From Jeffrey R. Gahler:
Dear Harford County Readers,
It was with a heavy heart and a terrible sense of sorrow that I, like many of you, watched the tragic events and unfathomable loss of life in Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012, and questioned how such acts of unprovoked violence can be averted. As the father of two daughters who attend Harford County public schools and partake in all of the wonderful things Harford County has to offer, I often worry about their safety. As a career law enforcement officer, I, like other current and former members of the law enforcement community, cannot help but to seek data on this event and others in an attempt to arrive at an answer.
Comprehensive research on such events has been conducted by law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Secret Service and published for review by the public at large. What is clear from the research is that often times these events are not carried out without planning and more often than not, tell-tale signs were present prior to the event. Often times a certain degree of “leakage” or disclosure of intentions is exhibited publically to friends, family, teachers and associates while planning the event.
A positive response on the part of all is required to reduce the risk of mass violence. Reaction for the sake of reaction will only tend to create the appearance of control while truly causing an effort let down. It is important to realize that people are the constant variable. A piece meal effort to reduce risk will only cause a false sense of security and leave open many known opportunities to avert these tragic events. Attacks on the 2nd Amendment do not begin to address what causes these acts of violence or how to interdict them before they occur. What needs to be visited is how an attack can be stopped today. Prevention programs, understanding and addressing the warning signs combined with target hardening and aggressive application of existing laws will go a long way to keep our families and friends safe.
As a candidate for Sheriff of Harford County, it is my commitment to work with other Harford County elected officials to both defend the rights of law abiding citizens and modify existing laws and regulations so as to truly enhance public safety once elected. The challenge for law enforcement today is to make the same commitment to defend our Constitutional Rights, particularly the 2nd Amendment, and make our communities safer.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Gahler
2014 Republican Candidate for Harford County Sheriff
So Mr. Gahler, Are you telling your future constituents that you will not support any gun ban efforts as proposed by Sen. Feinstein, that you will entertain some efforts to ban or limit weapons owned by law abiding citizens or what exactly do you mean by “make the same commitment to defend our Constitutional Rights, particularly the 2nd Amendment, and make our communities safer”. How about “I am in favor of” or “I oppose” the banning of the or any list of weapons as proposed by Sen. Feinstein”, and “given the opportunity to serve Harford County “I will” or “I will not” protect the 2nd amendment rights of the citizens of Harford County”. The above letter, while well meaning, doesn’t give me a completely clear understanding of where your commitment stands. I am prepared to support any elected official who rejects Feinstein’s proposed gun ban or anything similar that prohibits law abiding citizens from arming themselves for whatever reason they lawfully chose to. I can understand how being completely honest and forthright, not beating around the bush on this issues could make or break one’s political career, however, it’s time to be direct and not mince words, as most people are seriously considering whom they will or will not support based on the answers we are given regarding this most pressing issue. I Look forward to your clarification.
I agree. It’s time to be direct. It is also time to be honest and forthright. That would include using your real name instead of some AKA.
Pseudo names are a time honored tradition for writers talking about controversial topics.
Some wish to NOT publish their name on the web simply from a security standpoint, but that does not make their ideas any less accurate or intelligent.
Perhaps you forget one of the most famous and well respected figures of our history, Franklin, often used a pseudo name to publish works.
If you want real answers, use real names.
Yeah, because when you have no argument (or an invalid one), one always attacks the person (or better yet, their internet screen name).
Get real Mike…let’s talk about identity theft, disagreement with employer’s policy (from a company’s mission statement stand point), potential employers online searches of individuals and their internet history (or stances), or worse, those whom have a fixation and wish to track down individuals with which they might have had an internet disagreement with. Yeah, sure, I’ll gladly use my real name (I’m glad you feel differently).
I have a simple question for you: did you read or buy, or intend to read the book, No Easy Day? If you answer any part of that question in the affirmative, I’m pretty sure your lame argument becomes null and void.
Folks. Please look at the mindset of those whom don’t get our Constitution. They are quick to say you have a right to free speech, as long as your do it their way of course. You are completely fine to own a gun, as long as it is one that is from the founding era. It’s perfectly ok to use a pseudo name to publish letters in the New England Currant, but how dare you use your 21st century technology and hide behind your forum handle, keyboard, and a wifi connection.
