# for Maryand hunters/gun owners



## drhnter

senate Bill 43 "assault weapons Ban of 2007 sponsored by senator Michael Lenett (D-19) will be heard by the Senate Judicial committee on Tuesday Feb. 27 at 1pm..SB43 would designate specific firearms, including MANY SEMI-AUTOMATICS, as "assault weapons" prohibit persons from transporting,possessing,selling,offering for sale,transfering,or receiving a specified "assault weapon(s) and requie the handgun roster board to compile and maintain a roster of prohibited specified "assault weapons  

This is democratic controlled legislature now that they have a Dem Gov trying once again to take away our legally owned guns


----------



## fishbait

Wow! Definitely not good for us. Here's a draft copy of the legislation. If passed, it would take effect on October 1, 2007

http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/bills/sb/sb0043f.pdf


----------



## cygnus-x1

Another brilliant bleeding heart idea. Make it so that only criminals can own the guns.

Annapolis ... The Logic Free Zone


----------



## drhnter

cygnus-x1 said:


> Another brilliant bleeding heart idea. Make it so that only criminals can own the guns.
> 
> Annapolis ... The Logic Free Zone


And what makes it even more of a bleeding heart idea is the guns they want to ban are almost never used in crimes.something like .002%. but make no mistake about it ..this is not about "crime" control it is and always has been about "gun" control if it was about controlling crime they would pass a bill to get tougher on crime and the low life scum that continue to get arrested and released only to commit more crimes


----------



## surfchunker

*ya get what ya vote for*

All those Baltimore/Annaplois freaks ....

Heard they are raising car tags 3X too 

Like I said you get what ya vote for


----------



## drhnter

surfchunker said:


> All those Baltimore/Annaplois freaks ....
> 
> Heard they are raising car tags 3X too
> 
> Like I said you get what ya vote for


As I posted in the Maryland/delaware thread,they are also considering a tax on service/labor in MD also, just nothing being reported about it, don't know if it has been proposed or just being considered, but be sure of one thing if they think they can they sure will try..this will cause the cost of EVERYTHING to increase..be on the look out for this and oppose it if/when it happens


----------



## cygnus-x1

If they ever decided to move the federal gov't to a city outside of Md the state business environment would collapse as MD has no frickin sense of trying to attract businesses. The only reason they put up with MD at asll is because of the federal cash cow next door.


----------



## AtlantaKing

And people ask me why I won't move to Maryland...


----------



## AtlantaKing

This bill is almost a mirror of the Federal AWB passed in 1994, except it has an expanded list of firearms, no exemptions, and no sunset. It is even more draconian than the 1994 AWB: a pistol-gripped rifle that accepts a detached magazine is automatically considered an AW, thus no "pre-ban"/"post-ban" distinction, and come 10/1/07 (if passed), they are no longer legal to purchase, transfer, or own without registration.


----------



## drhnter

AtlantaKing said:


> This bill is almost a mirror of the Federal AWB passed in 1994, except it has an expanded list of firearms, no exemptions, and no sunset. It is even more draconian than the 1994 AWB: a pistol-gripped rifle that accepts a detached magazine is automatically considered an AW, thus no "pre-ban"/"post-ban" distinction, and come 10/1/07 (if passed), they are no longer legal to purchase, transfer, or own without registration.


and to think my family doesn't understand why I am considering moving out west to some place like Colorado, wyoming...anywhere out of this liberal state


----------



## surfchunker

*Maryland*

The Free State .... they ought to call it Little California ...


----------



## 1BadF350

surfchunker said:


> Like I said you get what ya vote for


Bingo This is what happens when people vote on the premise of "sending a message to Washington". They didn't think it through. Now were gonna suffer:
*The illegals will be given more rights than citizens
*Gays will have more rights than hetero's
*Freedom of religion will continue unless you are a Christian/Evangelical.
*The criminals will determine what level of freedoms that the law abiding may have.
*1st ammendment continues to thrive while the 2nd ammendment is stomped on.
At least I don't have to second guess my vote.


----------



## fisherkid

*While that's specific*

to Maryland theres a national bill

Called H.R. 1022 to watch out for.


----------



## Genghis

1BadF350 said:


> Bingo This is what happens when people vote on the premise of "sending a message to Washington". They didn't think it through. Now were gonna suffer:
> *The illegals will be given more rights than citizens
> *Gays will have more rights than hetero's
> *Freedom of religion will continue unless you are a Christian/Evangelical.
> *The criminals will determine what level of freedoms that the law abiding may have.
> *1st ammendment continues to thrive while the 2nd ammendment is stomped on.
> At least I don't have to second guess my vote.


