text:
Federal Court Lifts Stay In Maryland Gun Permit Case
State sought delay in implementing ruling that declared Maryland's "good and substantial reason" requirement for a gun permit was unconstitutional.
UPDATED (4:16 p.m.)—A U.S. District Court judge has lifted a stay on a federal court ruling that declared Maryland's permitting process to wear and carry a gun unconstitutional.
The order, issued by Judge Benson Everett Legg, lifts a stay sought by the state as it appeals the decision made last year.
Legg's ruling, which goes into effect in 14 days, lifts the stay sought by the state after a federal court ruled that the law requiring those seeking a permit to carry a gun must have "a good or substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."
David Paulson, a spokesman for Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, said the ruling "is still being reviewed and the state is considering its options."
Opponents called the called the state's permit requirement arbitrary and capricious.
Del. Michael Smigiel, a Cecil County Republican, praised the ruling.
"The state will now have to start following the Constitution," Smigiel said, adding that he believes the timing of the ruling in the wake of the shootings in Aurora, CO will cause some public discussion.
"I expect to see that some people, based on what happened in Aurora, will argue that this is not a good idea," Smigiel said. "Those individuals do not have a full understanding of the facts of what happened in Aurora."
Smigiel said he expects Gansler will appeal Legg's decision to the United States Supreme Court. The delegate said he believes the court will not take up the issue before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals hears the appeal on the lower court ruling.
The state will likely have to file a motion to for a new stay with the Fourth Circuit Court before going to the Supreme Court. Because Legg's order becomes effective in two weeks, that motion would likely be filed before the state police would have to begin considering applications without the a good or substantial reason" requirement.
The suit was filed in July 2010 after Robert Woollard was denied a permit to carry a gun. The federal court ultimately ruled the "good and substantial reason" requirement was unconstitutional and the Maryland State Police were ordered to process Woollard's application without applying that standard.
Stay with Patch for updates on this story.
Nick Z.
1:45 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Brian/Tyler: You need to finish the first sentance
"A U.S. District Court judge has lifted a stay on a federal court ruling that declared Maryland's permitting process to wear and carry a gun [is ...]."
Computer Techy
1:53 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
All law abiding citizens should have a right to carry a gun. Do you think for one second that many of these cowardly criminals roaming the streets would attack people they know that could fight back. A gun is an equalizer. A 5 foot 100 pound women could easily defend herself from a 6'3" 200 pound man trying to attack her. It is also a proven fact that areas that have gun control also have the highest death and crime rates. Look at Chicago, and recently the Colorado shooting at the movie theater. Want to know how to stop a massacre: Surveillance video reveals simple, low-cost solution that works everywhere.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036551_how_to_stop_massacre_video.html#ixzz21Z02f2WC
Michael Brown
9:08 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I guess that means if everybody carries a gun there would be no crime.
Richard Hertz
11:29 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Michael: No, that's not what it means. But it would mean LESS crime.
Are you willing to say we live in a utopia because the state of MD won't allow its citizens to carry concealed guns?
12:05 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
"A 5 foot 100 pound women could easily defend herself from a 6'3" 200 pound man trying to attack her." - Providing she has the proper training and reflexes. It's not a given.
Marje Lentz
8:18 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
What happens when the 6'3 200 pount "man" has his gun too....shoot out at the OK Corrall
Janet Rossiter
9:59 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Just so you know..
As for overall firearm possession, the U.S. again comes in first, with half of all households owning a firearm. Not surprisingly, we lead the list in murder rates.
Crime rate in Canada in 2011 at lowest level since 1972: StatsCan
The stated intent of Canadian firearms laws are to control firearms so as to improve public safety. Have a somewhat limited access to firearms, but are still able to purchase them with relative ease. They must have a firearms license, and firearms fall into one of three categories:
1. Non-Restricted: Long guns with an overall length greater than 26 inches and, if semi-automatic, a barrel which is 18 1/2 inches or longer.
2. Restricted: This includes handguns with barrel lengths greater than 4 inches.
3. Prohibited: These weapons generally cannot be possessed by civilians.
Licensing provisions of the Firearms Act endeavours to ensure proper training and safe storage.
Users must possess a license, called a "possession and acquisition license (PAL)". A firearms safety course must be passed.
I know you will say, "Then move to Canada." Canada only ranks 2nd in murders per capita behind the US. There are at least 18 other countries with lower murder rates. The point is as a nation we need to do more to "insure domestic tranquility," and protect our children and ourselves.
Old Gris
11:54 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
@Janet.... you fail to state that the murder rate you talk about is mostly due to "ILLEGAL FIREARMS" in the hands of criminals, drug dealers and the like and does not have anything to do with the LEGAL firearms owned by gun owners in this country....
If you were to do your homework and look at the research you would see that states that have a shall issue concealed carry permit law have a lower crime rate than states that have restrictive carry laws (i.e. Maryland and Illinois)....
You also speak of murder rates in other countries... you don't state that most of those murders were committed with ILLEGAL firearms....
If a criminal wants a firearm he is going to get one... somewhere, some how...
C Russell
11:54 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
As usual, the gun restriction advocates like Janet Rossiter have their facts completely wrong. According to the latest statistics, the US ranks 35th worldwide in intentional homicides per capita. Canada ranks 46th. Switzerland, which requires EVERY adult to own a firearm does not even make the list of the top 60 countries. By state, we find the same principle at work. States with the most restrictive gun controls have higher murder rates than state with right-to-carry laws. We need to stop blaming inanimate objects for the depravity of certain humans. Society is responsible for the morals we permit. Guns have nothing to do with it.
Data source for the above can be found at ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
1:21 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
"I guess that means if everybody carries a gun there would be no crime."
Ignorance is bliss eh Michael? That straw man will never fly.
If you do not want to carry a firearm don't. I respect your decision. Respect the decisions of others as you want them to respect yours.
1:22 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Joan Hamilton "Providing she has the proper training and reflexes. It's not a given."
Anyone who would own and carry a firearm without any training or much practice at a gun range is a fool. They should not be carrying.
Janet Rossiter
7:56 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Gun violence statistics also may include self-inflicted gunshot wounds (both suicide, attempted suicide and suicide/homicide combinations sometimes seen within families).[5]
The phrase "gun crime" is consistently used by both gun-control and gun-rights policy advocates, with differing emphases: the former group advocates reducing gun violence by enacting and enforcing "sensible regulations" on guns, while the latter group advocates controlling criminals via increased prison terms or other methods.[6][7]
Levels of gun violence vary greatly across the world, with very high rates in Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, South Africa, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Jamaica, as well as high levels in Russia, The Phillipines, Thailand, and some other underdeveloped countries, Levels of gun violence are low in Singapore, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and many other countries.[8] The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime
I believe everyone should make informed decisions and opinions based on facts,
Kevin Harbula
1:09 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
The problem with video survailance is that it can only be helpful after the fact and doesn't save the life of the victim. As long as permits are issued AFTER the carrier qualifies on range, safety and law knowledge on when & where they can use their gun, the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution rights MUST be upheld so we can protect ourselves, loved ones & property. Afterall, aren't we living similar to the old west where the criminals defy & disregard our rights to live ? Also, what if we are attacked by terrorists or other countries, are we going to have to go down to the armory to get guns to protect ourselves? A lot of you out there may think this is a paranoid view of world events but we NEVER thought we would be attacked on 9/11, did we ?
C Russell
9:29 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
And again responding to Janet Rossiter... note that in the wiki article that you referenced, the statement, "The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers" is footnoted to an anti gun book written by Phillip Cook in 2002... an opinion of the author unsupported by any facts within the wiki article. You might also notice that if you sort the table on intentional homicides by the per capita column, that there is absolutely no relationship between countries that permit or do not permit citizens to own guns and the per capita rate of intentional homicides. For example, Switzerland requires every adult to own a gun, and yet has the fourth lowest homicide rate worldwide. Conversely, Latvia, Belarus and Estonia do not allow citizens to own guns, yet have some of the highest homicide rates worldwide. There is a much stronger cultural link to violent crime (of all sorts) than any relationship to gun ownership particularly. The reality is, if people want to hurt each other, they will find a way. That is the problem that needs to be discussed. Why do guys like the Colorado shooter want to hurt people? Solve that problem and guns won't be an issue. It is cultural, sociological, and psychological... and not solvable by legalism. Psychopaths don't really care about the law.
John T.
9:53 am on Thursday, February 7, 2013
Marje. I guess it would be better that only the 6'3" 200lb criminal is the only one that has a gun. I guess that would be better for public safety. Just not for the woman being attacked.
Bill Lawson
2:00 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
If I jump out the 4th story window and commit suicide, who is to blame, the window or me? If I shoot someone with a gun who is to blame the gun or me?
3:21 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Psst, if you didn't have a gun you wouldn't have shot anyone.
Also, you should live on the first floor apparently.
Ann Miller
4:49 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
FIFA, if he didn't have the gun he'd have jumped out the window. Not shooting someone doesn't equate to not killing someone. Now you want to regulate what floor of a building someone can live on? What idiocy.
Computer Techy is absolutely right. As a 5'3" woman, I cling to my right to bear arms. Any woman who thinks she's safer with gun control than with The Great Equalizer in her purse is sorrily mistaken.
Bravo to Judge Legg and hurray for Maryland and the Constitution!
4:59 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ms. Miller, ma'am, did you even read the post to which I was replying?
Instead you go off on some rant. If you were confronted by someone with a gun, you would freeze, guaranteed. By the time you made the decision to pull a trigger you would have several holes in you.
"Happiness is a warm gun", The Beatles I believe.
Ann Miller
6:19 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
FIFA, you make a lot of erroneous assumptions. If I had a gun and was confronted with a criminal with a gun, I may not have to shoot at all. By your own logic, once the perpetrator sees I'm carrying, he may freeze too. Who knows? I'd rather have the deterrent and the option than have the government tell me I am not allowed the option. It's like saying I shouldn't take karate because if I choose to fight back against an attacker, I might get hurt worse; so eliminate it as an option.
In fact, if a criminal high on drugs shoots at someone, there is a good likelihood he'd miss. A surprising percentage of shots never hit their target. But this ridiculous argument of why citizens should not be allowed to carry guns is not germane to the conversation.
It's not up to the government or you to determine whether I can carry. It's a right guaranteed me in the constitution. For reasons of personal protection and the maintenance of liberty against tyranny. I haven't heard one good reason in this string for gun control.
6:36 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ms. Miller, ma"am, you are so naive! If the gunman has pulled a gun on you, what do you think you are, quick draw McGraw? Reach for a gun and you are dead, d e a d, dead. You watch too many movies, na'am.
Richard Hertz
11:32 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
FIFA: given the situation where a gunman approaches you with a gun drawn, would you rather have a gun on you or not?
Most criminals don't practice shooting. I do. Given the choice, I'd much rather have the gun on me...maybe I don't get the chance to use it...but I'd like to at least have the chance.
12:10 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
"The Great Equalizer"? I hate to break this to you but it takes more than a gun in a purse to be equal,
B Allen
7:42 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
FIFA posts nonesense on every article that is posted here on the Patch. He and others like him, i.e. Frank, jag, Paul (saul alinsky wannabe), to name a couple NEVER have ANY facts or figures. They just throw out comments, call people names, try to agitate and create hostility, just as good little comrad community organizers do according to Saul Alinskys' rules for radicals, but have to do it here. I would LOVE to see FIFA or his buddies try to sneak up on a 5', 100lb woman that has been armed and trained to use the weapon properly...wonder who would be left standing. These people try to make you think that those who carry weapons are going to use them for no reason. Most that use them are ones that are NOT trained and use them only to committ crimes. I apprehended a person trying to rob my parents house once and did it with my bare hand. that was a few yrs ago when many criminals robbing homes did not carry weapons. Well, if someone tries to rob my home today, well lets just say I would save the taxpayers a lot of money having to prosecute the person(s). FIFA and his lib buddies have no respect for themselves, they continue to make themselves look like fools with their comments.
Paul Amirault
2:12 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
All Right,
Welcome to the Wild Wild West. Road rage will have a "hole" new meaning.
The problem with gun control is that it has never existed. You could always find a place to buy a gun in the US if you wanted.
It is also a proven fact that areas with gun control have the most roads, most traffic, and the most people per capita as well.
I am looking forward to the first documented shoot-out in a movie theater or a bar.
I still want my 50 caliber machine gun mounted on a turret on my truck.
2:29 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Paul, do you look forward to multi-fatality car crashes as well? You are driving a truck you claim and we know driving a vehicle is one of the most dangerous things you can do in America, far more dangerous than owning a firearm.
