Cops were sent to Maine gunman’s home weeks before massacres amid concern he ‘is

Guno צְבִי

Guno צְבִי

We fight, We win
going to snap and commit a mass shooting’


The Maine National Guard asked local police to check on the reservist who killed 18 people after a soldier became concerned he would “snap and commit a mass shooting,” according to information shared with CNN.

Officers from the Sagadahoc County and Kennebec County Sheriff’s Offices responded and tried to contact the man on September 16, less than six weeks before Wednesday’s massacres in a bowling alley and a bar, documents say, according to a law enforcement source.

The information obtained by CNN describes how the Sagadahoc County sergeant called for backup, tried without success to talk to the reservist and then received disturbing details from the Maine National Guard and the shooter’s family.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...4?cvid=cbf90e1a6b384ff8a93291da4a33247e&ei=45
 
The way the Second Amendment reads,

I can't see where even a completely insane person in an institution doesn't have the right to bear arms.

A literal constitution interpretationist can make a really good argument
that police have no right to remove a firearm from a perpetrator in mid-crime.

As long as he/she/it is still breathing,
he/she/it is an American resident entitled
to have whatever weapons are in his/her/its possession.

We're never going to change that.
The constitution is NOT amendable amidst this level of polarity.
The level of consensus required will never again be attainable.

I just resign myself to the perpetual firefight
because I live in the United States
and that's our thing as Americans.

As things are trending,
street warfare will be daily life for everybody in America within a generation or two.

Our toddlers will tote M16s to nursery school.
They'll cap each others asses in the sandboxes.
I strongly suspect that this is exactly what the framers had in mind.

In the end, they were just pranksters.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The way the Second Amendment reads,

I can't see where even a completely insane person in an institution doesn't have the right to bear arms.

A literal constitution interpretationist can make a really good argument
that police have no right to remove a firearm from a perpetrator in mid-crime.
Click to expand...

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

the sincerity you stupid fucks come at us with your bullshit constitutional scholar crap beats that of trumps ideology that nobody knows something more than he does.........trust him.
 
guno said:
going to snap and commit a mass shooting’


The Maine National Guard asked local police to check on the reservist who killed 18 people after a soldier became concerned he would “snap and commit a mass shooting,” according to information shared with CNN.

Officers from the Sagadahoc County and Kennebec County Sheriff’s Offices responded and tried to contact the man on September 16, less than six weeks before Wednesday’s massacres in a bowling alley and a bar, documents say, according to a law enforcement source.

The information obtained by CNN describes how the Sagadahoc County sergeant called for backup, tried without success to talk to the reservist and then received disturbing details from the Maine National Guard and the shooter’s family.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...4?cvid=cbf90e1a6b384ff8a93291da4a33247e&ei=45
Click to expand...

So, what you are saying in effect is that this guy should have been rounded up and his guns taken under current gun laws but slipped through the cracks. Seems to me the problem isn't guns again, but inability of law enforcement, government, and other actors, to enforce the laws we already have on the books in such a way that crazy dangerous people don't end up with guns...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

the sincerity you stupid fucks come at us with your bullshit constitutional scholar crap beats that of trumps ideology that nobody knows something more than he does.........trust him.
Click to expand...


I don't have any idea what the fifth amendment wording you offer has anything to do with the second amendment.

Being a Constitutional Scholar means what?
Knowing the chemical composition of the parchment and ink with which it was written?
The actual wording doesn't ascend-- at any point-- to to scholarly verbiage.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I don't have any idea what the fifth amendment wording you offer has anything to do with the second amendment.

Being a Constitutional Scholar means what?
Knowing the chemical composition of the parchment and ink with which it was written?
The actual wording doesn't ascend-- at any point-- to to scholarly verbiage.
Click to expand...

Shhhh,”smarts” is just regurgitating talking points he copies off of NRA propaganda, don’t expect him to understand the content, the 181 character tweet or cherry-picked phrase is what he bases his opinions on
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So, what you are saying in effect is that this guy should have been rounded up and his guns taken under current gun laws but slipped through the cracks. Seems to me the problem isn't guns again, but inability of law enforcement, government, and other actors, to enforce the laws we already have on the books in such a way that crazy dangerous people don't end up with guns...
Click to expand...

Law isn’t even a red law in Maine, they refer to it as a yellow law, implying it isn’t really taken serious

And the laws on the books are useless, as I’ve shown before, you can even acquire a weapon on the Internet, not to mention on the dark web
 
SmarterthanYou said:
of course you have no idea. you require others to tell you what the constitution means because you're incapable of comprehending simple english
Click to expand...

What other might these be, STY?
If I need any explanations or interpretations, it would be for the nonsense you pull straight out of your ass.
Obviously, I can't be bothered.
 
archives said:
Law isn’t even a red law in Maine, they refer to it as a yellow law, implying it isn’t really taken serious

And the laws on the books are useless, as I’ve shown before, you can even acquire a weapon on the Internet, not to mention on the dark web
Click to expand...

Well then, more laws won't help, and confiscation of guns isn't the issue. Crazy people are. We need to do something to reduce their numbers.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well then, more laws won't help, and confiscation of guns isn't the issue. Crazy people are. We need to do something to reduce their numbers.
Click to expand...

Ah, no, enforceable laws would help, and no one is talking about confiscating guns from anyone other than those threatening to use them, especially if that individual has a history of instability, it is common sense

No one is denying addressing mental help and guns, but as I’ve said, all mass shootings have three common factors: the target, the shooter, and the gun. You can try to defend expected targets, no one can predict who will be the next shooter, leaving the only variable you can control is what makes it all possible, the gun
 
NiftyNiblick said:
What other might these be, STY?
If I need any explanations or interpretations, it would be for the nonsense you pull straight out of your ass.
Obviously, I can't be bothered.
Click to expand...

you don't want to be bothered. you're comfortable in your false reality...........as for those others, it would be those on the left, even though there knowledge is worse than greta thunbergs
 
archives said:
Ah, no, enforceable laws would help, and no one is talking about confiscating guns from anyone other than those threatening to use them, especially if that individual has a history of instability, it is common sense

No one is denying addressing mental help and guns, but as I’ve said, all mass shootings have three common factors: the target, the shooter, and the gun. You can try to defend expected targets, no one can predict who will be the next shooter, leaving the only variable you can control is what makes it all possible, the gun
Click to expand...

there are over 20 thousand state and federal gun laws on the books today.............and not one of them has reduced the incidents........so you're lying when you say that the only variable you can control is the gun. you've been trying it for decades
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there are over 20 thousand state and federal gun laws on the books today.............and not one of them has reduced the incidents........so you're lying when you say that the only variable you can control is the gun. you've been trying it for decades
Click to expand...

People who decide to commit mass shootings do not care about the laws. Nor do they care about their own lives. They should not be allowed to have guns. Gun ownership should be rare and you should have a solid treason before you can get one. Then you should be licensed like driving a car is. You should have to pass a test and have to renew the license at regular intervals.
 
guno said:
going to snap and commit a mass shooting’


The Maine National Guard asked local police to check on the reservist who killed 18 people after a soldier became concerned he would “snap and commit a mass shooting,” according to information shared with CNN.

Officers from the Sagadahoc County and Kennebec County Sheriff’s Offices responded and tried to contact the man on September 16, less than six weeks before Wednesday’s massacres in a bowling alley and a bar, documents say, according to a law enforcement source.

The information obtained by CNN describes how the Sagadahoc County sergeant called for backup, tried without success to talk to the reservist and then received disturbing details from the Maine National Guard and the shooter’s family.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...4?cvid=cbf90e1a6b384ff8a93291da4a33247e&ei=45
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Maine doesn't have legislation for the police to do more than take a look and see if there's evidence of a crime. There wasn't.

From the link:
Maine has a “yellow flag” law that can be used to assess an individual with access to weapons. The first step is for law enforcement to take someone believed to be dangerous into custody and then have them evaluated by a medical professional. After a diagnosis, a judge can approve an order to temporarily remove firearms, according to the law.

A File 6 missing person’s report appears to have been generated by the Sagadahoc sergeant who tried to check on the man, the source told CNN, but it is unclear if there was any action in regard to the shooter’s access to weapons. The source said the case appeared to have been closed on October 1, 24 days before the massacres.
Click to expand...
 
Nordberg said:
People who decide to commit mass shootings do not care about the laws. Nor do they care about their own lives. They should not be allowed to have guns. Gun ownership should be rare and you should have a solid treason before you can get one. Then you should be licensed like driving a car is. You should have to pass a test and have to renew the license at regular intervals.
Click to expand...

none of what you recommend would reduce the violence in america using a gun. all you are doing is turning a right of a citizen to use the most effective tools for self defense and requiring them to get a permission slip. the founders would have hung you.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
none of what you recommend would reduce the violence in america using a gun. all you are doing is turning a right of a citizen to use the most effective tools for self defense and requiring them to get a permission slip. the founders would have hung you.
Click to expand...

A better solution is better mental health care and legislation to back it up. Robert Card and all of his victims, living and dead, would still be alive if such a system was in place.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the sincerity you stupid fucks come at us with your bullshit constitutional scholar crap beats that of trumps ideology that nobody knows something more than he does.........trust him.
Click to expand...

What exactly "due process of the law" means seems to be a sliding scale dependent on how severe the intrusion is. On one extreme, we have the death penalty, and on the other extreme we have a police officer wasting a minute of our time. The government generally needs a lot of process before it can execute us.

It should be much more difficult to take away someone's freedom than to take away their guns. So institutionalizing someone should be more difficult than taking away their guns. Both should be possible, in a sane, and free system. Institutionalization (and maybe taking away guns) should be very rare.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well then, more laws won't help, and confiscation of guns isn't the issue. Crazy people are. We need to do something to reduce their numbers.
Click to expand...

So rather than take away a crazy person's guns, you want to "reduce their numbers"? Are you talking mass executions, or mass imprisonment?

If he refused to give up his guns, wouldn't he refuse medical treatment too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top