Brady Campign will advocate to repeal Maryland gun ban

DutchV said:

As soon as they try to decide who is eligible to own firearms, they'll determine that merely wanting a gun makes you crazy and therefore ineligible. That's Liberal logic. So don't fall for this ass-hat.

Click to expand...

I think you may be right about that, along with taxing arms and ammunition heavily enough to put them out of reach by all but the wealthy and criminals.

j_h_smith said:

I have to question if Mrs Bill Clinton is as blind to the threat of ISIS/Muslims as she's playing it. I think this is an Obozo thing and in order to get his support she can't take on this subject. Surely no one other than Obozo can be as blinded by religion as he has shown to be. This was hot button for the DNC but now that she has the nomination, I think you're going to see little glimpses of anti-islam from her. Not a lot, just a small, ever so noticeable peak.

Click to expand...

Then... Why did she choose a running mate who is a Muslim sympathizer? ... And why is her number one confidant and right hand woman a Muslim? (With direct family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.)

RoadDawg said:

Then... Why did she choose a running mate who is a Muslim sympathizer? ... And why is her number one confidant and right hand woman a Muslim? (With direct family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.)

Click to expand...

I just don't know how anyone(other than Obozo) can't see the pain that ISIS wants to bestow upon the US. I would like to give, anyone who is running for the office, the benefit of the doubt when it comes to national security. Call me naïve. But there has to come a time in our political wrangling that ISIS must be called exactly what it is. I would hope that our society would demand that from the POTUS.

j_h_smith said:

I just don't know how anyone(other than Obozo) can't see the pain that ISIS wants to bestow upon the US. I would like to give, anyone who is running for the office, the benefit of the doubt when it comes to national security. Call me naïve. But there has to come a time in our political wrangling that ISIS must be called exactly what it is. I would hope that our society would demand that from the POTUS.

Click to expand...

Bread and circuses. Football season is coming up - I know of no better distraction.
Until "lone wolf" attacks threaten the big daddy's NFL viewing or little Johnnies soccer match, not much will change.

j_h_smith said:

I have to question if Mrs Bill Clinton is as blind to the threat of ISIS/Muslims as she's playing it. I think this is an Obozo thing and in order to get his support she can't take on this subject. Surely no one other than Obozo can be as blinded by religion as he has shown to be. This was hot button for the DNC but now that she has the nomination, I think you're going to see little glimpses of anti-islam from her. Not a lot, just a small, ever so noticeable peak.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that The HildeBeast was an Alinsky acolyte, and has demonstrated Rule #11, "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counter side", in practice.

In more detail ...

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

Click to expand...

EVERYTHING to the Clinton's is political, even if it's an existential threat. And don't forget that CGI has substantial donations from the Saudis. So, while Obama is ideologically aligned with Islam as shown from time to time, the Clintons are on the payroll.

EL1227 said:

Okay ... I'm good up to that point BECAUSE that's what the law says now. So, ENFORCE the laws on the books. However ...



e.g. Via the SECRET no-fly / terrorist watch list. Sounds like Van Hollen's phrase in trade, but with a twist, doesn't it ?

Click to expand...

I'm not good up to that point, because the second sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first, and the first is what I'm worried about:

"All we are trying to do is keep guns out of the hands of people we all agree that shouldn’t have them."

That first sentence is a lie, and the evidence is all the legislation that they've propounded that does NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of people we all agree that shouldn't have them.

If they've suddenly changed their position and backed off in order to achieve an immediate goal while fighting ultimately for confiscation (which they do all the time), what leads anyone to believe that once they achieve this goal that they won't go for more? They eat an elephant (and your rights) one bite at a time. Can anybody say "Obamacare" as first step toward single payr, socialized medicine? Or any other Democrat government program?


Leopards don't change their spots. The anti-Second Amendment crowd just claims victory and uses each one as a stepping stone to garner more support with every success.

Wasn't FSA2013 supposed to be the crime-ending, omnibus solution to gun violence in MD?

The ink wasn't even dry on O'Mao's signature when they started talking about the "next steps," which they've been fighting for ever since.

Don't play Charlie Brown when Lucy promises that this time she'll hold the football for you to kick. She's still lying.

If any of the "Brady Bunch" (or anyone of that ilk), said it was raining at my house, I'd look out the windows on each side of the house before I'd bother to put on my raincoat. Actually, even if I saw water coming down, I probably wouldn't put it on, I'd go outside first to make sure they weren't squirting the hose.

Oddway Otts said:

If any of the "Brady Bunch" (or anyone of that ilk), said it was raining at my house, I'd look out the windows on each side of the house before I'd bother to put on my raincoat. Actually, even if I saw water coming down, I probably wouldn't put it on, I'd go outside first to make sure they weren't squirting the hose.

Click to expand...

No need, I guarantee with the Brady campaign, you are getting hosed.

Jim12 said:

Wasn't FSA2013 supposed to be the crime-ending, omnibus solution to gun violence in MD?

The ink wasn't even dry on O'Mao's signature when they started talking about the "next steps," which they've been fighting for ever since.

Don't play Charlie Brown when Lucy promises that this time she'll hold the football for you to kick. She's still lying.

Click to expand...

These ARE the 'next steps' OWE'Malley was alluding to ... Just ask Spinny Vinnie ... and they won't end with these either, until we choke on what they're shoving down our throats.

I think that with FSA2013, we're up to swallowing a dog ... if you want to use Burl Ive's folk song as an analogy.

I know an old lady that swallowed a dog, wasn't she a hog to swallow a dog? She swallowed a dog to catch the cat, she swallowed the cat to catch the bird, she swallowed a bird to catch the spider that wriggled and giggled and tickled inside her, she swallowed the spider to catch the fly; I don't know why she swallowed a fly.

I guess she'll die.

Click to expand...

Spolier alert !!! ... when told to swallow the horse, we all die.

danb said:

No need, I guarantee with the Brady campaign, you are getting hosed.

Click to expand...

If that weren't so because it's so true, it would be

The most basic common sense rule of all is to never trust anything a liberal says. To them, the end always justifies the means, and little things like fact and truth are impediments to getting what they want.

Just for a minute consider this situation with regards to Kolbe. Last I heard, Kolbe was remanded back with a requirement that Strict Scrutiny be applied and Frosh and company had requested en banc. Let's assume for a moment that the Anti's are actually concerned that they may lose that battle. This would expand the impact of the decision beyond Maryland, and there is little doubt that this lawsuit would proceed further up the chain of courts, eventually making its way to the SCOTUS. Now, assume the Anti's see a reasonable chance of Trump winning the election and appointing two or more judges to SCOTUS. If this case hits SCOTUS at that point, then the likelihood of a decision in our favor, with National implications, is pretty darn high.

By dropping the ban now, we lose standing to proceed with Kolbe. The lawsuit dies and, with it, another chance at getting this issue resolved once and for all. Once the lawsuit is dismissed, the Anti's can just write a new bill during the next session of the GA, with the exact same, or worse, restrictions and start again. We will show up and fight, they will win, Hogan will either be forced to veto the bill, political ammunition for 2018, or let it pass without his signature, again political ammunition for 2018, and they can just override Hogan's veto if they so choose. We are the only ones that suffer in this instance as we have to begin the entire legal battle again from the start.

The Anti's are a patient lot. They play the Long Game. Never Trust Them! Ever!!!!!

Perhaps they have observed that we now know how to act tactically (Pavement Patriots) AND strategically (OP DINO)?