Paul Amirault
2:53 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
James ???, define "far more dangerous", please start by comparing all fatalities from guns and automobiles.
Second, you missed the sarcasm, but it will happen.
2:56 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Why, then, aren't there document shoot-outs happening in movie theaters in every state that has concealed carry permit holders?
H.R. Pufnstuf
3:07 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Paul, you are entitled to your own opinion but your own facts. Gun control has exists everywhere in America, and in fact a permit to carry is a form of gun control. Please learn the facts before typing any more falsehoods.
Paul Amirault
3:09 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The theater in Aurura had a no carry policy. The concept of everyone carrying a gun is a relative new idea. How many innocent people would you have shot in that theater. A guy carrying an assault rifle, full body armor, in the dark you would have taken on, get real. Do you remember the LA bank robbers who took to the streets killing cops while wearing full body armor? They went on a terror run for an hour against the police.
Paul Bowling
3:25 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Paul A.
In areas where concealed carry is permitted there isn't the "road rage" you speak of. Look at large metro areas such as Huston, TX, Dallas - Ft. Worth, Miami, Dade County, etc. the road rage shootings just aren't there!! OTOH, look at PGCO where there have been shoot outs on the beltway, Rt. 202 and others in the Landover, Lanham, Seat Pleasant and other areas.
The facts just do not back up your concerns. In fact, in areas where concealed carry is legal there is LESS crime.
There are a great number of myths around firearms, including the number of rounds fired, "automatic" firearms, and many others. What intelligent people need to do is to educate themselves about firearms. Take a Home Firearm Safety Class or similar course. I think you'll learn more than you every thought possible. Find a friend, co-worker or family member who is a firearm owner and is willing to take you shooting.
Who knows, you may learn something and have some fun.
H.R. Pufnstuf
3:29 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
"The concept of everyone carrying a gun is a relative new idea"
So new, in fact, you just made it up. No one is talking about "everyone carrying a gun". Again, you type falsehoods.
Paul Amirault
3:45 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
H.R. Your nances are noted and ignored as well as your scolding. Even you can see I am talking about handguns. Learn to comprehend before you puff.
Paul Amirault
3:57 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I giggle at you Paul B. with your assumptions about me. I was a member of the Junior NRA in the sixties and I am qualified as an expert firing a M-16 in the military. I have fired 50 caliber machine guns and grenade launchers. I understand weapons more than most of the gung-ho wannabe heroes that post here.
I don't need your proposed "classes". You are welcome.
H.R. Pufnstuf
4:03 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Paul, saying 'everyone carrying a gun' is not a nuance. It's a false flag.
Ann Miller
5:00 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Paul A.,
Gun control indeed exists - the problem is it only applies to law abiding citizens. Those who would commit a felony with a gun also have no problem ignoring gun control laws as well. you are correct that they can get guns anywhere; it's the rest of us who can't get them.
Your point about states with gun control having more population (let's assume that's a true statement) isn't the important statistic. What would be meaningful is how many of them carry guns as opposed to the number of people who carry where there are looser gun control standards and still very little gun violence and lower assaults. I contend many more people carry legally in those states than those carrying illegally in gun control states and brazenly doing all the violent crime.
Jennell Connelly
5:47 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Paul B., You state "In areas where concealed carry is permitted there isn't the "road rage" you speak of. Look at large metro areas such as Huston, TX, Dallas - Ft. Worth, Miami, Dade County, etc. the road rage shootings just aren't there!!" I was wondering where you are getting statistics for this. I have family in both the Houston area, and the Miami area, and both have warned me to be careful when visiting and driving around there particularly because of gun violence related to road rage. And when googling those two places, it does seem that guns are involved in road rage there, most recent being Denver Broncos Dumervil. So do you have statistics to back this up, or is it just that you don't live in these areas and don't really have any idea what is going on there? Here is even a link http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Hundreds-of-accidents-blamed-on-Houston-road-rage-3721059.php that claims that "From fender benders to fatalities, from fists flying to guns blazing, enraged drivers in the greater Houston area have caused more than 900 motor vehicle accidents that injured hundreds and killed five over the last five years, according to crash data from the Texas Department of Transportation."
Buck Harmon
6:02 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I realize that this video is kinda long...but it would seem that you lack proper education with regard to gun control Paul.....this is my effort to assist you..please watch
Buck Harmon
6:05 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The odds of being killed in an auto accident are far greater than being killed with a gun....common sense.. no brainer..
Buck Harmon
6:09 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
One more time for Paul....If you are wearing full body armour and you are shot with a 45 it will knock you on your ass and do some damage to your body...even the best armour. The guy that shot up the theater had the cheep stuff as well..
Paul Bowling
6:13 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
RE: Jennell Connelly
It isn't greater there (where they allow legal concealed carry) than in areas where there is NOT concealed carry. That was actually my point. There is highway stupidity everywhere. I've seen fist, cinder blocks, bricks, bats, balls, and many other items used in road rage episodes.
Other Tim
7:12 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Paul, to answer your question to James:
32,788 people killed in automobile accidents (2010, CNN)
11,493 people killed by firearm (2010, CDC)
de. nielson
10:43 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ann Miller i applaud you "Gun control indeed exists - the problem is it only applies to law abiding citizens." anyone can get a gun and you could have no right to defend yourself ! are you kidding me
Old Gaffer
7:26 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Paul Amirault wrote " The concept of everyone carrying a gun is a relative new idea.
Actually Paul, the idea of going around UNarmed is a relatively new idea. I clearly recall watching the Johnny Carson Show (about 45 years ago) when he had on a man who was, at the time, the oldest living Texas Ranger. This gentleman recalled his days in the early 20th century when EVERYONE, man and woman carried a firearm of some sort. Most men (he said) had two handguns, a Monday through Saturday work gun, and a Saturday night going to the dance/Sunday going to church gun. And everyone was a lot more polite.
Imagine that...
[in case you can't tell, I'm totally pro-gun]
Henry Chinery
6:10 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Every time a Shall Issue law is passed the same old tired arguments come out. "There will be shootouts over traffic accidents! There will be blood running in the streets!" And every time the same thing happens starting with Florida in '87, violent crime goes down. There is no "Blood running in the Streets" or "shootouts over traffic accidents." Gun control works as well as Prohibition and the "War on Drugs" Anytime you make what people want illegal, a black market will start up and the real bloodbath begins. Granny gets killed because the SWAT team got the address wrong and they thought she had a gun when they busted in her door at 5 am on a No-Knock" warrant.
Anneka Jameson
2:28 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Great news that someone somewhere is going to have a fit over. Me, I'm working through the permit application.
Frank in Elkridge
2:29 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Look for Aurora, Columbine, and Virginia Tech massacres to come to Maryland now.
2:57 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Which one of those was caused by a person with a concealed carry permit?
Richard S*****r
3:28 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Wow...where to start. Hmm....
1.) You are psycho. I will have no remorse for you if vanish from this earth. You are pathetic and disrespectful to those people who died in those incidents.
2.) Is this your prediction? Are you hinting that you are on the verge of doing something crazy like a mass killing? In that case this is me officially throwing the red flag and requesting you to be under surveillance, arrested and locked away for the rest of your life.
3.) You are irrational and possibly an idiot. With your assumed logic everyone will be carrying a gun and life will Grand Theft Auto real life style...
4.) The only additional people to acquire a CCP now will be honest citizens that want to protect themselves from the people who already have a gun and didn't acquire it through the legal avenues.
Paul Bowling
3:29 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Or look at the Law School in Virginia several years ago when an attach was stopped because of a student with a concealed carry and the ability to have it on the premises.
Many more violent crimes are stopped by firearm owners than published. We see only a very, very few of the positive results. The media likes the negative results because good news doesn't sell only bad news and sensationalism.
Jim O'Hara
7:19 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Did any of the shooters in the massacres you mentioned have a concealed carry permit? No. Did anyone who was killed in those shootings have a permit and weapon with them to defend themselves? No. If the scumbags you mentioned had gotten in a huge SUV and driven into a crowd waiting in line outside a movie theater, would the SUV be to blame for the people killed? No.
Richard Hertz
11:37 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Frank: get real. Please show us all the list of criminal activities committed by people legally carrying concealed weapons.
Perhaps it would be easier for you to generate a list of crimes that were PREVENTED by people legally carrying concealed weapons.
Henry Chinery
6:18 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
All of which occurred in places where legally armed people were required to disarm, Gun free zones AKA unopposed killing zones. They go where they are least likely to be met with resistance. Why do you think they don't go into police stations at shift change to get a high body count. Most don't fear dying, they are usually suicidal. What they do fear is failing to get a higher body count than the last coward and armed resistance from the intended victims is the most likely cause of that failure. They are counting on walking through shooting cowering people. It's hard for them to do that when they are dodging or getting hit by bullets.
2:42 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The more guns you introduce to a situation, the more things are likely to escalate. Guns suck.
Richard S*****r
3:05 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Lawyer33838 could be my best friend. Not afraid to say what he is thinking. If only more of us were like that.
RW Willy
4:22 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Guns are one of the reasons women got the right to vote.
You know, you maybe right!
Richard Hertz
11:42 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
No Sandy, people that can't think beyond the liberal news they see on TV suck. You have a brain...it's time you put it to some use.
Tell me, when something goes wrong who do most people call? The police...or as I like to say, people with guns.
If you can take a minute and think for yourself, imagine that 20% of the people in the Aurora theater were carrying concealed weapons...do you think that nutjob would have been able to kill and injure as many as he did?
2:48 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
If you don't like guns then don't get one, but don't try and take away my right to have one. I seriously wish I would have had one when that jerk tried to carjack me.
3:10 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Really? Because he had it out and was pointing at me. Unfortunately for him, my car was bigger.
3:18 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
If you reached for your gun, he would have shot you.
3:39 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I'm going to just guess that if you have a gun, but you already have one pointing right at you...it's already too late for you.
3:42 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Just like he could have shot me when I dropped it into first gear and floored the car at him. He *could* have shot me at any time... the time it took to me to put the car into gear and run him down wasn't really any faster than pulling a gun out and shooting him would have been.
3:47 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ashley, indeed he could have. You took that risk by doing so. I'm sincerely glad it worked out for you.
The reality is, most thieves don't actually WANT to murder you. They just want to use a gun to seperate you from what you have. When people shoot others, its typically for personal reasons.
3:55 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Absolutely Tim, I just think it should at least be an even playing field.
I'm also glad it panned out the way it did as I knew I was taking a risk, but I will be damned if I'm going to let some little POS take my hard earned things that easily.
4:21 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Well, Ashley, here's the thing. If you're dead, you have no more things - and you have loads of people - family, friends that'll no longer have you in their lives.
Sharon tringali
4:23 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Woman need the right to carry. I am a gun owner and target practice at a range with other responsible guns owners, many of whom are woman. I am in agreement that crime would go down because currently it is criminals who carry, not law abiding citizens.
4:58 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
That's true, but we're all going to die one day. I have a healthy fear of things, but by no means do I let that fear rule my life. I would rather go down standing up for what is right than run away in fear and let the bad guys win.
Buck Harmon
6:16 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Another dumb statement Paul A. come on, you can do better...
7:41 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Sharon: I do agree with you. Are their actual regulations that make it difficult for women to acquire weapons or the concealed permit for them?
2:54 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
It's also a proven fact that areas where CCW is legal have lower violent crime rates, than those without.
Paul Amirault
3:03 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I love the words "proven fact". Where do concealed weapons laws exist? Not in cities. Where do most murders occur, in cities where one party knows the other. Poor correlation.
Paul Bowling
3:35 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Paul A.
CCW laws are STATE laws not county or city laws. In states with CCW laws it is LEGAL to carry in urban as well as suburban and rural areas. I have a CCW and have carried in many major cities. In fact there are cities I won't visit with carrying, Atlanta is at the top of my list. Likewise, there are cities I won't visit because the there are not CCW laws in the state, i.e. NYC - I'll go for a few hours, get my business done and I'm out of there. There are NJ cities like Camden that I will not visit under any circumstances.
3:45 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
PAul B. You sound like you are afraid of your own shadow. Camden has one of the nicest Aquariums on the East Coast.
Richard Hertz
11:43 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Nice job Paul...it's now a proven fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Richard S*****r
2:58 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
If I understand some of the peoples thought process here, It is OK to kill someone with a 3,000lb car but not a gun. Got it just checking.
sal grifasi
3:00 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A quote from a man I and many Real Americans respect:
" No free man shall be disbarred (stopped from) the use of arms.The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
This action by the state of Maryland is an act of tyranny
3:16 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Glad you listen to people who lived 300 years ago in a different world. Yes, you are listening to 300 year old ghosts.
3:42 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Pretty much agree with FIFA on this point. They lived in a different world.
