Huge mass shooting incident in Lewiston, ME

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's fine for people to own guns, it's not necessary for people to own assault weapons.

If you are a hunter who needs an assault weapon, you are not a very good hunter.

The firearms you want to outlaw are not “assault weapons.” Other than maybe looking “scary,” they are mechanically indistinguishable from firearms that have been around since around the time of the Civil War. “Assault weapon,” like “gun violence,” “mass” shooting and “common sense” is a marketing slogan used by anti-firearm extremists to garner political support, with no intention of ever actually solving any problems lest the politicians and favor-dispensers they support lose their jobs by becoming superfluous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine for people to own guns, it's not necessary for people to own assault weapons.

If you are a hunter who needs an assault weapon, you are not a very good hunter.

The firearms you want to outlaw are not “assault weapons.” Other than maybe looking “scary,” they are mechanically indistinguishable from firearms that have been around since around the time of the Civil War. “Assault weapon,” like “gun violence,” “mass” shooting and “common sense” is a marketing slogan used by anti-firearm extremists to garner political support, with no intention of ever actually solving any problems lest the politicians and favor-dispensers they support lose their jobs by becoming superfluous.

Blah blah blah AR-15s are fun! blah blah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine for people to own guns, it's not necessary for people to own assault weapons.

If you are a hunter who needs an assault weapon, you are not a very good hunter.

The firearms you want to outlaw are not “assault weapons.” Other than maybe looking “scary,” they are mechanically indistinguishable from firearms that have been around since around the time of the Civil War. “Assault weapon,” like “gun violence,” “mass” shooting and “common sense” is a marketing slogan used by anti-firearm extremists to garner political support, with no intention of ever actually solving any problems lest the politicians and favor-dispensers they support lose their jobs by becoming superfluous.

Ok fine. Then you won't mind if the sale of them is banned. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Blah blah pointless sarcastic non response blah blah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine for people to own guns, it's not necessary for people to own assault weapons.

If you are a hunter who needs an assault weapon, you are not a very good hunter.

The firearms you want to outlaw are not “assault weapons.” Other than maybe looking “scary,” they are mechanically indistinguishable from firearms that have been around since around the time of the Civil War. “Assault weapon,” like “gun violence,” “mass” shooting and “common sense” is a marketing slogan used by anti-firearm extremists to garner political support, with no intention of ever actually solving any problems lest the politicians and favor-dispensers they support lose their jobs by becoming superfluous.

Ok fine. Then you won't mind if the sale of them is banned. Problem solved.

sarcasm is the puerile tool of the intellectually challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine for people to own guns, it's not necessary for people to own assault weapons.

If you are a hunter who needs an assault weapon, you are not a very good hunter.

The firearms you want to outlaw are not “assault weapons.” Other than maybe looking “scary,” they are mechanically indistinguishable from firearms that have been around since around the time of the Civil War. “Assault weapon,” like “gun violence,” “mass” shooting and “common sense” is a marketing slogan used by anti-firearm extremists to garner political support, with no intention of ever actually solving any problems lest the politicians and favor-dispensers they support lose their jobs by becoming superfluous.

Ok fine. Then you won't mind if the sale of them is banned. Problem solved.

sarcasm is the puerile tool of the intellectually challenged.

Nay. It’s an appropriate tool to counter bloviated, overused statements like assault weapons just look scary, or “I won’t discuss gun safety with anyone who thinks AR stands for Assault Rifle” trope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine for people to own guns, it's not necessary for people to own assault weapons.

If you are a hunter who needs an assault weapon, you are not a very good hunter.

The firearms you want to outlaw are not “assault weapons.” Other than maybe looking “scary,” they are mechanically indistinguishable from firearms that have been around since around the time of the Civil War. “Assault weapon,” like “gun violence,” “mass” shooting and “common sense” is a marketing slogan used by anti-firearm extremists to garner political support, with no intention of ever actually solving any problems lest the politicians and favor-dispensers they support lose their jobs by becoming superfluous.