It would be so much easier to not simply assume that all assault weapons fans weren't simply folks being led around by the nose by those idiots in Fairfax who you sheepishly send your dues to if it wasn't for this kind of post. 

Bottom line-- you don't *need* an Ak-47 for anything, but then aqgain you don't *need* a 60" hi-def TV for anything and I'm not saying that we should ban those, lol. But when you ask reasonable people to consider whether or not we should allow people to own these weapons and then show attitudes and beliefs like these as being accepted amongst those who want the weapons... well, you're not helping yourselves.


----------



## cygnus-x1

Here is the problem. We assume that our government will always stay a benevolent government. What keeps them in check is that the people can defend themselves if the need arises. You start taking away self defense and the government can run roughshod over you.

I know that sounds whacko but just look at the state of most countries around the world. Stable governments where people have freewill are definitely in the minority.

However at this stage in the game owning an AK 47 would be no match for what th opposition would have whatever that opposition might be.

For me I just want the ability to own and carry a gun that I can defend my family with if I have to. I do not want end only allowed to carry a muzzle loader or a bow.

But it that comes to pass ...

Watch out William Tell


----------



## 1BadF350

The 2nd ammendment does not include the word "need". It's not up to you to "allow" me to purchase a semi-automatic rifle or any other firearm for that matter. It's my constitutional right.
The founding fathers guaranteed that right for "the people" to ensure that "the people" would be able to fend off a tyrannical government if it ever arose, and defend themselves from invasive forces domestic or foreign. 
People argue that the founding fathers never meant to include military style weapons, however, when the constitution was written "the people" had the same musket rifles that the militias had. That was the technology back in the day. 
The government is supposed to be a servant of "the people", not vice-versa.


----------



## drhnter

1BadF350 said:


> The 2nd ammendment does not include the word "need". It's not up to you to "allow" me to purchase a semi-automatic rifle or any other firearm for that matter. It's my constitutional right.
> The founding fathers guaranteed that right for "the people" to ensure that "the people" would be able to fend off a tyrannical government if it ever arose, and defend themselves from invasive forces domestic or foreign.
> People argue that the founding fathers never meant to include military style weapons, however, when the constitution was written "the people" had the same musket rifles that the militias had. That was the technology back in the day.
> The government is supposed to be a servant of "the people", not vice-versa.


AMEN!!!!!!!people have forgotten that we "the people" ARE the Govt. ...what is today called "The Govt" are mearly people chosen to represent us.
The founding fathers stated "To defend ourselves from attack both foreign and DOMESTIC "


----------



## b12823

Guns dont kill people, people kill people. If we didnt have any guns we would not be a nation,we would still be a colony!


----------



## drhnter

b12823 said:


> Guns dont kill people, people kill people. If we didnt have any guns we would not be a nation,we would still be a colony!


The difference between a citizen and a servent is a GUN


----------



## Genghis

I'm not going to go at you too hard here, but let me dispel your misunderstandings...



1BadF350 said:


> It's not up to you to "allow" me to purchase a semi-automatic rifle or any other firearm for that matter. It's my constitutional right.


Factually incorrect. As there are several classes of firearms that we can all agree that you cannot simply go to Dumbmart and buy (machine guns, M203 launchers, 155mm howitzers...  ) it is well within the established rights of the people's elected government and the courts to restrict what you can and cannot own as a matter of public safety and public policy. That's established law and really not open to intelligent discussion.



> The founding fathers guaranteed that right for "the people" to ensure that "the people" would be able to fend off a tyrannical government if it ever arose, and defend themselves from invasive forces domestic or foreign.
> People argue that the founding fathers never meant to include military style weapons, however, when the constitution was written "the people" had the same musket rifles that the militias had. That was the technology back in the day.


Wow.

So, you're going to hold off our "tyrannical" government with your Ak-47? I'm sure there's a NATO "Black Stealth Bomber" pilot (simple black helicopters being soooooo passe) sitting at a secret base in Commie New York City quaking in his jackboots. You do understand how ridiculous your logic sounds here, right? If you want to use that point to argue that you should be able to own, say, an Ohio-class sub loaded with D-5s then at least you'd be on sound logical ground. To argue that you need your Ak to defend against a government that could notionally kill you from 4k miles beyond the range of your favored plaything? Silly. Oh, and Ford... what tyrannical government exactly are we talking about? You may have noticed the orderly transferrances of power we've had going, sometimes between bitter political rivals, for oh, about 225 years now? Next you'll start quoting Menscius... well, probably not.



