HB 638 Untraceable & Undetectable Firearms

[randomuser]

You can't win the fight that you are fighting.

They are fighting to take your right
You are fighting to have them take less of your right
The longer you play, the more they take.
It's a losing situation.

You work to stop bad laws, or if that isn't possible, make them the least bad possible.

***I have said it before, we cannot win until there is unity. They have it, we don't. I WANT THEM TO BAN 30 ROUND STANDARD MAGAZINES. I'd like them to regulate 200 stamp on any magazine fed pistol or rifle. IMHO we are living with their insanity. BUT most of us are willing to go along with it. It is going to take THEM DOING SOME REALLY STUPID STUFF for our side to get on the same page. Only when they go so blatantly overboard can we begin to think that we will have unity to actually win a fight.
Bump stocks don't affect enough of us to give us unity. Their OVERREACH NEEDS TO AFFECT MORE AMERICANS for the Americans to say no more and flip the table. We continue to give them cake.
(reference to the cake cartoon http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/once-upon-a-time-an-tale-from-the-internet/)

Only when they make us all on the same side will be have the unity to affect change. Until then, enjoy giving them another piece!

You work to stop bad laws, or if that isn't possible, make them the least bad possible.

The continuation of this sentence will ultimately end up where we are now from the freedom that previous generations have. Imagine 2 generations into the future.



sidenote: by playing their game there is an implied statement that you are going to go along with what comes at the end simply because you voiced your opinion. F that.

Maybe letters and calls will work. <<anyone thought of that? How did that work out the last 1,000 times?

 

[Occam]

we cannot win until there is unity

What does that unity look like? A somewhat more solid group of people that still make up a small minority of the people in the state, and the people they have the power to elect to the state legislature in a somewhat more solid minority that will still be unable to even prevent a veto-proof bill from passing against their passionate, unified opposition?

A 100% unified small minority of the state doesn't have any more teeth in a voting-based fight than does a slightly fractured or complacent small minority of the state. Neither has any ability to change - through "unity" - the course of the legislature's whims. On guns, or any other topic.

Only when they go so blatantly overboard can we begin to think that we will have unity to actually win a fight.

What does that fight look like? In what venue? The fight is DOA in the legislature, and that is only going to be more and more true going forward, as MoCo, HoCo, PG & B continue to grow their hegemony in the legislative arena and in election cash horsepower.

The only place we win is in court. And that's not any more or less likely if a Fudd in Garret County does or doesn't realize he needs to get out of the deer stand and vote. It might help if he skipped a pizza and a twelve pack and sent that $25 to MSI (and another $25 each to every other entity that actually brings things to court) instead. Is that what you're really talking about, here? Because otherwise, talking about "fighting" in Maryland is literally pointless.

Only when they make us all on the same side will be have the unity to affect change.

That sort of hand-wavy, non-specific assertion is exactly why a lot of people simply sit it out. It's not a plan. It's not a vision for a specific and winnable fight. It's just railing against the reality of the fact that the lefties HAVE ALREADY WON the fight in this state, by way of entrenched demographics that can't (and likely won't) change without a generation or two of improbable turns of events.

When you say "fight!" and then stop short of describing where, how, at what cost, with who leading the charge, and to what specific end, it's pretty meaningless. And normal people can tell. Which is why they don't.

 

[randomuser]

What does that unity look like? A somewhat more solid group of people that still make up a small minority of the people in the state, and the people they have the power to elect to the state legislature in a somewhat more solid minority that will still be unable to even prevent a veto-proof bill from passing against their passionate, unified opposition?

A 100% unified small minority of the state doesn't have any more teeth in a voting-based fight than does a slightly fractured or complacent small minority of the state. Neither has any ability to change - through "unity" - the course of the legislature's whims. On guns, or any other topic.



What does that fight look like? In what venue? The fight is DOA in the legislature, and that is only going to be more and more true going forward, as MoCo, HoCo, PG & B continue to grow their hegemony in the legislative arena and in election cash horsepower.

