Md. House bill would link gun, criminal registries

[SecularMotion]

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — The House of Delegates is considering a bill that would link Maryland's gun registry to its criminal database.

State law requires gun owners to surrender their weapons if they're convicted of felonies or any violent crimes, but Del. Luiz Simmons, D-Montgomery, said Maryland State Police lack a systematic way of enforcing this. They can't use their databases to identify gun owners convicted of crimes.

Simmons is chief sponsor of legislation to make that link.

State Police estimate that if they linked the databases, they would find 10 percent of registered gun owners — about 110,000 people — would be disqualified. They estimate a rate of 1 percent each year thereafter.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/crime/article/Md-House-bill-would-link-gun-criminal-registries-5288796.php

[Loudly]

1. Hello? How about linking gun finished goods INVENTORY to subsequent gun OWNERSHIP? n/t

Few guns are made in a garage workshop.

We need to start tracking them from the point of their manufacture (or importation) forward in perpetuity until each is finally put to the cutting torch.

[beevul]

2. How do you feel about the Democratic Party platform...

How do you feel about the Democratic Party platform which says:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.


Do you support it shares?

[Loudly]

3. It's in there to appease an irrational electorate clinging to their guns and bibles.

What do you want me to tell you?

That's why it's in there.

To try and address the paranoia of backward, fearful twits.

[Token Republican]

13. Is this a fact or just your opinion

You claim the DNC position on guns is essentially a lie to conceal a hidden agenda.

Do you have proof to back up this claim or is this just your opinion?

Are there any other DNC positions that you know or believe to be misleading to promote a hidden agenda?

Thanks for taking the time to help me understand.

[Loudly]

16. Some things speak for themselves. So its opinion derived from the obvious.

I was asked how I feel about it.

[Token Republican]

17. OK thanks

So its just your opinion that the DNC is a misleading statement, but you have no real knowledge there is actually a hidden agenda behind it.

[Loudly]

19. No, just the sentiment of Democrats who prefer that guns and ammo be made scarce. n/t

[Token Republican]

21. I see

So the DNC position on this issue is not a true representation of what democrats want.

Do you know if there any other DNC positions that are false?

Thanks

[Loudly]

23. Naturally, it is forced to be a blend of principles and public relations.

What matters is policy when actually in power.

I don't mind stating such an age-old truth if you really need to see it said.

[smokey775]

29. That's a false statement.

Using the Wayback machine (search function), every poll I've seen on DU show that a majority of DU'ers support the 2A in one form or another.
How do explain that?

[Loudly]

30. Some even for Constitutional reasons.

They think they may need to go to war with the government.

Uber delusional.

[beevul]

39. You were also asked if you support it.

For the record.

[Loudly]

40. What next?

Are you going to ask me if God should be mentioned in the platform?

Or whether Jerusalem should be acknowledged in the platform as the capital of Israel?

Hey, the party panders as the party sees fit.

[beevul]

46. What comes next, is usually an answer to the question that was asked.

What comes next, is usually an answer to the question that was asked.

You seem unable or unwilling to answer it in a forthright way.


Whats the matter? You afraid the shoe will fit?

[spin]

31. Roughly 1/3 of Democrats have a firearm in their home. ...

Of course that doesn't paint a totally accurate picture as a Democratic wife who opposes firearms may be married to a Republican husband that owns some.

23% of Democrats personally own firearms and 69% of those state that one of the reasons they own a firearm is for self defense. 53% say they use their firearm for target shooting or for hunting.

(source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-among-republicans-than-democrats.aspx)

Some here appear to feel that any "good" Democrat would oppose firearm ownership and favor passing gun control laws such as exist in Great Britain.

The statement:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.

is in the Democratic Platform to attempt to keep a quarter of the Democratic Party from leaving the fold.

Remember the Democratic Party is supposed to be a "big tent." If the gun control advocates in the party manage to drive Democratic gun owners away, then our party will be on the road to becoming a small tepee.

[Loudly]

33. It's an American illness, and some Democrats are afflicted with it.

We know from the various civil rights struggles that enlightenment takes years and decades.

[spin]

34. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. ...

You may be right. Eventually we may be disarmed like Great Britain. That will indeed take decades.

We seem to be willing to give away many of our freedoms today and most of our privacy to agencies of our government which both Republican and Democratic administrations support due to the fear of terrorism. I'm sure that the Second Amendment will eventually be overturned. Freedom, privacy and gun rights are in danger of becoming extinct because a growing few feel they are important.

