Robert Card (Maine Mass Shooter) Case Analysis

[harddriver]

https://www.zoloft.com/en/Safety-Info

WARNING: SUICIDALITY AND ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS
ZOLOFT and other antidepressant medicines may increase suicidal thoughts or actions in some people 24 years of age and younger, especially within the first few months of treatment or when the dose is changed. Watch for these changes and call your healthcare provider right away if you notice new or sudden changes in mood, behavior, actions, thoughts, or feelings, especially if severe. Pay particular attention to such changes when ZOLOFT is started or when the dose is changed.
Call a doctor right away if you or a person you know who is taking ZOLOFT has any of the following symptoms, especially if they are new, worse, or worry you:

• Attempts to commit suicide
• Acting aggressive or violent
• New or worse depression
• Feeling agitated, restless, angry, or irritable
• An increase in activity or talking more than what is normal for you
• Acting on dangerous impulses
• Thoughts about suicide or dying
• New or worse anxiety or panic attacks
• Trouble sleeping
• Other unusual changes in behavior or mood

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Yeah, but as I pointed out, nukes create way more mass casualties, as with escaped viruses and world wars. Seems like you've got tunnel vision with this one issue, and you believe that getting rid of a certain type of gun would fix it, which I don't believe it would anyways.

I never conceded that it wouldn't infringe rights. I think it would.

How would that infringe rights though? Are there any guns you think civilians shouldn’t be able to own?

 

[Bad Brain]

Ok so lets not get caught up in semantics on this one, OK? Because I feel this is the rabbit hole you're digging.

Muskets, Flintlock pistols. That's what was available when the 2A was written.

So you tell me whats more dangerous in the hands of an inspiring "mass shooter" to a crowd of potential victims.
What will cause the most death in the least amount of time?

Muskets, Flintlock pistols vs AR15 or even a glock 17

Just wanted to clarify. Yeah, modern guns are definitely more effective than a musket or flintlock.

 

[harddriver]

Ok so lets not get caught up in semantics on this one, OK? Because I feel this is the rabbit hole you're digging.

Muskets, Flintlock pistols. That's what was available when the 2A was written.

So you tell me whats more dangerous in the hands of an inspiring "mass shooter" to a crowd of potential victims.
What will cause the most death in the least amount of time?

Muskets, Flintlock pistols vs AR15 or even a glock 17

Those were the modern guns of the age at the time the 2A was written. So if the 2A was written in 2023 guess what weapons would be covered by "Shall Not Be Infringed" if it were written by a new government that just threw off a Tyrannical government that was usurping the citizens rights and freedoms.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is quite clear.

The Constitution spells out what the government cannot do to it's citizens because the government derives it's power from consent of the governed......That's why the Constitution was written the way it was...Unfortunately history shows us that every Republic devolves into Despotism due to rampant corruption..............................

 

[Bad Brain]

How would that infringe rights though? Are there any guns you think civilians shouldn’t be able to own?

Either you have the right to self-defense and to bear arms or not. There is no clause “Unless it’s too powerful,” that I’m aware of.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Either you have the right to self-defense and to bear arms or not. There is no clause “Unless it’s too powerful,” that I’m aware of.

I’m not asking if there is a clause. My point is that there are already laws about which fire arms can be legally obtained or not. They are already in place. People are too quick to cry “infringement” even though it wouldn’t be doing anything that isn’t already happening and accepted.

I’m trying to stay objective here. If you think anyone in any state should be able to buy a rocket launcher, than I guess that’s were we split ways, but subjectively, just making everything legal is an awful idea.

 

[Bad Brain]

I’m not asking if there is a clause. My point is that there are already laws about which fire arms can be legally obtained or not. They are already in place. People are too quick to cry “infringement” even though it wouldn’t be doing anything that isn’t already happening and accepted.

Just because it’s already happening doesn’t mean it’s not infringing!

I’m trying to stay objective here. If you think anyone in any state should be able to buy a rocket launcher, than I guess that’s were we split ways, but subjectively, just making everything legal is an awful idea.

Could you substantiate your views? Everything you’re suggesting just seems arbitrary, based on your gut reaction, personal preferences and inclinations. It’s very short-sided. There are always second order effects to proposed interventions, some of which you might but be aware. You should study highly armed Switzerland for example, who was never invaded in any of the wars: “There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto, Japanese Admiral.

I maintain that there is no inherent contradiction between an armed population and a peaceful, civilized population. It all goes back to culture and values.

 

[harddriver]

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Just because it’s already happening doesn’t mean it’s not infringing!

Could you substantiate your views? Everything you’re suggesting just seems arbitrary, based on your gut reaction, personal preferences and inclinations. It’s very short-sided. There are always second order effects to proposed interventions, some of which you might but be aware. You should study highly armed Switzerland for example, who was never invaded in any of the wars: “There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto, Japanese Admiral.

I maintain that there is no inherent contradiction between an armed population and a peaceful, civilized population. It all goes back to culture and values.

I am trying to be as black as white as possible. Objectively, if you think that restricting some fire arms is infringement, then you are saying every single firearm should be legal to every single citizen of this country.