> The government is supposed to be a servant of "the people", not vice-versa.


Servant of the people? The government *is* the people, and as such the people will decide what the government will do by majority rule with safeguards written in to protect the rights of the minority.

Seriously, there are some excellent arguments for keeping firearms relatively available-- this Maryland bill is particularly flawed in that it is way, way to broad in restricting some weapons; it should do a much better job of defining what an assault weapon is to dispel the idea that it will ban any semi-automatic long arm. If people like you would use your heads instead of just parroting back what idiots like Wayne LaPierre tell you to parrot back you'd see limitations placed on a very narrow group of weapons that most of you don;t own and probably wouldn't bother to spend the money on and iron-clad protections for your right to hunt and defend yourselves and to keep rifles, shotguns, and handguns that serve that purpose. Instead, you scream about every attempt to reasonably ensure the safety of all Americans (assault weapons and armor-piercing rounds being two examples of this idiocy) and thus see these knee jerk, stupid, broad-languaged bills meant to keep guns away from the nut minority.

Get smart, keep the guns you really give a damn about-- or don't.


----------



## Genghis

drhnter said:


> The difference between a citizen and a servent is a GUN


The difference between a citizen and a servant is an education. The difference between a man and someone who needs to prove himself to be a man is a 9 inch long, hard, double thick... banana clip.


----------



## drhnter

Genghis said:


> The difference between a citizen and a servant is an education. The difference between a man and someone who needs to prove himself to be a man is a 9 inch long, hard, double thick... banana clip.


I don't want to get nasty on here but you obviously are an anti-gun nut:--| ..If you talk to any of the gun ban people they will tell you point blank that it is not about banning "assault weapons" it is about banning all guns and what they are doing is ban a few at a time until they have them all and they will never stop... the guns they are calling "assault weapons" don't fit the definition of "assault weapons"...


----------



## Genghis

drhnter said:


> I don't want to get nasty on here but you obviously are an anti-gun nut:--| ..If you talk to any of the gun ban people they will tell you point blank that it is not about banning "assault weapons" it is about banning all guns and what they are doing is ban a few at a time until they have them all and they will never stop... the guns they are calling "assault weapons" don't fit the definition of "assault weapons"...


You might want to scroll up two posts and read the last paragraph. And this "anti-gun nut" owns a lovely Remington M32 o/u that you'd give your right arm for, amongst others, and recently 263 acres of prime hunting land in the Adirondacks.

Honestly, "doctor", the biggest threat to continued gun ownership isn't the "anti-gun nuts" that pilot the black helicopters of your dreams; it's guys like you with your incredibly facile "grasp " of the issue who give everyone who shoots anything from skeet to elk a bad name. LEarn something about the issue, decide for yourself what is the most sensible course, and stop sending your dues to those idiot fear mongers in their $475,000,000 luxury land complex in Fairfax that your dues paid for. It always amazes me that nobody ever questions just what the NRA is doing with all that money that so many people who live paycheck-to-paycheck send them.


----------



## drhnter

Genghis said:


> You might want to scroll up two posts and read the last paragraph. And this "anti-gun nut" owns a lovely Remington M32 o/u that you'd give your right arm for, amongst others, and recently 263 acres of prime hunting land in the Adirondacks.
> 
> Honestly, "doctor", the biggest threat to continued gun ownership isn't the "anti-gun nuts" that pilot the black helicopters of your dreams; it's guys like you with your incredibly facile "grasp " of the issue who give everyone who shoots anything from skeet to elk a bad name. LEarn something about the issue, decide for yourself what is the most sensible course, and stop sending your dues to those idiot fear mongers in their $475,000,000 luxury land complex in Fairfax that your dues paid for. It always amazes me that nobody ever questions just what the NRA is doing with all that money that so many people who live paycheck-to-paycheck send them.


I have forgotten more about the "issues" then you will ever know.as for the "idiot fear mongers" in Fairfax as you refer to the NRA if that is your true feeling about them then you sir are no friend of hunters or gun owners anywhere.So you continue to recite the "talking points" of the anti-gun anti hunting wackos who obviously have brain washed you , although I don't think that was a very big job, and I will continue to send my money to the GREAT NRA of which I have been a member longer then you have been on this earth and a "Life Member" for over 25 of those years.


