricter gun laws would have averted these killings. Sorry, Reuters, the point actually proved was that strict anti-gun laws like those in MA (contravening the Constitution) do not prevent crime.

As stated by others here, criminals don’t obey the law. Adding more laws simply gives them more to ignore or sidestep.

Apr 22, 2013 7:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mec1 wrote:

Those Young Men May Have Broken The Law!

Apr 22, 2013 7:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Well dang. Obviously if they had acquired a permit none of this would have ever happened. What do ya know . . . . .

Apr 22, 2013 7:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
reformer2 wrote:

They didn’t have licenses for their guns!? Did they have licenses for their bombs which is a federal felony? Didn’t think so.

Apr 22, 2013 8:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SamuelAdmas wrote:

Wait, so we’re surprised that the ‘terrorists’ who set off bombs in an American city didn’t comply with gun laws?! Really? I would think that would make the case that criminals don’t follow gun laws even stronger.

Apr 22, 2013 8:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TyroneJ wrote:

Here in Massachusetts, we have gun laws that are the toughest in the Nation. So tough in fact, that for the most part, only criminals have guns. Gee, big surprise.

Apr 22, 2013 8:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
elvis66 wrote:

The terrorists did not have a valid gun license nor did they have government permission to set off a bomb. The bad guys don’t get permission for their actions which is the point gun rights folks are trying to make. Even if they had applied for a license, as a US citizen with no disqualifications , they would have gotten a license under the current proposed gun legislation plans

Apr 22, 2013 8:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SoWhat123 wrote:

Everything that is wrong with America can be summed up by this article. Liberals response to a terrorist not following the law is to make a law requiring terrorists to follow the law.

Apr 22, 2013 8:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Curmdugeon10 wrote:

I’ll bet they didn’t have valid pressure cooker and IED licenses either.

Apr 22, 2013 8:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
GaHunter123 wrote:

I can’t believe I’m reading this. The solution to terrorists having guns is to stiffen the gun laws? Well, let’s make sure they have a bomb license too! And when we jerk their pilot’s license, we’ll have this terrorism problem in the bag!

Apr 22, 2013 8:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
livewiremd wrote:

I am trying to understand the point of this article. Is the writer implying that if the suicide bombers had valid gun permits, this terrorism would not have happened? Criminals will obtain weapons illegally and could care less about gun permits. Taking Constitutional rights away from every American citizen will not make this country one bit safer. According to this logic, banning pressure cookers should prevent bombings.

Apr 22, 2013 8:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
roughman wrote:

WHAT!?

No handgun licenses? The outrage!

We must see to it that ALL future terrorists be properly licensed!

Apr 22, 2013 8:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
wtcarter2 wrote:

Surely if there had been stricter firearms laws in place, these murderers would have respected by them. If only we had outlawed pressure cookers! And nails! And ball bearings! Let’s outlaw backpacks! Why do we let mere civilians walk around with unregistered backpacks?! It’s insane! We MUST repeal the Constitution. Come on, people! We don’t have enough laws to protect us yet!

Apr 22, 2013 8:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
somedude2 wrote:

“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”.

Here again is another example of the media misleading the public over guns and gun control. Universal back ground checks would not have prevented this situation. These guys didn’t care about the law. DON’T fall for this propaganda!

Apr 22, 2013 8:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pete56s wrote:

This is just the warm-up pitch for the anti-gun crowd to say I told you so.
Has no bearing that these guys would never buy a legal gun to begin with.

Apr 22, 2013 8:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse

How can that be! That is against the law! Why didn’t some official have the presence of mind to make the marathon a bomb-free zone?

Apr 22, 2013 8:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TomGenin wrote:

Oh No! Terrorists Have Guns!!! Quickly….Disarm their Victims!

Apr 22, 2013 8:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Ted.W wrote:

They also did not have Concealed Carry licenses for the pipe bombs they were throwing at the police. Criminals will access and use weapons illegally regardless of any law or any sign posted on a building.

Apr 22, 2013 8:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
irverdad wrote:

Excuse me Sir, where is the form I fill out to declare that I’m a ruthless, deranged criminal ?

Apr 22, 2013 8:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JFKIII wrote:

To the liberals and gun control advocates: Criminals will always have access to guns. If you don’t want the means to protect yourself, FINE, don’t take mine away, because you blindly think law enforcement is going to protect you.

Apr 22, 2013 8:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JFKIII wrote:

To the liberals and gun control advocates: Criminals will always have access to guns. If you don’t want the means to protect yourself, FINE, don’t take mine away, because you blindly think law enforcement is going to protect you.

Apr 22, 2013 8:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
godsmotive wrote:

I think they should be fined.

Apr 22, 2013 8:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CK2 wrote:

These two didn’t follow the law?

Why, I’m shocked.

Apr 22, 2013 8:57am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CK2 wrote:

These two didn’t follow the law?

Why, I’m shocked.

Apr 22, 2013 8:57am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ETEE wrote:

I guess those darn Terrorists are just not going to abide by the rest of our laws, either. Dooohhhhhh!!!!

Apr 22, 2013 9:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jabusse wrote:

you take your law and paper protective order I take a smith and Wesson .44. How many people think someone intent on bombing a crowd would be stopped by any law. Next will we see Obama pull the “legs for gun control” act standing on the amputated legs of these victims? Point is the article is pretty lame. Oh yeah…. Two guys surrounded by 1000 police officers, sounded like 10,000 rounds fired and the guys were not killed? One even drove through the cops and was only wounded? Maybe the focus should not be on gun control but on aiming. Do we really want cops on the street who can’t hit anything. Is the ‘empty your weapon in the air (like a celebrating Mexican) training’ the way to train or should they aim first? Wouldn’t need so much ammo that way.

Apr 22, 2013 9:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mbo wrote:

Reuters, do you get some sort of visceral pleasure out of writing the ridiculously obvious? Criminals not registering guns, who would have thought.

Apr 22, 2013 9:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jabusse wrote:

I once had a safety officer who was inspecting a person who died because a two ton steel joist fell on him “did he have his safety glasses on?”
Same mentality

Apr 22, 2013 9:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ariel23 wrote:

Why would we expect criminals to have a valid handgun license? It makes no sense. It also shows the futility of such laws.

Nothing in the most recent Senate proposals would have prevented this. Nothing.

Apr 22, 2013 9:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Interesting. I assume from the headline focusing on their lack of handgun licenses that they must have had a federal explosives license. Otherwise why focus on their guns?

And if they didn’t have an explosives license, what makes anyone think that they would have obeyed a law requiring a gun license?

Restrict guns and only normally law abiding citizens will obey the gun law. Criminals will ignore it just as they do now!

Apr 22, 2013 9:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RC_Baker wrote:

Most of us here agree that criminals aren’t going to obey laws. What has to concern us now, is the next ‘logical’ step for anti gun enthusiasts, will be confiscation. Surely, if no one has guns, there will be no crimes. Yeah, right.

Apr 22, 2013 9:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
fmcart wrote:

Requiring gun licenses would have stopped them? Yeah, and they didn’t have bomb license either. I cannot believe the stupidity displayed by whoever wrote this Reuters article.

Apr 22, 2013 9:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Oldjarhead wrote:

You see how many gun control laws they broke? Why? Because criminals, terrorists, and the dangerously mentally ill don’t care, and ALWAYS find a way to get guns. Please let that sink in. More gun control laws like the bill pushed by the Senate last week would not have stopped these two terrorists. Are you listening Schumer, Feinstein, Reid, and comrades?

Apr 22, 2013 9:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Chechnyarocks wrote:

Obviously they are not going to register their guns, and they are not going to buy them through legal channels, so….how do we prevent guys like this from so easily getting guns? The only real solution is to make guns less prolific. And the only way to do that is to make them harder to acquire, for everyone. Eventually there will be a lot less guns, and guys like this will have a much harder time getting them. It’s pretty basic supply and demand.

Apr 22, 2013 9:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
outspoken wrote:

So we should pass more gun control laws that those criminals would have broken along with the existing gun control laws that they broke? The only results in passing more gun control laws would have been to further burden law-abiding citizens in buying guns to protect themselves from criminals such as these.

Apr 22, 2013 9:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
derdagian_1 wrote:

No License? That is how criminals operate. Imagine what would happen if he didn’t have a license to bomb or murder! Dem/Lib/welfare/union thugs will want to infringe on all of the law abiding over this. I predict it.

Apr 22, 2013 9:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
tonytwotoes wrote:

And if they did have valid handgun licenses then what? More strict firearms laws? Breaking a law did not seem to have bothered those all that much already.

Apr 22, 2013 9:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SaraBaker wrote:

What??? You mean that people with criminal intent aren’t obeying the gun laws?

Well, then. We obviously need more gun laws.

Apr 22, 2013 9:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rickschubert wrote:

They also didn’t obey the law that says don’t blow people up with bombs.

Apr 22, 2013 9:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rickschubert wrote:

Seems to me the vast majority of commenters here are pro-gun rights, and that is encouraging to me, given that this is Reuters and not a conservative echo chamber.

Apr 22, 2013 9:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bunk11 wrote:

This shows how useless gun registration and background checks really are. Plus, had Dzokhar not been injured, he might have shot the guy who found him in the boat while the guy would have been blocked from owning a handgun to defend himself. Gun control laws protect criminals.

Apr 22, 2013 9:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MarketFree wrote:

This is very instructive. The criminals didn’t get their guns through an avenue that would require a background check. None of the legislation that just failed in Congree would have stopped this. Instead of wailing about there failure to limit lawabiding owners rights, perhaps there should be some efforts about profiling ideological terrorists and the mentally challenged ones and we should strive for early intervention.

Apr 22, 2013 9:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
joejohnson043 wrote:

shocking, that any and all events get turned into advocacy for gun control…….

Apr 22, 2013 9:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
joejohnson043 wrote:

shocking, that any and all events get turned into advocacy for gun control…….

Apr 22, 2013 9:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
joejohnson043 wrote:

shocking, that any and all events get turned into advocacy for gun control…….

Apr 22, 2013 9:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse

@Chechnyarocks – Yes indeed it is a pretty basic supply and demand thing. The problem with your argument is that prohibition NEVER works because there are always criminals who are willing to provide supply to meet the demand in return for the high profits that result from a black market. We have been trying to impose a prohibition on illegal drugs for 50 years and they are still readily available. If after billions of dollars spent annually we can’t stop the drugs, why would anybody be stupid enough to believe that firearms will not be readily and easily available through the same channels? Of course only criminals and terrorists will have the firearms.

Apr 22, 2013 9:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rsm_38 wrote:

It’s amazing that everytime a crime is commited that involves guns the anti-guns group scream for more gun law’s, when will they learn that criminals could care less, only law abiding citizens are the one’s being affected by them. If a person wants to commit a crime, wheather it involves guns or drugs no amount of law’s on paper is going to stop them and to believe otherwise is either very naive or stupid of that person. So insttead of futher restricitng the rights of law abiding gun owners impose stricter sentences on criminals that use guns in the commision of crimes. I rather rely on my guns for protection than on the police

Apr 22, 2013 9:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAFRet wrote:

But this is impossible. Every democrat politician knows that enacting stricter gun laws is the only way to keep criminals from using guns to commit crimes. Once we explain to them that we really, really mean it when we say they can’t have guns, they’ll all start obeying all those laws and we will have saved all the widows, orphans and people on fixed incomes.

/sarcasm

Apr 22, 2013 9:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAFRet wrote:

Hint to democrat politicians: The city of Chicago has what amounts to a virtual virtual gun ban, but the city is the murder capitol of America. Why? Because street gangs and terrorists ALWAYS ignore the law.

Apr 22, 2013 9:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
S6123 wrote:

They didn’t possess the proper licenses for their IED’s either. Nor did they register themselves as terrorists or turn themselves in. They murdered three people and inflicted injuries on over 175 – all while breaking laws. The point is that criminals do not follow the laws, period. There is no reason to restrict the freedoms of the law abiding due to the actions of the lawless.

Apr 22, 2013 9:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Walt_P wrote:

I’ll bet they weren’t insured to drive the vehicle they used, either.

Apr 22, 2013 9:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MikeyLikesIt wrote:

@jabusse

Excellent point. I find it rather disturbing that people that are trained to deal with these threats were unable to bring these guys down despite an advantage in numbers and firepower. And these are the people we should depend on completely for our safety?

All snarking aside, you do have to wonder about the motivation behind this article. Is Reuters trying to say that universal background checks would have prevented them from having guns? It seems that the highly restrictive laws in Mass didn’t do anything.

I find it interesting that we haven’t seen a single liberal poster here trying to defend the many laws on the books that didn’t prevent anything. It seems that if someone is intent on using a gun for a crime that laws on paper are powerless to stop them.

Apr 22, 2013 9:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SamuelSpade wrote:

The real question is how and where did they purchase the guns? That will answer any questions regarding gun control.

Apr 22, 2013 10:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Chickenburger wrote:

Rumor has it they didn’t have a license to make, own or carry bombs either. Perhaps a tougher background check to enter the country is what’s called for.

Apr 22, 2013 10:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Yirmin wrote:

This is simply proof positive that there is no need for ANY background checks as clearly the bad guys don’t acquire guns through normal channels. I lived in Boston for a while and that state has the most insanely strict gun restriction you can imagine. Unless you know someone with the right political pull you wont get a gun license… So if you were a terrorist would you even bother filling out an application that would be denied because you were friends with the mayor?

Apr 22, 2013 10:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
NeoConVet wrote:

Wow who woulda thunk that an Islomofacists terrorist would not obey a law?
I have wondered in a firearm restrictive state like Mass how those penned up in a “shelter at home” order with nothing more than a golf club or baseball bat for defense of their home felt?

Apr 22, 2013 10:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lee56 wrote:

Since these terrorists do not obey existing gun laws, you suggest that more gun laws are needed? That’s a novel approach.

Apr 22, 2013 10:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MikeAuburn wrote:

So these guys break laws by having guns the law says they can’t have and the problem is we need more laws (that they would’ve also been breaking)?

Apr 22, 2013 10:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
seeker25801 wrote:

So basically what this article is saying, in a round about way, is that background checks would have done no good in this case because the pair obtained their guns illegally.

Apr 22, 2013 10:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse

what you mean criminals do not obey gun laws? wow THAT is news

Apr 22, 2013 10:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
dbad wrote:

So do you think the brothers had licenses for their pipe bombs?
Once again, the bad guys will not get licenses for anything!!!

Apr 22, 2013 10:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse

This is precisely why no amount of gun control laws are going to fix the social problem allowing people like this to do the things that they do. By tightening gun control laws it only makes honest citizens less safe and more dependent on governmental draconian types of law, again which will not apply to the criminally minded but those who keep those laws either.

The problem, AGAIN, is not the guns but rather the sick minded people that are using them criminally and are so deranged in their thinking feel justified in their acts against humanity.

There is only one physical protection you personally can avail yourself of when attacked by the criminally minded and that is your gun. If the government prevents you from having your gun then you become totally dependent on the government for your protection, an act that is physically impossible even if you live in the middle of a police station or military base. Look around, the problems inside the government, as far as personal safety is concerned, are the safe as they are outside of the government in civilian life and, in many cases, worse in the government sector.

