Dayton Shooter

delaware_export · Aug 13, 2019

one other telling sign to hide the facts about UBGC'S.they clearly mention an internet purchase, and delivery to ohio, but neglect to clearly say the the ohio dealer would have performed a BGC prior to delivery.

much like the nevada gunshop that sold the gilroy gun, a bgc was done. also regarding gilroy, the dealers in nv are POC to the state vs direct to NICS. not that it makes a difference, much, but the state claims it makes the BGC's more effective... among other things.

Police have said there was nothing in Betts' background that would have prevented him from buying the AR-15-style gun used in the shooting. The weapon was bought online from a dealer in Texas and shipped to another firearms dealer in the Dayton area, police said on the day of the shooting.

catch · Aug 14, 2019

Silverlode said:
I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. Shall not be infringed. Straw purchase laws are as illegitimate as every other gun law. Unless he knew that the intended use was criminal, in which case he is an accomplice. I admittedly did not yet read the article, so if it states something of that nature I retract my disagreement.

I agree "Shall not be infringed", But it is and bad laws are still laws. Even tho this case was not a straw purchase. I believe if you buy a gun for a prohibit person you should be charged with the crime they committed with that firearm.

smokey · Aug 14, 2019

delaware_export said:
it seems that prior to the arrest ?yesterday? he was not found guilty of anything. if this were the case, i am sure the MSM would have hit it heavily if he were.

it APPEARS they are charging him with the 4473 question about drugs, and no mention of prior DQing convictions. and maybe the pot/mushroom stuff he told the fbi about.

is a person retroactively prohibited without or prior to a conviction?

i am sure he'll be prosecuted now, and given the circumstances, they'll stop at nothing short of a felony conviction, even if not specifically for being involved in the shooting.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dayton...dy-armor-100-round-magazine-today-2019-08-12/

Eight of the victims who died were shot multiple times, according to the Montgomery County coroner's office. More than 30 others were left injured, including at least 14 with gunshot wounds, hospital officials and investigators said.

This is interesting. So the number of injured people that the press has given includes a lot of people that were NOT shot. So if you scraped your knee running away, you were "injured by the gunman".

Occam · Aug 14, 2019

smokey0118 said:
This is interesting. So the number of injured people that the press has given includes a lot of people that were NOT shot. So if you scraped your knee running away, you were "injured by the gunman".

I'm guessing that a bunch of them slipped and fell because someone was careless with their collection of drum magazines. Those things are dangerous on a wet floor.

Mr H · Aug 14, 2019

smokey0118 said:
This is interesting. So the number of injured people that the press has given includes a lot of people that were NOT shot. So if you scraped your knee running away, you were "injured by the gunman".

That's not uncommon.

Broken bones, bumped beezers, tramples, heart issues and skinned knees have all been counted in other incidents.

rbird7282 · Aug 14, 2019

smokey0118 said:
This is interesting. So the number of injured people that the press has given includes a lot of people that were NOT shot. So if you scraped your knee running away, you were "injured by the gunman".

Much like the press describing the Las Vegas shooting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CrazySanMan · Aug 15, 2019

Dayton Shooter Had Cocaine, Alcohol & Antidepressents In His System During Attack
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-15/dayton-shooter-had-cocaine-alcohol-antidepressents-his-system-during-attack

The Coroner who examined the body of Connor Betts, the 24-year-old man who shot and killed his sister, her boyfriend and seven others, before he himself was shot and killed by police in downtown Dayton earlier this month, was found to have cocaine, Xanax, alcohol and anti-depressants in his system, raising more questions about the role that mental health - and specifically, substance abuse - played in one of the latest high-profile mass shootings, according to the Washington Post.

He was also in possession of a bag of cocaine at the time of his death, per NBC News.

Mixing Xanax, a popular prescription benzodiazepine, with alcohol is known to cause blackouts in recreational drug users, which can sometimes lead to seriously negative consequences.

