Active shooter situation in Maine, hospital says 'mass casualty, mass shooter' event

[domer76]

no it isn't.

it's called a discussion, ignorance magnet.

You can take your “would have” bullshit as far back as absurdity lets you, idiot. But it doesn’t change the fact that it suppositional garbage. Reserved for those who wishful think vs reality.

 

[volsrock]

few debate that the role of the gov't to protect society from 'others', whether it is local police or a military.

You are wrong and a fucking IDIOT

Police have no duty to protect!!!


POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU, FEDERAL COURT AFFIRMS YET AGAIN

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again


Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

[QP!]

wanting to be protected by government and expecting to be protected by government are not the same thing. tell me who is the stupid one....one who believes that government is supposed to protect them, even in the face of judicial opinions that state they are not? or ones who understand that their protection is their own responsibility and not the governments because judicial opinion tells them that?

why would a reasonable person punish a government official for not doing something they are not constitutionally bound to provide?

it is not just a 'wish' or 'want' to protected, or it would not be a reason to fire or hire, elect or vote out leaders. it is an expectation that it is their job.

Thus why one of the number one things politicians in those positions will run on is that they are the person who will be able to provide such protection.

You are in such denial of reality that you are denying one of the number one FACTS of politics and seeking office.

You are denying that anyone thinks the government SHOULD protect the US border and that failure to do so plays in to voting.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Right so your entire premise is 'the Constitution does not allow the government to restrict our right to bear arms... for the weapons i think are reasonable to have'


but...

'...ya the the constitution does allow the government to restrict the right to own arms... for weapons i think are not reasonable to have'.

that is not what I said. try it again

Can you quote for me what in the COnstitution backs that up and not just cite what you think 'makes sense'?

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not list out what rights the people have, in it's totality, nor does it list all the exceptions and exemptions to those rights. It is a negative rights document, meaning that if there isn't a power specifically prescribed to the government, then they do not have that power.

Now, the 2nd Amendment says that the right 'shall not be infringed'........and most logical people would see that as the federal government has zero power or authority over the arms of the people. this point was mentioned many times in the federalist papers and the debate minutes, as well as all of the commentaries during and after ratification. In fact, even the federal government realized that they had no power to regulate firearms because of the 2nd Amendment. However, because government always seeks to accumulate more power over the people, by any means, including the courts, they used the commerce clause........initially. it was a few decades later, after having gotten the people used to the idea that the government could regulate firearms, that they led the younger generations to believe that 'shall not be infringed' actually meant 'reasonable restrictions'..............

 

[SmarterthanYou]

it is not just a 'wish' or 'want' to protected, or it would not be a reason to fire or hire, elect or vote out leaders. it is an expectation that it is their job.

why would you hire a person to do a job who would face absolutely zero liability for failure to do that job????

Thus why one of the number one things politicians in those positions will run on is that they are the person who will be able to provide such protection.

yet when they fail, they point out to you that they are not required to do so, nor liable for their failure

You are in such denial of reality that you are denying one of the number one FACTS of politics and seeking office.

You are denying that anyone thinks the government SHOULD protect the US border and that failure to do so plays in to voting.

I'm not the one denying anything. I'm pointing out to you the failures in your argument. If a group of terrorists slipped through the southern border, or were allowed in, and then committed a massive terror attack, would joe biden, or his administration be held responsible????

 

[Nomad]

what's the correct number of guns for a society?

how did you arrive at that figure?

There is no "figure", but anyone who isn't a drooling, gun-sucking halfwit understands that there should be far fewer of them.

My estimate of 10x too many was just that.... a common sense estimate.

Cute little attempt at side-stepping the issue though.

Same shit your kind always pulls.

I'm only concerned with OUR government, which does not murder significant numbers of its own citizens.

Having an armed society kinda hinders that...thank God the citizens were armed in 1776

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

Your little personal handguns and pretend AR-15's would do nothing but get you annihilated faster if the government ever decided to crack down.

All they provide you with is a false sense of security.

Disarmament of the German Jews

The disarmament of the German Jews started in 1933, initially limited to local areas. A major target was Berlin, where large-scale raids in search for weaponry took place. Starting in 1936, the Gestapo prohibited German police officers from giving firearms licenses to Jews.[1] In November 1938, the Verordnung gegen den Waffenbesitz der Juden prohibited the possession of firearms and bladed weapons by Jews.

Well, we know what happened after that

The disarmament of the Jews by the Nazis was part of a much broader program of confiscation of all their assets.

Stop trying to make it sound like it was all about disarming them.

so the leftist wailing about cops murdering untold numbers of unarmed blacks is just a red herring. got it.