Apr 22, 2013 10:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
forgot0246 wrote:

Bull Puckies, just another attempt to disarm american citizens and gut the second amendment. What part of Moslem extremists with illegal guns do those idiots fail to get. This is just another punish the innocent while excusing the guilty. This administration will use any crisis to gut the constitution, they can stop waving the bloody flag we are now awake.

Apr 22, 2013 10:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Southernman wrote:

Oh goodness, imagine that, criminals that didn’t properly register their handguns. Don’t these terrorists understand the law?

Apr 22, 2013 10:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Berzrkr wrote:

This article is proof positive that criminals don’t follow laws which, by definition, makes them criminals. It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that all of these gun control laws that they’re trying to pass aren’t intended for criminals, but to hurt your average law abiding gun owner. If they REALLY wanted to do something useful they’d start rounding up the criminals and enforce the laws already on the books!

Apr 22, 2013 10:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ubik40 wrote:

This article misses the point completely. Law breaking individuals will find a way to purchase and carry whatever weapon they want without a permit. Did they needed permits for their bombs (sarcasm) ?
Gun regulations ONLY AFFECT those who already follow the law, and give a pass to the criminals who simply ignore them.
WAKE UP AMERICA !

Apr 22, 2013 10:21am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Ofailure wrote:

Is it a willful ignorance or a mental condition that prevents gun control idiots from not understanding the simple, undeniable fact that people who commit crimes DO NOT OBEY THE LAW? You can regulate and restrict until the cows come home and YOU WILL NOT AFFECT THE CRIMINALS USE OF WEAPONS OF EVERY SORT! The only people who you will affect are those very individuals who are responsible and would use that weapon for responsible actions. The only sensible conclusion is that the would be controllers are mentally deficient, or that the gradual disarming of American citizens is their actual goal.

Apr 22, 2013 10:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TexaSooner wrote:

Not only that, but I was shocked to learn that they had failed to apply for a permit for the half-dozen bombs they constructed.

Apr 22, 2013 10:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
brodave wrote:

Hello Liberal Fascists – requiring lawful Citizens to register guns WILL NOT stop unlawful people for acquiring guns.

Progressive Liberal Fascists simple want US Citizens to have less freedom so they can have more control over US Citizens.

Stop all gun registration and/or control efforts for law abiding US Citizens. Do protect our borders!

Apr 22, 2013 10:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JakePannel wrote:

Another very strict gun laws state and the criminal gets a gun. If anything this should add to the debate that we should be allowed to have more rounds in our magazines. Just look at how many rounds the professional law enforcement expended at these 2 individuals and only hit the young one a couple of times. If the professionals need 30 or more rounds to defend themselves why do i have to be limited.

Apr 22, 2013 10:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse

.. the real irony here is that while the Terrorists* had guns, a whole city full of sheep hid in there homes in fear, wishing that they had a something like a gun to protect themselves. -Instead of hiding in a boat that guy could have very well kicked in the back door of a house or climbed into someones window.

Apr 22, 2013 10:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Geeebers wrote:

So, you have over 22,000 laws to govern guns… And, you have two immigrants whom have not filed any paperwork to register a gun, whether it be a semiautomatic rifle, and/or handgun… And, the laws that the government wants to enforce… First and foremost, if these two brothers do not qualify to own a gun. And, by the laws of this country they could not own a weapon of sorts. What makes you think they can not get a gun? There are millions of guns on the black market. And, every time the U.S. Government implements a law to prevent gun ownership from the American citizens. It only affects the Law Abiding American Citizens… As for the guns on the black market they will always be there for the criminal… And, you still do not need papers to acquire such a weapon. And, you’ll never will round up all those guns, because, there are other countries in the world that have guns as well. So, what’s the point in preventing illegal/legal immigrant citizens from possessing a gun? The law of the country? What about all those thousands of assault weapons the U.S. government was “giving” to Drug Cartels in Mexico? Oops! Where’s the registration and documentation on all those guns? And, the Law Abiding American people are held for accountability for bad behavior by their government? Never mind the gun, what about explosives?! These guys had home made hand grenades. I’m sure those are illegal to possess as well… And, where are those documents to own such a contraption? Oh wait a minute! You can’t! And yet, they were busy throwing them at police… So what good is a law, if you can’t even govern with the law? And, you’re busy double dealing with the enemy right across your border? And, the government wants to take up arms against these criminals, to protect the people? Yeah, by the time the government/local authority responds, we’ll be dead… Not to mention that the President had relaxed his stance on terrorism and now he has egg on his face, and it makes the previous president look like an angel…

Apr 22, 2013 10:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TomVu wrote:

There are 300 million guns in private hands here. Good luck.

Apr 22, 2013 10:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
LiveFeeOrDie wrote:

There are also laws against building bombs and killing people. As usual CRIMINALS dont care about the laws. None of the proposed gun control laws would have changed anything or prevented these Radical Islamic Terrorist from doing what they did. It is also interesting to note that our own president said that AR15s are weapons of war and have no place in the civilian arena. Hello – did you see all the Cops and State Troopers carrying these rifles? THEY are not military! They are CIVILIANS. Had Massachusetts had resonable gun laws – the security officer could have killed these guys or at least defended him self. The same for the car jacking suspects.

Apr 22, 2013 10:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Roberzilla wrote:

That the bombers “were not authorized to own firearms will likely add fuel to calls for tougher gun laws,” reflects the level of demagoguery in the media and among leftist politicians. The bombers were not authorized to make, possess, or detonate bombs, or kill innocent people, either.

The lesson to be drawn is not a new one: People who are determined to arm themselves can do so–it merely takes money, in amounts reflecting supply and demand for contraband.

Further, multiple peer-reviewed academic studies show no reduction in violence after implementing any of the so-called “gun-control” laws. The conclusion is simple: Only the law abiding are affected be such laws. Criminals and fanatics are not deterred by such impediments.

One wonders what motivates politicians and pundits to favor useless legislation detrimental only to law-abiding citizens.

~~Robert

Apr 22, 2013 10:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
whatnot wrote:

Just politely ask criminals to get licenses for the weapons they plan to use in committing crimes.

Apr 22, 2013 10:57am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jns.esq wrote:

Invalid license? Really? So even stricter licensing laws — making what was illegal more illegal — would have saved lives, Liberals?

State the obvious. Tell the TRUTH for once. It’s about confiscation, not regulation.

Apr 22, 2013 10:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BostonCFO wrote:

Did the author think this would help the gun-control crowd? It simply points out that criminal behavior won’t be influenced by the laws and regulations.

By the way, it’s nearly impossible to get the Cambridge Chief of Police to approve an application for a LTC or FID.

Apr 22, 2013 10:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sue01 wrote:

What part of the words “terrorist” and “criminal” does Reuters not understand? The Chicago murderers of over 500 people last year didn’t have them either…nor did the DC gangbangers have them in the two cities with the highest death rates due to guns. So, this is a straw man argument….stupid and dumb!

Apr 22, 2013 11:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse
roughman wrote:

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…

Apr 22, 2013 11:11am EDT  --  Report as abuse
DavidRosen wrote:

Anti second amendment reporters are always so funny with their ignorance. One in 600 legally owned guns in Mass has an associated “carry permit.”
Carry permits are issued by Cities and Towns and very very rare in Mass. Ownership registrations are issued by the State Police firearms office.
Thanks to the ACLU Tamerlan Tsarneav was perfectly legal to by and own a gun in Mass because the ACLU has fought AGAINST including non citizen non-felony convicted criminals (and he was both) from being included on the NCIS forbidden list. (the NRA has long said these classes of people should be forbidden form purchase)
He could go into a Mass gun store, undergo full NCIS background and buy a dozen guns per year. he needed no loophole

Apr 22, 2013 11:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
DavidRosen wrote:

Anti second amendment reporters are always so funny with their ignorance. One in 600 legally owned guns in Mass has an associated “carry permit.”
Carry permits are issued by Cities and Towns and very very rare in Mass. Ownership registrations are issued by the State Police firearms office.
Thanks to the ACLU Tamerlan Tsarneav was perfectly legal to by and own a gun in Mass because the ACLU has fought AGAINST including non citizen non-felony convicted criminals (and he was both) from being included on the NCIS forbidden list. (the NRA has long said these classes of people should be forbidden form purchase)
He could go into a Mass gun store, undergo full NCIS background and buy a dozen guns per year. he needed no loophole

Apr 22, 2013 11:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JohnRingaux wrote:

“But neither brother appears to have been legally entitled to own or carry firearms where they lived ….”

