At least 16 people dead and suspect at large after multiple incidents in area of Lewiston, Maine

Let's be real. You're probably in the top 10% or top 5% of gun owners, in terms of skill.

 

Or the FBI.

I would love to see how he was allowed to keep his gun after threatening to shoot up a military base.

I won't hold my breath that we get this type of reporting.

But I think it deserves something very extensive...same as we see in 60 Minutes segments.

Names....dates....agencies...who dropped the ball and what accountability do we now have for it?

The whole enchilada.

We have SYSTEMS in place RIGHT NOW that "appear" to be broken.

Perhaps we can focus on this first......

 

The systems are actually working as the Constitution allows unfortunately. Scapegoating is the best we got though I guess, like that Parkland cop.

 

The entire country was a civilian area and they were, in fact, civilians. They hid in the woods and in barns with their guns.

 

Yes, bad phrasing on my part. They moved the arms from places designated for arms storage to places like homes and other non-militia use buildings to avoid them being confiscated. Which all begs the question of why they had to do that in the first place if arms stored at home was so common and fundamental to our history, and there werent distinctions between militia and "everyone else."

 

No, they do not have a right to own guns once they have been committed (as this guy had been).

As has previously been said by @GatorBen, the Vegas shooter was the only one that truly came out of left field. All of the rest had displayed numerous signs of instability and were in many cases known to law enforcement. Credible threats should get removed from society until such time as they present no threat.

 

Ok, but anyone who owns or has easy access to a gun is a credible threat to kill someone or themselves in a variety of situations, that's what guns are for.

 

To be more accurate, the majority of mass shooters in this country come out of right field

 

that POS killed a baby apparently.



And more confirmation he and his family are right wing gun nutters.

 

Perhaps I should have stated a credible, specific threat. Merely having a gun doesn't carry the implication that someone intends to use it unlawfully. Expressing a desire to do so against other people does imply intent.

 

STATES WITH THE HIGHEST GUN DEATH RATES

1. Mississippi had a firearm mortality rate of 33.9, making it the state with the highest rate in 2021. The state also used its electoral votes to vote for then President Trump in the 2020 election.
2. Louisiana had a firearm mortality rate of 29.1 and voted for Trump.
3. New Mexico had a firearm mortality rate of 27.8 and voted for President Biden.
4. Alabama had a firearm mortality rate of 26.4 and voted for Trump.
5. Wyoming had a firearm mortality rate of 26.1 and voted for Trump.
6. Alaska had a firearm mortality rate of 25.2 and voted for Trump.
7. Montana had a firearm mortality rate of 25.1 and voted for Trump.
8. Arkansas had a firearm mortality rate of 23.3 and voted for Trump.
9. Missouri had a firearm mortality rate of 23.2 and voted for Trump.
10. Tennessee had a firearm mortality rate of 22.8 and voted for Trump.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariann...n-death-rates-than-blue-states-heres-why/amp/

 

So much bumper sticker philosophy here. Try this for a bumper sticker version of my argument: tyrants don't fear people willing to kill, they fear people willing to die. History has shown us that it isn't a matter of unloading enough bullets that scares a government (they will just label you a terrorist and crush you), it is the power to tell the government that they will need to unload one in you. That doesn't require a gun. The reality is that half the gun owners will just line up to fight for the tyrant. And almost every example of overthrowing tyrants with guns have led to a backslide where the guys with the guns became the tyrants.

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/twitte...claiming-maine-mass-shootings-were-false-flag

 

This makes me think of whatever that country was that put the AK-47 on their flag, which was pretty cool, but ultimately probably the fate of most armed rebellions, you just become the people with the guns trying to prevent another armed rebellion or holding off some other country trying to regime change you. The guns tend to dictate who wins out in the battle of factions after you remove the tyrant, tends to favor the most ruthless and willing to use them. The idea that guns secure any sort of real peace is certainly not something supported by history, just the imagination. Another one of those myths that sustain us. Perhaps having a nation with the myth of revolutionary blood letting being necessary to human progress and liberty isnt the best idea.

 

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw Lewiston.

 

The founders won freedom by a colonial govt representing each of the colonies voting on declaring their freedom and going to war. And then when they formed a new govt and passed a constitution, that freedom was organized via a constitution in which that right to guns was through and service in an organized militia to protect against foreign invasions and domestic insurrections. In fact, no individual state or citizens in any state has a right to attack other states or the federal govt because they perceive these entities as being tyrannical. If every state banded together, it would be different--and it could dissolve govt. But 2a being about a weaponized threat to keep govt in place is absolute nonsense and not at all what it was about.

 

If you asked the King, none of the colonies had a right to attack the British either. Yet here we are.

 

Maybe he could enlighten us as to how some guys armed with ARs would fare against this (latest version of Apache attack helicopter)?

 

"Not having a right" is exactly the point.

The second doesn't give any implied right to attack govt. Any such attack would be by definition an insurrection.

 

The Constitution refers to the militia three separate times. In the Second Amendment, in Article I, Section 8, clause 15 which gives Congress the power to call up the militia and in Article II, Section 2 which designates the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Militia of the States when federalized. Seems that Founders implicitly defined the militia as a state military organization under the command of the state governor and explicitly a supplement to the standing military when federalized by Congress and commanded by the president. Maybe the 2A read in a vacuum could be construed to authorize ad hoc militias. When read with the other provisions of the Constitutional references to the militia that's clearly not the case.
FYI:
Section 2 Powers

• Clause 1 Military, Administrative, and Clemency
• The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2/