Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Washington Times EDITORIAL: Gun owners in cross hairs

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...home_headlines

    The gun grabbers are at it again in Maryland. Next month, the state's House Judiciary Committee will initiate hearings on legislation forcing firearms enthusiasts to register with the state government before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights.

    The plan, drafted by Delegate Samuel I. Rosenberg, Baltimore Democrat, and Sen. Brian E. Frosh, Montgomery County Democrat, would mandate that citizens carry a special license while conducting any number of routine transactions involving a gun.

    To obtain a gun license, a person must fill out a long application form, attend a comprehensive firearms safety course, pay a nonrefundable fee to the state and wait 30 days for the completion of a criminal background check. If all items are processed properly, the Maryland State Police would drop the license in the mail.

    It would become a crime to go to a gun range and rent a firearm for a little target shooting without this license in hand. Out-of-state visitors who might want to keep up their skills while on vacation would be out of luck under the proposal because they would not even be allowed to apply for a state gun license.

    The bill would make it a crime on par with murder, kidnapping, rape and extortion for a private party to sell his own gun to someone who has no license. It also would give police the authority to seize the e-mail, cell phone and other records of anyone merely suspected of selling or renting a gun in Maryland without a license. This is an extreme reaction to conduct that is perfectly legal in most states and should be a constitutional right anywhere in the Land of the Free.

    It's obvious that Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Frosh are not really interested in stopping criminals from obtaining weapons. Instead, this misguided proposal plainly is designed to harass legitimate gun owners with bureaucracy and paperwork until they simply give up on the idea of exercising their legal rights. Readers should let the measure's proponents know what they think. Mr. Frosh is available at 301/ 858-3102, brian.frosh@senate.state.md.us, and Mr. Rosenberg can be reached at 301/858-3179, samuel.rosenberg@ house.state.md.us.


  2. #2
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    I'm wondering how this bill will effect transport of a firearm into or through MD by non-residents? Judging by this article, I couldn't even take my gun to MD for use on a range there without one of their permits (which I can't get as a non-resident).

    This bill sounds like it's just a back-door way to expand the already oppressive laws regarding transport and purchase in MD, and perhaps a way to circumvent the potential of the CC Reciprocity Bill if it passes...

    The people of MD need to wake up. Their government is criminal, and about 99% of them need to be fired and replaced come next election...

    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia & Tampa
    Posts
    91

    Post imported post

    Sounds to me like MD is trying to adopt a Firearms Purchaser ID Card type program like NJ and Mass. Does anyone agree?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post

    Im convinced, Maryland's state legislators are borderline retarded.

    For any Maryland members here, wake the F up.

    Stop finding excused as to why you cant move out of MD and just get up and do it.

    Yeah, your wife will throw a childish fit, your mother in law will call you horrible names.

    But isnt it worth it to live in a state where you actually have freedom?

    Be men and live somewhere that actually lets you live as an American.
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Another attempt to isolate Maryland from the rest of the nation in continuance of the myopic fiefdom of xenophobes the state has become.

    Sig 229 is right... and I echo his advice to anyone in Maryland who values their freedom. Get theF out! Don't talk about it... 'do it'! I still know folks there who've been 'talking' for years 'n they're still there.

    'McDonald' vs Chicago and 'Palmer'vs DC has the MD GAscared witless. This is a pre-emptive reaction to it. Totally unconstitutional. MD has no enumerated right to bear arms in it's state Constitution (deliberate omission in 1867 and a direct extension of Jim Crow)... therefore the USC 2A applies. Sclaia wrote what 'arms' are... 'n Ginsburg (of all people) defined 'to bear arms' for once and for all.

    Regardless of the obvious... Rosenburg and Frosh have connived yet another ill-considered attack on a basic civil right enumrated by the USC. People like this should be arrested for sedition.

    “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

    “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

    An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

    Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, La
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    SNIP

    This bill sounds like it's just a back-door way to expand the already oppressive laws
    "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
    - Civ IV

  7. #7
    Regular Member virginiatuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Slidell Jim wrote:
    Dreamer wrote:
    SNIP

    This bill sounds like it's just a back-door way to expand the already oppressive laws
    "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
    - Civ IV
    Several sources attribute this to Oscar Wilde.

    I think the original quote was "The bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." Sadly, I have found no reputable Internet sources that confirm it or even the writing from which it may be; except that everywhere I find the quote it's either attributed to Civ 4, unknown, or Oscar Wilde.

    Wilde also wrote "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."

    With that, here are a couple other bureaucracy-related quotes:

    The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty.
    Eugene McCarthy (1916 - 2005), Time magazine, Feb. 12, 1979


    We cannot meet 21st Century challenges with a 20th Century bureaucracy.
    Barack Obama (1961 - ), Nomination Acceptance Speech, 08-28-08


    Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy.
    Franz Kafka (1883 - 1924)


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Maryland, USA
    Posts
    230

    Post imported post

    This is yet another gun bill (whether pro gun or anti gun) that will not pass, even if it makes it out of committee.