One of them was a U.S. citizen. The Second Amendment guarantess his right to own and carry firearms.
Of course, the gun-grabbers will use the incidents in Boston and in Watertown to further their gun-grabbing agenda.

Apr 22, 2013 11:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
backaway wrote:

Aside form all the obvious laws that were broken and the FBI and others watching these guys for years now, would it have made any difference if they possessed these guns legally? They possessed any number of things legally and used them illegally! As Hillary said regarding Benghazi at her Congressional hearing, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

As usual the gun control advocates are twisting the facts to make their point. This bombing incident illustrates the need for less gun control. It was best said on April 19, 2013, when Arkansas State Representative Nate Bell(R) in reference to the Boston Marathon bombings stated,”I wonder how many Boston liberals spent the night cowering in their homes wishing they had an AR 15 with a high capacity magazine?”

Apr 22, 2013 11:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
FinbarOS wrote:

Well, it’s just not fair to expect criminals and assorted losers to adhere to the same laws that honest citizens do. It’s like affirmative action for criminals.

Apr 22, 2013 11:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Truth3372 wrote:

Showing once again that the criminals will get guns by any means they can and law abiding citizens will be singled out and penalized.

Apr 22, 2013 11:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
bronco_billy wrote:

Has the possibility of Weather Underground training been looked at in the bombings.You have a convicted murderer as a professor at Columbia University known as Kathie Boudin. The bomb they used was loaded with nails and shrapnel. Also have the Obamas friend Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn been looked at, members of the Weather Underground as Professors. Does this mean the Boston bomber can make a plea bargin and become a Professor at a University? Wake up people and lets clean our own house before we start cleaning others.

Apr 22, 2013 11:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Well they ignored that law why not pass some more new extra special laws which they will ignore!

Apr 22, 2013 11:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Well they ignored that law why not pass some more new extra special laws which they will ignore!

Apr 22, 2013 11:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Well they ignored that law why not pass some more new extra special laws which they will ignore!

Apr 22, 2013 11:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
DASA wrote:

What a surprise, Reuters brings us up to date on the bureaucratic side of the story while the bombs and other explosive devices seem to have faded into the background. Does Reuters believe for moment that it was the absence of additional laws that are at the root cause of these murderer’s crimes? Sadly the answer may be yes.

Apr 22, 2013 11:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
kennet108 wrote:

To whom were the guns registered? I really don’t think we will ever get an answer to this question.

Apr 22, 2013 11:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
accbar wrote:

How many are murdered in MA, or IL, or … where the gun laws are SOoooo strict?

Apr 22, 2013 11:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
vickijo wrote:

It depends on who is doing the background check….the FBI check on the older brother found nothing…duh!!

Apr 22, 2013 11:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gnac wrote:

Really, the breaking of the law re having a gun without a license is the issue? The fact that they had IED’s (not ever legal), killed three and wounded 170+, would indicate that getting a license probably wasn’t anywhere on their radar screen….. but the article focuses on how did they get guns?????? WOW – talk about an agenda for gun control……

Apr 22, 2013 11:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jimmy37 wrote:

OK, gun control nuts, short of an unconstitutional ban on guns, how do you keep criminals, terrorists, and nuts from getting guns illegally?? So they’re going to register anything?

Apr 22, 2013 11:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
eclements wrote:

News Flash: 9/11 Hijackers did not have valid pilots’ licenses.
News Flash: Boston Bombers did not have permit to hold weapon of mass destruction.

The mindless rush to politicize tragic events in our country in a manner which focuses exclusively on law abiding citizens, while laying our nation wide open to armed criminal activity is frightening. While it is the American spirit to be sympathetic to victims of violence or tragedy, this sympathy is often channeled into misguided attempts to further government control of those who are willing to be controlled, while ignoring those who are truly a threat to our society.

Apr 22, 2013 11:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
hc01 wrote:

Of course the defeated expanded background check bill would have prevented the Boston bombing. On the form they would have checked the box marked “Terrorist”. Since they weren’t convicted felons, had no history of mental illness they no doubt would have been approved. People intent on causing harm will have no problems finding the methods to obtain firearms. They did so much more damage with two backpacks than with their probably illegal handguns.

Apr 22, 2013 11:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BuckRedstone wrote:

Another punishment for law abiding citizens, another snare for honest gun owners and the liberal progressive collectivists think criminals intent on evil harm to others will begin obeying the laws? This is proof mental illness pervades the politically correct anti gunners.

Apr 22, 2013 11:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
kennet108 wrote:

Who is the legal owner of the guns they used?

Apr 22, 2013 11:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Azdevnull wrote:

Well… I’m guessing they didn’t register their grenades either, nor pay the $200 tax stamp each for the destructive devices. I’m guessing they also didn’t go through the 6 month background check for the class III licenses to OWN a grenade. Just a guess here…

Apr 22, 2013 11:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cicero1962 wrote:

Did you notice in the videos that they also JAYWALKED?! Oh, yeah. Yup. Sure did! I seen it my own self. There oughta be a law against terrorists jaywalking, too. That’ll show ‘em!

Apr 22, 2013 11:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse

So, they already were breaking the gun laws, and the liberals think that adding another anti-gun law is going to make them stop breaking all of them? Only makes sense to liberals. The perps will simply ignore these anti-gun laws, just like the ignore the other ones.

Apr 22, 2013 11:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Norm762 wrote:

So let me get this straight:
These two individuals were not citizens or were recently naturalized.
They were somehow affiliated with a terrorist organization.
Evidence is indicating they were trained and logistically supported by some form of terrorist infrastructure.
What makes anyone think that two people who are clearly not participating in tenets of civil society the social compact would have been stopped merely by background checks and bureaucratic processes like permits; especially when the FBI itself cleared the more dangerous of the two to continue unabated?

Did they have permits for bomb building? Arguing that adding some bureaucratic hurdles will stop a well-funded and organized terrorist is as insane as making the argument that setting off bombs in crowded public gatherings is a form of free speach.

Apr 22, 2013 11:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
imabass wrote:

Did they have a license for the explosive devises? Did they legally purchase the bombs? Do you really think that they would go to the local sporting good stores and purchase their guns? If you believe that a background check system, waiting period, or any other gun legislation would have prevented this shootout then you are a fool. These kids are terrorists and they will go to great lengths to inflict harm and terror on innocent people. No laws would have prevented this but the FBI had their chance a few years ago from a tip from the Russian government. I wonder what was going through the minds of the innocent people that were hunkered down in their homes and 100% defenseless waiting on the police to go door to door.

Apr 22, 2013 12:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
YeahIndeed wrote:

As they say, “When pressure cookers are outlawed, only outlaws will have pressure cookers.” I think this is also true about pop tarts nibbled into the shape of guns.

Apr 22, 2013 12:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SVanNeuter wrote:

OMG, what a shocker!
OF COURSE they didn’t have valid gun licenses, the criminals NEVER DO.
This is why our government needs to get the hell out of our (law-abiding citizens) way so we can at least level the playing field.
Barry and his fellow progressive pinheads will only be happy when only the criminals have guns.

