Record Gun Sales in Maryland as Tyrannical Law Looms

[pat-tekker-cat]

Wow I can't believe that you are all about to be murdered in your own homes. I wonder how many Americans have lived and died, with out ever owning a gun.

SS

Well not many of my relatives would have been around, had they not had guns for hunting and feeding everyone. When you only got 3000 acres to feed 40 or 50 ppl, you do need some protein in your diet.
If someone has all the home invasion robbery stats for the last 30 days, please posts, if there's room.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Silver Searcher]

The only problem being is that its not a cops job to protect you or anybody else.

Guess they need to change there logos then...

 

[Silver Searcher]

Well not many of my relatives would have been around, had they not had guns for hunting and feeding everyone. When you only got 3000 acres to feed 40 or 50 ppl, you do need some protein in your diet.
If someone has all the home invasion robbery stats for the last 30 days, please posts, if there's room.

I'm talking about modern times, not the wild west, we all know America was taken with the gun,

 

[packerbacker]

A lot have died that SHOULD have owned guns, that's for sure.

 

[Silver Searcher]

A lot have died that SHOULD have owned guns, that's for sure.

But would one have saved them
'
SS

 

[pat-tekker-cat]

I'm talking about modern times, not the wild west, we all know America was taken with the gun,

I'm talking from the mid 1800's to the present! Modern enough?

And truthfully, I do appreciate the banter and like you, but, to argue my point with someone who does not live here or is not a US citizen, does seem kinda moot to me, but like I said, I do appreciate you. (If I was wrong on the geography or your citizenship status, forgive me)
Hope all is well on your side of the pond, and thanks for your killer finds you've shared with us!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Wow I can't believe that you are all about to be murdered in your own homes. I wonder how many Americans have lived and died, with out ever owning a gun.

SS

SS, not sure what part of "A Right" your having trouble comprehending..

Just like the right of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble peaceably.......The right to keep and bear arms is OUR RIGHT.

We really don't care what people in other countries think about it, it is OUR RIGHT.

There are about 75 million gun owners in this country....

Approx 200,000 women use a gun to defend their selves ever year. Just in Florida alone there are 2 million concealed weapon license holders and I am one of them.

I am armed 95% of the time when i leave home many times with more than 1 and I have 6 firearms in my home. Someone breaks in they will not be walking out, they will be wheeled out.

The ones murdered in their homes are the ones who do not own firearms....





Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Red James Cash]

Guess they need to change there logos then...

It doesnt specify who they protect and serve now does it.

 

[Silver Searcher]

I'm talking from the mid 1800's to the present! Modern enough?

And truthfully, I do appreciate the banter and like you, but, to argue my point with someone who does not live here or is not a US citizen, does seem kinda moot to me, but like I said, I do appreciate you. (If I was wrong on the geography or your citizenship status, forgive me)
Hope all is well on your side of the pond, and thanks for your killer finds you've shared with us!

I'm not really opposed to all the people losing there guns, I see the need for folk living out in the sticks, but not the city folk.

SS

 

[packerbacker]

here's evolution according to wiki. Note the last sentence about "declined dramatically". Arming honest people works!
The issue of routine arming in Great Britain was raised after the 1952 Derek Bentley case, in which a Constable was shot dead and a Sergeant severely wounded, and again after the 1966 Massacre of Braybrook Street, in which three London officers were killed. As a result, around 17% of officers in London became authorised to carry firearms. After the deaths of a number of members of the public in the 1980s fired upon by police, control was considerably tightened, many officers had their firearm authorisation revoked, and training for the remainder was greatly improved. As of 2005, around seven per cent of officers in London are trained in the use of firearms. Firearms are also only issued to an officer under strict guidelines.[SUP][6][/SUP]
In order to allow armed officers to respond rapidly to an incident, most forces have patrolling Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs). ARVs were modelled on the Instant Response Cars introduced by the West Yorkshire Police in 1976, and were first introduced in London in 1991, with 132 armed deployments being made that year.
Although largely attributable to a significant increase in the use of imitation firearms and air weapons,[SUP][7][/SUP] the overall increase in firearms crime between 1998/99 and 2002/03[SUP][7][/SUP] (it has been decreasing since 2003/04, although use of imitations continued to rise)[SUP][7][/SUP] has kept this issue in the spotlight. In October 2000, Nottinghamshire Police introduced regular armed patrols to the St Ann's and Meadows estates in Nottingham, in response to fourteen drug-related shootings in the two areas in the previous year.[SUP][8][/SUP] Although the measure was not intended to be permanent, patrols were stepped up in the autumn of 2001 after further shootings,[SUP][9][/SUP] after which the firearms crime declined dramatically.

