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

1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act is the one that prevents federal registries.

 

Yes, that issue is the right to gun ownership, a right people think shouldn't be easily deprived, whether you make threats to others or beat your wife. What's the point of owning guns if you cant use them to get your way?

 

Lost count of the number of times The Onion has posted that.

 

When the ballot box fails, the cartridge box is next in line, or so the saying goes.

Those seeking to rule must have people left to rule, so they aren't just going to go scorched earth. The threat of an armed populace is a deterrent from tyrannical behavior because to enforce it, the government would actually have to specifically remove the resistance and enter a conflict that wouldn't achieve swift results. We weren't terribly successful in Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Our own population is much better armed, and a significant portion of the military would end up defecting.

 

Yep. Sadly, always timely

 

2a doesn't exist to be a threat to govt (and thus society) in the name of some potential tyranny. That is a nonsense argument that right wingers have convinced themselves of being legit. It's not.

As soon as there would be an armed uprising is as soon as govt could very well put down that armed uprising if they had to, constitutionally, because 2a exists to protect against domestic insurrection as well as foreign invasion.

 

Ya think law abiding good guys w guns are gonna win gun battles w police?

 

I've got ARs and I've got handguns, and I've got duty grade optics on both. Would I choose to engage a guy with an AR with a handgun in a vacuum? Nope. I'd avoid it if I could, and get myself and my loved ones out as priority #'s 1, 2, and 3. Would I do it if I needed to in order to ensure my family got out or if I had a clear shot from cover and he wasn't looking my way and I could move immediately after? Heck yes I would, and I could make hits at distance, too. Would I shoot back if he's shooting my direction? Heck yes to that, too. It would be better than having no option except to hope and pray that he didn't look my way or he missed before I could get out.

The point isn't to create a fair fight. The point is to provide options that are better than nothing that may give a fighting chance of stopping or slowing a threat from someone intending to kill others.

 

You're right. Every one of these threads devolves into a gun rights argument and I'm as guilty as anyone of that. It seems we always forget about the victims, their families, and in this case, the perp who is still on the loose.

 

You might want to look back at how the country was founded before you make that statement. The founders had literally just won freedom from a tyrannical government that started a war by trying to take their guns at Concord. Numerous founding fathers echoed the sentiment that the government exists by and for the people, and when it ceases to do so, it is the right of the people to replace it, and to do so by force if necessary. The second amendment absolutely exists to deter tyranny or remove it if necessary, the question of tyranny or domestic insurrection is answered by the victor, ultimately.

 

Depends how many there are. Police weren't terribly present during the riots during the summer of 2020, nor effective at ending them, were they?

Now imagine if a bunch of those rioters who were angry at the police were armed.

 

You mean the guns & powder stored at an armory for the militia and not peoples homes for self-defense?

 

I'm sure you're right, but would bet this guy has some kind of pointer (green dot) scope on his AR. How many concealed carry handguns have such a devise?

 

Identify dangerous nut jobs (which it seems we can actually do fairly effectively), and remove them from society or remove their weapons as appropriate (we tend to fail at this)

 

It's funny, when the government came to the armory to destroy the guns, they weren't there. They were with their owners, who were mostly hiding in advantageous positions.

 

Because the hid them in civilian areas to prevent their discovery, kinda like Hamas did (which people tell me on that thread is a sign of evil and terrorism)

 

Thanks

 

Wow . . . you actually believe this.

 

All of mine do. They are quite popular these days because they have become durable and reliable enough and with good enough battery life that they can be relied upon in a life or death scenario, even in subcompact form factors for guns such as the hellcat, shield, or p365.

This guy actually appeared to be using some kind of larger scope. Possibly a low power variable optic, which often has an illuminated dot, or possibly something with night vision or thermal capabilities. The latter wouldn't really have helped him as it was illuminated well when he was shooting, looking at surveillance photos. That said, even with iron sights, he would have had no trouble achieving the same or similar results shooting at fish in a barrel.

 

Yes, the reason we fail at that is that they have a right to own guns according to you and the courts, a right the 2a crowd dont think should be deprived easily. You cant really deprive people of rights who havent done anything yet. Always people think we are failing. We are actually succeeding at protecting their rights, as you think the Constitution intends.