Guns and Terrorism in Boston: How did Tamerlan & Dzhokhar Tsarnaev obtain guns?

With the media rightly focusing on the on-going manhunt in and around the Boston metro area for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the two brothers suspected of committing the terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon this past Monday, one question I have heard not anyone raise is: how did these two obtain the gun or guns they used?

Undoubtedly, when the manhunt has concluded, this is a question that should and will be investigated. In the aftermath of the shameful failure of the US Senate to pass a bill (a watered-down bill at that) to increase scrutiny of gun buyers via enhanced background checks, I think this is worthy of both investigation and debate.

From what we know already, it seems that the Tsarmaev brothers were in the US legally with Permanent Resident Alien (Green Card) status. No one has commented yet as to whether either brother had any kind of criminal record. In the absence of such reporting, let's assume that neither had a record. Perhaps that will be proved wrong.

So, what's the issue here? Well, apart from the obvious mayhem they inflicted with the two "pressure cooker" bombs at the Marathon, they shot and killed an MIT Campus Security Officer and seriously wounded an MBTA transit officer with guns. They used a gun to hold up a 7/11 store and to carjack an SUV.

My questions, therefore, are where the heck did they get the gun or guns? Is there no limit to how many guns we want floating around? Do we really think that all the guns in the hands of people who are not police or military have made us any safer?

I am comforted by the sight of law enforcement doing their duty in protecting the rest of us. I am very discomforted by the notion that two young men got guns from somewhere (we don't know whether source was legal or extra-legal) and then used them to inflict more harm.

I for one find the presence of ever more guns out on our streets to not be a symbol of increased safety and security, but rather see them as a sign of the opposite.

What exactly could have prevented the gun violence portion of their reign of terror? When is enough enough?

Let me add: if we assume that these guys were here legally and that they had no prior criminal records, chances are they could have purchased guns legally and easily through routine channels. Or, they could have purchased them at a gun show, via the internet, in a parking lot somewhere. In other words, we only know that these guys were dangerous in retrospect. And yet, they probably no difficulty buying guns and ammo. There is something wrong with this.