BIDDEFORD, Maine — Maine State Police seized an arsenal of weapons from a Biddeford man who told police he brought a loaded gun to a showing of “Batman: The Dark Knight Rises” in Saco on Saturday night, according to Department of Public Safety spokesman Stephen McCausland.
Timothy Courtois, 49, was arrested in York about 10 a.m. Sunday after state police Trooper Phillip Alexander clocked Courtois’ Ford Mustang traveling at 112 mph on the Maine Turnpike. Other motorists had called police to report the vehicle was speeding southbound on the turnpike with its hazard lights flashing.
Inside the car, police found an AK-47 assault rifle, four handguns and several boxes of ammunition, McCausland said Monday afternoon.
Also in Courtois’ car, police found newspaper clippings about the mass shooting Friday during a showing of the same Batman movie at a Colorado movie theater, according to McCausland.
Courtois told police he had attended the Batman movie at the Cinemagic Theater in Saco on Saturday night with a loaded gun in his backpack and that he was on his way Sunday to Derry, N.H., where he planned to shoot a former employer, McCausland said.
“He didn’t speak to any intent to harm people [at the theater], but I’m sure a lot of this is going to continue to come out” as agencies including the state police, FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives continue their investigations, Maine State Police Lt. Kevin Donovan said Monday.
“We don’t know what his true intentions were” when he brought the gun to the theater, and investigators are trying to determine his reasons for doing so and for having a large collection of firearms, McCausland said.
New Hampshire-based Cinemagic operates seven movie theaters in Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Bob Collins, director of marketing for the company, said Monday evening that Cinemagic policy prohibits backpacks and large bags from theaters. That policy still holds true, he said. The company has not determined whether Courtois did in fact attend the movie on Saturday or if he brought a bag with him, as he told police, according to Collins.
“The safety of our patrons is, and always has been, of paramount importance to Cinemagic,” the company said in a statement after the Colorado shootings. “As it has in the past, Cinemagic will continue to take all reasonable steps to provide a safe and wholesome environment for our valued moviegoers.”
A search of Courtois’ home at 344 Elm St. in Biddeford after his arrest uncovered more guns, including a machine gun, rifles, handguns and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Courtois made his initial court appearance in Springvale District Court on charges of having a concealed weapon and criminal speeding at 1 p.m. Monday by video from York County Jail, according to a court clerk.
His bail is set at $50,000 cash or $150,000 real estate, with provisions that he not use or possess alcohol, drugs or dangerous weapons. He also must submit to random searches and testing under the bail conditions.
Donovan said police checks haven’t revealed any criminal history in Courtois’ background.
State police received assistance from the FBI and ATF during the investigation.
The York County district attorney’s office and U.S. attorney’s office in Portland will review the case to identify any other potential charges, according to McCausland.
The Springvale District Court clerk said Courtois is scheduled to appear in York District Court at 8:30 a.m. Aug. 23.
I wish all potential murderers were as stupid as this guy.
Which character is he?
Who ever he would be would probably depend on his obvious clinical obesity :-)
If that were true considering that the average person in our country has rather low IQ scores that would mean that most Americans would technically be potential murderers. Logically speaking. Specially considering that our international test score ratings have been dropping steadily over the last 50 years that would solidify the qualitative perspective of your statement. (sarcasm implied)
I own multiple guns, including an AR15. I use my guns for hunting and shooting in pits, I would never think of to do thing like this. Its idiots like the guy in colorado and this guy that are going to make us loose our 2nd amendment right.
I own multiple weapons, including an AR15. I use my guns for hunting and target shooting in pits. Its idiots like the guy in colorado and this guy that are going to make us loose our right to bear arms.
I think I’ll wait until this one comes out on NETFLIX or hits the Red Box. I could jam my hand in the mail box or trip over the curb returning the video I guess-I’ll take my chances.
What is the big deal, they are just hunting rifles.
Do you hunt with an AK-47 and a machine gun?
Your statement of “AK-47 and a machine gun” shows your lack of any firearm knowledge. To answer your question, yes, people do hunt with AK’s and AR’s. Both calibers are fine for hunting as is the platform they are presented in.
Agreed. You are more likely to find a machine gun mounted to a vehicle because they are heavy sob’s!
Media Firearm Guide (SFW)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_L52qeI-j4jM/Sr0k4ki3_iI/AAAAAAAAA0o/7oNaOb3eMyU/s400/journalists-guide-to-guns-1.jpg
Yeah but, come on now, what serious hunter hunts with an assault rifle? I mean, I don’t hunt because I think its become a sport and thats totally lame, but I understand why people do it. And I know a bit about the world and life and if someone told me they hunted with an AK Id sneer and go the other way with my nose high in the air. Assault rifles are built for war, not hunting. Sure, you can use one to hunt… and you could also use a 28 gauge shot-gun in war. Doesnt mean they are designed or intended for that.
Flintlocks, single shot center fire, and bolt action rifles were designed for war.
Yeah, more than a century ago. And the effect of war and arms races on waeponry of all kinds is quite obvious, from guns, ammunition, aviation, etc.
And that was all that was envisioned in 1787.
AR’s are actually a really good platform for hunting. People use the .223 for varmint hunting, especially out west. In Maine I know people that us the AR-10, which is .308 caliber that is a very common round for people deer hunting in this state. Just because you don’t like the look of a gun doesn’t mean it’s not reliable for other purposes other than battle. Once upon a a time the M1 was our countries weapon of choice in war and today most other shooters I talk too still like to use it on their chosen hunting grounds.
Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic, magazine fed, built for war firearm really isnt hunting. I dont care what the caliber is and blasting “varmint” isnt hunting, either. I mean hunting like in the woods, stalking down a deer or moose, using woods skills and out smarting your prey. not kicking it on the farm porch drinking PBR and shooting rats. That isnt hunting. You dont hunt varmint. You just shoot them. If you haul out your Armalite, load up the 5 round mag, cover yourself in scent block, put on your Realtree Camo, go climb a tree stand and call in a deer that you’ve baited for the last months or two, then shoot it, you arn’t much of a hunter. Thats what I picture when I think Assault Rifles + hunting. You only need one bullet. Just one. Thus, you need minute of angle accuracy. Not going to get that from an AR. Ever. I was raised in an old fashioned hard working woods type family. My grandfather served in the second war. He spent most his life trapping, hunting, fishing, splitting wood and building houses. An old time real world type. He hunted like a man. In green wool pants that chaffed like mad and those old ox blood trooper boots. He carried a bolt action. He had an M1 Garande from the war. It sat in his safe. Never came out….. I never said I didnt like the look of anything. Ive owned assault rifles. I love how they look. I never said they were not reliable for hunting. In fact, Id say more so. Heck, if I took my old Olympic and stuffed a C-Mag under it Id bet itd be great for hunting. I could take out a whole field of deers…. My point here is, anyone who is anyone, who knows about hunting, who has a family tradition of real outdoors man type stuff would tell you that you simply just dont hunt with an assault rifle. Im not really sure how else I can explain it…. Ahhh, yes… Occam’s Razor is rather appropriate here… Why do with more what you could do with less?
I too learned from a man who grew up the hard way and in the woods as one of nine children. From the sounds of it both your grandfather and mine grew up fairly similarly. While he didn’t serve in WWII his brothers did and when they came home they did hunt with their M1’s. Not only that my grandfather used a semi-auto 30.06 for years. They didn’t care about the sporting aspect, they cared about putting enough food on the table and that’s how I approach hunting. I use the tools available to me and the seasons which means bow, firearms, and muzzleloaders seasons are all utilized if need be. While I certainly appreciate the hunting/sporting/stalking aspect of it and do it when I can, I’m in the woods to put food on the table not for a trophy or bragging rights. If I had an AR in a caliber I felt would do the job I’d use it but .223 isn’t a big enough round to make me feel comfortable that I’d get a quick, clean kill. From what you’re saying, anyone using a level action, which has likely killed more game than any other, isn’t really hunting because it hold more than one round and it skilled hands can be fired nearly as fast as a semi-auto.
This debate will probably go on long past the time you and I are even spending time in the woods. While I can understand and respect your point of view and have had this same discussion with others in past years, I’m thinking we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
I think hunting for sport is lame and a product of an excess of individuals time. Hunting is about providing food, not about a trophy kill. But I dont feel like anything less then bolt/pump/lever action weapons and spending time on the ground in the cold is hunting. No tree stands. No technology. Nothing fancy to give you a large advantage. I feel like assault weapons fit this category. Semi-auto in my elitist opinion is generally not acceptable as it removes a fair bit of skill from the equation. Thats my issue. Skill. Hunting shouldnt be easy. It shouldnt be a sport. It shouldnt be about ego and getting the biggest deer…. .223 is too small, indeed. Lever action for hunting is fine, as its keeping in the tradition and can be fired quickly by SKILLED hands… Your right about the debate, such things go on and on an on as it opinion and not factual based. So, I will happily agree to disagree. Cheers.
“machine gun” is not a caliber, it is a style of weapon. A caliber would be a number.
Gee. I was raised in a household where it was deemed more sporting to hunt with single shot weapons. I agree. Later, as an adult, I had a friend and neighbor who only went deer hunting with a bow. even more skill and yes he got his deer.
What kind of game do you ‘hunt’ in a movie theater????
Your knowledge for firearms are very poor, First of all these aren’t “Machine guns” these are semi automatic weapons. 2nd Yes people do hunt with AR15 and AK47. I hunt with my AR15 and I know a couple people that hunt with an SKS which is a sporter version of the AK but uses the same ammunition. I highly doubt these were fully automatic weapons if they are most likely they were purchased Illegally.
I guess it depends what you are hunting. Maybe a bear.
So if I hunt with my semi-automatic AR-10 which is .308 cal and has a clip that hold 5 rounds, I am some sort of a nut because you define that as an assaulk rifle. Ok, I’ll switch to my .semi-automatic 308 caliber Winchester which also hold 5 rounds and I’m no longter a nut job. You want one rifle banned because of how it looks, but functionally there is no difference between the two.
Where exactly do you see that I suggest banning anything? If you’re going to jump to “OMG, they want to take my guns!” every time somone asks a question about the topic, you are not being rational. This paranoia demonstarted by some gun owners is what really frightens me. After all, guns don’t kill people, people do. Paranoid people with guns seem to be at greater risk of doing so.
Sorry, Wasn’t meant to be ditrected at you.
What would you be hunting with these types of weapons and so many? Obviously an obsession with guns this guy had for some time. Nobody needs that many weapons. Something people ought to be acknowledging if someone they know has such a cache then notify law enforcement.
Who are you to judge how many guns someone should have?
And you?
Probably someone who is level-headed, rational, sensible and reasonable; secure in the size of his own genitalia; and whose father didn’t beat his mother. Why do you ask?
Someone like this?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-71-shoots-alleged-robbers-internet-cafe/story?id=16800859#.UA3Sno7byTM
Hoarding stuff is a red flag.
Possibly, but what some may call a collection, others may call hoarding. I don’t trust the Government to make that distinction.
Then you should stop putting money in a bank or a 401k/IRA, etc.
Try to stick with the program here son.
Well, let’s see, I spent the first portion of my adult life in the U.S. Army. After sustaining injuries while on active duty overseas, medically discharged from service I got into federal law enforcement until my disabilities made it so I am unable to work. Over the years I have purchased a “cache” of firearms and ammunition. I grew up around firearms in NW Maine, participated and continue to participate in all types of hunting seasons here in Maine. I have passed this family tradition on to my two boys and daughter as well. Each of them already have three or four firearms apiece. So, when you decide to notify law enforcement due to my comment just what do you think they are going to do? There is nothing they can do without violating my rights. If you choose to not own a firearm, or choose to only own one or two firearms I support your choice. The least that I expect is for others to support my choice as well. I won’t tell you how to live so don’t tell me how to live.
And no one “needs” more than 1 car. Or TV. Or phone. Or house. Do you own more than 1 of these items?
It is not your decision how many of anything someone else owns or even what they own as long as they purchase it with their own money.
I think he was trying to get arrested so he could not follow through with is plan. Wonder why he had a Bangor Police ball cap?
That is pretty interesting. Good point.
I think he may have been on the force up here.
The question is: what will responsible gun owners do or be willing to do to keep these nuts from getting these types of weapons? We cannot do nothing.
Edit: There have been lots of comments about hunting, assault weapons and keeping govt out of things, but few ideas about how to keep nut jobs from getting guns, so here’s an idea.
Make it illegal to buy weapons or ammunition online or at gun shows. Instead, allow gun owners to buy any weapon and as much ammunition that they want at “a local gun store”. This way the store owner can see who is buying what and can decide whether to report the orange-haired creepy young guy who buys 6,000 rounds to the police.
The internet is a big part of the problem. We need to admit that and eliminate it as a way for these creeps and cowards to buy their weapons. Responsible gun owners will be known by the gun store staff and won’t be affected.
That is fair question, for which I do not have a answer at this time.
I’m sorry your post got flagged, there was nothing wrong with it. Shame on whoever flagged it.
Well I had about 60 likes before some cry baby flagged it. I didn’t think there was anything wrong with it, I dont know why I bother. A day or two ago some guy was calling veterans and members of the military “brainwashed idiots” yet that didn’t get flagged. Oh well. I love freedom of speech (unless it offends someone, then your naughty)
There is nothing we can do via the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. What we CAN do is exercise OUR 2nd Amendment and take him out if the need arises.
in order to bear arms, does one need an AK-47? I understand hand guns, shot guns…but why does someone “need” an AK-47? Don’t get me wrong here, I support the SA, we have two guns in our house…I just don’t understand the need for assault rifles.
What does an AK-47 do that “your” two guns cant do? It is simply a semi-automatic riffle just like I use for hunting deer, only difference is that AK-47s are a smaller caliber. Don’t get pulled into the “assault rifle” name/blame game. Bottom line is we need armed citizenry in order to STOP nut jobs.
Kill 40 people at once before anyone can react… I support SA…
Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt deer? Never heard of such a thing.
What do you use, Reuben?
Then you have never lived in the northwoods.
The deer in the northwoods are VICIOUS! AND well armed!
Yes, and I support the right to arm bears!
Again with the need, do you need a car that exceeds the highest posted speed limit in the US? Do you or anyone need alcohol, tobacco, smartphones…
were cars, alcohol, tobacco, and smart phones invented for the use of killing something/someone?
No, but they still do.
Are their victims any less dead? Please wake up and see the world we live in, killing people is human nature, sad as that may sound. Animals kill their own out of necessity as do we, it’s only that we’re blessed with opposing thumbs that allow us to utilize objects, but our basic being is still animalistic. We seek food when we need it, we seek water when we need it, we seek shelter when we need it, we will do anything to ensure those needs are fulfilled when pushed. Similarly we will kill other when we deem necessary. Sadly most of the killing is done based on not liking the other sides views, read as religion.
So please spare us the Utopian desire for us to all hold hands and sing together. until we figure out how to agree on everything, we’ll need to be able to defend ourselves, such is the arms race as we know it today. Sadly our technology has proven that we can develop enough weapons capable of killing the entire Earth’s population over two entities inability to see eye to eye.
Are there no limits on the 2nd Amendment? Can we all own an atomic bomb, an Abrams Tank, an ICBM, a surface-to-air missile under the 2nd Amendment?
The 1st Amendment has limits — we can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, despite our right to free speech under the 1st Amendment. So if the 1st Amendment is not unlimited, why is the 2nd Amendment unlimited?
Maybe I want an atomic bomb, because I think it will keep me safe from intruders and break-ins. I’d be an armed citizenry then, by golly! Should I be able to have an atom bomb to protect myself?
It is the right to ‘keep and bear arms.’ Does not say muskets, handguns, nothing specific, because our founders knew things are always changing. Many are working to support the right to keep and bear knives, because every modern society that has successfully limited ownership of guns has found that they need to move on and the first next step is knives. Luckily, here in Maine we have a lot of granite so we will be able to stock pile good rocks if the bradys and mccarthys are successful.
So, that does not answer my question — there are limits to our 1st Amendment rights to free speech. You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Are there no limits to our 2nd Amendment rights? Do I have a right to have my own atomic bomb? Maybe I would like to have a surface-to-air missle (to hunt wild turkeys).
Are there no limits to the 2nd Amendment, even though there are limits to the 1st Amendment?
Of course there are limits; just walk into any sporting goods store and ask for enriched plutonium or guided missals and you’ll be spending the next five days with the FBI. The things you mention are illegal for private citizens to own. Most people with a shred of common sense already know that…
Good! If there are some limits to the 2nd Amendment, there must be reasonable, sensible, gun control laws that we can pass that do not violate 2nd Amendment rights.
