Cops Bring Out the Big Guns for Boston Bombers

Boston police hunting bomber (courtesy Reuters)

Boston cops search for bomber (courtesy Reuters)

Boston police (courtesy

Watertown cops (courtesy

Cops in Boston bomber manhunt (courtesy Reuters)

FBI hunt Boston bomber (courtesy Getty Images)

Boston State Police on Mount Auburn Street (courtesy Boston Globe)

Boston cops hunt bomber (courtesy Reuters)

Cops search for Boston bombers (courtesy Reuters)


About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

119 Responses to Cops Bring Out the Big Guns for Boston Bombers

  1. avatarIn Memphis says:

    At least his EOTech is mounted in the right direction

  2. avatarRydak says:

    Go get em boys! (Rob…keep paying your taxes!)

  3. avatarMatt says:

    Finger off the tigger until he’s ready to shoot. Good to see. +1 to the great eotech comment.

  4. avataruncommon_sense says:

    So now we know why the Department of Homeland Insecurity wanted all those 1,600 or so MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) armored vehicles from the military.

    • avatarutdmatt says:

      Actually around a dozen if I remember right sense. Of course they could WANT that many, but it was the marines that got 1600.

      Infowars is 80% batty and 20% right, so take what they say with a grain and all that.

      • avataruncommon_sense says:

        Ah, about a dozen rather than 1,600 — thank you for the correction.

        • avatarutdmatt says:

          heck, even drudge picked up on infowars saying that, but the youtube guy that ttag likes to link to (vuurwapenblog) showed how info twisted stuff like crazy and just outright lied to make the story.

      • avatartm1968 says:

        Do you have a link for the vuurwapen relevant posts/videos that you reference below? I’m having trouble finding them.

        I’m not doubting you. I know that info wars is mostly paranoid speculation. I was just interested in seeing what vuurwapen had to say.

    • avatarKory says:

      On a similar note, why do all of these cops have assault weapons? Who are they planning on assaulting on our peaceful streets? If it would only save one life, they shouldn’t have those types of weapons. /sarc-off

  5. avatarMike S says:

    Hey- nice to see it being used for what Its for, instead of a kid growing weed in his bathtub.

  6. avatarJon L says:

    and is the a 1911 on his hip? looks like it has the right angle and the grip safety

  7. avatarJake says:

    Now if only then didn’t feel the need to “practice” on innocent Americans on a regular basis…

  8. avatarBuuurr says:

    They need dogs… What better thing to hunt a man with then a dog?

  9. avatarSaul Feldstein says:

    So, the only ones armed in MASS are the cops and the terrorists, well, how safe is that?

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      They’re not the only ones armed in the Commonwealth. Not by a long shot brother.

      • avatarAdam on Cape says:

        Agreed, Greg.

        • avatarSaul Feldstein says:

          MASS gun laws are completely onerous and anti 2nd Amendment, 10 rd mag limit, high cap rifles banned, pistol permits only available through the whimsy of LE, etc etc etc…

          Shotguns aside, my point remains.

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      Saul, it’s a very common misconception that MA is largely an unarmed state what with all of our onerous gun laws and stuff. And make no mistake, those laws are onerous. That said, the citizens of this state own and use plenty of standard capacity mags (grandfathered and not), many thousands of modern, militarily useful semi-automatic long arms, and a whole bunch of other stuff. My gun club has two machine gun ranges for NFA weapons owners and a couple of the guys at the club own muzzle loading cannon. Did you know that a MA resident can get a cannoneers license from the state fire marshal?

      Sure, MA isn’t AZ. But we’re not living in the 18th century either.

      • avatarjwm says:

        Yep, as bad as the laws are in California I’ve managed to fill a safe with guns. And we are a large market for the gun industry.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          I’ve managed to fill three, but the .338 doesn’t fit very well, and it doesn’t even have a scope yet.

        • avatarjwm says:

          I got a couple of Mosins that won’t fit because they’re too tall. So I lock their bolts up instead.

  10. avatarTerry says:

    I see some non-compliant magazines there…

  11. avatarSafety first says:

    No eye protection at a bomb suspects location.