People in America today have no freaking idea what tyranny is. This is the single most pampered and self entitled country in the history of mankind.
RW Willy
4:28 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
But the people of Syria and Libya do. If they were armed sooner the revolt would have been faster and less bloody. Their government beat them down with force until the people could take it no more. Then the common soilder turned the tide. Learn from history, that 300 yr old ghost knew more about this world then you could ever understand.
Ann Miller
5:11 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Tim, we don't know tyranny because of those 225 year old ghosts. And now you dismiss them as immaterial. You are an ungrateful fool.
This country has only known gun control laws for a few decades. And in a few more decades, in the direction we are currently heading, we may again know tyranny if we listen to fools like you.
5:30 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Past, Ann, the guns they had shot one round and took minutes to reload. In case you forgot. But you sound so smart, you are not.
11:48 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Completely false. This country is where it is today from a quality of life standpoint due to the ingenuity and hard work of our grandparents and great grandparents, not the founding fathers of the 18th century.
bone up on your history, maybe your next comment won't include insults in absence of intellectual thought.
Are you honestly trying to draw direct parallels between non-Democratic societies, and actual Democracies? Really?
Adam R
3:07 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Personally I don't care what you conceal on your body or in your property, but if a gun ever gets pointed in my direction I would suggest you shoot quickly and decisively. Any thing less than that will turn me in a raging animal and I am not sure what will happen to ya.
Also to say having a gun on ones person in the Aurora tragedy would have been able to make one a hero is sensationalism. I don't know how many rounds he shot after the smoke he let off in the theater but I suspect a trained FBI Agent would not have been able to fend off a machine gun methodically spraying bullets into the crowd. You can't plan for these tragic events and there is not much anyone can do to prevent them, or during the course of action. Duck and cover is the order of the day. This guy was and is a nut job! No offense to the rest of the nuts out there.
Paul Bowling
3:41 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Adam R.
You may be correct in your assumption of not being able to neutralize the threat, but you have at least one "fact" wrong. The "machine" gun was a semi-automatic, in other words, he had to pull the trigger for each round shot.
Adam R
4:48 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Paul, Thanks for the heads up on the weapon the nut chose. Doesn't matter he had total surprise shooting up at sitting defenseless popcorn eating movie goers.
No one would have been able to do a damn thing to save those people, Orange head had this planned out.
Ann Miller
9:29 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Frank, if you were one of the other 740, it should make you feel safer.
All your arguments surround around the idea that's it's futile to fight back against someone with a gun. So none of us should be allowed to try. What would you have done in the theater Frank, call 911 on your cell phone?
H.R. Pufnstuf
3:10 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Most gun violence is becasue drugs are illegal. When you are running a drug business, you can't call your attorney when you have a dispute. You need to muscle up. One direct consequence of the war on drugs is gun violence.
Paul Amirault
3:11 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I can see this thread going viral and back to the 2nd amendment debate.
Paul Bowling
3:43 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Paul A.
Not one time have I mentioned "gun rights", second amendment in my conversations. But in fact, that is what the article in the Patch is about!
3:16 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I am a gun owner. I go to the range to shoot. My guns are for home defence. If you look at the Baltimore beltway you will see men and women driving and texting with their children in the cart--BAD DECISIONS DAILY. If you check the police records you will see hundreds of people arrested weekly for drunk and disorderly and DWI-----BAD DECISIONS DAILY. Do you really want to arm all of these incompetents? Any gun carry permit process should require the same training process required by the police. Including the physical requirements. Otherwise, you may tap someone on the shoulder while they are changing a tire to offer your help, and get your hear blown off. Training is mandatory.
Richard S*****r
3:41 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
So in general your opposition is based on the idea that everyone is an idiot. That actually is hard to argue with... Yes training should be mandatory. I agree!
3:43 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Yep, and as I mentioned in the second amendment thread, I am ALL for home defense by whatever means the home owner deems neccessary.
Larry here strikes me as an actual, responsible gun owner.
Richard S*****r
3:51 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Responsible, that is a dangerous word in today's world. No one takes responsibility... I am right there with you Larry.
3:43 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I took a CCW class in Harford County tough by a man named David Couto at World Investigative Services Inc. I highly recommend them even if you do not carry a weapon. -SL
Bob Cross
3:45 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
@FIFA- That "ghost" from 300 years ago also helped write the other 9 Amendments too; and all of them are still revelant today.
Richard S*****r
3:53 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
FIFA, might be a terrorist. Judging by his disrespect of the patriots who started this country. Or he is brainwashed... Zombie!?!
4:05 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Mr. Cross, sir,
That perfect document was amended 10 times out of the gate. That perfect document has been amended over 20+ times. That perfect document allowed ownership of slaves. That perfect document did not give women the right to vote. That is a 300+ year old "perfect" document, sir.
Buck Harmon
6:25 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
FIFA...I can understand why you are afraid to use your real name...your comments are shoot from the hip baloney... consistant baloney though..
RW Willy
6:57 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
That is exactly what makes it perfect. They gave it ability to be amended. They knew it would need to be adapted. But the basic tenents are perfect.
3:56 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Look at states that have gun laws that meet the rights the constitution gives us. Lower crime rates. Also people with any criminal charges will not be issued a carry permit. Maryland is way behind and needs to realize what's fair for people to defend their selves. I carry everyday no matter what. I will not be a victim. I'm trained and continue to train. Not just shooting but also decision making. You don't have long to think if you decide to pull. Just make sure you understand the law so you don't find yourself in a jail cell next to the criminal you were trying to protect yourself from.
4:09 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
There is no correlation between gun control (or lack thereof ) and crime.
Jim Jones
4:15 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I am not opposed to making it easier for law abiding citizens to carry. However, like some have pointed out, I don't want every single person carrying a loaded firearm in public. I will admit i don't keep up on the laws in the free to carry states. Perhaps someone can elaborate or if there ae any restrictions on carrying. For example, police officers are "not supposed" to carry while drinking. Does this same rule apply for joe citizen??? Like I said, I am not familiar with the laws but am open to any info people have so I can learn more.
Bill Lawson
4:22 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A carry permit is not a license to be stupid. If you are drinking, you cannot carry. The same as driving, you can not drive while drunk.
7:30 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
In most states, you may not carry a weapon into a courthouse, school campus during school hours or school related activities, detention facility, or a public mental health facility. Some states do not allow carrying in religious buildings (churches, etc.), polling places on election day, legal gambling parlors, and government buildings. A few states do not allow carrying into a bank, on a train (Montana), child care facility, sports arena during an event, Public buses, tribal land (New Mexico), and state parks. Almost all states allow private property owners to restrict the carrying of weapons on their property. And, as stated above, weapons may not be carried in businesses that serve alcohol.
Greg Redmer
4:30 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
All the rhetoric aside , the state police and moreso the attorney general's office has abused the permit process for years. Curran made "decisions" that were followed by the MSP that were incredibly anti-gun and overturned by the Handgun Permit Review Board and the courts many times. A MSP investigator testified at one point that there was no more need to have a handgun in Baltimore City than Cecil County. The state's rules were unfair and finally found by the federal courts to be so. I have dozens of examples.....
4:44 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Open carry laws are the best. That way it is a deterant against crime. Everyone can see you have it. Look into Virginia's open carry laws. It makes sense.
j hall
5:18 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I love it. Seems our 2nd ammendment rights are saved for now. Good job pro gun people and the NRA
7:41 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The NRA didn't have anything to do with it. They were actually counter productive in the case.
Hazzard Native
5:37 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The SCOTUS decision will not magically allow everyone to get a permit, it only makes Maryland remove from its permitting process the language that states that an applicant has to show a need to carry. There will still be a permitting process that scrutinizes applicants for criminal activity and mental health issues.
Jim Davis
5:56 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
In Maryland even open carry has been against the law and until new procedures are written probably still is. The beauty of CCW is just that. It is concealed and therefore presents an unknown factor to the bad guy - he just doesn't know any more than anyone else. The courts have held that there are valid reasons to restrict possession/carry authority. Amongst these are common sense things such as felony conviction, drug use, alcoholism, spousal abuse and some citizenship issues to name a few. In fact these reasons are valid to prohibit even having a gun in your own home or borrowing one for use in a legitimate sport.
As to actually carrying, other than to a police officer, the last thing I would do is advertise. I don't want others to know and they have no need to know.
Do I feel safer in a state with CCW - yes, would an armed citizen have been of much use in Colorado - probably not, but in daylight or an area with lights - yes.
Will I apply - I won't say, but I am a retired soldier who has been on both sides of the muzzle and knows what it is like to get shot at and return fire.
Richard S*****r
6:03 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Thanks Jim Davis for your service. At this moment I want to thank you though for showing that unlike many a little though and honesty goes a long way. Much respect brother.
Buck Harmon
6:22 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Accurate history of gun control...check it out before you spout...
Buck Harmon
6:35 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
FIFA, Your comments are no longer valid...if you would take the time to watch this video you might gain some education of the topic. Until you have educated yourself and have the courage to use a real name your done...
6:48 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I see Buckaroo, only if someone disagrees with your opinion do you care about "who" they are? Take you tube and put it next to conservapedia on your shelf
Buck Harmon
7:04 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Fear of learning the truth must parallel fear of using your real name FIFA...your statements are discounted as a result and you are through...sad but true.
Mocking my real name is clearly a sign of your worth to this topic....none at all..
Keep tryin though ...
7:16 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
ROTFLMAO That was one of the best laughs I had all day. The same group of nut cases also produce the Gran'pa Jack series of comic books for kids with titles such as "Gun Control Kills Kids" and "The United Nations is Killing Your Freedoms"
Fringe Kookery.
Buck Harmon
11:38 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Frank...I post these easy to comprehend and factual video's for guys like you, that seem to be uneducated regarding this topic. The simple and easy to understand format was designed for slow learners...watch is several times if you are having trouble understanding the truth....you have surrendered to this topic as well, another no name bites the dust.
1:56 pm on Saturday, July 28, 2012
Wow, that was a powerful piece! I watched the entire video and what the average citizen does not want is a government that can do what ever it wants to do. Arm the populace and keep the government in check. Maryland sort of sounded like the brutal regimes with the handgun (and selected other firearms) registration. They know who has handguns (and selected other firearms) if ever the shtf. Makes me hold on to my firearms just a little tighter.
Paul Amirault
6:40 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
@Buck-just because someone disagrees with your chicken in every pot and a gun on every hip does not mean our opinions are not well thought out just because they disagree with your wild west opinions.
Disrespect is just that and so noted.
Buck Harmon
6:58 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Paul, I have always respected you sound opinions but when you make false statements regarding such an important topic I consider that disrespect for the truth as well...please educate yourself before spouting..
Paul Amirault
7:36 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Buck, education is not something I'm short of. Don't try to go there again please, it will then be disrespectful from me as well. What you call false statements I call your opinion. What you call facts I call that's your opinion.
Let's agree to leave it at that.
6:46 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Hey Steve ,FIFA us Birthers are going to be carrying guns ! Look on the bright side the democratic vote count will go up when we defend ourselves and all those criminals go to jail or worse.
6:47 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Great what are Christian Soldiers hours? They should plan on working overtime .
7:06 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Christian Soldiers have hours? I thought they were fighting Satan 24/7.
Paul Amirault
6:56 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
100+comments later, this is a "dead" horse and the thread is the same.
H.R. Pufnstuf
7:29 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
And your numerous comments have added exactly nothing, Paul. Many of your comments actually spread falsehoods (there's no such thing as gun control, a gun on every hip and other such nonsense).
Other Tim
7:17 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
This thread has only been up for 5 hours and it already has 118 comments. Forgive me if this has already been brought up (didn't have time to read all 118 posts) but just before this thread was posted, there was another about a man who stabbed his friend to death.
I guess it's true. Guns don't kill people, knives do.
Ann Miller
8:30 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Agreed Other Tim. In almost every household in the nation, there's a set of deadly weapons in the kitchen called a knife block, even accessible to children. Why haven't we all gone wild west stabbing each other, save for a select few criminals? Shouldn't we have knife control?
Other Tim
7:24 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
On WBAL radio the other day, C4 (Clarence Mitchell IV, a former state delegate, for those who don't listen), said at the time he was involved in Baltimore City politics, there were 650,000 people living in Baltimore City, and 200,000 illegal guns.
Ron Smith, of the same station, once said 'Let's outlaw guns. Look how well it worked with drugs."
Gun control only affects the law abiding citizen. The ones who will use guns for illegal purposes will obviosly pay no attention to gun laws, no matter how many are enacted.
