Cops: Maine man brought loaded gun into 'Batman' flick

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
I think we need to start banning stupid people...this should solve about 100% of our world's problems.

Actually, if we get rid of all the nanny laws, the stupid people will weed themselves out.

Right now we coddle and protect the stupidest, and it goes against nature. Let their bone-headed stunts put an end to them, they'll stop breeding, and they'll stop bugging the rest of us, and pretty soon the collective IQ will be significantly higher!

And I say this as one of the often stupid people that hates wearing a helmet on my motorcycle, hates wearing my seatbelt half the time, and refuses to wash my hands after I go to the restroom.

Originally posted by DriCo04
I live in Maine and this has been on the local news. It happened not too far from where I live.

Apparently, this guy had 4+ handguns, a few AR15's, an AK47, a Saiga 12GA shotgun, some hunting rifles, and various other firearms/ammo

I seriously think that gun laws are way too lax. Come on people, the guy possessed a real arsenal of heavy duty firearms. Have you handled a Saiga? I have. "A few AR15's", my goodness.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Dear 10th,

From my understanding the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms has been misused for a long time. I don't think the founding fathers imagined a nation of gun lovers (there is something inherently worrying about people loving guns, wanting to carry guns, fighting to keep their right to carry guns, y'all are a bit loony) and this kind of rampant abuse of that "right". Wasn't it more about the Americans being able to defend themselves against oppression, namely the British, and not about what you would think it is about today? Hasn't America suffered enough, isn't there enough violence in your past and inherent future without fighting to have the means to kill people so easily?

I am a staunch believer in removing all the guns, except for hunting and only hunting. Noone can tell me they need a glock or semi/full automatic for hunting. It's for "protection" because your society is in an ever spiralling cycle of violence. You need to protect yourselves from other nuts carrying and using guns. No guns = no need to protect yourselves, simples!

I think this is more a human issue, then historic.. more about the ego then rights, sense, morality or logic. Logic would state that arguements such as "guns don't kill people do" are farcical at best, lunacy at worst. Without a gun you'd not be able to kill 10s of people.. again it's pretty simple, not rocket science, but y'all love your guns.. don't you?

As long as the virus stays in the US, I frankly don't care. I do feel for the unfortunates, but as a nation you keep having these mass killings and you keep defending the rights to bear arms, so .. *shrug*. You make your bed, lie in it and suck it up buttercup.

T

Originally posted by AtcGod
Yeah LETS ALL CARRY OUR GUNS TO THE MOVIES!

That way, once some crazy comes in to shoot us we can all pull out our guns and start firing in a crowded theater!

Genius!

isn't that what the crazy person was going to do?? how is firing at the crazy person not genius?

reply to post by torqpoc


The founding fathers would be entirely amazed and appalled that you would make these assumptions about them. In fact, they would probably challenge you to a very real, very deadly way of settling arguments at the time..... a duel! Just google "founding fathers" plus "duel" to see how common and accepted the practice was, even among presidents and aristocrats!

The pistol was a part of every day life, it was used for everything from self-defense against wildlife, to settling petty differences among men.

The founding fathers stated many times that the government should fear its people, not the other way around.

The gun is the very definition of civilization, because it puts all citizens on equal footing when it comes to force. Without guns, the youngest, strongest, and most aggressive will always have the force advantage, but with the gun, everyone is equal. Isn't that what we all strive for? Total equality?

Why the Gun is Civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It's not a big deal that he was on his way there with an assault rifle, ammunition and other weapons?

Yeah, Concealed Carry is one thing, I'm all for it, but carrying an AK47 is a bit much IMO.

Would you feel differently if he was carrying a Draco Pistol?

reply to post by Thescripter


I once got pulled over with a loaded AK47 behind the back seat of my truck, a loaded, and chambered and cocked .45 1911 in the door of my truck, 3 mexicans of questionable legality in the backseat, a pocket knife, and a utility knife in my pocket, a 6 pack of beer on the console, with only 1 left, and I was going 90+ miles per hour in Georgia, with Florida plates. My passenger was also an extremely dark-skinned Haitian, that was more than legal, he was a Division I football player at the time!

The Georgia Highway Patrolman was very nice until he saw the .45. Then he asked me to get out of the vehicle, he took the gun and cleared it and layed it in pieces on his hood, then he asked if I had any more weapons, and I gave him the knife, and then I rememberd the utility knife also, and then he asked if I had any more guns, and I told him about the AK in the truck, he almost fainted, but I assured him it was secured behind the seat, and the occupants would have to get out of the truck and reach back inside to access it. He walked over to the truck, looked around, and commanded everyone to stay put and NOT exit the truck.

Then, he asked why I was so heavily armed, and driving so fast. I had good explanations, and he believed them, and my background came back clean, as did my CCW, and we were only about 15 miles from the Florida line, so he sent me on my way without even a speeding ticket.

There is nothing wrong with being heavily armed, as long as you are legal, honest, and polite to the authorites.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I don't believe it is "safe to say" any of that, because -- REALISTICALLY -- there is no force, short of magic, capable of disarming the US, voluntarily or otherwise.

Oh I dunno. A few nukes couldn't hurt.

Although we'd only use them on the bad guys.