    And for all those advocating "running" from the State...whatever. It takes more of a man to face and fight adversity than it takes to run from it. Did the founding fathers run to another country or did they stay and fight for their rights until they won? Sure, Maryland is F’d up in more ways to count on both hands. However, there are still people in the State that chose to stay and fight rather than run for the hills…unfortunately, we have a far greater surplus of sheeple in Maryland that continue to elect the same bozos into office each term. That tide will slowly turn…but it will eventually turn. Heck, if D.C. can improve their “observance” of the Constitution, it can happen anywhere!

    I follow each and every gun bill in Maryland every year, and since I’ve lived here, it’s always the same outcome. This year shows very little signs of any difference, although there is some positive headway being made. Go with the flow and blindly accept whatever you’re served, or go against the flow and fight for what God has given you.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post

    echo6tango wrote:
    This is yet another gun bill (whether pro gun or anti gun) that will not pass, even if it makes it out of committee.

    And for all those advocating "running" from the State...whatever. It takes more of a man to face and fight adversity than it takes to run from it. Did the founding fathers run to another country or did they stay and fight for their rights until they won? Sure, Maryland is F’d up in more ways to count on both hands. However, there are still people in the State that chose to stay and fight rather than run for the hills…unfortunately, we have a far greater surplus of sheeple in Maryland that continue to elect the same bozos into office each term. That tide will slowly turn…but it will eventually turn. Heck, if D.C. can improve their “observance” of the Constitution, it can happen anywhere!

    I follow each and every gun bill in Maryland every year, and since I’ve lived here, it’s always the same outcome. This year shows very little signs of any difference, although there is some positive headway being made. Go with the flow and blindly accept whatever you’re served, or go against the flow and fight for what God has given you.
    Good point, but tell me about the "fighting for gun rights" that has gone on in MD.....


    When I lived there, all I saw was a bunch of gun owners being cry baby's about it.
    And when you meet with them and try to get some real protests and political pro gun campaigns going, they are nowhere to be found.

    Im sure if Thomas Jefferson's friends only talked about fighting the Brits but never did it, he would have moved to.


    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Maryland, USA
    Posts
    230

    Post imported post

    Sig229 wrote:
    Good point, but tell me about the "fighting for gun rights" that has gone on in MD.....


    When I lived there, all I saw was a bunch of gun owners being cry baby's about it.
    And when you meet with them and try to get some real protests and political pro gun campaigns going, they are nowhere to be found.

    Im sure if Thomas Jefferson's friends only talked about fighting the Brits but never did it, he would have moved to.
    I will readily admit that the fight is done by a minority while the majority either sits on the fence, ignores the issues altogether, or simply drink the Kool Aid offered by the elected and non-elected officials. Some are talk and then no shows when it matters, but there are still those that stick it out.

    One fine example of the fight being fought in Maryland is over at http://www.marylandshallissue.com/

    Maryland is many years behind Virginia, but it will either catch up eventually, or implode. Many folks here see the fight being fought in Virginia and it gives us some motivation that one day the same can be true about Maryland too.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post

    echo6tango wrote:
    Sig229 wrote:
    Good point, but tell me about the "fighting for gun rights" that has gone on in MD.....


    When I lived there, all I saw was a bunch of gun owners being cry baby's about it.
    And when you meet with them and try to get some real protests and political pro gun campaigns going, they are nowhere to be found.

    Im sure if Thomas Jefferson's friends only talked about fighting the Brits but never did it, he would have moved to.
    I will readily admit that the fight is done by a minority while the majority either sits on the fence, ignores the issues altogether, or simply drink the Kool Aid offered by the elected and non-elected officials. Some are talk and then no shows when it matters, but there are still those that stick it out.

    One fine example of the fight being fought in Maryland is over at http://www.marylandshallissue.com/

    Maryland is many years behind Virginia, but it will either catch up eventually, or implode. Many folks here see the fight being fought in Virginia and it gives us some motivation that one day the same can be true about Maryland too.
    Well, its refreshing to see movement gaining among some gun owners in MD.

    When I lived there, if I were to talk about the shooting range, firearms or anything gun related in public, people would look at me like I was Osama Bin Laden.

    I think if more MD'ers are vocal in public about firearm ownership, it might help.

    In my opinion, I think it is going to get worse in Maryland before it gets better.
    The majority of the populace in Maryland suffer from a British type of "nanny state" mentality.

    When the strong violence starts moving out of west Baltimore into Frederick, and down south into Anne Arundel County and Annapolis, MAYBE people will wake up.

    Or it might take a natural disaster for the sheeple to realize what needs to be done.

