Tweet
Originally posted by svauto-erotic855
View Post
-
Timothy McVeigh was arrested after being pulled over for driving without a license plate. He's famous for the OKC bombing obviously but he had a few other irons in the fire at the time. Some of the people that testified against him are in witness protection now and he had ties to organized crime. -
Originally posted by BP View Post
Clearly McVay being arrested after he blew up a bomb that killed 169 people stopped 169 people from dying so I can't argue with your piercingly accurate point there. The only connection McVeigh had to organized crime is that one of his homeboys bought some meth and I'm pretty sure the organization that supplied that meth at a wholesale level was organized crime.
No one who testified against McVeigh is in the witness protection program but one of them is in federal prison and Oklahoma dearly wants to extradite the man so they can execute him.Magnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.Comment
-
I can understand the thoughts that SVO has in terms of the police pulling him over possibly triggering the start of the guys shooting. As in the straw that broke the camels back. I can also believe that the gentleman had ill intent and intention already and the traffic stop only slowed him down and gave him a reason to begin what he was already on route to do. To try and speculate the man's full intentions or sanity based solely on the reports and information would be shady at best. He could have been headed to a place to shoot and blow off some steam or headed to a public area prepared to mow down all he could. I'd speculate from the info I've seen that he was likely planning the latter. However, as SVO stated about the personal items he carries, had I been pulled over on various occasions, it would have appeared I was headed to start some kind of altercation when I was really going to a personal property for an afternoon of shooting. I just so happens it might involve 5 or 6 pistols of various calibers, 5 or 6 rifles of various calibers, and enough ammo to put a Democrat into a panic.
I feel for the loss of the families and the injured victims. No matter what caused the man to start shooting, it's clear he wasn't in his right mind. I don't understand why all these fucktards that have chip on their shoulder or some hatred built up feel they need to injure and kill innocent bystanders. Part of me wants to think there's some gov conspiracy at work and they're being brainwashed and used in an attempt to further gun control and eventually gun confiscation. I feel crazy for even typing that, but the fact is, we are seeing more gun related violence in the last 10 years or so than I can remember in the years prior that I've been alive.
I honestly believe the problem is in the people themselves. I love firearms, was raised around them from the day I was born. We had loaded guns around the house and easily within reach. My sisters and I all knew they were there, we respected them and the rules that were given to us about them. We were taught and shown safety. We didn't take them to school, treat them as toys, or consider using them against anyone. It's a problem with society, not gun control laws. I can't deny that tighter policy for background checks may keep weapons out of the hands of people with mental issues or prior convictions, etc, but it won't fix the problem. No different than tighter gun control laws won't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. Prohibition didn't stop the manufacturing, sales, and consumption of alcohol. It slowed it down, more honest people may not have bought or drank any, but it didn't stop or "fix" the problem as the government saw it.
As for SVO's take on the cop's should have left him alone for a trivial infraction, I see both sides. It's a BS reason for a stop, but in having friends in law enforcement, I see the officers side as well. The small town areas I come from are filled with meth heads, idiots with no licenses, insurance, etc. If they can make some trivial stops and potentially catch someone then I say go for it. I've been pulled over for bullshit, it was a hassle but in the end I got a warning and went on my way. If they were looking for the guy for other reasons or because they were warned about him, I assume they could have just pulled him over for a safety check without the need of a traffic violation.
I know my one friend has had countless DWI, no license or insurance, and drug based arrests based on trivial stops. I can't account for big city needs for that, but for the smaller towns I'm around, I'm glad to hear about it. I have a good friend who was shafted when his car was totaled by a driver that had no insurance or license. The car he was hit by was insured and belonged to the drivers parents and the insurance company was able to deny the claim because kid driving "shouldn't" have been driving it. Had he been stopped for a tail light out or not using a turn signal, rolling a stop sign, etc, then my buddy would still have had a car to drive. I can see both sides from an officers view and the view of the public not wanting to be messed with. In the end, the law is the law and we are supposed to follow the rules. I speed and forget to signal, have ran stop signs and blown through red lights, etc. If I get stopped, it's just the consequence of my actions, I know the risks.
There have been drug busts, felons caught, etc all because of a minor infraction. There have also been people pulled over and harassed and wrongly arrested for stupid shit. There's good and bad in all of it unfortunately.Comment
-
What new law being proposed would have stopped him from obtaining a weapon?Originally posted by Ruffdaddy View PostComment
-
We dont have enough info yet to really know, but the gun was purchased through a private sale which doesnt require a background check. The narrative will certainly be that universal background checks close the "gun show loophole". Of course the black market will always be a thing...but it's not nearly as accessible as a legal private transaction.Originally posted by SS Junk View Post
I'm sure time will tell...but I'd hate to be the guy that sold it to him.Comment
-
Michael Fortier is in witness protection. They served together at Fort Riley, lived together in Arizona and McVeigh was the best man at his wedding.Originally posted by svauto-erotic855 View Post
Comment
-
For a guy that's hiding out in the witness protection program he sure has made a public spectacle of himself, he gave an interview for the Oklahoma City bombing Museum recently.Originally posted by BP View Post
I got news for you man, the US Marshal Service doesn't let you know if somebody's in the Witness protection Program. The Press just speculated that he was because he's made himself scarce.Magnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.Comment
-
What the fuck are you talking about? I was answering your question. He failed the background check due to "mental health issues" before the shootingOriginally posted by svauto-erotic855 View PostOriginally posted by BroncojohnnyComment
-
Unfortunately this guy in Odessa won’t be the only one to lose his mind in the future. It’s not the gun it’s the person. It’s different for them when bullets are coming back. Never a bad idea to get a CHLComment
-
Magnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.Comment
-
Executed a search warrant on the sellers houseOriginally posted by Ruffdaddy View Post
My thinking is why? The seller did nothing wrong, legally. It even states it in the article. We are not required to inquire about their ability to purchase or run a background check.
Comment
-
If it was a private sell how did they track it back to the seller so fast?Comment
-
Maybe a bill of sale or messages found after searching the suspects house.Comment
-
The seller may have recognized the man and called the police on his own accord.Originally posted by Craizie View PostMagnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.Comment
-
My first thought is maybe they want to verify the seller isnt doing this to intentionally skirt laws and sell to people who were rejected.Originally posted by IHaveAMustang View PostExecuted a search warrant on the sellers house
My thinking is why? The seller did nothing wrong, legally. It even states it in the article. We are not required to inquire about their ability to purchase or run a background check.
You can see the narrative in support of universal background checks in the article you posted.Comment
Comment