That's what you gun-nuts say isn't it? Just the bad guys.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Weird that he gave up peacefully when confronted by armed police officers. Is he just that much of a coward that he was only willing to shoot up unarmed civies? Just an odd situation, you'd think if he was juiced enough to kill people he would have at least shot at the cops.

reply to post by torqpoc


Take away the guns, people will carry knives. Take away the knives, people will carry sticks. Take away the sticks, people will carry rocks. And so on. Well, except for the criminals. They will still have guns because they dont care about the laws of society.
The amount of guns in America is between 236 and 287 million. The amount of crimes involving guns every year? Do the math. It comes out to somewhere in the area of .001% . And its not the weapons, its the idiot behind them.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Dear GRA,

I'm sorry I don't agree with you. I understand fully where you're coming from and appreciate both the response and information. I do know the history behind duels, somewhat different for gentlemen resolving disputes with a duel and gun wielding nut jobs storming in to schools or cinemas killing innocents don't you think? Again I feel that is one of those analogies which is used in vain to substantiate a barbaric society.

I still don't think the founding fathers would want things to have escalated in to this caricature of a society you guys have in the US, and it is a caricature of itself I think that is undeniable.

I'm not going to even attempt to say things in the UK aren't bad, but there sure aren't as many gun related crimes (yet) and I can only make the logical tangent that it is because we're not all allowed to carry guns. Again i'm sure there will be arguements for and against and these will continue until there is some truly horrific event, probably in the US, which will disgust all of you, or hopefully the majority of you into sense.

It's not like your rights to bear arms are stopping your government from bending you over and ripping you a new one, is it? That was slightly tongue in cheek but quite poignant I think.

T

reply to post by torqpoc

It's not like your rights to bear arms are stopping your government from bending you over and ripping you a new one, is it? That was slightly tongue in cheek but quite poignant I think.

That's actually a wonderful point. The intention of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the very government that we have today. An over-bearing, centralized, Federal government, that taxes, and redistributes wealth, rewards subpar performance, lowers the standards of education, ships money overseas, and wields a military force as a global empire builder. Pretty much everything the Founding Fathers hated, and our 280 million legally owned guns are not doing a damn thing to stop it.

That is a very valid point that you make.

reply to post by JayFlores


Find me one person who can kill 20 people in a matter of seconds with a knife... a normal citizen mind, not a trained ninja.

Point made. Please don't use baseless reasoning to defend the right to carry a gun in this context, it's exactly the point I was making. Use logic, common sense and prove to me that people without the ability to carry guns are as dangerous as people with the ability to carry guns and I will gladly change my mind.

Statistics can be used against you also..

T

reply to post by torqpoc

I still don't think the founding fathers would want things to have escalated in to this caricature of a society you guys have in the US, and it is a caricature of itself I think that is undeniable.

This is about all you got right, but we are probably thinking the exact opposite as to why they would think such a thing

reply to post by getreadyalready


I agree, I was just pointing out the draco pistol. (Would love to get one stamped as SBR and put a stock on it).

Great story btw. The only 2 experiences I have had with the police while carrying - I just stated I had a concealed pistol on my hip, he just said "Well, just keep it there and we won't have problems." while he ran my licenses. Another time they showed up at my private shooting range and just watched us for a few minutes due to someone calling in about automatic gun fire. When I asked him if I was violating any law, he just shrugged and said it was the first time they have ever received that call and just wanted to see what was going on. Didn't ask for a license, or anything - just wanted to make a show for the nosey neighbor so they would feel better about it.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by torqpoc

 

It's not like your rights to bear arms are stopping your government from bending you over and ripping you a new one, is it? That was slightly tongue in cheek but quite poignant I think.

That's actually a wonderful point. The intention of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the very government that we have today. An over-bearing, centralized, Federal government, that taxes, and redistributes wealth, rewards subpar performance, lowers the standards of education, ships money overseas, and wields a military force as a global empire builder. Pretty much everything the Founding Fathers hated, and our 280 million legally owned guns are not doing a damn thing to stop it.

That is a very valid point that you make.

I 100% agree with you. I didn't want to outright put it so .. well so directly because I think it would be taken as my being arrogant and rude.

*bows*

T

Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by JayFlores

 

Find me one person who can kill 20 people in a matter of seconds with a knife... a normal citizen mind, not a trained ninja.

Point made. Please don't use baseless reasoning to defend the right to carry a gun in this context, it's exactly the point I was making. Use logic, common sense and prove to me that people without the ability to carry guns are as dangerous as people with the ability to carry guns and I will gladly change my mind.

Statistics can be used against you also..

T

It could be done simply and quickly with poison. Someone intent on mass killings will find a way. It has happened plenty of times. What about gas attacks? Fires? I mean, if this nutjob in Colorado wanted too, he could have barricaded the backdoors, and drove his car in through the front one blocking the last exit and tossed a few molotave cocktails into the theatre. Or he could have just added cyanide to the popcorn butter.

The weapon of choice is not the issue.

SMH, this is really getting out of hand. If your gonna carry a gun, why only carry it to go watch "Batman"? If you have a registered weapon, you should carry it to protect yourself at "ALL" times, not just to watch batman at the movies.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by torqpoc

 

I still don't think the founding fathers would want things to have escalated in to this caricature of a society you guys have in the US, and it is a caricature of itself I think that is undeniable.

This is about all you got right, but we are probably thinking the exact opposite as to why they would think such a thing

I am not so sure actually. I think they would be more disgusted with the banking system, general control, governmental corruption than you all bearing arms, but c'est la vie, it is what it is.

T

reply to post by Thescripter

When I asked him if I was violating any law, he just shrugged and said it was the first time they have ever received that call and just wanted to see what was going on. Didn't ask for a license, or anything - just wanted to make a show for the nosey neighbor so they would feel better about it.

Did you at least give them an invite?

I've had a couple of other occasions to have police hold onto my gun for a few minutes while they checked things out, but they all ended well. I've also heard the exact same quote, "just keep it there and we won't have any problems." The majority of police are very reasonable, as long as we are.