Mechanics of the gun are irrelevant. It's a psychological factor for the shooters. You notice the psychos rarely do mass shootings with wood-stock Remington semi-auto hunting rifles - despite those being every bit as lethal and effective as the AR-15 that show up again and again and again. It's because wood stock hunting rifle == Elmer Fudd vs AR-15 == Rambo. 1000% about the "look and feel" rather than function. As such they should be banned. And since they are mechanically indistinguishable, I agree with the PP that you should have no objection to it. In fact, probably all semi-auto rifles should be banned. I grew up hunting and target shooting with a bolt-action rifle and did just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine for people to own guns, it's not necessary for people to own assault weapons.

If you are a hunter who needs an assault weapon, you are not a very good hunter.

The firearms you want to outlaw are not “assault weapons.” Other than maybe looking “scary,” they are mechanically indistinguishable from firearms that have been around since around the time of the Civil War. “Assault weapon,” like “gun violence,” “mass” shooting and “common sense” is a marketing slogan used by anti-firearm extremists to garner political support, with no intention of ever actually solving any problems lest the politicians and favor-dispensers they support lose their jobs by becoming superfluous.

Ok fine. Then you won't mind if the sale of them is banned. Problem solved.

sarcasm is the puerile tool of the intellectually challenged.

Changing the subject is evasive nonsense. If assault weapons are indistinguishable from other firearms then why are you crying so hard if the sale is banned. Just buy one of the other indistinguishable weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I come from a hunting family. No hunter needs an assault weapon. There are perhaps some parts of the country that are very hunting-oriented, but that's not a problem at all.

We can enact federal: assault-weapons ban, weapons-modification ban, rigorous background check, red-flag law and gun fair sale restrictions... without gutting the 2nd amendment.

And if we built walls at the southern border (which costs an absolute fortune, which is why it's never been done in its entirety), and funded control and management of check-points, we'd have fewer drugs and weapons coming. I know the southern border isn't the only point of entry.

We also need to FUND and TRAIN police and sheriff forces across the country, for God's sakes, so that they arrest more criminals and confiscate more guns from them. For God's sakes.

Police forces and sheriffs are the best funded portion of pretty much every budget across the country. If you don’t like the work they do, it’s the fault of the police union and the fact that bad police officers are never chucked out. Like pedophile priests, they’re just moved around.

Seriously, go look at your city and country budget. See the amount city and county law enforcement receive. They have plenty of money, increases, even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine for people to own guns, it's not necessary for people to own assault weapons.

If you are a hunter who needs an assault weapon, you are not a very good hunter.

The firearms you want to outlaw are not “assault weapons.” Other than maybe looking “scary,” they are mechanically indistinguishable from firearms that have been around since around the time of the Civil War. “Assault weapon,” like “gun violence,” “mass” shooting and “common sense” is a marketing slogan used by anti-firearm extremists to garner political support, with no intention of ever actually solving any problems lest the politicians and favor-dispensers they support lose their jobs by becoming superfluous.

Blah blah blah AR-15s are fun! blah blah

+1

They seem genuinely giddy to stay ignorant of what assault weapons do to human bodies, especially at close range, when their little toys are challenged.

[Anonymous]

Is it all these AR enthusiasts don’t have the skill required to use the alternative? Apparently any low functioning nutjob can use the AR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine for people to own guns, it's not necessary for people to own assault weapons.

If you are a hunter who needs an assault weapon, you are not a very good hunter.

The firearms you want to outlaw are not “assault weapons.” Other than maybe looking “scary,” they are mechanically indistinguishable from firearms that have been around since around the time of the Civil War. “Assault weapon,” like “gun violence,” “mass” shooting and “common sense” is a marketing slogan used by anti-firearm extremists to garner political support, with no intention of ever actually solving any problems lest the politicians and favor-dispensers they support lose their jobs by becoming superfluous.

Mechanically indistinguishable...a profoundly stupid, disingenuous argument. You could fire a weapon 3-4 times per minute during the Civil War (if skilled). You can fire an AR-15 3-4 times per second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rep Golden from Maine's 2nd District now calling on assault weapons ban, which he has previously not supported. And apologized for his failure on this issue. I want to say what took him so long - but will refrain since it seems he's doing the right thing now.

Slow in coming but he’s taking responsibility and doing the right thing.