Thomm Remaley
7:40 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Does anyone actually read the Second Ammendment? Why does the part about a well armed militia get dropped from the discussion? And I don't just mean the circle jerk that's trying to pass for a discussion here. The Supreme's 5 mental midgets dropped, too. There was little to no standing army when the Ammendment was written. A militia was necessary to defend the country, not defend the citizens from the country. Ergo the right to bear arms is entirely within the context of having armed citizens available to defend against invasion. See the War of 1812 as the only example actually waged by the Founding Fathers. There hasn't been use of militia to wage war in over 100 years, so the Ammendment is now moot and being retroactively reinterpreted to create an individual right. I won't comment on the efficacy of gun control or concealed carry, as both side have plenty of spin for that, but I am highly amused by the irony of the Original Intent crowd so joyously creating this nonexistent individual right like they had fallen in love with a penumbra.
Safety first
8:14 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
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.
8:15 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I have read it, and done a lot of research on just what the framers intended when the amendment was written. My opinion after much reading and thinking is that we have a right to own and carry weapons (of the sort that would be used for self-defense). However, I can also see the validity of the argument on other side of this debate. I do not think that people who think differently from me on this issue are "mental midgets," nor do I think they are stupid, misinformed, cowards, or uneducated. Calling Supreme Court Justices mental midgets (I assume you are speaking to the Heller decision?) only weakens your points.
Ann Miller
8:46 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Thomm, not only did the colonists require guns for survival to hunt and defend themselves against indians, wild animals and other dangers, but in addition, they saw the need to have a militia of citizens. Remember, the militia was not army, it was local organizations of citizens. One of their most important fights was against the British army - their own government. Firearms were so essential to their lifestyle, they didn't have to mention the need for it specifically on an individual basis, even though they do: "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". They wanted to also address the necessity for citizens to be armed to prevent a tyrannical government: "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". They addressed both. But each on its own amply justifies the freedom.
Richard S*****r
9:50 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Just to piss off frank I will go and get a ccw now...
Old Gaffer
1:47 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Actually, the Governor of Maryland called up a militia in 1942, confident that the citizens of MD would be able to supply their own arms and ammunition because, due to wartime shortages, the State wold be unable to supply them. This is a matter of public record - feel free to look it up.
8:07 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
You are in a State being run by Liberals which, like Obama, make their own rules to satisfy their own interest.They have no regard for Federal or State Constitutions that supposedly protect your Rights.And Remaley,when the Law cannot protect its Citizens,they have every right to defend themselves with any means they have to do it.
11:36 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
LOL Darrell. As if the Republicans have been looking out for your best interests.
They've been destroying your paycheck for decades now federally speaking.
Both parties. Terrible.
Richard S*****r
9:52 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I am willing to bet Frank is the type of person who is entitled to the space around him... Who drives a prius and is more then likely one of the people who cut me off daily while driving...
Chet Brewer
8:13 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
For all the folks who like the idea of concealed carry laws please explain the following:
1. 13/16 states with the highest per capita murder rates have very liberal concealed carry laws including the murder capital Louisiana.
2.21/22 states with the highest death rates by gunfire have very liberal concealed carry laws.
Based on this please tell me how folks are safer. I have weapons around the house, i know how to use them, i shot competitively for many years and have gone thru some of the shooting houses so know how I react to stress with a weapon. so how does allowing every tom, dick, and harry who hasnt committed a crime and has taken a 40 hour class a good thing for the society.
A shotgun around the house is one thing, everyone running around with 9mm is another thing imho.
Ann Miller
8:59 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Chet, your stats (assuming they are accurate) are backward. They look at murderous states and ask why guns permits have not solved the problem. Then you take that and twist it to say gun permits caused the problem.
If you want to look at whether gun permits cause the problem, you look at the states with loose gun control and then look at the murder/violence stats. When you do that, the numbers show that violence is lower in those states overall. Just because gun permits don't solve violence doesn't mean they cause it. Indeed, who's to say gun permits haven't deterred even worse stats in those violent states?
Further, if you look at the least violent states, they show the loosest gun control laws. Does that mean gun permits prevent violence (by your twisted logic it would)? Not necessarily, but they don't cause it.
Chet Brewer
9:46 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Evets, alabama is pretty darn liberal, county sheriff issues permits, it is restricted to alabama residents though, I missed Illinois, I had md, De, and CA.
14/16 number might have something to do with population density, only dense state on there is HI. Just guessing looking at the list
It is a heck of a lot harder to get a drivers license in MD then it is to get a gun permit in a lot of states, so whats your point. I'm going thru that with my kids now
I am generally against liberal CCW just because of the lack of training required. If the licensing was half as stringent as a drivers license I would be less worried.
10:33 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Chet - won't argue with your last point. CCW permits probably should be available, but with some real training involved.
Richard Hertz
11:50 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
If you people knew just how poorly most COPS shoot, you might change your tune about CCW. Some of you seem to think that just because they have a uniform and a gun that they know how to handle a weapon. Luckily for the unskilled cops, criminals are just as bad.
I know from experience that the vast majority of cops rarely practice beyond the 50 rounds required per year. All the CCW holders I know in PA and VA can easily outshoot 99% of cops out there. Most CCW holders practice often, certainly more often than cops.
Chet Brewer
8:14 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
so how does allowing every tom, dick, and harry who hasnt committed a crime and has taken a 40 hour class carrying a handgun a good thing for the society.
sorry typing too fast
11:50 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
It does happen. One 71 year old stopped an attempted armed robbery 13 July 2012 in Florida.
Do you know whether the armed citizens in Tucson did not use their weapons because the circumstances would have created more not less chaos? So did they nearly do something, or did they demonstrate responsibility? Your example is a better argument for concealed carry than against it.
6:37 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
So to paraphrase; your argument against concealed carry boils down to your opinion that everyone who wants to have a permit dreams of stopping a mass murder, but when an event happens they do not act.
No the example I gave was not a planned mass murder like Aurora, it was an armed robbery, however a citizen with his firearm used properly prevented loss of property. We will never know if his action truly saved any lives because the criminal act was interrupted and the perpetrators sent running. It is possible those criminals could have shot anyone in the place, but we will never know.
Interestingly, because the theater in Aurora was a gun free zone, it appears no one was carrying their CCW in it for self defense either, So you can theorize that had someone had a gun and shot back the tragedy would have been worse, but we will never know. It is equally possible that someone with a CCW at the theater who acted could have saved lives, again we will never know, because we are speaking in the hypothetical.
Bottom line, self defense is a basic human right, and carrying a gun lawfully for self defense doe no harm.
Safety first
11:34 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Frank. Just two weeks ago in Florida a as you call them gun nut stopped a strong arm robbery by two suspects at a senior citizens center. The person who was carrying a legal weapon used that weapon to stop two criminals from doing whatever it was they were going to do with there ILLEGAL guns by pulling his LEAGAL gun and shooting both suspects who then fled for there lives. As for your calling law abiding citizens gun nuts just go's to show how childish your comments are. So now you have been proven wrong just as so many hear have been.
We the people of the USA according to OUR constitution and backed by OUR supreme court have the right to own and bear arms for OUR protection. Just like Obama care and i would think gay marriage would soon be, The debate is over. Get over it.
Dennis Gilpin
8:46 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Chet, I agree with you about putting a gun in a persons hand who isn't properly trained. Sometimes "trying" to get the bad guy can cost the life of an innocent bystander.Lots of responsibility carrying a handgun. I carried a sidearm in the military and know they are not that accurate at a certain distance but still very deadly.
Just think all those who want to carry a sidearm should go through a class with a instructor from a pollice agency. Discharging a firearm without considering the consequences has put many people behind bars for many years. Ruined many lives.
Chet Brewer
9:31 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I would add that they need to go through stress training so they can actually hit what they are shooting at when the adrenaline is pumping and maybe make good decisions with that concealed weapon. While you're at it re qualify annually might not be such a bad idea. I shot a hand gun competitively for a lot of years, not my preferred personal weapon. I am really partial to a 12 Ga with 0 shot, better kill pattern then 00
Ann Miller
9:10 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Because it allows law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against the criminals. In your stats, most gun crimes are committed by criminals against criminals. So having gun control or not doesn't affect those stats. The only stats affected by gun freedom is the ability of lawful citizens to defend themselves against criminals.
Also, it allows citizens to protect themselves from governmental tyranny. You can't wait until we live under a tyrant to then demand the right to carry - too late. In fact, during WWII when the Nazis were invading European countries, one of the last they chose to attack was Switzerland because every adult male was required to have military training and owned a gun. They knew they'd have to fight house-by-house.
Finally, it preserves freedom instead of supporting unnecessary governmental regulation. Why hand over a freedom for no good reason?
Chet Brewer
9:27 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
anne those are just statistics, there is no data to prove or disprove your opinions about who is doing what to whom.
Perhaps they didn't invade Switzerland because they were financing a lot of the Nazi war machine and provided a convenient place for the Nazi's to stash loot, Sweden had very restrictive gun laws but was never invaded either, although Norway was. Were the Nazi's afraid of the swedes pointing their fingers at them and making bang bang noises, or was it the fearsome swedish war machine?
Government tyranny will be prevented by a concealed carry law, you can take you ladies 380 and shoot it out with a soldier with an m16 all day long and you will be a very dead lunatic when they take your gun from your cold dead fingers.
10:11 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
That is the Second most funny thing I read today.
Ann, You really don't have a clue.
Richard S*****r
10:00 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Ann is using what we call logic. Again anyone wanting to tell me what I can and can't do can go fly a kite. Argue all you like, I will still pursue a ccw. Or would you prefer I carry my shotgun around instead?
moe green
9:26 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
It is called the second amendment, not the second suggestion.
11:12 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Why do people need concealed weapons? If they are legal, wear them where they can be seen by everyone.
11:41 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Carrying a weapon for self defense in a concealed manner serves two primary purposes. First it protects the sensitivities of those who feel threatened when weapons are in plain sight, and second, but more importantly it creates an additional calculation that a criminal must make when choosing a victim. Is that 5' 100 pound woman carrying a gun? If so this robbery could go wrong fast. Watch the video in the link to see the positive aspects of a concealed firearm during an attempted robbery in Florida.
Richard Hertz
11:58 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Because having them concealed means the criminals don't know who has one and who doesn't...
6:40 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Brian - using your logic, if a criminal now has to consider that you might have a gun when robbing you and he has his weapon drawn, isn't he more likely to pull the trigger before you get your weapon drawn?
6:53 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Please provide links to the "studies" you refer to.
People Kill People, Not Guns
12:46 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Can you show me these studies? Did you know 95% of published statistics are wrong?
If you missed my sarcasm (giving a statistic on why statistics are wrong) you obviously will miss the purpose of the 2A. Grow up. People kill people, hold them responsible and stop letting these morons out for a "second chance" with peoples lives. That's the true crime, not me carrying my pistol concealed.
6:38 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
If people kill people, why can't you have an automatic AR-15 instead of just a semi-automatic? Why can't you have a tank? How about rocket propelled grenades? Just wondering?
1:59 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
John Rickell:- Thanks for the Link/ Signed-up for Frederick 8-11. Can't hurt to have training, even for a retired old flatfoot !
Molon Labe
7:57 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Get this mess sorted out with your laws then your state needs to honor my PA permit. Get on with it already.
8:43 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
If you actually knew what "Molon Labe" (sic) means in Classical Greek I don't think you would use it as your poster name.
8:19 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
After reading all of this back and forth it is quite obvious that the progressive socialists have found what they think is a local outlet for their frustrations. Maybe they should all make significant contributions to the federal, state and local mental health facilities, to help the lunatics, who believe it's OK to shoot up movie theaters, because mommie and daddy toilet trained them too early. Oh, I forgot they don't donate any of their OWN money to any charities. Guess the rest of us will just have to take care of business as usual.
8:41 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Maybe you should go to the library and get out a book on Socialism. Obviously, you have no idea what it is.
B Allen
11:40 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
Patricia, you are right about these nutjobs. Frankieboy, Stevo, Jag(off), Paul A the Saul Alinsky wannabe wander aimlessly around these half truth articles, written by a bunch of "journalist " wannabees, and try to defend (in their demented minds) the left wing propaganda. I laugh at these people because they continue to make fools of themselves every time they post something. They are just run of the mil stupid political hacks and have no respect for themselves or others. You lib idiots can post whatever you want after this and I know it will not make any sense.STEVieboy, Patricia hit the nail on the head with the socialist label, you are one. Why else would you want to take the weapons from the people, oh yeah, you REALLY think NObamas Socialist, oh wait Communist, buddy Van Jones is going to start his American Fall this year as he is preaching? HAHAHA, I would LOVE to see him come into my neighborhood and try that. I know for a fact he would NEVER make it out.