Occam · Aug 15, 2019

Well obviously if everything was legalized and more easily available, he'd never have combined those things and everything would have been fine. Or something. Also, corporate drug companies are bad, so things that alter your brain chemistry should only be made and sold by the 100% organic, local witch doctor and artisanal gluten-free pizza baker who is really just doing that until his screen play is finished.

rascal · Aug 15, 2019

Silverlode said:
Brother, it sounds like they have your head spinning trying to follow their shell game. I don't care what their rules are or how often they change them in the middle of the game. I'm not playing the game. You shouldn't either. It's how we ended up where we are. Shall not be infringed means I don't give a tin sh!t about any of the above. Especially what the opinion of the majority is where my God given rights are concerned. If you think it matters, you missed the whole point of this exercise.

Friend, the opinion of the majority, and especially super majorities, do matter.
There is what you and I may think should matter and what does matter.

I haven't "missed" any "point." I made a point about reality -- not what you or I want.

Here is the thing, because I have a professional background in issues advocacy in DC (nothing to do with gun control) I am concerned for all of us when we simply say "shall not be infringed."

I am not saying it is wrong to state that. It is right to state it and emphatically so. But if one's statement opts one out of the other aspects of advocacy on this issue we are simply put, screwed.

The ACLU states "Congress shall make no law" but it also fights on the nuances since Congress has made laws affecting the rights in the First. ACLU does the same with what is supposed to be absolute prohibition on double jeopardy etc.

My concern with "shall not be infringed" is that this is with too many gun owners the end and be all, and an excuse not to fight in other ways, while there is no evidence a single supreme court judge agrees with that or that any legislators do.

tidalwave · Aug 19, 2019

smokey0118 said:
This is interesting. So the number of injured people that the press has given includes a lot of people that were NOT shot. So if you scraped your knee running away, you were "injured by the gunman".

We blame the arsonist if people die fleeing a fire. This isn't any different.

Silverlode · Aug 19, 2019

rascal said:
Friend, the opinion of the majority, and especially super majorities, do matter.
There is what you and I may think should matter and what does matter.

I haven't "missed" any "point." I made a point about reality -- not what you or I want.

Here is the thing, because I have a professional background in issues advocacy in DC (nothing to do with gun control) I am concerned for all of us when we simply say "shall not be infringed."

I am not saying it is wrong to state that. It is right to state it and emphatically so. But if one's statement opts one out of the other aspects of advocacy on this issue we are simply put, screwed.

The ACLU states "Congress shall make no law" but it also fights on the nuances since Congress has made laws affecting the rights in the First. ACLU does the same with what is supposed to be absolute prohibition on double jeopardy etc.

My concern with "shall not be infringed" is that this is with too many gun owners the end and be all, and an excuse not to fight in other ways, while there is no evidence a single supreme court judge agrees with that or that any legislators do.

One thing about missing the point is, when you do, you can’t recognize it. I don’t need the nuances of any of this explained to me, I have been in this fight for decades. You let them make the rules you already lost the game.

danb · Aug 19, 2019

Silverlode said:
One thing about missing the point is, when you do, you can’t recognize it. I don’t need the nuances of any of this explained to me, I have been in this fight for decades. You let them make the rules you already lost the game.

What does that even mean?

I interpret rascals post as essentially: You are either at the table or on the menu. Folding your arms like a 5 year old and refusing because "shall not be infringed," or being Veruca Salt (I want it all I want it now) will only get you eaten. To win, you have to play the game, whether you like the "rules" or not. The "other side" does not "make" the rules. These are the rules of survival and negotiation since recorded history.

randomuser · Aug 19, 2019

danb said:
What does that even mean?

I interpret rascals post as essentially: You are either at the table or on the menu. Folding your arms like a 5 year old and refusing because "shall not be infringed," or being Veruca Salt (I want it all I want it now) will only get you eaten. To win, you have to play the game, whether you like the "rules" or not. The "other side" does not "make" the rules. These are the rules of survival and negotiation since recorded history.

The rules entail compromise.
How many gun rights have you gotten back at the end of any compromise?
I get the shall no be infringed movement.
Others will too when all you can legally have is your revolver.

I have said over and over.
Let's say there are 100 gun rights.
We have to win every fight in court to keep our rights
They can loose 99 out of 100 fights in court but if they want to take all hypothetical rights they just have to show up to court 1,000 times.

