« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Three things to take away from this Amy Bishop article.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  March 24th, 2010 at 09:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Via POWIP:

Gun in Ala. campus shooting bought 2 decades ago
By DESIREE HUNTER (AP) – 15 hours ago

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The gun used to kill three people during a faculty meeting at an Alabama school was bought for the suspect’s husband two decades ago when he said he was having problems with a neighbor, an investigator testified Thursday.

The investigator told a judge that an acquaintance bought the gun in New Hampshire for Amy Bishop’s husband to skirt a waiting period where the couple lived in Massachussetts.

In no particular order:

  1. There’s something going on with the husband.
  2. Bill Delahunt should not get off the hook for letting this one back out onto the streets, just because he’s cutting and running from Congress.
  3. If Amy Bishop had decided to cook off in MA instead of AL, the restrictive gun laws of the former wouldn’t have done a d*mned thing to make it harder for her to kill three people.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.dcworksforus.com Kenny Solomon

    I posted a diary on this yesterday. Here’s part of my commentary:

    A real straw purchase of a firearm – to commit evil against another human – by a leftist – who was previously involved in the shooting death of her own brother and quite possibly an act of terrorism.

    I’m convinced it’s about getting The Brady Bunch and the rest of the ‘anti’ crowd back in the game and eliminating the competition.

    http://www.redstate.com/etcartman/2010/03/23/university-of-alabama-shooterprofessor-obtained-gun-illegally-twenty-years-ago

    Cheers !

  • Next93

    Regarding your third item (the ease of skirting state-level gun laws) is exactly why the pro-gun-control people say that we need federal gun control laws.

    Of course, none of them ever explain how the feds would be any more effective at halting the importation, distribution, and sale of illegal guns than they’ve been at halting the trade in marijuana, heroin, and cocaine.

  • acat

    Definitely applies in this case.

    Definitely shows that making guns illegal doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. Much better to make guns legal, and teach that people have to accept the consequences of their actions. Or, to quote another oldie but goodie.. “A well-armed society is a polite society”.

    Mew

  • Next93

    (sorry – for some reason, “reply” doesn’t work on my mobile browser).

    Maybe we need to replace “Guns don’t kill people…” with “Gun laws only disarm people who obey the law”.

    I don’t understand why it’s so hard to get across the message that criminals (pretty much by definition) aren’t deterred by gun laws, and we don’t need to be protected from law abiding citizens (again, pretty much by definition).

    I like to compare it to the locks on my car. I don’t need them to keep law-abiding citizens out of my car, and they’re not going to prevent a determined thief. In the final analysis, the ony person they keep out of the car is me.

  • The_Gadfly

    The prosecutors advocating for gun control laws aren’t interested in prosecuting criminals, only in making guns illegal. They have an open admission of a straw purchase, but have made no effort to lock up the guilty party, who is arguably an accessory to murder.