Prediction-a gun banning feeding Frenzy will happen shortly

And with lawsuits currently in progress -- getting better all the time.

No one cares.

 

When >50% of your population cares, you'll care.

 

I laugh at your ignorance of our system.

 

No surprise-- your two actual arguments, #5 & #6, are misrepresentations.

#5: WRONG. Maine does NOT have, "Red Flag laws"-- showing that the only "abysmal" aspect of your post, is your research effort.

As I have fulsomely explained, in the first thread on this topic (in which, you had also taken part)-- Maine has a YELLOW Flag law, which is in various respects, weaker (by design) than a Red Flag law.

In a Red Flag law, RELATIVES can petition the court, for the removal of guns. In Maine, ONLY THE POLICE can do so. It was to members of his FAMILY, it turns out (who would ever have imagined?), that the suspect had confessed his hearing of voices, speaking of violence-- which began when the man got a new, high-powered hearing aid.


#4: The family then did report this, to both police, and to his National Guard barracks. Police seem to have not taken action, however, another stipulation of Maine's Yellow Flag law, is that in order for police to petition the court for a removal of someone's guns, that person must first have had a medical examination (read: psychological evaluation). As there had been no crime committed (yet), it is reasonable to assume that police would have no legal power, to force a law-abiding citizen to have a medical examination. Something like that, would require a court order. But the police aren't allowed to petition the court, until they get this medical appraisal. Do you see the problem, there? This law basically allows police to get involved in removing someone's guns, only after the person has run afoul of the law, and is in custody (if even then). It might require, even in that case, the voluntary cooperation of the person whose weapons, the police wanted to have removed.


#6: Finally, it is ridiculous of you to complain about police response time, in rural Maine. Also, a couple of cops showing up with standard issue weapons, to confront this shooting instructor, Nat'l Guardsman, welding an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, would in all likelihood, have only added to the death count, if they had even tried to engage the man, on their own. How much help, had all the cops standing around been, outside the elementary school, in Uvalde?

 

They do care-- just not enough, to make it a voting issue; certainly not a top one. In a recent FOX poll, 61% of registered voters (84% of Dems; 36% of Repubs) favored banning "assault weapons."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...imits-arming-citizens-reduce-gun-violence.amp

See results for other regulations, with up to 87% in favor, at my post:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-mass-shooting.614415/page-27#post-1074496471

 

5. Not for mass shootings or murders of any kind.

Most recent news says a .308 AR-10.

 

So let's say that the ban on so-called assault weapons does happen....

Then the next shooting occurs with a high capacity magazine handgun. And they're going to want to ban those next right?

Do you see a pattern?

 

These opinions don't count. The ones that do sit on the Court.

If the Assault Weapons Bills currently in Congress passed and were allowed by SCOTUS, how many AR-15s would the US have 6 months after the bill was signed into law? We have 20 million right now.

 

Is that what happened, the last time that "assault weapons" were banned? I think you are jumping to an unwarranted presumption. No one expects all mass shootings to stop. In fact, with the huge number of these guns already out there, I would think the effect would not be dramatically noticeable, right away, but be a more gradual one-- heading though, at least in the right direction.

 

Look at the pattern gun bans happen at with other countries.... Do you think we're going to be different?

 

Ah, a daring argumentative gambit! Guns have not been outlawed, AFAIK, in Great Britain-- only become much more stringently regulated. (I am unfamiliar with the particulars, in Australia's case-- what about you?) The other side of the stricter regulation-- if we are going to look to other countries as being predictive of what would happen here, which I think is an oversimplification, to say the least, and highly speculative-- is that Britain has not had any mass shootings, since.

So, since you are the one that brought up the comparison, are you theoretically saying that, even if it eliminated our mass shootings, you would not think that our adopting English-style gun regulation, would be worth it?

This is, of course, only a hypothetical question, because the chances of either of those things happening here, we might as well call "zero."

 

This is another example of a gun free zone gone wrong. Both targets were gun free zones. A lot of good that did. Right?

Those people were made completely defenseless by the government's gun control.

 

have any of the gun banners ever answered this question?

how does a law banning possession of a firearm =and the potential punishment for breaking such a law-deter someone who is NOT Deterred by the the consequences of committing multiple counts of first degree murder?

 

wrong, handguns have been completely banned in England for 99% of the citizens. and Britain never had any statistically significant numbers of mass shootings before they had a collective bedwetting over Dunblane

 

absolutely nothing happened other than new shooters had to pay massively inflated prices for new magazines for many firearms. The right direction is the supreme court continuing to properly defend the second amendment and those who try to pass laws infringing upon it, sued into oblivion for civil rights violations under 42 USC 1983

 

Let's get back to my original point.

Do you honestly mean to tell me that if we ban assault weapons and then there are some high-profile shootings with semi-automatic handguns, that a good percent of Democrats won't then be calling to ban those as well?

You don't believe that could happen?

 

LOL, that you are not even willing to answer to the analogy, which you had made. I guess I can't blame you, for wanting to always stay in the prosecutor's position, asking all the questions, and answering none; nevertheless, this is obviously how an inquisition works-- not a debate. I feel I've been too lax about enforcing any equitable treatment of my points, by you so, since the new point you raise is a ridiculous one-- as it almost always is, when the question posed is whether something is possible, or "could happen"-- I would like to get your answer to my undeniably justifiable question, before getting into the weeds of false insinuation, entwining your new query.

 

There's absolutely nothing new about my question.

It's the same question I asked you to begin with. Which you still have not given a concrete answer to.

You answered a question with another question

 

not really, we gun owners tend to care more than the low wattage sheeple who mindlessly bleat in unison with the leftist control freaks who want disarmed subjects in order to impose their collectivist authoritarianism

 

it IS a lose-lose scenario for gun banners, If they claim their reason for wanting to ban rifles (that are used in less killings each year than knives) is to reduce murders with those weapons, then they HAVE TO support banning the firearm that is used in many many times more murders than those incontinence causing "Assault weapons"-IE Handguns

NOW IF THEY CLAIM THEY DON'T WANT TO BAN HANDGUNS, then they are PROVEN LIARS about their motivations concerning AR styled rifles

 

Hell ****in no they haven't, because they know their agenda is bullshit.

 

Gun banners can bleat until they are blue in the face. It's simply never going to happen. There are more guns in the United States than there are people. It would be like trying to ban or confiscate everyone's cell phone or vehicle. A logistical impossibility....

 

they know that. Crime control has nothing to do with their schemes, Spite and cultural loathing motivates most of the gun banners. They want to make open and legal uses of firearms too expensive or too much of a hassle to engage in. Their goal is harassing people who don't buy into their collectivist authoritarian nonsense., It has nothing to do with the idiotic claims (that almost none of them actually believe) that banning guns are going to stop people from committing armed robbery, murder, or forcible rapes.

 

Handguns were already banned for 99.99% of citizens before the ban.
To own a firearm of any kind in the UK you have to show a need eg pest control and self defence is not considered a need since so few people have guns. For most of the small number of handgun owners they could only use them at licenced firing ranges and they were not allowed to take them home. They had to be secured at the range. So although Thomas Hamilton legally owned the firearm he used to kill 16 school children he had illegally taken it from the range.

 

a major de-evolution of the rights Blackstone wrote about in English History.