Apr 22, 2013 12:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RoscoP wrote:

I am astounded at this report. They were criminals and most criminals dont go to the local gun store and apply for gun ownership and register before they kill someone, especially those linked to terrorist groups. Even if they had been regsitered what would that have stopped? Guns dont kill. People kill. They could have murdered someone with an axe, pic, knife or a homemade bomb. Oh wait they did use bombs. They would have gotten the guns regardless of being registered or legal. Only honest civilians follow the laws to get hand guns and rifles. Ask yourself if this kind of news helps or hurts peoples views on the 2nd ammendment. Then you willl know which side of the constitution you stand on.

Apr 22, 2013 12:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
FredH wrote:

So, assuming the guns were legally manufactured … who sold the guns guns into the illegal market? … follow the chain and arrest the person(s) who sold them into the illegal market or who did not control their gun(s)and allowed them to be stolen. Punish them as you would the terroists.
At the very least … publish their name(s) – pulish the whole chain … who made the guns and who owned the guns used to kill police persons and innocent civilians!

Apr 22, 2013 12:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Kinnison wrote:

Unlicensed handguns used by terrorists in the People’s Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Well there’s a surprise… If only Obama’s anti-gun legislation would have passed the Senate this would never have happened.(Intentional irony…)

Apr 22, 2013 12:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rmkey wrote:

Gun permit? What about his bomb permit? Guns have little in common with bombs.

Apr 22, 2013 12:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Krigsmakten wrote:

I’m fairly confident they hadn’t applied for a BATFE permit to build Destructive Devices either… $200 stamp tax per pressure cooker, I’m pretty sure they didn’t pay that…

I know Reuters is (il)liberal, but this is unusually stupid commentary – does anyone think before they write?

Apr 22, 2013 12:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
whatsso4me wrote:

This headline is so ludicrous that it is actually brilliant. I simply HAD to read this article!
Great marketing by Reuters!

Apr 22, 2013 12:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cbj65 wrote:

What we need is “Common Sence” Pressure Cooker, Back Pack, Nail, Ball Bearing, and Explosives………laws.

Apr 22, 2013 12:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Why is this ‘news’? Now what would be news if they had passed background checks and bought guns legally.

The sad thing is the gun nuts, will and are, using this as an example of why gun control won’t work, when the reality of the world says it will, after all look at Australia, where they had about one mass shooting a year in the 15 years leading up to 1998 (when they passed comprehensive gun control laws) and they have not had one since.

What the gun junkie crowd does not realize is, those of us that are advocating for some further gun-control measures do not think we are going to get rid of all guns/gun violence. We simply think that some reasonable measures to help lower the possibility of bad people getting guns, by lowering the available supply and tracking straw purchasers (two things the gun nut crowd is not interested in) of firearms.

The saddest thing about this whole gun debate is how the NRA and their ilk have, over the years, passed laws curtailing the ability of law enforcement to track down these straw purchasers. For example legislators, with heavy NRA backing, have yet to approve a full-time director of the ATF, and passed laws not allowing law enforcement to conduct studies as to where guns used in crimes came from. So if you were truly interested in where guns used in crimes come from, why would you block studies like this or appointment of a full-time director of the ATF?

Apr 22, 2013 12:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mghaluska wrote:

Gosh, Gun Control Advocates! What could have possibly gone wrong? Bad guys didn’t register their weapons or go through background checks? One of the bombers was under “watch” by the FBI (of course, not too careful of a watch since he was Muslim and that could be considered “profiling”). Why don’t you moron Liberals go worry about non-essential aspects of society like how much to spend on studying mating habits of chipmunks and leave the serious stuff to grown-ups?

Apr 22, 2013 12:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
oldnavy59 wrote:

The older brother wasn’t yet a citizen (his paperwork was being held up due to a previous FBI investigation) – so he wouldn’t have been eligible for a license anyway, right?

Apr 22, 2013 12:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
lcky9 wrote:

WELL GEE did they have a valid BOMB LICENSE??

Apr 22, 2013 12:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ASaneVoice wrote:

These two criminals were not stopped at all by ANY gun laws, but many of the law abiding citizens who were nervously locked inside their homes did not own a gun for protection because of strict gun laws in MA.

Ironic huh?

Apr 22, 2013 12:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Please, Mr. Allen, don’t say any more, lest your shoehorn logic be exposed to everyone. And I suppose they had a permit to manufacture explosives?

Apr 22, 2013 1:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
McLibertarian wrote:

No gun licenses? What an outrage!!! Criminals do not get gun liceses only law abiding citizens do.

Apr 22, 2013 1:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ncpg wrote:

Obama never lets a death go to waste, whether relevant to his Gun-Grab Circus or not.

Apr 22, 2013 1:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
eclements wrote:

So – just to recap – the laws the terrorists broke – in addition to, apparently, existing gun laws:

1. Immigration – falsely vowing to obey US Laws
2. Use of a weopon of Mass Destruction
3 Conspiracy
4. Grand Theft – auto
5. Murder (of a Policeman)
6. Attempted Murder (of lots of policemen, including the one wounded)
7. Flight to evade Capture
8. Wreckless Driving
9. Vehicular Homocide (brother on brother)
10. Fleeing scene of accident
11. Grand Theft (reports are that MIT police officers gun was stolen)
12. Plus three murders, and numerous attempted murders in conjunction with use of weapon of mass destruction.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but if perhaps we had stopped these two jokers at broken law #1 they wouldn’t have had the chance for the next 11? And how does changing the laws they broke keep them from breaking them in the first place?

Apr 22, 2013 1:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

OMG!!! NOW they are in REAL Trouble!!

Apr 22, 2013 2:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

I think you all are missing the point of the article. The point is that background checks and licensing doesn’t work, we need to go straight for door to door confiscation. Like I have said many times before, if we are looking for a solution, there are two choices, a full on Stalinist/Mao police state, or a state where citizens are armed and trained to protect themselves. I know which one I would prefer, but I would not be surprised if the country was divided 50/50 with these two options.

Apr 22, 2013 2:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

OMG!!! Now they are in REAL trouble!!!

Apr 22, 2013 2:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
luv2ski wrote:

OK, let me see if I got this straight. Here we have somebody intent on breaking a hundred terrorism laws, intent on murder of innocents and willing to kill a policeman in his car in cold blood. Someone who makes illegal antipersonnel bombs and grenades and was probably the guy testing them out in Hanover back in March. And just who is surprised that he didn’t register a freaking illegal gun? So where’s the accompanying outcry for banning pressure cookers? Thought so.

Apr 22, 2013 2:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
FresnoBlues wrote:

I bet you they weren’t licensed to handle explosives either.

Apr 22, 2013 2:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MLehde wrote:

Forget the bombing, no gun license,,,man are they, well one siden the other is dead, in touble now.

This highlights the insanity of the gun control debate. Like gun free zones the basis of the gun control argument is founded on the idea that criminals will always obey the law.

Apr 22, 2013 2:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SeanAlexander wrote:

So you have a state with very strict gun laws and the answer to one terrorist running loose is go inside and lock your doors.
Wait for the nice policeman to come and check your home.
I don’t think hiding is the answer, well it might be al queda’s answer.
And keep in mind it was some guy who went outside to have a smoke that found the terrorist. The common citizen, who probably was not allowed to be able to defend himself.
Perhaps we should treat certain members of certain religions that have a penchant for terrorist acts like gun owners.
At least as libs see gun owners.

Apr 22, 2013 2:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JamesinAZ wrote:

Imagine criminals breaking the law and having an illegal gun. Has that ever happened before. Another perfect example of strict gun laws doing nothing other than restricting law abiding citizens of gun ownership. News flash for you gun control nuts criminals by definition and their nature do not follow laws so more gun laws do nothing to stop criminals.

Apr 22, 2013 2:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RKramdon wrote:

The only way to reduce the crime rate is to permit citizens to carry concealed weapons. It works.