----------



## Genghis

drhnter said:


> I have forgotten more about the "issues" then you will ever know.as for the "idiot fear mongers" in Fairfax as you refer to the NRA if that is your true feeling about them then you sir are no friend of hunters or gun owners anywhere.So you continue to recite the "talking points" of the anti-gun anti hunting wackos who obviously have brain washed you , although I don't think that was a very big job, and I will continue to send my money to the GREAT NRA of which I have been a member longer then you have been on this earth and a "Life Member" for over 25 of those years.


You're their wet dream, Doc. You're also why idiotic broad-spectrum longarm restriction legislation will continue to be proposed (and pass) in states across the country and likely in Washington by 2010. Just keep thinking what those nice folks in Fairfax who you keep sending your money to tell you to think-- hell, there's no reason they'd ever lie to you, is there? I mean, if this issue ever found a reasonable solution and gun legislation became a dead issue there wouldn't be any reason for them to keep collecting all of that money every year, would there? I really do marvel at the NRA, though-- they manage to prey on a huge group of people who think that *they* are the hunters. If you listen carefully-- and if the wind is just right-- you can hear them laughing at you while they cash your money orders


----------



## 1BadF350

Sounds like we have an elitist gun snob on our hands. Doesn't care about anything but his fancy skeet gun.
I predicted that he would eventually reference male genitalia. 
I never really liked Elmer Fudd anyway.


----------



## drhnter

Genghis said:


> You're their wet dream, Doc. You're also why idiotic broad-spectrum longarm restriction legislation will continue to be proposed (and pass) in states across the country and likely in Washington by 2010. Just keep thinking what those nice folks in Fairfax who you keep sending your money to tell you to think-- hell, there's no reason they'd ever lie to you, is there? I mean, if this issue ever found a reasonable solution and gun legislation became a dead issue there wouldn't be any reason for them to keep collecting all of that money every year, would there? I really do marvel at the NRA, though-- they manage to prey on a huge group of people who think that *they* are the hunters. If you listen carefully-- and if the wind is just right-- you can hear them laughing at you while they cash your money orders


WE "the NRA" are the only reason you have the right to own your "so impresive Remington m32 o/u"...and no I am not impressed nor would I give my arm to own 1

You sir mentioned the "Black Stealth Bomber" and the "Black Helicopter" not me. If you take you head out of your A** long enough to ask any senator,representative or anti-gun/hunting group why they can't pass tougher gun control laws and they will ALL tell you because of the NRA..but not being member "you just like having others fight for you" you don't know what they do. so until you get better informed maybe you should just go to your "little" piece of property and hug a tree, and yes I said little because I sir own 878 acres in western MD and if I decided to list my gun collection on here it would take way too long. oh yeah thanks for the title of "Doctor" just another of your wrong "assumptions"


----------



## Genghis

1BadF350 said:


> Sounds like we have an elitist gun snob on our hands. Doesn't care about anything but his fancy skeet gun.
> I predicted that he would eventually reference male genitalia.
> I never really liked Elmer Fudd anyway.


Man, what a stereotype 

Seriously, I put out some valid challenges to your views, and instead of answering them and defending yourself you fall back on the Barney Fife playbook-- you know, the one that has you trusted by those who think for you with only one bullet to fire from a rusty old .38. You fired it and missed, someone shot back, and now Barney Fife has nothing to do but wave his empty gun around and scream insults and taunts.  Duck, Barney, duck!

Seriously, if you want to answer any of the arguments that I used to take apart your poistion, I'll look forward to it. If not, well, I guess you're just another of the prey that have been bagged, tagged, and intellectually gagged by the Money Hunters of Fairfax.


----------



## Big Rad

*being a hunter*

:redface:  I thought your name meant deer hunter


----------



## 1BadF350

> Seriously, I put out some valid challenges to your views, and instead of answering them and defending yourself you fall back on the Barney Fife playbook-- you know, the one that has you trusted by those who think for you with only one bullet to fire from a rusty old .38.


I answered your challenges. I'm just not as long winded.



> You fired it and missed, someone shot back, and now Barney Fife has nothing to do but wave his empty gun around and scream insults and taunts.  Duck, Barney, duck!


When did I scream insults and taunts other than responding to your reference to shortcomings of the genitals?



> Seriously, if you want to answer any of the arguments that I used to take apart your poistion, I'll look forward to it. If not, well, I guess you're just another of the prey that have been bagged, tagged, and intellectually gagged by the Money Hunters of Fairfax.


