From Harford Campaign for Liberty:
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and his cronies in Annapolis continue to trample on our God-Given rights, protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Just last Thursday, the Maryland Senate passed Senate Bill 281, which creates licensing requirements just to own a gun, mandates government-certified training to buy a gun, and bans a multitude of currently legal firearms from Maryland.
We need to push back.
A Second Amendment Rally is scheduled for this Tuesday, March 5, 2012 in Annapolis– and there are buses going from Harford County.
The Rally will start at 11AM and run until 2PM at Lawyer’s Mall in Annapolis. The only parking available will be at the Navy-Marine Corps Parking lot.
The buses will leave Perryville at 8AM and stop at the Joppa 152&95 Park and Ride to pick up more passengers. We should be home before 4:30.
Tickets will cost $25 per rider.
If you are interested, email me at Joe@MarylandLiberty.org or call at 443-345-0702 and we will make sure you get details as soon as we have them.
So this group is basically crying foul on any gun legislation. You have a side that wants to get rid of all guns and then you have these loonies whom want to keep all guns and you got a lot of crying and whining instead of meeting in the middle. Welcome to modern day politics. On a side note, I wonder how many confederate flag stickers you’ll see on the cars parked at this lot for the bus trip.
If the partisan crybabies would act like adults, then maybe the govt wouldn’t have to ‘Regulate’ as the 2nd amendment refers to as a ‘Well Regulated Militia.’
The painfully ignorant understanding of a ‘well regulated militia’ is getting tiresome. The Founders did not envision this to be a standing military in any sense – the very notion of a standing military was exactly the type of despotism the freedom to bear arms was to protect Americans from! On top of that, militias were to be organized for common defense and every able bodied male was to be a part of it. The ability to arm itself was to relieve that burden from the government, and thus put the power exactly where it was intended – in the hands of the people who had a vested interest to protect their property and rights.
To transfer all the responisbility of governing from the people to special interests has been under way for too long (already completed at the federal level); and now we have the same batch of top-to-bottom minded rulers desiring to disarm the population to make their revolution complete. I am confident there are people out there who do not mind one bit that their freedoms are being eroded away, and to them I wish they would understand the type of country they are trying to make.
The events of Newtown were awful. The shootings in Aurora were tragic. Perhaps an armed person inside those facilities could have stopped the carnage, perhaps not. The rush to regulate (confiscate is the real intention I believe strongly) legal firearms further has nothing to do with public safety. It has everything to do with a powerful special interest that has a deth grip on a political philosophy.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
So if a “loony” comes to your house and says they want to take your money and your jewels you would “meet in the middle” and hand over the jewelry? Meeting in the middle is not a compromise , it is a loss of Liberty – period. I am sure that you understand this already and judging by your feeble attempt to paint those that want to protect the 2nd amendment as racists , it is quite obvious that you are just another liberal with an agenda.
Hey, Bob, If ones house was ever invaded, do you think he or she would need an AR-15 to accomplish their mission? I don’t think so. You don’t need an assault weapon to kill an intruder. There are plenty of weapons that are made to kill a “loon.” If you need help finding the repertoire of weapons , i’ll show you in the many local stores that are throughout Maryland. Your embellishment is nothing more than rhetoric to its highest point. You make it sound like the only way to protect your house from a “loon” is for you to have an assault weapon. Your statements are ridiculous. I’ve been a hunter my entire life and never saw a man or woman kill bambie with an AR-15. Its normally a shotgun, 30-30, 30-6 or a muzzle loader. You can even throw in a bow and arrow for that matter. And by the way, Bob, the new law allows those who have an AR-15 to keep it. I’m so sorry that your 2nd amendment was stomped on.
Shawn,
I’d rather not try to work a bolt, lever or pump when seconds count and adrenaline is pumping. Its not about “killing a loon,” it is about stopping or driving off the threat as quickly as possible.
Deer hunting is typically a single round, fired at 100+ yards against a single stationary (or near-stationary) target from a prepared position with no danger to the hunter who has the discretion to not fire if the situation is not perfect. Self defense is typically <10 yards to the attacker (or attackers), fired while on the move and against an imminent threat to the individual's life where a miss or malfunction can mean death, at a time and location that were chosen by the attacker to their advantage, not the defender's. I cannot think of two situations more diametrically opposed than the two I just described.
Grandfathering these firearms already owned converts them from tools to heirlooms, suddenly irreplacable and confined to the safe while less effective weapons are pressed into service for self defense.
Kharn,
You’re another one that likes to embelish the need for an assault weapon. Most intruders who seek to invade someone’s home isn’t met by an assault weapon, it’s more than likely a hangun. And most handguns, if not all, need not to “pump”, “cock”, or “pull a lever” to effectively operate such weapon. It’s a simple pull of the trigger. Sounds like to me you’re lazy. You’re nothing but an apologist to qualify your reasoning for having such weapons. If im not mistaken, a shotgun is a great tool as well and a “bird shot” round sprays outwards, so if your aim is off, more than likely you’ll still hit your target. I would reference Joe Horn from Pasadena, Texas. He shot and killed two intruders that were burglerizing his neighbor’s home. He shot both intruders with a “SHOTGUN”, not a AR-15, and killed both men. He was abstained from being found guilty due to the Castle law. Go on youtube and hear the 911 tape. If anything the noise itself serves as a deterrence.
If you have a malfunction, you might want to pull out the cleaning kit. But then again most AR-15’s sit in the basement, corner, collect dust and aren’t really used for anything.
If you’re too lazy to keep a round in the chamber of a shotgun, bolt action rifle, or a handgun, that is secured at your house, than that’s your fault for not being at the ready. Adapt and overcome. If your aim is off, go to your local gun range, hone your skills and become a better shooter.
You message is indicative that of a fight occuring in the streets or in the public domain, not in someones domicile. I really don’t know too many people carrying around an AR-15 in the public.
“But then again most AF-15’s sit in he basement, corner, collect dust and aren’t really used for anything.”
If that’s the case why ban them?
I might suggest the two of you are arguing over the wrong issue. The restrictions to be placed on firearms is not about home safety or hunting; no it is about the exercise of rights by law abiding citizens.
Shawn,
For a deer hunter, I would expect you to know more about the effects of various shotgun loads and realize that birdshot works on birds, not deer or humans, and the accuracy of rifles vs pistols. Regarding “the noise” being sufficient, you should hang out with Joe Biden more often.
Some of us own more property than just a 4-room condo, thus need to be able to engage at distance.
Shawn,
Sir, Ma’am
You present some very interesting points in your post. First and foremost, I strongly believe that most if not all gun owners truly hope that whatever weapon they have selected to defend themselves sits in whatever storage place, forever, and is never required for use other than an occasional session at the range to maintain proficiency. Those who do not believe that should probably be avoided.
The more interesting point is in your use of the phrase “assault weapon”. A term manufactured to conjure up images of evil and destruction spreading through the land. But other than what the State of Maryland has described, the question to you is what is an assault weapon.
With your self proclaimed background as a hunter and knowledge of weapons suitability, perhaps some simple comparisons between some of the more modern weapons and your hunting weapons might be useful.
First let’s consider military weapons. They must be light, reliable, and accurate. Ammunition should be equally light reliable and accurate, have sufficient range to effectively engage opponents and have sufficient energy to prevent that opponent from advancing.
Now let’s look at modern weapons, which can also be used for hunting, as well as self defense. They are light, reliable, and accurate. Their ammunition is equally light, reliable and accurate. The two most favored cartridges , .223 and .308 have proven to be very accurate, good range and lightweight. The .223 being lighter than the.308 by a significant margin, which is one of the reasons it was adopted by the U.S. military and is in use in many different countries today. These weapons are absolutely used to hunt both small and medium sized game.
Considering some of the features that the State of Maryland has used to describe “assault weapons” it seems that there is a strong argument against the description. For example, flash suppressor. An item that is very similar to a muzzle brake, or a ported barrel which as you must know, dampens recoil, which may enhance accuracy. Pistol grip, a steady hold is critical to accuracy, so why not add it. Detachable magazine, many bolt action rifles use detachable magazines, are they then assault weapons.
As you look at your preferred weapons, you will no doubt see similarities between them and military weapons used in their day. That did not make them assault weapons then, nor does it today.
The reality is that an assault weapon is defined by the person holding the gun. If that person is intent on pointing that weapon at others, it is an assault and the weapon is an assault weapon. Unfortunately, that discussion is not included in the description of an assault weapon.
Please do not attempt to tell others what they may use to defend themselves from a criminal holding an assault weapon intent on criminal activity.
Here are some regulations designed to keep you and your family both safe and free. Pick out the ones you think are unreasonable:
Little kids can’t buy guns.
Your next door neighbor can’t discharge her firearm within 150 yards of your house, even if she is on her own property, unless you give her permission.
The teens at the bus stop can’t take guns to school.
A visibly drunk person can’t buy a gun. But he can come back later and buy it when he’s sober.
A person convicted of shooting other people during a crime can’t buy a gun.
A person can’t drive around town with a loaded machine gun, but he can walk around inside his house carrying it.
These are examples of the “tyranny” of government. Regulations allow us the freedom to live together. The right-wing anarchists prefer lawlessness when it comes to guns. They quote the Founding Fathers and then reject the wisdom of the democracy they created.
Here are some limitations on government meant to protect you and your family from despotic leaders, dictators and oppression. Pick out the ones you think are unreasonable restraints on a government.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
You’re very good and cut-n-paste.
Now try coming up with an original reply.
Umm… like your post I replied to? You know, the one you posted the other day identical to it… notice I did not point that out initially because I could easily refute your attempted point spot-on. As far as a ‘cut and paste’ I am humbled that you feel I could recite the Bill of Rights from memory… substance absolutely, but word perfect reciting, no.
So tell us, please, which of those Amendments are you willing to give up as being unreasonable to restrain the power of government?
As stated – the restrictions you cited are already on the books. They are reasonable restrictions and law-abiding individuals follow them. People who break the law are incarcerated and ought to stay there. It is unreasonable to punish people who follow the law to punish those who do not.
Tell me, do you also advocate placing restrictions on automobiles because some people tend to violate the speed limit with deadly consequences? Why are cars permitted to be manufactured that exceed speed limits that are legally set? Which kills more – auto accidents or firearms? We can argue automobiles are heavily regulated (licensing, tests, etc…), yet deaths from this device are still high. Thus, all the regulation of firearms will result in more bureacracy and the deaths will still be there.
Here is some advice – cure the problem of people killing each other and then come after the tools of the trade.
Localguy, thanks for following my posts, I appreciate your attention.
You can post elsewhere about your problems with autos, but here, let’s stick to the issue at hand: gun control.
Which category do you place yourself in?
1) Gun advocate with tolerance for no regulations
2) Gun advocate with acceptance of some regulations
3) Anti-gun
From your post, it is apparent you fall into category 2. Welcome to the gray area with the great majority of us. So stop advocating for the people in category 1.
Glad you feel some sort of appreciation – whatever that means.
Actually my question regarding automobiles is quite on topic. An automobile is a legal item that has a right to be owned and a privilege to be operated. Firearms fall under the same category. Despite the laws and regulations surrounding automobiles, such as licensing, mandatory insurance, speed limits, etc… People still drive unsafe vehicles, without a license, without insurance, violate speed limits, and a host of other illegal activity – those who do not violate the law are what we call ‘law abiding.’ In other words, placing many laws on the books will not stop illegal activity.
The antigun crowd parades the canard that licensing, paying more money and a host of other restrictions placed on law abiding people will suddenly stop these mass shootings and all other gun related violence. I say that is flawed thinking. People who break the law do not do so because they possess a legal item – they do so because they are law breakers. This notion is completely missing from the thought process of the antigun crowd – completely.
Thus, before you try to deflect a legitimate question that you desire to avoid because you know your answer will reveal the lack of logic and reasoning and pretty much cause you a measure of embarassment; please do not patronize me with a condescending argument that my comments are ‘off topic.’ In other words, your attack of topicality failed and your defelction of a question holds. Answer the question, please.
If you applied logic and reasoning into your little survey you would also add a few more options into which I might fall. The fallacy is that you believe that we could share a category – impossible. If the ideas floated about the room by the left side of the spectrum strike you as reasonable and thus acceptable regulation of legal item – then we need to part ways. The proposals from the extremists on the left amount to despotism and arrogance – and a bit hypocritical.
I’m not in a gray area at all. The restrictions you cited are all already on the books. There are innumerable laws on the books to restrict gun ownership in all cities – yet they are the centers for gun violence. Further restricting law abiding people will do NOTHING to curb the violence you so dearly want to have happen. In fact, the thousands of laws and restrictions in place have done nothing to stop it yet. It is insane to believe that more of the same will yield different results.
So, how about answering my question?
Localguy, me & you, we’re a team. We both use guns and believe we have the right to own them. The gray area between us is how much restriction is placed on ownership and operation. The other difference is that your gun is probably much bigger than mine.
We do not want lawlessness. We want the states and federal government to respect our civil rights. Brown v Board of Education and Roe v Wade did not bring about anarchy, nor did DC v Heller or McDonald v Chicago, and our future cases will continue the trend.
Not all gun-rights-advocates are like you, Kharn. Some reject reasonable regulation.
It all depends how you define “reasonable”
I reject the idea that inanimate pieces of metal should be banned or removed from citizens’ possession. Saying that a bayonet lug or 20 round magazine causes crime, and removing them from society will stop the drug-fueled violence in Baltimore is ridiculous. The state needs to focus on crime control, not inanimate object control. Remove the incentive from the drug trade, make the death penalty an effective deterrent, refuse to plea bargain any crime involving a firearm, recognize the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves outside of their homes and crime will drop. I agree that firearms should be kept out of the hands of convicted violent felons, the mentally ill, etc, but restricting otherwise law-abiding citizens from owning pieces of metal is not something I agree with.
The other side claims limiting firearms to 7 round magazines (even though DC v Heller was about a 9-shot revolver), charging $300+ for mandatory training and licensing before you can even buy a handgun, requiring it be kept unloaded and locked up, not permitting carrying it in public, etc, are “reasonable regulations.”
Sea, None of those regs are unreasonable. In fact, they are all we really need. So why press for more regulations??
People are so funny, its only the internet you can have your mouth breathing opposition to anything but never show up in person.
March 1st proved how many “for gun control” people there are. 300 max at their rally, and 31 signed up to testify for gun control at the hearing. Over 1,200 signed up against and while not everyone could stay until 3:48am on saturday when it concluded, it shows the “real” numbers of enthusiasm.
If anyone is a loon, its the anti gun people parading around children for their agenda. I think Hitler and Stalin did that a lot.
Human nature dictates that when people are AGAINST something, they show up in larger numbers (per capita) than when they are FOR something. Therefore, your “logic” is NOT!
So what about the protests for and against gay marriage? Did more people show up for that or against that?
Whatever player, you can throw about big term wordsmithing and “understanding human nature” all you want. If you are for or against something, you have no say unless you were physically there.
“Logic”
Yes you do it is called a phone. Call your Delegates and senators. It is also called the referendum process. Since Some people have data mined last election I am sure this too will go to referendum!
Of course what happened last time a gun regulation went to referendum in this state?
Civil rights are not subject to popularity contests.
Very true……SCOTUS did rule that reasonable restrictions and regulations are OK. Just like you can not yell fire in a theater, you can not own a gun and be a convicted felon and the state can require a background check. Since that is what we are talking about here. It also says you can keep and bear arms it is not specific about it being any arms or which arms. Consequently when the bill passes I am sure the referendum machine will use it’s vast database it collected to get it sent to referendum before dealing with a court case. I simply ask you look up which gun laws in this state went to referendum before!!!!
It doesnt matter.
Did we vote if segregation could continue, or if abortion should be legalized? Civil rights are not subject to tyranny of the majority.
You are right, not only did firearm enthusiast show up in numbers, twice they forced the fire marshal to close the doors and refuse entry until others came out. February 6th and his past weekend on the 1st.
Umm, if you could pull your head out from your ads, I think what playa was trying to point out is that the against gun control crowd was so.large compared to any other crowd in Annapolis that the testifying went on for over 17 hours.
Locking the buildings for capacity issues for safety has been a first in a very long time as well. One delegate mentioned it was the first tile he’s seen it happen in his 20 years in politics.
Oh, don’t forget some leaning news media will always report the opposite. I’m really surprised they didn’t say 1300 people were for gun control while 31 came against it. Whatever happened to neutral bias?
“It’s crime control that will save this state and country; not gun control.”
Why don’t we see what VP Biden has to say on the issue? No. Wait. Maybe not. Talk about clueless. Was this guy born a numb-skull or did he have to go to school to learn it?
I already know the answer for MOM.
The Vice President can afford a lot of scotch.
Good evening, I’m a professional internet master of all. As stated, people will show up in thousands when they are against something, I have combine my 58 years of higher level super advanced master education to apply this opinion.
I also make 900,600 per year so I’m better than you.
I am more afraid of the Government then the criminal.
All the left-wing goofballs don’t understand that all the regulation in the world would not have stopped New Town. Anyone hell-bend in harming others will have more success than failures because we are a society based on trust. We trust the police will arrive when we call them, we trust the courts and the prison system will keep criminals in jail, we trust our government has our best interests in mind – and they have failed us MANY times.
When our Government runs up over 16 trillion in debt and we cannot borrow any more money, people will be left to fend for themselves. Entire cities like Detroit will collapse under the crushing weight of debt. Imagine if this happens on the Federal level.
I have a generator in case of a power failure.
I have stored drinking water in case of emergency.
I have stored food in case a natural distaster.
I keep batteries in case of a power failure.
I keep candles in case of a power failure.
I keep a gun and ammo in case of a police or government failure.
Ask the people of New Orleans how “waiting for government” worked out for them when a natural disaster hit. It took FEMA 5 days to get water into New Orleans. New Jersey had a huge problem of looters when the noreaster hit and $52 billion still hasn’t made anything up there any better.
You keep voting for bigger and more intrusive government and I’ll keep my guns.
When every second counts the police are only minutes away.
one last comment: Yes, I use guns for hunting, yes I have pistols in my castle for self defense. Neither of those are why I am against any further gun control. I want a gun and I want my 15 round clips because I want them. I do a lot of target shooting and I prefer not to constantly reload. The guns in my house are of no danger whatsoever to my fellow citizens. I have never been arrested, convicted and/or suspected of any crime. I will be a criminal when they want to take my mags away as I will not turn them in or subject myself to any further fingerprinting or registrations. Why is me wanting my guns any different than the homosexual community wanting (and getting) recognized marriage and most recently transgender kids(mainly the parents of said kids) wanting and getting to use any bathroom or locker room of their choosing?
Stated like an unbalanced eight year old.
That adds alot to the discussion. How ’bout this: up your knows with a rubber hose! Now, that’s more one your level BJ..
I stand corrected. An unbalanced five year old.
You sound like one of those over-educated intellectuals that’s on unemployment; and won’t take certain jobs because they’re beneath you.. I hope you don’t have too much student loan debt. Good Luck in all your endeavors..
Wake up America!!!.. those who don”t fight for they’re rights have them taken away by a government run by self righteous demagogs who care nothing for you,… all they really care about is fame and fortune!…Great nations are not destroyed from without, they destroy themselves by forgetting who they’re forefathers were, and why those fathers died…Does anyone one of you remember anything?…The world is full of assholes with guns, there’s plenty of them right here with guns and badges? that doesn’t mean that all of us are money and power hungry! “They can have my guns, if they can find them!”..only fools and dead fools turn them in. First they take your guns, then they take your freedom, then they take everything else! When you good law abiding citizens have no one to protect you but the government, then your world will be complete?…don’t make me puke.