Apr 22, 2013 2:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Reuters, what you don’t know about gun laws is only exceeded by your ignorance about criminals, terrorists and other assorted mad men. You don’t have to have a license to own or buy a pistol. You have to have a license to carry a concealed weapon most places. So they didn’t have to have a license unless they had them concealed. Additionally, criminals, terrorists and mad men don’t apply for licenses. They don’t follow any gun laws. They can easily kill anyone who is unarmed well before the police gets there. What good is any of your article…nothing, nada, nyet!

Apr 22, 2013 2:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
stonehillady wrote:

Do they have any photo’s of the boys with Guns ? Whether it was the car jacking they have been alleged to have done ? Has anyone other then police come forward to say they were carrying weapons ? Apparently nothing they found at their apartment suggests any ammo packs, bomb making materials.? Heard a lot of firing but, saw a shot up boat, but, no cross firing, has anyone come forward who witness the shoot out? Didn’t see any guns as Tamerlon lay on the ground apparently dead, no photos of a gun draw on the pavement ????? As in normal police crime scenes ??? With all the video of him being arrest, naked and thrown in the back of the cop car, how did he escape to have a shoot out ? The video clearly shows it was Tamerlon that was naked & handcuffed.

Apr 22, 2013 2:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

Bombers didn’t have gun licenses. “Gun Control”folks aproach will be: “pass a new law making it double-down illegal for people not having gun licences.

Apr 22, 2013 2:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MikeyLikesIt wrote:

@USAPragmatist

A couple of points for you:

1. Lacing your rant with name calling and ad hominem insults doesn’t lend any credibility to your post. If anything it marks you as an unstable poster. This is a tip for when you want to post on other sites. I think everyone that has spent more than a day on Reuters already knows about you.

2. As has been pointed out repeatedly in the comments section, Massachusetts already has very restrictive gun laws. While these laws go beyond the national average, they still couldn’t keep two people from obtaining weapons. So far the “common sense” laws proposed by democrat politicians have been proven time and again to be incapable of actually stopping criminals from obtaining weapons or from mentally deranged people from going on a shooting spree.

Apr 22, 2013 2:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
stonehillady wrote:

Why would the cops not shoot the younger brothers tires out if he fled in the car, while they were shooting the brother, with all those cops at the scene just doesn’t make sense. wouldn’t some cops have their focus on the kid in the car ? This whole fiasco is not adding up.

Apr 22, 2013 2:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sheepleherder wrote:

I really have to wonder about the mentality of someone who is so blinded by propaganda that EVERYTHING that happens can be blamed on guns.

Apr 22, 2013 3:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
lennonlen wrote:

But they passed all Gov. background checks to enter this country and even to get Gov. educational grants…

Apr 22, 2013 3:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ncpg wrote:

I’ll bet the terrorists didn’t have bomb licenses, either.

Apr 22, 2013 3:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ChrisRich wrote:

Inane. It is proof positive that outlaws, by definition, do not follow the laws. No matter how many laws are made- law-breakers will break them.

Apr 22, 2013 3:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CJER wrote:

How many proud citizens of Boston are simply shocked that these terrorists did not abide by the law when obtaining these weapons? I’ll bet they are mostly the same ones who voted in their politicians that enacted the crazy notions into law that more restrictions on the law abiding will somehow affect the crazy. Perhaps before any incumbent politicians start selling them on more gun control, they should see the truth about cities and countries with a history of strictest gun control and how successful they are in reducing violent crime.Only the police and military should have firearms? Look at Mexico. A fresh start on criminal control means implementing in our society what libs have traditionally fought to remove from it.Good or bad,everyone is a winner.Lets not look too critically at someone’s religion or political beliefs and aspirations, especially foreigners with red flags for we may offend someone.If they are selling anti-american crap then call them on it and tell them to go back where they came from instead of tolerating it. The sad truth about the failure of strict gun control will continue to show its ugly head in these violent episodes until we as a nation acknowledge certain truths about criminal control and how we raise future Americans.

Apr 22, 2013 3:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@mikeyLikesIt, 1. I do not see how my post qualifies as a ‘rant’, I made a few simple points; this isn’t news, Australia’s success with gun control, that reasonable gun control advocates are not out to ban guns, and how the NRA and their ilk have pursued an agenda handcuffing law enforcement. All true points not based in conspiracy, how is this a rant?

2. Guess I have to repeat myself since you do not seem to get it, ‘What the gun junkie crowd does not realize is, those of us that are advocating for some further gun-control measures do not think we are going to get rid of all guns/gun violence. We simply think that some reasonable measures to help lower the possibility of bad people getting guns, by lowering the available supply and tracking straw purchasers (two things the gun nut crowd is not interested in) of firearms.’ to shorten it a bit for you, I do not think we will ever ‘ban guns; nor am I advocating for it, but that does not mean we can not implement measures to help lower the possibility that firearms get into the wrong hands.

So I have some questions for you, are you with the NRA and their ilk in not allowing a full time director of the ATF to be appointed? are you with the NRA and their ilk with regards to handcuffing law enforcement in their efforts to track down straw purchasers? Do you agree that we should NOT HAVE federally funded studies showing where guns used in crimes come from and/or studies showing the impact of gun violence on our society?

Apr 22, 2013 3:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Merkin wrote:

Hey USA Pragmatist. I don’t know where you got your info, but it’s terribly wrong. When Australia had their citizens turn in their weapons, naturally the criminal element ignored the law. All typs of violent crime escalated considerably. Check it out for yourself. Just google, “Fallout from Australia’s gun ban.” That’s exactly what would happen here if we had to turn in our guns. So, Mr. USA, you either misread something, or you made it up just to promote your own anti-gun agenda.

Apr 22, 2013 3:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
slatesplace wrote:

I think they taregted Boston, because they knew the gun laws were strict which makes Boston a soft target. Mass, also does not have a death penalty.

I do not expect to see any terrorists with bombs and guns at the Dallas or Houston Marathon. Harder target, and they get to do the electric slide if they get caught there. The one that is still alive will probably live a full life in prison as a Muslim hero, and all at tax payer expense.

Apr 22, 2013 3:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
smashedmater wrote:

How can this be? I thought that Mass. had some of the most strict gun laws in the country? If strict gun laws make us safer none of this should have happened in Boston…. Am I correct?

Apr 22, 2013 3:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
unclejed wrote:

58 states, I thought it was only 57. When did we get another:)

Apr 22, 2013 4:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Seems to me why the current background check did not work is about 40% of gun transactions between private sellers, gun shows and the internet are not covered.

However universal background checks on “all” weapon sales along with a national database of guns would have gone a long way in preventing them getting the weapons.

Oh, an no one mention the black gun powder which should be tracked also.

Same with thing with black market weapons besides the straw buys and internet, lot of guns get on the market stolen from home where the weapons were not properly store in a “locked” safe, not a unlocked gun cabinet, night stand or closet.

Apr 22, 2013 4:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
catdaddio42 wrote:

You people don’t understand: if there had been one more gun control law on the books, none of this would have happened! Heck, as soon as I heard about the tragedy in Connecticut I decided that our local grade school was not safe because of the guns we keep in our safe. We’re hoping to turn the guns in before something terrible happens. Actually, recent events in Boston have proved once again that the way to stop a bad guy with a gun (or two jihadist brothers with guns) is a good guy with a gun.

Apr 22, 2013 4:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MariaQT wrote:

So I thought this was involving BOMBS and not guns? This article is deeply disappointing and misleading and blatantly biased.

Why is this now being twisted into a gun-control/background check issue? Who’s ever known of a criminal ever following the law?

