Skip to main content

View Diary: Boston Marathon bombing suspect answering FBI questions in writing (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who wants to bet they bought their guns (18+ / 0-)

    either online or at a gunshow? The older brother apparently had a domestic violence charge in the past, which should have stopped him from buying a gun if a background check had been done.

    •  The odds are better of... (0+ / 0-)

      ...being struck by lighting after winning a multi-state lottery.

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 07:10:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who wants to bet they'd have guns anyway (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, happy camper

      despite the best laws?

      The essence of criminality is not following the law.

      •  They would have (5+ / 0-)

        I have no doubt that they would have gotten their guns regardless. But making it harder wouldn't have hurt.

        •  We can make things harder and harder on law abider (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happy camper

          and still accomplish nothing with regards to criminal behavior.

          See war on drugs.

          •  If the war on drugs (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tb mare, ChurchofBruce, my pet rock

            Actually focused its energy on the supply side of actual dangerous substances, instead of the demand side of pot, it could accomplish something.

            Background checks are really a burden on the supply side, not the demand side.

            •  With drugs the demand side is (0+ / 0-)

              the larger issue.  Same with guns.  Unless you have a willing and solvent buyer, your product has no intrinsic value.  

              I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

              by I love OCD on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 07:49:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'm genuinely curious (0+ / 0-)

              Exactly how should we be focusing on the supply side?
              Should we be invading Mexico where they make the meth?
              Canada where they make the Ex?

              Invading Afghanistan ( where they make the opium) hasn't seemed to help much.

              How would this work?

              •  IMO, the only way to focus on the supply (0+ / 0-)

                side is to legalize everything but hard drugs. If say marijuanna was legal, legitimate business could compete w/the criminal, or the criminal would turn legit to compete.

                "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                by StellaRay on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 08:40:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If marijuana was legalized here today (0+ / 0-)

                  The cartels would lose $8 billion/year.


                  The US Federal Government defines the violence in Mexico as "a success of drug war policies" because the US federal government makes money off 'fighting drugs'.

                  They like the situation EXACTLY like it is.

                  •  Well, I can't think of any major (0+ / 0-)

                    politician crowing over the success of the drug war at this point in time. Pretty much crickets as far as I can hear. And I'm curious---how does the US Government MAKE money off fighting drugs? Last I looked millions have be SPENT to no avail.

                    "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                    by StellaRay on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 01:39:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  War on drugs is a profitable scam. (0+ / 0-)

              That's why it functions as it does.

              Background checks are no-brainers and I am unsure what words I spoke that would indicated to educated liberals that I am against background checks.

              it's really annoying.

          •  Universal background checks (6+ / 0-)

            which take an average of 3 minutes do not impose any "hardship" on a law abider.

            •  Gun banners read this wrong (3+ / 0-)

              I'm all for anything we can do to structure/regulate gun ownership to reduce accidents and such. I have a number of good ideas.

              What I am saying is that all these efforts, however commendable and creative, will be meaningless to criminal intent.

              I know some insist on not grasping this very basic dynamic.

              See war on drugs.


              •  Makes sense to me. (5+ / 0-)

                I mean, why even have laws against murder at all? Criminals are gonna kill just the same, right? In fact, let's de-criminalize everything. After all, what right do we the people, acting through our democratically elected government, have to regulate or penalize any threats to public safety?

                Should you wish to exercise your right to vote, well, then you need to be listed on a government maintained public registry, and may be asked to also produce your birth certificate. Even after that, the GOP will still try to find some way to protect the republic from that supreme threat to the Constitution - voting.

              •  Gun lovers (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ChurchofBruce, David M Landreth

                read any idea that doesn't come from a fellow gun lover as an intention to ban guns.  

                We all have a number of good ideas. None of them will make it past the NRA's very effective Congressional wall of inaction.

                •  The funny thing about tipping points (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  xxdr zombiexx

                  is that nothing seems to happen until you reach one, and then it all starts to happen at once. And then it goes on happening as long as the opposition can manage to hold on to any shreds of power and influence.

                  The Civil War was a tipping point. So was Truman desegregating the military. So was the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. The final tipping point on race will come when Mississippi has a sufficient majority of anti-racists to take over the legislature and elect an anti-racist governor, after all of the other states have tipped.

                  Having a huge majority for background checks turns out not to be the tipping point on firearms. Raising as much money as the NRA and the even worse GOA, spending it more effectively (because we aren't delusional), and matching their GOTV and other organization, and then defeating most of the NRA-A-rated politicians will be the real tipping point.

                  Or we could get rid of the filibuster and the gerrymanders.

                  Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

                  by Mokurai on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 08:59:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  exactly! (0+ / 0-)

                If you want to buy a handgun you can.  Even if the government institutes background checks at gun sales or whatever it won't stop people from acquiring them.  

                Neither suspect had a license for the guns they used. Of course, thanks to the NRA and cowardly lawmakers who killed background checks for gun purchases, not having a license isn't a problem if you want to buy a gun. Thanks, guys.
                Passing bills in congress will not change the fact that their are literally millions of handguns in this country and most are unregistered.  They can and are sold and traded by individuals who don't need the governments consent or authorization to do so.  Thinking anything else is just naive.

                Yes, I am psychic...or was that psycho? I always forget which.

                by Farradin on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 09:15:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Even if you don't stop it you can make it harder (0+ / 0-)

                  Under the current law, the bombers could have bought their guns anywhere a background check wasn't required.  (I'm assuming a background check would have discovered their lack of a license, and the purchase would be denied.)  

                  Under a better law, they couldn't have bought their guns anywhere legally.  To be sure, that wouldn't have stopped them, but it would have forced them to go to the black market.  That would have been more expensive and more dangerous.  Maybe it wouldn't have deterred someone desperate like the bomber, but it might have deterred someone else marginally less desperate, or marginally less wealthy.

                  Don't know what percentage of those who currently trade and sell guns "without the permission of the government" today, when it's legal, would continue to do it if it were made illegal.  There are lots of things that I didn't do, like make fraudulent claims to my insurance company for example, that I and I'm sure others don't do because there are felony penalties and a non-trivial chance of getting caught.

      •  so why have any laws (11+ / 0-)

        "The essence of criminality is not following the law."

        This is the same argument I've heard repeatedly from the NRA, criminals will break the law anyway so why bother.
        Newsflash: people will break any law on the books, from speeding every day to embezzlement to murder, so why do we bother with any of them?  After all, speed limits only burden the majority of drivers who can go 80 or more and have never caused an accident.  Why should their lives be made less efficient because of the irresponsible few?

        •  Some of you just don't get it. (0+ / 0-)

          And no amount of clearly explaining it ever manages to do any good.

          Reminds me of another issue I work on.....

        •  Shorter reply: disingenuous. (0+ / 0-)

          None are so blind, etc....

          people will break any law on the books, from speeding every day to embezzlement to murder, so why do we bother with any of them?  After all, speed limits only burden the majority of drivers who can go 80 or more and have never caused an accident.  Why should their lives be made less efficient because of the irresponsible few?
          Answer your own question and it will sound like what I tried to tell people to begin with, prior to them getting all clever.
      •  we make it easier (0+ / 0-)

        the NRA's arguement about laws not working is false, self serving and design. they spend all that effort making the laws weak in the first place and then use the weakness as an arguement to get rid of them completely.

        the NRA wants a deep, unrestriced arms market. It should not be surprising that once you have that, you make it really easy for have a secondary market that exists outside of regulated transactions. the problem isn't the secondary market its the string of stupid policy decisions that got us there in the first place.

        •  it's not that laws "don't work" (0+ / 0-)

          They work fine.

          However.....some people ignore the law.

          I see a speed limit when I am on the road. I see people driving faster than the limit. Does the law work?

          Depends on how you define it.

          It works great when the law catches you and fines you.

          The rest of the time it seems like a sign on the road and many people ignore it.

          Of course, nobody HERE would ever violate a law.

      •  The RKBAers are coming! The RKBAers are coming! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tb mare

        If the RKBAers win, they will confiscate your sanity.

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 08:47:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Me? An RKBAr? (0+ / 0-)

          This place is ridiculous.

          Maybe in the most strict technical term insofar as I do not believe a blanket ban of all projectile weapons will make any of us any safer from the handful of people who insist on breaking laws.....

          But in common sense perspective, I am neither for nor against gun ownership. Banning them will not accomplish the Dream banners seem to have. Arming everybody is just so stupid I refuse to discuss it.

          So that leaves me in the middle ground no matter what anybody wants to say.

          I will be supporting all sorts of increased regulation for gun safety. While I know criminals will ignore the law (hence the term) I also know we can eliminate MOST accidents: Americans are just TOO lackadaisacal about guns and this des not seem to be addressed.

      •  Then repeal the laws against murder, because (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        murderers won't follow the law. In fact, we shouldn't have any laws, because criminals don't follow laws, by definition. Do you see how that argument doesn't make sense?

        We have laws not because it will eliminate all bad behavior, but to punish those who engage in it, and this, in turn, does deter many people from breaking the law. Laws also establish procedures. So, gun background checks make it harder for people with criminal records and histories of mental problems to get guns. That's all we can really do: Make it less easy to commit crime and punish people when they do it; we'll never eradicate crime.

        Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

        by tekno2600 on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 12:14:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  or maybe just made a short trip (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to Vermont.  With a licensed gun store, on average, every 25 square miles, or for each 1500 residents, it would be easy to find a place to purchase a gun.  And with no ability for any government agency to actually inspect or monitor what these dealers are doing, they are free to sell to all the terrorists they want.  we can imagine a more likely scenario where some resident legally buys a gun, the electronic record of the purchase gets trashed with 24 hours, and then the resident is free to sell it to a terrorist.  With no record, except in cardboard boxes, such a resident would be free make a living selling weapons to terrorists.

      •  Incorrect. (0+ / 0-)

        The record of the NICS background check is not retained, but every FFL keeps a permanent record of each gun sale made.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 08:17:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  in a cardboard (0+ / 0-)

          stacks of paper with no requirement for organization.  The point is that if one gun is used and is traced to one individual that claimed it was stolen, there is little chance of putting the records together to form a case.  However, if the records were on the computer at the fbi, not what gun was bought, but only that an application was made, and at what FFL, then we might have a better chance stopping the gun trade to terrorist.  Of course killing 22 kids is not terrorism, but killing 3 people is.

          •  Read the link. (0+ / 0-)

            You don't fully understand the system, apparently. The records are organized, must be available for inspection on demand, and are kept for twenty years. In many cases, the "bound book" of old has been replaced by computerized records. Law enforcement can indeed determine who the original purchaser of a given weapon is. If the original buyer has sold the gun to a private person, there is generally no record of that sale, though that can vary by state also--for example, in MI, you have to get a permit to purchase a handgun, even in a private transaction, a system that has been in place for years. Records are kept, i.e. the handgun is registered, though it seems to be of limited usefulness in crime solving.

            Criminals tend to get their guns through family and acquaintances, according to a DOJ survey of criminals in prison.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 06:35:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think the charge (0+ / 0-)

      is enough to stop a person from buying a gun.  It has to be a felony conviction.  Doesn't matter, though.  If he had plans to do bad things, he'd just buy his assault rifles and his mountains of ammo at a gun show in one of the 33 states that requires no background check and voila.  He's set for the business of mayhem, and no one in law enforcement is any the wiser.  Ain't America grand.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site