Reuters
by Jonathan Allen
April 21, 2013

The two brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings, who police say engaged in a gun battle with officers early Friday after a frenzied manhunt, were not licensed to own guns in the towns where they lived, authorities said on Sunday.

(excerpted)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/2...E93K0HB20130421

I'm shocked at that, I would have figured that the strict MA gun laws would have prevented this!

You mean they weren’t adhering to the law?

Is this a joke, not licensed to own guns, were they licensed to own bombs. Were they licensed to steal cars, were they licensed? ?, what total BS.

In a case of tortured logic, The Hill says that:

Zitat

---

The news that the suspects were not authorized to own firearms will likely add fuel to calls for tougher gun laws – an issue that was put on the back-burner last week after the Senate blocked the central elements of a gun-control package backed by President Obama.

---

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...s#ixzz2R9aLSDwS

So, since they weren't law abiding, we have to make the laws even tougher on those who are? Did I interpret that correctly?