Boston bomber was a prohibited possessor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yo Mama

Yo Mama

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,230
The one they killed last night, may he rot in hell, was convicted of domestic violence 4 years ago. Hmmmm.....prohibited possessor? Maybe some will see the light, enforce the laws on the books already and stop making new ones for legal citizens!

Mods, I didn't think this was against forum rules, if it is I appologize but had to get this off my chest.
 
Having nothing to do with this loser, I have a lot of concerns about DV's losing their Constitutional right for life.

Now I am not taking about recitivist law breakers, but in some cities or even states, just the mere accusation of DV causes you to lose your rights.
In some cases a "he said, she said" gets both arrested with the courts to settle the matter at a later date. In the mean time both people can wind up being without their firearms.
Heck all one needs to do is get a restraining order issued against them, and they lose their rights.
 
It is to easy for a woman to claim a man a domestic abuser and have his rights removed, when nothing has happened.

I do take domestic violence seriously, and am in no way saying true domestic abusers should retain their rights. They shouldn't. But lets separate the BS from the abusers.
 
What I'm unclear about is how that police officer was killed on the MIT campus...???

I feel terrible about his loss and the impact to his family, so don't take this the wrong way... but, aren't guns illegal on campus?

Btw...just a point of clarification... CNN is not a credible news agency, they are propagandists at best and their reporters, if you can call them that, are a bunch of idiots who do more repeating of talking points than credible news reporting. I don't believe anything they say.
 
I'm not saying I agree with the DV laws either, but they are already on the books and not clearly this subhuman scum was not enforced. They don't need any more. That was my only point.
 
Last edited:
Um, yeah, Chechen...spent time in Dagistan, dad is still over there 'somewhere in the russian federation'
(BTW, there are 3 BIG FLAGS in the above line)
 
Paladin7 said:
What I'm unclear about is how that police officer was killed on the MIT campus...?.
Click to expand...

CNN or one of the other non-news agencies claimed he was just sitting in his patrol car and was ambushed by the two suspects.


Paladin7 said:
Btw...just a point of clarification... CNN is not a credible news agency, they are propagandists at best and their reporters, if you can call them that, are a bunch of idiots who do more repeating of talking points than credible news reporting. I don't believe anything they say.
Click to expand...

I assume this was directed at my comment about CNN reporting that they were U.S. Citizens. Would you like to tell me which of the so called news agencies should be considered "credible"? Perhaps MSNBC? Even Fox gets it wrong at times. Bill O'Reilly was claiming last night that if Presiden Obama would have listened to him and included registration in the bill it would have passed. Ha!
 
CNN says:

An official in the central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan told CNN that the brothers held Kyrgyz passports, which they had used to apply for green cards in the United States.

Many refugees from the Caucasus conflict have received passports or refugee status in surrounding countries.

A leader of the ethnic Chechen community in Kyrgyzstan told CNN that the Tsarnaev family left the republic long ago.

"There haven't been any Tsarnaevs living here in 10 or 15 years," Adnan Djubrailov said in a phone call from Kyrgyzstan.

In a statement, the State Committee for National Security of Kyrgyzstan sought to distance itself from the family.

"The Tsarnaev family lived in the town of Tokmok and 12 years ago it moved to live in the Republic of Daghestan in the Russian Federation, from where it emigrated to the USA," it said.
Click to expand...

I cannot find anywhere they were full citizens.
 
According to (semi) credible news sources the younger suspect (the one still at large) is a naturalized US citizen. The older brother (the now dead one) had a green card and was here legally.

I have to agree with the above. CNN is not a credible news source. At least not anymore. Look at the reporting from John King earlier this week reporting a suspect was in custody. Then the FBI having to make a press statement to the contrary.

It's a shame as CNN used to be very credible.

ETA: I'm relieved this was not a pair of bubbas from Texas.
 
Not going to defend CNN too strongly, but every news source was reporting a suspect was in custody. The misinformation came from somewhere in LE and every news outlet reported it.
 
Mean boys. I doubt they went through the trouble to legally possess weapons in Mass. Also don't you have to be 21 to get a license to carry there to even possess a firearm in MA? I doubt they even had a license.
 
OilyPablo said:
Not even sure why he had full Constitutional rights as a non-citizen.
Click to expand...

I cannot find anywhere they were full citizens.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are natural. The Constitution doesn't grant them, and there is no reason to imagine that only U.S. citizens possess them. This is in no way meant to absolve these terrorists of the responsibility for what they have done, but I don't see what their citizenship status has to do with it.
 
316SS said:
Natural rights are natural. The Constitution doesn't grant them, and there is no reason to imagine that only U.S. citizens possess them. This is in no way meant to absolve these terrorists of the responsibility for what they have done, but I don't see what their citizenship status has to do with it.
Click to expand...

Understood that the Constitution doesn't grant such right - but such natural rights are within our boundaries? Apply to alien invaders?
 
Understood that the Constitution doesn't grant such right - but such natural rights are within our boundaries? Apply to alien invaders?
Click to expand...
Such natural rights apply everywhere: On United States soil, in Korea, in the middle of the ocean, on the moon, everywhere.

The Constitution prohibits the United States government from infringing on said natural rights, regardless of whose they are or where they are.


Bear in mind most other sovereign states do not recognize the same natural rights that we do, so they very often infringe on them.
 
OilyPablo said:
Understood that the Constitution doesn't grant such right - but such natural rights are within our boundaries? Apply to alien invaders?
Click to expand...

No, and No. The right of self defense is inherent in every human. Most (nearly all) nations violate this right of their citizens, but Sir Oliver Blackstone described the right to self defense as a law of nature.

An alien invader (or terrorist) has abdicated his right to self defense by his actions, not his citizenship status.
 
There was a suspect in "custody", just as all the news agencies reported. Where it got murky was that the initial suspect was cleared of any involvement, and "in custody" and "under arrest" are not the same, though many use them interchangeably.

Will be interesting what comes of the investigation into how he came into possession of the gun. It may help Pro 2a arguments, or devastate them. Does anybody know off hand what Ma. laws there are for private party transfers, do they go through a dealer or is it cash and carry?
 
To the OP's point - the report I read on the Fox News Website said the dead suspect was arrested for domestic abuse but had no convictions.
 
Does anybody know off hand what Ma. laws there are for private party transfers, do they go through a dealer or is it cash and carry?
Click to expand...

Face-to-face (no dealer) transfers are OK if both the seller and the buyer are properly licensed for the type of gun being transferred.
I have an unrestricted LTC, so I can sell any gun I legally own directly to another LTC-A holder. However you are also required to fill out a form with buyer, seller, and firearm information and file it with the Mass Dept. of Criminal Justice.

But it's all irrelevant because criminals in Massachusetts don't concern themselves with Massachusetts firearm regulations.

Tinpig
 
Last edited:
316SS said:
The right of self defense is inherent in every human. Most (nearly all) nations violate this right of their citizens, but Sir Oliver Blackstone described the right to self defense as a law of nature.

An alien invader (or terrorist) has abdicated his right to self defense by his actions, not his citizenship status.
Click to expand...

That sounds exactly correct.
 
But......but.....but Obama said a requirement of expanded background checks would prevent firearms from falling into the hands of criminals and terrorists. Since Massachusetts has a very strict law regarding who can purchase a firearm, and the requirement for a potential purchaser to have a state-issued license, does this mean these guys actually BROKE A LAW in possessing their firearms and explosives? The mere thought that a criminal would violate a law is difficult to understand. /sarcasm off
 
If he was prohibited to own firearms then none of this should have ever happened. Maybe Frank Lautenbergs amendment doesnt really stop crime?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top