Is there some way to stop people like the Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes from buying such huge quantities of weapons and ammunition, and setting off on a killing rampage?
Why pass new gun control laws when the ones we have are not consistently enforced?
Is there some way to stop an individual from buying a huge quantity of alcohol, drinking it all and killing someone on the highway? No there isn’t, unless he was under psychiatric care 24/7. Why does everyone expect the the all-mighty government to protect them from the cradle to the grave. Why do you want more laws for big brother to control your life? Bad people do bad things and criminals don’t care what the law says, that’s why they’re criminals.
Because we like semi-automatic rifles. The question by anti-gunners, ultimately, would be “why do you need anything more than a single-shot gun, or why do you need anything but a muzzle-loading, black-powder gun, or even any firearm to hunt deer?” Let them take away the semi-automatics and tomorrow they will “discover” that scoped bolt-action rifles are used by military snipers.
You don’t know much about firearms, huh?
how many bullets does an AK hold as compared to the little .22, and a shot gun that we have? If the guy that just shot up the movie theater had something that couldn’t hold as many rounds, the chances of him being stopped would have been greater, because he would have had to stop and reload. We should license gun owners the same way we license drivers. Classes, written test, road test, and license test. License all guns, and renewals every few years.
the Henry golden boy holds 18, there are 50 round magazines for the ruger 10/22 it is not the number of rounds or the look of the gun, it is the intent of the person using it. Guns are items and that is all they are blaming any gun from a 65 caliber single shot black powder to a mini-gun they are nothing but tools.
I agree..It’s not the gun’s fault – never said it was – but why does someone need 50 rounds in one mag?
For the same reason they need a car that goes 120+ mph.
Why do you need a computer? We didn’t even have home computers 50 years ago. Think what all the bnd folk would do without computers.
how can you compare guns to computers?
Information is a greater weapon than guns. If this guy had had less information he would not have been able to build the traps he built at his home. Maybe argueing for less education would serve you better than arguing for fewer bullets.
You were talking about ‘needs’ and there are so many many things beyond food, water and shelter, which are the only real needs people have, that some consider essential. Just looking for something that is purely fluff that you might consider important.
So just discard the Constitution and we will all abide by your rules. The second amendment gives me the authority to own firearms. I would suggest that you study history again…that was the start of things many years ago…forcing gun owners to register. History is doomed to repeat itself
The second amendment also gives me the authority to own fire arms as well, and we take advantage of that in my household. I just don’t understand why this should include something that shoots off 50 rounds. Why does one need that? And why not register guns, safety/license course etc? Even make exceptions for rural folks and farmers. There has to be some sort of compromise somewhere.
No, there does not need to be ‘compromise.’ You can not compromise on rights. We have them or we lose them. Your ignorance of guns is stunning, and if you truly own one, I hope you do not use it. Take a basic pistol course and learn the names of things at least.
The 2A did not give you any ‘authority.’ It prevents Congress from altering a right you have to protect yourself and your community.
I believe in education and continuing practice with firearms. I do not need a government to tell me to learn as much as I can to be safe around a powerful tool. But, I do not need a license or registration to make me safe. A license and registration does not stop people from driving to endanger both themselves and others. Licenses and registration just makes it easy to collect the guns once you ban them, and lock up the people with the licenses.
You CAN revoke someone’s license for driving like a fool. People wrap themselves up in the constitution as if it is some sort of entitlement as it pertains to guns.
The second amendment is not 100% clear on the right to own guns. The language is vague enough that debate can be, and will be, entertained. The constitution was written that way intentionally. The constitution can also be amended, including the bill of rights. Granted, it is very difficult, but it is not something that is prohibited. The language of “The right to a well armed militia” can certainly be argued that it means we have the right to having armed forces… which we do. If you dig into the term militia, you will see that any militia is subject to government control. This is NOT clear cut. Don’t be fooled, there are grounds for the government to step in and create law centered around guns, both morally and legally.
As it pertains to hunting and the need for an assault rifle, that is also an old and tired argument. We can buy food now. Hunting has been relegated from a necessity to a luxury in terms of it’s usefulness. It’s considered a sport. Certain equipment is banned in many sports, included hunting’s cousin, fishing. These items are banned because they give an unfair advantage. Just having a gun is an unfair advantage, especially when the other guy doesn’t even know he is playing the game. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that certain weapons should not be allowed. I would rather they make it more difficult and lengthen the season than allow weapons that have a main purpose of killing as efficiently as possible. It’s like the steroids of hunting.
It’s ironic that it’s generally the same folks that complain about what they perceive as entitlements… taking an entitled stance on gun ownership. Rights are interesting. Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t make it the right thing to do. When we can differentiate between the two, it leads to entitlement. My right to do something should never impede anyone else’s right to take an opposing view or stance. That is the impasse we are at with gun ownership.
“You CAN revoke someone’s license for driving like a fool.”
Very true, but what if I were to propose taking away your drivers license or limiting your ability to drive a car because one OTHER guy drove like a fool. I’m guessing you would be defending your rights a little more then.
We actually have laws based around access to cars and the roads. That is not apples to apples AT ALL. It is a privilege to drive a car. Not a right.
That being said it would not be fair to govern all cars to 65 mph just because some people speed now would it?
In actuality, many vehicles have speed limiters. If you read car magazines at all, you will notice that in top speed tests they generally note that the top speed was limited by a speed limiter. It depends on where the car was made. I believe the limit for German cars is 155 mph.
Regardless of that fact, there are many circumstances in which being able to drive faster than 65 mph is tantamount to personal, or public safety. But again, this is a privilege. I am not sure why this is being used as a benchmark. It’s not even a SIMILAR circumstance.
You’re quotes from 250 years ago are all interesting. I believe I stated that one’s ability to own a gun should be preserved. As I also said before, we are prohibited from owning tanks, rocket launchers, automatic weapons, etc. So CLEARLY there is a line drawn on which munitions we can and cannot presently use. I am openly questioning where that line presently is.
I haven’t made any quotes from anyone that I can remember. Check to see who you are replying to.
The two issues are similare though. You wish to restrict the rights of law abiding owners due to the actions of criminals and the insane. Justifying it by showing cases where you have gotten away with it in the past doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me either. So because I have managed to get away with restricting your rights in other cases I should now be able to take away your rights in more cases?
I was speaking to the quotes above your posts.
I don’t see the issues as similar. You are speaking of driving cars on public highways. There is a strict process in which to qualify for that, not to mention that privilege can be taken away. The very vehicle you drive needs to qualify to be allowed on the roads. Are you suggesting a process similar to motor vehicle policy for gun ownership? Or are you using the privilege to drive as an example of freedoms being stripped away?
The basis in fact is we are responsible for 80% of the gun deaths in the richest 23 countries in the world combined. We have over 300 million guns in our homes. What are we afraid of? For such a powerful and proud nation, we certainly are easy to manipulate with fear. MAYBE, we should concentrate on our race and poverty problems a bit and then maybe there would be fewer angry people reaching for the gun drawer.
There are legal and training hoops that must be dealt with before you can own a gun as well. Suggesting that you should limit a law abiding persons rights to address the actions of a criminal are exactly the same as if I were suggesting limiting your choice of vehicles to golf carts because someone was speeding. Owning guns has less to do with fear than it does with the right to protect myself. I don’t have to wait for the police officer to show up to protect me from people like this and until your laws rotect me to the same levels as I can protect myself I will reserve and defend that right.
The day I have to carry a gun to a movie theater is a day when I reflect upon whether or not the intent of the second amendment is being accurately legislated. When the price of freedom means I have to hole myself up in my house with my guns, then how free are you? Are you free when you have to carry a gun to protect yourself? Is that freedom? Far far far from it. Everyone is so entrenched in what is good for the individual, people have completely lost sight of what is good for our society. Like it or not, we STILL have to coexist with other people. The balance is doing what is right for society while maintaining individual rights.
Insane people and hardened criminal are always going to find guns.. and are always going to take things that don’t belong to them, and sometimes kill people. That is just statistics. The suggestion, apparently, is to arm everyone to nines to be able to fend off these people… although that is statistically ineffective.
Hey, I don’t know anything about freedom though, to be honest. I live in the United States, a country run by special interest groups, not the majority of the citizens. I will have to ask the folks from countries that truly have freedom. You know, like Ireland or Canada or Switzerland. That is not my opinion, that is also statistics.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/state-of-world-liberty-lists-7-countries-as-freer-than-usa-which-country-do-you-think-offers-the-mo/question-690337/
Statistics lie. Liers quote statistics.
The day I can pay to have the sort of protection that the Rich liberals how want to prevent me from owning guns have, that is the day I will give up the right to protect myself and my family. In America, men have always had the right to protect themselves. Those who wish to oppress have always worked to convince us that we don’t need that right anymore.
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment
of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to
invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to
destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep.
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the
Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of
the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying
Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the
Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form
an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the
liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little
if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand
ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of
standing armies in Federalist 29.)
“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of
the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)
Anyway, you probably get the jist of all of that. I’s very clear to me that our founder intended for us to be well armed as well as why.
and you’re insults are unnecessary. This is why it’s so difficult to have a reasonable conversation with some people.
I am not being insulting. I am pointing out places where you are ignorant. That is not an insult. Ignorance simply means uninformed. If you were better informed you would not say things that seem silly. And I am not saying YOU are silly. Only the things you say sound silly because you are under informed.
Compromise done here will be like that in England and Australia, where compromise resulted in complete confiscation of all firearms and where crime is on the rise, thanks to disarmed civilians.
When the Second Amendment was written, civilians had more and better firearms than did the military. If we were to really follow the Second Amendment, then we today would be better armed. Or, maybe the military is overarmed and should be cut back so as to be less of a threat to civilian society?
compare crime statistics in the UK to the US.
Can we include the war in Ireland where British military was used for decades to combat their unarmed citizens? How about bombs which work nicely in place of firearms for committing mass murder? Even worked in the US for Tim McVeigh.
DC tried going completely gun free. Didn’t work! The guns were more plentiful on the black market and crime rose significantly. It was challenged in a court of law and DC now has their legal guns back.
an AK-47 with a standard clip holds 20 bullets–the guy in Colorado did not have an AK-47-he had the Smith and Wesson civilian version of an M-4(modern day M-16-AR-15) also holds 20 rounds.
However, the one used in the theater shooting had a seperately purchased drum magazine designed to hold 100 rounds—these types of magazines are notorious for causing jams in the weapon they are attached to and luckily, that’s what happened in Colorado–the wackadoodle nutjob was forced to use his pistols and shotgun instead–lucky the rifle jammed or many more people would have been killed.
I agree with the poster that purchases of ammunition through the mail should be outlawed and store owners who sell large amount of ammo to individuals (6000 rounds is a lot) should be required to report such sales to the police—there may be legitimate reasons to buy such a large number of bullets, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head, other than resale or fighting a war.
When we have our women’s course later this month I will be purchasing approximately 3000 rounds of ammunition. For one day. I don’t think the police should be investigating people who buy large quantities, because they have important work to do. I am not a danger to the community. Rather have them out there getting lawbreakers.
When you consider that one out of 15 million gun owners has done something horrible yet thousands of physicians every year kill people, I wonder just what our priorities are. I think that licensing and registration of physicians does little to protect the patient and probably would do equally badly with gun owners.
I buy cases of ammo to practice for pistol competition. It takes a lot of practice to win matches. Of course, anyone who knows nothing about guns would not understand nor care about that. To them, guns are for one thing, only.
I know quite a bit about firearms I own a Win 94 (32 caliber, not 30-30), three shotguns (two 16 ga doubles and on 12 ga pump) and three pistols–2 S&W revolvers and a 1911A (not manufactured by Colt, but by Remington Rand the type writer company during WWII)–and have hunted and shot most of my life (now 59 years old) most people who are serious about pistol competition load their own, some buy it in bulk–and it would seem a slight inconvenience to explain to the cops that you buy it for pistol competitions—after all you would only have to explain once and they won’t bother you again. It seems like a small price to pay if it would prevent a wackadoodle like the Colorado joker from killing 12 people (so far) in a theater. nobody said you can’t buy the bullets,there would just be a record of it.
thank you for your intelligent post! It answers a lot of questions I had.
Do you have any idea what caliber the ak is, millicent? He did stop and reload. People reported it.
7.62 x 39
unfortunately all you will accomplish is licensing the law abiding citizens, the people most likely to use guns to kill people will find other ways to get them
yes b/c only law abiding citizens drive vehicles and actually go through the process to get a license… please criminals are still going to use weapons criminally. There is still a market for private gun sales. When you buy a car you don’t have to provide a license to a private seller. The criminal use of guns is wrong, but don’t punish the masses for the few. That would be like revoking your privilege to drive b/c someone got drunk and ran into a family in a minivan.
An AK magazine hold 30 rounds, Ruger makes a mag for their .22 that holds 50. You are just as dead with a .22 as you are with a 7.62
Look at 20th century dictators, look at the writing of our founders. The reason our founders wanted us to be well armed is so that we could, if need be, protect ourselves FROM government. The idea of that very government controlling guns is like the fox guarding the hen house. If you think we’ll never need to do that, just remember Japanese internment camps, the Alien and Sedition Acts, NDAA, the “Patriot” Act, Fast and Furious, and more.
So… in a crowded theater, a man wearing black tosses a smoke bomb. He starts firing his weapons.
Fifty people in the audience pull out their automatic weapons and start firing. Into the smoke. Toward the flash of each other’s weapons, as people race around. Into children and ushers and other innocents.
This would NOT be helpful, folks.
Really? Oh us gun owners hadn’t figured that out. Thank God you Libs are here to tell us how to live and spend our money. Just when I think i can’t hate the Republican Arty more the libs ensure I can’t throw my vote their way either.
Maybe, just maybe all you anti gun people could stop equating gun ownership with the movie BS you see and realize the sheer volume of firearms in this country and the vast numbers of citizens that legally own them for generations without a single incident.
Or maybe, just as the shooter gets to your kid a person legally carrying a firearm drops him with a single well placed round and your child gets to enjoy life. Just saying if we’re going on maybe’s…
The AK-47’s I have had experience with were fired on full auto-nasty ambush piece of hardware
Where do you shoot a fully-automatic weapon? You need a class c license for that.
Vietnam – No license required- 2 tours
Subject: [bdn] Re: Police: Arsenal seized from Biddeford man who saw Batman movie with loaded weapon
Many of us GI’s preferred the AK47 to the M16. Early models of the M16 were prone to jamming with disasterous results. The AK provides more punch with it’s larger round and doesn’t need to be hospital clean like the M16. Both the SKS, designed by Sergei Simonov and AK 47, designed by Michail Kalashnikov were of Russian origin. Both pack a devastating punch. I quickly learned respect for both weapons. But that was a war zone. Different story back in the world. I would like to have an up close look at what this guy had stashed away in his arsenal.Subject: [bdn] Re: Police: Arsenal seized from Biddeford man who saw Batman movie with loaded weapon
Full-auto rifles are not legal for the civilian. The press always calls these rifles “AK-47s” but they are properly referred to as SKS, the civilian, semi-automatic versions. Much less “nasty ambush pieces of hardware” than perley wants us to believe.
Apparently the only thing you know about guns is what you have read in the media…
The AK and the SKS are two ENTIRELY different weapons designed by two ENTIRELY different people (just as Perly stated). They both fire the 7.62 round and they both pack a nasty punch. And they are both available to civilians in semi-automatic format. If you don’t believe me look at the photo above, the 4th rifle from the front is an AK-47.
The first rifle in the photo is an AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 Perly was burdened with, which fires the 5.56 cartridge. A smaller projectile and a lower velocity… much less “nasty”
Please have a clue about the topic before posting in a public forum.
Simply becuase when the other countries come over to invade us because Obama has taken our rights away we need to have a way to protect ourselves.
Whaaaatttt? What are you talking about. What rights have you lost?
seriously? do you watch anything but Fox News?
Apparently, now we can be detained indefinitely without so much as a trial, so long as we’re deemed a terror suspect (by an accuser you’ll never face).
we spend almost as much on military as the REST of the world combined, and many of the other big spenders are our Allies. I don’t think anyone is stupid enough to invade us.
Stupid enough? How about stupid enough to strap a bomb to themselves or fly a plane into building? Stupid? I’m not losing sleep over an invasion from outside, instead I see the value of human life swirling the drain right here in America. I’m more inclined to be ready for a home invasion from some stupid white trash than a foreign army.
Yeah. That explains 9-11 very nicely.
Thank you, simon.
Put down the remote control and step away from the television. Slowly. Be prepared for a sense of independent thinking to emerge: dizziness may occur, but that will pass.
Oh please….Shut off the Hannity show and step outside.
Exactly!
What’s that have to do with deer dear?