Apr 22, 2013 4:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RicardoQueso wrote:

All this proves is that the gun registration scheme is never going to prevent criminals from obtaining or using guns. The intent by the Hussein regime is to first identify, and then ultimately disarm law abiding, freedom loving, Constitution-Understanding Americans. That has been the proven historical progression of every national firearms registry scheme.

On another note, it’s reported that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is being charged with using a WMD. Interesting how now an improvised explosive device that kills three people is a “WMD”, but when the same type of devices were killing US troops and Kurds in Iraq, THAT wasn’t considered a WMD. When it’s just American Soldiers being slaughtered, that’s just a reason to chant “Bush Lied – People Died.”

Wake up and smell the hypocrisy, America.

Apr 22, 2013 4:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
alfaz wrote:

Better clear some room on the shelf for a Pulitzer Prize.

Apr 22, 2013 5:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Gunluvr wrote:

Given what they did I don’t really think they cared too much about violating any gun laws. Do you?

Apr 22, 2013 5:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Max17 wrote:

Liberal logic: Strict gun laws will stop terrorists from blowing up American citizens.
.
You can lead a liberal to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.

Apr 22, 2013 5:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SoulLeister wrote:

What, can’t be… they were such model citizens… oh one was denied citizenship (wonder why) and the other LIED when he took the oath of citizenship 9/11 last year (when they were killing ambassador Stevens)… go figure. How is it the democrats did not already register the younger (and find a way for the elder to vote by absentee ballot across the country). Has anyone checked?

Apr 22, 2013 5:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@Merkin, Here is a little lesson on how to Google things, I work in IT so 75% of my troubleshooting involves googling stuff. A small modification in your search times can cause a large difference in result sets. By using ‘Fallout’ and ‘gun ban’, you are skewing your results to show you the right wing pro gun sites who have already made up their minds before looking at statistics who then cherry pick the data to help ‘prove their cause’. A better search is ‘Australian gun control results’ that gives you a more balanced result set from non-partisan sources, and most of the partisan(both left and right) sites also. I leave it to you to filter out the info from there, but the results are clear to me.

Apr 22, 2013 5:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Speaker2

“Seems to me why the current background check did not work is about 40% of gun transactions between private sellers, gun shows and the internet are not covered.

However universal background checks on “all” weapon sales along with a national database of guns would have gone a long way in preventing them getting the weapons.

Oh, an no one mention the black gun powder which should be tracked also.

Same with thing with black market weapons besides the straw buys and internet, lot of guns get on the market stolen from home where the weapons were not properly store in a “locked” safe, not a unlocked gun cabinet, night stand or closet.”

These two had clean records, why would you think that they would not pass a background check? They passed the government’s background check to be in the country, and they passed the FBI’s investigation as to whether they were a danger to us or not. The government is never wrong right, and they obviously prevented something bad from happening.

Apr 22, 2013 5:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@MariaQT

“So I thought this was involving BOMBS and not guns? This article is deeply disappointing and misleading and blatantly biased.

Why is this now being twisted into a gun-control/background check issue? Who’s ever known of a criminal ever following the law?”

If the liberals try to paint this as a gun-control/background check issue, they are going to lose even more supporters. These 2 kids passed background checks for immigration. Beyond that Russia told us that they were terrorists, the FBI investigated, and they passed the FBI’s background check. This is a glaring example of the Federal government failing to protect the US citizens. We wouldn’t want to upset any immigrant or Muslim, even if a foreign government tells us they are a terrorist.

Apr 22, 2013 5:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ronwagn wrote:

Will they be charged?

Apr 22, 2013 6:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
WilhelmDaSad wrote:

Let’s see criminals do not follow the law, they get guns without following the law…WOW..for Albert Gore the False Prophet’s sake…let’s pass a whole damn bunch of new laws…I am sure that criminals will follow those laws…But let’s put ALLL criminals right next door to libretards

Apr 22, 2013 6:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
callmeBob wrote:

Probably didn’t have valid pressure cooker or explosives or MURDERING permit!!!

It is not the device but the evil intent of another person.

Apr 22, 2013 6:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
hellcat144 wrote:

I know he did not have a firearms permit but was his destructive devices license in order? ATF trouble.

Apr 22, 2013 6:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
KaosHiker wrote:

I would like to Make a point.

All I ever Here is how peaceful the Religion of Isam is.

First of all. Islam is not just a Religion it is also a Government.
People like to ignore that little fact.

Challenge … Name The Countries that are NOT fighting Bloody Battles With Islamic Radicals.

Now Name The Countries that are.

The Religion Of Peace. The Wolf in Sheeps Clothing.

Apr 22, 2013 6:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

But what about their bomb licenses? Surely they had a bomb license right? No?

That does it, I’m calling my senator to demand a new law stating that all loiterers must have a bomb license. And to charge this loiterer with carrying a firearm without a license.

Oh, not a loiterer? Terrorist? Wait, isn’t terrorism illegal? I could have sworn.

Apr 22, 2013 6:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
politiconned wrote:

But their “bomb permits” were up to date.
Do you idiots think that a background check would show they wanted to blow up the Boston marathon? They were checked out by the FBI a year earlier.

Apr 22, 2013 7:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bwallace1303 wrote:

OMG, No gun permit. That means they are criminals!!!! Liberals see this as a need for more gun control laws. People in the real world see this as another example of failing laws that criminals will ignore. Pass 200 more new gun control laws and they will be ignored and/or not enforced. There are evil people in this world. You can not design a law to abolish that fact.

Apr 22, 2013 7:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
patches12 wrote:

Interesting… and just how will this reignite or add to the gun control debate? The fact that neither had lawfully owned and registered their fire arms bolsters the position taken by the NRA. Criminals will find a way to get guns and law abiding citizens will follow the law or at least try to… it really is that simple.

Chicago has some of the strict gun control laws anywhere and the city if rife with gun violence. Almost all of it perpetrated by ILLEGAL arms.

If I’m not mistaken, almost all of the fatalities and lost limbs were due to IEDs made from pressure cookers. Maybe the inference should be that we need to register pressure cookers?

Apr 22, 2013 7:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
patches12 wrote:

Interesting… and just how will this reignite or add to the gun control debate? The fact that neither had lawfully owned and registered their fire arms bolsters the position taken by the NRA. Criminals will find a way to get guns and law abiding citizens will follow the law or at least try to… it really is that simple.

Chicago has some of the strict gun control laws anywhere and the city if rife with gun violence. Almost all of it perpetrated by ILLEGAL arms.

If I’m not mistaken, almost all of the fatalities and lost limbs were due to IEDs made from pressure cookers. Maybe the inference should be that we need to register pressure cookers?

Apr 22, 2013 7:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dimmwitt wrote:

That would have changed what?

Apr 22, 2013 7:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
John2013 wrote:

Clearly another reason for increased background checks, assault weapon bans, drone surveillance, and tighter rules on the purchase of dangerous pressure cookers!
Added that that we need a full multi language ad campaign so that people like these two would learn that Dear Leader asks that they register all guns- clearly they did not understand that before and this led to tragic results.
Can we blame this on the Sequester and the Tea Party? LOL

Apr 22, 2013 7:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
John2013 wrote:

A clear call for tougher background checks, an assault weapon ban, more drone surveillance, increased frisks at airports by TSA ‘agents’, taxing ammunition, and federalization of all pressure cooker manufacturing industries.
Finally- one reason for this tragedy must have been that fact that both these two do not realize that as a result we are personally offended and that Obama would have preferred that they register their guns? Perhaps had the Tea Party and GOP not demanded a sequester (wailing and gnashing of teeth) we could have had an ad campaign to inform these two. So you see it is all the GOP’s fault really LOL.

Apr 22, 2013 7:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I’ll bet they used the pressure cooker in a way that broke some laws as well, and they carjacked –not sure if you need a licence or background check for that…..