    Maryland is a beautiful state and part of me is proud to come from there. The other side of that coin is I wish the state would just slide off into the Atlantic ocean.
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  12. #12
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Hmmm... fight an uphill battle amongst the socialist inculcated sheep, LEA JBT's and anendemic government attitude that's been in place since 1867 with the entrenched denial of a Constitutional right? ?

    Or... cross the Arizona border and buckle your gunbelt? Hmmm... decisions, decisions.

    Besides... there's no snow down here.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Naptown, Murderland, Maryland, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post





  14. #14
    Regular Member Mr H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AA Co., Maryland, USA
    Posts
    286

    Post imported post

    Even though I grew up shooting, I'm relatively new to this particular dance.

    I got back into shooting about 18mos ago, and am appalled at the insular, elitist drivel that passes for gun laws in MD.

    What should bea simple handgun purchase is an exercise in beaurocratic futility, all in the hope that you will be "Not Disapproved" for the purchase.

    I have, however, been glad to see that there appears to be an increasing number of folks I encounter who understand the 2A issues here, and would like to see the laws changed. However, I think the reason we don't see them speaking openly on this is a general feeling that it's not yet "appropriate", or that there is a fear of reprisal should their opinions become widely known.

    If we, as Marylanders (and Americans) don't proudly stand up for our rights--any rights--then the elected elite will consider it their province to deny those rights.

    I've seen aterm hereI've used wholeheartedly over the years. When I mention it, I get the most amazing looks... almost like I dared mention the Emporer's state of undress. We must stand up--politely and peacefully, yet definitively--for our rights, lest we all become lost in the herd ofSheeple.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    I note on this forum that almost if not all members are in total agreement with each other. In fact new posts appear to be more pats on the back of others rather than any point or points in opposition.

    As a former correctional officer, a former bar tender, a former legal administrative assistant in both corporate and criminal law, lost everything a couple decades ago and lived homeless without heat, food, transportation, or shelter, and because I've lived in the State of Maryland for nearly 4 decades now, I hope you'll permit a slightly skewed perspective. (I've given all of the above because I need to assure everyone I'm not a politician. It appears I may be one of the few females registered here as well.

    In 1976, here in Maryland, I was held at gunpoint, a 12-gauge shotgun to be specific, that was rammed against my head over and over and over and over again while threats were made to my life and others in the same room. For years after I had nightmares. Bloody, violent.

    After losing all I was for a short while able to get an apartment in a well-known crack neighborhood. The apartment complex was routinely (nearly every night) cordoned off because of shootings and murders) Gun shots were common. Stray bullets travel far beyond a would-be target and enter windows and walls more easily than you may imagine. Flashing lights were part of the night.

    In my late 40s, having no other resources or options left to me, I tested high to enter the State of Maryland Academy for Correctional Officers. Days and hours were spent on the firing range utilizing pistols up to automatic rifles, both straight shooting, ground shooting, crawling shooting. I placed well on the range and because of my scores, the other 'rookies' professed me as their good luck talisman rubbing my head before each timed event. I could draw swiftly from a snapped holster and hit my target with fair precision.

    Correctional officers, however, do not carry guns or weapons on the tiers. We were locked in with the inmates. Oddly, I did not feel threatened. The ONLY time I feel threatened is when I see a rifle slung to a hunter's shoulder, or when I see holstered, loaded pistols, slung to the hips of an individual who then appears to casually strut the idea that he/she can in a crowded public area. It's not really a political statement, as it's a costumed posturing of ego power. Perhaps I view this kind of attitude in this way because of my own life's influence by guns.

    I am reminded though that ALL of us have the right to self-defense, and we have the right to hunt food. I am also reminded that the State of Maryland is a very densely populated region and within that very dense population there are a remarkable number of differing cultures, ideas and individuals who are as different in their needs, desires and wants as they are alike. VERY often those things are in contrast to the fellow standing beside them, living next door or even in the same house.

    I can tell you this with certainty, even without a recognized weapon, the American citizen is never an individual any enemy should provoke. Even in just our numbers here in this single State, with our bare hands no enemy could hope to prevail. It's usually our own guns against ourselves that solve an enemy's problem.

    I know guns, I know them very well. I know their power, I respect them. And I will not own one anymore.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Mr H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AA Co., Maryland, USA
    Posts
    286

    Post imported post

    I completely appreciate your perspective.

    In the reading I've been able to do since signing up here this week, I see things I disagree with. But, I also see that they are valid opinions, FTMP, and generally as well-reasoned as yours.

    I'm sure I'll be somewhat critical of conversation as we go, but that's what good debate is about.

    In fact, if OC never comes about in MD, I'll be OK with that, provided we get rid of some of this draconian garbage that passes for regulation and allow those who are responsible and willing, to choose whether or not gun ownershipand shooting are for them.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    There are always demographics that must be considered when specific restrictions are mandated. Across this country there seem to be a very wide variety of allowance flavors to this issue. I needed to know how the wider country of the United States and regions projected their views. I found this one informative. You can click on specific states for more detailed information concerning the laws of both a particular State and then regions within pertaining to Open-Carry law. http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html
    I then wanted to see population differences as a condition of tolerance so I pulled up the respective (latest) populations for each of the States and territories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population ). If you take into consideration the geographic mass and then realize the population fitting into that mass, you also get a better idea of why some of the laws are more restrictive. For example, Maryland, for as tiny as it is in mass, has a population of 5,699,478, which is an extremely dense number of people squashed into a VERY small area and is ranked one of the highest of all the other States just in number of people. The chart below is ranked according to population numbers from highest to lowest. (when you put a bunch of rats together in a very small container, they will claw and chew each other to death very quickly….they don’t need guns to aid them): California——————- 36,961,664
    Texas——————- 24,782,302
    New York——————- 19,541,453
    Florida——————- 18,537,969
    Illinois——————- 12,910,409
    Pennsylvania——————- 12,604,767
    Ohio——————- 11,542,645
    Michigan——————- 9,969,727
    Georgia——————- 9,829,211
    North Carolina——————- 9,380,884
    New Jersey——————- 8,707,739
    Virginia——————- 7,882,590
    Washington——————- 6,664,195
    Arizona——————- 6,595,778
    Massachusetts——————- 6,593,587
    Indiana——————- 6,423,113
    Tennessee——————- 6,296,254
    Missouri——————- 5,987,580
    Maryland——————- 5,699,478
    Wisconsin——————- 5,654,774
    Minnesota——————- 5,266,214
    Colorado——————- 5,024,748
    Alabama——————- 4,708,708
    South Carolina——————- 4,561,242
    Louisiana——————- 4,492,076
    Kentucky——————- 4,314,113
    Puerto Rico——————- 3,967,288
    Oregon——————- 3,825,657
    Oklahoma——————- 3,687,050
    Connecticut——————- 3,518,288
    Iowa——————- 3,007,856
    Mississippi——————- 2,951,996
    Arkansas——————- 2,889,450
    Kansas——————- 2,818,747
    Utah——————- 2,784,572
    Nevada——————- 2,643,085
    New Mexico——————- 2,009,671
    West Virginia——————- 1,819,777
    Nebraska——————- 1,796,619
    Idaho——————- 1,545,801
    Maine——————- 1,318,301
    New Hampshire——————- 1,324,575
    Hawaii——————- 1,295,178
    Rhode Island——————- 1,053,209
    Montana——————- 974,989
    Delaware——————- 885,122
    South Dakota——————- 812,383
    Alaska——————- 698,473
    North Dakota——————- 646,844
    Vermont——————- 621,760
    District of Columbia——————- 599,657
    Wyoming——————- 544,270

    In some States or regions there may well be credible reasons to have OC....the nearest neighbor may be miles away let alone assistance from any kind of police or military assistance.



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    So, Buttercup, I'm sorry you went through what you did...

    However, your decision not to own or carry a firearm is your alone...and I respect that. It is when the State trumps an inalienable right to self-defense (with a firearm) that I have a problem with....

    Population density notwithstanding, if citizens legally carry firearms, crime drops. Why? Bad guys don't like armed victims...

    Gun control is not about guns....it is about controlling people....except the criminals who continue to prey upon the weak.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    SIGguy229 wrote:
    So, Buttercup, I'm sorry you went through what you did...

    However, your decision not to own or carry a firearm is your alone...and I respect that. It is when the State trumps an inalienable right to self-defense (with a firearm) that I have a problem with....

    Population density notwithstanding, if citizens legally carry firearms, crime drops. Why? Bad guys don't like armed victims...

    Gun control is not about guns....it is about controlling people....except the criminals who continue to prey upon the weak.

    I also understand your view. I also believe that much of the unrest about this issue is an symptom of other 'rights' that continue to be taken from us one by one. Each of those restrictions, taken one at a time inflame, but we 'sort of' accept them eventually and then another is given. In time, when we look back, we see we're standing in a deep pit when we once stood on higher ground.

    Some restrictions may seem small and insignificant at the time, or are restrictions (laws or rules) that appear to affect someone other than ourselves. Many of us here in Maryland especially because of reduced land space, live in housing developments and are restricted by rules of home owners associations: the color of your house, when you cut your grass, if algae happens to be showing on your siding, can't have gardens............you know these lists.

    Smokers are becoming so restricted that soon it will be a violation to smoke in your own backyard or in your own home. In some locations is a violation to smoke in your own car.

    Flying has become so restrictive and uncomfortable that it may be easier and faster to travel by car or foot.