The only place we win is in court. And that's not any more or less likely if a Fudd in Garret County does or doesn't realize he needs to get out of the deer stand and vote. It might help if he skipped a pizza and a twelve pack and sent that $25 to MSI (and another $25 each to every other entity that actually brings things to court) instead. Is that what you're really talking about, here? Because otherwise, talking about "fighting" in Maryland is literally pointless.



That sort of hand-wavy, non-specific assertion is exactly why a lot of people simply sit it out. It's not a plan. It's not a vision for a specific and winnable fight. It's just railing against the reality of the fact that the lefties HAVE ALREADY WON the fight in this state, by way of entrenched demographics that can't (and likely won't) change without a generation or two of improbable turns of events.

When you say "fight!" and then stop short of describing where, how, at what cost, with who leading the charge, and to what specific end, it's pretty meaningless. And normal people can tell. Which is why they don't.

I had something come up at work and actually have to do some work. I'll elaborate more later, but this:

you quoted
Originally Posted by randomuser View Post
we cannot win until there is unity

And then asked me what it looks like.
I wrote this"***I have said it before, we cannot win until there is unity. They have it, we don't. I WANT THEM TO BAN 30 ROUND STANDARD MAGAZINES. I'd like them to regulate 200 stamp on any magazine fed pistol or rifle."

Because something so insane needs to pass. When our politicians (dems) are affected and their families are barking at them or made felons, then and only then will they actually realize that they can't do stuff like that. Then and only then will we get some of them to change their ways.


***to address one of your other points about donating money to pro 2a groups. This is how you play court games and concede. Nothing is going to happen in our favor with the other side as they will only rest when we compromise on a right. The more we talk with them the more we lose. This has happened over and over and over. I don't see any talks with them ending in something other than a compromise of your rights.


Can we all agree that registration leads to confiscation?


If we are all felons together then we finally have a voice. Right now, if someone on here got in trouble for a bump stock others would tell them about playing stupid games. But what if playing a stupid game was you practicing your rights and everyone else was doing the same thing.

>>>>
If everyone had a bump stock you would not have bump stocks banned because everyone would fight for them.

^^^^^Let's change that statement to something more relevant:
If everyone had banned magazine fed guns (pistol or rifle) then everyone would fight for them.


I don't believe that lobyists and lawyers can protect our rights. They can only negotiate them away like a piece of cake hoping the other side does not want to come back and take more. It's business. I'd note that it has not worked for us yet, so why do we think it will work now and in the future?


Now let me ask:
What percentage of a workers income can go to taxes before the workers unite and have some sort of resistance? It's kind of like that. Right now, they tax the heck out of us, but not enough for us to fight back. Someday they will cross the line and piss off enough people. Until that day comes, we will want our peaceful slavery as the dangerous freedom is not as comfortable. We are not yet at that point. These bills are nothing more than boiling the frog slowly. I'm just asking for the law to change faster (to the inevitable) so that the frog (Americans) realize what is happening and get out of the pot. Right now, to many are swimming around in the warm water.

 

[Occam]

Because something so insane needs to pass. When our politicians (dems) are affected and their families are barking at them or made felons, then and only then will they actually realize that they can't do stuff like that. Then and only then will we get some of them to change their ways.

So, you're saying that a majority of the D legislature is going to find themselves with close friends and family members convicted of felony possession of high capacity mags they otherwise wouldn't be buying because they hate guns and the entire 2A culture ... but they're going to buy them and get convicted of having them, and then the general assembly is going to rethink their entire world view on gun ownership, liberate the state from decades of those laws, and then scrub away all of those felony convictions? The entire notion is fantasy.

The only solution is litigation, before all of those felony convictions even happen. That takes money. The people willing and able to pursue that already exist and are already on the case. They need more support, not more family members in jail.

Nothing is going to happen in our favor with the other side as they will only rest when we compromise on a right. The more we talk with them the more we lose.

Legislatively, absent successful litigation, WE ARE GOING TO LOSE ANYWAY, in this state. Not sure how you can be missing out on that reality.

If we are all felons together then we finally have a voice.

Hilarious. So we'd have a very small collection of felons singing the same tune. Nothing would change, other than the Maryland Dems smiling with delight that more stupid gun people are out of circulation or at least banned for life from ever owning another gun. You really think they'd pause at that thought, no matter what the chorus sings? They'd LOVE that result.