As long as lawmakers are making gun laws they will continue to limit your freedoms. Its how it works.

danb · Aug 19, 2019

randomuser said:
The rules entail compromise.
How many gun rights have you gotten back at the end of any compromise?
I get the shall no be infringed movement.
Others will too when all you can legally have is your revolver.

I have said over and over.
Let's say there are 100 gun rights.
We have to win every fight in court to keep our rights
They can loose 99 out of 100 fights in court but if they want to take all hypothetical rights they just have to show up to court 1,000 times.

As long as lawmakers are making gun laws they will continue to limit your freedoms. Its how it works.

Lawmakers are always making laws, thats what they do. Negotiations are about leverage. You can only stop something of you have enough leverage. If you try to stop a train without sufficient leverage you simply get run over.

To gain leverage in the political process you need to persuade other people, then get them sufficiently motivated to go to the polls as near single issue voters. I have yet to see any effective outreach by the "no compromise" crowd. Probably because "no compromise" really means "**** you," which does not really persuade people.

randomuser · Aug 19, 2019

danb said:
Lawmakers are always making laws, thats what they do. Negotiations are about leverage. You can only stop something of you have enough leverage. If you try to stop a train without sufficient leverage you simply get run over.

To gain leverage in the political process you need to persuade other people, then get them sufficiently motivated to go to the polls as near single issue voters. I have yet to see any effective outreach by the "no compromise" crowd. Probably because "no compromise" really means "**** you," which does not really persuade people.

Can you name a compromise where gun owners got rights back? I'm at a loss. (not joking either, I'm being totally serious). I'm willing to hear someone else out. I base my thoughts and statements on the idea that laws and compromises only take our gun rights. Let me know where I'm seeing it wrong.

danb · Aug 19, 2019

randomuser said:
Can you name a compromise where gun owners got rights back? I'm at a loss. (not joking either, I'm being totally serious). I'm willing to hear someone else out. I base my thoughts and statements on the idea that laws and compromises only take our gun rights. Let me know where I'm seeing it wrong.

Can you name a time when folding your arms like a 5 year old and refusing because "shall not be infringed," or being Veruca Salt (I want it all I want it now) has gotten rights back either?

randomuser · Aug 19, 2019

danb said:
Can you name a time when folding your arms like a 5 year old and refusing because "shall not be infringed," or being Veruca Salt (I want it all I want it now) has gotten rights back either?

So are we in agreement that compromise will only allow the "boiling of the frog" in regards to losing rights little by little?

I'm asking how we can change that.

So far we have 2 options outlined by you and I.

1. Shall not be infringed

2. compromise

Are there any other options you have to lay out?

Moon · Aug 19, 2019

Can you name a time when folding your arms like a 5 year old and refusing because "shall not be infringed," or being Veruca Salt (I want it all I want it now) has gotten rights back either?

It worked to end Alcohol prohibition.

danb · Aug 19, 2019

randomuser said:
So are we in agreement that compromise will only allow the "boiling of the frog" in regards to losing rights little by little?

I'm asking how we can change that.

So far we have 2 options outlined by you and I.

1. Shall not be infringed

2. compromise

Are there any other options you have to lay out?

I told you what the option is: To gain leverage in the political process you need to persuade other people, then get them sufficiently motivated to go to the polls as near single issue voters. If enough voters are convinced to repeal laws, they get repealed.

randomuser · Aug 19, 2019

danb said:
I told you what the option is: To gain leverage in the political process you need to persuade other people, then get them sufficiently motivated to go to the polls as near single issue voters. If enough voters are convinced to repeal laws, they get repealed.

You are still talking about the compromise part.
Even Dan Crenshaw is talking about having conversations about red flag.
Video in link
https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/08/12/rep-dan-crenshaw-has-more-thoughts-about-red-flag-laws/

I like the guy, but he sounds like a politician using double speak.

We can't even get a pencil barrel to be legal when it functions no differently than a heavy barrel. When is that going to go to vote by the people so we have a chance for it to be repealed? We are talking about the weight of the barrel.

^^^ that was my statement.

My question is this:
What are 3 bad gun laws that were voted on and repealed?

Dayton Shooter

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Member

2A TEACHER

Not Even ONE Indictment

Attachments

Banana'd

Ultimate Member

2013'er

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

M-O-O-N, that spells...

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics