© Miri WTPOTUS April 22, 2013
Last week, the Senate voted down expanded background checks, which would have covered all “advertised” private gun sales. After the Boston Massacre of 4/15/2013, gun control advocates began predictably to call once again for more gun control legislation, and added control of the purchase of black powder, which allows a person to make or reload ammunition. As many news reports have pointed out: the Muslim Tsarnaev brothers had no permits to carry weapons, and yet they did, nonetheless.
Criminals and terrorists, by definition, do not obey laws. [emphasis added to quotes.]
In the confrontation with police on the streets of a Boston suburb, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were armed with handguns, at least one rifle and several explosive devices, authorities say.
But neither brother appears to have been legally entitled to own or carry firearms where they lived …
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who was killed in the shootout with police, would have been required to apply for a gun license with the local police department where he lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
But there is no record of him having done so, according to Cambridge Police Department spokesman Dan Riviello.
Even if he had earlier received a gun license from somewhere outside Cambridge, that license would have to be registered with Cambridge police upon becoming a resident of the city, Riviello said. In Massachusetts, gun licenses are issued by municipal police departments.
“There is no record of him having a license to carry,” Riviello told Reuters.
Tsarnaev’s younger brother Dzhokhar, 19, who was captured alive on Friday after the manhunt, would have been too young to get a handgun license. Under state law, residents under 21 may only apply for a so-called firearms identification card, which allows the holder to own only rifles that hold 10 rounds or less and shotguns.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had no record of a firearms ID card in Cambridge. The police department in Dartmouth, where Dzhokhar was a student, said they had no record of gun licenses or ID cards for either brother.
Also predictably, this terrorist attack is being politicized–used to further restrict the Constitutional rights and the freedom of innocent Americans, the very people who are victimized by criminals and terrorists.
Senator Lindsey Graham implied that perhaps our government ought to be allowed to deploy ARMED drones within the USA, to take out US citizens who have been labeled terrorists:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) stirred the pot by suggesting that the Boston Marathon bombing incident proved the assertion that the United States is the battlefield in the war against jihadists. He recalled that during Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster on drones, “I went to the floor for only one objection. He said ‘American is not the battlefield..’” Graham said he had brought with him a poster of the twin towers. Graham recalled, “I said, ‘This is the first battle.’”
Before the second bombing suspect was apprehended Friday night, Graham explained his reasoning during that filibuster regarding use of drones at home. “I said, ‘They’ll be more cities.’” At the time be belittled Rand Paul’s concern about Americans getting zapped by drones. He recalled his words then about Americans killed on U.S. soil, “Americans killed by drones. Zero. Americans killed by al-Qaeda. 2,995 [on 9-11-2001].” …
Graham also leads the charge against reading the prime suspect his Miranda rights. Other legislators argue for more surveillance cameras, even though it’s as likely that images and video captured by citizens would have led to the same suspects, regardless of whether or not Lord and Taylor had their cameras aimed at the finish line:
Some lawmakers argue that there can be no expectation of privacy in public, and that additional surveillance cameras are the best way to prevent attacks or track-down home-grown terrorists who operate off the grid of traditional communications monitored closely by U.S. intelligence authorities.
“If you walk down the street, anyone can look at you, anyone can see where you’re going. You have no expectation of privacy when you’re out in public,” said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the Homeland Security panel and a member of the Intelligence Committee.
“This is not looking into someone’s home or doing something that would require a search warrant,” King said in an interview with The Hill. “We’re talking about something which is out in the open.”
Other lawmakers agree public cameras can be useful in the war on terrorism, especially in urban environments where terrorists can easily slip into the crowd.
The incident is also being used to push for “immigration reform“:
The Boston bombings and the foreign-born suspects have become part of the Capitol Hill debates on legislation to overhaul immigration law — with critics of the proposal saying Sunday the terror attacks expose gaps in the country’s system and supporters saying the tragedy could be a turning point in fixing a broken system.
“Now is the time to bring all of the 11 million (illegal immigrants) out of the shadows and find out who they are,” South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We may find some terrorists in our midst who have been hiding in the shadows.”
Graham and New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, members of a bipartisan Senate group working on immigration reform, said a key part of the legislation is better tracking of who enters and exits the United States on visas.
“The 19 (9/11) hijackers were all students who overstayed their visas and the system didn’t capture that,” Graham argued. “We’re going to fix that. … What happened in Boston should urge us to act quicker.” …
“Our law toughens things up,” Schumer told CNN. “There are some on the hard right, some otherwise, who oppose our immigration bill from the get-go, and they’re using this as an excuse. We are not going to let them do that.” …
Now is the time! Never let a crisis go to waste!
How coincidental that this incident touches upon most of the issues–the agenda–currently being rammed through Congress.
We the People who are not criminals (or terrorists) will find our lives constricted, although nothing implemented since 9/11/01 stopped that terror attack in Boston on 4/15/2013. Why not? Twelve years after, and still we ask,
“Are we safe?”
After all the billions of dollars spent, after all the bureaucracy created, after all the employees hired, after all the data sharing, these Chechen Muslim brothers somehow slipped through the cracks. After another country (said to be Russia) WARNED our intelligence agencies that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a radicalized Muslim with connections to terrorist elements in Dagestan–even so, he was allowed to remain in the USA.
Their new laws will infringe upon us and our rights, but they will not affect the criminals or terrorists, who already ignore laws and who, apparently, are able to come here at will, with no scrutiny whatsoever, even obtain citizenship, and then wreak havoc, kill and maim.
What is wrong with this picture?