Yesterday, I quickly wrote
this blog post as to how the Second Amendment Foundation has sued the State of Maryland in an effort to do away with the discretionary gun permitting process that allows the exercise of the "bear" part of the 2A.
Today, the
WaPo has picked up on the story, and so too has an anti-gun state Delegate (who shall, for this purpose will remain nameless). My
former Facebook friend and I had this little doozey back and forth prior to lunch time.
Delegate's Status: The same gun-rights advocates who gutted Washington DC's gun-control laws are trying to do the same now in MD. Here's wishing Attorney General Doug Ganslwer best of luck in his effort to keep guns off our streets. I'm optimistic he will prevail in this court case:
FightinBluHen51 Reply: And, tell me why the state should discriminate against a fundamental right?
I have to ask Delegate, several questions: Do you personally have a carry permit in this state (that you will openly admit to)? Additionally, with strained budgets, of which we have balanced through budget cuts and debt issuance, can the state afford the legal costs to fight a loosing battle?
The state already issues permits to those who can show "good reason", of which includes business owners, those who carry large amounts of cash, those connected, those who have documented threats, famous people, and rumored hypocritical politicians replete with their double standards. What makes any class of people above another? Why is the life of the average citizen in Maryland placed beneath the currency assets of others? Let me remind you, DC's loosing case meant the 2A is a fundamental and individual right and Chicago's loosing case meant that it applies to the states; looks like a pattern to me.
The fact that police are not obligated legally to protect the average citizen and that they have shown the inability to do so on a social level, means that I should not have to live in fear that a thug who has no regard for the average human being will attempt to murder me like the poor chap at Johns Hopkins. You think, Delegate, that I should just be the victim of pure random chance? I deserve, the natural right, to make the choice to defend myself against harm.
It is frustrating that the states surrounding me, literally, afford me the protections of the 2A but my privileges and immunities are abridged by the "righteous" in this state. In plain English, I can and I do carry in DE, WV, VA, and PA, legally, without the "blood" on the street that you claim happens.
Delegates Reply: We will have to agree to disagree. I think that more guns in circulation will not make our society safer and will lead to even more deaths due to criminal abuse. I have heaerd too many stories of gruesome gun deaths in Baltimore and DC to be convinced by those who claim self defense. As far as I can tell far more people die from excessive guns than are saved by defensive gun use.
In any case, I'm happy to debate people who have honest disagreements with me and are willing to discuss. But I won't tolerate people misquoting me and simply fabricating statements as you have done (you quoted me as using the word "blood" which I didn't). I think when people have to resort to false statements to bolster their arguments, they have already lost. Goodbye.
Not shockingly, after that, he un-friended me. I'm heart broken as I'm sure you can imagine, but let us look into this typical anti-civil right supporter's reply. First, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I said in my initial reply that the 2A is a choice. It is not something to be forced on people if they don't want it, yet that's how this anti-gun Delegate acts in his forcing to disarm the country class. Next, he makes a statement that is completely refuted by every FBI crime report in the last ten years, and in the data sets correlated and explained in both of John R. Lott's Books (
More Guns Less Crime and
The Bias Against Guns). The anti even contradicts himself when he says "criminal abuse" admitting that criminals abuse the law, which includes firearms laws.
Obviously, my response was two fold. I wanted to make a passionate statement that drew out exactly how this Delegate feels, in an election year. Also, please note how he absolutely refused to answer whether or not he himself has a carry permit. It is Quite ironic that he got so touchy with a hard hitting series of questions when he claims to want "honest disagreements" with me and is willing to "discuss." I suppose the use of satirical dialect and dramatics to prove a point, and resorting to hitting the proverbial "ban" switch was how this elected representative chooses to deal with the "opposition." It's such a shame when we're able to expose them for the sideways thinkers that they are, especially when there are online records to go back through and call them out on.
While at times my writing and line of questioning with the opposition has a flare for the dramatic, it certainly is entertaining to see the other side crack under pressure. If one wants to call what I posted to this Delegate's page a "fabrication of statements", well then, your fabrication that the NRA is a bunch of "death peddlers" who want a "wild-west style free-for-all for every kind of gun imaginable," is equally and actually more, reprehensible.
No matter what, I'm sure it is extremely hard for them to be on the loosing side of the only issue that could really cost them their absolute power. I'm sure they are quaking in their panties for the mere fact that an armed society who is ready for trouble when it comes to them, is a more independent society, which is precisely the thing these anti-gun, ruling elites despise.