Our nation was and still is unique in history. Usually the rich run a nation and oppress all others. I am beginning to believe our experiment with a representative democratic form of government is rapidly failing. If so it will not matter what race you are. You will merely exist to serve the ruling class. We all will be equally oppressed. I suppose that is fair to some especially the uber rich 1%.

If what I predict happens we will all live in a society even worse and far more intrusive than the one portrayed in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Of course freedom of the press and freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble coupled with freedom of religion are more important than gun rights which are why they are included in the First Amendment.

Government surveillance will largely curtail freedom of the press. Nixon might have been able to silence Deep Throat and reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein if he had access to the data the NSA collects today. Imagine the power J. Edgar Hoover would have today. He was considered the most powerful man in Washington during his days. He might be thought to be the most powerful man in the world today.

Our current laws involving campaign financing will allow the rich to gain even more control over those we elect than they already do. Our elections might be largely irrelevant if our modern system of electronic voting is hacked and the results are predetermined to insure that only those who support the polices of the powerful few are elected.

The government will know who you associate with and what you post on the internet and will be able to read your email and know everywhere you go. People will fear speaking out against the loss of liberty as they will expect they will be targeted by our government.

Of course as things worsen people will become very upset. They will try to organize and protest and the leadership of these demonstrations may find themselves in deep trouble. It will be impossible to hide from our government and you best not step out of line.

Eventually there will be a threat of an armed revolution. Those in power will anticipate this and impose strong gun control such as you wish. The success of an armed revolution is questionable but it has far less chances of succeeding if basically all citizens are disarmed. Probably by that time most citizens will feel gun confiscation is a great idea and most will willing give up their firearms just as they gave up their rights to privacy, their right to a free press and their right to free speech and peaceful assembly. I don't see this happening next year or even twenty years from now but I fear it will happen in perhaps fifty years. Fortunately I will be long gone from this life.

It is and will remain my opinion that the founders put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights as a final means to overthrow an oppressive government mainly because they were intelligent enough to realize that eventually one would occur. They understood that history does indeed repeat itself. The greed of the rich and their desire for power has hindered the development of a great society that offers equal opportunity for all for centuries and there is no reason to believe that the privileged few have suddenly became benevolent and kind. Many of ultra rich seriously believe that they are the cream of the crop and have became wealthy because they are far more intelligent than the average person. However our nation was based on the principle that the government should serve the people and not that the people should be slaves to the government. The founders felt that the citizens should determine policy by electing representatives who would support their views.

Now I do realize that allowing citizens to own firearms does sometimes lead to tragedy. Still I believe that when a government allows honest, responsible and sane citizens to own firearms it shows a trust in its citizens and also realizes that it can't become too oppressive and dictatorial. I tend to distrust a government that distrusts its own citizens.

Of course you will disagree.

[Loudly]

36. That's sure a litany of dystopian outcomes against which you regard guns to be the best medicine.

But at least you accept what the true purpose of the 2A was, and refrain from trying to costume it as something else.

Thanks for putting so much work and thought into your post.

The idealism comes through.

Along with a certain wistful nostalgia.

[spin]

37. In 50 years if what I predicts happens ...

Last edited Sun Mar 9, 2014, 01:21 PM - Edit history (1)

police and military technology will probably be so advanced that firearms in civilian hands will make little difference.

[Loudly]

38. It makes such little difference now in combating authority

but plays such a great role in extinguishing the genuine rights of innocents,
that this in a nutshell is why it seems an important subject upon which
to forcefully comment.

[Bazinga]

41. If our government does become tyrannical, don't we at least have the right to TRY to overthrow it?

Just the same as our forefathers did?

I'm not saying I think this will happen. Certainly not in my lifetime and probably never (though a CCW rights group in CT has put out a "molon labe" ultimatum that indicates it's not entirely impossible). But if it did, does it matter how outgunned a revolution is?

"What's your AR-15 gonna do against an F-22?" It doesn't matter, if I only had a rock, I'd still throw it.

Again, I don't think we will experience a tyrannical government or a revolution in my lifetime, but the legitimacy and justification of a revolution are not dependent on its likelihood of success.

[Loudly]

42. How can it be justified as a so-called "right" when genuine rights are being extinguished?

Are daily civilian deaths from firearms truly that insignificant or worthwhile no matter what their number?

All for the sake of some future hopeless uprising having the remotest probability of ever occurring?

And now 140 years after a civil war to resist the abolition of slavery?

Seems pretty absurd to claim any such purpose or reserve any such option, and requires a tortured reading of the actual words in order to even get there.

