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

what % of gun owners do you believe follow 100% of the laws? especially in rural areas

 

Most rural areas have very few gun laws.

Gun laws, by nature, occur where there are concentrations of people.

 

well regulated militia = national registry. courts got it wrong when they totally dismissed the very words written into the constitution.

what does part of a well regulated militia mean to you? should it be totally disregarded from the constitution, maybe stricken through and a new document issued?

 

deleted

I have a wall I need to go bang my head against.

 

Modify that to Being Baker acted and actually found mentally ill and in need of commitment, and I'll agree. Being Baker Acted in and of itself is a 72 hour hold for evaluation that is done ex parte.

 

I don't know about the federal government and although not applicable to the mass shooting in Maine, lack of a federal database of gun purchases certainly facilitates illegal gun running. Said it before unless one has the "misfortune" of selling to an undercover law enforcement officer purchasing firearms legally and reselling them on the illegal market is a near perfect crime in terms of the probability of being caught.

 

Well regulated =/= controlled by legislation. It objectively meant "regular" or well functioning at the time it was written. It provides the context for the right to keep and bear arms, not the condition by which it exists, as the right belongs explicitly to the people, not the militia.

 

Then your argument that law enforcement could utilize those forms to stop a prohibited person from having a gun seems to be not an effective enforcement mechanism then, right? So I return to my initial question: how would we prevent a prohibited person from keeping their guns?

 

This is all just made-up nonsense devised by people in the last half-century or so of course

 

Ultimately, this comes down to one thing: convenience. Many gun owners don't want to be inconvenienced by having to demonstrate that they didn't transfer their guns to somebody who shouldn't have guns. They wouldn't like this framing, but they view it as worse than a bunch of people they don't know being killed. So...here we are. No willingness to discuss anything that remotely inconveniences them, countered with a bunch of spurious arguments, eventually relying on raw power rather than logical arguments.

 

Foreign people get gunned down by terrorists -> let’s stop at nothing to eradicate this threat, no matter the cost or innocent lives lost

Americans get gunned down by local terrorists -> thoughts and prayers, don’t infringe on my rights

 

Meanwhile - as you all have your circular arguments that will inevitably lead nowhere - the state of Maine is locked down as this guy is still on the loose.

Maine is the most wooded state in the union. If an outdoorsman, or a military person - our an outdoorsy military person - doesn't want to be found, it's gonna be pretty damn hard to find them. Just look up Christopher Knight and how he was a hermit for 27 years - hiding and stealing from locals for decades - living in the woods nearby. And that wasn't even in the true Maine wilderness. The state is vast, thickly forested, with enourmous uninhabited spaces.

 

That's such nonsense. You're basically arguing that the Framers wrote half of the Second Amendment merely to explain why they thought it was important. Why didn't they feel the need to do that with the First Amendment? Why would they need to explain why something is important when they're putting it in the Constitution?

At bare minimum, they included the clause to make clear that the point of the Second Amendment was to protect states' abilities to control their own militias (from the federal government). That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't an individual right, but it does mean at minimum that using the Second Amendment to attack state laws is at odds with the original meaning of the amendment.

 

At the risk of

Yep, my brother has a place up near Calais. Lots of woods to disappear in all over the state.

 

Hardening soft targets is not a solution to gun violence. It doesn’t address the underlying issue in the slightest.

 

Yeah poorly articulated what I was trying to say is everything’s a soft place for the most part. Impossible to have trained police with long guns everywhere and I saw an establishment with one I would not be inclined to go there.

can’t confiscate all the AR 15 yypes out there but we can ban the ammo. Let’s get it done.

 

I think you make some good points as usual. As far as your saying your suggested process would have prevented this particular mass shooting, I've read that Card spent a couple weeks in a mental health facility. Not clear to me whether he had self-reported his mental health problems and checked in voluntarily or whether there was a court order committing him. Curious if you or others have seen that distinction addressed in the reporting?

 

The scary thing is I know some people who are otherwise functioning members of society that would throw it all away for the 2A. Like as in if legislation was passed and law enforcement came to their house to collect their guns, they would rather get in a shootout and die over it instead of turning in the guns. That's how strongly they feel about it.

 

Agree. Eric Rudolph the Atlanta Olympic bomber also comes to mind. He managed to hide for over five years in the woods of Western North Carolina despite being on the FBI's ten most wanted list and rural Maine is at least as isolated in the area in which Rudolph was hiding.

 

Before last night, Lewiston's world wide claim to fame was being the location of this, perhaps the best known sport photo of all time:



How we yearn for yesterday.