Your argument is that I don't need an "assault rifle", or in otherwords a _semi-automatic rifle that looks scary to you._ Why is it that you are compelled to tell me what I need? 
You go on to state that we are sheepishly brainwashed by the NRA and the we fantasize about black helicopters and other nonesense. I think just as freely as you, and I'm not a member of the NRA.
You also assume for whatever reason that someone who owns such a rifle is compensating for poor endowment. Why you even brought that up is a mystery to me. 
Why should I , as a law abiding citizen, not be permitted to own a semi-automatic rifle just because looks similar to the military style rifle? It is not a machine gun. It fuctions the same as any other semi-automatic rifle.


----------



## 1BadF350

drhnter, sent you a PM about shooting.


----------



## cygnus-x1

Again ... law abiding citizens don't use guns to commit crimes .. they do not commit crimes. Those that have criminal intent will commit the crime with whatever weapon they can get. Whether we legislate against any or all guns or not ... IT WILL NOT STOP CRIMINALS from getting what they want. The gov't cannot control the law if supply and demand. If there is a demand for a weapon to be used in a crime ... there will be a supply whether we like it or not.

At least if we are equally matched with our aggressor we may may be able make sure they do not attempt to hurt anyone else again.

Just make sure (in Maryland) if you pull that trigger in self defense that the body is _within_ your house/doorway and not outside.


----------



## 1BadF350

Semi-automatic, military looking rifles, are not the choice of criminals anyway. 
Because:
1. Cost too much.
2. Hard to conceal.
They prefer cheap handguns that are easy to conceal and easy to dispose of after a crime.

Dispite what the anti-gun groups say, semi-automatic military type rifles are very rarely ever used in the commission of a crime. In the few cases that they are, the media spins it out of proportion to sensationalize the story and whip the public into a frenzy.


----------



## drhnter

Big Rad said:


> :redface:  I thought your name meant deer hunter


BIG RAD>>you are dead on :beer: :beer: ..of course someone thinks I am a Doctor "any women need a check up??"


----------



## drhnter

1BadF350 said:


> Sounds like we have an elitist gun snob on our hands. Doesn't care about anything but his fancy skeet gun.
> I predicted that he would eventually reference male genitalia.
> I never really liked Elmer Fudd anyway.


You predicted it right he just had to "go there" to prove his manhood looks like someone has an inferioritycomplex


----------



## AtlantaKing

Gun control is largely a value judgement debate. It's not really about crime reduction or what guns to ban or any of that nonsense. The crux of the problem is that certain law makers feel that an armed society, and by extension, a society that is strong, prepared and _does not depend on the government_ to live their life, has no value, and therefore carry forth the notion that a tool that enables independence has no place in "their world". Of all the stats that kill, maim, wound, or otherwise harm people, firearms and firearms related deaths are at the bottom. Leading the list is alcohol, cars, swimming pools, and other assorted recreational activities.

Want to ban stuff for our safety? 

Why not target cars, because afterall, we have buses and taxis to transport us?

Why not swimming pools, since we have lakes, ponds, rivers and oceans to bathe in and don't need man-made bodies of water?

Why not fire extinguishers, since the fire department is right around the corner, right?

Why not cell phones, since we have landline phones and who really needs to be in touch 24/7 anyway?


----------



## drhnter

AtlantaKing said:


> Gun control is largely a value judgement debate. It's not really about crime reduction or what guns to ban or any of that nonsense. The crux of the problem is that certain law makers feel that an armed society, and by extension, a society that is strong, prepared and _does not depend on the government_ to live their life, has no value, and therefore carry forth the notion that a tool that enables independence has no place in "their world". Of all the stats that kill, maim, wound, or otherwise harm people, firearms and firearms related deaths are at the bottom. Leading the list is alcohol, cars, swimming pools, and other assorted recreational activities.
> 
> Want to ban stuff for our safety?
> 
> Why not target cars, because afterall, we have buses and taxis to transport us?
> 
> Why not swimming pools, since we have lakes, ponds, rivers and oceans to bathe in and don't need man-made bodies of water?
> 
> Why not fire extinguishers, since the fire department is right around the corner, right?
> 
> Why not cell phones, since we have landline phones and who really needs to be in touch 24/7 anyway?


You forgot to mention that we don't need to protect ourselves because the police are there for that...except that a couple years back here in AA co we had a woman kidnapped one night raped and murdered, now you got to understand someone saw this happening and called 911, they in turn delayed in contacting the police who never showed up in time and the poor woman was murdered, later the womans family tried to sue the 911 operator and the AA co police dept. only to have a liberal judge rule that " the police dept does not have the responsibility of protecting the people" now I thought it said on the side of the police cars "to protect and serve"...  

so I say NO WAY they are getting my guns


----------