I have no problem with folks using a pseudo name. However, those who are hiding behind a pseudo name, and accusing others who are using their real name of not being direct and forthcoming, are themselves not direct and forthcoming.
I don’t recommend anyone use a real name in these discussions. It has gotten very ugly, very personal and absolutely mean-spirited in some discussion. Yes that is inappropriate when taking on an issue in a thoughtful manner, but it doesn’t stop some. It’s bad enough MD doesn’t allow you to defend yourself, it’s even worse when you put your neck out there in the public.
Hey “Not quite getting your message says” – Whats not to understand. Perhaps you should read the letter again.
@NotQuiteIntelligent,
Mr. Gahler’s position seems quite clear to me since he took the time to close the letter with a commitment to defend the second amendment and suggestion for law enforcement to do the same. Not to mention the headline that was pulled right out of the letter. Very thoughtful letter in my opinion. Lets see See if you can get the current Sheriff to do the same.
I want to hear in plain language that the sheriff will honor his sworn duty to defend the Constitution and use the full powers of his office, including arrest, to oppose any efforts to diminish our 2nd amendment rights.
No where in his dissertation does he come right out and say it. I, and lots of others, need that. If he wants support he needs to be crystal clear. I will or I will not lay a hand on your 2nd amendment rights. That’s what I expect if I’m going to give my support. Not everything is as it seems, and we’ve all had the wool pulled over our eyes before by well worded statements from those running for office that don’t express their true intent, easily dismissed by saying that we misunderstood their written intent. When I read what is written by a person who is planning to run for public service, I want to know, not just think or assume that their message is this or that. I want it to be clear. It’s too bad you see that as unintelligent, it’s called being thorough and certain that he stands for what I stand for. I never said it wasn’t thoughtful or well meaning, it just isn’t direct enough for me and say what I need to hear in order to make my future decisions on whom I will support.
His final sentence seems to state that (to me), but it could be stated more clearly. I guess I’m presuming that he’s included in the term “law enforcement” but that really doesn’t imply the law-making community as well.
Yup. If you can’t come out and say it without reservation, how are you going to have the nerve to *do* it when the pressure’s on?
Mr Gahler,
Will you be testifying before the House of Delegates on 6 February regarding the pending firearms bans?
It’s the Senate… (Judiciary Committee).
The house has not yet set a hearing date for any “gun” bills.
just FYI, Contact Stifler if you want to speak:
“Thank you for contacting me with your concerns and opinions about proposed gun legislation in the General Assembly of Maryland. As a member of the NRA, I take the United States Constitution seriously and am a strong advocate for Second Amendment rights. I will always work to protect these rights and oppose any bills that seek to take away any rights provided by this amendment.
SB 281 (Firearm Safety Act of 2013) will be heard in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on Feb 6. If you would like to come to Annapolis and testify before the Committee, please contact me.
You will be able to follow the progress of the bill by going to this link: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frm1st.aspx?tab=home
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.”
I doubt they will have any hearings. They will pass a gun bill during a special session at four in the morning.
You’re absolutely correct; there’s little we can do to stop gun violence in this country. But at the same time, there’s absolutely no excuse not to pass the ban on assault weapons. Nobody has a “right” to assault weapons, unless they are in the armed forces. Look at the gun violence statistics in countries that have laws preventing such weapons – it makes us look like fools for complaining about death by guns, since we have such liberal laws, (thanks to the NRA which is simply acting on behalf of gun manufacturers and those who profit from their sale.) If we have guns, there will always be some goofy person who decides to use them. If you simply want to protect your home from intruders, buy a handgun, or keep a rifle under the bed; you don’t need to take all the drywall off the front of your house with an assault weapon.
You obviously don’t know “shall not be infringed” means. Firearm ownership is a right, bot a privilege like they compare it to a LISCENSE to operate a motor vehicle.
Secondly, you say assault weapons, a coined media term so it leads me to believe you already ignorant.
So how do you define “Well regulated Militia”?
The US Supreme Court defined that term for us. The court has stated that the adjective “well regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
Check out the recent Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller.
You can define “Well regulated Militia” any way your liberal brain chooses, the law of the land rules.
