Posted on 06/19/2015 6:16:48 AM PDT by BillyBonebrake
Just curious - the father bought the gun and gave it to his troubled son, who already had a criminal record. So the gun may have been legally acquired, but illegally transferred. And the church was a "gun-free" zone? I'm not sure of the specifics and have no knowledge of the law in South Carolina but would love to see a tally of all the existing laws that were thwarted.
they added those flags on to jacket did Julie with Photoshop.
They proved that but no one wants to let out even one tiny piece of criticism about his motives because they’re terrified of being accused of racism themselves.
I now even doubt if he said that racist stuff that people claim he said at the end of his massacre.
I sell guns for a living. If Roof’s father or Roof himself filled out the 44.73 honestly and accurately, they would have been denied a gun. As an illegal drug user Roof would have been ineligible. His father would have been ineligible since it was his intent to furnish a gun for someone unable to buy a gun himself.
Yeah, all that, but...
if we just denied non-criminal citizens access to guns,
things like this wouldn’t happen any more, according to leftist “logic”.
Of course, the sheep “think” this way because it makes them feel smart, sophisticated, and like they’re a good person because they care.
The dictatorial leftists think - we can’t do all the stuff we really want to do if these people still have guns!
Remember, y'all, the right to defend yourself comes from God, not Government. We are not obligated to obey unGodly laws.
Guns Laws? Isn’t it already illegal to kill people?
Had one of the attendees of that Bible study been armed, the death toll would likely have been much lower, and might have included the whackjob perp.
That’s what I thought. The father was essentially an accomplice.
I’ll be spending the afternoon with my gun grabbing in-laws. I’m sure this tragedy will be a hot topic.
Thank you!
We need to be better prepared for stuff like this, and get out in front of the leftist anti-gun extremists attacks. On this particular incident, we waited, and now the anti-gun extremists have successfully framed this particular debate. You can talk facts & cold hard statistics all day long, but in the end, all you are doing is playing defense, which is ALWAYS the losing side in politics.
Amen!
So typical of an instance like this. We first get to hear the anti-gun gesture politics type rhetoric from Democrats, but then we start to learn shortly thereafter the real truth and details about the perpetrator of this horrible event. No wonder why the gun grabbers ultimately fail most of the time as by the time they try to ram tragedy inspired legislation through, most of us know that it is only the law abiding that are affected and not the Adam Lanzas or Dylan Roofs or Patrick Purdys or Gamil Gharbis or James Holmeses or Dylan Klebolds of the world.
The father did not buy the gun:
“One key part of this horrific scheme — the weapon — came in April, when Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store, according to the two law enforcement officials. His grandfather says that Roof was given “birthday money” and that the family didn’t know what Roof did with it.”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-main/index.html
You caught that too, didja?
I saw the pic of the reverse-image that a Photoshop guru used to prove the fakery.
Church rules are no guns in church, although I am not sure if CCWs can really be stopped, and there’s also a real issue of a church having people packed together...
Gun control laws “work” in one way: they give the amoral crowd who want us defenseless a mantle or morality. I’m inclined to think they’re afraid of the next step - total ban. On that front they’ll never get their way. But, for arguments sake - if it ever did come to pass they’d lose another one of their pretend morality pitches they use to prop themselves up with.
unfortunately, shall not be infringed, means sometimes, bad people get guns... people who care for these crazy people if they don’t want them shot by people they threaten should get them help.
If there was a universal background check law, this would have never happened/sarc
See. Proof positive that even family members “need” to be included in the all infringing intergalactic background checks. Had that been the case, this would never, ever, ever, ever have happened. Nope, not ever. He simply could have chained the doors shut and a couple 5 gal gas cans. Oh, wait............
I have the perfect illustration of how liberals behave around guns. He goes by the name of Alexander Kerensky, the second Minister-Chairman of the Russian Provisional Government in July–November 1917. He was a leader of the moderate-socialist Trudoviks faction of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, which ruled Russia after the fall of the Czar.
His party was just about the same flavor of liberalism that is found in modern San Francisco. He would have been a kindred spirit to Nancy Pelosi.
Squishy, irrational liberals. Probably the most insane of their actions was, in the middle of World War I, in the name of egalitarianism, to abolish the rank structure in the Russian military. All military decisions would be made by democratic majority vote. The number one most popular vote was on the question: “Run Away?”
A small faction of the socialists were the Bolsheviks. Violent and destructive communists. In their parliament, the Duma, the Bolsheviks would disrupt things, bang their desks, throw paper, blow whistles, etc. This would upset the socialists, who would march out, leaving the Bolsheviks in charge without a quorum rule. So the Bolsheviks would immediately take the podium and start passing new laws.
And the socialists did this again and again. They were not smart people.
In any event, Mr. Kerensky was personally terrified of the Bolsheviks, but otherwise was an egotistical blowhard. Once when dictating a memo in his presidential office in St. Petersburg, outside on the street a car backfired. In an abject panic, Kerensky jumped up on his desk and screamed, “The Bolsheviks are coming, we must flee!”, or words to that effect.
His secretary calmly looked out the window, and seeing nothing other than the usual small crowd of protestors, shook his head, “no”. So Kerensky climbed down from his desk, and resumed his dictation.
But Kerensky’s paranoia finally got to him. Convinced that the Bolsheviks were soon to revolt, he sent orders to an old Czarist general in command on the front against the Germans, to be prepared to bring his command to St. Petersburg, to defend the government from the Bolsheviks.
The General, figuring that Kerensky was a joke, decided that he would make a better leader of the country, so he ordered his forces to march on St. Petersburg, to overthrow Kerensky.
Panicking yet again, Kerensky ordered the police arsenal to give its rifles to — the Bolsheviks — who he told to go defend St. Petersburg from the Russian Army.
Instead, the Bolsheviks just lined the approaches to St. Petersburg, and called out to the general’s soldiers, all conscripts, to desert and join them. And they did. So by the time the general arrived in St. Petersburg, all that was left were him, his subordinate officers, and about two platoons of soldiers, perhaps a hundred men.
The St. Petersburg police arrested the lot of them. But needless to say, the Bolsheviks did not return the rifles, which they later used to overthrow Kerensky.
And while this whole thing looks like it was choreographed by Monty Python, it does illustrate how irrational liberals are when guns, and government, for that matter, are concerned.
As epilogue, Kerensky, after being overthrown, fled to the United States. He eventually settled in New York City, but spent much of his time at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California. He was noted for blaming everyone but himself for the failure of democratic Russia. He died in 1970.
The Russian and Serbian Orthodox churches refused to bury him, mostly because he was such a loser, so he was flown to London for burial.
But his life at least illustrates why liberals and socialists should never have any authority or control over firearms.
Something is not adding up.
He had a .45, with at least seven rounds in the magazine, and reloaded five times, totaling 35 shots, at a minimum. There were a total of nine killed, and assuming he finished off half those he might have woulded with a follow-up *certainty shot*, that still would have required only around 15 rounds. Assume that after everyone stopped moving, he shot each of the bodies again to be absolutely sure; that's still only 24-25 rounds total.
What did he do with the other 10 or more rounds available to him, and why did he not continue his killings elsewhere in the church? Was he after one or more specific targets, a person or persons in that particular room with him?
Something is not adding up, and we are not being told what it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.