[Token Republican]

43. Justification

Constitution of the United States of America

Look under the bill of rights.

What you are really asking is whether it should be a right. Your view seems to be very similar to that of Alan Dershowtiz. He is strongly anti gun, and believes the second amendment should be repealed. Where you differ is the approach. Dershowitz is strongly opposed to chipping away at it, as the effects of this approach could easily be applied to other fundamental rights.

Wikipedia Link for further reference

Dershowitz is strongly opposed to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment, and supports repealing the amendment, but he vigorously opposes using the judicial system to read it out of the Constitution because it would open the way for further revisions to the Bill of Rights and Constitution by the courts. "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like

A lot of the same justification used to dance around the second amendment through weasel words are used by the right to dance around other civil rights. Take a look at the weasel words that involve terrorists to see how the 4th amendment is being gutted.

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. Even if the "rebellion" justification is obsolete, that doesn't remove the RKBA.

Even if one grants that the justification for protecting the RKBA described in the initial clause of the 2nd Amendment no longer exists (highly debatable...), that doesn't alter the status of the right itself. The amendment doesn't grant that right. The language of the amendment instead posits that right as preexisting. Even a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't make the RKBA evaporate...it would just make it easier to infringe.

[beevul]

48. It always seems to boil down to conflation/pretense with anti-gun types.

It always seems to boil down to conflation and pretense with anti-gun types.

You say:

"How can it be justified as a so-called "right" when genuine rights are being extinguished?"

The "it" being referred to is the right to keep and bear arms.

"It" doesn't extinguish any other rights.

The pretense here which you argue from, is that theres nothing that distinguishes as different in your position, the right to own a gun, with the action of firing a gun.

You conflate the two as if they're the same.

They aren't.

You knew that, in spite of what or how you argue.

[Loudly]

49. You're arguing a distinction without a difference.

All the power is in the hand with the finger on the trigger.

Rights, justice, due process all go out the window with that mere finger empowered to fire.

The system can judge after the fact whether the trigger should have been pulled.

The system can judge whether the shooter should be punished for having fired.

But that doesn't do a damned thing for the person who received the rounds in their flesh and bone whose rights were cast aside by the shooter with extreme prejudice.

[beevul]

50. No, YOU are the one arguing that its a distinction without a difference.

That there are 80+ million gun owners, who own 300+ million guns, which annually combine to fire over a billion rounds, and yet gun injuries/homicides/suicides not even correlating at 1 percent, says it IS a distinction with a LARGE difference.

For all intents and purposes, you're pretending that the exception is the rule, by arguing that the difference between the exception and the rule is a distinction without a difference.


Even you know better than that.

[Loudly]

51. I see the semantical divide.

You're making a distinction for which no practical difference exists.

I'm calling you out on it.

So you're understandably calling me out for arguing that there's no distinction worthy of being made.

Which I am!

[beevul]

52. You are arguing that there is no appreciable difference between ownership and misuse

You are arguing that there is no appreciable difference between ownership and misuse, where guns are concerned.

I provided numbers that prove otherwise.

I can't help it if you're ignoring them...but I can remind you that doing so does not make them go away.

[Loudly]

53. Your statistics simply describe a roulette wheel of chance.

As to which gun owners are law abiding right up until the moment they aren't.

And as to which guns will fall into the hands of known criminals, because those guns come from the very same factories.

[beevul]

54. None of which changes the facts...

None of which changes the facts, which are that you argue from the perspective that the exception is the rule...that ownership essentially IS misuse.

You give no consideration to the people who aren't killing or shooting others, and they are the clear, overwhelming majority.

[Loudly]

55. Here. This is for you.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Dad-shoots-teen-found-in-his-daughter-s-room-5313696.php?cmpid=htx

It shouldn't be so easy to find these "exceptions" as you so blithely call them.

[beevul]

56. In a country with 300 million?

Please.

Here, let me put this in perspective for you:

Today, 300+ million firearms in the hands of 80 million plus gun owners in America, will not use them to murder, injure, or commit suicide.

And the same will be true tomorrow, and every day after that.

Your position ignores that.

[smokey775]

4. By any means necessary, right?

Those are your words from a previous thread, care to explain them?

[Loudly]

5. Pretty anemic declaration in the context of what America is actually prepared to do.

So don't freak out about it.

You're not going to war with the government anyway. Ever.

[smokey775]

6. By any means necessary.

Care to explain what you meant by that statement?