Apr 22, 2013 7:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
alfaz wrote:

It is time for the heartless Republican Congress to stand up to the greedy and powerful cookware lobby, and pass sensible limits on the number of pressure cookers that law abiding citizens can buy each year. After all who really needs more than one pressure cooker anyway? It’s just the right thing to do.

Apr 22, 2013 8:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@thenewWorld,

I fully understand neither brother had a record, so they could have purchased a weapon and maybe qualified for a permit.

My point is they procured the weapons and black powder outside normal transaction channels. Either via a black market purchase or from a private individual or at a gun show or on the internet.

A universal background check requirement and universal gun/license registration (national database) might have stopped this. So would tracking large purchases of both black powder and ammo might have raised flags.

None of these suggestions have anything to do to ban or take away anyone’s guns.

Apr 22, 2013 8:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@RicardoQueso wrote:

The intent by the Hussein regime is to first identify, and then ultimately disarm law abiding, freedom loving, Constitution-Understanding Americans. That has been the proven historical progression of every national firearms registry scheme.

Really poor logistic. Lets say tomorrow the US government says ok, no more private gun ownership. Turn your guns in or go to jail. After 30-days, if found with a gun, you will be summary executed. The military and law enforcement then goes door to door and searches.

What are you going to do?

My point here is the government doesn’t need a national database to take your guns. You saw the armed response in Boston, by ordinary law enforcement. Our troops have been fighting urban warfare for a decade…. good money says most people will roll over and turn in their guns. The few who won’t, will die.

Most modern countries have national databases and continue to allow their citizen to have guns, of course with some reasonable restrictions. Your thinking about Obama is irrational

Apr 22, 2013 8:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jharpilot wrote:

Guess what? They didn’t have a bomb license,either. That’s because they’re CRIMINAL TERRORISTS! How does me having a license protect us from people like them?

Apr 22, 2013 8:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Miker76 wrote:

Last I checked this was the United States where the right to bear arms means you are not required to have a license to exercise your 2nd A rights, just like you do not need one to not have illegal search and seizures nor to incriminate yourself in legal concerns or to pretty much say what you want(as long as public safety isnt involved). What should be noted is these non-citizens bought weapons somehow, not that they didnt have a license. The only law they broke in this case(not counting the many others they did break) is they were carrying illegally without a CWL.

Apr 22, 2013 8:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
johnchi1 wrote:

Even worse….these two terrorist ripped the tag off of their sofas!!

Apr 22, 2013 8:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
kderby42 wrote:

To the author of this article.
I am embarrassed for you for writing it.
To Reuters.
Really? you published this? Inconceivable.

Apr 22, 2013 8:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
whatisgoingon wrote:

Criminal don’t need license.

Apr 22, 2013 9:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
nolemming wrote:

If they had licences they could have easily bought a couple of assault rifles and killed a whole lot more than 3 people. Seems to me that the states stricter gun laws actually saved lives here.

Apr 22, 2013 9:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Miker76

Hmmm, the Supreme Court basically upheld the New York law restricting permits to carry fire arms in public unless you have a special reason. There are a number of states that require a license to be armed. The 2nd amendment is not without limits.

And one brother was a citizen and the other had a green card….

Apr 22, 2013 9:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SKYDRIFTER wrote:

If the NRA hasn’t mentioned it; only honest law-abiding citizens register their guns.

I’m sure that the NRA has illustrated that it doesn’t take a gun to kill.

However, if the NRA failed to make that particular point, the brothers Tsarnaev certainly made the point very clear. Thank God the brothers didn’t get to punctuate the idea with more bombings.

In all seriousness, I suspect that many of the victims of 4-15 (Titanic Day) wish the brothers had used guns, instead.

Apr 22, 2013 9:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ncpg wrote:

None of the Obama regime’s wet dream gun grab laws would have prevented the very tragedies constantly cited; Aurora, Sandy Hook, Columbine.
Now they jumped the Gun-Grab shark….to the Boston bombing.

Apr 22, 2013 11:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RadioGuy87 wrote:

Criminals are never licensed. That’s another reason why the Dimocrats sound so dumb calling for things to penalize honest Americans!

Apr 23, 2013 1:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MikeyLikesIt wrote:

@USA Pragmatist

When you use the terms “gun nuts” “gun junkies” “NRA and their ilk” that means that it’s a rant and that you’re simply venting your hatred.

First of all I am not a member of the NRA. I don’t particularly care for their methods, but guess what? They represent over 4 million Americans. I would think that they SHOULD have a voice in this debate whether you like them or not.

As has already been pointed out, Australia saw a spike in violent crime after their gun laws went into effect. Further, the UK saw a massive spike in violent crime after their gun laws went into effect and they are now worse than countries like South Africa in terms of crime.

You could also take Canada for example. They are in the process of scrapping their long gun registry because it hasn’t helped reduce crimes and is having massive cost overruns.

Apr 23, 2013 10:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
QuidProQuo wrote:

The normal people who believe in the right to protection of life and property follows laws, get their permits to carry and go about their lives in peace. Criminals, terrorists and scum bags don’t care, have no shame and are not a part of society to live in peace. So why would anyone even remotely believe that these two shameless pigs would follow societal rules of engagement and act like respectable citizens of our great nation? Glad one is dead and could care less if the other dies a painful death as well.

Apr 23, 2013 3:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
aginghippy wrote:

If i’m not allowed to have a gun and a criminal shoots me, is the government responsible?

Apr 23, 2013 4:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:

So, one has to ask, how many criminals, murderers, and terrorists bother to obtain a valid permit for their weapons of mass destruction (aka pistols)??? Do any of them? If so, why? I mean what additional penalty do they tack on to Death by Lethal Injection for NOT having a valid permit?

Apr 23, 2013 5:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tajkler wrote:

Now Reuters..you need to cover the entire story.The brothers also didn’t have a permit for the explosives they were in possession of nor were they a licensed manufacturing facility…might as well cover everything and not put all your eggs in the “No Gun License” basket

Apr 23, 2013 7:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeaForoniJr wrote:

The mad bombers also failed to get the proper demolition permits, including the necessary permission from the city’s historic council. They also did not get the required permits to transport explosive materials required by the BFD. Heck, for all I know those ballcaps the brothers were wearing may not have had the license required by the copyright holder leading me to believe they were knockoff apparel. None of these shortcomings points to the need to repeal laws needed to run a civilized society.

Apr 24, 2013 1:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MaggieMarlowe wrote:

Is this a serious title of an article or did I stumble onto The Onion by accident?

Apr 24, 2013 1:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
frediano wrote:

Maybe they meed to be filled out in triplicate to be truly effective.

Sort of like requiring prescriptions to be filled out in triplicate as our our answer to ending the drug war.

How did the largely disarmed population of Watertown feel about being locked down, defenseless, for so long?

Apr 24, 2013 10:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

If they did not have a handgun license, this means they broke the law.

Should we impose more gun laws and pretend as if criminals will abide by them?

Adam Lanza committed four felonies before he even stepped foot in Sandy Hook. You think a potential fifth felony would have stopped him?

Apr 26, 2013 9:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse
equaljustice wrote:

I simply don’t understand how they dared to circumvent gun laws while carrying out their crimes! Unthinkable!

Apr 26, 2013 8:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dwitcraft wrote:

Just shows how ineffective gun laws are at keeping guns away from criminals. I suspect some, if not all of the guns were stolen. Why pay $600 for a new handgun, at a shop, when you can pay $75 on a street corner?

Apr 27, 2013 9:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:

The insanity of more and tougher gun laws, is beautifully illustrated by the 200+ other commenters before me!

Apr 27, 2013 12:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RShaw wrote:

I don’t understand – is anyone surprised? As if criminals are going to follow rules. You can make all the laws you want, but it’s not the law-abiding citizens that you really have to worry about.

Apr 28, 2013 9:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.