If everyone had banned magazine fed guns (pistol or rifle) then everyone would fight for them.

And, again (I guess I wasn't clear enough the first time): what do you mean by "fight?" Specifically. Your plan. The details. What that fight actually consists of, beyond posting in this forum. I've already told you what I think that fight actually looks like, but you're telling me it can't work:

I don't believe that lobyists and lawyers can protect our rights.

The lawyers who've won in 2A cases around the country (do you really consider Heller to be an actual loss?) would disagree with you. But since you don't think unconstitutional legislation can be fought in court, and we all know there's no changing the demographic in the state house, what does your proposed fight actually look like? Who is fighting who, by what means, where? Specifically.

 

[teratos]

It’s clear the politicians, even the Republicans, have no vested interest in upholding the founding values of our republic. The Dems seem particularly eager.

These right are ours to defend. No help is coming.

 

[Auggie93]

I know that Lopez is the author but whoever actually crafted this bill knows enough about firearm laws to be dangerous and they are far from knowledgeable. It's another attempt to legislate something that the person who crafted the bill knows nothing about. I will give them a "F" on their homework assignment. This bill is nothing to sneeze at. Push back is needed. There is enough language here to confuse the non-gun owning senator or representative to just vote YES because it is anti gun.

Spot on

 

[Muleskinner]

You can't win the fight that you are fighting.

They are fighting to take your right
You are fighting to have them take less of your right
The longer you play, the more they take.
It's a losing situation.





***I have said it before, we cannot win until there is unity. They have it, we don't. I WANT THEM TO BAN 30 ROUND STANDARD MAGAZINES. I'd like them to regulate 200 stamp on any magazine fed pistol or rifle. IMHO we are living with their insanity. BUT most of us are willing to go along with it. It is going to take THEM DOING SOME REALLY STUPID STUFF for our side to get on the same page. Only when they go so blatantly overboard can we begin to think that we will have unity to actually win a fight.
Bump stocks don't affect enough of us to give us unity. Their OVERREACH NEEDS TO AFFECT MORE AMERICANS for the Americans to say no more and flip the table. We continue to give them cake.
(reference to the cake cartoon http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/once-upon-a-time-an-tale-from-the-internet/)

Only when they make us all on the same side will be have the unity to affect change. Until then, enjoy giving them another piece!


The continuation of this sentence will ultimately end up where we are now from the freedom that previous generations have. Imagine 2 generations into the future.



sidenote: by playing their game there is an implied statement that you are going to go along with what comes at the end simply because you voiced your opinion. F that.

Maybe letters and calls will work. <<anyone thought of that? How did that work out the last 1,000 times?

And the more we sit on our hands the further they push. Yet many here still think they aren't coming for our guns

 

[randomuser]

It’s clear the politicians, even the Republicans, have no vested interest in upholding the founding values of our republic. The Dems seem particularly eager.

These right are ours to defend. No help is coming.

Some would think that our rights being infringed upon is directly correlated to paying lawyers and lobbyists. It is as if they are not paying attention to the end goal of the other side.

 

[Muleskinner]

Some would think that our rights being infringed upon is directly correlated to paying lawyers and lobbyists. It is as if they are not paying attention to the end goal of the other side.

The days of challenging infringement in court is soon going to be over. Once the dems stack SCOTUS its finished The 2A will be our only way to fix it..we are fast approaching our day of reckoning . What happens next will determine the fate of the nation. Our fouders gave us the tool to reject tyranny.. we just need the balls to use it.. if we dont, millions will suffer..

 

[Mark75H]

Projecting

 

[boatbod]

The days of challenging infringement in court is soon going to be over. Once the dems stack SCOTUS its finished The 2A will be our only way to fix it..we are fast approaching our day of reckoning . What happens next will determine the fate of the nation. Our fouders gave us the tool to reject tyranny.. we just need the balls to use it.. if we dont, millions will suffer..

In which case you best hope not too many people voluntarily surrender their collections

 

[Bertfish]

In which case you best hope not too many people voluntarily surrender their collections

I will hand my guns out to thugs on the streets of Baltimore before I hand them over to the government

 

[Mr.Culper]

Personally, any "laws" that are passed in the MGA while baring me from in person testimony,, do not apply to me.
Yeah, I will send my written "testimony",, but in the end I will ignore any laws passed.

 

[KIBarrister]

I will hand my guns out to thugs on the streets of Baltimore before I hand them over to the government

#mood

 

[Allen65]

These right are ours to defend. No help is coming.

It's always been that way. The Founding Fathers created a government structure that assumes everyone is a power-hungry bastard, and the only way to keep the biggest bastard from assuming absolute power is by balancing authorities so there is constant friction. And it's not just a three branches issue. The Electoral College balances power between population centers and agrarian states. The BoR sets up limits on GOV's power over individuals. But there is a GOV with police powers to keep mob rule in check, too.

Balance. And that means in order to maintain our authorities as the citizenry, we need to constantly make an effort to play our part within the constitutional legal framework and throw the BS flag when others with power try to overreach and claim authorities that aren't legally theirs.

It's constant friction, by design.

 

[teratos]

It's always been that way. The Founding Fathers created a government structure that assumes everyone is a power-hungry bastard, and the only way to keep the biggest bastard from assuming absolute power is by balancing authorities so there is constant friction. And it's not just a three branches issue. The Electoral College balances power between population centers and agrarian states. The BoR sets up limits on GOV's power over individuals. But there is a GOV with police powers to keep mob rule in check, too.

Balance. And that means in order to maintain our authorities as the citizenry, we need to constantly make an effort to play our part within the constitutional legal framework and throw the BS flag when others with power try to overreach and claim authorities that aren't legally theirs.

It's constant friction, by design.

Yep. And ignoring unconstitutional laws is part of that balance. That is also our right and duty. I won’t lift a finger to refute any part of a law I have no intention of complying with in its’ entirety. If the government wants my property, which is my absolute right to possess, they will need to take is by force, persecute me, or kill me to do it.

If there were silence in the halls of Annapolis when they ask for opposition to the bill, I believe a powerful message would be sent. Only the dumbest there would interpret it as a willingness to comply.

 

[randomuser]

If there were silence in the halls of Annapolis when they ask for opposition to the bill, I believe a powerful message would be sent. Only the dumbest there would interpret it as a willingness to comply.

Could not agree more. The silence would send more of a message than us paying lawyers to speak in courts or negotiate a compromise.

Maybe someday people will understand this idea. It is brilliant. But I know it won't happen because our side does not have the unity needed to make a true stand like the one you just mentioned.

Our side wants to do what has worked so well before. We need to just do more of it.

 

[teratos]

Our side wants to do what has worked so well before. We need to just do more of it.

With a different make up of the MGA, it might work reasonably well. Unfortunately we have low-IQ ideologues following party dogma in a veto-proof majority willing to trample rights. These people NEED to to know with certainty that a very large number of well armed and well trained people refuse to comply with their will.

The Constitution protects it. I would also argue that the Bill of Rights cannot be amended.

 

[lazarus]

With a different make up of the MGA, it might work reasonably well. Unfortunately we have low-IQ ideologues following party dogma in a veto-proof majority willing to trample rights. These people NEED to to know with certainty that a very large number of well armed and well trained people refuse to comply with their will.

The Constitution protects it. I would also argue that the Bill of Rights cannot be amended.

I guess just remove the parts of the constitution you don't like, because the framers built in a method of amending the constitution. That is all the bill of rights is, is the first 10 amendments to the constitution. So if you argue it can't be amended, you are literally arguing it shouldn't exist to begin with. Or you are saying they should have stopped after 10 (there are some pretty important ones after #10).

 

[teratos]

I guess just remove the parts of the constitution you don't like, because the framers built in a method of amending the constitution. That is all the bill of rights is, is the first 10 amendments to the constitution. So if you argue it can't be amended, you are literally arguing it shouldn't exist to begin with. Or you are saying they should have stopped after 10 (there are some pretty important ones after #10).

It's a Bill of Rights. Apparently, your definition of a Right is different than mine. You go ahead and give up your Rights when the Dems finally repeal the 2A....