[Loudly]

7. Reduce the supply of new units to zero.

Track what's already out there, with continuous provenance of ownership.

Make a buy market for what's already out there.

Do not reintroduce back into public hands whatever is bought or taken as contraband and criminal evidence. Destroy it.

Are we anywhere near doing any of that?

Yeah, no.

And you're not going to war with the government. Ever.

[smokey775]

8. Where did you get that I wanted to go to war with the govt.?

So, do you think that firearms should be forcefully removed from lawful citizens? And, do you think that only govt. agents, IE: military, law enforcement, should be able to possess firearms?

Your statement, "by any means necessary" would imply that.
Maybe you should go back and edit that, or not if that's what you believe.

[Loudly]

9. Is forcefully removed from lawful citizens on my list?

We're not anywhere close to coming near any of those things on my list, so why would I leap to knocking on doors?

The 2A was put into the Constitution under color of future armed rebellion against a tyrannical government.

The tyrannical government turned out to be one which sought to abolish slavery.

The 2A went away at Appomattox.

[smokey775]

10. What else are we supposed to imply by the term,

"by any means necessary"?

And your interpetation of the 2A has been debunked over and over again, please move on.

[Loudly]

11. Has it? What is its purpose then?

Go ahead, and be succinct.

[smokey775]

12. The purpose of the 2A is for self defense.

That's my definition.
We have different definitions, yours has been debunked by constitutional scholors, mine has been codified by no less that the Supreme Court, and many constitutional lawyers, up to and including Laurence Tribe, Alan Dershowitz, hardly conservative lawyers.

[Loudly]

14. "Self defense" from the government. Not bandits and marauders.

That's the only reason it's in there.

[smokey775]

15. Wrong, again.

Self defense for mine and my family.

[Loudly]

18. That erroneous assumption is why gun murder is so high in the USA. n/t

[smokey775]

22. Gun murder is not so high in the USA,

2/3 of all firearms deaths are the results of suicide, I'm not discounting the tragedy of people taking their own lives with a gun, but that number could be drastically lowered with better mental health funding.

So, after removing suicides, appox 11,000 firearms murders in a nation of 315 million people is a statistical insignificance, it's a tragedy to the families affected, but still a pretty low rate.

There are things that could lower that rate even more, but, I leave that up to the more smarter people than I.

[Loudly]

24. Here. This is for you.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-juan-capistrano-slayings-20140307,0,7706840.story#axzz2vOE5mhn2

[smokey775]

25. Ok, and that has what to do with my post?

[Loudly]

26. I didn't break a sweat finding it and handing it to you.

Shouldn't I have needed to search and search and search?

Mom and dad dead and little brother paralyzed.

All because we empower individuals with access to guns and ammunition.

As a Constitutional "right" no less!

Such a disgraceful farce.

[smokey775]

27. Now I understand you.

You think that anyone who owns a firearm will do what this POS did?
If so, that is some effed up sh*t.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. It's a religious belief- your interlocutor is an animist who claims inanimate objects...

...compel humans to commit crimes:

https://www.google.com/search?q=guns+emolden+crime&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com#q=guns+embolden+Loudly++site%3Ademocraticunderground.com

[Token Republican]

45. Here's one for you

A horrific torture murder committed by someone without a gun in a place where guns are banned.

Are you now going to argue that people without guns are like the killer?

[Loudly]

47. That story is more about the mystery of abused women's loyalty to their abuser.

The below links are more to the point:

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/cattaraugus-county/sheriff-says-man-fatally-shot-ex-wife-and-her-boyfriend-then-turned-gun-on-himself-20140122

http://www.wtvm.com/story/24791020/witness-speak-out-after-phenix-city-woman-shot-to-death-by-estranged-husband

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/divorced-texas-couple-dead-after-apparent-murder-suicide/

http://www.newsadvance.com/news/local/manhunt-follows-shooting-at-appomattox-gas-station/article_a309a8d6-8ad7-11e3-a43a-0017a43b2370.html

http://www.news-record.com/news/local_news/article_c4f992ce-1199-11e3-ae13-0019bb30f31a.html

JUST A SAMPLING!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. re: "The 2A went away at Appomattox."

That's bull. Check it out; it's still there:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

[Token Republican]

20. It will help but

one limitation to gun registration is that felony exception to any gun registration law.

Only lawful gun owners can be punished for not registration guns.

Convicted felons cannot be required to register guns in their possession, even though they are not allowed to posses them.

[Jenoch]

35. Does Maryland have a gun registry or a gun owner registry?