The second amendment clearly says the right of the people, not the right of the government. Recent court rulings has made the regulated militia art quite clear as well, feel free to look for this information yourself; it is not biased of false info like the news media leans to.
Very few people are killed each year by “assault weapons” (whatever that means…it’s not fully automatic military rifles like a lot of people seem to think.) Limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds also does virtually nothing to address the problem. With minimal training or practice anyone can drop an empty magazine and slam home a full one with barely pausing. If some coward wants to do one of these mass shootings and brings 150 rounds, they’ll just have to carry 15 magazines instead of 5 or 10…not a big deal to someone intent on doing something like that.
If you want to to put a stop to gun violence then make illegal handguns illegal (oops…that’s right criminals by definition don’t obey laws.) That’s where the vast majority of gun violence comes from. Instead prosecutors should stop cutting plea deals with criminals charged with firearms violations just to clear their case load a little faster (and frequently dropping the firearm-related charges completely and/or reducing felonies to misdemeanors), judges should start sentencing these wastes of life to the maximum sentences, and parole boards should stop letting them out years early.
Or worse…carry 15 guns (you know…stolen, illegal, mentally unstable and attempting to purchase, illegal, murder to obtain them, illegal, steal a car to drive to the scene, illegal, cross w/in 1000′ of a school with a gun and no carry permit, illegal, breaking and entering, illegal, I can keep going) you get the idea.
Over the past 5 years, you are 5.5x more likely to be murdered by hands, fists, or feet than you are ANY rifle (not just media meme “assault rifle”).
Ban hands, fists, and feet!
Please note that so called “Assault Weapons” account for 1% of the crime.
There is a tremendous amount of misinformation surrounding the issue of so-called “assault weapons.” Below are several of the more misleading allegations related to these firearms followed by corresponding statements of fact:
Claim: A commercially-sold “assault weapon” is a machine gun and has no place in civilian hands.
Fact: A so-called “assault weapon” is NOT a machine gun or automatic firearm. Automatic firearms were severely restricted from civilian ownership under the 1934 National Firearms Act. A so-called “assault weapon” is functionally no different than any other “legal” firearm. These guns fire in the same manner as any other semi-automatic firearm (one shot per trigger pull – no spray firing), they shoot the same ammunition as other guns of the same caliber and are no more powerful. What differentiates a so-called “assault weapon” from other guns is cosmetic; for example, the type of stock on the gun, which makes the conventionally operating firearm look more like a military firearm.
The gun-ban lobby understands that the confusion over what is and what is not an “assault weapon” only benefits them. Consider this statement from Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center:
“The public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
Claim: Semi-automatic “assault weapons” are high-powered guns that are meant for war.
Fact: So-called “Assault weapons” are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term “assault weapon” was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie. These guns are used for many activities. In fact, the Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled “assault weapons,” are the rifles most often used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer.
Claim: The 1994 “assault weapons ban” helped to reduce violent crime.
Fact: A recent comprehensive study by the Centers for Disease Control — hardly a pro-gun entity — looked at the full panoply of gun control measures — including the “assault weapons ban” — and concluded that none could be proven to reduce crime. Homicide statistics demonstrate that the miniscule use of so-called “assault weapons” in crime (less than 1 percent) continued to decrease after the ten-year ban expired in 2004 and their manufacturing and sales resumed.
Another study, commissioned by Congress, found “the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”
The report also noted that so-called “assault weapons” were “rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”
Linda,
FYI, many “assault weapons” aren’t powerful enough to be legally used for deer hunting in MD, the “rifle under the bed” is much more likely to harm someone in another house due to bullet weight and muzzle velocity than a coyote-hunting-sized carbine. An AR15 with telescoping stock is light enough for even a 100lb woman to use it, while the stock makes it usable by anyone from 5′ to 6’2″, meaning you don’t need to leave his & her rifles under the bed, with the ensuing concerns (extra key or combo to remember, different ammunition to grab in the dark, etc).
I assume you have forgotten that in 1775, the English crown thought that no colonist had a right to a Brown Bess (that’s a kind of musket) or a rifle, or hell even a cannon. Fortunately Israel Putnam and some of his fellow country men felt differently and took a stand at the armory and powder magazines at Lexington and Concord.