Kraken Cubwiee
8:22 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
FIFA is quite the village idiot. Uneducated in every facet of what he's trying to express.
10:11 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
What is a Kraken Cubwiee, just a simpleton apparently? Not a single statement of fact just an an attack. Just because someone disagrees with you they are uneducated?
Apparently your dunce cap is wrapped too tight.
Paul duffy
9:26 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
As a concealed carry permit holder you know that I:
-Have gone thought 2 background checks (state and federal)
-have no felony convictions
-do not use drugs
-am not a drunkard
-have no misdemeanor convictions for crimes of violence
-and I have never been involved in a domestic dispute.
What do you know about everyone else out there? Come on people. Concealed carry permit holders are the good guys. This is long over due.
10:10 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Paul: Honest questions:
1) How often is your permit renewed in this fairly extensive manner?
2) If you do violate one of these terms (not sure what "I'm not a drunkard" specifically entails) what happens?
Do you lose your right to carry concealed temporarily? permanently?
9:38 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Alcohol kills more than double the amount of people per year than guns but no one pushing to abolish alcohol are they? All I hear is a bunch of whining from gun haters.
10:08 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
All I hear is baddie statistics taken grossly out of context from most of you.
Alcohol kills more then double the people of guns. OK.
Guess what? At least twice as many people consume alcohol then own guns, so....
10:17 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Oh, and they did abolish alcohol at one point. History showed us how well that worked out.
4:43 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
It's really pointless to argue with people who don't have anything better to do than actually count the words someone else types. The term "frustrated progressive" takes on a whole new meaning. The rest of us don't have a chance with all this intellect thrashing about.
Leslie Schildgen
9:41 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The thought of everyone walking around carrying guns gives me the creeps.
9:46 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I would be more afraid of no one but criminals having guns. Most licensed gun owners are responsible and respect the weapon... how many criminals can that be said for?
Henry Bowman
10:01 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Do you ever travel out of state, specifically to the states contiguous to Maryland?
Statistically, no matter what establishment you go into or what street you walk down, there is someone carrying a handgun lawfully.
10:11 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
It's a fair feeling to have, Leslie.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply operating with a closed mind.
11:55 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Alcohol kills more then double the people of guns. OK.
Guess what? At least twice as many people consume alcohol then own guns, so....
So since twice the amount of people drink makes everything ok.
Idiot quote of the day
12:14 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Eastsider: It doesn't make it OK. Where did I say it did specifically?
My comment simply nullified your argument. It didn't take much.
9:53 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
It doesn't matter. It just takes on split second of carelessness. The odds of something like this happening in Maryland just went up exponentially.
Henry Bowman
9:59 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Too funny....how long did it take you to find an anecdotal example out of the millions of permits to carry a firearm that have been issued nationwide in the last 25 years?
How about checking out the overall statistics for crimes committed or permits revoked for permit holders in Florida and Texas, two states with extremely large amounts of data from which to come to a rational conclusion about the safety and efficacy of citizens carry a firearm for the purposes of self-defense?
10:04 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Henry: I'm not going to argue your point, but why rip someone's view/stastistics and not even provide your own?
10:22 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Because it is a NRA talking point there is no substance behind it. There are no accurate statistics.
Henry Bowman
10:24 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Why Tim,
I'm so glad that you asked.
Of the 63,679 convictions in Texas in 2011, 120 of those were for holders of a CHL (concealed handgun license). This comes out to .1884% of crimes committed.
You can go back 16 years for similar findings:
In 2011, those 120 convictions were out of nearly 144,000 permits issued.
Henry Bowman
10:25 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Hey Steve...really?
You might want to rescind that statement given my previous post.
Now who has no substance?
Henry Bowman
10:34 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Forgot my Florida stats:
A 10-year study found only one Florida homicide was committed by a holder of a license to carry a concealed firearm out of over 350,000 permits issued. During that same time, there were 13,542 homicides committed in Florida.
Kleck, Gary, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997
10:48 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Gary Kleck was debunked a long time ago. The Gun Nuts down in Florida sealed that information last year so there is no way the public can have access to the real stat.
Henry Bowman
11:28 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Oh Steve, Steve, Steve.....
now you're just backpedalling.
Do you want to discuss the Texas statistics then? Is the TX Department of Public Safety an arm of the NRA?
Quit moving the goalposts.
Walter Darnall
9:57 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I sincerely hope the day comes soon when all law-abiding Marylanders will be able to obtain (upon completion of state and federal back ground checks, along with certified handgun training, etc.) a state concealed carry weapons permit and be allowed to carry in all public places as allowed in a state statute.
And for those anti-gun liberals that are averse to carrying a gun for self-protection, may they carry a cell phone at all times to call 911!
I once read a letter to the Ed where the writer proposed this question to all the opposed to concealed carry crowd: If you were walking down the street one night and a mugger was beating you to a pulp and you felt your life slipping away, and a state concealed handgun permitted person armed with a concealed handgun came along and could intervene -- would your prefere he/she call 911 for you -- or blow the perpetrator straight to hell?
We all know the answer any "honest" person would say. I rest my case!
10:06 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I am curious how police would handle that. I'd think the 'third man in' shooting the 'thug' would be in legal trouble.
Not to mention, this person with his concealed weapon would have NO certainty that the situation would be what you are construing. What if your wrong?
Again, I'm not entirely anti-gun. I just don't like the idea of the country becoming the wild west again. I'm all for home ownership of firearms with some basic training.
10:04 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I am a Democrat who has lived in Maryland for a very long time. Personally, I find having the freedom to carry a concealed weapon desirable. I visit friends who have CCW permits in Virginia and Pennsylvania. In fact, sometimes I go to the range with them for target shooting. Do I feel less safe or scared when I visit friends in cities in VA, PA, AZ and WA because they have liberal CCW laws? Of course not. I feel much more nervous in places like Baltimore and DC where up until now, I could never get a permit to carry. Will I carry all the time now that I may have the option? No, but I believe that I should have the freedom to get a permit just like the people in more than 40 other states.
John T.
10:04 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
This levels the playing field for the law abiding citizen. Criminals will have to worry if the person they are planning to assault, rob, rape, etc. is carrying a legal weapon. Because we all know that criminals will always get guns no matter how many laws we pass. Disarming te public only makes the criminals work that much easier.
10:25 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
LOL, John T. You're so right. Unless you think about your sentence for more than a second. You seriously think everyone carrying a gun means there will be LESS gun violence? Umm...right. Because gun violence is never due to impulses of rage, but rather always committed by the premeditated actions of criminals trying to rob you (news flash, that's 100% sarcasm and completely wrong. Of course most gun violence has nothing to do with a criminal trying to "assault, rob, rape, etc" a stranger - how paranoid are you?). Honestly, the NRA is an amazing organization if they seriously convinced you that your statement makes even an iota of sense.
10:23 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Criminals don't worry about that. How many cops were shot in the last 12 months? In each and every instance the criminal knew the cop had a gun.
How many drug dealers were robbed by other criminals. They don't care if the drug dealer is armed or not.
10:32 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The irony in all of this discussion is the following, I would wager almost all of the posters who wish to carry a gun will freeze in that moment when the time comes to pull the weapon, point and shoot. The adrenalin rush and absolute fear cannot be simulated at a firing range.
Go talk to someone who has actually shot and killed somebody at close range.
Henry Bowman
10:35 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.
The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud - in his letters to Wilhelm Fliess, '"Draft H" deals with projection as a mechanism of defence'[2] - and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud; for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as Freudian Projection.[3]
10:33 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
FIFA cracks me up. Uneducated and unappreciative of the people who allow him to have the freedom and life he does.
10:54 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
You don't know me. What have you done to allow me my freedom and life? Huh?
I have served in the military, I have shot weapons, I have qualified expert, I own weapons, you moron.
Buck Harmon
10:59 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
FIFA...Your comments are no longer valid...you have surrendered this topic and failed miserably with attempts to justify gun control... you lack the education needed to effectively participate in these discussions...the reason that you fear your real name is clear...move on..
11:06 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Buck, stick it in your ear. I have as much, if not more education and knowledge than you do, your holier than thou attitude is ridiculous as well. Have you counted the pro and con posters who are anonymous on this site? No is the answer. It is fine as long as they support your absurd positions.
11:36 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Buck, I'll never surrender to you.
Need a step ladder to get down off your high rockin' horse?
John T.
10:33 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Jag. I respect your opinion, and you have the right not to carry. I personaly will not either, but law abiding citizens should have the choice. For the most part, everyone will not be carrying a gun. As far as criminals go, I wish they only shot eachother as Steve says, but that's just not so. Not an NRA thought, ony mine.
10:56 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I'm perfectly fine with the right to carry as well, but the notion that everyone carrying would DECREASE the instances of gun violence is absurd. I don't believe that to simply be an opinion. That's just common sense. Cheers.
10:39 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Trust me FIFA. Instinct leads human behavior. Survival of the fittest. Those who are strong enough to survive will. You my weak friend are in trouble. Good luck to you.
11:01 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Trust you? Police officers hesitate the first time they are confronted with a gun and they receive a lot of training, fool. Weak I am not.
Richard S*****r
10:46 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
To all apposed honest citizens carrying a concealed weapon here are two facts for you.
Both facts were acquired by using the CDC WISQARS system. The stats include all ages, accidental and murder.
Fact #1: In 2009 there were 653 transportation deaths per 100,000.
Fact #2: In 2009 there were 586 firearms deaths per 100,000.
So by this gun law logic then driving a vehicle should require even more training or should not be allowed for the average citizen. I personally feel the roads of this state are far more dangerous then the typical citizen walking around with a concealed weapon.
I rest my case
Buck Harmon
11:01 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Those figures include the deaths caused by cops killing human beings as well.
11:02 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Huh, Richard? That argument literally makes no sense. What do cars and guns have to do with anything? You're comparing apples and paperclips. And not very well, either.
11:03 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
One of the dumbest rationales I have ever heard. Just simply stupid.
Richard S*****r
11:06 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
LOL, you don't see the obvious connection, DEATHS per 100,000 I don't know how else to break it to you.
Richard S*****r
11:08 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Sure you can argue that these statistics are too vague. But of course when you use your statistics to argue my point, you do the same thing. So in the end I actually don't care what you think.
Richard S*****r
11:23 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Yes, they include ALL firearm deaths. Law Enforcement, accidental, and murder.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
2:57 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Is that per 100,000 people?
There are a lot more car owners and a lot more drivers per 100,000 people than number of people gun owners and gun users per 100,000 people, I'd wager.
Richard S*****r
11:05 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I agree, your rationale is stupid, thanks for agreeing.
H.R. Pufnstuf
11:06 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
In Pennsylvania, you can actually open carry a firearm. A gentelman from Hanover even open carried to a theater after the Batman shooting, and everyhing was fine. I am surprised, however, that the theater owners allow open carry on their property.
11:33 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
In Pennsyltucky you can marry your cousin too.
That doesn't make it necessarily a good idea.
H.R. Pufnstuf
12:24 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
It is solid evidence that gun carrying will not lead to terrible gun violence that some of the fear mongering folk seem to think.
Very intelligent comment about "Pennsyltucky", Steve. I hope you and your cousin have many years of wedded bliss.
1:02 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Puffy, that is a heck of a sample size for your "solid evidence". 1 for 1. Are you really that lacking in intelligence?
H.R. Pufnstuf
1:26 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
FIFA, I wasn't drawing any conclusions based on the one gentleman, that was just an anecdotal story to highlight PA's open carry laws. An entire state on the other hand would be statistically significant. I don't think PA is the war zone some people on here would predict based on its open carry laws.
Dave A.
11:11 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
If only all of you put this much effort forward when exercising the right to vote and got rid of the stale, worthless idiots in both federal and state government we might have a better handle on our futures. Gas tax increase, YOBAMA Care, crime; I could go on and on..... Happy to see the stay lifted. Those of you against this right obviously will never get it. You are already being robbed every time you go to the gas pump, make a purchase at the store or send off your tax returns. Yet there are more people complaining about those who wish to exercise their constitutional rights (which most libertards practice and preach) yet they put the same criminals back into office year after year after they get robbed by them on a daily basis!
Richard S*****r
11:25 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I do exercise my right to vote, the problem is I don't drink the 2 party koolaid. So until the rest of the country wakes up then here we sit.
Sharon Peters
11:26 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
By following the logic of this thread: In the country with the most guns per capita, we should definitely have the lowest crime rates then, right? Wrong.
Yay for being #1 in some things!!
Henry Bowman
11:30 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
and we'd be #1 in deaths per capita even if you removed firearms deaths.
So, what's your point?
BTW...nice unbiased sources there....eye roll.
Richard S*****r
11:43 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
All your comment points to is that Americans are the most selfish and idiotic overall.
John Cole
10:36 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
The United Nations Criminal Trend Service provides analysis by county of homicides by firearm, covering 185 countries.
The United States is No. 1 in gun ownership, with 27 million firearms in private ownership.
The united States is No. 18 for the most homicides by firearm, with an average of 2.97 homicides per 100,000 population, beaten by countries like Mexico, Honduras, Panama and El Salvador.
In the United States, 60% of homicides are by firearm.
The United States has the greatest prison population per capita in the world, 715 people out of every 100,000.
You can check some of this data here: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime
If over 9,000 homicides by firearm in a year doesn't disturb, perhaps it should.
To quote Rod Dreher of the American Conservative: "Yet as with so much in contemporary American politics, the gun control issue is not about reason and dispassionate analysis of the facts. It's about emotional assertion and rhetorical bullying amid an atmosphere of mutual incomprehension."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18877454 Follow the link, it is worth reading.
12:39 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Now the state just needs to knuckle down on this aspect of the law.
and make sure nobody that is taking medication for any mental health condition PTSD, Depression, Anxiety et. etc. can qualify for a permit. It alos would be good to knuckle down on the habitual drunkard side of things too (more than 2 alcoholic drinks per day)
1:27 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Show me any studies that show people with common depression are a prone to violence.
1:59 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
It doesn't matter. The Maryland application clearly states
"Have you ever attended, or been treated, or observed by any medical doctor, psychiatrist, hospital, or institution, including voluntary commitment, for any mental or psychiatric condition?"
Depression is a mental condition. A prescription is evidence of being treated.
2:00 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Let's see, Windy, Puffy, and the one that can't spell. A combined IQ of 120, maybe. Just like their guns.
Gray Coyote
2:07 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
So a rape victim who is taking medication to deal with their rape, who has no indicated suicidal or homicidal ideation, is ineligible?
How sick are you?
2:10 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
It's pretty self explanatory.
BTW I didn't write the permit process. I just want the state to abide by it.
Gray Coyote
2:25 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Rather than use the application, here's what the actual statute says:
(a) In general. -- Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall issue a permit within a reasonable time to a person who the Secretary finds:
(1) is an adult;....
(5) based on an investigation:
(i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person's possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to another; and
"Has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability".
Definition of Propensity :
"a natural inclination or tendency: a propensity to drink too much."
It requires individual determination. The application form took shortcuts in the era where it wasn't considered a right. Surprise surprise.
Do you really think disarming victims of sexual violence is a good idea? Do you think causing them to avoid going to a therapist because of the stigma of potentially losing something like your suggesting is a good idea?
2:30 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
"Let's see, Windy, Puffy, and the one that can't spell. A combined IQ of 120, maybe. Just like their guns."
FIFA has shown the limit of his mental capacity.
2:31 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Justdafacts Steve, sell any boats lately? You sure are making a killing selling your bullshit!
2:33 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
So you think guns and drugs are a good mix????
If you have a mental condition you shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun around in public. There ought to be some kind of anger management evaluation in the mix too.
2:34 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Given Justdafacts commentary, I think he would be ruled mentally deficient and unable to get a permit.
2:48 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Still waiting for Windy and Puffy to say a single intelligent thing. Their intellect is only limited by their brain which is like a BB bouncing inside of a softball. Same as Buck "High Horse" Harmon.
2:54 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
FIFA sure knows how to take a thread down the lowest form of debate.
3:11 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
@ FIFA, Thanks for pointing out my spelling error, to be honest with you I never noticed it until now, but please don't attack my intelligence. I don't believe I have ever questioned your IQ, nor do I want to.
3:34 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Southwestminster, I will respect your comments going forward unless you prove otherwise. Some of your like minded posters have different opinions.
You are welcome concerning the spelling, I have noticed it for quite awhile.
4:06 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
FIFA, I'm sure you and I will have different opinions in the future as we do now , but what would be the fun of everybody agreeing on everything.
Buck Harmon
4:11 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
FIFa has surrendered to this topic...intellect lacking...but still ticking pointlessly like the Energizer Bunny...your done FIFA...keep tryin though..kind of amusing..and really great for those that know the truth.
Gray Coyote
5:41 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
"So you think guns and drugs are a good mix????
If you have a mental condition you shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun around in public. There ought to be some kind of anger management evaluation in the mix too."
You have zero understanding of how mental conditions work. Not every mental condition is indicative of suicidal ideation (which a permit wouldn't change because you're allowed generally to possess handguns in your own home) or homicidal ideation. The statute requires individual determination on that issue, not categorical denials like what you're suggesting.
1:26 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I will offer free to anyone who does not want to own a firearm a 2'x3' yard sign stating
And with the sign DO NOT call anyone WITH a gun when you need the police.
When you have seconds, the police are just a minute away.
3:42 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Since when is Ann Miller the final arbiter on anything?
Jim Davis
3:00 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Here is an interesting article from the Baltimore Sun http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-ripken-mother-missing-20120725,0,1198173.story
For the record I do not feel that where the bad guy already has his gun pointed at you at close range your own gun will be particularly effective. The lack of time is against you. That said if the person next (or near) to you is carrying the equation changes real fast. As I said earlier the beauty of CCW is it is concealed and leaves the bad guy with doubts as to what will/may happen to him. One on one where he has his in hand, not a nice situation, if he his concentrating on someone else then armed intervention is possible changes the game.
3:24 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
What in the world does Cal Ripken's mother have to do with carrying a firearm?
Jim Davis
3:27 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Just shows what an armed perp will do to those who are unable to defend themselves.
3:37 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
You want to arm little old ladies now??? You have gone from silly to ridiculous.
3:41 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Justdafacts, why all your red herrings? No one WANTS to arm anyone else. We just want to exercise our unalienable civil right exactly as you are exercising yours here.
Jim Davis
3:45 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I don't care who, if qualified, is armed, the point is it is a personal decision and as I said below if he has his gun pointed at you, yours in the holster isn't going to be much help due to the length of time it takes to draw. But if someone near you is armed they change the equation. Not as a civilian, but I've been there - done that.
Bill Lawson
3:05 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The question is not whether there will be guns, but who gets them.
Jim Davis
3:31 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Not who, but how The legitimate buyers still go through all the checks and the sale becomes permanent record. The illegal, or criminal buyer still does it as he does now on the "black market" and there is no record of the sale.
Greg Redmer
3:11 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Just for the record if you have previous drug arrests or an indication of an alcohol problem or pretty much any misdemeanor arrest you can't even buy a gun much less carry one. And as an example of how strict the laws are, I had a carry permit and went to a gun shop to buy a revolver. Still had to wait for the state to complete my record check and return later to pick it up. So even though I was allowed to carry I wasn't allowed to buy on the spot.
10:40 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
That's not so. The Head of the BAltimore County FOP was drunk and pulled a gun on a cab driver and his passenger parked on his street. Did they take his guns? Is he still allowed to carry?
Safety first
3:42 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Lots of comments hear. Never have i seen so many on one story. I think what this boils down to is this. No matter if you agree or disagree with the courts ruling it is now the law of the land. We can complain about it or rejoice in the ruling. The thing is if you do not like the law. Do not buy or carry a gun or associate with the people who do. It is really that simple. 40 states across the US have these types of laws on there books and it seems as though this will not change anytime soon at least. So You can ask your representatives to change the law as far as who can receive a permit to carry but i would think that would be a real uphill battle because there will be groups that will be keeping a eye on these laws for years to come and they will make sure that any changes to the law are tried in the courts. That is the system we have. If you don't like the system you can try to change it but calling others names because they feel differently then you only shows how childish you can be. It do's not further your cause in any way. It actually takes away from it in a big way.
At least now the courts have shown that they will not stand by as a state decides to deny it's population the rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Kim Dixon
3:55 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
And while you all are fussing with each other, I will be getting my paper work together for a gun permit. see you at the state police Barrecks.
4:04 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Good luck Kim. My application has been in since early March, 3 days after Judge Legg made his first ruling and before he issued his stay. My check was cashed mid March, before the stay and no action or interview yet. The MSP have not even contacted my personal references yet. The 90 business days is almost up. The MSP are giving very little if any info on their plans.
Buck Harmon
4:15 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The details don't...won't matter Steve, human beings that know their rights will freely do as they please, with or without permission from the government. You see ...free people are in charge of the government...not the other way around.., sheeple do as they are told because of what they don't know and are intimidated by those that seek to enforce non laws...pretty simple..
Richard S*****r
4:46 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
To all apposed honest citizens carrying a concealed weapon here are two facts for you.
Both facts were acquired by using the CDC WISQARS system. The stats include all ages, accidental and murder.
Fact #1: In 2009 there were 653 transportation deaths per 100,000.
Fact #2: In 2009 there were 586 firearms deaths per 100,000.
So by this gun law logic then driving a vehicle should require even more training or should not be allowed for the average citizen. I personally feel the roads of this state are far more dangerous then the typical citizen walking around with a concealed weapon.
I rest my case
5:07 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
It is buck. You said it perfectly. I have been very impressed with your knowledge and understanding of the horrible condition this country is in.
Walter Darnall
5:09 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Carrying a concealed gun doesn't by no means make one invincible -- but it surely will increase the odds that -- all other factors being equal -- he/she will fare better in a given situation where a mugger, rapist, etc., tries to attack them.
Carrying a concealed gun is being proactive. One has to be alert and make personal assessments of potential situations at all times and not take things for granted, that something won't happen to them.
Many criminals are young and near brainless, not thinking more than two seconds ahead of themselves, like the two punks in the news video (link below) attached. These two punks thought they would just go into a public cafe in Ocala, Florida, (a concealed carry state) and try to rob all the patrons of their money. Wrong! A senior citizen with a concealed hand gun (.380 ACP) basically said he was fed up and wasn't going to take it anymore -- and blasted both punks (running like chickens in a storm) right out of the cafe. I say kudos to the senior citizen!
5:59 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
It is not even a one on one issue at all. It is about odds. In Chicago, Baltimore DC etc, the vast majority of potential victims, the thugs KNOW, are not able to fight back with equal force.
In places where a would be thug KNOWS that any one of their victims could possible be armed, they will look elsewhere. Thugs are in reality cowards and show it in their actions. Generally under the influence, armed, hit by surprise if possible. Many times they use an accomplice to fell more secure, power in numbers. Most flee when confronted equal equal force. When one no longer feels they have the upper hand, they give up or go elsewhere.
Only when they THINK everyone they target is capable of equal force will it stop.
6:02 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Carrying a firearm is no different than having a jack in your car. Both are deadly weapons and having them when needed even if it is rare, is better than not having them when needed.
Safety first
7:12 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Not with the jacks they sell with cars these days. Small things they call jacks. When i was a kid they sold big beefy jacks with every car. I bet Frank could do some damage with one of the old school ones. What do you say Frank? Ass for a gun. From the way he is barking i would think that Frank just might not know the difference between a single and double action revolver.
7:16 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Albert, my car still is equipped with the heavy scissors jack that may not go far if thrown but would do the job at hand quite easily.
Frank, the point apparently escapes you.
Walter Darnall
9:15 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I remember a few years back Sean Hannity had some liberal anti-gun guest on his show, who didn't believe one should even be allowed to have a gun in his own home for self-protection.
Hannity posed a question to his guest asking him something to the effect like: If a home invader burst through your bedroom door (while you and your wife were sleeping) in the middle of the night wielding a butcher knife and was coming at you, would you want (at that very instant) to have a hand gun you could access quickly to defend yourself?
The little coward refused to answer the question! He didn't have the courage of his convictions.
10:29 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Little Coward??? This CCW Permit Holder is the Coward. He ran like a little Biatch when his gun went off.
8:44 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
A responsible gun owner/carrier carries their firearm in a secure holster not his baggy jeans with no belt you foolish boy!
9:41 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Windriver, that may be. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that people who get concealed carry permits will be "responsible gun owners."
10:19 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
DawnP, that is just a fallacy. The statistics prove you're wrong. People who go through eh trouble the expense, the background FBI check, the fingerprinting, the classes etc are mostly the most law abiding people you will encounter. After all that why would I be stupid enough to LOSE that permit that I went through all that trouble getting.
And most important, anyone who gets a permit HAS ALREADY been a law abiding citizen, or they would not get the permit, so why would a permit change their life long habit of being a law abiding person?
10:40 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Seriously, Windriver? You have statistics that prove that there's a GUARANTEE that people who get concealed carry permits will be responsible gun owners? Those must be some pretty amazing statistics, I can't wait to see them. Of course, the story linked above already proves that there's no such guarantee. (Or did you just not read my comment?)
I also did not say or imply that people who obtain permits will then change their "life long habit" of being law abiding citizens. I was specifically talking about the potential for accidents and irresponsible use of firearms, in response to the Walmart story and your condescending assertion that a "responsible gun owner/carrier carries their firearm in a secure holster not his baggy jeans with no belt."
11:08 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
DawnP "You have statistics that prove that there's a GUARANTEE"
Discussing these things with liberals is like talking to a senile person with Alzheimers.
Dear Dawn, why now do you say "GUARANTEE" when that is not the issue? Now the straw man of "GUARANTEE" next it will some other word game.
My dog offers more intelligent and coherent conversation than you liberals.
11:28 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Windriver, read this thread again. I didn't raise any straw man. Steve posted a link to a story about an accidental shooting incident involving someone with a concealed carry permit. You responded that responsible gun owners don't carry their guns in baggy pants with no belt. I responded to THAT by saying "unfortunately, there's no guarantee that people who get concealed carry permits will be 'responsible gun owners.'" And then you responded with your non sequitur about statistics and lifetimes as law abiding citizens, claiming that your "statistics" PROVED ME WRONG. The only person raising a straw man here is you.
10:37 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
It's also going to arm more biker gangs then were already armed in MD.
1:37 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I believe one of our famous forefathers put it as "Tis difficult to be a tyrant in a nation full of armed men"...
5:24 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I believe almost all our forefather's definition of "militia" was "able bodied men between the age of 18 and 45". Under that strict interpretation nobody over the age of 45 should be able to "bear arms". Also no Gimps, Fatties, mental defectives and.........women should be allowed to "bear arms " either.
Arbutus Town Crier
7:58 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I dare anyone to pass this around
@Frank winners write history, FACT: From the mouth of a Black AMERICAN
Rev. William Mack Lee Narrative (Gen. Robert E. Lee's black servant) "I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to my judgment. All of his servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the
9:44 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Don't pass that around.That's not true. Lee didn't set all his slaves free before the war. He emancipated only a few women and a couple of children. Here, directly from the National Park Service site (you should visit there before repeating those fabrications you read on Stormfront)
Arbutus Town Crier
12:44 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
http://blackconfederates.blogspot.com/ http://dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0003531.htm read plaque Great man of history!
Cant Hide the truth
Arbutus Town Crier
12:49 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Check the National Archives
Arbutus Town Crier
1:08 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Steve you can pick one thing out to distort and get people emotions up instead of the Whole context of it. and your good at that. But people can be told a false story over and over until they believe it the truth. There are vintage talkie that show the truth of people united read your history Go to National achieves. Now only to change txt books and hide true American Hero's and there are many Proud Black Americans in our history US at that time WAS UNITED and Taxes being Raised same as now Is the issue of today as it was back then. I'm an old man and the Generation cant speak Sons and Grand children can.Yet still covered up and twisted
1:32 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
"when the Southern states seceded in an in order to protect the institution of slavery?"
Thats not true....
History is true only to those that want to believe it is.
Arbutus Town Crier
2:09 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
History is what it is nothing more nothing less! No I don't believe in any type of Slavery,So don't play ur race card on me! All men are created equal, but If a person that has no money and no property he could not Vote! These (Majority) men and family's Worked the farms to get land and property after there service so they can be vote. Back then you had to OWN PROPERTY. Truth is you don't know history ! Men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light
FRANK It was the beginnings of were we are at today. If you Go to the links I provided you will see Black Americans Suppressed today from TELLING YOU THE TRUTH Yea Dare go to my links? Let these Black Americans speak Your comment "Steve" is to suppression of the truth , told in school instead of yourself seeking the truth
9:38 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Don't start counting your chickens yet. It hasn't been finally determined to be unconstitutional. A federal district court found it unconstitutional and it's on appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has yet to rule. There was a stay in place, which is now supposed to be lifted in August, but the Fourth Circuit may act to reinstate the stay before that happens.
Buck Harmon
12:40 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Yes it has...it's a fact...even if a corrupt court would get it wrong....
12:50 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Buck, perhaps you missed the word "finally" in my post. Yes, one court has found it to be unconstitutional. No, it has not been "finally determined" to be unconstitutional. Did you just miss that word (the way your friend Windriver missed my use of the word "guarantee" above), or would you like me to explain to you how our judicial system works?
Buck Harmon
12:58 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Perhaps you didn't understand my use of the word corrupt....that's how our judicial has functioned for too long now. A corrupted system must be held accountable by the educated population...that's what is happening here...nothing more, nothing less..
Buck Harmon
1:02 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
To infringe on a private citizens right to bare arms in any way is un Constitutional...no matter what the courts say. They do not have the power to change this . They are beginning to realize this more than ever now....
1:16 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Aww, man. Are we talking about the right to "bare arms"? Well, color me embarassed! I thought we were talking about the right to "keep and bear arms." But Buck, if you want to go sleeveless, you go for it! I don't think the government has any interest in regulating yuor wardrobe choices. My mistake.
Buck Harmon
4:37 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
You got me Dawn....good grab...must have been naked when I wrote that one...sleeveless and clueless...It's not easy being a dumb ass...
9:44 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
A judge generally lifts a stay if the appeal does not have a good chance to win.
"After a review, Legg found that the state has not established that the public interest weighs in favor of a stay."
Bill Lawson
10:17 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
"No citizen should be required to give a 'good and substantial' reason in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right,
There is no good reason for Maryland to continue violating the constitutional rights of its citizens.
It is time for the State of Maryland to understand that government cannot, and must not, be given blanket discretion in its perceived authority to interfere with the exercise of a constitutional right by law-abiding citizens,"
Judge Benson E. Legg
11:14 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
What Justdafacts Steve is saying is if just ONE CCW permit holder uses a firearm in an illegal manner no one should have the right to carry.
Do you extend that feeling to any other group as well? If a teacher molests one of their students should we remove all teachers accreditations?
11:19 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
"The total population of Texas is about 23.9 million people, of which 16.6 million meet the age requirement for a concealed carry permit. The rest of my stats were provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety's Concealed Carry site, which was extremely helpful.
According to this pdf, there were 288,908 concealed carry permit holders in 2007. This means that 1.75% of age-eligible residents own a concealed carry permit. And according to this pdf, only 0.26% (about a quarter of a percent) of gun crimes are commited by concealed carry permit holders. That means that concealed carry permit holders are seven times less likely to commit gun crimes. Concealed carriers are safer!
Concealed carry permit holders are required to pass a course covering the law surrounding firearms use, including when it is acceptable to use deadly force, and how to do so within the bounds of the law. The course also requires a level of proficiency with handguns that lowers the risk of accidental injury. Concealed carry permit holders also undergo a federal background check, submit their fingerprints, and photo identification. In short, it would be much easier to identify and convict them if they were to abuse their privilege. Concealed carriers have more to lose by commiting a gun crime – they're held to a higher level of accountability."
11:20 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Now if you civil rights deniers like Justdafacts Steve and DawnP and Frank can support their fabrications and lies have at it.
11:58 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
LOL "The Chubby Survivalist" He must have been up all night looking for that one!
1:15 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
We better license and fingerprint MOTHERS!
" In society, family is of paramount importance, yet the leading cause of death for children under the age of four is homicide. Homicide by their own parents!
According to the American Anthropological Association, more than 200 women kill their children in the United States each year. Homicide is one of the leading causes of death of children under age four, yet we continue to "persist with the unrealistic view that this is rare behavior," says Jill Korbin, expert on child abuse, who has studied mothers who killed their children.
80% of women who kill their children suffer from mental illness"
"When a young child is murdered, the most frequent perpetrator is a victim's parent or stepparent (1). Rates of infanticide parallel suicide rates rather than murder rates (2). The risk of being a homicide victim is highest during the first year of life (3-5). Though the US has the highest rates of child homicide (8.0/100,000 for infants, 2.5/100,000 for preschool-age children, and 1.5/100,000 for school-age children), the problem of child homicide transcends national boundaries (6). These rates of child murder are probably underestimates, due to inaccurate coroner rulings and some bodies never being discovered (4,7,8)."
1:24 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I believe in reasonable gun control laws, like a ban on assault weapons, military weapons, ect. but that doesnt change the fact that maryland was wrong and its about time!
1:38 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Steve has little concern for children killed by their mothers but just does not want them killed by a firearm.
Bill Lawson
1:58 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
At appears as though the Gun control advocates have reduced themselves to throwing insults. This is a sure sign of a debate that has been lost.
The ongoing battle to take away the freedoms Americans enjoy has lost ground with this ruling.
If freedom is something you don't want, there are exits both north and south, and at every airport across the country. But think carefully before leaving as getting back may be a bit more difficult.
2:04 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Another straw man Frank?
"Guns, on the other hand, have no other purpose but to kill." What total nonsense. There are millions of sport shooters in the US. Tell the incredible Olympic Biathlon athletes that their firearms have no purpose but to kill.
Do the tens of thousands of competitive target shooters in the US know what you know Frank? They better hold their target pistols close so they don't jump up and do what they were designed to do, KILL a bullseye!
2:35 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I have not read all of the comments; sorry if I missed this point and am being redundant.
I believe it is wrong to interpret the second amendment to mean civilians may possess and carry firearms. Here are my reasons:
1. The important first phrase "In order to have a well regulated militia...." is ignored by those interpreting the second amendment to mean civilians may possess and carry firearms. The Constitution's context, (i.e., fighting a war with Britain), was why the Constitution's writers included this amendment. They enabled the people to be ready to fight themselves as a group against a common enemy in an organized way. Today, the billions spent on military buildup provides for this common defense. I believe the Constitution writers saw the need for civilians to join together as a militia against a governmental tyrant (i.e., one individual) and the second amendment, when taken in context, supports this organized buildup of firearms.
2. It is clear that the Constitution writers, when reading the document in its entirety, advocated measures that would ensure the general welfare. They, as supporters of a democratic republic, wanted a free and open society. In light of this framework, being fearful of talking to someone when there is disagreement in the hopes of reaching a compromise because of a concealed firearm on his/her person, does not foster the openness to express differing ideas in a free society. Post size limit does not permit me to finish..more later
Bill Lawson
3:05 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I am impressed. A well thought out response. Not the usual name calling.
3:22 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
enlightened, it is NOT the supporters that misread the 2nd. The framers did not want a standing army but preferred a peoples militia. Past AG Joe Curran stated that Maryland has 2 militias, the organized, formed and supplied by the state and the un-organized, all other able bodied men who brought their own firearms when called for duty.
What ever your interpretation of the 2nd, it is moot since Heller in DC and McDonald in Chicago. It has been adjudicated that the 2nd confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Buck Harmon
4:30 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
A big part of the responsibility of a well regulated militia is to be prepared to keep the government in check , and to keep it from exercising too much power over the people.
Many other countries that have experienced genocide started the process by means of gun control. Without armed citizenry the power of corrupt government prevails every time. Our country is not immune to this type of event...believe it or not.
The founders knew this and were careful when identifying being well armed as a right of all citizens. As a free man this is the interpretation that I live by.
Bill Lawson
3:07 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I sometimes don't agree with what the president says, but I agree with what the president said regarding the recent shooting in Colorado:
"we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons …. These steps shouldn't be controversial, they should be common sense.
I personally believe that every gun rights advocate would agree that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a good idea. I think the problem is that we can't. So arming good citizens is necessary since the bad ones are already armed.
3:26 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I agree, Bill. Unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough.
Mentally ill? Definitely should be prohibited. But the most startling recent cases, (Giffords, Trayvon, and Aurora), MAY have been committed by "the mentally ill" but they had no case history of mental illness (or nothing that I know of...correct me if I'm wrong) so were able to purchase guns and ammunition legally. Given our stressful, racist, and economically segregated society full of disenfranchised unemployed, mainly young men, guns in the hands of those "on the brink" but not quite yet, spells danger for every one. Not worth it.
Bill Lawson
4:09 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Yes, I agree, mentally ill should be prohibited from buying firearms.
And as you mention, we live in a society where some are on the brink. But think about it, if say, one in 30 people are carrying a firearm when someone looses it. (Even a person who is legally carrying) There's a much greater chance that that person will be taken down before great damage is done. Allowing law abiding citizens to arm themselves can only be good. We will always have crazies and criminals on the streets. Why not increase our effective law enforcement with volunteers who are willing to purchase, train, and carry weapons?
Buck Harmon
4:11 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
It's never going to happen...who determines mentally ill, and to what degree? It's dumb to think that you can regulate a perceived mentally ill human being into submission. This kind of rule could enrage a true mentally ill person into action. I don't think they really care about obeying the law. To much regulation gives the government too much perceived power and needs to be stopped.
Dave Nanasi
7:26 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Who says criminals and fugitives PURCHASE weapons????
8:43 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
Does anyone want the same people who are against the 2nd and who want to restrict your rights now, being the same people who define what "mental illness" is and to then define the level at which would prohibit your right?
B Allen
11:26 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
Yeah, if good citizens armed themselves against criminals, then maybe the bad guys would be dead and have saved a bunch of taxpayer dollars and people like Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom could possibly still be with us. Now you have the lib judges trying to protect the criminals in the torture, rape and disgusting murder that 4 blacks committed against a white couple in Knoxville. Oh yeah, you won't hear about this in the media outside of knoxville, because the MSM won't tell the truth, nor give facts on REAL newsworthy stories. Even you libs who feel "empoweed" because of the 1/2 white guy in the white house would agree that a gun would have been a good thing to have in this case. I posted a shortened version of the story. There are more graphic articles out there as to how much torture both the young woman and the young man went through for NO apparant reason. Now some lib judge is trying to grant them a retrial for BS reasons. I also feel you anti gun nuts only want to do so because you think that if you take the guns away from the people, then we have no way of fighting back when you try and take the country over. Well, it is NOT going to happen and we will deal with you people just as our forefathers dealt with the King of England and his troops. Also, that is what the communists did before taking over Russia. We know what you are trying to do, not gonna work for you. http://www.wsmv.com/story/17859473/commentary-trayvon-vs-christian-newsom
vietnam vet
4:39 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Good thing to see. they intend to keep crazy's, like my self from carrying a hand gun. 14 month's in Vietnam. ground force machine gunner, suffering from PTSD. cross trained small arms repair. Hmmm might shoot my self in the leg. Semper- Fi.
5:20 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Just because your a Marine doesn't mean that you can't or won't accidentally shoot yourself or someone else. That's just a false sense of security. Remember this guy?
George Helm
4:43 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I don't think it is a good idea to live in a country that only the government and criminals have guns!
George Helm
4:48 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Outside of knowing why politicians want concealed carriers banned from their gatherings it is mindboggling to try and understand why restrictions are place where large groups of people gather as they are the prime venues for nuts like the ones in Colorado. Carrying licensed concealed was not allowed in the theater in Colorado. The outcome could have been a lot different!
6:03 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
The jury is still out but much evidence suggests that Holmes was not "mentally ill" (unlike the Giffords shooter). From what I read, "authorities" say that his actions, writings, and speech suggest that he knew what he was planning to do was wrong but he did it anyway.
Dave A.
9:27 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Our wonderful politicians who, unlike those who want a permit and have been denied under the current guidelines followed by MSP have their OWN Concealed Carry Permits. Glad to see it changing, even though it is still too slow!
6:18 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
A group of nine, nominated by partisan presidents and able to serve for life, cannot make "fair and impartial" judgments. A part of the Constitution that must be revamped. Elected judges serving for a limited period is democratically sensible. Unanimous decisions (or 7-2 or higher at least) would make the Court more responsible and accountable. Look at Citizen's United...a result of the plutocracy we're become with a bought-off government (all three branches).
No one on earth's "pronouncement" is unmistakably correct. Also, to believe it's "God-ordained" (like many who interpret the second amendment in your way) is arrogant, dangerous, antiquated, and undemocratic. I maintain that my interpretation of the second amendment is correct.
8:38 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
Going into the deep weeds is where you are going. SCOTUS is the law of the land as it stands and their rulings are the law of the land. Any debate on the merits of the Constitution and the Courts is for another topic.
George Helm
6:43 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Not mentally ill does not impress me and the only thing I will accept is when this guy is mentally and physically DEAD!
7:08 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Jenn Gibbons was sexually assaulted on Lake Michigan this past Sunday. Due to the nature of Chicago's anti-self-defense laws, she had no realistic way of protecting herself from the attacker who overpowered her.
Of course liberals prefer it this way and encourage the laws that left this woman defenseless. Better she be raped than hurt the "poor and misunderstood" monster who attacked her.
Thankfully, Judge Legg ruled against that crap. A woman in Maryland will now have the means to defend herself if ever put in a similar situation as Ms. Gibbons.
7:20 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
They don't release the names of sexual assault victims. Your nose is growing Pinnocchio
Phil Dirt
9:53 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
This is way too easy.
Along with trying Google next time, use a spelling checker (Pinnocchio? Really?)
Dave Nanasi
7:25 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
To me, gun control is hitting what you aim at...
8:13 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
If you have any questions regarding the CWP law or training contact www.e2c.us or 1-866-371-6111 and the Instructors at Equip 2 Conceal will be happy to help you.
Jim Davis
11:43 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
Just a couple more examples from the news, both recent:
Note no shots were fired.
Fortunately a postal worker had pepper spray.
1911 is faster than 911
B Allen
11:50 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
I bet this lib from Alexandria VA would like a do-over on this one but the next time have his weapon at his side. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=4rEl8fpMVEI
Cautiously Optomistic
11:35 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Just how is a law that prevents me from carrying a concealed handgun protect me from a violent criminal? Thank goodness Maryland is joining the vast majority of states that already have Shall Issue laws.
Brook Hubbard
10:11 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Either this article needs to be updated or a new one written. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a permanent stay on the current Maryland laws, meaning things will not change yet. Arguments won't be heard until late October, meaning the best estimate for a ruling would be early 2013.
Brandie Jefferson
10:47 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Here you go, Brook, everyone:
George Young
11:23 am on Sunday, August 12, 2012
Having a gun is not going to be much consolation to your family if you are dead. It sure won't make you feel better either.
Mike from Altoona
11:59 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
To all the "brilliant experts" on here, there were 11,000+ gun fatalities in the US in 2011. 74% were directly related to GANGS shooting mostly each other. About 15-18% were suicides, and the rest divided among good and bad reasons. (self defense, accidents, perps commiting crimes, etc. Over 3,000,000 times last year a gun was successfully used to STOP A CRIME. Go to the FBI or Obama's Justice Department sites and see for yourself. Not my opinion, USG FACT.
12:46 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
First Mike, please check your "facts". As you slur the "brilliant experts" you missed the number on gun fatalities by about 20,000 more than you said. Just sayin'.
Them daggum facts just bit your in the rear Mike.
12:13 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
That's not a fact. That's propaganda. The FBI doesn't keep track of defensive gun uses.
12:41 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
The FBI keeps track of "justifiable homicide" in its UCR.
That would be "defensive gun uses" in any reasonable non damaged mind.
Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen,1 2007–2011
In 2011 there were 201 uses of a firearm. 46 time with knives.
Copypasta proves you wrong once again Steve the Denier. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
12:53 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Still will not grow up to be a man and admit when you are wrong Stevie?
1:00 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
I am not wrong JoeBlob. Justifiable homicide is not Defensive gun use.
You are just playing Silly Buggers again.
moe green
3:55 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Guns are bad.
However yo'bama just signed a law providing him and other living presidents secret service protection for life.
Do as I say, not as I do
6:18 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Does typing "Nephew of JoeBlob" "Here you go, ChrisBlob" make you giggle to yourself?
moe green
5:29 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
I am suggesting that the president and liberals want to take our guns but they want to have the securi of being protected for life with men with guns.
Do as I say, not as I do
5:32 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
From your link:
"The bill had sailed through Congress with bipartisan support—it cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote in early December, and then it zipped through the Senate unopposed. The law also provides protection for former presidents' kids until age 16. But 'protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.'"
I hope you know moe that legislation originates in Congress? Did you read the article or just are trying to slam the President? Clearly, it is the latter.
6:28 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
"Just like those liberals, voting unanimously without any discussion or dissent."
That's funny. Reminds me of this group of "liberals, voting unanimously without any discussion or dissent"
"Let me do that again." "I guess, I'll do that one more time."
6:45 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
You make yourself look like an ass Joe. Learn when to show up. The bill does not come up in the House unless allowed by the Republicans and all of them in the Senate voted for the bill. You are a jackass.
2:19 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Fifi seems to have sand in her vag. I posted a video to the DNC vote to remove God from the Democrat Platform and the vote went one way the decision came down the OTHER way. "voting unanimously without any discussion or dissent."
Now go get that sand out of yourself.
8:24 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
Joe, are you trying to get yourself banned again with your language? My, my, the women on the site might not like your use of hidden vulgarity.
11:51 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
My, my, my, Joe deleted his vulgar and profane misogynistic comment!? Or was it the site moderator?
Buck Harmon
6:43 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don't need the government's permission.
Buck Harmon
7:39 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Fifi...I did not mention "creator", divine by our individual decision and, or description..
I think that you might view yourself as divine at times..
Buck Harmon
7:48 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Thanks Evets, I feel that the political debates create nothing more than illusion...while contributing to the creation and substance of apathetic society.
Too complicated to be good for anyone....Natural law is fair, without corruption and permanent to each individual that recognizes it....instinctive if you will..
Chris W
8:27 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Fixing the problem of gun violence with gun control, Is like fixing the problem of teen pregnancy with abstinence education. Both solutions ignore reality.
On the one hand, people think that teens will ignore their natural urges is "properly educated"
On the other, people think that if we restrict the legal purchase of guns, criminals will not be able to get guns.
Chris W
9:12 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Frank, you are an idiot.
I said that gun contol and absence education are equally as effective.
Perhaps you can explain why Chicago, DC, and NYC have some of the worst gun crime, even though they have some of the most strict gun control.
I await your illuminating response.
9:07 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
Ahem, Chris.... pssst....maybe the r-word that is linked to poverty and crime that we can't talk about has something to do with it...
But, I didn't bring it up. No sir, not me.
Chris W
9:44 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Sure, because when your a criminal in Brooklyn, you go to Virginia gun shops all the time.
What a joke.
8:40 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
Chris W, interstate commerce is alive and well. Just where do you think NY criminals get their weapons?
1:58 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
"Sure, because when your a criminal in Brooklyn, you go to Virginia gun shops all the time."
That was proven in Bloomberg's lawsuit against the Virginia gun store owners. A lot of the guns used in crimes in NYC were traced to several shops in VA. The criminals admitted going there to purchase firearms. Bloomberg sent some of his agents down there and they were able to do the same thing.
Chris W
8:11 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
You are intentionally distorting the facts. All guns stores MUST run mandatory background checks. What Bloomberg filed suit over is the gun show loophole which I support closing 100%.
None of you can explain the complete and utter failure of in control in Dc, NYC, and Chicago. I find that very illuminating.
9:37 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
Lots of coca grown in the Catskills so I don't know...
10:11 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
"The shooting at Taft High School in Kern County, California, yesterday illuminates the importance of this very point — and the need for parents to back up their kids when they speak out. It turns out that a few students did speak up about the ticking time bomb in their midst. As Twitchy reports exclusively, students voiced their concerns about the alleged shooter on Twitter back in December — and were then apparently called into the vice principal's office. Instead of the school taking action, however, it appears the whistleblowing students were instead disciplined for tweeting about the student. They had warned that the disturbed classmate had "made a hit list" and "always talks about murder like he's obsessed with it." Back in December, students also talked about the alleged shooter's animosity for a student named "Bowe.""
The dots were connected and those who connected them were disciplined. Priceless!
10:39 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
So what bugger Frank? Do you deny the story? Or are you still cleaning that sand out?
11:00 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
"Obama Opposed Gun Ban Exception to Defend One's Home
As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one's home.
Obama's vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support.
The vote is a sign of how committed Obama may be to strict gun control measures.
The Illinois vote is hardly ancient history, having occurred in 2004 as Obama was running for election to the U.S. Senate. In opposing the measure, Obama lined up well to the left of the mainstream, as the Illinois Senate included 32 Democrats to 26 Republicans but approved the bill by an overwhelming margin and subsequently overrode a veto by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Obama did not participate in the veto override, which occurred in November 2004, likely after Obama had resigned his state Senate seat in order to prepare for his new role in the U.S. Senate."
11:07 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
ROTFLMAO Word for word CopyPasta from a Wingnut site.
Now I know why he doesn't show where his crap comes from.
11:25 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
"White House Dossier" an "I Hate Obama" website.
Chris W
9:16 am on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Chicago and DC had a ban Frank. It does not get much more strict than that.
Violent crime as a whole has trended downward across the country. There was not a more significant drop in places with strict gun control. To connect the dots for you, what that means is that the effect of gun control on the crime rate was statistically insignificant.
So in other words, strict gun control did not have an effect on violent crime. In laymans terms, it failed.
More from the web
- Brady Campaign Maryland Score Card
- delegatemike.com Delegate Smigiel's Official Blog