That’s BS.
I think you need to go educate yourself on what Obama has done for gun ownership in this country.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/21/obama-romney-views-have-evolved-toward-gun-rights/
Yep, and at the same time he has hillary clinton overseas making back door deals with the U.N. You should try researching that and see if you can figure out how that pertains to firearms here in the United States.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
There is no “legal way around the 2nd amendment” other than a further amendment to the constitution that repeals or alters it, or a supreme court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd amendment is to be applied.
Your getting closer, keep searching and eventually you will find the truth. By the way Snopes is about as accurate as the BDN.
the international arms treaty is just that….international. This is not something that is going to effect our SA rights. IAT is about the international arms trade, it does not effect domestic arms sales/trade. The whole point of this arms trade is to help ensure that weapons/ammo don’t get into the hands of international terrorists, warlords etc. The UN has no enforcement, it is up to each individual country and they can only enforce with in their own boarders.
Again with the ignorance, milli. Luckily, ignorance can be cured. Not on the brady site, but through a little investigation. The arms treaty will stop the import/export of ammunition, firearms, firearms parts. It will not stop terrorists, it will stop honest citizens from getting things they want and possibly need to use things they legally own.
Sadly, there is.
Seriously…you’re sourcing a Fox News article as a means to educate ourselves??
Ph*@#’n seriously??
normally…I wouldn’t, lol – but, Fox is all that some seem to understand here – and on occasion Fox even has a fact or two that is correct :)
Do you also have a problem with cars that will do 140 mph. when our speed limit is only 75 on the interstate north of old town
If they want to burn all their Gas before they can reach the nearest Gas station up there, let them.
I expect lawbreaker speeders on the road.
I do not expect assault guns at the Bijou.
The lawbreaker speeder has been proven time and time again to be more of a threat than someone who carries a firearm regardless of it’s configuration. The only difference is you don’t know who is carrying and who is not but you do know who is speeding when you see them. Personally I expect people to obey the law, I do NOT expect speeders and I DO report them immediately to the police. Perhaps you or someone who speeds as a matter of choice has been intercepted by one of my phone calls.
Perhaps I have a CWP and learned my speeding lesson many many moons ago.
Pfft.
I think overtaxedagain was referring to the ability to go faster than one could legally go, not encouraging breaking speeding laws. I would like fewer laws so people would learn to respect the laws we have, rather than accepting that there will be lawbreakers.
law breakers are forever
Expect the unexpected!
Again, assault is an action, not an inanimate object.
Gun regulation in united states is abysmal given the firepower available to lunatics. What is it going to take for crying out loud ? Screw the NRA. It’s members should be up in arms!
nope, in fact, mine goes more than that. But, I’m registered, licensed and insured.
And the license and registration are what ensures you don’t speed? How do they prevent you from breaking laws? I’m more inclined to beleive you understands the law and value not breaking it, much like me as a law abiding gun owner. I’ve yet to think damn, I’d gone out a killed someone today if I had a machine gun, I just can’t get one legally. Actually I could if I had an extra $200 dollars for the stamp and wanted to pay the ridiculous prices for a full auto firearm.
The AK-47 is not an ‘asault’ weapon; it is not an automatice weapon. It is just Rambo looking. They are actually quite light and easy to shoot. It is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. People enjoy shooting, just as they enjoy going to football games or movies or reading. It does not matter what a gun looks like or how large a magazine is. What counts is the person holding it. There are crazy people and evil people. Mostly there are normal, honest people. It is hard to do anything about crazy and evil except be on the alert for it.
Whatever you are willing to give up in your rights, you will not be protecting yourself or others from the bad things that happen in the world. You will actually be making some people more vulnerable.
but why does one need 50 bullets in a mag? Don’t you think that if we limited the amount of bullets one could shoot off in a movie theater that perhaps more lives could be saved? If the shooter has to stop and reload…that gives others the chance to stop the shooter.
So if you limit people to a 10 shot mag they will just carry 10 mags…. And there will be no long wait between loading.
by the way, one possible reason why his gun jammed may have been that 100 round mag. I don’t own one myself, but in general the larger the capacity the more likely to have problems.
Why do we need beer or cigarettes? Do both not result in lives lost and billions spent on healthcare?
you can carry it easlily its up to us th owners right?
we need 50 to defend our liberties against this government-you have no idea of what what is ongoing
Competitive shooters (I am not referring to murderers, but normal people who like to shoot) carry extra magazines and can reload amazingly fast. Depending upon the gun you have, it is easier to have multiple magazines rather than one big one.
Crazy people should be prevented from having any guns or ammunition. There is no other purchase that requires the proof of innocence that purchasing guns requires. Everyone is considered guilty. Even having a concealed carry permit that has an FBI investigation as a component does not preclude the check at the gun counter, because one might have done something since getting the permit.
It is hard to guard against crazy and evil. Going after the weapon they chose is not going to stop violence. Glorifying violence might go further. If a gun were not available, he could have used the horrific home-made bombs like the Columbine monsters built: full of broken glass and metal scraps. Look what he built in his room, then caused a disturbance hoping the police would go in when he didn’t answer the door.
Do you “need” a car? No, but you can kill someone with it. Do you “need” a steak knife? No, but you can kill someone with it.
were cars invented to specifically kill? It’s a lot more difficult to kill 30 people at once with a knife than it is a gun.
My hunting rifle will out shoot an AK47 for distance, accuracy and knockdown power all day long. In fact, there are few if any standard issue military firearms that could rival many/most hunting rifles, with the exception of magazine capacity. This is what makes snipers such a desired commodity in war zones.
The biggest misconception is that the uninformed people are equating the looks of the AK and its brethren with power. They do not understand caliber as a factor, and the ak has a smaller caliber than a lot of other rifles. And, it is not an automatic weapon. Which would be illegal for most people to have, and are not easily available.
Google AK-47 and read the selections on the selector switch.
An AK47 today is like a Xerox Machine and brand and model number that basically describes all like equipment. To legally posses and AK47 with a selector switch allowing for full auto fire one needs pass an ATF background check and pay the Federal Tax stamp, and those firearms are registered and tracked.
The AK will fire on full auto whether or not you have a background check and a stamp. I feel that now you have the whole story. Of course assault weapons are tracked cause they are illegal. The one I picked up in the central highlands of Vietnam was a dandy. Still is. Got mine like Johnny Cash-one piece at a time via USPS. Have a great day!! Subject: [bdn] Re: Police: Arsenal seized from Biddeford man who saw Batman movie with loaded weapon
I don’t get your wrong, Millicent. You think people should not have guns that kill. Well, sorry. I have yet to see a gun that is used to laugh someone to death.
It was an AR-15 according to the news report I heard.
In order to have free speech, does one NEED to be able to say everything they want, or only parts of what they want to say? I support the right to free speech, but only when people say what supports my viewpoints. One could use this argument, but surely you don’t support that, do you? Or do you plan on implementing such laws after you disarm us?
Wrong. Read the entire 2nd amendment again.
Gun ownership is in the constitution – if you’re in a well-regulated militia. Let’s see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:
“A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:Definition of MILITIA1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyb : a body of citizens organized for military service2 the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment – are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority – the answer is no.
And I can quote a host of other references, including many from Alexander Hamilton as well, that support an individual right to bear arms. Any honest reading of the Second Amendment provides a clear understanding of the framers’ intent – that individuals must be allowed to maintain their own weapons, and that a well-regulated militia best follows from citizens with experience handling firearms for their own purposes. The Second Amendment does not limit ownership to militias. You are mistaken to think otherwise.
Then do it. I’m thinking that the words “Well-Regulated Militia” were put in there for a reason. Why else would that qualification have been included?
No standing Army in outpost towns
You can think what you please, but you lost in the Supreme Court. It was not a qualification. It actually meant that because a well-regulated militia might be required to protect the colony or country, the people must be allowed to keep and bear arms. Otherwise they could not get together as the civilian army (militia) when needed.
Maybe see the Supreme Courts rulings to see what they think? I’ll give you a hint, they didn’t see it your way when rejecting laws enacted in DC regulating who could own what.
Let me give you a hint, about 80% of DC residence wanted the ban. Interesting definition of freedom you have.
Please cite that statistic? The majority of a single city still cannot overturn or ammend the Constitution. The fact is the people were against the ban were protected under the law and the SCOTUS backed them.
March 16th 2008 Washington Post poll. 76%
Alexander Hamilton’s view on the language of the 2nd Amendment is no more, or less important than mine, or yours, or any other citizens. The constitution is an amazing document that has stood the test of time. They really had a good look into the future, so to speak, when they drafted that document. However, times change. Access is far too easy (gun shows, the internet, etc). Guns are far more powerful and fire at ridiculous rates of speed. I think it is just as blind to not entertain conversations about prevention than it is to just wrap yourself up in a document and exclaim “Look it says it right here… so it can never be reconsidered. Ever.”. That’s very shortsighted. From what I am gathering, the gun advocates seem to write the events such as the one in Colorado off as the price of freedom. That is not acceptable.
I agree and that was exactly my point. Alexander Hamilton’s name was used to provide an argument for gun control. That comment was out of context and inappropriate as a means of making the argument. I easily pulled numerous rebuttals to back up my point. The Constitution is a living document. And yet, over 223 years after it was ratified our Supreme Court was forced to reiterate the simple fact that gun ownership is an individual right. That is the way our Constitution works. As for the price of liberty, we can debate that price. 12 senseless deaths are certainly a high price. However, given the light of potential political tyrrany, I guarantee you would have a heated discussion whether their sacrifice was worth the freedom of millions. If it is the fact of 12 deaths that concerns you, consider the 40,000 who die from car accidents every year. And yet we should all be allowed the freedom to forsake a seatbelt if we choose. That is the price of personal freedom. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Police: Arsenal seized from Biddeford man who saw Batman movie with loaded weapon ARandomName wrote, in response to Ninelake: Alexander Hamilton’s view on the language of the 2nd Amendment is no more, or less important than mine, or yours, or any other citizens. The constitution is an amazing document that has stood the test of time. They really had a good look into the future, so to speak, when they drafted that document. However, times change. Access is far too easy (gun shows, the internet, etc). Guns are far more powerful and fire at ridiculous rates of speed. I think it is just as blind to not entertain conversations about prevention than it is to just wrap yourself up in a document and exclaim “Look it says it right here… so it can never be reconsidered. Ever.”. That’s very shortsighted. From what I am gathering, the gun advocates seem to write the events such as the one in Colorado off as the price of freedom. That is not acceptable. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: And I can quote a host of other references, including many from Alexander Hamilton as well, that support an individual right to bear arms. Any honest reading of the Second Amendment provides a clear understanding of the framers’ intent – that individuals must be allowed to maintain their own weapons, and that a well-regulated militia best follows from citizens with experience handling firearms for their own purposes. The Second Amendment does not limit ownership to militias. You are mistaken to think otherwise. —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
Accessibility has changed. Technology of the weapons has changed. We need to find a balance between individual freedoms and public safety. It warrants a discussion. I am not saying that gun control is the solution, I am however saying that it needs to be part of the discussion. We are not allowed to own certain munitions (tanks, RPGs, etc), so there CLEARLY is a line that has been drawn. Is that line in the right place. That has to be part of the discussion.
One of my biggest gripes with the pro gun folks is that they seem to think this is black and white. If one weapon is banned, then they all will be banned. That is not how those of us advocating control view this issue. You bring up cars… well… certain cars are banned from public roads. Granted, driving a car is a privilege, not a right, but I didn’t make the comparison.
As for seat belts. Please. You are driving on public owned roads that are subject to policy. Be it speed limits, or what have you. When you go to the amusement park, do you wish to waive your right to wear a seat belt on the roller coaster? If there is one universal knowledge I have found in this country, people sometimes have to be forced to do the right thing. That in itself speaks volumes about the level of entitlements people feel. Don’t want to wear a seat belt. EASY solution. Don’t drive. Stop looking at safety measures as a means to strip personal freedoms. That perception is the driving force behind many arguments that really just don’t warrant discussion… and at the same time.. it puts on hold discussions that need to be had.
I agree and that was exactly my point. Alexander Hamilton’s name was used to provide an argument for gun control. That comment was out of context and inappropriate as a means of making the argument. I easily pulled numerous rebuttals to back up my point. The Constitution is a living document. And yet, over 223 years after it was ratified our Supreme Court was forced to reiterate the simple fact that gun ownership is an individual right. That is the way our Constitution works. As for the price of liberty, we can debate that price. 12 senseless deaths are certainly a high price. However, given the light of potential political tyrrany, I guarantee you would have a heated discussion whether their sacrifice was worth the freedom of millions. If it is the fact of 12 deaths that concerns you, consider the 40,000 who die from car accidents every year. And yet we should all be allowed the freedom to forsake a seatbelt if we choose. That is the price of personal freedom. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Police: Arsenal seized from Biddeford man who saw Batman movie with loaded weapon ARandomName wrote, in response to Ninelake: Alexander Hamilton’s view on the language of the 2nd Amendment is no more, or less important than mine, or yours, or any other citizens. The constitution is an amazing document that has stood the test of time. They really had a good look into the future, so to speak, when they drafted that document. However, times change. Access is far too easy (gun shows, the internet, etc). Guns are far more powerful and fire at ridiculous rates of speed. I think it is just as blind to not entertain conversations about prevention than it is to just wrap yourself up in a document and exclaim “Look it says it right here… so it can never be reconsidered. Ever.”. That’s very shortsighted. From what I am gathering, the gun advocates seem to write the events such as the one in Colorado off as the price of freedom. That is not acceptable. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: And I can quote a host of other references, including many from Alexander Hamilton as well, that support an individual right to bear arms. Any honest reading of the Second Amendment provides a clear understanding of the framers’ intent – that individuals must be allowed to maintain their own weapons, and that a well-regulated militia best follows from citizens with experience handling firearms for their own purposes. The Second Amendment does not limit ownership to militias. You are mistaken to think otherwise. —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
SCOTUS says yes.
The assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994-2004 was fine with SCOTUS.
That Law sunset in Sept 2004 no longer a issue.
Wow, really! I guess I did not say 1994-2004 in my post.
The point was Congress could pass it again, and it would get past SCOTUS, again.
Doubtful. There has been a lot done to educate the public since then. Should Congress pass it, my hero Alan would eat it up.
And please cite the case where the SCOTUS ruled on the National Assault Weapon Ban.
For SCOTUS to rule on something it must become a case, pass through lower courts, have appeals upheld and make it to their door. This is why we’re till debating same sex marriage as they’ve not been forced to rule as no single case has made their door step. like the Brady Bill. SCOTUS does not as you imply rule on laws they see, they must be brought to them through the legal appeals systems. But, a few similar cases have made it there and thus far they’ve upheld the rights of individual citizens to own firearms.
Wrong. ReRead your post:”2) the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service”
As an 18+ year old male whole is elidgible for the draft, I am by your definition, along with the vast majority, a member of the malitia.
So, women can’t own guns?
I don’t believe this, but at least your response seems to imply that there is a limit somewhere.
The supreme court ruled that individuals have the right to keep arms
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-280_162-4211588.html
The assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994-2004 was fine with SCOTUS.
But it is gone now. There are no assault weapons. We have not been able to have automatic weapons without a special license since the ’30s.
Semantics are awesome! No, but seriously.
Would you be so kind to cite the case where the court ruled on the national assault weapon ban.
To be fair, you are right. I was sloppy with my language. SCOTUS never overturned would have been accurate. Considering that it was a moderate to conservative court after 1992 and the NRA has more than a few lawyers….the opportunity was there.
Considering how many people here are sighting SCOTUS as justification for the psycho in CO to be able to own multiple untraceable high powered weapons without anyone lifting a finger, I should have been more accurate. Please see the original post I was responding to in the first place “we can do nothing”
I hope you know that ALL the weapons used (or on hand but not used) by the nut case in CO were easily traceable back to the point of purchase. There were no untraceable firearms. Even the rounds purchased over the internet were traced within 24 hours. I dare say the 100 rounds of S&W .40 I purchase a week or so ago from a local gun shop would not be so easily traceable.
OK want some easy, common sense thoughts? Here are two:
1. Ammunition when purchased should have the purchasers name and address recorded. Will it cause a paperwork nightmare for the shop owners yes but that’s the price you have to pay if you want to do business.
2. Like a drivers license, all persons wishing to make a firearms purchase should complete a firearms safety course.
Deal. Sold. Sign me up. The gun show issue you mentioned is a big deal. Did you know that those on a terrorist watch list cannot board an airplane, but can still buy guns (discovered Al-Qaeda manuals point this fact out)? Might want to clean that up, too.
Again, I was born in freaking Aroostook County and I don’t want to take away the basic right of hunters and gamesman, or of protection, but we may have gone a bit far in the other direction on this one.
And do you know why that occurs? Because we still have our law enforcement compartmentized in many instances. The FBI is charged with domestic law enforcement (including domestic terrorism), the CIA with foreign intelligence, the TSA with domestic and foreign security, etc….and in many case a database from one agency is prohibited by law from sharing that information with another federal agency.
Yeah, I know it is pretty crazy and shows how much we haven’t learned from the lesson of 9/11.
I cannot agree with you on this one JD. I do not want ANY government agency having any record of who does and does not own guns. Or ammunition for that matter. What you buy for ammunition will tell someone pretty much what type of guns you have and I do not want records anywhere that are easily accessible to either criminals, druggies, or the government.
Some will call me paranoid but I no longer trust this government. Remember when the police went around New Orleans confiscating weapons after Katrina.
Actually I never said that a national gun registry was the way to go. In fact I have said just the opposite for concerns of hacking the information.
However, if I wish to purchase certain over the counter medication I am required to show an ID and sign a log. If I am required to do this for fear that I operate a meth lab, I see little difference from showing an ID and signing a log when I purchase ammunition over a certain quantity.
I purchase ammunition in large quantities when I buy it because it is much less expensive that way and I like target shooting. I might go through a few hundred rounds in an afternoon, the majority usually 22, but not unusual to shoot 50 t0 100 skeet and a hundred or more larger caliber ammo. Most of the large caliber purchases last a year or more.
I do not feel it is appropriate to put people on watch lists or investigate them because some people are afraid of guns and think anyone buying a thousand rounds of ammo is dangerous or a nut.
Who is talking about you or me being investigated or put on a watch list? You are not investigated or put on a watch list when you purchase certain over the counter medications are you?
No, we are not put on such lists at this time. But limiting ammunition sales, tracing such sales, and putting people on lists or even investigating anyone who purchases what the gun-haters consider “excessive’ amounts of ammunition, (10 rounds? 50? 100?), or guns is being proposed by those on the left.
To anyone who values the second amendment, or freedom period, listening to MSNBC or Ed Shultz or Randy Rhodes these past few days is downright scary.
Do you know what the ATF and FBI told the NOPD when they brought them the guns? Get the “expletive” away from us, you can’t do that you stupid hicks. Please do not indict our country’s police officers based on the actions of the most corrupt police force in the US.
The fact remains that individuals had their legally owned guns confiscated by the government.
You have no idea what a “high powered weapon” even is. Thank God he had not chosen to use a real high powered weapon like a modern hunting rifle. Lets say a 30-06 in particular. Instead of 12 dead and 50+ wounded I would expect the fatalities to be over 50%. Actually, I’ve seen the internal damage my old 30-30 deer rifle does to a deer at close range. Nope, the majority of those people would NOT be alive if shot with a modern hunting rifle.
As for speed of shooting and accuracy. My father could shoot his lever action 30-30 almost as fast as most can fire a semi automatic. And hit what he was aiming at at 50 yards while doing so. Most anyone can do the same with practice.
If your dad (or anyone, with practice) could kill 12 people and wound 59 others with his lever auto in the time it take a crowd to run out of a movie……then I guess you win….uh, whatever you are trying to win here.
The fact you call it a “lever auto” shows your lack of knowledge on this subject. I’m not trying to win anything. I am trying to point out to you your ignorance of the subject and that perhaps before posting based on your personal feelings maybe you should educate yourself on the subject.
Pfff…Lever auto was a typo. It was late. Calm down with your self-righeousness and calling others ignorant.
The Supreme Court has ruled that those words have no meaning. They are not included in any recent rulings.
Take a moment and think about why the Second Amendment even exists.
The country’s founders had just fought a war with the most powerful nation in the world. Why were they able to win that war?
Because this country’s citizens had weapons that were as good as the British Empire and the armed citizens could use the weapons as well as the British troops. Hence a “well regulated militia”.
Look up the meanings of thr words used in the phraise.
Well- Still used as it was then
Regulated- Equipped and trained
Militia- Every able bodied citizen.
Our founders were concerned about a government that abridges the Freedoms of the citizens of the country and the ability of those citizens to stop the government when necessary.
“And the ability of those citizens to stop the government when necessary” Well that’s pretty much irrelevant today, isn’t it? Think about that, do you really think that if the federal government, with its fighter jets/heavy armor and predator drones (never mind nukes) wanted to come after you, then the 2nd amendment is going to protect you? You are not minutemen, and you never will be. You want them because you want them. It has nothing to do with patriotism.
Please, don’t ruin the phallic fantasy that these guys are all leaning on here. My gun is an extension of my manhood and will protect me from all evil!
My gun is absolutely there to protect me, my family, my friends, and even you if need be in the face of evil. I don’t carry to feel like more of a man as you seem to think and as a matter of fact it’s really not all the comfortable. I carry to protect those above and myself. If the fact that I value my life seems absurd to you that’s of no concern to me or wouldn’t change whether or not I’d attempt to stop a threat to your life. I guess the difference between us is that I don’t condone you for not carrying while you seem fit to condone those of us who do.
I don’t condone the incorrect use of the word condone.
Condemn, is the word you are looking for.
And I don’t advocate gun eradication, only assault weapons. Nobody needs to fire 600 rounds/minute to protect their family. Nobody needs an AK-47.
Well there. You pointed out that I didn’t proof read before I posted. Congrats. Do you even know what an assault weapon is? If you’re taking it from the AP and their stories you’re sadly misinformed. An ‘assault weapon’ has a selector switch. That is it can fire semi-auto, a 3-round burst, or full auto. To own one of these a very extensive background check is performed above and beyond the standard NICS check and including being fingerprinted. A tax stamp is required which costs $200 and must be paid to every person to firearm is transferred to. Add to it the cost of the guns which run into the thousands of dollars and you have a very small segment of the populus, mostly collectors, that actually own ‘assault weapons’.
And who are you to say what people need? Do you actually know anything about the AK-47 or even the AR-15 or are you again getting your info from the AP? AK’s and AR’s are semi-auto (one shot fired per trigger pull) just like any other semi-auto rifle. The look doesn’t affect the functionality of the firearms and contrary to what you and others are trying to convey, many people using these for hunting as well as home defense, as well as just the enjoyment of shooting. Truth be told, if the shooter in CO had any idea what he was doing he’d never have put a 100 round drum on the gun as anyone who’s been around them knows they’re prone to jamming. Thankfully he was ignorant and the guy in the above article was as well.
Since you seem hell bent of looking for someone to blame, why don’t you look at the video game industry that’s producing children with an ability to kill, lowering their ability to tell fantasy from reality, and creating a generation of people with a lower ability to feel. You can also blame parents who allow children to play these games and watch violent tv shows on a daily basis because they can’t be bothered to actually parent. Guns are a thing, they don’t cause people to be violent. They’re a tool that in the wrong hands can take a life and in the right one may save it.
What happened to the fake occupy movement, must have been too much like work.
Cute. I work full time and pay every cent of taxes I owe to this fair state/nation. Hope you are doing the same, comrade!
First, I was pointing out the reason for the 2nd Amendment.
Second I truly doubt that the US military would, for the most part, attack US Citizens. There are certainly some people in Federal employment that would, I don’t think the military would.
“You want them because you want them.”
And since I am not infringing on your right not to have them your problem would be?
Generally nothing. A database that allows the government to trace people who buy multiple weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo in a short period of time is my humble request at this point. Maybe a slightly longer waiting period (and yes, the exact number of days will always be arbatrary). Maybe moderate regulations of gun shows…something! Seriously, I don’t want to take away anyone’s handgun or rifle. Just a sprinkle of perspective, that’s all.
The only problem with a national database is the fear (and please continue to read) that it can be hacked and fall into the wrong hands. It has happened before at both the government and private level and it can happen again.
Waiting periods went out the window with instant background checks. As long as the person passes the background check they can leave with the firearm. And to be honest, in the case of the Colorado shooter would a waiting period have prevented him from doing what he did? He passed all the background checks and was “legal” to purchase what he purchased.
If I am not mistaken, the results of the instant background checks have to be destroyed within 24 hours. I have some good, hardworking, salt of the earth, patriotic friends at the FBI and in local investigative units who would surly appreciate access to some of this data. I am not discounting the problems you mentioned. Privacy is a big deal.
You are correct…the results are not kept and are purged after 24 hours.
Have you spoken to a firearms dealer? They do have to keep records of firearms sales and transfers, and since my father is a licensed firearm dealer, I can tell you from conversations he and I have had, LEO’s(law enforcement officers) are able to access those records.
You do realize in most of the cases of large number shooting the acts were planned for extended periods, right? his is not some guy who happens to legally own guns and one day snaps.
Actually, I am a Disabled American Veteran, and I own my firearms because I have a right to.
And I agree! You do have a right. But maybe, just maybe, you don’t need multiple weapons with 30 round clips and thousands of rounds of ammo, all of which can be bought within a few days and if bought at a gun show are completely untraceable. As a disabled vet, do you like the fact that those on a terrorist watch list can’t get on a plane, but can buy guns? Is that what you fought for?
You are wrong about them being completely untraceable. My father is a licensed firearms dealer here in maine. It doesn’t matter if he is at his shop or at a guns show he still has to do a background check and all the paperwork required, which means there is a paper trail of every firearm sold at gunshows. I can’t go to a gun show and try to sell firearms because I am not a licensed dealer. Your information is inaccurate at its best. Don’t even bother trying to ask me what I fought for because it is obvious to me that you couldn’t care less about where I fought, what I went through/continue to go through or what I fought for. Asking me like that is like blaming me for the way things are. If you don’t like the way things are then vote the idiots out of office.
Wow. Uh, so…the dude in Colorado was not in Maine, so none of that is relevant. So your cool with terrorist being able to buy guns? You brought up your military record, so I was assuming it was fair to talk about. I am sorry if you thought that meant that you could not be questioned. This is an anonymous message board, so the self-righteousness only goes so far. And yes, the background checks are purged after 24 hours, whether you like it or not.
While the checks may be purged the legally signed ownership documents are not. Therefore the ATF can at the minimum seek and find the original purchaser, a far cry from totally untraceable. Please tell us how to spot terrorists as that would help Homeland Security immensely. if they’re on a watchlist the background check will find them, not that criminals haven’t figured out fake ID’s and such.
Not that your scenario has any validity and could even be reasonable considered in a sane persons mind, but… You think the people in Egypt, Syria, Libya, etc. thought the same thing? Don’t bother fighting for freedom, resistance is futile? I personally enjoy shooting my firearms recreationally and have one or two at the ready in case one of “your” kids decides to come to my house looking for Oxy or cash to fuel his and his buddies addiction. You see, the only threat I see is from within our border and has to do with failed parental responsibility and failure to hold individuals accountable anymore. BTW, I sleep like a baby with both eyes closed, so I have no fear, but I do know who is most responsible for my families safety, me.
Not really Larry. The colonists didn’t defeat the British simply because they had guns, in fact, without the help of the French (and later the Spanish), we WOULDN’T have won. Read up on other factors that outweigh your argument of simply the right to bear arms (which ‘legally’ hadn’t even happened yet).
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091007162900AAsitZa
We won that war with the considerable help of France. Yorktown was a French affair and, more importently, France was forcing Britain to fight them in many other locations at the same time forcing Britain to divert troops away from the colonies. Just a little history.
Actually they were able to win the war because the french sent an army and navy to help the colonies defeat the british.
Yes, The French helped the Colonies break from the British, predominantly by supplying them with powder and shot and disrupting British shiping.
BUT France and England had been at war for almost as long as the conflicts in the Middle East. The French, and most of the other European Nations had been trying to pick apart the Empire and helping the Colonies removed a big chunk of the Empire.
I do not deny that the French and other European powers helped us win our independance I do say that without the private ownership of military grade weapons we would not have gained our freedom.
The Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the Second Amendment…
The supreme court has never made a bad decision, either.
Sure they have, just reference the healthcare law.
The militia in most colonies at the time of the Constitution was comprised of all males between the ages of 16 and 60. Now, it is all adults. You are confused. The Supreme Court agrees with the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment as passed by the Congress:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
and as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Seems that you forgot a few pieces.
And let’s see what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison have to say on the subject.
Thomas Jefferson
“A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.”
“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”
“For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.”
“In defense of our persons and properties under actual violation, we took up arms. When that violence shall be removed, when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, hostilities shall cease on our part also.”
“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.”
James Madison
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.”
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
“Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power.”
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
I’m going to guess that you have no problem finding abortions on demand, and obamas health care fiasco, in the constitution but nothing on a right to bear arms.
Funny, because it’s the SCOTUS that Ok’ed what you are talking about (although the federal government funding abortion’s on demand thing is a fantasy that does not exist). That’s rich, because everyone else is using SCOTUS as a justification.
No justificaton needed since it is my right; SCOTUS simply enforces that right.
Obviously the United States Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation, since they have already upheld the right to bear arms. Nice try.
Not exactly an original response at this point, but glad to hear you are cool with Obamacare.
umm the rules say yes to owning guns .. we constititionalists are clear that we may may to get rid of you -plan your defection from the us
At the time the 2nd amendment was passed, the “militia” referred to, in most states, was composed of all adult (and white in the southern states) males. The statutes in Maine refer to a militia as all males between the ages of 16 and 45 (and yes believe it or not that is still on the books)—
Vigilantism still rides rough shod. Se where this mentality is getting us?
Horse feathers! By your logic it would be acceptable to have every citizen armed with an RPG. The constitution is a living document (not static) and is subject to interpretation as times change and evolve. I do not believe our founding fathers had a clue as to what our nation would look like 200+ years after their final draft. There is something that can be done and that is for the supreme court to provide their interpretation of the 2nd amendment to determine if its protection applies to such extremes as we have recently witnesses in Texas and Colorado.
”Some have made the
argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence
in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not
interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications… ” – Justice Scalia’s
majority opinion for D.C. v. Heller
‘Living document’ is one position. Many think it is to be taken as written. Should we want to change things, the method is included. There is a process for amending the Constitution. Simply ‘reinterpreting’ does not work. Unless you just want to trash it, and then you are free to do as you please. You might miss it after a while, though.
WRONG, an RPG is NOT a firearm it is a destructive device and is explosive. Therefore it IS regulated and is NOT permissible under the law. You deliberately refuse to accept logic and law as written because it does not coincide with your perverted thinking.
It would probably be impossible to explain to you the difference between logic (intellectual reasoning) and law (written rules). But, if you want to “Refudiate” the difference then have a teaparty.
Sorry, but the second amendment does not say “firearms”. It says “arms”
The founders may not have anticipated how powerful and advanced man portable weapons would become but they definitely intended that private citizens should be equal to the standing army.
You say, “There is nothing we can do via the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.”
Do you mean that the 2nd Amendment has no limit at all? Under the 1st Amendment we have freedom of speech — yet is is still illegal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater where there is no fire, slander still has legal consequences, and it is illegal to threaten to kill the president, or to call for the overthrow of the government.
So, under the 2nd Amendment, does everyone have a right to own an atomic bomb? Does everyone have a right to own a surface-to-air missile? How about tactical nuclear weapons? Are there no limits? Or are there some kind of reasonable limits (no atomic bombs) that might be allowed under the 2nd Amendment?
The guy in Colo. did his damage in a couple of minutes. Killing him after he did the damage is punative and we lose an opportunity to figure out how to deal with this in the future. He is more important alive than dead. It seems that it is time to do something to prevent people like him and this guy in this article from acquiring an arsenal that outgun even first responding cops and puts them in danger as well as the rest of us. I think the 2nd amendmenat has been interpreted to disregard my right to a safe and sound life experience. Which amendment would that be?
I think it should be legal to purchase guns. I think that one should have to be licensed in order to purchase ammunition.
Interesting concept…
Guns don’t kill people, bullets do!
Interesting. I could go for that.
Good idea! Without bullets, guns are just objects. BTW, who needs 6,000 rounds?
Chris Rock said it best”Guns are free-bullets are$5K each-no more innocent bystanders.”
If you think that will stop a gang banger or a drug dealer then you are as dumb as Chris Rock.
Even with bullets guns are just objects, they require human interaction to fire.
Guess what Bangorian? I’ll make my own.
I would rather have my Glock 23 .40 cal in my pocket, which I can legally carry when one of these sub-humans lets loose on innocent people than be without it. I’ve had extensive training to protect our Constitutional rights, including the 2nd Ammendment. I may not be able to stop an animal like him, but I’ll die trying if I have to.
If our beloved, unethical, sensationalist media would stop bloviating about these incidents and the nuts who cause them, we might just have less fine specimans like Mr. Courtois acting out his own “Rambo Wannabee Fantasies.”
In the meantime those of who carry and use firearms responsibly, just might be able to defend ourselves and others from the lower strata of our society.
And how many innocent people will you take out in the process?
A trained and practiced person will surprise you with the accuracy of their shots. Real life is not like TV with people shooting dozens of rounds before one hits its mark. But if anyone feels safer just rolling over instead of fighting back that is their right. Consider the concept, in a case like we sadly have in CO or any other mass shooting of unarmed people, of what a handful of determined unarmed folks can do to stop a gunman. Rush the guy. He might hit a couple of you but in a matter of seconds you can physically overwhelm the shooter and neutralize him. All it takes is roughly three or four or more willing to do that. An unarmed man stopped the gunman that shot Congresswoman Giffords. As far as we can tell some of the passengers on flight 93 on 9-11 did the same. I’d rather have a gun to shoot back with, but even without one I’m not hiding and hoping he goes away or lying down and playing dead. Fight back. It’s your LIFE that is being threatened. I’m not ready to be done with mine yet. Never will in a situation like that.
The latest shooter in Colorado started to do the same as the Columbine murderers. He was walking down the aisles, shooting at whoever was cowering. That is the moment when a lot of people who own and use guns could use to kill back without endangering anyone else.
My question to all the ‘take the guns away’ folks is this: When you are hiding under your desk or in the movie theater, or in the restaurant and the killer comes up to your spot, do you want to be holding something to shoot or putting your hands in front of your face so you don’t see him when he shoots you?
So you and I are in a coffee shop. You’re at your table reading the paper. Joe scumbag comes in out of pills, out of money and waving a loaded handgun, maybe a 12 guage shotgun. I’m there with my piece on my belt under my shirt and an extra 12 round clip in my pocket. Joey gets the dough from the clerk and goes off his nut. Shaking, sweating and screaming, he then starts pouring lead into anything he can point his weapon at, including you. Instead of of trying to take Joey which I’ve been WELL trained to do in a situation like this (we’ll just leave it at that), why don’t I just cower under my table until it’s all over? That way you won’t have to worry about me taking anyone out. By then strung out Joey has killed most of the people in there. Maybe you too. But I know we’ll all be safe because you who has all the answers when it comes to a situation like this will surely stop him him by talking to him and calming him down. When that doesn’t work, I’m sure you’ll run through a maelstrom of bullets and use your supreme tactical skills to take him down. Easy eh Goph?
Hmmmm…..NONE I hit what I shoot at.
The problem is if I pull my gun to defend you or others I might get shot as a shooter. Remember, in the Gabby Giffords tragedy an armed civilian jumped on the wrong guy and had his gun to his head and another witness had to warn him off.
The first thing to do is to stop focusing on guns. The nut in CO had 30 bombs in his apartment. Some were made with gasoline. Are you going to ban gasoline too. We have a basic problem with society that leads to this kind of behavior. That is where efforts need to be placed.
I think the UN should step in. It’s not just our private sector that are abusing large weaponry.
Just what we need, another useless governmental organization not even from this country telling us how to live. Do some research if you think the UN is so great.
Yeah they’ve done remarkable things in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Darfur and pretty much any place those stupid blue berets show up. The UN could all agree to make UN countries less safe from those who refuse to abide by UN resolutions, sounds great. Let’s keep trying to find someone else responsible for our problems, making them further and further from our own homes every step.
Mandatory psych testing for all persons over the age of 12 annually. You fail, we cut off your hands. As you can see making laws about killing people or possessing weapons has not been totally successful. After all we cannot do nothing and we should not do another thing that only hurts law abiding citizens.
the weapons he had were legal even the semi auto he had at home .. media hype is full of itself.
what right for reasonable search and seizure was given for his homesearch
wow omg omg they are all legal -gee get a life after all the BS it tunrs out its ar-15 semi auto. g ru!n in fear it is like having the 1949 m1 clip fed ar1 my god it will kil you to -you pple that have no understanding of the government s need t get it your ignorant your sheep prepped for the slaughter
he can own anything he wants this is america -you need to understand this and not react to stupudity of others that make harm o us .. you cant take guns because bad me do bad things … or you will be sbject to the KING OBAMA
You do realize that although people can buy guns online, they have to have the gun shipped to somebody with a fed firearms license, and that person must do the appropriate paperwork/background check, etc (so that person could report any suspicious person to law enforcement. It isn’t like I can order a gun online and Fedex shows up at my door with it tomorrow. Purchasing ammo is slightly easier. You have to show your id at Wal Mart to buy it. Buying online has been hit or miss…one place required a copy of my driver’s license, and another required nothing.
“The internet is a big part of the problem.” I do disagree. A big part of our problem is an increasing number of nutjobs in our society. The more of them there are, the better I feel about having my guns. This guy needs to be put to death, brought back and then put to death 11 more times for the lives he took. I wonder where the anti death penalty people are on this case?
I was not aware that you could buy a firearm on the internet. In fact, you cannot. You MUST appear at the gun shop in person and fill out the federal paperwork to take possession of a gun. Get your facts straight before posting drivel, OIFvet.
trying to get some attention. this guy wasnt gonna do nothin. just wanted attention. thats why he is telling the cops what he was gonna do . instead of doing it. glad nothing happend in this case. what is wrong with people. and who needs that many guns in there house . paranoid much???
Ok second Amendment peeps…I say buy all the guns you want…..intern then the government over sees any and all ammunition sales. Keep your right to bear arms…you’ll just have nothing to go in them. There is a reason why this country comprises 5% of the worlds population but has 25% of the world’s prison population.
The reason being is that 90% of the prison population should be occupying space 6 ft underground…..
This might get interesting now.
More like scary.
The very document you praise for allowing you to keep and bear arms, also does not seek vengeance that you seem to want, thankfully.
Well we have been discussing the supposed defects in the founding fathers documents… Our justice system as it stands today does little to dissuade common crooks, nevermind someone with a mind toward murder.
Two thirds of the people in prison are there for non violent crimes and that is a completely whole different topic.
I’m pretty willing to bet that if your child or family member were killed by one of these violent gun toting idiots……you’d be whistling a different tune about that 1/3 of the prison population…..
Nope, because if a person killed my child, he wouldnt be going to prison
So many arguments about US Amendments and what they mean. It’s pretty said when a nations own citizens and government don’t even know, understand, comprehend, nor agree on what most of them even mean. Sounds like an example of “Divided we fall”.
OK….I make my own.
Really that’s a rational answer, sneak up and pass an ammo ban while no one’s the wiser? Keep underestimating your opponents and wondering why you continually lose. You should head up the Anti-gun lobby I pick you to lead them! I’ll vote two or three times if you’d like.
the idiots are everywhere even in Canada
No they aren’t. Canada has just as many guns and gun owners as America does, but there’s very little violent crime in Canada. Even the large cities, with hundreds of thousands of people don’t see a murder but every half decade, and by large city I meant the one over the lake from Detroit. People don’t even lock their doors… However, you are right about the idiots being everywhere. Welcome to the current epoch of the human race. We assemble them to be idiots. Its better that way, at least, for the people doing the assembling.
Where do you come up with this caca? Do you watch so much Fox “News” that you yourself have begun to spew falsehood & lies, thinking no one will catch you, and can no longer identify facts in reality? It’s the guns.
“The U.S. population is about 10 times that of Canada, but the estimated number of privately owned firearms is 25 times higher in the United States than in Canada…”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/7381/right-bear-arms-us-canada.aspx
And none of those guns ever killed someone by themselves.
I actually dont watch TV but very rarely, and when I do, I dont watch news, of any sort. I watch History, Discovery, Science, Natgeo, stuff like that. You know, the learning channels. The boring channels… whats this gallup.com crap? Never even heard of that. Regardless, Canadians own lots of guns and they aren’t off killing each other in record numbers.
A Legocratic Republic, if you can keep it.
Hmmmm while much lower than the United States according to Statistics Canada the number of murders in Canada for 2010 was 554 which is down from a high of 611 in 2008.
Only 554 in a country with millions of people and millions of guns? That isnt too bad. I think Maine’s had about that many murders in the last couple years, what with the Salt and all. Cananda is pretty tame. They got their stuff rather figured out, up there.
Do you often speak out without looking up you facts?
You would have to add up all the murders from 1988 to 2010 to even come close to 554 murders.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mecrime.htm
Dude, it was a joke and dripping with sarcasm. People take everything much too literally. Obviously Maine hasn’t had that many murders, in the total time it has existed. If you would like to waste your time and dig up the information to in fact prove that there have been 555 murders since its founding as a state, please, be my guest. I said that many murders in the last few years, in relation to Bath Salt. Obviously there hasnt been. I was merely relating that Maine has become rather violent recently and in relation to Canada, its rather similar to their region with the worst crime. Roughly 4 murders out of ever 100,000 people. Bangor has seen that alone in the last year. If not higher. Chill out. I know your are like super poster man with mad posts and likes and are constantly on here flexing your intellectual muscle and imposing your superior knowledge on people, but obviously in this case you failed to see what I was talking about.
Dude, it was a joke and dripping with sarcasm.
There is nothing funny about mass murder. Maybe you think it is obvious that it was “dripping with sarcasm” but written sarcasm doesn’t always translate well.
~~~~~
“I know your are like super poster man with mad posts and likes and are constantly on here flexing your intellectual muscle and imposing your superior knowledge on people, but obviously in this case you failed to see what I was talking about.”
I express my opinion nothing more and nothing less. You seem to do the same thing. I responded to your post. If you don’t like my response you have two choices…1) respond or 2) don’t respond.
‘Well Regulated’ are two words out of the short (27 words) second amendment. I would argue it would seem that our firearms are not well regulated at all.
Wouldn’t it be better to regulate homicidal maniacs?
Guns are well regulated….cept the ones Eric Holder sends to Mexico.
Chump delux here, folks. All talk. Clearly if he really intend to do anything he wouldnt have been speeding like mad, he wouldnt have instantly told the cops about his master plan and whatever other idiotic things he did. This guy clearly isnt all there upstairs. Hoards tons of guns, many thousands of dollars worth, then days after that shooting in CO just happens to get arrested? Crap. Why bother to ice his boss now, of all times? Dont kid yourselves. This guy isnt that kinda nut job. He’s more like the guy who’d say “yeah, I killed that guy” just so people would see his face and make him the center of attention.
you are so right. Too bad his tire didn’t blow out and save us the trouble. He’s obviously looking for attention and he got it – that’s for sure.
Who in the world needs an arsenal of guns. Anyone pulling together an arsenal of guns ought to be investigated.
Collectors.
Investment. The way gun prices have been going up they are a better bet that stocks.
Goodbye fourth amendment.
Wow. Just like that huh? Throw out the 4th Amendment? Perhaps once that’s enacted we can start having people investigated who speak out against the President or other people in power positions.
So Kathy should I be investigated? I inherited my fathers “arsenal of guns”. In my safe I have a two matched Winchesters, one 1865 Harpers Ferry Rifled Musket complete with bayonet, one British .303 Enfield, one Ruger 10/22, one Ruger Mini-14, one Ruger MkII, one Ruger P-85, one Ruger Security Six, one Glock 23, one Remington 1911A1, one Colt .38, and at least two shot guns, several single shot rifles and pistols, etc…
One persons “arsenal” is another persons “collection”. I purchased several of the above firearms. But who are you to tell me what I can and cannot own?
Nice collection. Much better than mine. But my son can give you a run for the money….
Really? Because I am exercising my second amendment right I should be investigated? Glad your not running for an elected office. I do own an “arsenal” of guns, as well as a pile of ammunition. I have also been highly trained through the U.S. military, I was also a Federal Law enforcement officer, and I continue to hone my firearms skills weekly at the range. Thanks to my military service and time spent as a FLEO I have been well trained in the use of firearms as well as the LAW.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/tim.courtois
His car has a bumper sticker “Troopers Caring for the State of Maine” You betcha!
He was traveling at 112 mph!? Wow. We all have times we are running late, but pushing the pedal to that rate is just plain dangerous.
Driving an unSmart Car.
Guns should be like abortions: Safe, Legal, and Rare. They are too often reached for as the tool of choice. We need less John Wayne, and maybe a little more Bruce Lee. Martial arts usually have a spiritual aspect, teaching not just how to use your power, but how not to use it too. Looks like the exercise and increased blood flow to the brain wouldn’t have hurt this perp either.
You use your feet, I’ll use the gun!
Never bring a foot to a gun fight.
Remember the scene in “Raiders Of The Lost Ark”….
One of my fav movies…. and scenes…
The one where the soldiers who were aligned with a leader who first stripped the citizens of their rights to possess firearms all were melted? Yep, remember it well. Fitting.
Good try but wrong.
The one where the man comes out swinging 2 swords in a display of how he was going to cut Indiana into little pieces. And Indiana pulls out has pistol and shoots him…. End of threat. End of scene.
Here’s what Tea Party U S Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) says about guns to Chris Wallace on Fox News yesterday…
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/07/22/tea-party-senator-100-round-rifle-magazine-is-a-basic-freedom/
here we go figures it would be a maniac monkey see money do wonder if it is bathsalts
If I had to guess, I’d say he’s a wannabe. If he was the real article, he wouldn’t have drawn attention to himself by getting stopped for speeding. Some people will never be able to separate reality from fantasy.
so what are the grounds for searching his home. just because you are traveling at a high rate of speed and have firearms in your vehicle which you are allowed to do, give law enforcement to search your house. sorry don’t think so, but since maine is a liberal state, cops can do anything they want and get away with it.
Well, he did say he was on his way to kill his boss. Mebbe that coulda been it, huh?
Well let’s see if he was bright enough to make a spontaneous utterance about going to NH to shoot a former employer what do you think the chances are that he would grant permission for the police to search his home?
another thing take a look a gun violence in movies and TV all you see
Check this out. Looks like Timmy was a little out of sorts recently.
https://www.facebook.com/#!/tim.courtois
He almost had to take the Ted Kennedy bumper sticker off.
He forgot that Laura Bush’s car also has killed more people then his guns.
See folks this is why you carry a firearm everywhere that is lawful including a movie theater.
I still fail to see the reason. We’re not in Dodge City (Kansas) any more, Toto.
Why risk it?
Unfortunately for you, it will come from behind before you can even react with your pea shooter.
so he had a few weapons so what. his problem was that he told the cops what he planned on doing that is were he was stupid!! If he really planned on doing something then he should have just shut his mouth and gotten the speeding ticket.
I think he has more problems than prematurely confessing.
Unless he stole this hardware it looks like he spent a lot of money. We need to ban private ownership of credit cards.
Holy Cow manure batman…………………………………………….
Why the search and seizure? Since when does being a gun collector automatically make you a nut? he was going 112mph, I get that, but punish him for the crimes he actually committed, not the ones he “might”.
Did you read the article? I think the whole ‘on his way to NH to shoot a former employer’ was the tip.
He admitted that he was going to shoot someone? I mean if the cop asked
“Sir do you realize how fast you was going?”
“No officer”
“I got you on radar doing 112 MPH, the speed limit out here is 65, is there any reason why you are going so fast?”
“Umm yeah I was on my way to New Hampshire to shoot a former employer”
What was next for the officer to do, let’s turn this in a “choose your own adventure” comment
Say A if you think the officer should draw his weapon and call for backup and begin securing the driver to search the vehicle and further questions.
Say B if you think the officer should proceed with validating the driver for warrants, license status and the registration and determine if a ticket is needed
Say C if you think the officer should just laugh as if it was a joke and hand everything back and tell him to have a nice day and to carry on.
is this real life?
Good job Maine State police!!! Thank you for keeping us safe.
Jefferson and Madison are rolling over in their graves saying, “This is not what we meant with the 2nd amendment….This is NOT what we meant at all…And if citizens of th 21st century could read they would know that….”
We have to decide this matter for ourselves, not look back to Jefferson and Madison. It seems obvious to me that the second amendment relates gun ownership to a militia, but that isn’t the way the Supreme Court sees it. They pretty much ignored most of the amendment in order to make gun ownership an individual right. So this is where we stand in 2012. Jefferson and Madison have no say in it. The Constitution means pretty much whatever we, in the present, think it means. Americans in the here and now must decide, and we know what we have decided.
. . .
Are you sure Rev? The following are a few quotes from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison
Thomas Jefferson
“A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to
the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.”
“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”
“For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.”
“In defense of our persons and properties under actual violation, we took up arms. When that violence shall be removed, when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, hostilities shall cease on our part also.”
“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.”
James Madison
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.”
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
“Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power.”
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
I am sensing this is the BDN taking advantage of a tragic event to grab attention. His plan with the gun was to shoot a former employer in another state, right now with the context of this article I am failing to see the relivance with brigning a gun to the theater when no intention of its use during the movie is not revealed. Him being there is more of a coincidence, like someone stopping at a Burger King with a gun in their pocket on their way to shoot someone but not use it at the Burger King
Good job BDN. You stoop low enough to grab readers don’t you? You should be ashamed for capitalizing on a tragic event that has no relivance in this case.
How incredibly stupid of the guy to tell the police he was on his way to shoot someone! Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he told them, but I can’t believe what some people tell the police when they’re in custody.
I am glad he did and yes to a point quite stupid, First of all glad that nobody on the Turnpike got injured or killed on his high speed run. At the end it was good he told someone, and I hope with the weak justice system this state has, that this might actually give him the punishment necessary. Now I am not going down a mental illness road here yet, we have no idea how competent this man really is.
I am also glad that this, had no relation or there is no supporting evidence except for a misleading headline that we was about to have a theater shooting in Maine.
Still failing to see your point. He told police he brought a loaded gun to the theater. Police told the paper. The paper reported it. Nowhere in the article does it say he planned to shoot up the theater, that’s you jumping to assumptions that the paper doesn’t make.
Which was just unecessary for the BDN to make a long winded headline to include it. The KJ suimmed it up pretty good by not mentioning the theater in the recent headline they published. How about the other gunman in the news on their way to shoot someone, does the BDN bother reporting or asking about stops they made along the way? Nope.
BDN could have kept the fact he stopped at the theater in the article itself, that is fine, I am not criticizing that, I am criticizing they have to make a long winded headline to include the fact he was at a theater that aired Batman, which oddly enough happened in Colorado that resulted in multiple deaths. It was their way to capture a tragic event the nation has their focus on and attact people to this article they publish.
But we know the BDN lacks a lot of journalism skills and don’t proofread and stoop to low levels like this to get a reader.
If you hate the BDN so much, don’t read it. No skin off their backs. The story was linked on multiple national media sites and got a lot of visitors and brought a lot of attention to what is apparently a very interesting story. They can put up whatever headline they want as long as it’s factual, as far as I’m concerned. You’re complaining about a headline, not an article, so questioning “journalism skills” and “proofreading” isn’t relevant in the least. Also, the fact that he had clippings about the shooting in his car make the fact that he was at a movie with a loaded gun more important, in my view. If you’re such an expert on journalism and reporting, start your own paper and put the BDN out of business. How long should a headline be before it becomes “long winded?”
BDN is the last news source I look at, you got your opinion I got mine, at the end of the day nobody cares right?
It’s a valid news item.If things had turned out worse,what then?
You are not grasping the point of the comment, him being in a theater with a loaded gun, intending to kill someone in another state is pure coincidence, I am sure he was in other places with a gun, drove through some toll booths with his guns, etc. The BDN is merely taking a tragic event, linking a piece of this mans day and turning it into a headline when the two are really not connected together.
The AR-15, or the AK-47 are the modern equivalent of the musket during the civil war. Was muskets ownership ever questioned? There should be no limits on the 2nd amendment, except in the cases of mental illness, or criminal activity.
And the hydrogen bomb is the modern equivalent of the French Revolution catapult, so we should all own one and keep one in the trunk of our car? Please. Too many friggin guns in the hands of too many Americans, likely because there wasn’t enough Mommy Love to go around when they were growing up.
yeah that’s it – a lack of mommy love. Keep your kool aid
Nope, my mommy went out hunting with us when I was growing up.
How many more of these disturbed people (and I’m being kind) are out there? However, vigilantism and everyone armed to the teeth is not the answer.
you should read your history books. Japan did England did France did Germany put people ashore here with intent to do harm. 911 was an attack. think about what you are saying.
history will repeat its self for sure.
I’m telling ya, it something in the water.
Whats the big deal? He seems harmless enough. Just a nice fella trying to have himself a night on the town. If he wants to do over 100mph down the interstate w/ an assault rifle, a bunch of handguns, and ammunition for all of them…thats his right! I mean…he DID have his warning flashers on. DUH!
That last line is pathetic.
It was very pathetic showing no respect for our democratic republic.
What about all the other lines?
Pathetic. I think not. You hate the American Dream, get out. Find somewhere that matches ypur view of the world an enjoy it. Maybe Finland would beore to your liking… Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Police: Arsenal of guns seized from Biddeford man who saw Batman movie with loaded weapon bradygirl2 wrote, in response to Ninelake: That last line is pathetic. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: OK – here ya go:”The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that theybe properly armed.”– Alexander Hamilton, TheFederalist Papers at 184-188And here is another:If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular… —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
Pathetic. I think not. You hate the American Dream, get out. Find somewhere that matches ypur view of the world an enjoy it. Maybe Finland would beore to your liking… Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Police: Arsenal of guns seized from Biddeford man who saw Batman movie with loaded weapon bradygirl2 wrote, in response to Ninelake: That last line is pathetic. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: OK – here ya go:”The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that theybe properly armed.”– Alexander Hamilton, TheFederalist Papers at 184-188And here is another:If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular… —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
Ok. Background checks and five day waiting periods for anyone wanting to see a batman movie. Those of you wanting to see spiderman? You’ll be next. Anyone going to comic-con or any other dress up convention should be banned from ever owning firearms.
“I believe that African-Americans should not be allowed to have guns.”
*
*
*
Does that sound pretty awful when it’s said about AAs? Then how does it sound any better when Progressives say it about everybody?
Gun control started in the South. Southern Democratic lawmakers in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s prohibited Blacks from owning firearms and made it a punishable offense even in the wake of emancipation. They kept their agenda – they just want to make everyone feel like a slave to the State now. Odd that many minorities support Democrats so fervently when it was the Republicans who pushed abolition of slavery.
Well back the the Republicans were the progressive party. Today, not so much.
And the parties have switched ideologies. If you think that today’s Republican is Abe Lincoln, you need to renew your investigations.
WTF is WRONG with people?!
Here in California we have an assualt weapons ban. What that means is any firearm that looks frightening is banned. It has been a giant headache for lawenforcement and does nothing to stop assualt weapons from being bought or sold. Recenlty a gang in Sacramento was busted hiding a missle launcher and assault weapons in the walls of their kids rooms. I am no Zimmerman, I do however see bad things like no one’s business working for the California Department of Justice and living in a city. We don’t factor in things like jobs loses, sales tax revenue, smuggling of arms from foriegn nations, etc, etc. Banning guns makes law abiding people criminals. Maybe we slap an extra tax on firearms to fund mental health programs. We do that to pay for wildlife departments in various states. We need to be more progresive that “Ban guns”, that Genie is out of the bottle. No amount of banning is going to stop violence. Try banning porn, the shooter was into that. As a soiciety we have to accept people are going to twist off and kill people.
Hat tip to the Maine State Troopers.
Guns or no guns, this psychopath would have found a way to accomplish his deranged goal.
And all one has to do is look as his apartment as an example of what one can do when one really, really wants to.
That is probably not a true AK-47. A true AK-47 is fully automatic. The ones you see being sold are cheap knock offs or an SKS. Not many stores sell true AK-47s due to them not being imported much to the states. Also its called an assualt weapon due to its large cap mag, bayonet lug and a few other characteristics. Why do you need a m-16,ar-15, ak-47 or fully automatic machine guns for home defense or personal protaction? Also the mentality of if the citizens are armed they could stop someone like in Colorado is laughable. Most people would hide when they hear gunshots up close and wouldn’t have a good chance at getting the upper hand of a active shooter thats why our military and police are trained under live fire so they can become accustomed to gun fire.
John we actully don’t have enough guns. There should be a law in Maine that all households have at least one gun in it.
John the police are not trained under “live fire”…I could address some other inaccuracies but I don’t have the time or energy to do so.
Most people are sheep. Law enforcement or not – anyway can be trained to engage an active shooter. We need more sheepdogs – we have too many bleeding heart cowards out there who won’t defend their family. You can be a sheep, a wolf, or a sheepdog who watches over your community. The choice is yours – I know I can count on 90% of people to cower when they should be standing up for what is right. People need to grow some intestinal fortitude and be properly trained in firearms. The tragedy in Colorado started in the home with a lack of parenting – and a lack of values in the school system.
Double like.
Why such a low bail. My goodness, the man could have guns elsewhere which he could use to hurt someone.
keep in mind, when the 2nd amendment was written, guns were alot different….A single shot muzzle loader is alot different than an AK-47
Self contained ammunition is a lot different too.
Here are some other examples of some common everyday items that didn’t exist when the 2nd Amendment was written…
The telephone, internet, the telegraph…maybe we should eliminate those and go back to the U.S. Postal Service. That certainly would end the problems they are having.
The car, airplane, train, buses…maybe we should revert back to horse and buggy and traveling on water via the sailboats (remember the steam engine wasn’t invented yet).
The standing Army, Marine Corp and Navy….oh let’s not forget the Air Force wasn’t thought of either…maybe we should revert back to a militia….oh can’t do that because that would mean the 2nd Amendment is needed.
Love your post…Hillarious..
Please refrain from trying to cast your own views as “the American way of life”. Keep dozens of guns if you love them, cite obscure quotes if you think they advance your arguments, and continue to participate in civil and informed debate. If you dare, however, to suggest that people with views other than yours should leave the country or that their different priorities make them somehow less American than you are, then you’re the one who’s arguing against freedom, against the Bill of Rights, and against the very founding principles of this country.
Excellent comment Mr. Phillips.
Wonderful. Thank you. Could not agree more.
I missed Ninelake’s reply before it was flagged…but I agree, we need well informed, non-insulting debate/conversation on the topic.
I don’t argue that my views are the American Way of Life. I provided what the commenter chose to ignore and dared me to share. Those obscure quotes as you call them provide direct insight into the founding of this nation at a time when it was likely to come apart. This Republic became the greatest nation an the envy of the world because of those principles. It is great to have different views being discussed in a civil forum… It is not ok to hate the very priciples that made this country what it is. Freedom of speech. Freedom of assembly. Freedom OF religion (not from religion). etc. etc. To understand the intent of the Constitution you must understand those obscure references and what the drafters were thinking. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Police: Arsenal of guns seized from Biddeford man who saw Batman movie with loaded weapon Joseph Phillips wrote, in response to Ninelake: Please refrain from trying to cast your own views as “the American way of life”. Keep dozens of guns if you love them, cite obscure quotes if you think they advance your arguments, and continue to participate in civil and informed debate. If you dare, however, to suggest that people with views other than yours should leave the country or that their different priorities make them somehow less American than you are, then you’re the one who’s arguing against freedom, against the Bill of Rights, and against the very founding principles of this country. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: OK – here ya go:”The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that theybe properly armed.”– Alexander Hamilton, TheFederalist Papers at 184-188And here is another:If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular… —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
Another copy cat looking for attention.
People are sick in this world! PRAYERS, to everybody in colorado!
Almost all hunting rifles are semi-automatic. What do you use, Bangorian?
My comment was deleted inappropriately. What I said, that was removed, is that if you require a semi-automatic weapon to shoot a deer, you should be required to take a remedial hunting class.
My husband has a pump action, a bolt action, and a semi-automatice action. All require one trigger pull per shot. He prefers the semi-automatic for deer hunting, because there are times when a second shot is required. He does not need a remedial hunting class. Your comment was not deleted before I read it, because I replied to you. My question was: what do you use? since you are so critical of the abilities of others. Apparently, only a keyboard.
obviously bangorian has never stepped into the maine woods let alone see a deer on full speed. the only thing remedial is your knowledge of Maine animals.
Why is that, Bangorian? Because you think someone might use a semi-auto to fire 1,000 rounds a minute at a deer? All rifles used for hunting are restricted to 5-round capacity in Maine woods. The semi-automatic rifle is useful but not much faster shooting than a lever-action or bolt-action rifle.
Your comment wasn’t “removed” Bangorian….it was “flagged” by enough posters that it moved it to a Moderator.
No, many hunting rifles are either bolt action or lever action–I own a Winchester model 94–one of the more common deer rifles in the state of Maine–its a lever action.
False flag.
They said they don’t know if he went to the show or if he did, did he have a back pack. Charge him with a concealed weapon, criminal speeding and no permit for a machine gun if he did in fact have one. Send him to jail so he can learn how to be a real criminal.
I wonder which “well regulated militia” this fruitcake belonged to?
Typical conservative, his facebook even shows how the typical tea partier lives.
Mighty wide brush you paint with Jake.
Arm yourselves and be a human being. Otherwise, don’t arm yourselves and be a statistic. Tough choice…..
Wow. This man lived down the street from me when I was growing up…a little odd, but never thought I would see this!
A little????
Because people traveling on I95 reported their observation of this nut speeding in excess of 100mph, State Police were able to locate and apprehend him BEFORE he reached his stated target. Moreover, they stopped him before he caused an accident on the way. Fantastic work all the way around!
But I should be able to carry a loaded gun any time I want! It’s in the Constitution!!! Please….
I find myself agreeing with you….As long as I have my CWP I can carry my firearm of choice anywhere I want that is not prohibited by law. Yup, you got it right.
If you’re part of a well regulated militia, yes. The founding fathers couldn’t even concieve of a rifled barrel, let alone this level of weaponry.
Read some history. Rifling was invented somewhere around 1500 .
Ok. Breech loading rifles then. Let alone automatic and semi-automatic.
Wikipedia
Patrick Ferguson, developed in 1772 the Ferguson rifle, a breech-loading flintlock weapon. Roughly two hundred of the rifles were manufactured and used in the Battle of Brandywine, during the American Revolutionary War.
The musket was the service rifle used by the British Army. What part of shall not infringe do you not get?
What part of “well regulated” don’t you get?
I think a lot of you are talking way too much politic crap on this article. The main focus is this man could have killed innocent people if he was not caught. Who cares at this point about politics, and who is wrong and who is right. Our country is falling apart and its not because of President Obama or any other public figure, its about crazy people that live in our country. There has always been crazies and its just getting worse. Drugs have a lot to do with all of these things going on, and sometime not. Its just a sad world we live in and it dont always have to involve politics. I think if everyone would just come togeather and care about each other and show our young people that there are still good people out there. I feel bad for them to have to hear about all the craziness this world has in it. I guess it would only be a dream though to get people to focus on those things like that instead of blaming it on President Obama or other political figures in the world.. Just love your families and focus on them instead of blaming everyone else for what others do.. Obviously this man is nuts!! I hope he rots in jail.
I could get a hair cut this week.
wonder when thees will go into police auction i could always use a few more in my collection.
Its good we have smart people around to act as nannies and take our freedoms away.
i truly doubt he had a machine gun, wish BDN would stop feeding the hype of every gun that is black is a machine gun.
I didnt see a typical machine gun, you know, something belt or box fed. Looks like either an G3 or FAL style rifle between the two AR’s, could be an old HK AG3… Heck, any of those rifles pictured are produced automatic capable, depending. But even so, none of them are really a machine gun…
sounds like a fake “copycat” who wanted his 15 minutes of fame by cashing in on the Colorado tragedy. Sick sick sick
So they picked him up for speeding and they took his guns, is that the breakdown of the story?
Criminal threatening to at a minimum
When was the last time you ventured out hunting Bangorian? Or when was the last time your fired any weapon for that matter?
This world is going to pot.
Hopefully it does. We’ll forget the guns and start being concerned more with chips and baked goods.
Yeah cause we need the REST of Maine on welfare
Didn’t realize that marijuana use instantly put someone on welfare. Thats sorta neat. Good times and free money/healthcare. Seems pretty swell. The rest of Maine? Do you live elsewhere? I assume you live here. So thus Im not sure why you dislike good times and free money/healthcare. You must be one of those Masochistic types.
I believe in the right to bear arms but this is ridiculous! I often imagine the world 50-75 years from now IF there’s anyone still alive. Too many crazy things going on and too many innocent people being hurt and killed for no apparant reason.
Another teaparty patriot
Proof please?
Didn’t your parents tell you…you can’t fix stupid
Yes, the 2nd amendment gives you have a right to carry a gun but don’t forget the 1st amendment gives me the right not to get shot!!!
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
Yup I can certainly see where you found that!
The inclusion of Courtois’ visit to The Dark Knight Rises is completely unnecessary to this story. This feels like bad journalism to me, though I’m sure it helped bump the story way up the line in google searches. The fact that the police apprehended a man who confessed to homicidal intentions is a great thing, and newsworthy in my opinion, but making the story about Dark Knight Rises reeks of disrespect to the victims and survivors of the massacre.
Are we to believe that you would accept a version of America where we only are allowed to possess that which we need? Pretty radical concept, and a losing argument for gun control.
Should we continue in the path we are on, the time will quickly come when we have only that which we need: water, shelter…and the ones with gardens, and the ones with guns who know how to hunt will be the ones with food. Except for the really evil ones who will be trying to take it away.
Well since firearms have been around for over a few hundred years, I’m not thinking anyone alive today even has family who will see that day.
Can’t forget Cheney in your pantheon o’ “patriots”…
I see a lot of people here asking a classic question: Why would anyone need…fill in the blank? Semi-Automatic, fully auto, high capacity magazines, high powered (think hunting) rifles, etc. Let’s all think real hard what the out come might be when the government is given the power to determine what American’s can own based on their need. Maybe all cars get limited to 75 mph? Maybe we don’t sell alcohol or tobacco any more, as we all know they kill far more and cost us billions of tax dollars. So think real hard if we want to live in a country where we regulate the items a law abiding citizen can own.
BTW: Was there really a machine gun there? Or was this more sensationalism by the press? For many of you, will go with the real basic description of whether or not any of the firearms found could fire more than one cartridge with a single pull of the trigger? And if by chance there was, did the owner possess it legally or was it yet another failure of the government to be able to use laws to keep illegal weapons out of criminals hands?
I agree with you in principle, but it seems that we now live in a country that is full of people who wish to do harm. Things have changed in the last 75 years or so. We have a lot of individuals who…well let’s face it, aren’t law abiding. If these kinds of weapons weren’t manufactured, it would be a non issue. Law abiding or criminal, the weapon would not be available. Just because we can manufacture something, doesn’t mean we necessarily need to.
Huh? These kinds of weapons? So if a nut goes off the deep end and builds a bomb is that not the same result? If someone is intent on killing a number of people they are not short on choices, a firearm is popular, but in their void bombs and fires seem to work, ask the UK, who by the way had to deploy the military for decades in Ireland to get a handle on the illegal firearms and killing there.
I am going to just say that thank our lucky stars that this man was not successful at harming anyone. I dont think that I really saw that on this under the comments mostly people complaining to each other.
well i think the movie’s ought to have security like at the airport, sad but because of all the menally ill out there running around freely they should look into taking this measure. Also several months back I watched a movie on netflix called rampage or something like that and it was very similar to the colorado attack and Im surprised this movie has not come into the picture and now we are going to have more and more of these copycat crimes cause of that tragedy its pretty sad!!
Sure, lets just have to get to the movie theater an hour early to go through “security”
well let’s just go to the movies where crazies are running around armed with guns. I would rather have security and be able to go to a movie without be afraid I was going to be gunned down.
But the theater (in Aurora) was a “gun free zone”. Notice how many law abiding citizens followed the law.
And died because it was a “gun free zone”. You have to wonder if some of the many active duty military in that theater might have been carrying if it had not been and might have put an end to his rampage earlier.
Maybe it should have been a declared murder free zone, since so many seem to believe just words printed on paper will make a difference. Face it, murder is illegal but that didn’t seem to stop him…
And let’s say he couldn’t have used firearms to commit the heinous act he did. He could have used explosives….he sure seemed to have the knowledge to do that to based on his bobby-trapped appartment.
Worked for McVeigh didn’t it. Sadly where there is a will there’s a way. Many of these nuts know they’ll not live to see the following day, so without guns, why not a bomb, an small plane, a truck into a crowd, you name it, there are numerous ways, it’s the intent we must recognize and stop. Of course we’re more concerned for the rights of the mentally unstable than that of law abiding citizens free of criminal mental defect.
Our luck it would be TSA with cavity searches – but just the elderly – we can’t profile!
This will have a profound impact on movie theaters. Wait, before this is over, the theater will be sued for negligence. It’s just the beginning. Personally, dressing in costume, with any kind of backpack or other device, should deny a person entrance into the theater. I quit attending movies when the Dominicans and Puerto Ricans had a gang war in the parking lot of the mall.
Going to a movie, especially certain blockbusters is not just a movie. It is an event. And seeing people in costume, especially on these opening nights, can be half the fun.
Think “Rocky Horror Picture Show”, “Star Wars”, Star Trek”, “Harry Potter”, etc. My son and I dressed up for “The Lord Of The Rings”. His was dressed as a Nazgul complete with sword and claws, etc.
Should we have this same TSA level security at the Mall? Supermarket? Pharmacy? Maybe the HOSPITAL!!! Then you can just die of your heart attack or injuries while waiting to clear security.
Just think, EVERYWHERE you go, get there an hour early to clear security.
I take it you are afraid of just about EVERYTHING. I guess some people should just stay home and cower in the corner.
Ugh. Gun nuts are going to have a field day with this one.
Sorry the Supreme Court doesn’t see it that way. Actually I’m not sorry, I’m glad. Funny people love to quote and then decide what those quote actually mean. Seems some would turn the Bill of Rights into another religion, up for everyone’s terp, you don’t like it write a new one that fits your needs
He probably brought the gun to the theater to protect himself. Too bad he wasn’t in Aurora.
Responsible gun owners need to support government spending for mental health services, and – this man clearly needed help that he didn’t obtain
Yes, but nothing will stop situations where family or friends see red flags in a persons behavior and do nothing. The problem starts on the ground level. I know hundreds of law abiding shooters who work, obey the law, and contribute to their community. There will always be nuts – sometimes they kill with a vehicle – sometimes arson – sometimes a gun or a bomb. In the last few years, we have had a few murders in Bangor committed with knives and even a sword. People need to pay attention when someone is acting like a whack job or making criminal threats of harm to others. Lack of accountability, no sense of right and wrong in our society, and drug use are huge contributing factors. No one wants to blame Hollywood constantly desensitizing us to a higher level of mayhem and disgusting violence.
Also, I am in 100% agreement with you….it’s the quasi military weapons that should not be in the hands of an individual.
Most hunting rifles are far more powerful in terms of kinetic energy and range, so your speaking of two things, the look and the magazine capacity.
i won’t be seeing batman for awhile…spoilers or know where to DL?
they shouldnt give him bail
I have done a lot of thinking about this subject. I realize that we have a lot of gun owners and gun advocates that believe a person should carry to protect themselves and possibly others from just this type of situation. In watching all of the news reports about what happened in Colorado, i have to say that this is definately not a situation where that argument would work. This coward propped a door open in a movie theater, went to his car and then proceeded to arm himself from head to toe in armor so that he himself could not be shot. The assasinations that he performed were well thought out and he knew exactly what he was doing, which take away the whole “Insane” plea in my opinion. This guy from Biddeford was obviously trying to jump on the coward from Colorado’s bandwagon and get some of his 15 minutes of fame. It definately makes you wonder what is next. It also makes you think we should be much more careful to notice what is happening around us.
Well first off he wasn’t dressed “head to toe in armor”. He was dressed in a ballistic vest, a ballistic helmet and had throat and groin “protection”. And even if he was, you cannot take away the kinetic energy a .40 or .45 caliber round hitting you can do. The energy is transmitted through the ballistic vest and blunt force trauma to the tissue below. Just the force of being hit may have disrupted him enough to save people or to take his focus off of multiple victims and focused on one person.
The rest of your post is spot on.
Please tell me of ONE INSTANCE of a concealed carry that intervened and prevented or impacted for the benefit of innocents in any of these occurances reported over the past several years. THEN I might begin to give credit that this deterent is real. Otherwise, it’s a lot of bravado. Talk is cheap.
Two college shootings – one at a law school where two concealed carry holder stopped a gunman and another at a church where an armed female guard stopped an active shooter. You want more facts – there are thousands of home invasions stopped every year by a law abiding home owners using a handgun, rifle, or shotgun.
Assault rifle?
Define “assault rifle”
the US army defined it in 1970. http://gunfax.com/aw.htm.
The term assault weapon didnt appear until brady campaign in 90’s because the use of assault rifle for semi-auto civilian variants was outright incorrect.
Those firearms you likely consider “assault rifles” are are currently the top choices among many/most firearms experts for home defense. Their cartridges have been shown not to penetrate walls as easily in short ranges (inside a house), they are mush easier to put on target and allow flashlights and other additions making hitting the intended target more likely than handguns.
with soft point bullets or frangible rounds they arent a bad choice but prefer a scatter gun bedside.
Here is one for yeah.
3/15/2012 – Rev. Henry Guyton, 71, a Baptist church pastor, called 911 one afternoon when a man at the church began acting as if he was having a heart attack. The man, 38-year-old Jesse Gates, left the church after being examined by EMS. Gates returned to the church later that day carrying a shotgun. The reverend’s grandson, Aaron Guyton, 26, spotted the shotgun and locked the doors. Gates, however, kicked open a side door of the sanctuary and pointed the gun at the pastor and congregation. As a concealed carry permit holder, Aaron acted quickly to detain Gates at gunpoint until police arrived. Everyone was reportedly unharmed.
and while it doesn’t mention a CWP, it occurred not at home but his place of business.
2/29/2012 – People fled in terror when a gunman entered a medical building and took several people hostage. A doctor at the practice, Jeff Ferguson, retrieved his gun and guarded an exit, allowing an estimated 50 people to escape down a stairwell, warning them, “If this guy opens this door, I’m going to have to shoot him.” Ferguson said after the ordeal, “I was absolutely prepared to shoot him, yes.” Despite negotiators’ best efforts to get 28-year-old Dominic liver to surrender peacefully, he was later shot during a confrontation with police. He died at a local hospital hours later.
and
3/14/2012 – Dale Vigliarolo and his wife were walking into Holiday Market when they spotted 43-year-old David Shuten in the parking lot wilding a large hunting knife. After a failed attempt to break into a vehicle, Shuten turned his attention to a nearby couple with an infant child. As Shuten approached the family, Vigliarolo drew his .38 Special and demanded he drop his weapon. Shuten dropped the knife and sat on the ground until police arrived. He was then transported to a nearby hospital for psychiatric evaluation.
3/10/2012 – Miguel Lopez Hernandez, 25, and an armed accomplice entered Kelly Jewelers. The accomplice produced his handgun, ordered the store manager to get on the floor, then tossed a roll of duct tape to Hernandez. The manager, however was quickly able to retrieve his own handgun. The armed assailant dashed out the door upon seeing the firearm, leaving Hernandez armed only with the roll of duct tape. Hernandez was arrested and is under investigation for aggravated robbery; his accomplice remains at large.
I could go on but then again, you only asked for one.
http://gunssavelives.net/ Hundreds of crime statistics where criminals were apprehended or shot by home owners while committing a violent crime. I have no sympathy for criminals who get shot by law abiding citizens.
Now, Johnny, I agree 100% on that one with you….but do you feel an assault weapon is necessary for protection.
Define “assault weapon”.
If I staple someone with a stapler does that make it an assault stapler? We should regulate those before people get hurt!
So are we to believe you’d have us only own those items deemed necessary? By who, comrade?
Imagine being a law enforcement officer these days, knowing how heavily armed these nuts are.
Ted…Ted…Ted
The better argument would be we allow kids at 18 to join the military but don’t allow them to purchase and consume alcohol.
~~~~~
RPG’s, grenades, nukes, etc…are explosive devices. Tanks…well you can own a tank. You just cannot own one with working cannon. By the way, cannons back in the 1700s were mostly owned by the town/city.
~~~~~
I really don’t care what the rest of the “civilized” world thinks about the U.S.. I really don’t. But since we are still a destination for citizens of other countries it doesn’t seem to matter.
You can’t differentiate between legally owned firearms and destructive devices regulated by the ATFE so your political diatribe is null and void by your lack of factual and statistic evidence.
It’s because of the insane fixation with guns that they even differentiate. If it were not for the gun lobby, and a group of people with demons running around in their heads about the government and conspiracy theories, we would classify all things according to their particular function: killing.
Don’t political diatribe me Johnny! Statistical evidence you completely ignore, because you disagree.
How about cigarettes? Any sane reason to continually try and get cancer? Hey by the way, I’m not keen on paying for free healthcare for many smokers, maybe we should ban tobacco?
I have long agreed that cigarettes and liquor are both bad. You are correct, if people choose to smoke and get caner, why should I pay for their health care. But we all do anyway.
I read the statistics, in quite a few states, guns kill more people that auto accidents. Considering the number of cars vs. guns…..do the math!
First of all, I support the 2nd Amendment. Second, the kind of weapons that many gun aficionados demand are their right to bear should not be allowed. Hand guns, rifles, and shotguns are more than enough arms for citizens to bear.
The right to bear arms has been taken to the nth degree. If I could develop a small tactical nuclear weapon, would I have a right to bear it? If I could develop a small incendiary bomb, do I have the right to have it? If I could develop a small biological weapon, do I have the right to bear it? The word arm does not specifically specify a gunpowder driven weapon. Remember, the definition of an arm is anything that is used to do harm to or kill an individual or individuals.
Let’s use some common sense, and get these arms that allow mass killing off the market, and out of the hand of people. There is no reason to allow these, other than to make some person feel good about protecting themselves. Frankly, I see it as an obsession.
Personally, if I felt I needed something like this, I would pay the federal machine gun license, and get a machine gun. Then I would modify it to do what it was intended to do.
Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, military leaders do.
No one is arguing here for nuclear weapons or RPG’s. Lay off the salts.
;)
Johnny,Johnny, Johnny….. if we don’t agree, we are on salts….what’s your choice, Allens?
“If I could develop a small tactical nuclear weapon, would I have a right to bear it?”
Nope not covered by the 2nd Amendment. It is an explosive device.
~~~~~
“If I could develop a small incendiary bomb, do I have the right to have it?”
Nope not covered by the 2nd Amendment. It is an explosive device.
~~~~~
“If I could develop a small biological weapon, do I have the right to bear it?”
Nope not covered by the 2nd Amendment.
~~~~
“Personally, if I felt I needed something like this, I would pay the federal machine gun license, and get a machine gun. Then I would modify it to do what it was intended to do.”
If you paid the federal tax stamps and legally obtained the “machine gun” you wouldn’t need to modify anything.
~~~~~
Two questions for you –
1) When was the last time a “machine gun” (i.e. one pull of the trigger empties the magazine of all rounds) used in a mass killing in the United States? and,
2) Have you ever shoot a firearm in your life?
jd….yes, I am a farm boy, grew up with a 12 gauge, 22, .357, and just about anything my father brought in. I have even been shot at by farmer Brown for cow tipping. I have even killed with the authorization of the USA back in the 60’s. So as Yosemite Sam sez: BACK OFF!
The first machine gun law, required modification. You are not old enough to remember that. A friend of mine had one, years ago. He couldn’t afford to let go a burst but once a year.
The constitution is vague, it just says the right to bear arms. None of those items you mentioned were even invented then. The law needs to be updated. The constitution is a framework, hence the ability to amend it. We need some serious updating of the Constitution. Problem is the gun owners have the biggest mouth right now.
Also, the right to bear arms, was for the benefit of a militia…how many gun owners, other than the Survivalists can even call themselves in a militia.
You guys are trying to herd the wrong guy here. I don’t have an issue with guns, except the ones that individuals have no SANE REASON to own.
PERIOD!
Well do we go back to lead balls, flint and rolled paper cartridges because self contained ammunition wasn’t thought about yet?
The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is far from vague. It is very specific. We have never modified the Bill of Rights in the history of this country….never!
I am all for reasonable limits. But when you start monkeying with the Bill of Rights you have opened a Pandora’s box. What is next? Which other right do you wish to give up that are contained in the first 10?
I never said give up, I said modify. Still maintain, a sane reason. I guess you would rather this slaughter continue. A person is not as likely to go to commit a mass murder with a .22, but with a multi cartridge rifle that premise is out the window. We just disagree on what guns should be allowed, not that we should outlaw all guns. Sometimes a bit of individual freedom must be given up in order to protect the masses. Speed limits are a good example.
That’s right from….I would rather see “this slaughter continue”. In fact, I want it to continue so much you will often find me on street corners handing out AK-47s with 30 round banana magazines and cases of 7.62mm rounds to any wannabe gangsta I see. “I love the smell of napalm in the morning” bwahahahahah!
that is a very very dangerous piece of circular logic.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
~Ben Franklin
the law didnt “require” modification. the 1968 gun control act which I think you are referring to had little impact on class3 firearms. the 1934 NFA wasnt substantially modified until 1986. It was modified to protect a certain group of individuals who had a stake in the class 3 firearms market. There is fundamentally no performance difference between a m16a1 manufactured in 1970 and a m4 manufactured in 2002. However do to the hughes amendment we as civilians cannot buy the later and because finite quantities of these pre 86 automatic rifles were produced and now reside in various collections the supply is viritually no existent and the demand is through the roof. I see automatic weapons go for %1500 more then their original cost.
There are many sane reasons to own the evil black guns you obviously are just too drunk off the coolaid of the mainstream nanny state media to recognize the legitimate reasons for preparing for the future.
Colorado and Maine are now linked by one thing: Both men were out of work; unemployed.
Thank you for your ‘Laser-like focus on jobs,’ Obama. I’d ring the big-eared cigarette smoker up on Accessory to Murder charges, and they’d stick.
What happened in Colorado was horrible, but it is NOT a gun issue….period.
And the Batman-wannabee perps in Co and Me agree with you completely.
Wrong answer Vern….it was a gun issue – wrong kind of gun in an unstable individuals hands.
Pathetic and so predictable. I wouldn’t give this guy any more press. It seems he wants the same attention that the media is giving to the Colorado incident.
He has some nice guns.
You don’t know me. And you don’t know the definition of a well regulated militia. You can try to create your own version of history, but it is very clear what the drafters intended as supported by the quotes provided. The founders were concerned about the very types of law being passed over the objections of the populace that we see today. They were concerned about what we call nanny state laws. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Police: Arsenal of guns seized from Biddeford man who saw Batman movie with loaded weapon Cal Damage wrote, in response to Ninelake: Please name one other amendment, written contemporaneous to the original Constitution, that includes an explanatory clause. NO other amendment on the Bill of Rights explains why it is a right, or under what conditions it is needed, but the Founders felt it was important to explain WHY they included the need to keep and bear arms. That ‘need for a well-regulated militia’ was why that right was included, ONLY to support a local military presence. You ain’t in a well-regulated militia, and this clown isn’t either. And as far as I can tell, if someone asked you to join, you’d run away….like Newt, and Junior, and Rush, and Santorum, and Mitt (and all his sons…( Link to comment Ninelake wrote: And I can quote a host of other references, including many from Alexander Hamilton as well, that support an individual right to bear arms. Any honest reading of the Second Amendment provides a clear understanding of the framers’ intent – that individuals must be allowed to maintain their own weapons, and that a well-regulated militia best follows from citizens with experience handling firearms for their own purposes. The Second Amendment does not limit ownership to militias. You are mistaken to think otherwise. —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
You don’t know me. And you don’t know the definition of a well regulated militia. You can try to create your own version of history, but it is very clear what the drafters intended as supported by the quotes provided. The founders were concerned about the very types of law being passed over the objections of the populace that we see today. They were concerned about what we call nanny state laws. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Police: Arsenal of guns seized from Biddeford man who saw Batman movie with loaded weapon Cal Damage wrote, in response to Ninelake: Please name one other amendment, written contemporaneous to the original Constitution, that includes an explanatory clause. NO other amendment on the Bill of Rights explains why it is a right, or under what conditions it is needed, but the Founders felt it was important to explain WHY they included the need to keep and bear arms. That ‘need for a well-regulated militia’ was why that right was included, ONLY to support a local military presence. You ain’t in a well-regulated militia, and this clown isn’t either. And as far as I can tell, if someone asked you to join, you’d run away….like Newt, and Junior, and Rush, and Santorum, and Mitt (and all his sons…( Link to comment Ninelake wrote: And I can quote a host of other references, including many from Alexander Hamilton as well, that support an individual right to bear arms. Any honest reading of the Second Amendment provides a clear understanding of the framers’ intent – that individuals must be allowed to maintain their own weapons, and that a well-regulated militia best follows from citizens with experience handling firearms for their own purposes. The Second Amendment does not limit ownership to militias. You are mistaken to think otherwise. —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
I have carried a concealed weapon permit and my loaded weapon for 11 years I did so because of my old line of work and still do. I felt and feel safer to carry. I even went to see a movie with my children and have even gone to supper and every sports event and church and so on and so on, with a loaded weapon in my holster on my person! Not able to be seen by anyone.
Honestly I thought nothing of it and still do not. I have of course thought about it when I read a sign that says no weapons in the building and so on, so I walked back to my car and leave it in there, I simply removed my weapon, unloaded it, and placed the weapon in the trunk after I used my gun lock that I keep in the glove box.
Guns are needed and I plan to carry unless a sign tells me on a public building or private property that I can not, in which I will and must respect.
In my opinion, that’s a sad world view, “guns are needed”, especially in central Maine.
Aside from hunting (not an archer), I haven’t ever seen the hint of a need, although bears give me a scare when I’ve only got my fish pole…..
Friends of mine carry though and there does seems to be an association with Bangor residency.
Wow regarding carrying at your kids sports events. You can carry a concealed weapon on school grounds? Church!!!! Sorry that your old career made this needed.
No, if you re-read what I wrote I do not state it was my kids sporting event. And if there is a sign or policy that states I can not carry I will not. Such as church. But my church has never addressed the issue of bringing a gun or not. Schools have and I prepare for that by not bringing a weapon to the property as required. It is sad that in “Maine” we need to carry now and I feel we “NEED” Just read the Bangor Daily we are in a changed world-Maine.
I guess the current back ground check system failed us all here.
It is just luck that we aren’t reading about yet another slaughter of innocent people by a mentally ill man with an room full of weapons.
Do we know how he obtained his weapons!
Thanks again Occupy Wall Street and Mr. President for supporting them.
What a disgusting remark to make.
Any more “disgusting” then making a link to the “Tea Party”?
This boy is in deep doo doo.
The quantity and type of firearms ownership is not the issue.
The issue is the plan for and the use of the firearms.
I could easily take my automobile and just plow down lots of pedestrians.
So, as a result, my automobile will now be re-christened, “Assault Vehicle Family Sedan”.
My kitchen knives are now re-classified as “Deadly Assault Edged Weapons”, lethal and able to cause multiple deaths.
Guns don’t kill people.
Unstable people kill people.
When you fill out medical forms now they have a section that ask if you own weapons. Why would that matter to a doctor..
I guess the insurance companies will raise rates with the help of the government to get rid of guns that way.
I think they do that so they can “remind” you of how to properly store them if you have children in the house, they asked us that once at the hospital…..just a guess. Sounds stupid, but I know educated people that leave loaded firearms unlocked in their home with children…..accident waiting to happen. Guess they think it can’t hurt to remind people.
Very nice collection. Nothing illegal about owning this collection. Most collectors would also have a concealed carry permit. I wonder if this man had one? A CCP would have legally allowed a person to carry in a theater in Maine, unless it was specifically posted by the theater that guns were not allowed. Now obviously, this guy has some morality/metal issues and should not be allowed to own these weapons.
Or, you could just wear the gun unconcealed, not bother with the absurd permit and tell them to stuff it? Nothing illegal about carrying a weapon, as long as its not concealed. Recall the dude riding his bike near the cost with an AK some time back. It made the news, but he wasnt charged. Taking it into a public place isnt the brightest idea, but its technically not illegal. At least, not to my knowledge. jd2008jd probably knows better then I do, so lets wait for him to correct me, shall we?
There needs to be a separate theater for gun losers who don’t have a date for the movies. That way they can take their cute little gun to cuddle with and hug tightly during scary parts.
This is a good example of a disturbed person who should not have firearms, but low and behold, instead has an arsenal. Multiply this guy times several thousand per state. They are still a minority but it only takes one having a reality snap to start shooting. Knee jerk reactions to our gun controls and 2nd Amendment Rights limitations will have zero effect on disturbed types having weapons and ammo…. ….as they already have them! That’s a lot of firepower for one guy to have (rough guess $10,000 inventory). He probably should not even be able to have a drivers license and is an insanity defense waiting to happen. The Maine State Troopers were lucky (I’ll bet he had more hidden and he’s out on bail). These people are out here right now……amongst us. Probably another reason I don’t like crowds.
What bugs me is our ATF being turned into a political machine (see Operation Fast and Furious) and ultimately being “distracted” by internal politics when what they should be looking for are nut jobs like this.
Think of it this way……what if this guy didn’t like their counselor; their boss; the President; the Governor, the Post Office, or the person who gave him/her a drive through order that was wrong ………
their defense will always be the same……..the question for the rest of us remains: How do you take away dynamite from an insane person?
When I worked for Federal Probation, more than half of the people arrested were convicted Felons who were possessing firearms; they did not buy them at a local gunshop or gun show. All our laws do not apply to criminals. It is against the law to murder, sell drugs…An evil person doesn’t care about laws, rules, registrations, etc. More laws only limit the rights/freedoms of honest, law abiding citizens.
The tragedy in Colorado is proof that concealed-weapons permits are important to free, law-abiding citizens.
I am a proponent of CCW. However, I don’t think a private citizen with minimal training and a typically .380acp ultra compact would have made much of a difference in that situation. I mean it is always better to have some gun over no gun but in a crowded dark theater with 200 people running and screaming the deafening echo of rifle fire in close quarters and an assailant with far superior firepower and maybe body armor (I still don’t know if I believe he had ballistic protection or if it was just tacticool vest/rig). That creates a very high stress combat situation and the need for well placed highly effective shots that I don’t think the typical shooter is capable of most police are not capable of that nowadays.
Its hard to monday morning quarterback a situation like this but, a determined highly violent active shooter with the element of surprise is a very difficult situation to the average armed citizen.
Make the idiots making these violent movies responsible for the carnage that follows.
And the people that put the news on TV too? That’s part of the reason we’re in this mess, we always seem to find someone to blame other than the individuals. I’d same the vast majority of movie goers who see violent movies still don’t kill people, it’s the individuals brain that’s the problem 99% of the time.
His illegal possession of a fully automatic firearm is yet another indictment of gun control laws.
I, for the record, still believe that the most sound control method is registration of all firearms, ensuring the responsibility remains on the owner to ensure legal transfers or reporting firearms missing/stolen. I see this as no infringement on my rights as I fear not the government for I am the government. Mass confiscation is a silly delusion that fails consider that our law enforcement officials are also Americans who are not eager to trample the rights of others.
It is not illegal to possess a fully automatic firearm. They also make stocks now that basically convert a semi-auto AR-15 in a somewhat controllable “bump-fire” automatic, in essence nullifying the NFA act to begin with.
You should be afraid of your government. Why? Because, your government isnt afraid of you. If you think you are the government, then… well…. nevermind. Unless your the CEO of a fortune 500 company, chances are your role in the actual governmental process is slight. Sorry pal.
Lighten up, much as we hate it more than half the country approves of how the country is going at any given time, that’s why it’s where it is. I never said it was illegal to possess a full auto firearm, I merely noted in this case the guy was illegally in possession of a full auto firearm. And per the BATF, bump fire stocks do not make a weapon full auto, they are applying the rules as they were written, I suspect much to their own chagrin, but bound by them nonetheless.
Even in New Orleans, where after Katrina, the local PD started to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens the ATF and FBI quickly pulled away telling them they had no right to do what they’d done and kept them from handing over the weapons to them instead telling them to give them back without restriction.
Crazy people do crazy things. No law or censorship is going to change that. Ever.
I guess that would be the “shotgun” approach to commentary. :-)
One thing that seems to be ignored is that you can own all the guns you want but without ammunition the guns are basically worthless to use.
So instead of making more useless laws, why not simply use the basic system that is used now to keep tabs on prescription drugs so people can’t shop around.
When buying ammunition, your name and the amount bought is entered so, say you buy from 20 dealers online 300 rounds, this is entered and the appropriate agency is alerted that you have bought a total of 6000 rounds.
Of course I realize that this probably is to simple or would make too much sense for anyone in OUR Government to implement.
Also all those anti-gun people probably wouldn’t like it, because it might actually work and would take away from their “we need more gun controls”.
OK, do you mind if I ask a few questions?
Which agency is the “appropriate” agency and what do they do with that information?
Does this only apply to online sales or does it apply to the local gun shop too?
And what about those folks that load their own? Do we base it on the number of bullets, primers, powder or brass shell casing purchased?
I understand what you are getting at but I can purchase 1,000 rounds of S&W .40 online for approximately $295.00. That same amount of ammo purchased in a local Bangor gun shop will cost me approximately $460.00.
The comment is straight forward to me. Seems like you’re interested in complicating the proposal for the purpose of discrediting it.
Amassing a huge stock pile suddenly or even over time should raise a red flag. I really don’t understand this gut reaction to every single gun control proposal. I think most people agree that we should be free to own guns, whether it is for the feeling of home security or for hunting. But it is so ludicrous that talking about limiting the ability to stockpile or use semi-automatic assault weapons elicits a response as though someone is proposing a full on ban of any firearm.
It doesn’t make sense. And I don’t think your implication that the minute details being complicated is a good reason to avoid the task is valid either.
Complicate it? wolf I am not attempting to complicate anything. The questions asked are very logical to ewersmith posts. Sorry if you take offense at the questions asked.
I’m not taking offense, but they’re kind of silly questions to ask in the grand scheme of things. It’s like asking why the speed limit is 25 and not 24. That kind of question doesn’t hit the spirit of the proposal. The idea is the ensure safety and to prevent more tragedies from happening. We have to first get to the point where we agree that we have to do something, so why are you instead skipping ahead past that when we haven’t even yet agreed something should be done?
you think we should be limited to a finite quantity of stockpiled ammunition? how come? then
how about food? or gasoline? or other commodity that might become scare in an emergency?
The agency is the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) which is now under Homeland Security. If they are doing their job with the information, an agent would visit to see why such a large quantity was purchased over a relatively short time.
It would include local shops (they did it back in the 60’s and without the use of computers …….. my Father had the experience back then when he ordered what he thought was 200/50 rounds boxes and instead ordered 200/500 rounds boxes, 2 ATF agents came, no problem, but wanted to know why the big order)
As for those that load their own, maybe a combination of what you stated, if it is excessive.
I understand what your saying about buying online cheaper and I’m not proposing this to stop online purchases but rather too have a way that might alert that something might be afoot.
Also I know that it should be setup so 1000 or 2000 round of .22 doesn’t set off as high alert as if the same amount is purchased in a short time say for an AK-47 and other high calibers.
And before someone says .22 can kill just as well as high calibers …………. YES, BUT it is less likely to be caliber of choice.
I’m not saying that this would stop incidents like these but it certainly might give some advance warning that someone was planing something.
Thank you for your respectful answer.
Unfortunately many people will see any proposal as an attack on the 2nd Amendment. The problem as I see it is the far right and the far left adopt the most extreme position possible and will not budge off those positions. They view any movement towards the middle as a sign of weakness.
We need to learn the art of compromise for the good of the country. I have no problem with tracking ammunition purchases (regardless of what some posters might think). I ask questions at times because I want to see if people have thought through the process…you have and your respectful post shows it.
You and I may have more middle ground then some people think.
Thank you, I appreciate it.
“And before someone says .22 can kill just as well as high calibers
…………. YES, BUT it is less likely to be caliber of choice.”
So, youd like to make it harder to purchase ammo for other weapons… but you admit that .22 can kill just as easily…. and you say its less likely to be the caliber of choice because its just as easy to get larger caliber rounds…. So, If you make it harder to get larger rounds, then .22 becomes the caliber of choice because as you said, it can kill just as well. Your idea, while thoughtful (hey man, at least you have ideas about how to change things), probably wouldnt work as well as you’d hope. Instead of using AK’s, people will use Ruger 10/.22’s. It doesnt matter. Your never going to stop people from hurting each other. You take away the ability to use guns, people will use bows. Then swords, then clubs, then rocks, then themselves. Humans are violent by nature. You cant nerf the world to protect it from a few nut jobs. It just not possible. If you make ammo harder to get, people will import it and manufacture it illegally and then, because of these new laws, the crime will go way up. Its already way up. We already have made this enough of a draconian, police state country. I understand wanting to feel safe and live in a safe place where you are free to go about your business, but more laws is not the way to achieve that goal.
Actually, after I posted I thought of just what you pointed out and your right because if someone want to bad enough cause harm, like you pointed out, they will find it.
I really wasn’t considering this as another law but rather updating & enforcement of what is (or at least use to be) on the books, without making it more complicated for the average law abiding American.
Of course we “ARE” talking about OUR Government doing something simple and efficiently, we all know how well that works …………………………….
nice use of the term “nerf”.
Stanley Freeman, you stated a state marriage license issued to a
same-sex couple would allow the couple ‘access to more than 1,000 other
“civil rights” already in state and federal statutes’. I beg to differ.
Since the federal government does not recognize licenses issued to
same-sex couples by individual states in the Union, those federal
statues and regulations that apply exclusively to married heterosexual
couples will not apply to that couple. In fact, according to my sources a vast number of the more than 1.000 rules you alluded to will not apply at all. Also, of those state rules that apply, many benefits derived thereof can be acquired without the need for marriage by a legal contract between the contracting same-sex parties.
This view of yours seems to be widely used in trying to persuade voters to support “gay marriage” in Maine. It’s a false view. Furthermore, it is a lie perpetuated by those who should know better,
that is, by those behind the effort to change Maine marital laws to accommodate same-sex couples.