You've never once heard me wailing about anything of the sort.

Search your black little heart out for as long as it takes, but you will not find an example of it, Cletus.

I'm only concerned with OUR government, which does not murder significant numbers of its own citizens.

You need to call BLM and inform them of that...maybe the will stop burning down cities

Why should/would I talk to BLM about anything?

They are a totally, 100% bogus organization with a bogus agenda in my view.

But since you are the one who appears to be obsessed with them, how about you discuss the issue with them?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

There is no "figure", but anyone who isn't a drooling, gun-sucking halfwit understands that there should be far fewer of them.

My estimate of 10x too many was just that.... a common sense estimate.

Cute little attempt at side-stepping the issue though.

Same shit your kind always pulls.



Your little personal handguns and pretend AR-15's would do nothing but get you annihilated faster if the government ever decided to crack down.

All they provide you with is a false sense of security.



The disarmament of the Jews by the Nazis was part of a much broader program of confiscation of all their assets.

Stop trying to make it sound like it was all about disarming them.



You've never once heard me wailing about anything of the sort.

Search your black little heart out for as long as it takes, but you will not find an example of it, Cletus.



Why should/would I talk to BLM about anything?

They are a totally, 100% bogus organization with a bogus agenda in my view.

But since you are the one who appears to be obsessed with them, how about you discuss the issue with them?

I fully disagree on all points.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You've never once heard me wailing about anything of the sort.

Search your black little heart out for as long as it takes, but you will not find an example of it, Cletus.

wow, did I say YOU? no, I said 'leftists'. seems a bit defensive to me, don't ya think?

 

[QP!]

what bullshit. I bet you think white American males were entirely responsible for the slave trade as well, don't you, low IQ idiot.

What you prove every time you speak is that your views are not tethered to any reality.

First you say US citizens do not expect the gov't to protect our border and now you deny that the Mexican gangs are getting the bulk of their guns from US in trade for Opioids and other drugs.

Guns Recovered by Mexico’s Military Come Mostly From U.S. Makers
In the wake of a judge's decision to throw out the Mexican government's lawsuit against the gun industry, data shows American companies produce the weapons driving cartel violence.

Stopping toxic flow of guns from U.S. to Mexico

 

[volsrock]

The family, the hospital, the doctors are a big part of the blame in this situation. No one that hears voices talking to them should be released. How many other mass shooters have said the same thing?


Why didn't they confiscate his guns when he was in the mental hospital?


Better question: why did they let him out of the hospital after hearing voices to kill? Stop fixating on guns for political purposes. There are a hundred different ways to commit murder and murder and war existed for thousands of years before the invention of firearms.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What you prove every time you speak is that your views are not tethered to any reality.

First you say US citizens do not expect the gov't to protect our border and now you deny that the Mexican gangs are getting the bulk of their guns from US in trade for Opioids and other drugs.

are you a woman? you sound like a woman. in fact, you sound a lot like LV426, someone who couldn't restate what someone else said two minutes ago and do it correctly.

that is your problem with reality.

 

[Nomad]

wow, did I say YOU? no, I said 'leftists'. seems a bit defensive to me, don't ya think?

No, you said "...the leftist who...", singular.

 

[QP!]

You are wrong and a fucking IDIOT

Police have no duty to protect!!!


POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU, FEDERAL COURT AFFIRMS YET AGAIN

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again


Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

I am not wrong.

YOu are an idiot stuffing strawmen as you know you are wrong.

I did not use the word duty so argue your bullshit with someone who did.

I argued that citizens EXPECT it and vote for it.

If i vote for someone to do a job (mayor running on law and order campaign) and they fail to do the job, i and other citizens cannot sue them for not doing their DUTY, but we can fire them for not living up to the expectation they set for the job.


Whether it is a local mayor, of Governor or Trump saying 'I alone can protect you', people WILL VOTE to hire the person on that expectation and fire them (vote them out) when they fail.


You guys trying to deny this shows how lost you are that you deny basic truths that citizens EXPECT their politicians, locally, by State and Federally, to protect them.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, you said "...the leftist who...", singular.

it was a general term, not specific to you.........maybe I could have made that clearer. my point still stands. I did not say you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I am not wrong.

YOu are an idiot stuffing strawmen as you know you are wrong.

I did not use the word duty so argue your bullshit with someone who did.

I argued that citizens EXPECT it and vote for it.

If i vote for someone to do a job (mayor running on law and order campaign) and they fail to do the job, i and other citizens cannot sue them for not doing their DUTY, but we can fire them for not living up to the expectation they set for the job.


Whether it is a local mayor, of Governor or Trump saying 'I alone can protect you', people WILL VOTE to hire the person on that expectation and fire them (vote them out) when they fail.

You guys trying to deny this shows how lost you are that you deny basic truths that citizens EXPECT their politicians, locally, by State and Federally, to protect them.

wait a minute. so you vote for a person that lies to you, openly, and simply vote them out at the end of their term for lying to you? and we're the stupid ones???????

 

[QP!]

that is not what I said. try it again



The Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not list out what rights the people have, in it's totality, nor does it list all the exceptions and exemptions to those rights. It is a negative rights document, meaning that if there isn't a power specifically prescribed to the government, then they do not have that power.

Now, the 2nd Amendment says that the right 'shall not be infringed'........and most logical people would see that as the federal government has zero power or authority over the arms of the people. this point was mentioned many times in the federalist papers and the debate minutes, as well as all of the commentaries during and after ratification. In fact, even the federal government realized that they had no power to regulate firearms because of the 2nd Amendment. However, because government always seeks to accumulate more power over the people, by any means, including the courts, they used the commerce clause........initially. it was a few decades later, after having gotten the people used to the idea that the government could regulate firearms, that they led the younger generations to believe that 'shall not be infringed' actually meant 'reasonable restrictions'..............

And yet you agree with me, that Elon Musk, or a Muslim group in America, should not be allowed to buy a nuclear weapon simply because they can get the cash together to do so.

So you DO think that infringement is allowed in certain instances and you will make the case for that based on your OPINION and say 'my opinion means impinging on the Constitutional right makes it ok'.

So i also have an opinion. A bit to the left of yours where you would stop Nuclear weapons and other Armaments. My opinion involves weapons of war, or weapons made for the sole purpose of mass human killings.

Your opinion is not superior to mine as neither are based on the Constitution. We are just debating where the line should be when we BOTH AGREE a line SHOULD exist.

 

[QP!]

why would you hire a person to do a job who would face absolutely zero liability for failure to do that job????


yet when they fail, they point out to you that they are not required to do so, nor liable for their failure



I'm not the one denying anything. I'm pointing out to you the failures in your argument. If a group of terrorists slipped through the southern border, or were allowed in, and then committed a massive terror attack, would joe biden, or his administration be held responsible????

Again your stupidity leads to reading comprehension issues.

The liability I STATED is you fire them. You vote them out.

If a politician says 'vote for me and i will protect you. I will invest in policing. I will clean up the city', and they do none of it, as you guys say 'you cannot hold them legally liable for not delivering on their duty' but you can fire them and vote them out.

So back to your point that no one expects politicians or police to protect them you are 100% wrong and stupid. Citizens DO EXPECT politicians and police to protect them and you citing articles showing they do not have a legal 'duty' does not change the expectation.

 

[QP!]

are you a woman? you sound like a woman. in fact, you sound a lot like LV426, someone who couldn't restate what someone else said two minutes ago and do it correctly.

that is your problem with reality.

You would be better off saying that you NOW realize what you said and indefensible and you give up.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Again your stupidity leads to reading comprehension issues.

The liability I STATED is you fire them. You vote them out.

If a politician says 'vote for me and i will protect you. I will invest in policing. I will clean up the city', and they do none of it, as you guys say 'you cannot hold them legally liable for not delivering on their duty' but you can fire them and vote them out.

So back to your point that no one expects politicians or police to protect them you are 100% wrong and stupid. Citizens DO EXPECT politicians and police to protect them and you citing articles showing they do not have a legal 'duty' does not change the expectation.

He nailed you dead to rights, bozo the clown.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And yet you agree with me, that Elon Musk, or a Muslim group in America, should not be allowed to buy a nuclear weapon simply because they can get the cash together to do so.

I agree with that, up until the time when you idiots like to use that as an 'A-HA' moment and say 'see, restricting weapons is ok'. if you want to use that argument, then any civilian can own a nuke.

So you DO think that infringement is allowed in certain instances and you will make the case for that based on your OPINION and say 'my opinion means impinging on the Constitutional right makes it ok'.

not any more. I want my nuke.

So i also have an opinion. A bit to the left of yours where you would stop Nuclear weapons and other Armaments. My opinion involves weapons of war, or weapons made for the sole purpose of mass human killings.

Your opinion is not superior to mine as neither are based on the Constitution. We are just debating where the line should be when we BOTH AGREE a line SHOULD exist.

if your argument is that restricting some weapons is ok because nukes are weapons suitable for defending against a tyrannical government, then I want nukes. now, tell me you believe the government would nuke us.