Feedback on O'Malley's "Discussion Website" about CCW

[TheTruth]

http://www.discussion.maryland.gov/?p=46&cpage=1#comment-148

Found this somewhere (here?) but thought it was worth its own thread... lets add our two cents to this respectfully. I already saw where some called us "gunslingers"... we aren't vigilantes or blood lusting people - we just want to be able to defend ourselves and loved ones. Lets be respectful even if the opponents paint with a broad brush.

Remember, this isn't about "so called" assault weapons or having insane people carry guns... its primarily about how enacting CCW will bring positive revenue into the state as well as having other benefits to local businesses and improving public safety.

 

[novus collectus]

Posted

 

[INMY01TA]

I posted as well. Funny, most the negative comments on this and similar issues are from women.

 

[blindnoodle]

If you don't post on the site please at least go in and click the "thumbs up" to the posts you agree with!

 

[BigCity]

posted

 

[Threeband]

Posted.

Most people who oppose “shall issue” completely misunderstand it.
This would merely bring Maryland in line with surrounding states, and indeed with most states nationwide.

This is a totally unremarkable thing in most of the country, in sensible places like Pennsylvania, ho-hum places like Ohio and Indiana, and progressive places like Oregon and Colorado.

Maryland is completely out of step in this, which is a non-issue in most other states.

It’s really no big deal. Read more: http://planetutah.typepad.com/planet_utah/2008/03/the-inevitable.html

Frankly, I think this is exactly the message we should be repeating and repeating.

Saying "I should be able to carry a gun to defend myself" just does not resonate with people who are oblivious or in denial about crime. Many see helplessness and victimhood as marks of especial virtue.

Hoplophobes, blissninnys, sheeple, whatever: you have just one chance to plant a seed.

The overwhelming majority have no idea that this is already the law in most places, including our neighboring states.

 

[kstew]

posted

 

[shrpshtrjoe]

Posted

 

[Punchabearinnamouf]

Posted and 'd

 

[mudd4life88]

This is what I wrote and gave my 's

Marcus says:
August 16, 2009 at 4:14 pm

Florida, Utah, Virginia are just of the few states that allow us as Marylanders to purchase CCW permits so that we may protect ourselves and our families once over state lines and into surrounding states.
Do they do this for amusement?
NO!
They do it because they believe in the second amendment, our freedoms we enjoy from the Bill of Rights and the pure profit that goes into their pockets.
Not only does the pure profit from permit fees help but the cut in crime saves money as well. It is a proven fact that states with CCW have less crime than those who don’t. This means they spend less money on overtime for police and emergency providers.Less money on special task forces against higher crime, etc..
All of this puts money into the states pocket.
State ran permit classes would also put money into the states pocket. Get volunteer’s to teach these classes and charge a nominal fee to take the class.
Those who oppose the CCW permits are more opposing guns and not the permits. They enjoy the right to speak their mind as they should as we should be able to enjoy our second amendment right. If you don’t like guns don’t buy one, but don’t take the right from someone else to protect their family.

 

[Punchabearinnamouf]

This is what I wrote and gave my 's

Marcus says:
August 16, 2009 at 4:14 pm

Florida, Utah, Virginia are just of the few states that allow us as Marylanders to purchase CCW permits so that we may protect ourselves and our families once over state lines and into surrounding states.
Do they do this for amusement?
NO!
They do it because they believe in the second amendment, our freedoms we enjoy from the Bill of Rights and the pure profit that goes into their pockets.
Not only does the pure profit from permit fees help but the cut in crime saves money as well. It is a proven fact that states with CCW have less crime than those who don’t. This means they spend less money on overtime for police and emergency providers.Less money on special task forces against higher crime, etc..
All of this puts money into the states pocket.
State ran permit classes would also put money into the states pocket. Get volunteer’s to teach these classes and charge a nominal fee to take the class.
Those who oppose the CCW permits are more opposing guns and not the permits. They enjoy the right to speak their mind as they should as we should be able to enjoy our second amendment right. If you don’t like guns don’t buy one, but don’t take the right from someone else to protect their family.

I posted directly after you
Figure the name I put up there would be a giveaway

 

[Threeband]

Figure the name I put up there would be a giveaway

Was that you? I thought it was another Punchabearinnamouf.

 

[Punchabearinnamouf]

Was thsat you? I thought it was another Punchabearinnamouf.

There are many imitators. But that was me this time. I was keepin it short haha

 

[md_rick_o]

Posted and Thumbed.

 

[a81lp]

posted

 

[boricuamaximus]

fingered and post.

 

[woodstock]

Posted and 'd

done!

now what is it with you guys putting in yer real names? how the heck am i s'posed to read what our members wrote? sheeze...

 

[md_rick_o]

Well, I can claim Oly is me.

Loved your post Woodstock.

 

[woodstock]

my input:

woodstock says:
August 16, 2009 at 5:12 pm
the concept of allowing the law abiding citizen to carry legally is one of the best measures of public safety. the argument i see here is many think all the guns legally purchased are the ones used for criminal intent. this is a false notion as criminals are able to acquire weapons easily. the unfortunate cases where the guns were purchased legally then used for ill-fated victims is a tragedy, certainly, but eyesight falls short on the fact it took a gun to remove that gun. statistically speaking, in many cases where a gun WOULD HAVE been used, simply brandishing a weapon to thwart the attack was enough to stop the crime BEFORE it could have escalated to tragic consequences.
consider the following, most mass killings occur in gun restricted cities or other entities that are “gun free” zones. the virginia tech and the murders that took place at a childrens school in PA are prime examples of how necessary an armed citizen is needed to keep the peace. in zones where guns are abundant, ie., gun shows, NRA functions, International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) competitions, etc., are yet to report any such tragedies.
furthermore, the current trend of gun purchases and ammunition sales exemplify the need to educate the gun buying public about the proper skills, knowledge and attitude necessary for safe gun ownership, thereby reducing the chances of the gun getting into the wrong hands (children, criminals, mentally handicapped). developing safety programs could generate more funds to launch other projects geared towards public safety.
BTW, the supreme court rules that the police have no duty or obligation to protect the individual safety of our citizenry. just something to think about when you oppose YOUR right to self protection.

 

[snavematt]

posted as MCE