Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
Fresh revelations have emerged about the tragic Maine shooting that claimed 18 innocent lives.
Reports suggest that the authorities might have had prior information that could have potentially prevented this catastrophe.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is bringing these details to light, expressing their concern over the immediate reactions advocating for stringent gun control regulations.
The Boston Globe recently disclosed that the assailant was involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility in July.
Furthermore, a publication in Reason highlighted that the shooter’s family had previously alerted the police about his deteriorating mental health, five months before the heartbreaking incident in Lewiston.
However, instead of addressing these evident systemic oversights, key figures, including President Joe Biden, are calling for tightened gun control measures.
This call for action, SAF comments, follows a familiar pattern seen after such tragic incidents.
SEE ALSO: Cabot Guns Introduces Limited Edition ‘Nosferatu’ 1911 Pistol
Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and Executive Vice President, remarked, “Biden and his fellow gun prohibitionists literally jumped at the opportunity to exploit another tragedy to push gun control schemes which would not have prevented the mayhem.”
He further noted that the perpetrator had legally obtained the firearm used in the attack months earlier, which was after his family had contacted the authorities and well before his hospitalization.
SEE ALSO: President Biden’s War on Firearm Industry Reaches New Peak
Disputing claims made by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown group about Maine’s ‘weak gun laws’, Gottlieb emphasized that this incident underscores the local authorities’ repeated failure to act on credible information and enforce current legislation.
He added, “Some Maine Democrats are now hinting at a new spate of gun restrictions which will accomplish nothing except to penalize honest citizens and erode their Second Amendment rights.”
Adam Kraut, SAF Executive Director, also highlighted that individuals who undergo involuntary commitment are already restricted by federal law from owning firearms and ammunition.
He said, “The constant calls for additional laws after such a tragedy, particularly when the government abdicated its responsibility, are misguided and serve no purpose other than to exponentially increase the heft of the criminal code books for no material gain.”
Available on GunsAmerica Now
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
Not long ago a Dr. at the VA asked me, for no apparent reason, if I was depressed. So I just deflected and said only when I watch the news or when I am at the VA. Not an entirely true answer, but close enough to the truth for ‘legal’ drug pusher.
A lady who lives several houses south of mine handled a similiar medical question in a differant manner. She trusted her Dr. and just opened up because she wants someone to help her even though the opposite will likely happen. She said ‘well yes I am sometimes depressed’ as if that was unusual circumstance and the answer was readily available compliments of Big Pharma. She was written a presciption and the change was immediate. She went from a fuctioning to someone who could no longer drive or operate her door locks on her house. At some point her dosage was lowered but there was some long term damage as it now seems like she will never revert back to the previous stable, competitant person she once was. How many are in the standard deviation that turn violent?
At some point most people are going to face this question on depression, be very cautious on how you handle this conversation. Maybe you can pop psychotropics and come out a chemically induced improved personality but there is the risk on the other side of the coin. Whatever you decide, remember that the medical field has become shills for Big Pharma and do NOT blindly trust the ‘experts.”
This guy did NOT look like a “military” anything. His hair does NOT look like a regulation cut, maybe he has a “no shaving” waver but he looks like a ‘civilian’ without any oversight or enforced standards. Did his “reservist” status alone pay the bills? What was his rank? How many years had he served?
I doubt all those folks would have NOT returned fire unless they were disarmed by gun ban stickers. Would this murderer chose to target where the patrons might be CC?
Aren’t the ones who let the recent shooting take place by not enforcing the laws such as the ‘Yellow Flag Law’ guilty?
‘They’ are the ones who broke the laws, not honoring their oath to protect the public, guilty of maleficence.
I agree that there were laws in place that might have avoided this mass shooting event, but I disagree with the headline that authorities “failed the public” in failing to prevent the attack. The fact is, as a multiplicity of Supreme Courts have declared, including the California Supreme Court (not noted for its conservatism) and the US Supreme Court have declared that the authorities owe no DUTY to protect anyone from the acts of third persons. The more nuanced argument is simply this: it doesn’t matter how many laws are in place that “might” have avoided a tragedy if the authorities do not take the steps authorized by law to prevent it. Passing more gun control laws will not change the outcome.
Law Enforcement = Secure crime scene, notify next of kin, Repeat.
That old saw still applies: “If your answer to every failure of government is even more government, you’re like an alcoholic who’s trying to drink himself sober.”