Need has nothing to do with fundamental, enumerated, and thus protected, civil right. Sorry to tell you that.
Gun owners have compromised for the last 100 years and now we are left with 1/8th of our original cake. Starting with the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Gun Control Act of 1968, the new manufacture ban of machine guns in 1986, the “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994. Then there were the nibbles of the Lautenberg Act, the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement, the Brady Law, the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act.
Sorry, but no more compromising is nessecary. There are plenty of laws on the books and none of them mean anything to anyone other than law abiding citizens. So do you and your fellow anti-gun legislators, risk making honest citizens criminals? Then where does the line get drawn since there will be mass disrespect for a law? New Yorkers have said they will not comply with the law they just passed, including some of the members of their legislature. Criminals for nothing more than having a product which is now deemed (and ex post facto, by the way) “illegal.”
You talk about the “NRA” being a tool of the gun manufactures, yet I pay my dues every year, contribute when I can, and I don’t give one hoot what the industry has to say other than what new products they are putting out (just like the tech industry).
No…I think I’m done compromising and I’m done with being told “no one has a need” and I’m done with tools whom can’t think outside the course of a meme.
nice bluehen.. Can I cutnpaste that on my FB page? All credit to you and God of course…
That’s not all my work…that’s open source my friend. Please feel free!
Linda,
I don’t think you have a clue what an assault weapon actually is. Please inform yourself because I suspect that the weapons that you believe are assault weapons aren’t and that the weapons you want ‘banned’ already are. You certainly have a right to your opinion but an educated opinion is more often listened to than someone shouting stuff that isn’t actually true.
Yeah, Mr. Gahler, you findly found a real issue to discuss. Where are all of the henchmen who always add how bad Bane is? Did you give them the day off? Any way, you look like a much stronger candidate when you deal with real issues and not stupid events.
We now have Mr. Gahler’s defense of the 2nd Amendment, so as asked above, what is Bane’s position on this topic.
An email reply from Bane:
Hello, xxx.
I am sworn to uphold the Constitution and I believe in the second amendment.
I will be making no announcement unless there is legislation that is passed. I have already spoken to some members of the Harford County Delegation and other legislators in Annapolis and they are aware of my position.
Hopefully this addresses your concerns.
Sheriff Bane
Now there is a very well thought out and considerate response. Bane just left out the “F U for asking.
Onpoint
You are so biased you wouldn’t know the truth if you tripped over it
Go campaign somewhere else.
O
@j.edgar,
What are you getting on Onpoint about? What truth? All this stuff in the news, on tv and all over the Internet and the best Bane can come up with is posted above. No comment means no position.
What I am getting on onpoint about is that he and a few others always have negative remarks about our current sheriff. I have read repeatedly over a two year or more period their biased comments. Nothing they have to say is unbiased or fair. Now, if you fit that shoe, LOL, wear it.
The Sheriff has been demonstrated to be untruthful, caught time and time again. You are 100% correct that I support Gahler, but if Gahler were not running, I would support ANYONE but Bane, Democrat or Republican. So yes, it is not without bias, but bias that Bane has earned himself and as to being fair, you get Bane to be honest and I promise to be fair. Maybe he can start with admitting to the latest death at the detention center? Everyone knows except Bane and his command staff.
Help us out here OnPoint. What should Sheriff Bane be admitting to regarding the latest death at the Detention Center. I don’t understand what you mean when you say “everyone knows except Bane and his Command Staff”. How can you admit to something that you don’t know?
Mike Welsh, oh thank you onpoint. Now tell me more about what Bane doesn’t know.
Martin O’Malley, oh thank you Osama. Now tell me more about economics.
I was being a little sarcastic when I said Bane and his command staff do not know. They obviously know what we all suspect the truth is and that is that yet another inmate has died. If this is the case, that is nine deaths under Bane’s watchful eye (again sarcasm). How telling is it that the HCSO will not even respond to the media’s request for an update? Just like the Mark Forwood case, sweep it under the rug and then play dumb.
Thank you OnPoint. I can assure you that Sheriff Bane knows that the man has died. Why the Sheriff’s Office refuses to respond leaves one to believe that there is something that they do not want others to know.
You ask “How telling is it that the HCSO will not even respond to the media’s request for an update?” The answer is: Very Telling!