Once ANY single restriction is made, be it type or weapon or type of person, then anything after that is essentially arbitrary until the point of banning every single firearm.

So if someone thinks that everyone should be able to own a gun, any gun, except for a felon convicted of a violent crime, then that means they are open to having a right be regulated.

That same person can’t then cry “infringement!” if they get denied the ability to own any type of gun, be it a machine gun or a hunting rifle.

My point is once a line is draw, anywhere, then the topic is open for discussion at any level. There are not levels of “infringement”.

I believe there are certain instances where some people shouldn’t be able to own some guns, and I also believe most people would agree with me. So when and if a discussion happens about what those “somes” are, the arguments against them cannot be “infringement of a right”.

There may very well be compelling arguments against it, but infringement is not one of them

 

[Bad Brain]

if you think that restricting some fire arms is infringement, then you are saying every single firearm should be legal to every single citizen of this country

Yeah, more or less. But I’d further argue, with some exceptions, that if someone is too dangerous to own a gun they’re probably too dangerous to be a part of society as well.

So if someone thinks that everyone should be able to own a gun, any gun, except for a felon convicted of a violent crime, then that means they are open to having a right be regulated.

How’s that? Maybe my previous comment clarifies? I’m claiming that the right is self-defense and property — IE someone can’t take your stuff or prevent you from buying stuff.

I believe there are certain instances where some people shouldn’t be able to own some guns, and I also believe most people would agree with me.

I agree.

 

[Bad Brain]

I know this because we do in fact have this restriction applied to us right now, and EVERY institution that is in place to uphold the constitution has yet to say, "it's time for everyone to have rocket launchers"

Some people don’t want you to own guns for the same reason.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Yeah, more or less. But I’d further argue, with some exceptions, that if someone is too dangerous to own a gun they’re probably too dangerous to be a part of society as well.

How’s that? Maybe my previous comment clarifies? I’m claiming that the right is self-defense and property — IE someone can’t take your stuff or prevent you from buying stuff.

I agree.

Say someone walks in to a gas station. They shoot the cashier and a guest, takes the money from the register and leaves.
The people he shot lived, he does his time in jail and is then released back to society, should he be able to go out and get a gun again? He’s a free man so does he still have the right to own fire arms?

Personally, I don’t think he should. So if we end up agreeing on that, we can agree there are acceptable instances where people can lose their rights.

Once there is the option for “acceptable instances”, it is up to the society to decide how far that goes. Once that is an option, “infringement” is no different than “I disagree” until it gets to the point of completely abolishing the right for everyone

 

[Bad Brain]

Say someone walks in to a gas station. They shoot the cashier and a guest, takes the money from the register and leaves.
The people he shot lived, he does his time in jail and is then released back to society, should he be able to go out and get a gun again? He’s a free man so does he still have the right to own fire arms?

Personally, I don’t think he should. So if we end up agreeing on that, we can agree there are acceptable instances where people can lose their rights.

Once there is the option for “acceptable instances”, it is up to the society to decide how far that goes. Once that is an option, “infringement” is no different than “I disagree” until it gets to the point of completely abolishing the right for everyone

Okay I better understand what you’re getting at. I agree that in a sense what we’re arguing is theoretical in that there is no law of rights like there is a “law” of gravity. People will rationalize whatever the f they want to do, and if they’re strong enough, they will accomplish it. But to your case, in general I think he should have his rights restored if he has “Paid his debt to society.”

 

[Monkey Man]

Naw, those guys have all been run off..

Now you have your echo chamber.

I've always liked delay effects, but not when they appear to have been applied to conversations Brother C.

For anyone who missed the point:

"You're a cunt"
"No, you're a cunt"
"...but you're a cunt and a cuck"
"You're the one watching me and your mother"
"You're the one with a mental illness"
"Like I said, you're a cunt and you can just fuck off"
"No, you can fuck off"
"Go fuck off and then when you've fucked off, go fuck yourself"
"You go fuck off, fuck off again, go fuck yourself and then get fucked"
"Moron"
"Look who's calling me a moron, moron"
"Cuck"
"Cunt"

Get the picture? If anyone's gonna talk about echo chambers, he ought first to consider the above "conversational form". If that doesn't sound like echoes I don't know what does.

OTC, thank God, doesn't sound like that anymore. It actually sounds to me like, you know, exchanges and debates of and about opinions.

 

[JTyson]

I am trying to be as black as white as possible. Objectively, if you think that restricting some fire arms is infringement, then you are saying every single firearm should be legal to every single citizen of this country.

Once ANY single restriction is made, be it type or weapon or type of person, then anything after that is essentially arbitrary until the point of banning every single firearm.

So if someone thinks that everyone should be able to own a gun, any gun, except for a felon convicted of a violent crime, then that means they are open to having a right be regulated.

That same person can’t then cry “infringement!” if they get denied the ability to own any type of gun, be it a machine gun or a hunting rifle.

My point is once a line is draw, anywhere, then the topic is open for discussion at any level. There are not levels of “infringement”.

I believe there are certain instances where some people shouldn’t be able to own some guns, and I also believe most people would agree with me. So when and if a discussion happens about what those “somes” are, the arguments against them cannot be “infringement of a right”.