    Employment security has dropped (if you're fortunate enough to be employed) because employers can fire 'at will' without cause. Unions have been deteriorating and are of little to no effect anymore.

    There is VERY little in anyone's life truly in their 'control' anymore and we have let rights slip and slip and slip.

    The fact is that we have been permitting rights to be taken from us for decades and few spoke up either because they were in a minority, or because they were afraid, or because it wasn't their fight.

    I understand fighting for a principal. But there are several things that must be set aside before a 'principal' it really is:

    1. Is it just a 'statement' to wear a weapon openly or do you feel threatened?
    2. Would it make you feel safer knowing that everyone around you, in their cars, on the streets, walking past your home, strangers are also wearing weapons?
    3. Would you trust those strangers intentions knowing you cannot possibly read their minds?
    4. If everyone else is wearing weapons might that encourage your own need to make sure you, too, wear yours?
    5. Should we permit our children to wear weapons as well and at what age should they have that right?
    6. What about our children at school or playing in our yards unprotected when there are adults and older children duly garbed walking among them?
    7. Or would carrying give you a sense of power?

    There are a lot of things to think about. Most would say they simply want the right to OC but would probably seldom if ever carry. However, there are many others who would always carry............which then puts you into a position, especially if they are strangers, to decide you'd better do the same.

    There are a lot of difficult choices to make. For myself I CAN tell you that if OC does come to fruition, I will feel the need to carry as well. I am smaller than most other adults. As it is crowds take my oxygen (when I go to concerts etc.). I've lost a lot; I am not about to let anyone take anything else from me. That becomes a rather volatile idea that many others would/will take as well.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Buttercup wrote:
    I am reminded though that ALL of us have the right to self-defense, and we have the right to hunt food. I am also reminded that the State of Maryland is a very densely populated region and within that very dense population there are a remarkable number of differing cultures, ideas and individuals who are as different in their needs, desires and wants as they are alike.
    Welcome to the forum, and we're glad to have another woman in the ranks. I agree-there are FAR too few female members here, and I for one, would like to see a LOT more women on this forum, and in the pro-2A world in general.

    I too have extensive training in the use of firearms. I have worked for DOJ, DOD, and several other such groups as a contractor, and I have also been active in the competitive shooting sports on and off for the last 20 years.

    But unlike you, I grew up in a peaceful little town in WV--the sort of "Mayberry-like" place where we used to leave our home's doors unlocked and the car keys under the floormats of our vehicles. Back then, you could buy firearms and ammo at the local hardware store (Western Auto), and just about everyone I know had a few guns in their houses--we hunted, shot targets, and generally were well-behaved and disciplined about it. The common and widespread ownership of firearms wasn't an issue--everyone knew everyone else, and we all knew that guns were tools to be used for VERY specific purposes. We measured our "toughness" by the scars on our fists, the size of our biceps, and the success of our businesses. IT was a different time, when people didn't have a sense of entitlement, and honest people worked for a living. Those who were less honest were soon "outed" for what they were, didnt stick around for long--small communities don't have much sympathy for the lazy, the thuggish, or the devious...

    My hometown has had 2 homicides in the last 100 years, one back in the 1940's, and one in the 1980s, and BOTH of them were committed by folks from "big cities" who were traveling through our little town, one from Baltimore, and one from New York.

    So what I'm getting at is that although I TOTALLY support your personal choice to be unarmed, and unable to provide security and defense for your self and your loved ones, I take SERIOUS ISSUE with the STATE telling people that they must ALL make that same decision.

    You have the freedom to actively exercise any, all, or none of your Natural Rights as enumerated in our Constitution. You are under no obligation to carry a firearm, any more than you are to own a printing press, or speak in public, or attend protest marches, or vote in an election.

    The problem I have with MD's government is that they don't believe that ANY of these Natural Rights are natural at all--the government of MD actually believes in their heart of hearts that they have the ability to grant or deny fundamental human rights to the people--and that, dear sister, is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is an immoral, unethical, and fundamentally evil belief to espouse, and flies in the face of everything that living in a free nation is supposed to entail.

    As for your assertion that MD is "densely populated", I would remind you that actually, according to the US Census department, and MD's own records, only about 25% of the land mass of MD falls under the category of "densely populated"--primarily Montgomery, PG, Baltimore and Howard Counties. The remaining 75% of MD--the VAST majority of MD in fact--is comprised mostly of small, non-contiguous towns, and sparsely populated rural areas.

    Your perceptions of MD are symptomatic of how most of the folks in those 4 crime-ridden dens of iniquity perceive the ENTIRE state (and in fact, how they believe the ENTIRE nation is).

    The FACT is, dear sister, that the VAST majority of the land-mass of MD is populated NOT by thugs, gang-bangers, scoff-laws, and "entitled" slackers feeding on the Government Teat, but in fact by peace-loving, law-abiding, hardworking folk who are for the most part embarrassed and disgusted by the foul behavior and duplicitous political actions of the inhabitants of the more "progressive" and "educated" counties.