 

[Silver Searcher]

here's evolution according to wiki. Note the last sentence about "declined dramatically". Arming honest people works!
The issue of routine arming in Great Britain was raised after the 1952 Derek Bentley case, in which a Constable was shot dead and a Sergeant severely wounded, and again after the 1966 Massacre of Braybrook Street, in which three London officers were killed. As a result, around 17% of officers in London became authorised to carry firearms. After the deaths of a number of members of the public in the 1980s fired upon by police, control was considerably tightened, many officers had their firearm authorisation revoked, and training for the remainder was greatly improved. As of 2005, around seven per cent of officers in London are trained in the use of firearms. Firearms are also only issued to an officer under strict guidelines.[SUP][6][/SUP]
In order to allow armed officers to respond rapidly to an incident, most forces have patrolling Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs). ARVs were modelled on the Instant Response Cars introduced by the West Yorkshire Police in 1976, and were first introduced in London in 1991, with 132 armed deployments being made that year.
Although largely attributable to a significant increase in the use of imitation firearms and air weapons,[SUP][7][/SUP] the overall increase in firearms crime between 1998/99 and 2002/03[SUP][7][/SUP] (it has been decreasing since 2003/04, although use of imitations continued to rise)[SUP][7][/SUP] has kept this issue in the spotlight. In October 2000, Nottinghamshire Police introduced regular armed patrols to the St Ann's and Meadows estates in Nottingham, in response to fourteen drug-related shootings in the two areas in the previous year.[SUP][8][/SUP] Although the measure was not intended to be permanent, patrols were stepped up in the autumn of 2001 after further shootings,[SUP][9][/SUP] after which the firearms crime declined dramatically.

Your talking about the increase in police officers being armed, not the general public, I'm all fore our police officers being armed, but not every tom , Dick or Harry.

SS

 

[packerbacker]

I'm kinda in the sticks SS but, if I were to move into town, my guns would go with me. THAT'S where the criminals are for the most part. A lady friend of ours had some drugged up a-hole pounding on her door and then her window in the middle of the night. She lives in town and was alone and unarmed. The police were called and, luckily, her neighbor heard the noise and started hollering at the guy. He didn't quit but it slowed him down enough that the police arrived before he did whatever he was going to do. She has changed her situation now and the creeps better hope the police get there before they get in.

 

[packerbacker]

Thing is SS, the police started arming themselves to protect THEMSELVES, not the general public. They did it due to the increase in deaths to POLICE, not citizens. We arm ourselves for the same reason, to protect ourselves because the police aren't really worried about OUR safety, just theirs. Police RARELY use a gun to stop a crime against a citizen, they usually just show up with the yellow tape. It's our job to protect ourselves.

 

[Silver Searcher]

I'm kinda in the sticks SS but, if I were to move into town, my guns would go with me. THAT'S where the criminals are for the most part. A lady friend of ours had some drugged up a-hole pounding on her door and then her window in the middle of the night. She lives in town and was alone and unarmed. The police were called and, luckily, her neighbor heard the noise and started hollering at the guy. He didn't quit but it slowed him down enough that the police arrived before he did whatever he was going to do. She has changed her situation now and the creeps better hope the police get there before they get in.

Pretty hard to defend yourself against random attacks, you will always get those who prey on the weak, it wouldn't do if the police had turned up, knocked on the old ladies door, only to be met by flying lead, because she was scared out of her wits. Guns need to be in the hands of people who know what they are doing, not scared old ladies.

SS

 

[Colonial_New_England]

If you are talking about the UN Arms Treaty that Kerry is signing, it has absolutely ZERO effect on gun ownership laws in the US. Look it up. (Somewhere other than FoxNews) If there is another law about to be passed that I haven't heard about, I'd be interested to know about it. Used to live in Maryland, and I'm a gun owner.... Cheers, CNE

 

[Colonial_New_England]

From the web:

'A pioneering United Nations treaty aimed at regulating the global trade in conventional weapons surpassed a symbolically important threshold on Wednesday when 18 countries, most notably the United States, officially signed the document, pushing the total number to more than half of the organization’s member states...

The treaty, which took seven years to negotiate, is considered by rights advocates to be a landmark document that would for the first time impose moral standards on the enormous cross-border trade in conventional arms that fuel conflicts around the world, most notably in Africa. It is devised to thwart sales to users who would break humanitarian law, foment genocide or war crimes, engage in terrorism, or kill women and children.

The treaty covers trade in tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber weapons, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and launchers, small arms, and light weapons.'


The reason you have the NRA and conservative groups getting freaked out about this law has NOTHING to do with affecting the laws of gun ownership in the US... read about the treaty - there simply isn't anything in there to that affect. It's a global treaty... the NRA and other groups are fired up because this is going to cut into the profits of gun manufacturers, who the NRA often promotes. They're claiming 'they're gonna take your guns away' to get you pissed about it so legislators would raise a stink and try to keep it from happening - to try and save profits for gun companies... Has nothing to with me or you. Find as many sources as you can online about the treaty,and read them.

I don't care if you are on the right or the left, watch FoxNews or read the New York Times... take ANYTHING politicians say with a BIG grain of salt, do your own research, and try and stay on top of what effect new legislation will actually have on the common man... Republicans or Democrats, they're ALL CROOKS and have corporate interests in mind - NOT yours or mine.

 

[skateandcreate]

If you are talking about the UN Arms Treaty that Kerry is signing, it has absolutely ZERO effect on gun ownership laws in the US. Look it up. (Somewhere other than FoxNews) If there is another law about to be passed that I haven't heard about, I'd be interested to know about it. Used to live in Maryland, and I'm a gun owner.... Cheers, CNE

It's not about the arms treaty. As of October 1st there is an assault weapon ban, a ban on any magazine over ten rounds, electronic fingerprinting, a mandatory course that you have to pay for, and a slew of other things that the great Martin O'Malley pushed through. It has also been deemed that the states concealed carry requirements are unconstitutional but that is stuck in the legal system as of now. I live in MD and I and everyone I know have been scrambling to stock up pre ban. The gun Stores have not been told how the new bans are taking effect yet so until they are informed they are effectually not allowed to sell controlled firearms.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

If you are talking about the UN Arms Treaty that Kerry is signing, it has absolutely ZERO effect on gun ownership laws in the US. Look it up. (Somewhere other than FoxNews) If there is another law about to be passed that I haven't heard about, I'd be interested to know about it. Used to live in Maryland, and I'm a gun owner.... Cheers, CNE

Small arms” essentially just means guns protected by the Second Amendment.

The purpose of the treaty is simple: to give old BO and the other liberals a legal excuse to start violating gun rights through more gun control.

That’s it. Still, no matter what they do, it’s always going to be unconstitutional...



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[skateandcreate]

From the web:

'A pioneering United Nations treaty aimed at regulating the global trade in conventional weapons surpassed a symbolically important threshold on Wednesday when 18 countries, most notably the United States, officially signed the document, pushing the total number to more than half of the organization’s member states...

The treaty, which took seven years to negotiate, is considered by rights advocates to be a landmark document that would for the first time impose moral standards on the enormous cross-border trade in conventional arms that fuel conflicts around the world, most notably in Africa. It is devised to thwart sales to users who would break humanitarian law, foment genocide or war crimes, engage in terrorism, or kill women and children.

The treaty covers trade in tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber weapons, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and launchers, small arms, and light weapons.'

The reason you have the NRA and conservative groups getting freaked out about this law has NOTHING to do with affecting the laws of gun ownership in the US... read about the treaty - there simply isn't anything in there to that affect. It's a global treaty... the NRA and other groups are fired up because this is going to cut into the profits of gun manufacturers, who the NRA often promotes. They're claiming 'they're gonna take your guns away' to get you pissed about it so legislators would raise a stink and try to keep it from happening - to try and save profits for gun companies... Has nothing to with me or you. Find as many sources as you can online about the treaty,and read them.

I don't care if you are on the right or the left, watch FoxNews or read the New York Times... take ANYTHING politicians say with a BIG grain of salt, do your own research, and try and stay on top of what effect new legislation will actually have on the common man... Republicans or Democrats, they're ALL CROOKS and have corporate interests in mind - NOT yours or mine.

Nothing in this entire post mentions the UN treaty. For one who talks about doing their own research and staying on top of legislature it seems you didn't read what the first post by red was about. I'm sure there are some other posts about the treaty where your counterpoints will be taken and debated upon but this isn't the one.

 

[Colonial_New_England]

It's not about the arms treaty. As of October 1st there is an assault weapon ban, a ban on any magazine over ten rounds, electronic fingerprinting, a mandatory course that you have to pay for, and a slew of other things that the great Martin O'Malley pushed through. It has also been deemed that the states concealed carry requirements are unconstitutional but that is stuck in the legal system as of now. I live in MD and I and everyone I know have been scrambling to stock up pre ban. The gun Stores have not been told how the new bans are taking effect yet so until they are informed they are effectually not allowed to sell controlled firearms.

Oh, OK - my bad - different law... I knew a lot of people were getting fired up about the arms treaty - thought it was the same deal. As far as an assault weapons ban goes, I'm in favor... if it will help keep them out of the hands of people like the Colorado move theater shooter, or the guy in Newtown. I of course want to keep my shotguns and hunting rifles... but I don't need an assault weapon to hunt, nor do I need one to protect my home. If the only people who are actually using them (aside from target shooters) are criminals, I say take 'em. I know many will disagree with that.... But gun deaths in this country are out of control.

A four hour safety course to own guns? Is that a bad idea? I remember going through my hunter's safety courses to get my license, and glad I did - that's valuable info.

10 round magazine restriction? What do you need more than 10 rounds at a time for? Not hunting, to be sure... Just my 2 cents.