  12. avatarShenandoah says:

    Shows just how many resources and men it takes to go after two suspects. And people really think that as few as 1% of Americans couldn’t effectively resist a tyrannical government?

    With any sort of wide scale resistance in the event of a hostile government, the entire country would be shut down, the economy would utterly implode, food shortages and riots in every city, soon to be followed by global chaos as things spiral down the toilet bowl.

    So yeah, that 2nd Amendment isn’t as impotent as the statists try telling us.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Agreed. And we saw the same thing in Southern California a few weeks ago when the former Los Angeles police officer was a fugitive.

      Now imagine if a coordinated effort occurred in two dozen cities at the same time and those people threw in some tainted mail, set a few chemical factories on fire, and fouled up a major airline’s computer system to boot?

      Don’t get me wrong. I am not condoning that anyone who considers themselves a “patriot” go sending tainted mail to people, setting factories on fire, or messing with the computer systems of private businesses. What this does illustrate, however, is how easy it would be for a foreign government to start a war and how quickly our police resources would be overwhelmed.

      And no, that was not an argument for an even larger police force. It is an incredibly compelling argument for why we need responsible, good citizens to be armed and able to step up if the proverbial sh!t really hits the fan.

      • avatarRandy Drescher says:

        Don’t forget roadside bombs, after screwing our constitution they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in court…well, anywhere actually, Randy

    • avatarNor'Easter says:

      Very true Shenandoah and a sobering moment for all sides in this matter.
      I think it demonstrates the limits of violence for problem solving and the importance of taking strong, political action before it comes to that. The mess this can make is – as you say – indescribable and I believe even the most dedicated grabber wouldn’t want that.
      Since both this and the Dorner case involved police causalities I doubt they are anxious to sacrifice themselves for the greater glory of same ambitious political hack either.

      Strangely enough, this also demonstrates another reason the Founding Fathers wanted an effective Militia that’s often forgotten. I mean the idea of “domestic tranquility” in that they could keep order and fend off any cabal or coup by an undemocratic minority, or in modern parlance – terrorism. The wisdom of these paragons still amazes me.

    • avatarHuman Being says:

      What you also don’t mention is that many LE and active-military formations would be on the Constitutional side of any such confrontation. Recall the open letter from retired Rangers from a couple months back.

  13. avatarJoe says:

    Is that Derek jeeter in the first pic?

  14. avatarRydak says:

    How sweet would it be if an armed citizen end this shit?

    • avatarSteve Case says:

      I truly hope this evil doesn’t get the the chance to visit innocent civilians but if it does I hope it’s met with armed resistance. Good luck to those of you near this scene. If you’re fortunate enough to own a firearm now would be the time to make sure it’s handy and that your spare mags are on your person.

    • avatarAzman says:

      An armed citizen would get shot to pieces by the cops. Smart people stay away from an area like that. Er…unless you live there of course.

    • avatarChas says:

      That would only be the greatest gift to gun owners and the ultimate slap in the fact to the gun grabbers.

      • avatarMichael Bluth says:

        Only so long as the armed citizen isn’t a former police officer. Ideally, not a veteran, either.

  15. avatarkeithco88 says:

    Do cops & mil not wear ear protection at all? Nothing seems to be built into the helmets. Do they just have soft ears in?

    • avatarEagleScout87 says:

      pretty sure the mil doesn’t use any ear protection, you need to be able to hear commands, and your surroundings at all times in that type of situation.

      • avatarRSmith says:

        Thats what Surefire EarPro is for…

        • avatarShenandoah says:

          Thanks, answered my question.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          I use those when I’m deer hunting with my .460 revolver. A few .30-06, .308, .45-70, .30-30 out of a rifle without ear pro isn’t too bad. Plus, you can claim hearing loss when you forget all the stuff your wife wants you to do.

      • avatarShenandoah says:

        Something I’ve always wondered about. Repeated exposure to an M240 without ear protection can’t be too healthy. Could they use something similar to a Walker’s Game Ear that amplifies low decibel noises and blocks out anything above a certain threshold?

        • avatarRob says:

          Surefire EarPro is where its at. They are cheap, block high db noises, and allow you to have conversations.

        • avatarmatt says:

          If they wore ear protection then they wouldn’t be able to milk the government for disability payments. I’ve also wondered why the can’t use radios and something like Peltor COM-TACs. It would seem to make sense, since it is a little bit hard to understand what someone is saying when there is active gunfire.

      • avatarAnon in CT says:

        That’s where my chronic tintin comes from. Actually, on jungle lanes and other “moving and shooting” ranges I would plug the rifle-side ear, and leave the other open.

      • avatarChad Patterson says:

        The military DOES use hearing protection. Most of the high tech civilian hearing protection products out there are simply civilianized versions of a product that was originally produced under military contract.

  16. avatarAndrew Wood says:

    Why is all of this militarization necessary??? Friday and Gannon, and their 5-shot .38 snubs should be all that’s needed here!!! *SARCASM*

    • avatarJaberwookie says:

      I was thinking a double barrel shotgun through the door or maybe just fire “two blasts” into the air and scare him out so he will give up and this should all be over with! Sorry, couldn’t resist… Hope they get him quickly!

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        No double barrel shotguns anywhere?! Shocking.

        • avatarjwm says:

          I need to get me one of those double biden shotguns. I understand if you use one to fire into the air or thru a door you get a “get out of jail free” card from that white house in DC.

      • avatarSixpack70 says:

        If the police just lay down their weapons, the suspect will just walk out and give themselves up. At least that’s what Frankenstein said when Dorner was running around…

  17. avatarJon L says:

    It would appear the guy in the turret opening is flagging the piss outta his fellow LEO’s in the first pic. I don’t know what the roof line of the APC is though so best case he would just pop one off the armor plates in front of him.

  18. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    What a demonstration of the ability of the state at all levels to unify militarily and violate constitutional rights en masse, supported by state media and massive weaponry.

    • avatarFrodo B. says:

      Go read another conspiracy book.
      Open warfare brought to US streets means leeway by the government in dealing with it.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        Oh, I forgot that it’s okay for government to violate people’s rights if it has a “good” reason.

        Heck, since it’s “open warfare” on “US streets”, they should just round up all the citizens and put them in holding camps, so that the only ones left outside the wire will be enemy combatants.

      • avatarmatt says:

        When was there “open warfare” on US streets? Are you living in the 1860s?

  19. avatarChris from Iowa says:

    So that is why there aren’t any Pmags in stock anywhere…

    Why do only some of them have vertical foregrips? They would be so much more deadly if they had vertical foregrips. Especially with the pistol grips allowing them to easily spray bullets into crowds of people.

  20. avatarmatt says:

    Why do they have armored vehicles if they all ride on the outside? Seems rather counterintuitive. And its nice to see that the FBI spared no expense, hydrodipping their ARs in woodland camo.

    Why do the Transit Police have their own SWAT team?

    Why is his weapon being pointed at something with the safety on?

  21. avatartjlarson2k says:

    The most efficient way to stop a bad guy with a ____ is a good guy with a gun.

    Except the govt doesn’t think that applies to armed citizens. Shame.

    There’s a reason why law-abiding citizens are called good guys and criminals are called bad guys. Because that’s what it’s about. Good people vs. Bad (evil) people. Because it doesn’t make sense. Any child playing cops vs. robbers knows this truth. It’s about the people, not their tools.

    When is the last time you heard that struggle called “good gun” vs. “bad gun”.

    That’s how moronic the whole anti-gun debate is and why you got slapped down by the Senate.

  22. avatarEric says:

    So, when is Obama and holder going to break out the drones?

  23. avatarg says:

    Good to know they’re looking for the bad guys, but just to be safe… I wouldn’t go out. Or drive any vehicle that even looks remotely close to aforementioned bad guys’.

  24. avatarBill says:

    with the checkpoints in boston, the lockdown in that suburb, militarized police all over, it almost seems like a dry run for martial law. Study this well boys, study this well.

  25. avatarjwm says:

    They are actually looking for a terrorist, a bombing suspect. Not a purse snatcher. FLAME DELETED

    • avatarmatt says:

      How can someone be a terrorist if they are a suspect? And what evidence is there that the suspect had political goals they were attempting to further by the bombing?

  26. It’s always really impressive when Internet surfers, sitting on their arses, in the comfort of their safe basement or office, work so hard at second-guessing and criticizing law enforcement during an ongoing operation.

    Really cool and inspiring.

    Eye roll.

    • avatarmatt says:

      Thats right subject, you’re not allowed to criticize the kings men! They are infallible and simply doing gods work.

      • Matt, they need you out there to offer them helpful suggestions. Hope you can be of service out there, so get going.

        We are all really, really impressed, I’m sure.

  27. avatarRalph says:

    The cops are after one guy, so why are they carrying assault weapons that have only one purpose: to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. I don’t get it.

  28. avatarGreg says:

    Looking at some of these pictures, I can’t help but be reminded of all the reservists in the forest scene from the original Rambo First Blood movie. BINGO! I got em!

  29. avatarJC says:

    Lots of drop leg holsters…a sure sign of the tacticool geardo who has little actual experience..

  30. avatarErik in Texas says:

    It appears as if the Army of The Potomac has reappeared…

  31. avatarAM says:

    So all of this is for one man?

    All of Boston occupied for one man.

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

  32. avatarOODAloop says:

    FINALLY! We paid for all that shit and they’re finally using it. Thank God that we’re getting our money’s worth!

  33. avatarTotenglocke says:

    This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I laugh when people call LEO’s / soldiers “brave”. There’s nothing brave about hundreds of heavily armed men going after ONE guy.

    • avatarjwm says:

      Tote, you do realize your statement says a whole lot more about you than any of the cops or soldiers you think you’re deriding. right? Or were you expecting a hollywood hero cop like McClane or Callahan to insert into the neighberhood and handle business?

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        I never said it wasn’t necessary or effective to accomplish the goal. I merely said that there is nothing brave about it. It’s similar to claiming someone is “brave” for dropping a nuke on a drug dealer while he’s at home sleeping.

        It’s sad that the worship of government thugs is so ingrained in our society (well, most societies) that even those who have the most to fear from said jack boots are so eager to defend them. If it was 200 police / feds outside your house in the middle of the night, would you still proclaim them to be “brave”?

        • avatarChad Patterson says:

          I didn’t see YOU on the evening news running into unfamiliar surroundings to search for an individual whom you know beyond a shadow of a doubt is armed and may very well be carrying explosives.

        • avatarjwm says:

          Your reasoning shows you to have a collective state of mind, Tote. Each individual in that unit had fear for his own safety and the safety of his buddies. Each man had to master that fear and press on. So, yes they were brave.

          Another comment that shows your complete lack of experience in the real world.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          @ Chad

          1) I don’t live there. 2) If I had reason to believe there was a known murderer in my area, I’d look for him myself. I wouldn’t need thousands of guys wearing more body armor than the Knights of the Round Table to make me feel tough in doing it.

          @ JWM

          Your reasoning shows you to have a collective state of mind, Tote.

          No, it shows the polar opposite.

          Each individual in that unit had fear for his own safety and the safety of his buddies. Each man had to master that fear and press on.

          You’re joking, right? Only someone who truly is an utter coward is scared in a 2,000 versus 1 fight.

          Another comment that shows your complete lack of experience in the real world.

          Ah yes, oh mighty one. Please regal us with your stories of single handedly fighting off the Nazis and Al Qaeda. Just because I’m not a spineless coward who needs an army behind him to feel tough doesn’t mean I lack experience. Unlike you, I have personally stood up against a group of violent people on my own – because it was the right thing to do. Did I know I’d lose badly? Sure, but I’m not going to run and hide while bad people do bad things just because I might get hurt. That’s the difference between me and you and your cowardly Men in Black – I don’t need overwhelming force to feel strong.

        • avatarjwm says:

          First it was 200 vs. 1 then it was 2000 vs. 1. I never claimed to be a hero. But i’m not so hate filled and foolish to believe that bring overwhelming force to bear on a hostile combatant armed with guns and explosives in a residential neighberhood is cowardly.

          Next you’ll be declaring solidarity with that poor outnumbered and picked on freedom fighter.

          Go to the hardware store so you can get a shovel to dig that hole a little deeper.

  34. avatarJoseph says:

    Yeah, it’s ridiculous , they should have gone after him with a Ruger 10/22 and a tee shirt.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.