    The statistic bear out the plain fact that in MD, mean income and education level are actually INVERSELY proportional to crime rates. The poorer, less educated counties of MD have ASTRONOMICALLY lower crime rates than the 4 urban counties, which have not only some of the highest household incomes and education levels in the nation, but also have some of the highest rates of violent crime in the nation. This is an odd anomaly, because in almost EVERY other place in the nation, high incomes and education levels tend to equate with low crime, and poverty and illiteracy tend to equate with high crime. But for some reason, in MD, the more wealthy and educated the county is, the more rife with crime it tends to be. Perhaps MD needs to look at itself, and figure out why it is, in fact, functioning in a POLAR OPPOSITE manner with regards to socio-economics and crime when compared to the rest of the nation, and in fact the entire planet...

    Just because you grew up in "the hood" and apparently don't get out of the city much, doesn't mean the whole state is like that. The vast majority of MD is a BEAUTIFUL and PEACEFUL state, with forests, rivers, meadows, hills, rock outcroppings, caves and waterfalls. Only about a quarter of MD has fallen victim to the mixed urban plagues of yuppies, "liberals", crackheads, gang-bangers, and slack-jawed stoop-sitters.

    Welcome to the forum, but may I recommend that you spend less time sitting in your urban enclave surfing the internet, and maybe get down to the Eastern Shore, or drive out to the Western Counties and explore the Appalachian Trail or something. Most of MD is beautiful, friendly, safe, and cordial. You do yourself and your fine state a disservice by painting the ENTIRE state as being in the same sorry state as the 4 "urban" counties.

    All that said, the dangers of the streets in Baltimore or Silver Spring pale in comparison to the treachery of the dark halls of Annapolis and Pikesville... :shock:

    You REALLY ought to get out more, though. Most of MD is quiet, peaceful, beautiful and drive-by-shooting-free.

    When I drive through the urban counties of MD, I don't fear the criminals wearing their "colors" NEARLY as much as I fear the ones wearing badges. And THAT, dear sister, is why we are raggin on MD so much. The PEOPLE of MD are generally a fine, hardworking, law-abiding people (with the few exceptions of the tiny minority that makes up the criminal element). It's the GOVERNMENT of Maryland that most of us do not trust and do not appreciate.

    Any government that tells it's people that fundamental human rights do not apply within it's borders, except for a tiny cadre of the "anointed elite" is at best corrupt, and at worst, verging on outright tyranny...

    If you don't want to own or carry a firearm, then that is your choice.

    What we are taking issue with here is that the "government" of MD would DARE to presume to tell us what we may and may not do to preserve the safety and security of our selves, and our beloved families, ESPECIALLY when their policy is in direct conflict with the US Constitution, and with the fundamental concepts of Human Rights...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Little Brother, you may be surprised to know that I was born in Ohio and we never locked our doors either; there was no need and the concept was foreign to us.

    Like you, my father was a kind of 'contractor' (he gathered information) and I was then raised in quite a few countries overseas: Korea, Libya, Egypt, Iran, Turkey. My father, in fact, had confrontations with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, who was still a minor Sargent at the time. The United States appeared to not take this man as a threat at the time and I remember my father being angry that his reports seemed to be falling on deaf ears.

    It has also been a very long time since I lived in a 'crack' community and I'm not and have never been comfortable in a city environment.......too much dirty and confining concrete. I spend a great deal of time exploring what you apparently find in common with me, the woods, water and grandeur of Maryland's still surviving bits of wilderness. These have always been where I have found greatest peace and awe partly because I simply love them, but in part because I do a good bit of research, some published on the web here; I am a naturalist, my husband a professor of biology and animal behavior.

    So, again Little Brother, I may have more in common with you than would make you comfortable. I do not, however, have big biceps.

    Incredibly too, I DO agree with the 2nd amendment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_t..._and_bear_arms
    2nd - The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.[1]

    Meant to wage War has the keenest interest to me. Which does not constitute OC all the time, or to simply make a statement that may be misinterpreted as deliberate and provocative 'strutting', 'posturing', etc. I do believe that common sense, and responsible behavior must be clearly outlined in this regard. OC should never be a resort unless there is a clear, evident and obvious danger.

    My concern is a healthy line that is safe for everyone, not just those who want to carry these. How do you decide who has the mental ability and stability to carry these openly? At what age? I'm reminded that it's the most vulnerable of any society that need most protection, yet these are the ones who will not be able to defend either because they are too young, too feeble, too ill, emotionally or intellectually so limited that they cannot reasonably be responsible.