There may very well be compelling arguments against it, but infringement is not one of them

Well, restrictions have already been law for decades. Any item that falls under Class III guidelines cannot be purchased without an extensive FBI background check, a 200.00 tax, extensive paperwork and several months of processing time. This includes all full auto weapons, SBR's, suppressors and more items listed. There seems to be a lot of ambiguity floating around as to what exactly can be purchased easily.
People are regularly given the idea by democrat politicians that AR's are machine guns. That is a myth used and exploited by them because most people don't know any better. The dishonesty displayed regularly by them should be a sure sign that the problem is not at all how they are presenting it.

 

[JTyson]

Okay I better understand what you’re getting at. I agree that in a sense what we’re arguing is theoretical in that there is no law of rights like there is a “law” of gravity. People will rationalize whatever the f they want to do, and if they’re strong enough, they will accomplish it. But to your case, in general I think he should have his rights restored if he has “Paid his debt to society.”

You really think that someone who shot people in a robbery attempt should have their 2A rights restored after doing their time?
Not me. Not a chance in hell..
You've been fairly rational up to that point.
You make a decision to shoot people to get money, you should never be allowed to purchase a gun legally again. Case closed..
Convicted felons give up that right and that law I totally agree with.

 

[Bad Brain]

You really think that someone who shot people in a robbery attempt should have their 2A rights restored after doing their time?
Not me. Not a chance in hell..
You've been fairly rational up to that point.
You make a decision to shoot people to get money, you should never be allowed to purchase a gun legally again. Case closed..
Convicted felons give up that right and that law I totally agree with.

I just think it’s more consistent. The logic you use is the same as the anti-gun folks — take guns away and you’ll have less crime. If a person is too dangerous to own a gun, they’re too dangerous to be in society. Maybe they should have a longer sentence. Same goes for voting rights, etc. I don’t think rights should be treated as privileges, bestowed only if you’re good. I think people that are a menace should be removed from society.

 

[JTyson]

I just think it’s more consistent. The logic you use is the same as the anti-gun folks — take guns away and you’ll have less crime. If a person is too dangerous to own a gun, they’re too dangerous to be in society. Maybe they should have a longer sentence. Same goes for voting rights, etc. I don’t think rights should be treated as privileges, bestowed only if you’re good. I think people that are a menace should be removed from society.

Its absolutely not the same at all, I'm as pro 2A as they come and never at all been of the opinion that fewer guns= less crime. My point is those of us who do own guns our whole lives and never did anything illegal with them genuinely feel that criminals should not have guns legally. I think you would find a huge supporting consensus for that among gun owners. I carry every day, shoot competitively, own Class III items and am as involved in the pro gun community as one could be. I shoot with people from several states out at the facility we shoot at and I don't know anyone who thinks convicted felons should be able to re-aquire their 2A rights once they serve their time. Out of hundreds of 2A people Ive met over the years your the first one Ive ever heard say that.
Now I do agree with some of your other points, actually almost all of them, and there are probably more people that think that and I'm just not aware of it, But honestly I think no convicted felons should ever legally get guns again..
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Make no mistake- The incremental changes in our gun rights have already taken a toll, they are not going to give up, but if we really insist that people who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy with weapons be able to still legally get them after doing time, people who don't know anything about gun stuff will see that as crazy talk. I feel we have a responsibility to cull evildoers from the ranks of those who have done everything the right way their whole lives when it comes to firearms.
Just seems like the responsible path forward

 

[Bad Brain]

Its absolutely not the same at all, I'm as pro 2A as they come and never at all been of the opinion that fewer guns= less crime. My point is those of us who do own guns our whole lives and never did anything illegal with them genuinely feel that criminals should not have guns legally. I think you would find a huge supporting consensus for that among gun owners. I carry every day, shoot competitively, own Class III items and am as involved in the pro gun community as one could be. I shoot with people from several states out at the facility we shoot at and I don't know anyone who thinks convicted felons should be able to re-aquire their 2A rights once they serve their time. Out of hundreds of 2A people Ive met over the years your the first one Ive ever heard say that.
Now I do agree with some of your other points, actually almost all of them, and there are probably more people that think that and I'm just not aware of it, But honestly I think no convicted felons should ever legally get guns again..

You might be right from a strategic/political standpoint, but I don't really think so. I'm of the strong opinion that more guns = less crime, along the lines of "An armed society is a polite society." I'd think you'd recognize that armed individuals stop criminals! Consider if more people were armed -- even an armed criminal would be less inclined, at least to the extent they valued their life. Do you think that criminals care if they aren't legally allowed to buy a gun? FWIW I'm not involved in the 2A community, and am not particularly looking at the issue from a 2A/Constitutional standpoint, although that has informed my views. I look at the matter from a philosophical standpoint, with the primary conceptual rationale being that no one has a right to infringe on other's rights, including their right to buy what they want and defend themselves. I tend to think that much longer sentences for violent crime and especially repeated crime is the better option.

But honestly I think no convicted felons should ever legally get guns again..

Why not?

 

[Krull]

"Robert Card"