Didn’t Barry just take a similar oath? What are the chance he’ll do everything in his power to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.?
From a historical perspective the Sheriff has been the ultimate law of the land. His is an elected position which makes him answerable to the people, not the State. It has historically been the sheriff’s job , in many cases, to protect his constituency from the State(interposition, I’m sure you have heard the term). I would like to know, after your comment, how you feel about this traditonal role of the sheriff
Mr.Gahler, please be more specific. Linda, please take the time to learn about firearms. Even the liberal nitwit O’Malley was quoted in the Sun (01/27/13) as agreeing with national experts who say banning “assault weapons” and other weapons would have a minimal impact on Baltimore crime. Of course that won’t deter the governing idiots from trying to do exactly what they know won’t work.
Mr. Gahler, the position of Sheriff is to uphold the laws enacted by both the state of Maryland and the federal government. You state in your letter, your commitment to modify existing laws. If that is the case, you are running for the wrong elected office cause that ain’t the job of sheriff of hazard county.
You should be ashamed trying to get votes using the Sandy Hook tragedy.
Peggysue,
To clarify, the “oath” of office states to “UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION”, i.e. the 2nd Amendment.
Check out the sheriff of Milwaukee who has publicly requested that the citizens of Milwaukee arm and be prepared protect themselves. The police will only be able to clean up the crime scene after the fact. If you expect otherwise….dream on!
In regards to utilizing the tragedy of Sandy Hook to push their own personnel agenda, I think that Obama takes the prize on that one. Almost makes you wonder, perhaps………..?
Peggysue,
You should march upon Washington or Annapolis and demand a refund of all your tax dollars spent in an effort to “educate” you (tuition to any university as well).
Every military member, member of congress, police office and even, yes, the President himself, in this country swear something like this (or very similar):
“I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
Additionally, there is a process called “nullification” that is defined in legal doctrine under the 9th and 10th amendments (perhaps you’ve heard…oh never mind, it’s evident you haven’t).
PeggySue, a sheriff is not elected to uphold the laws of the Federal government. He or she swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. There IS a difference. The military and police take the same basic oath as well. NONE are swearing allegiance to a President, Congressman, Mayor, County Exec or Commissioner. Police Chiefs, however are beholden to a degree to the politico who appointed him or her. A Sheriff, on the other hand, is the highest law enforcement official in his/her County, period, and is beholden only to the voters who put the Sheriff in office.
Yes but the Sherrif is tasked as she said with enforcing the laws. The Sherrif does not make or modify the law.
Actually, local police don’t have much authority (if any) to enforce a lot of federal laws. Sometimes cases do end up getting tried at the federal level, but only if a U.S. Attorney is willing to prosecute the case, but the initial investigation and charges are almost always done under state laws.
Just look at immigration laws as a perfect example. Or marijuana laws in any state that has legalized marijuana to any degree. It’s still illegal according to the federal government (and still classified as a Schedule I drug), but local police have no authority to make arrests or file charges against people for possession.
the role of the Sheriff is to uphold the regulations/codes of the county, period. to protect the people of the county. That is the Sheriff’s historical role.
Peggysue, i totally agree with your comment, if Mr. Gahler is elected sheriff what laws will he enforce or not enforce as sheriff you do not have a choice.
Apparently the hazard county peanut gallery thinks the sheriff is the one who makes up the laws….
Scary stuff.
No, Peggysue,
The premier person who is currently picking and choosing which laws to enforce or not enforce, is unfortunately the current and racist Attorney General, Eric Holder.
Regarding the local sheriff’s role in enforcing the laws of this nation; it is the duty of the local county sheriff to protect his community from tyranny:
“The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the last line of defense for his citizens. He is the people’s protector. He is the keeper of the peace, he is the guardian of liberty and the protector of rights.”
Apparently, you are a reject that doesn’t get that there is this process by which the sheriff (an elected local official) gets to use his legal authority to prevent usurpation by his co-equal branches of government. That process, as I stated above, is called nullification, and comes from his legal and moral obligation to follow the supreme law of the land. That supreme law of the lands is this thing that was drafted in 1791 and is called the Constitution. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? (Awww, shucks, there I go assuming again).
Well Okie Dokie then….