    If Dad or Mom is carrying openly, what do they do with these weapons when they are home with their children? Do they lock them up and so make everyone vulnerable again? At what point can their children be considered stable and rationally mature enough to hold anger, curiosity and play at bay?

    I would also hope that you will not limit your qualified principals to just this one amendment either. A goodly proportion of our amendments are still unstable, given to continual ratification and not always clearly interpreted. Some of these still make me uncomfortable. The 15th and 19th affect still a lot of people and believe it or not, some wording is still dubious enough to cause effects later on down the line as far as child labor laws, women's rights, and even the interpretation of the 13th amendment which seems to violate some employment methods.


    18th - 21st - Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by Twenty-first Amendment)


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax
    16th - Allows federal income tax
    An income tax is a tax levied on the income of individuals or business (corporations or other legal entities). Various income tax systems exist, with varying degrees of tax incidence. Income taxation can be progressive, proportional, or regressive.




    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen...s_Constitution
    15th - and 19th Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude

    Suffrage (from the Latin suffragium, meaning "voting tablet", and figuratively "right to vote", and originally a term for the pastern bone used to cast votes) is the civil right to vote, or the exercise of that right. It is also called "The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread." political franchise or simply the franchise. Suffrage may apply to elections, but also extends to initiatives and referendums. Suffrage is used to describe not only the legal right to vote, but also to the practical question of the opportunity to vote, which is sometimes denied those who have a legal right. In the United States, extensions of suffrage was part of Jacksonian democracy.

    The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirtee...s_Constitution
    13th - Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

    Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount. (Voting rights for women were introduced into international law in 1948 when the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. )


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_t..._and_bear_arms
    2nd - The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.[1]

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    [a kick-ass reply].
    Dreamer...that was a better reply than I could have put together...and you captured my beliefs and feelings regarding the State of MD and the gov't need for control over the people....

    <break>

    Buttercup...I haven't figured out yet whether you are a troll or not. OCDO has been in the news a lot in the last couple of months...so I'm reserving my decision.

    Reading your last response...a lot of what you are bringing up: who decides, mental/emotional stability, age to carry...etc. has already been discussed...The law in many states is an 18 y/o can own/carry openly, a firearm. Why? It has already been established that 18 y/o is the age of majority (work, pay taxes, enlist, enter a contract)...yet the Federal law says you need to be 21 y/o to purchase a firearm from an FFL. Confusing, I know. Why shouldn't 18-20 y/o be able to exercise ALL of their rights?

    In regards to all the other issues...it's already discussed that felons and mentally ill people are prohibited by law from owning firearms.

    Those who break the law....well, they are already beyond anyone's control--thus the State (of MD) believes they should attempt to control everyone...you know, for security. That is not what a free society is about....

    There isn't freedom if the State wants security. People shouldn't turn to the State for Security in their homes/neighborhoods...because it will infringe on law-abiding.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Buttercup wrote:
    Incredibly too, I DO agree with the 2nd amendment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_t..._and_bear_arms
    2nd - The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.[1] This is why wikipedia is a poor source for debate..."to wage war"? I have no desire to wage war...just to protect me and my family. Maybe this is why we have divergent views of the 2A.

    Meant to wage War has the keenest interest to me. Which does not constitute OC all the time, or to simply make a statement that may be misinterpreted as deliberate and provocative 'strutting', 'posturing', etc. I do believe that common sense, and responsible behavior must be clearly outlined in this regard. OC should never be a resort unless there is a clear, evident and obvious danger.

    I think you need to get out more...I have yet to see an OCer "strut" or "posture"...I think you are making this up.

    My concern is a healthy line that is safe for everyone (how do you define "safety"?--that is the most basic of questions to this discussion), not just those who want to carry these. How do you decide who has the mental ability and stability to carry these openly? At what age? The state of VA says 18...the age of majority. I'm reminded that it's the most vulnerable of any society that need most protection, yet these are the ones who will not be able to defend either because they are too young, too feeble, too ill, emotionally or intellectually so limited that they cannot reasonably be responsible. That's what parents or responsible adults are for. This is a free society--bad things happen...and the State can't prohibit bad people from doing bad things.

    If Dad or Mom is carrying openly, what do they do with these weapons when they are home with their children? Do they lock them up and so make everyone vulnerable again? Really none of your (or the State's) business--the PARENTS, NOT THE STATE are charged with the responsibility for these questions. However, the parents are subject to any/all legal consequences of not securing a firearm from theft or misuse. At what point can their children be considered stable and rationally mature enough to hold anger, curiosity and play at bay? Until the age of majority--they are no longer legally "children"...or until they are out of the house....whichever happens first.

    The rest of your response is not relevant to the 2A and distracts from the argument...meanwhile, your responses for "the children" makes me question how you support the 2A...since the "for the children" rationale is one that is used by those who wish to strip away the 2A....except for the military or police.


