Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/22/2013 6:09:28 AM PDT by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
To: Gamecock
Did they have a license for pressure cookers?

Honestly, some people are educated way beyond their intelligence.

2 posted on 04/22/2013 6:10:47 AM PDT by Gamecock ("Ultimately, Jesus died to save us from the wrath of God." —R.C. Sproul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

They had unlicensed guns?

How can that be?


3 posted on 04/22/2013 6:11:32 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

oh for Heaven’s sake, who the folk cares


4 posted on 04/22/2013 6:12:39 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

Criminals and terrorists illegally in possession of guns. Who would have thought?


6 posted on 04/22/2013 6:14:36 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

No way! Evildoers who had no problem with setting up pressure cooker bombs in a crowded area of Boston were not deterred from owning guns becuase they were in violation of the local gun laws? Who would’ve thunk it???


7 posted on 04/22/2013 6:15:06 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

What provisions in Obama’s gun-grabber proposals would have kept these Muslim militants from getting illegal guns?


9 posted on 04/22/2013 6:16:39 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

Cambridge Police Department spokesman Dan Riviello
does not have valid brain license


11 posted on 04/22/2013 6:20:14 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

If Massachusetts only had a law requiring terrorists to have valid licenses, that would have stopped the terror cell from being able to carry out the bombing!

So we can add unlicensed carry to “manufacture and transport of an explosive device resulting in death”, eh? Another year MANDATORY!


12 posted on 04/22/2013 6:20:17 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock
So, in a place that has loads and loads of laws regulating and banning firearms, they didn't mean squat to the same terrorists who also broke laws involving making bombs and killing people.

Seems like we need tougher laws against mass murder, terrorism and bombing first.

But no... This is merely another excuse for trying to shift it back to 'we need more gun laws.'

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.

Only the liberal mind (and the bias of this journalist) could come up with this response.

13 posted on 04/22/2013 6:20:47 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock
were not licensed to own guns in the towns where they lived, authorities said on Sunday.

Well, if the bombing doesn't get him the death penalty, having a unlicensed handgun in Boston surely will...

14 posted on 04/22/2013 6:21:18 AM PDT by PROCON (Never underestimate the power of low information voters in large numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

The older brother had a domestic violence charge as well. He probably wasn’t going to legally get any sort of gun.


16 posted on 04/22/2013 6:28:49 AM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

All the more reason why the gun grabbing bill should have been voted down last week. Because no criminal is going to submit to a background check in the first place. Why? Because they will get their guns illegally.


17 posted on 04/22/2013 6:31:10 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock
See.....

Gun control laws can stop killing and mayhem.

If only people would obey them.

Then we could all live in Kumbayah.

Liberal GFW's should just pass a law declaring it illegal to disobey other laws.


18 posted on 04/22/2013 6:33:27 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Welcome to Obama-Land - EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

And a great job disarming the average citizen, leaving them helpless....


19 posted on 04/22/2013 6:34:11 AM PDT by Kozak (The Republic is dead. I do not owe what we have any loyalty, wealth or sympathy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

Criminal laws are like restraining orders; they are merely paper, and the police exist to pick up the bodies after the laws are ignored.


20 posted on 04/22/2013 6:35:11 AM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

Maybe if he cooperates the authorities can offer to dismiss it.....


21 posted on 04/22/2013 6:35:36 AM PDT by texanyankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

The older brother was a Green Card holder (not a US Citizen), and thus would not have qualified.

The younger brother is 19, and you must be at least 21 to qualify.

If they new what the friggin’ CURRENT LAW was this would not be a story.


22 posted on 04/22/2013 6:36:19 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

and people wonder why conspiracy theories sprout up after an event like this.

try this one i heard on the radio driving in today:

gun control bill soundly defeated in us senate. bammy comes out upset.

following week, bombings in Boston occur.

instead of focusing on the primary cause behind the bombings, the nyt uncovers the story these guys had unregistered guns in attempt to reignite the gun control debate.

is it beyond bammy and his ilk to pull something like this??


24 posted on 04/22/2013 6:38:43 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock

Laws suppressing the enumerated constitutional rights of citizens only creates a burden for the law abiding citizens. For only the law abiding obey laws.

Criminals and terrorists would not be concerned whether they had a permit or not. Nor would attempts to restrict access or owenership of classes of weapons keep the lawless from obtaining them. They only stop the law abiding.

Some fool gun grabber will put forward the specious argument that because weapons are available to the law abiding, that it makes them available to the criminal/terrorist. However, once again, that unsavory will find a way to obtain weapons regardless of how unavailable they are to the law abiding.


27 posted on 04/22/2013 6:40:23 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gamecock
So the criminals/jihadists/terrorists were already in violation of existing gun laws. However, they'll just implement more gun laws and that will make a difference in the future!

How can these people have any credibility?

30 posted on 04/22/2013 6:49:16 AM PDT by edpc (Wilby 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson