Suspicions Swirl as to How Dylan Roof Acquired a Firearm
With a story of this caliber comes a whirlwind of misinformation and inaccurate reporting on the part of major media moguls. I like to sit back and let the big dogs duke it out before I even consider stepping into the pit of chaos. Now that a bit of the dust has settled surrounding the curious case of Dylann Roof, the truth is starting to seep out like a vein of sap from a tree trunk.
A question that has been asked by many pertaining to Roof is this: How did the 21-year-old acquire a gun?
The answer is paramount. It is what will shape the next political gun campaign of this country. It will affect us all, whether good or bad. One disgusting human being has the ability to incite not a race war, but a war on guns. That’s a scary thought, isn’t it?
The cards have been dealt and now it’s time to see what we’ve got. There are three plausible explanations here.
Option One: Dylann Roof purchased a gun from a store just 25 miles from his home.
Some news providers have latched onto this sentiment like a fly to a pile of recently digested cow manure. They assume that this is the probable explanation to why this introverted deviant had a gun in the first place.
But this is just not a plausible option given this kid’s criminal record. According to the Washington Post, Roof was charged with felony possession of Suboxone, which would have been “red flagged” during a routine background check at the South Carolinian gun store:
Federal law prohibits people with pending felony charges from obtaining firearms. In February, Roof was arrested and later charged with felony possession of Suboxone, a narcotic prescription drug. He was released, and the case is pending.
Because of his criminal record, Roof would not have been able to buy a gun from a store. Federally licensed gun dealers are required to run background checks on gun purchasers, and Roof’s pending charges should have turned up as a red flag.
Although anti-gunners would like to use this explanation to their political advantage, it’s just not true. State law’s made it impossible for Roof to purchase a gun with that dirty little record of his.
And just to really put this rumor to rest, reports explain that workers at the shop near his home “don’t remember him.”
Lets move onto a more likely possibility.
Option Two: Roof purchased the gun from the shop, but those working there just didn’t run the mandated background check.
All it takes is one incompetent worker and a lapse of memory to screw up big time. Maybe it was an employees first day on the job, and he/she proceeded to ring this scrawny monster up without running a background check. It’s plausible, but is it likely? Probably not.
Option Three: His father gifted the .45 Glock to his demented son.
This would not require a background check for this little bowl-cutted freak, so it’s a definite possibility. The state of South Carolina does not closely monitor or control the private transactions of firearms, so it would be completely undocumented if this were the case.
This seems to be the most plausible option at this point. Until more details emerge about the acquisition of the firearm, the liberal anti-gunners must back down and let the truth emerge before they attempt to tighten gun regulations.
Accuracy is everything, and the truth is key.
