maine

[Douglas Dubh]

It’s not an opinion.

Of course it is.

 

[gmi3804]

That's too much logic for them to be able to comprehend.

Right?

 

[AppleDumpling]

Again, every one that I’ve heard would be unconstitutional or ineffective. Feel free to propose something that wouldn’t.

That’s your opinion, Douglas. Again, going back to the Supreme Court, what is considered unconstitutional is open to interpretation and is thus an opinion, as is what you might believe to be ineffective. I don’t have the time or inclination to keep up the debate, and neither of us is likely to change our convictions. Maybe someone else will engage.

 

[tx911]

That’s your opinion, Douglas. Again, going back to the Supreme Court, what is considered unconstitutional is open to interpretation and is thus an opinion, as is what you might believe to be ineffective. I don’t have the time or inclination to keep up the debate, and neither of us is likely to change our convictions. Maybe someone else will engage.

There is much in the document that is open to interpretation, but I'd have to say the 2nd amendment is pretty clear, although attempts have certainly been made to open it up to interpretation!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

https://www.boston.com/news/nationa...go-about-shooters-threats/?p1=hp_featurestack

 

[longboard55]

So we are saying Maine has less crime which would make sense because they have no big cities but triple the firearm deaths. How do you explain that. Why is Arizona double California.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

So we are saying Maine has less crime which would make sense because they have no big cities but triple the firearm deaths. How do you explain that. Why is Arizona double California.

If you’re asking why Maine has three times the firearm death rate as somewhere else, I’ve already pointed out the “gun deaths” include suicides by firearms. It probably also explains Arizona versus California.

 

[dcassetta]

So, as it turns out the Army, the sheriff, and his family knew he was a danger to others and still, he was able to possess weapons and ammunition. I guess that his right to bear arms trumped the right to life for 18 other people.

 

[TippyThomas]

So, as it turns out the Army, the sheriff, and his family knew he was a danger to others and still, he was able to possess weapons and ammunition. I guess that his right to bear arms trumped the right to life for 18 other people.

It really is sad how many people seemed to drop the ball on this one.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

So, as it turns out the Army, the sheriff, and his family knew he was a danger to others and still, he was able to possess weapons and ammunition. I guess that his right to bear arms trumped the right to life for 18 other people.

It doesn't seem like there is well defined criteria for what exactly determines when weapons can & should be taken from someone that seems they could be a danger to others.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

So, as it turns out the Army, the sheriff, and his family knew he was a danger to others and still, he was able to possess weapons and ammunition. I guess that his right to bear arms trumped the right to life for 18 other people.

It will always be ok until it directly affects somebody with power. People will defend the constitution and the right of a mentally unstable person to have that right but won't consider the rights a young man should have when he goes out bowling on a school night with his dad.

 

[longboard55]

It will always be ok until it directly affects somebody with power. People will defend the constitution and the right of a mentally unstable person to have that right but won't consider the rights a young man should have when he goes out bowling on a school night with his dad.

If you look at the numbers and compare to states with reasonable gun laws we could easily save 20,000 lives a year. That is a lot of people. Yes I know many are suicides, that is why waiting period laws are such a good idea.

 

[robinb]

So, as it turns out the Army, the sheriff, and his family knew he was a danger to others and still, he was able to possess weapons and ammunition. I guess that his right to bear arms trumped the right to life for 18 other people.

Sadly, that’s what it always comes down to.

It doesn't seem like there is well defined criteria for what exactly determines when weapons can & should be taken from someone that seems they could be a danger to others.

I hope that, if anything, this has some effect on Red Flag laws across the US. Maine’s “Yellow Flag” was not strong or clear enough to keep its citizens safe.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Maine’s “Yellow Flag” was not strong or clear enough to keep its citizens safe.

Or it wasn’t enforced.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

So, as it turns out the Army, the sheriff, and his family knew he was a danger to others and still, he was able to possess weapons and ammunition. I guess that his right to bear arms trumped the right to life for 18 other people.

Sadly, that’s what it always comes down to.

jalapeno_pretzel said: It doesn't seem like there is well defined criteria for what exactly determines when weapons can & should be taken from someone that seems they could be a danger to others.

I hope that, if anything, this has some effect on Red Flag laws across the US. Maine’s “Yellow Flag” was not strong or clear enough to keep its citizens safe.

Or it wasn’t enforced.

This always seems to be the problem; we don't enforce the laws we already have. Things always seem to fall through the cracks. Why do some people believe that adding new laws is going to make it any better? Maybe we need to review the laws we already have and make them better, stronger, clearer and enforce them.

 

[BostonEd]

but I'd have to say the 2nd amendment is pretty clear,

Um... what? A run-on, poorly-punctuated sentence about "regulated militias" (undefined) and bearing "arms" (also undefined) is pretty clear?

 

[dcassetta]

This always seems to be the problem; we don't enforce the laws we already have. Things always seem to fall through the cracks. Why do some people believe that adding new laws is going to make it any better? Maybe we need to review the laws we already have and make them better, stronger, clearer and enforce them.

How do we achieve this? Laws are on the books, but some of the people hired or elected to enforce them say they will not do so. Who is in charge of enforcing the enforcers?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Um... what? A run-on, poorly-punctuated sentence about "regulated militias" (undefined) and bearing "arms" (also undefined) is pretty clear?

Yes. If you read what the founders said about it at the time it’s clear what they meant.

 

[longboard55]

Um... what? A run-on, poorly-punctuated sentence about "regulated militias" (undefined) and bearing "arms" (also undefined) is pretty clear?

what is clear is the intention was the not to have the President control the military as his private army. Really has nothing to do with what we allow now. I have never seen a military in any country that does not have extensive education and training on the use of guns, we require none of that. All you need is one thing, over 18

 

[Ms.Minnie]

How do we achieve this? Laws are on the books, but some of the people hired or elected to enforce them say they will not do so. Who is in charge of enforcing the enforcers?

Well, this is the million-dollar question. If I had the answer, I would be a pretty amazing person.

As to the people who are hired to enforce the laws that say they won't, fire them. They are not doing the job they were hired to do so it seems pretty easy to me, fire them.

As to the elected officials who say they won't carry out the laws, vote them out of office. Of course, this becomes a problem because there are always going to be those who vote for them regardless of how bad a job they are doing (maybe THEY think they are doing a good job). That is something we don't have any real control over. The only thing we can hope for is that those voters start to wake up, open up their eyes and see things for what they truly are. There are laws on the books now at a federal level that our elected officials are not enforcing that are putting all of us at great risk. Let's all just hope and pray that we don't have another terrorist attack on our soil due to those elected officials not carrying out the laws they swore to uphold.

As far as who is in charge, I would say we the people are. We just have to stand together as a united front and MAKE those people who are hired or elected do the jobs they signed up for.