I’m betting Bane would just love for you 2 to go out and stump for Gahler…
You could be the Sarah Palins and Michele Bachmans of Hazard county.
Fine with me…
But I’d prefer Rand Paul, just so you know.
The 2nd amendment does not mean you can own any and all weapons you want, just like free speech doesn’t mean you get to yell fire in a movie theater. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms is to have a “well regulated militia”. We already have that with the organized military.
People really need to get a grip on reality. Nobody is coming to take away your guns, but sensible people realize that making guns harder to get and to require background checks and waiting periods, and to be registered not only for ownership, but to track abnormal purchase amounts, is a no-brainer. I go through more to get an OTC sinus medication to help me breathe. Sure, criminals will still get guns and not all guns should be banned but nobody needs a military grade automatic or semi-automatic weapon for anything. To rise up against the government? Have you seen the US Defense budget and the weapons the US Government has?
The latest proposals before the Maryland Senate do take away firearms: They prohibit the transfer of certain firearms within the state, even from parent to child upon the parent’s death (the firearm must be destroyed or shipped out of state). At first, it would only be parents that owned the weapons, 30 years later, only grand parents, 30 years after that, just stories of great-grandpa’s Colt rifle and maybe a picture or two would be all that remained. It is an intentional act of cultural destruction, removing subsets of the shooting lifestyle through attrition. How would you feel if someone said starting tomorrow, no more baptisms could be performed, and only those already baptised could practice Christianity? Or that only those who are current ACLU members can maintain their membership, and no new members can be accepted?
The First Amendment does not protect yelling fire in a theater, but no one would agree it authorizes gagging every person walking outside their home to prevent a panic.
To quote the Supreme Court (DC v Heller, 07-290):
“[T]he adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training” and “The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense.”
The AR15 rifle is the most common rifle produced in America today, with over 2 million manufactured between 2000 and 2012 (having been first sold in 1960, you can imagine how many were produced before 2000) by over 20 manufacturers, and organizations such as the NRA, Thunder Ranch, Magpul Dynamics, etc, offer firearms training to any citizen with the ability to purchase a firearm and sufficient funds to pay the tuition.
If I want a semiautomatic rifle to defend my family in the wake of a devastating hurricane, or protect my home against a lone burglar at 3am, I should be able to buy it, and eventually, pass it on to my child.
Disgusted.
AR15’s available on the local public market are not military grade weapons. Paintball guns made to look like AF15’s are not military grade weapons. That said, why is it that you don’t believe I have the right to defend my family and property with a weapon if it was military grade? Just what level of defense do you think I should be permitted to have?
Ahhh, the fire in a crowded theater argument! My favorite straw man argument! This is the one argument that I am willfully enjoy poking holes in; I hope you have the roof doctor on speed dial….here it goes!
First, find me one law that says you simply, cannot, shout fire in a crowded theater? I’ll wait patiently while you do…but in the mean time, let’s talk about tort law for a second; through your actions, you are responsible for injury that is above and beyond what a common man may expect to be reasonable. Please note, that is common law and not criminal law. Please too, note, that no speech has been prevented, but moral turpitude and conscience should guide the reasonable and prudent man to NOT yell fire in a crowded theater. Just like one man whom might openly carry an AR-15 rifle, the one yelling fire in a crowded theater is responsible for the harm he causes to others absent fire.
Second, please use an online dictionary to define the word “regulate” and please go beyond the 1st definition; oh for hell’s sake, I’ll do it for ya.
Reg u late: Definition of REGULATE
1
a : to govern or direct according to rule
b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate
OR
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one’s eating habits.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulate
Regulate, thanks to the English language, has multiple meanings besides some bureaucrat or politician writing new policy or law. (I know that’s really hard for pea brains to understand, but I’ll continue with my snark).
“People really need to get a grip on reality. Nobody is coming to take away your guns, but sensible people realize that making guns harder to get and to require background checks and waiting periods, and to be registered not only for ownership, but to track abnormal purchase amounts, is a no-brainer.”
