Thanks.

About time.

Done Nick, thanks. Speed kills. :-)

I guess that means if everybody carries a gun there would be no crime.

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?

"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.

What happens when the 6'3 200 pount "man" has his gun too....shoot out at the OK Corrall

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.

@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...

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

"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.

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.

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,

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 ?

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.

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.

Psst, if you didn't have a gun you wouldn't have shot anyone.

Also, you should live on the first floor apparently.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

"The Great Equalizer"? I hate to break this to you but it takes more than a gun in a purse to be equal,

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, 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.

James ???, define "far more dangerous", please start by comparing all fatalities from guns and automobiles.

Second, you missed the sarcasm, but it will happen.

Why, then, aren't there document shoot-outs happening in movie theaters in every state that has concealed carry permit holders?

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.

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 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.

"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.

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.

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.

Paul, saying 'everyone carrying a gun' is not a nuance. It's a false flag.

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.

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."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
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

The odds of being killed in an auto accident are far greater than being killed with a gun....common sense.. no brainer..

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..

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.

Paul, to answer your question to James:
32,788 people killed in automobile accidents (2010, CNN)
11,493 people killed by firearm (2010, CDC)

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

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]

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.

Which one of those was caused by a person with a concealed carry permit?

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.

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.

What a Disturbing comment.

Dumb statement Frank...

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.

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.

what do you have planned?

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.

The opposite has been proven true, time and time again.

Lawyer33838 could be my best friend. Not afraid to say what he is thinking. If only more of us were like that.

Guns are one of the reasons women got the right to vote.
You know, you maybe right!

You swallow!

Wow, way to show your class Robert

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?

If you had one you probably would be dead now.

Really? Because he had it out and was pointing at me. Unfortunately for him, my car was bigger.

If you reached for your gun, he would have shot you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Another dumb statement Paul A. come on, you can do better...

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?

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 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.

It's not a proven fact. Not at all.

PAul B. You sound like you are afraid of your own shadow. Camden has one of the nicest Aquariums on the East Coast.

@ Steve, do you even live in MD ?

Nice job Paul...it's now a proven fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Glad you listen to people who lived 300 years ago in a different world. Yes, you are listening to 300 year old ghosts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Totally agree sal...

Buckshot listening to ghosts.

Ann:
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.

Rwilly:
Are you honestly trying to draw direct parallels between non-Democratic societies, and actual Democracies? Really?

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.

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.

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?

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!

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!

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.

Responsible, that is a dangerous word in today's world. No one takes responsibility... I am right there with you Larry.

Contact information? Please share

FIFA, might be a terrorist. Judging by his disrespect of the patriots who started this country. Or he is brainwashed... Zombie!?!

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.

Correction, 225 year old.

FIFA...I can understand why you are afraid to use your real name...your comments are shoot from the hip baloney... consistant baloney though..

Buckshot, but accurate you must admit.

I accept your surrender to this topic FIFA...done..

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.

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.

http://www.usacarry.com/maryland_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Since when Bill?

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.

Agreed

The NRA didn't have anything to do with it. They were actually counter productive in the case.

Wow, did you see the Colorado guy's references?

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.

*thought and honesty.

We all know You Tube is the source.

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...

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

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 ...

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"
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/gj.htm

Fringe Kookery.

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.

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, 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..

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.

Christian Soldiers have hours? I thought they were fighting Satan 24/7.

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).

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?

The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you, also.

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.

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.

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.

Just to piss off frank I will go and get a ccw now...

and then buy a gun.

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.

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.

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, 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.

Links please.

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.

Chet - won't argue with your last point. CCW permits probably should be available, but with some real training involved.

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.

@Frank

http://video.gainesville.com/video/1737652323001/

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.

@Frank

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.

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.

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

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.

That is the Second most funny thing I read today.

Ann, You really don't have a clue.

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?

which part of the militia are they part of again?

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition

Joan,

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.

http://video.gainesville.com/video/1737652323001/

Because having them concealed means the criminals don't know who has one and who doesn't...

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?

@Frank,

Please provide links to the "studies" you refer to.

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?

If you actually knew what "Molon Labe" (sic) means in Classical Greek I don't think you would use it as your poster name.

you got that ight.

Frank. Your ignorance is showing again!

Maybe you should go to the library and get out a book on Socialism. Obviously, you have no idea what it is.

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.

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: 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?

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....

Oh, and they did abolish alcohol at one point. History showed us how well that worked out.

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.

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?

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.

It's a fair feeling to have, Leslie.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply operating with a closed mind.

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

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.

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?