I wish all the other places that will be affected by assault weapon mass murders in the future would just figure it out now and help prevent the next massacre.

I hate that he was fine to ignore and distance himself from all the dead Sandy Hook kids, all the dead Vegas and Orlando innocents. But he may well lose his seat with this announcement so I appreciate his late courage.

He wasn't in Congress for Sandy Hook. Maine is big gun country and this is a BFD if he's changed his tune. Americans are sick and tired of this!

This is PP - I live in Maine. I’m living this event. He was alive during Sandy Hook and that should have been enough for him, and everyone, to come out against assault weapons. But yes, it’s a big deal to change his tune, and again, he could be voted out due to it if enough people aren’t as deeply impacted as Jared is.

I am a military spouse and disturbed that this guy was hearing voices, having psychotic breaks etc. and .... going about his day? Have they determined why he was not receiving treatment through the military, and why he had access to an assault weapon? Was it acquired illegally? This sounds like a fail on so many levels. And I abhor the loss of life. So much sad news.

Idiot: Access? How about walking into a gun store. Acquired illegally? Why? AR-15s are perfectly legal.

After all, who are we to say a mass shooter can't have the gun of his choice?

Illegally due to his documented poor mental health.

Again, Maine has no red flag laws.

Ok. This is one of the huge fails then. I hope they will also address this. We own a gun, and I am happy to have checks, required training, jump through every hoop and have guns removed from people too. Thank you for answering my question.

You’re welcome. We also have one gun in the house, stored unloaded in a combination safe. We are in Maryland and my husband went through a training course and a rigorous background check. There’s no reason why anyone else shouldn’t have to either.

Oooohh, a rigorous background check, you say? Well, all is right with the world, then. Anyone who doesn't have any wants or warrants or is not subject to a current restraining order can buy an AR-15 (one a month if they want!) perfectly legally. It's the mass shooter's favorite. Nothing to be concerned about!

I am the PP, PP was responding to. By all means legislate that. I am fine with AR-15 in a town or city armory to be unlocked for the citizens to use in case of attack. I don't see why anyone needs one at home either.

Because, naturally, there’s always going to be plenty of time for “the citizens” to hop in the car, drive down to the “town or city armory,” stand in line, appear before their appointed betters, present their credentials, receive their bought-and-paid-for personal property, drive home, clean and lubricate their firearm, load it and make ready, and then respond to “attack,” which doubtless will be on hold pending the “citizen’s” completion of these ministrations.

Tell that to the folks about a mile and a half as the crow flies from my house in a quiet suburb who were suddenly confronted the other day with a broad daylight home invasion by multiple individuals armed with guns.

People have the right to keep their belongings where they want to, not where they are told to. Freedom isn’t about “needs,” especially “needs” determined by some overarching authority armed to the teeth with the very weapons it seeks to withhold from its “subjects.”

Concepts like yours are frankly delusional.

This is not a thing. And having an AR-15 at home at the ready, or a grenade launcher, would not make them safer anyway.

I used to be a supporter of gun rights for hunters and for protection. But no more. Too many adults and too many children have been killed for every person to have the right to keep "their belongings" where they want to. Maybe you will come around, when a mass shooting happens too close to you. Maybe you won't. But the country will. It's a slow process now but it's happening.

NP.

You destroyed the only remaining deterrent to violent criminals by defunding police, and now you want to take away my only remaining means of defending my family?!?

Screw you! No new gun control.

And had my guns not all been lost in a tragic boating accident, I would not register them in your dishonest pre-confiscation scheme either.

Ahoy! Ammosexuals have rights too! Mass shootings build character! MAGA!

[Anonymous]

the above poster came in and did EXACTLY what another poster a page before predicted

The exact same gun shows up in 99.99% of mass shootings. Why? Because it is efficient at causing mass human carnage in an incredibly short amount of time

Can we please just ban THOSE guns ASAP? I don't give a flying rat's behind what the proper name or term for them are. I want my kids to not have to worry about their bodies being demolished in a millisecond because some a-hole whose girlfriend just broke up with him is angry at the world

[Anonymous]

Why didn't they have a red flag law? I don't get it. The Army reserve unit sounds like a fail too.