ERRRRRNT! People in New York are openly saying “Come and Take it!” Don’t believe me? http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14322-gun-owners-refuse-to-register-under-new-york-law
They will not be allowed to keep their arms that do not comport to the NY law. Basically, the same thing is happening here in Maryland with senate bill 281. Don’t think so? That’s fine, I won’t bore you with the facts that it will be $15 per arm, per year, plus 300 for a training course, plus 100 every five years for an Illinois style Firearms Owners ID card, plus, if you run afoot of the law (even via ignorance), you’re a felon, with imprisonment of now less than 3 years; and yes, that strips you of your right to own arms, forever thereafter.
Should I continue? Oh yeah, this is an ex post facto change; something made illegal by our Constitution.
More?
“I go through more to get an OTC sinus medication to help me breathe.” Where’s the Johnny Mc. when I need him? YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!
First hand story, I bought OTC sinus meds that they scanned my driver’s license for, and because the system at target couldn’t read my driver’s license, the clerk said, well, screw it, you’re getting it for free. Firearms dealers don’t do this because they go to jail if they do. Besides, there are 3 major forms (2 for state of Maryland and 1 federal) that are long, ask at least 15 questions each, and are in triple carbon-less, carbon paper (I’m sure because the Goreacle said no more CFCs). I digress. Notice I didn’t mention the 8+ day way for a hand gun or “maryland regulated firearm.” Ooops, there we go, I just mentioned that too. Darn, stop destroying the straw man argument.
“Sure, criminals will still get guns and not all guns should be banned but nobody needs a military grade automatic or semi-automatic weapon for anything. ”
You are aware that you can, legally, as a private citizen, own a machine gun in the state of Maryland, right? I’ll spare making you look like a fool with how you have to go about buying one (and I doubt you can afford the $8,000 or so for the cheapest legal machine gun). And yet again, I’ll remind you that NO enumerated, civil right, is doled out or restricted based upon “need.” If that is the case, I demand you to turn in your smart phone, twitter account, your keyboard, and your internet access, because no one needs anything besides an old fashioned land line and a Gutenberg printing press.
“To rise up against the government? Have you seen the US Defense budget and the weapons the US Government has?”
Ah yes the “INSURRECTION” argument. How dare we defend ourselves, no matter what the odds or the costs against those hell bent upon tyranny. Never mind the fact that it has been done, in the 20th century, with modern arms (of that time) and no one was arrested (other than the politically corrupt). http://youtu.be/ncdXfUAkMUI
The first time a reaper drone fires a hellfire on a city that is having a pro-2A or pro-freedom demonstration, I can assure you, the will of the American people will be no different than the will of the Afghan citizens who have fought against the two largest armies in the history of the world.
GODDAMN, people are dumb! Next Straw Man UP!
Well talk about a straw man. The former Soviet Union Army was sent from Afghanistan with their tail between their legs thanks to the US giving them Stinger missiles and strangely enough, most Russian helicopters had a bright Red Star on the undercarriage so pretty much any 15 year old with decent eye sight could bring them down. Oh and you can thank the RW Lord, Ronnie Raygun for arming the Taliban and the original al-Haqqani network (along with Osman Bin Laden). I doubt you could say the US is “losing” to the Afghani’s, more like the American public is tired of two wars and not seeing a return on the wasted treasure GW Bush put in place. If the US Govt wants your weapons, they will take them. Since they have not, regardless of the extreme far left (not the left itself of which I include myself) they won’t. Regulation and Confiscation 2 different animals. As for the OTC medicine and such above, you must never have been to a Virginian or Georgia show. Not much is required and it is pretty much, walk in and buy what you want, unlike MD and by your nom de plume, Delaware.
Five Iron…why don’t you get educated…please do us all a favor and realize your garbage doesn’t work on those who are educated.
Especially when you talk about a problem that most analysts admit is true; blow back. There is no doubt that blow back exists in the WOT, but I am merely pointing out how during history, insurgencies by determined “rebels” are more successful than a force of aggressors. But, your ignorance knows no bounds, so I hope you learn something by the following.
http://www.rferl.org/content/interview-historian-afghanistan-william-dalrymple/24907753.html
Disgusted, kindly go back and read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. Your belief that “the 2nd amendment does not mean you can own any and all weapons you want, just like free speech doesn’t mean you get to yell fire in a movie theater. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms is to have a “well regulated militia”. We already have that with the organized military” is incorrect. The 2nd Amendment does not limit ‘weapons’ in any manner as you state. Further, the ‘militia’ referred to in all the aforementioned documents means the “Citizens” and is NOT a reference to a formal armed forces. There were NO standing army, navy, air force, etc. when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. It is clear that the framers were speaking to a ‘militia’ that consisted of every able-bodied person who could bear arms against enemies both foreign and domestic.
