I’m looking to learn here, so please forgive me about this, but I had heard something about there being multiple shooters involved. Something about two middle Eastern looking men and a maroon car. It was like a police dispatch audio, but with little context and no sources. My Google-fu is failing me at the moment. Can someone help educate me on this?
The National Guard is not a militia, and it definitely isn’t the kind of militia you need the right to bear arms for. Militias are organizations of armed civilians that can respond to local events, while the Guard largely fulfills the role it’s under government control and does not meet any of the qualifications intended by the 2nd.
The intentions of the 2nd are relatively clear, historically. To have a population capable of defending itself from enemies, including their own government, arms must be legal and available.
Of course, the biggest supporters of the 2nd were the southern states. It also very clear, historically, that they were mostly worried about slave revolts. The rest of the support came from eternal border conflicts with native tribes.
It’s also very clear that they knew militias weren’t worth a whole lot in a pitched battle, only the Swamp Fox really saw them have any success, by generally being a, you know, terrorist.
Which is a lot of the problem with the modern concept of anti-government militia.
We don’t have slaves to repress, we don’t have Indians to genocide, all they’ve got left to do is plan on being insurgents. And there is a very thin line between that and a terrorist.
Still, I tend to agree with other radical thinkers on the matter.
The workers must not be disarmed, lest revolution against tyrannical systems become impossible instead of merely improbable.
The problem is it’s, quite frankly, just too late for America. We’ll choke to death before the people know their enemies.
Except the national guard is the closest analog to the well armed militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment. The founders didn’t think highly of a federal military, so the 2nd amendment was written to empower the states to organize their own militias that could be called upon when necessary. These effectively went away with the founding of the national guard since the Federal government ultimately also has control over the national guard and the 2nd amendment was interpreted to give the states freedom to regulate guns. This was the understanding until starting 2008.
The National Guard is not well regulated? Im gonna wager your definition of well regulated is a body in which nothing bad ever happens, which is not what well regulated means, that’s called perfection.
If the national guard isnt considered well regulated then nothing is, and clearly the writers of the bill didnt intend for ‘well regulated’ to be an impossible standard. So if well regulated is going to mean something it didnt mean from the authors then that phrase no longer has bearing on the right, and shockingly enough the US Judicial system agrees with and upheld that.
This was a shooting by a member of a well regulated milita. That phrase or organization structure is not a magic spell that stops crime. The authors would have written ‘crime free’ instead of well regulated if that’s what they meant.
If a memeber of said Militia can spend 2 weeks in a psychiatric ward for hearing voices in his head telling him to shoot up the said Militia he is a part of and still keep the means to carry out the will of said voices it isn’t well-regulated, sorry not sorry. The term Well-Regulated doesnt automatically mean it is going to be regulated.
Between active and reservists there are well over one million national guard memebers. The crimes of one of them hardly imply that the regulation is not good. Mistakes are possible, and considering he was let out of the psych hospital is it impossible to think the mistake even could have come from the profit driven org who makes the absolute thinniest proft margins from mental health care? What about the police, did they not also drop the ball, they could have seen this coming, this person was known publicly for his gun lust and extremism. Or is all the blame only on the one orginazation that makes your opinions the most correct looking?
There is plenty of blame to go around, the problem is systemic. Putting the blame on one institution makes it a scapegoat, we need publicly funded mental health care as much as we need gun control.
we need publicly funded mental health care as much as we need gun control.
While the US definitely needs publicly funded (mental) health care, it will not address the gun issue. It doesn’t matter if a country has public health care or not, what matters for gun related deaths is either a) number of (civil) guns or b) (civil) war.
Do not give into gun nuts in this regard. Do not agree that the US needs both. The US needs exactly and only one thing when it comes to gun deaths: Fewer guns.
Removing guns (or at least access to them) can actually reduce the rate of suicide. Guns are quick and easy to use to commit suicide, whereas many other methods take time to set up and don’t work as often. When someone is feeling suicidal, often having that little bit of extra time can let the feeling decrease enough to prevent an attempt.
Of course, removing access to guns doesn’t fix why people feel suicidal in the first place. That is a whole nother can of worms. But I expect everyone agrees that reducing the number of suicides is good.
The consensus among public health experts is that there is strong evidence that reducing firearm suicides in contexts where more-lethal means of attempting suicide are unavailable will result in reductions in the total suicide rate (see, for example, Office of the Surgeon General and National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, 2012; World Health Organization, 2014; for review, see Azrael and Miller, 2016).
Research has shown time and again that restricting access to lethal means or “means restriction” can saves lives. By restricting access to firearms and other highly lethal methods the decline in suicide rates by that method and overall suicide rates begin to decline. Restricting access to lethal means does not always lead to fewer deaths, but is one suicide prevention measure that merits further research and more individual-level intervention training to make lethal means less readily available.
Japan would like a word (but they’re too busy killing themselves without guns.)
Guns may be more effective but I’d argue OTC meds are “easier” considering you don’t get NICs checked for tylenol. And frankly many suicidal people (not all ofc) already have a problem with a particular drug that causes 96,000+ accidental deaths/yr, shooting of another nature, which kills 36,000 more people than guns/yr including suicide, that could also be used quite easily and peacefully as opposed to doing your best impression of Dead from Meyhem.
Simply banning guns wouldn’t help, we still need to address the root causes. And once we address the root causes gun control will be a whole lot less necessary anyway. At the very least, we should start with the things that will be actually helpful and then move to the pointless bans which worked so well for those drugs 96,000 people OD on each year.
Yeah, mistakes like american gun laws. In related news, this year, a soldier from Germany’s National Guard did not go on a killing spree. Nor did a soldier of the French National Guard.
A French cop went on a mass shooting in 2017. In 2020 an ex soldier in france went on a shooting. Sure it wasn’t this year but acting like this doesn’t happen elsewhere is wild. In fact the chances that the shooter is in a well regulated legal organization are higher elsewhere since the other people dont even have guns like that. So I assume Frances gun laws are a problem for you too since they cant stop their Law Enforcement from doing this?
The comment you replied to it literally proof that this incident would still and does still happen in France. This whole time I’ve specifically been speaking about those that would be considered to be in a well regulated militia because that phrase is meaningless, as shown. French gun laws wouldn’t stop this, the only country argument is moot here, because we’re literally not the only country whos LEOs and military go on rampages.
‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Note bolded text. No shit this happens in other countries - the death stats for them aren’t 0. But it’s a rare anomaly there rather than just another Tuesday like here.
Whens the last time a US military service member went on a shooting spree, adjust per capita, then compare. Yall are doing everything to try and derail my original point about militias.
the fact that you have to go to other years proves that this happens way more rarely in France than in the USA. In fact, you can see that in all of the graphs there are gun related deaths in every country.
The point is that it happens 100 times more in the USA than in any other developed country
And my point remains, when it comes to service members and LEOs, even Frances gun laws wouldnt stop this case. In fact, take the number of Cop and Military shooters, adjust per capita then compare the stats, because yall keep trying to derail my points about the well regulated militia stuff.
The point is that it happens 100 times more in the USA than in any other developed country
well since it happend twice in 3 years in france im assuming you have data for 70 yearly US LEO or Military member committed mass shooting yeah? Or are you gonna keep veering away from what ive actually been arguing this whole time again?
can spend 2 weeks in a psychiatric ward for hearing voices in his head telling him to shoot up the said Militia
They can’t, it is already a federal law that people who are IVC’d (this guy) are prohibited purchasers and they are supposed to take the guns and input that into NICs, but someone didn’t do their fucking job. Has nothing to do with the weekend warrior militia branch of the US military either, that applies to everyone, federally, as it is a federal law.
If the national guard isnt considered well regulated then nothing is
Ignoring the fact that this is obviously a false dichotomy… Have you ever served in the guard or active duty military? The guard especially from certain states, is usually known for being an unorganized shit show. Active duty has its obvious issues, but they also have a lot more control over their personnel, including who they keep and promote.
In the guard, as long as you show up for roll call and pass your test you’re pretty much promoted until you want to leave. Which is why the last few military pr blunders were committed by officers or NCO in the reserves.
I doubt you would find many people who served in the reserves that would claim they were well organized or well regulated.
Yes it is. I was downvoted to shit last time I said we should have the mandatory 10 days waiting period and background checks. Had nothing but what ifs.
People treating firearms as fuckin toys should be banned. Your firearm was on unattended and your child killed himself or an other person? Straight to jail. Fuckin hate that people have lost the respect of the tool they are using.
So what you’re telling me is you and no one you know ever plans for an event more than a week and a half in the future? No wonder you can’t see how dumb this shit is.
Well it’ll stop even less than that. Mass shooters plan for months, the law isn’t intended for that. It is meant to stop “crimes of passion” (read: killing your wife), but all that would happen is they prevent this time (or he goes all Chris Benoit), then he picks up his gun 10 days later, and next time he’s in a wife killin’ mood he’s all prepared.
In fact, statistically, according to the ATF, average “Time to crime” of a firearm (time from purchase to when it ends up involved at a crime scene) is 11 years. That’s a bit longer than 10 days.
10 days is more than 0. Is that maths too hard for you? a 0 day waiting time would stop NOTHING. 10 days would at least stop spur of the moment killings. Is that not worth something?
What would you prefer:
A higher number of killings
A lower number of killings
If your standard is 0 killings, you’ll agree with nothing, because nothing will get it to 0.
So you don’t care that instead of killing his wife on the first of the month, he kills her on the tenth? Sure solved a lot there. Simply killing someone 9 days later than origionally intended is somehow lowering the number of killings? And no mention of average time to crime being eleven whole years? Again I posit that 11 years is longer than 10 days, there are 410.5 “10 days” stretches in 11yrs, by the time that first gun typically shows up in crime he could have 410 guns and be 5 days from his 411th.
Oh, but your argument before was that 10 days isn’t long enough. Was that just a trick?
Sounds to me like you’re one of those people that says, “I’m not against gun control in principle, it just has to be done right”, then disagrees with every gun control proposal. Because you actually are against gun control.
No, my argument was that a 10 day wait period was “pointless, because it does fuck all.”
Oh, and yes, I am against further gun control that has no impact. I, unlike you, don’t just want to pretend I’m helping, I actually want to address the root causes of violence (not just gun violence) themselves. It may be harder but at least it isn’t “completely useless feel good legislation that isn’t even actually designed to actually solve the issue because if they did solve it they couldn’t use it to pressure you for votes.”
I’m sorry, Mr. High-And-Mighty, but did you or did you not just post this?
Oh, but your argument before was that 10 days isn’t long enough. Was that just a trick?
Sounds to me like you’re one of those people that says, “I’m not against gun control in principle, it just has to be done right”, then disagrees with every gun control proposal. Because you actually are against gun control.
What exactly do you think that proves? Do you think it proves I’m against mental health programs? Do you think it proves I’m for increased police budgets?
No. You know my inclination on this one subject. Not the totality of my opinion. Did I say this measure alone would help? Fuck no. But who wants to add wait times and do absolutely nothing else? It seems like that’s what you’re implying. But anyone who isn’t an idiot knows these issues aren’t dealt with by doing a single thing on its own.
Americans want gun control. That’s not up for discussion. It’s an absurd majority.
However, as long as it is “only” school children and ordinary civilians dying, Republicans will not change their stance on gun control in the slightest. The people who are responsible to fix this are the only group that is not at any risk of getting shot. They are so absurdly protected that they will never be on the receiving end of a barrel, and therefore, do not care.
And to make matters worse, the Republicans dictating the supreme court, who will block anything that could possible address this problem, not only cannot be voted out, no, they literally have to die before they can be replaced.
The only people who could fix the gun murder issue are the ones not dying because of guns.
I dont think you are advocating for violence, but there was a shooting at a Congressional baseball game and it didnt push the Republicanw towards passing legislation to control guns at all. It is extremely disturbing how little of a fuck they give.
Yeah I remember that. Yeah…same with the insurrection: they can only care for about an hour, then it back to business.
That’s kinda the comment that always gets me banned: as long as Republican politicians do not actually die themselves frequently, they will not change.
Hell and that’s a Fox “News” poll, so that would likely have their own flavor of bias trying to make it as much in their own favor as possible.
I don’t see this as advocating for violence, more as pointing out how a specific group of people only care about things that personally affect them so they currently don’t care about the issue.
Hell the NRA cared about gun control when the Black Panthers started advocating for buying guns back in the day. Why? Because they saw it as a personal threat to their well-being.
That’s why I instantly saved it to my phone. This picture has such a high value in “discussions” with gun freaks.
I’m working for a NATO countries’ military, am a frequent poster and avid follower of NonCredibleDefense, own weapons myself, know a lot about their inner workings and history, but even I am not even remotely as crazy as those people.
Then again, I do own several weapons but advocate that my government pass laws to take them away. Guess I’m kind of a paradoxical outlier in this matter.
I used to be an avid gun owner till my father used one of his guns to take his life, he carried one his whole life to protect our family, and it ended up causing more harm than any mugger or home invader ever could imagine. If you ever have suicidal ideations please leave your firearms with a trusted comrade till you get help. I had ideations almost my whole adult life and thought i could resist them till the day I died, which was technically true, but not in the sense I thought. I pawned my guns, shortly after his death, and haven’t had those ideations since. The vast majority of gun deaths are self inflicted and get swept under the rug by families and the news.
I agree whole heartedly that if you have suicidal thoughts you shouldn’t own firearms. It’s a recipe for disaster if you do. And if you have those thoughts you should seek help. There’s people in your life who will miss you dearly when you’re gone, even if you don’t think so.
And I’m sorry for your loss, I know how hard it is when someone you care about commits suicide. I’ve known 4 people who have. Though none of them used firearms to do so I’ll never forget them.
Personally I’ll never own pistols as I’ve had too many bad experiences with pistols. The why is a bit of a doozy.
Trigger warning Child Abuse, Breaking and Entering, and Attempted Murder.On a number of occasions my dad held a pistol to my head screaming at me to tell him where his drugs that he had already done were. He did this a lot to my siblings and I before he finally got clean. I still refuse to speak with him as there’s just too much pain there. My siblings tell me he’s a lot different now, that he’s back to the way he was when they were young, but I’ve only ever known him as the abusive drug addict that he was. Him and some of my other relatives are why I own firearms really as a number of them have said that they “can’t wait to get the order to hunt people like me in the streets.” And one went to prison for kicking my door in to try. That was when that relative found out I was a gun owner. They didn’t get shot, we just patiently waited for the police to arrive while they sat in my entry way.
That their local representative was anti-gun control before this shooting affected his own local area, only proves your point more. That he changed his opinion is a good thing, but too little too late.
Very impressed that he publicly came out to accept responsibility for the Maine shooting with his previous opposition to gun control though, and is now advocating for it.
Unfortunately, it may take several shootings in all the representatives’ and senators’ home towns that are in opposition to actually flip them (even then, it wouldn’t change many of their minds, unless it actually personally affected them), and the country shouldn’t have to suffer that. It likely will literally take a constitutional amendment to prevent the supreme court from overturning any legislation enacted (or at least stripping it down to become fluff legislation with little meaning, or effect).
However, as long as it is “only” school children and ordinary civilians dying, Republicans will not change their stance on gun control in the slightest.
So, you’re saying we should start shooting unborn fetuses?
Mental health is a squishier standard. Let’s say I had depression and decided to talk to someone about it, get the help I needed to become mentally healthy again. Should that necessarily be penalized if I want to go buy a gun to go out to the range or hunting with my buddies? Should seeking help disqualify someone entirely? Does that prevent people from getting help they think they might need, stigmatizing an already stigmatized practice?
Meanwhile, if Dave down the hill has a record, he’s already shown he was willing to do an illegal thing, whether or not the record is fair. If he already has reports against him for domestic disturbances, that’s pretty cut and dry violent behavior that ought not be allowed to intensify.
I’m not saying mental checks aren’t a good idea or aren’t worth it. I’m saying that they’re a harder sell because a) they take more nuance to formulate well and b) the propaganda machine will have an easier time telling people how those checks are overreach.
Maine is a state where almost half the households have guns. I don’t think opponents of the second amendment are going to find a lot of support there even after yesterday’s mass shooting.
Like most things fox news has turned the entire debate into an us vs them thing. Gun control is surprisingly something that most Republicans and Democrats agree on.
People advocating for gun control aren’t necessarily opponents of the 2nd amendment, but people talking about well-regulated militias usually are. What’s the point of bringing up that strange phrase unless you don’t think that the 2nd amendment’s right to bear arms applies to everyone regardless of membership in some sort of militia?
That’s not an unreasonable reading of the text, but if you’re going to look at the Constitution that way, you’ll see that it doesn’t talk about abortion or gay marriage either. I’m in favor of abortion rights and gay marriage, and that’s why I don’t start “but the Constitution doesn’t literally say…” arguments with conservatives.
I might be wrong, but isn’t everything on there already a requirement? I think the mental health check is the only thing that isn’t (unless you consider losing your right to own a gun after being involuntarily committed for any reason to be a mental health check). The problem is that even our existing gun control laws aren’t being properly enforced (otherwise that wouldn’t be part of the poll). I think there needs to be more gun control. I’m just not sure that more gun control is going to work because the government won’t enforce what’s already there.
I personally think a licensing system similar to what we have for cars would help a lot. Want a double-barrel shotgun? The current system would probably work for that. Want an AR-15? You need the enthusiast license which involves a week or two of training, a basic mental health evaluation, and a gun safe (not a flimsy lockbox) to store it in. Want a .50 cal, belt-fed browning machine gun? You gotta get the super ultra deluxe license that requires a year of training and mental health checks, background checks complete with colonoscopies from the FBI and ATF, and you still need a gun safe to store it in. Finally, if your gun is used in a crime then you’re considered to be an accomplice. Your only defense is if you can prove it was properly stored and you reported it as stolen within a reasonable amount of time.
Edit: I got it guys, I’m wrong about existing gun control. I’m leaving the post up because there may be others who are also confused about it.
Not quite, most states don’t have a waiting period either because they haven’t been shown to be effective at curbing crime. In fact avg “time to crime” of a gun is 11yrs according to the ATF, 11yr is quite the waiting period.
You’re not wrong those are all required by law except the mental health checks, but even then you are prohibited if you’ve had an involuntary stay in a mental institution.
But those people aren’t interested in facts, only biased groupthink just look at how they show their thoughts with their downvotes because they have nothing intelligent to say.
Isn’t that a national poll, as opposed to a poll of Maine residents? I’m talking specifically about Maine, not about the USA as a whole.
Or “oppose the second amendment”, as you propagandistically say, because you dont have facts on your side.
Generally people who quibble about the term “well-regulated militia” do specifically oppose the second amendment. But the constitution of Maine doesn’t have that ambiguity:
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Add comment