Screen Shot 2013-04-22 at 4.55.49 PM

Last night as I read through news, I came across an article from the Los Angeles Times with the Headline:

“Police: Boston bombing suspects lost hostage while buying snacks”

I’ll admit I was mildly interested, as the headline promised an angle with potentially different information (in the dumb criminal realm) from that recycled over and over on cable news. I clicked on it expecting to read something regarding the carjacking incident that eventually led to the police shootout and the death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev.  

Then, like a booby trap, I ran SMACK into the first two paragraphs of the article talking about the gun laws these terrorists were breaking:

The two suspects in last weeks Boston Marathon bombing weren’t licensed to have guns, the Cambridge, Mass., Police Department confirmed Sunday. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, who was captured after a gun battle with police Friday, wasnt old enough to be licensed to own a gun in Massachusetts. The minimum legal age is 21. His older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who was fatally wounded hours earlier, never had a license to own or carry a gun in Cambridge, where the pair shared an apartment, Cambridge Police spokesman Dan Riviello told the Los Angeles Times. Its unclear whether he ever applied for a license.

This is exactly how it is going to be from now on, the gun agenda weaved into every issue, as commentary on any crime. What does the quoted paragraph have to do with the headline?  If someone is willing to build bombs and kill innocent people at a positive energy event like a marathon, why do we think they would comply with gun laws?  Why even mention it?

Yes they had guns, and in spite of Massachusetts gun laws in place, they apparently were in possession of them anyway.

This is one of the most poorly written articles by a large newspaper I have ever read.  Even if I disagree with other articles, I rarely call them poorly written.  This article must have initially had a different headline and then changed it for some reason without changing anything about the outline of the article. I don’t know about you, but the fact that evil men broke gun laws does not shock me.  It just backs up the theory of all law-abiding gun owners that gun laws, including those already in place, will not stop evil.



3 Replies to “LA Times hides gun control commentary in an article about the Boston Terrorists buying snacks”

  1. The Anti gun Nazis don’t get it. They never will. Criminals don’t care about gun laws…their MOS is “Criminal”. That job requires them to break laws. If they didn’t break laws, they would not be criminals.
    So, using this kind of logic…we should outlaw criminals. Anybody breaking the law, should go to jail/ prison.
    Those who don’t break the law, and never plan on breaking the laws, should be left alone. Like the millions of gun owners who follow the laws.

  2. Good point, and you’re probably right, it WILL be the new normal! And I’m getting tired of the choir boy pic of the younger one… He was a dope smoking slacker from what is coming out!

Leave a Reply to Old NFO Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.