“The challenge for law enforcement today is to make the same commitment to defend our Constitutional Rights, particularly the 2nd Amendment, and make our communities safer.”
Particularly the 2nd Amendment (because that is more important than all the rest because?) Make our communities safe? Fear mongering and the gun nuts buy into it big time and buy more and more guns from the companies that run the NRA. You are being led like sheep.
What fear mongering? It is no secret that the liberal left is and has been looking to ban weapons.
And yes, the true security of my neighborhood comes from my ability and the ability of my neighbors to defend themselves.
The NRA isn’t run by companies, it is made up of people like myself, who want them to defend my right to be able to defend myself and my family. And as disgusted as you may be, we are not the sheep, but the sheep dogs. You can thank us later for your security that you fail to take responsibility for.
The NRA has 4.2 million members out of a population of 330 million. Hardly a large organization. I like weapons but the NRA is a useless tool and offered not one suggestion except to arm more people in schools (which as we all know worked out so well in Columbine).
Just look at the number of gun owners there are in the US (80 million) against the number of NRA members (4 million)…..
not even close to a really a representation of gun owners.
I love how Anti-2a’ers always retort to “the second Amendment doesn’t mean you can any weapons you want”
If you pay attention to more than what CNN reports, It’s about them slowly eroding rights and what firearms people currently and can own. DO YOU understand that? Politicians with a knee jerk reaction to events in society want to emotionally legislate laws for their own personal agenda when in reality, these laws really only effect the lawful firearm owners. And then, what’s next? Then after that, what’s next? You see the pattern here?
Does that make sense?
Onpoint
give Mr hauler an antacid for his heavy heart.
@j.Edgar,
Who is Mr. Hauler? Or did you mean Gahler and you are just too dumb to use your phone correctly.
LOL, your name suits you well. You are a lot to laugh at.
Amazing how those who preach history have no idea of what the 2nd Amendment was actually meant for. It is not for protecting you FROM the government, it was to protect THE government from insurrection at the time of it’s writing from British sympathizers. That being said, it is codified into law and what the people decide through their reps is what is or isn’t allowable. Unfettered 2nd amendment rights are not going to happen, nor should they. Same as yelling fire in a theater isn’t protected by the 1st amendment. Of course as many have stated above, your average hunting rifle is as powerful as the “dreaded assault weapon” so many in the press bloviate on about. 200+ years and no one from the government has taken a gun in violation of that amendment and I doubt that they will, but your fellow citizens will decide what is acceptable.
FiveIron, if you read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federalist Papers, it is clear that the EXPRESS reason for the 2nd Amendment was to enable the populace to repel a tyrannical government.
Correct. All tyrannical governments…including ours if it becomes one.
That tyrannical government, at the time it was written, was to ensure your pro-Torie neighbors did not reinstall King George the tyrant. It can be used against ours, but I doubt seriously your piddly AR-15 will match against a drone or a series of troops at your door with Humvee’s and .50 cal’s aimed at your abode. The US Military is the best in the world and has a lot more weapons at its disposal than long guns we keep in our houses.
The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the Army, and Air Force as a posse comitatus or for law enforcement purposes. A similar directive from the Secretary of Defense prohibits the use of the Navy and Marine Corps for law enforcement. Also, I don’t believe that you will find too many interested American Soldiers willing to open-fire on American citizens.
So, I find it highly improbably that your AR-15 would be met with drones, a series of troops with HMMWV’s or .50 cal’s.
And said act has already been violated by multiple Presidents, mayors and governors. Riots in the 60’s, Kent State, drones flying patrols by all levels of government, etc. The Golden Rule effect in action and can be invoked at any time.
I guess they will have to ban: knives,bats,iron pipes,2×4’s,cars, rocks,pipe wrenches, candlesticks,golf clubs, rolling pins,trucks, etc,etc,etc. If indeed they are sincere about banning “assault weapons”. Anyone feel free to add to the list!!!