Henry: I'm not going to argue your point, but why rip someone's view/stastistics and not even provide your own?

Because it is a NRA talking point there is no substance behind it. There are no accurate statistics.

Why Tim,

I'm so glad that you asked.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

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:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

In 2011, those 120 convictions were out of nearly 144,000 permits issued.

Hey Steve...really?

You might want to rescind that statement given my previous post.

Now who has no substance?

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

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

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.

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.

Thanks Henry!

Tim....you are quite welcome.

I deal in facts.

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.

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.

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]

What?

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.

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..

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.

I accept your surrender FIFA...

Buck, I'll never surrender to you.

Need a step ladder to get down off your high rockin' horse?

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.

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.

Those figures include the deaths caused by cops killing human beings as well.

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.

One of the dumbest rationales I have ever heard. Just simply stupid.

LOL, you don't see the obvious connection, DEATHS per 100,000 I don't know how else to break it to you.

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.

Yes, they include ALL firearm deaths. Law Enforcement, accidental, and murder.

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.

In Pennsyltucky you can marry your cousin too.

That doesn't make it necessarily a good idea.

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.

Puffy, that is a heck of a sample size for your "solid evidence". 1 for 1. Are you really that lacking in intelligence?

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.

Great comment..!

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.

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.

All your comment points to is that Americans are the most selfish and idiotic overall.

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.

Justdafacts?

Show me any studies that show people with common depression are a prone to violence.

Oh, that's who Steve is. Thanks Windriver.

Steve , Do you live in Maryland?

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.

Let's see, Windy, Puffy, and the one that can't spell. A combined IQ of 120, maybe. Just like their guns.

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?

It's pretty self explanatory.

BTW I didn't write the permit process. I just want the state to abide by it.

Steve,

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?

FIFA must be out of intelligent things to say.

"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.

Justdafacts Steve, sell any boats lately? You sure are making a killing selling your bullshit!

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.

Given Justdafacts commentary, I think he would be ruled mentally deficient and unable to get a permit.

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.

FIFA sure knows how to take a thread down the lowest form of debate.

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Excellent comment!

You swiped that out of the Eddie the Eagle magazine.

Since when is Ann Miller the final arbiter on anything?

What in the world does Cal Ripken's mother have to do with carrying a firearm?

Just shows what an armed perp will do to those who are unable to defend themselves.

You want to arm little old ladies now??? You have gone from silly to ridiculous.

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.

Steve
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.

So you're sexist, too, Steve?

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.

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?

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.

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..

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.

A responsible gun owner/carrier carries their firearm in a secure holster not his baggy jeans with no belt you foolish boy!

Windriver, that may be. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that people who get concealed carry permits will be "responsible gun owners."

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?

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."

LOL Except for when they are not.

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7856189

More on "law abiding" CCW holders

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

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.

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.

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)

http://www.nps.gov/arho/historyculture/slavery.htm

http://blackconfederates.blogspot.com/ http://dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0003531.htm read plaque Great man of history!

Cant Hide the truth

http://www.southernheritage411.com/hke.shtml
Check the National Archives

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

"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.

"Teabaggers."

What are you, 6 yrs old? childish...

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

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.

Yes it has...it's a fact...even if a corrupt court would get it wrong....

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?

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..

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....

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.

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...

Still not a final determination.

Oh I get, YOU are a bagger.

I am impressed. A well thought out response. Not the usual name calling.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Who says criminals and fugitives PURCHASE weapons????

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?

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

Great point..!

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?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083008/Navy-SEAL-accidentally-shoots-head-showing-gun-woman-met-bar.html

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.

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!

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.

Derp.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Jenn+Gibbons

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/219659/14/Rower-continues-journey-after-sexual-assault?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cbc%7Clarge

Try the search instead of the smart a## tab.

This is way too easy.
Along with trying Google next time, use a spelling checker (Pinnocchio? Really?)

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.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Still will not grow up to be a man and admit when you are wrong Stevie?

Wow! Just Wow! Denier is the truth.

Does typing "Nephew of JoeBlob" "Here you go, ChrisBlob" make you giggle to yourself?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-signs-law-giving-himself-bush-lifetime-secret-184305122--politics.html
Changed in the 90's to ten years.

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

moe? Your response please?

"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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/dnc-god-jerusalem-platform_n_1859200.html

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.

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.

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.

My, my, my, Joe deleted his vulgar and profane misogynistic comment!? Or was it the site moderator?

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..

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..

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, interstate commerce is alive and well. Just where do you think NY criminals get their weapons?

"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.

Steve,

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.

So what bugger Frank? Do you deny the story? Or are you still cleaning that sand out?