    ETA: Holy crap! I just went back and looked at your "source" in Wiki. This is what your "source" Garry Wills, PhD, had to say about the 2A:

    Garry Wills interprets the Second Amendment as a cynical maneuver by James Madison...The final clause of the Amendment, referring to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and commanding that this right "shall not be infringed" for Wills really means that Congress faces no constitutional barriers at all if, for example, it determines that the Militia should consist only of a relatively few number of people, all vetted by federal authority, and that no one else shall have any protected constitutional right "to keep and bear arms."
    (from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1720)


    Did you vet your source? If you didn't and truly believe this drivel...you are a troll looking to stir stuff up. We all like an honest debate...using sources and facts...but don't tell us you "support the 2A"...and not back it up.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Perhaps this will make you feel better?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03scotus.html
    Supreme Court Still Divided on Guns By ADAM LIPTAK Published: March 2, 2010
    WASHINGTON — At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms on Tuesday, judging from comments at an unusually intense Supreme Court argument.


    By its conclusion, it seemed plain that the court would extend a 2008 decision that first identified an individual right to own guns to strike down Chicago’s gun control law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation.

    While such a ruling would represent an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, its short-term practical impact would almost certainly be limited. Just how much strength the Second Amendment has in places that regulate but do not ban guns outright will be worked out in additional cases.

    The new case, McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521, was a sequel to the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which placed limits on what the federal government may do to regulate guns. The issue before the court in the new case was whether the Second Amendment also applied to state and local laws. It appeared that at least the justices in the Heller majority would say yes without reservation because they considered the rights protected in the Second Amendment as basic as those in other provisions of the Bill of Rights.

    “If it’s not fundamental, then Heller is wrong,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in the majority in Heller.

    Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote a dissent in Heller, suggested Tuesday that important questions remain unresolved.

    “I’m asking you what is the scope of the right to own a gun?” he said. “Is it just the right to have itat home, or is the right to parade around the streets with guns?”
    Heller itself struck down parts of the gun control law in the District of Columbia, then the strictest in the nation. But the majority opinion, by Justice Antonin Scalia, suggested that all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership might pass Second Amendment muster.

    Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who also wrote a dissent in Heller, peppered the lawyers with questions about how the court might apply the Second Amendment to the states in a limited way. The Second Amendment says, “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.”

    Drawing on the first clause of the amendment, Justice Breyer said that a right tied to state militias might be worthy of protection, while the right to bear arms “to shoot burglars” might not be.


    The lead plaintiff in the case, Otis McDonald, has said he wants to keep a handgun in his home for protection from drug gangs. Justice Breyer asked Alan Gura, a lawyer for residents of Chicago challenging its gun control law, whether the city should remain free to ban guns if it could show that hundreds of lives would be saved. Mr. Gura said no.

    Justice Scalia objected to the inquiry. A constitutional right, he said, cannot be overcome because it may have negative consequences.

    But Justice Scalia was less receptive to an idea that has excited constitutional scholars in recent months. “What you argue,” he told Mr. Gura, “is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it’s also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence.”
    Justice Scalia was referring to Mr. Gura’s assertion that the court has been making parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states in the wrong way.

    The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted only the power of the federal government. The Supreme Court later ruled that most but not all of the protections of the Bill of Rights applied to the states under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.

    Many judges and scholars, including Justice Scalia, have never found that methodology intellectually satisfactory. “Due process,” after all, would seem to protect only procedures and not substance. The very name given to the methodology — substantive due process — sounds like an oxymoron.

    Mr. Gura, supported by scholars all along the political spectrum, argued that the court should instead rely on the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” There is evidence that the authors of the clause specifically wanted it to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves.

    Justice Scalia was unimpressed. He said Mr. Gura should focus on winning his case rather than remaking constitutional law.

    “Why do you want to undertake that burden,” Justice Scalia asked, “instead of just arguing substantive due process, which as much as I think it’s wrong, even I have acquiesced in it?”

    Unless, the justice added, Mr. Gura was “bucking for a place on some law school faculty.”

    James A. Feldman, a lawyer for the City of Chicago, urged the justices to treat the Second Amendment differently from its cousins because it concerns a lethal product. “Firearms, unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights, are designed to injure and kill,” Mr. Feldman said.

    Now it was the chief justice’s turn to give advice to the lawyer before him.
    “All the arguments you make against” applying the Second Amendment to the states, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, “it seems to me are arguments you should make in favor of regulation under the Second Amendment. We haven’t said anything about what the content of the Second Amendment is beyond what was said in Heller.”



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Again with deflection....

    What's your point of the article?? The SCOTUS disagreeing with the interpretation of the 2A? Shocker.

    It's funny how the 2A is the ONLY amendment that states "shall not be infringed"--yet is the most legislated right in the country.

    So, do you admit you are a troll with an agenda?


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •