Lewiston police tell NBC more than 20 believed dead in mass shooting

Why play word games? When people use the term while discussing these incidents, everyone knows what they mean be it technically correct or not.

This gunman should have been disarmed when he was diagonalized with paranoid schizophrenia, just like the guy who shot up Ft Lauderdale airport should have been disarmed, but he was given is guns back, which he used to kill people.

 

Unfortunately, the availability of firearms is part of the problem. I know places in Texas, and with the right connections, a person can purchase a firearm, even those who have felony rap sheets. Furthermore, given the current gun politics and legal restraint, local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies are hamstrung in being proactive and much more reactive when it comes to prohibiting gun violence generally.

 

Here it is in black and white but facts don't mean much to those who don't want to read.

https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/8/1...ost-guns-background-checks-vanderstok-garland

 

why do gun banners like to apply the term "assault" to firearms not useful for the legitimate military tactic of assault?

 

which violates 18 USC 922 and is a major league federal felony that can lead to ten years in prison.

what PROACTIVE things do you want-ignoring say the fourth and fifth amendments along with the second,

 

How many WW-1 assaults were done with full-auto weapons? None. Of course you can assault without one. Its technically incorrect to use the term for AR15s, but the term is commonly used, and not just for "gun banners". Everyone knows what they are referring to, even you.

And yes, shooting 50 people in a bowling alley is an assault. What else would you call it?

 

A simple diagnosis does not make someone a prohibited person; as such, he could not be legally disarmed for it.

 

that article was more about ranting about Trump and his judges than actually making valid arguments. Nothing that judge could do will overturn the GCA of 68 that bans felons from possessing firearms-whether they have serial numbers or not.

 

Willing to trade licensing for repealing the NFA and universal CCW. That would keep guns out of the hands of crazy people while expanding rights for sane, lawful gun owners.

Government has to cover licensing costs though and can't set the bar out of reach.

 

so you are using the term CRIMINAL assault rather than military assault. We know that the anti gun left likes to demonize firearms so stupid and ignorant people are more easily swayed into supporting bans

 

Oh…. So the founders were just kidding when they wrote “shall not be infringed” or “congress shall make no law”…


The idea it’s not absolute has come from politicians that sold that to you. The constitution was absolutely designed to be absolute. And the founders were not kidding or joking when they wrote it. It also says it’s the supreme law of the land. If you think the constitution wasn’t designed to be absolute you are sorely mistaken.

 

how is licensing going to keep guns out of the hands of someone willing to commit murder. Reference the war on drugs and get back to me

 

The perp had a long history of being "mentally-disturbed" and had been in an institution of some kind for awhile. All I can say is that I've been preaching that we should permanently disarm "criminals and crazies" for a long time. And when either bunch of them is proven to have committed crimes with firearms, they should be locked up and KEPT locked-up... period! But, nobody wants to do that, so, here we go again.

Suggestion: people who are incarcerated only very, very rarely ever kill anyone else with a firearm. My 2-cents.

 

The anti-gun left has no interest in compromise.

 

The only policy choice off the table is banning firearms, however red flag laws, if due process is incorporated, are totally on the table. Additionally, make it easier for law enforcement to go after those "firearm dealers" who skirt the laws when they sell firearms to people they knowingly cannot possess one or ship those firearms south of the border illegally.

 

Most of those penalties are after the fact such as a person arrested for drug distribution while possessing a firearm.

 

Oh, no no no.
"Infringement" comes into play -long- before you get to banning guns.

I am confident to say it is impossible to soundly argue red flag laws pass he Bruen test.

 

I don't use the term "assault rifle" but I understand what people mean when they use it, even though it's technically incorrect. It is derived from German military term "sturm", - storming the enemy position aka assault, which is why the original assault rifle was called Sturmgewehr (sturm=assault, gewehr=rifle)

As for this incident, its obviously an assault, there is no ifs or buts about it.

Its word games no matter how you spin it. Its a pointless argument.

 

so tell us how you arrest someone before the fact and do it constitutionally.

 

so if the guy used a 12 Gauge 870 pump shotgun, which probably would have lead to as many or more fatalities, that would make it "an assault shotgun"

BBL

 

Fact remains:
His statement, knowingly using the correct terminology, is correct.

 

Based on my observations, they use the term to describe a military style / look-alike rifles like AR15 which have 30 round magazines, but feel free to use any word you like. Clearly you are not getting the point.

Lot of mass shooters like him are mentally ill, and yes, no one wants to touch the problem, so it will keep happening, and when it does, people bicker over definitions of words rather than the issue.

 

when do you compromise on a protected right?

Do we next compromise on speech? How about we outlaw any speech which disagrees with the Democrat party?

 

And of course the definition is the strict definition, used to make the claim that no “assualt weapon” has ever been used in a mass shooting.

Fine, no “assault weapon” has ever been used in a mass shooting, happy?

We have 16 dead people in Maine, many more dead killed in other mass shooting incidents. The US is the ONLY “First World” Nation with this problem.

Instead of trying to score political points by making hyper technical claims how about offering solutions?

Other countries seem to have solved the problem. Why can’t we?

 

He said "assault rifle".

Nothing here changes the fact our right to own and use AR15s, and all other "bearable arms", is protected by the constitution.

Keeping in mind the enshrinement of constitutional rights - necessarily and intentionally - takes certain policy choices off the table....
Please offer a solution.