Look at the pictures yourself. That's no where near 4-5,000.

This is what a crowd of 5,000 looks like in Lawyers Mall

http://www.wusa9.com/images/300/169/2/assetpool/images/110314112906_union-rally-maryland.jpg

There were actually thousands in attendance, Steve. It's been reported by the Baltimore Sun and local new stations. And as someone who was there, I can tell you it was huge. The pictures of the rally outside don't tell the full story because crowds were split between that and the senate building. I spent the entire time in line inside the senate building to testify at the hearing. It got so crowded that the building hit fire code capacity and they had to cut off the line.

No there wasn't. In typical gun nutter fashioned somebody lied and dozens swear to it. I've been to big rallies there (like the AFCSME rally). This one was tiny in comparison. But fair play to them I haven't seen a bigger collection of nutcases in one place since we had to walk through the Occupy Movement in NYC.

So, let me get this straight.

You have been presented with evidence from a variety of ~local~ news sources (the Baltimore Sun, CBS-, NBC-, ABC-affiliates, etc.) telling you there were thousands.

You have been told by numerous eyewitnesses that the number was in the thousands.

You are now being told that the Maryland Department of General Services is stating the exact numbers at approximately 4,000.

And despite this... you claim you know better and everyone is lying? Steve, there is a definition for a person repeatedly presented with evidence from a variety of sources (reliable or not) saying the exact same thing, who refuses to accept said evidence.

No, you get this straight.

Patch "Several Hundred"
Fox News "Several Hundred"
WBAL "About a thousand"

I was there and there were now where near "Thousands"

You can keep repeating the lie and thousand times and that won't make it true. Even a pseudo intellectual like yourself should be able to figure that out.

Of course you were there, Stanker. Walter "Stank" Mitty is everywhere. ROTFLMAO

Your sources for "hundreds" include Patch, FoxNews, and your own claimed witnessing.

My sources stating anywhere from at least a thousand to several thousand include ABC-, CBS-, NBC-, and Fox-affiliates, the Baltimore Sun, and the Maryland Department of General Services.

CBS-WJZ - "More than a thousand Marylanders.." http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/02/06/gun-control-opponents-rally-in-annapolis/

NBC-WBAL - "..thousands of people rallied Wednesday.." http://www.wbaltv.com/news/politics/Activists-rally-against-gov-s-proposed-gun-control-legislation/-/9379266/18446874/-/s8egqtz/-/index.html?absolute=true

ABC-WJLA - "Thousands gathered.." http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02/gun-control-hearing-draws-big-crowd-to-annapolis-84939.html

Fox-WBFF - "Thousands Protest.." http://foxbaltimore.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/thousands-protest-governor-omalleys-gun-control-bill-17778.shtml#.URgguKVEGSo

Baltimore Sun - "Several thousand Marylanders..." http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02-06/news/bs-md-omalley-guns-20130204_1_assault-weapons-gun-control-gun-buyers

And yet I'm the one accused of repeating lies and behaving like a "pseudo intellectual."

Steve, I'm done. You are either an internet troll or completely delusional. Either way, you are no better than the others on here you rail against and there is no point in trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

Okay Blockheads, Look at the video. They are not even to the steps. Freeze frame it and count them. Even easier count the non whites in the crowd. There's just Clayton Bigsby in the back row.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pckEC5krWX0&list=UUKAr-YpAl0DNn8df8_OU1DA&index=7

The 5,000 number was ginned up before the rally even started and they got caught. Like I said before they didn't realize the President was in Annapolis and it created a huge traffic jam.

How can a union thug call anyone a nut case Steve?
Its delusional thinking and at least under the new gun laws people like Steve would be banned from owning guns.
Adrian Reast

Another in the long line of bigoted, intolerant racist and hateful posts by this ignorant man Steve. Can you add a few more "groups" into your hate screed Steve so no one feels left out of this hate speech?
Change the words to any minority and your vile comment would have been deleted by the moderators.
I cannot recall reading such a vile piece of intolerant bigoted hate speech on these pages.

Steve:
"What a mixed bag of nuts they were." Diversity?
"Any normal person watching this spectacle". Who's the judge?

It seems the author is reporting on a different rally.

Steve, you are so funny! Sounds exactly like what I would expect from these groups...what's a Fudd anyway? Is that an Elmer J. Fudd reference?

Steve has his favorite labels for each group he has bigotry and hate toward. I pray he does not need to call 911 and a "gun nutter" is the EMT and has read how much Steve hates them.

There were anti-abortion protesters there. That's where the dead fetus signs came into play. They had nothing to do with the gun rights rally and, in fact, were standing with the gun-grabbers, NOT the gun-control protesters. Get your facts straight Steve before spounting your own nonsense.

The Nutters tipped their hand when they started spreading the 5,000 number on the Gun Nutter websites before Noon. I don't think their PR people realized the President was in town and it choked the traffic coming into Annapolis.

I think that's why their Assholio Spokesperson James Simpson was bad mouthing anyone who said otherwise.

To put it in perspective 5,000 people would fill up the Towson Center. There weren't that many people there for the rally not by a long shot.

Like I said it's bogus.

NBC (WBAL) is now reporting thousands.

ABC (WJLA) is reporting thousands.

I can't speak to "thousands." Annecdotally I've heard some numbers but there are no official ones. I can tell you that the crowd in Lawyers Mall for the Rally was not "thousands" it was more like hundreds. The number of speakers signed up at the hearing was over 500.

We did report in other related stories that there were lines outside the Senate office building.

We've heard people estimate the total crowd at between 2,000 and 5,000 people. I heard one estimate of 10,000—which I discount because I've seen large crowds at Annapolis rallies that stretched from Lawyers Mall down Rowe Boulevard between the House and Senate office buildings.

Our goal is to be as accurate as possible using the information available at the time.

Bryan, check with the Maryland General Services Department. I've heard they estimated 4,000 in attendance (rally and senate building). Also, recheck your numbers on how many signed up to speak. Last tally I heard was 1700-2200. I recall during the hearing that Frosh said they had a list of 800 people signed up by the time they began at 1pm (and the signups continued for many hours after that).

You claim you will only report "hundreds" because your goal is to be as accurate as possible. Are you telling us that WBAL, WJLA, WJZ and the Baltimore Sun don't have the same goal?

It seems rather silly to claim you're trying to be accurate but then to discount actual local news sources who were present. Not to mention the Maryland State government itself's released numbers.

Brook, this particular story came from "Capital News Service", which is written by students:

http://www.merrill.umd.edu/cns

I'd put more trust in the professional news organizations.

So, Patch receives its news from undergraduate students? o_O

Steve was there like he was at the Super Bowl.

there were quite a few Asian and Black folks in the crowd. lots of women, too. you must not have been looking.

LOL "there were quite a few Asian and Black folks in the crowd."

Your nose is growing Pinocchio!

Laura is correct. In fact, I was there with an Asian man & we were talking to a friend of his for a while who was *gasp* black! Oh my Steve! Time to get some glasses or get your prescription checked while you're at it.

I was there on Wednesday. What you're stating about not seeing "one non white person in the crowd" is complete malarky. It was a VERY diverse crowd. Old, young, men in business suits, mothers with children, two men who looked to be rabbis, asian, black (including one of the speakers, BTW), hispanic, rich, poor.

I call BS.

That's progress, probably that's why there was no fights or mob attacks!

Laura M., not sure what rally you attended but I had to walk through the rally to get to another building and I can assure you, there were not "quite a few asians and black folks in the crowd." guaranteed. As an AA woman, I felt quite uncomfortable walking thought that crowd and had several nasty looks in my direction.

Why did you feel "uncomfortable"? Were you threatened? Do looks frighten you that easily? Do you hate the folks that showed up? Do you feel as uncomfortable anywhere else?

Sanchez: did you not read my post? the nasty looks? and no, i am not easlily frightened but i have been around plenty long enough to know hate when i see it.

Mimi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Maybe you observe what you want to observe?

Two of the speakers (the best speakers, IMO) were African American. Both were former Marines. The crowd loved them, and they garnered great applause from the crowd. I stood next to another AA individual who was really into the rally. He told me that he was happy he was able to teach his young daughter how to use a firearm properly, and he was there because he wanted to continue to exercise that right.

I saw that. What do you suppose the looks were for? That they disliked you? That they thought you should not be there? Was that the only place you ever received "nasty looks"?
Or did you just perceive the looks that way? I am curious as to why you think you received those looks.

"i have been around plenty long enough to know hate when i see it."

Perhaps they perceived that look of hate on your face, thus the returned look!

mimialley sounds your the one with racial hang ups. Please!

mimialley apparently chooses to judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. *rolls eyes*

@mimialley - your statement of you know what hate when you see it is absurd - what exactly does that mean? So, you could see everyone in the large crowd, EVERYONE, so that you say there were few asians and black folks..while others said there were quite a few. If you had to walk through the crowd to get to another building then you would have only seen the people one either side of you and not throughout the entire crowd. perhaps the 'nasty looks in your direction' may have been from the result of your pushing yourself through and nothing to do with your ethnicity. Be a little more open minded.

Look at the pictures Connecticut. It just a sea of old, angry, white faces.

I removed the "racist" but since you then did go all racist I deleted the modified post to include racist.

I was there Woody, it was at least 3500,, I seen post on facebook ,And I have pictures of the crowd,and if asians and blacks choose to not attend that is their choice not mine and it does make me a racist,,the left always bring that up. like you are not a good America,if blacks choose not to defend the 2nd amendment,thats their call, proud to be there!!!!!!! even though I am white !!!!!!!!

Obviously Frank you have not been the victim of discrimination. Talk to us when you have.

the Nagger seems to think that the Bill of Rights are not civil rights. But he thinks homosexuals marrying is a civil right. We can understand why they say liberalism is a mental disorder. Frank the Nagger shows that to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

CP, frank the Nagger never leaves the confines of his room as he is here 24/7 nagging others at the limit of his mental and intellectual ability.

So Frank, we can pick and choose which rights we want to protect and which ones we don't?

You have read the constitution right? The picture book version does not count.

I am so sick of these libtards like frank, you want to give everything to fucking blacks go to the ghetto and give them your life and all your money you waste of space, do us all a favor!

Your right to protest has had restrictions on it for a very long time.

Brigitta:
Well said....

Not nearly as many restrictions as the second amendment already has.

If things continue they way they are going, it is only a matter of time before that right is taken away as well! This country became the great Nation it is based on certain principles which are being chipped away, one by one.

Soldier shoots friend in the head trying to cure hiccups.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/us/texas-hiccups-shooting/index.html

At 86 she's damn lucky the intruder was able to over power her and turn the gun on her instead.

Things have changed dramatically since the Constitution was written. It should be a living document that can and does change when warranted.

I will never understand why some feel compelled to own such weaponry as an AR-15 or magazines that hold countless bullets. Really, what good purpose do they serve? I understand defending your home, etc. but such weapons would not be necessary.

More importantly we need to evaluate those bought & sold at gun shows or elsewhere w/o background checks. Limit those that can purchase be only for the sane.

I'm just so sick of hearing about the mass shootings by those that should have not had possession/access of any type of weapon. Especially tragic was the horrific loss of those precious babies at Sandy Hook.

Polly, nothing in SB281 would have prevented Sandy Hook. I recommend researching recent mass shootings, including the firearms involved, whether they were legally possessed, and if the individual had shown previous evidence of mental health problems. I created an Excel file of all mass shootings going back to 1957 with this information for some research papers.

Here are some interesting facts:

In the past decade, there have been 27 mass shootings. Of those, five (19%) involved "assault weapons" (three of AR-15s and two AK-47s). Only three of these "assault weapons" were legally owned; the rest were purchased illegally or stolen.

In the past decade, 20 (74%) of these mass shootings involved people with previous mental health records. 16 of them were still sold the firearms despite having these mental health records.

"At 86 she's damn lucky the intruder was able to over power her and turn the gun on her instead."

Did you read the article? The old woman won the battle with the thug.

"It should be a living document that can and does change when warranted."

There IS a means to accomplish that goal Polly. It is called Amending the US Constitution. It was put in place by the founders. You are free and empowered to call for it to be amended. Thankfully they were smarter than we seem to be today and made it so that if 99% of all Americans hate the 2nd Amendment it does not matter one bit because the majority cannot by fiat change the constitution as much as you and your seem to want it that way. Work to amend or abolish thhe constitution which you are in your rights to do.

@ Sanchez - I apologize for the typo. It should have said at 86 she's damn lucky the intruder WASN'T able to over power her and turn the gun on her instead.

Damn those typos sure can change the meaning of a sentence. My bad.

It is ingrained bigotry of the left who tend to lump people into groups to separate and conquer. It is a sign of surrender to the topic at hand.

Sanchez: the right is capable of bigotry just as the left is.. really just as much as any of us are, regardless of political affiliation.

More logic, less emotion; that's all I want from people when they make policy decisions.

Was that you yelling at the building at the top of your lungs "O"Malley killed my Mother!"

I don't promote my true views but if we are White we have to be pro White for our future and our childrens future, the next generation will have to endure being chased down the streets by wild mobs of "youths" and self hating whites i am sick and tired of being called a racist, am i not allowed to be pro White pro my people in peace? We all live in a white area because the black hoods are crime ridden dilapidated and filled with people that none of us want to be neighbors of. The truth sucks even for me, but it does not make it any less true!

Part 2:

If I for example were to own a military style semi-automatic rifle (which is actually less concealable and more unwieldy than a similar hand gun), I would also make sure I purchased a gun safe with which to store it. In my opinion that should be a law we try to change.

A lot of people are asking who needs to go hunting with a military rifle, but who is asking if I should have to give up my competitive rifleman sport. It would basically become illegal in the state of Maryland. Even the Olympics have such competitions with what amounts to sniper rifles.

I agree that large capacity magazines are probably not needed even in competitive shooting. But that is a more thought out change than just banning all the guns that look scary (and some of them do).

There are many other questions to ask and so I am appealing to you to slow this process down and let’s explore some more definitive questions first.

Thank you so much for listening.

Joro:

Wholeheartedly agree on the two main points (fingerprinting and guns used for violence).

I've done a lot of listening the last few months, and it seems like most gun owners are primarily concerned with compensation for their stolen weapons (unless they have sentimental value). They purchase insurance for their firearms, but there's no incentive to purchase a safe. A good safe that can't be pried open in 2 minutes cost quite a bit of money, and that's where the conundrum lies. We should be focusing on ways to stop gun theft.

I have no problem being fingerprinted, either. I consider this an accommodation to the changing times and world we live in.

As long as the fingerprinting system was reliable, cost effective, and efficient time-wise. Some places will charge $20 while others up to $150. Some places may take weeks to receive the results. There needs to be a uniform process accessible for everyone that takes a reasonable time and even low-income residents can afford.

I think less regulation is what we need, I mean come on people our government is tyrannical and these anti gun bills and laws are a clear sign of what will follow. Just don't sell guns in the ghetto, or don't let people who speak ebonics purchase them!

Yup. It'd be nice to have a civil and rational conversation. ;-)

I just laugh at all of you. The gunners say more laws means only the criminals will have guns. Let's get rid of the crimininals. The non-gunners say, let's have more gun "control" and fewer guns.

Folks, this horse is out of the barn and gone. The net result of all of the above is very simple, we will simply continue to have funerals for the tens of thousands who will die from gunshot wounds.

Getting "rid" of the criminals is about as likely as getting "rid" of the guns. Move on to the funerals.

like ann coulter said, Americans don't have a crime problem we have a demographic problem, most of the problems come from black neighborhoods, and nobody wants to face the truth! Integration of white and black is a failure, and soon a radical right will rise to save us from black on white hate crime that rarely is reported on, but frequently happens!

I agree completely!

Women's Gun Club, Dead Eye Daisies
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Womens-Gun-Club-Dead-Eye-Daisies/115642818496227

Apple Valley gun Club
The Apple Valley Gun Club offers an expanding program of shooting and educational programs for women and girls in the High Desert.
http://www.applevalleygunclub.com/index.php?page=38

Armed Females Of America
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/firingline/sisters.htm

Arizona Women's Shooting Associates
http://www.azwsa.com/

Women's Shooting Club: Shoot Like a Girl!
http://www.keepingthepiece.com/shooting_club.htm

A Girl and a Gun women's Shooting League
http://www.agirlandagunclub.com/about-us/

These women eat up and spit out children like you Steve.

That doesn't mean anything JoeBlob. Wow! Five women's shooting clubs.....

Want more? They are in every state. But since you hate women too you don't give a crap about them and wish all were shot and killed.

Actually Steve you are once again completely wrong and your misinformation could not be further from the truth. It has been widely reported that in many of the states proposing expanded gun control legislation, including Maryland, the largest increase in background checks for gun purchases is for purchases made by Women.

steve tell me why you hate white people? How did you become twisted against Whites? you know with black empowerment will come more black on white violence are you comfortable with that, even if you and your family become target of the "youths" or the "teens"?

I say we listen to Obama's Gardner for financial investment guidance.

check out jango unchained, it is a movie designed to make blacks kill whites and enjoy it. It is sick what the zio-media puts out now a days! The black on white crime is escalating fast in our nation and now they want to take primarily white people's guns away, i say if you cannot have one by law, then you have on anyway and let the laws and the law makers be damned. The constitution is the law of this land, and no jewish gun grabbers will take my rights...

We don't read in the MSM that the Aurora shooter chose that particular theater because his first choice did NOT BAN FIREARMS in the theater and the one he picked did.

When there is a chance of being fired back on they will go elsewhere.

All guns aren't forbidden in the UK. That's another NRA myth.

As an Englishman I can absolutely refute your statement.
To possess any kind of firearm in the UK, any person, including foreign nationals resident within the UK, must normally hold either a Shotgun Certificate (SGC) or a Firearm Certificate (FAC). Air rifles which produce less than 12 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, and air pistols which produce less than 6 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, are not classed as "firearms" for certification purposes, but they are still subject to various laws restricting their ownership and use.

It is an offence under Section 21 Firearms Act 1968 as amended, for anyone convicted of a criminal offence, to handle, possess, or shoot a firearm and ammunition (this includes Air Guns). If the sentence was for more than three years the prohibition is for life; if less than three years the prohibition is for five years (note: it is the sentence, not the time served, which is the determining factor).

Storage: The legislation states that they "must be stored securely at all times so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, access to the guns by unauthorized persons". In practice, a steel cabinet constructed and certified to comply with BS 7558 and Rawlbolted to a solid wall is the norm.

30 round magazines are already banned, so your comparison is invalid.

Claiming SB281 does not "ban guns" is fallacy and semantics. SB281 may not "ban guns", but it heavily restricts them to the point it would only allow part of the legal population access to a limited choice. SB281 would restrict many (currently legal) handguns, which have been factory-made at 11-15 round capacity. SB281 would put such high costs on licensing and additional background checks that low-income individuals would not be able to afford this form of self-defense.

A good comparison would be if someone proposed legislature that would change the MVA driving Class system. What if Class C (basic non-commercial) was changed to 10,000 lbs or less. All vehicles 10,001 lbs and higher (which are currently legal) would require additional licensing and training at high costs to the individual. This wouldn't "ban automobiles", but suddenly everyone who owned an SUV, Pickup Truck, etc. in the higher categories would be restricted. What would be the uproar if suddenly you weren't going to be able to drive your Dodge Ram 3500, Hummer H1, Ford F-450, or GMC 5500? All under the guise of, "We aren't banning automobiles"?

"Need" has no place in this discussion. It is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
Do you NEED the internet to exercise your 1st Amendment rights? It was not around when they wrote the 1st so it should not be included according to the logic many rights deniers use with the 2nd.
Don't like it, amend or abolish it. We gave away far too much of the 2nd in the past 50 years and if we "compromise" any more we will be left with nothing as incrementalism is the act of tyrants.
the FSA of 2013 does indeed call for confiscation if the illegal licensing scheme is not followed.

Even Mike Miller says the licensing scheme may contradict the Constitution.

BadStatistics: Please tell me what makes an assault rifle an "assault" rifle in your mind.

Banning high cap mags isn't going to do anything. Someone who is practiced can drop a new mag into a gun in less than 2 seconds, which mostly defeats the point of the capacity limit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ (pistol)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjQCZtp2mPs (rifle, FF to ~50 seconds in)

If you are a low-income individual as you describe, and you are anywhere near the FPL, why in the world should you be "afford this form of self-defense?". You get food stamps so you have enough money to buy a glock?

Sorry for the hyperbole with the 30 round clip argument. How about a 20 round clip? How about this, why do you need an AK-47 with a 10 Round Magazine to protect your home? Many magazines AND rifles will become illegal, correct, and if you own one, there will be legal recourse which will allow you to keep said weapon.

And with your MVA comparison, you're right, we wouldn't be banning automobiles either. We would be limiting your selection based on training and background. The same is true for jobs and professional associations. Most of the people commenting here are from an era where a High School diploma made you a qualified accountant, now if you don't have a Master's Degree you could not even get an entry level position, and this is done all extra-legislatively, but you are comfortable with that? I am more uncomfortable with all the astounding manners that private interests have come up with to take more of your money than I am of the government to protect my well-being.

BadStats, we had the Saturday Night Special of the 80's to stop the crime in Baltimore City. did it work? More deaths because those small caliber cheap handguns were replaced with higher caliber handguns.
Did the Glendening Firearms Safety Act of 2000 accomplish its goals to reduce gun crime and deaths?

Now comes the Firearm Safety Act of 2013. Why are we to expect this will finally accomplish its goal of reducing firearm crime and deaths?
We have compromised with "reasonable" laws for 50 years and what has it accomplished? What will more laws do that the thousands of others didn't do?

"...why in the world should you be "afford this form of self-defense?""

Lower-income does not mean on government assistance. The single mom living paycheck to paycheck and is being threatened by her ex. The elderly man living off social security alone and who's neighborhood has begun to deteriorate. The young couple just starting out in an economy apartment because it is all they can afford. Should these people be denied their right to self-defense because the cost of a firearm went from $600 to $1000?

"..why do you need an AK-47 with a 10 Round Magazine to protect your home?"

Already stated above. AR-15s and similar rifles are popular because of their ergonomic modifications and their intimidation factor. People with handicaps, slight builds, etc. can modify the firearm to fit their ability. In addition, Self-defense courses reiterate that shooting someone is the ~last~ thing you want to do. Often, the mere presence and appearance of a firearm is better at stopping an incident than using it. Would you be more scared of a compact handgun or a military-looking rifle?

"Many magazines AND rifles will become illegal, correct, and if you own one, there will be legal recourse which will allow you to keep said weapon."

Except that claim was hotly debated. Senator Jacobs brought this up during the hearing, when witnesses claimed grandfather clauses would not affect previous owners... but she had a letter written by the Attorney General saying the exact opposite.

"You get food stamps so you have enough money to buy a glock? "

And a 50" television, a Xbox system, $200 sneakers, a smart phone, and possibly yes a Glock.

@ Brook,

So basically you agree with everything I have stated, you are unsure about how the law will play out exactly, you believe you need an AK-47 to look intimidating to robbers, and you have nothing to say if this was a regulation from the private industry vs. it being from the government.

"So basically you agree with everything I have stated.."

How so? Could you provide an exact quote that said I agree with what you said?

"..you are unsure about how the law will play out exactly"

I stated how the law "plays out". It heavily restricts a variety of common, standard firearms and prevents low-income people from affording firearms in general because of licensing and background requirements.

"..you believe you need an AK-47 to look intimidating to robbers"

My belief is based off actual research and psychological theory taught in self-defense courses.

"..and you have nothing to say if this was a regulation from the private industry vs. it being from the government."

What regulation are you referring to?

Steve there were over 1500 cars parked at Navy Marine Corps Stadium and lets assume those cars had an average of 1.75 people in them. There were at least 20 charter buses parked there after dropping people off that were not part of the shuttle bus service. Assuming they were not all completely filled we will say they had 45 passengers in each. That gets us to 3525 without even counting the cars parked in surrounding parking areas. Funny how simple math is so complicated for liberals.

Posted: April 24, 2008 ............Old news.............

Why not just ask Ted Bundy for advice on how to treat women?
Your link is to one of the most rabid civil rights deniers and a liar of statistics.
VPC is about as credible as the JustUs Department banning semi autos while selling thousands to the Sinola drug terrorists and arming the Islamists in syria who in turn kill Americans with those arms.

How many Americans have been killed in Syria?

What a Maroon!

Steve, who said Americans wee killed in Syria? I said weapons form Syria which were given to the "rebels" which went to Algeria and killed Americans at the BP gas plant. You aren't well informed.

LOL You did. ".....arming the Islamists in syria who in turn kill Americans with those arms."

The terrorists in Algeria came from Libya.

GD Steve! Where in the hell do you read where I said the terrorists came form anywhere?
You are a delusional bigoted incoherent proven liar. We are talking arms not terrorists! Get a clue dude!

These liberal like steve are exactly why fagots are on the rise in America...If you want to give your gun up you pussy, then turn it in! don't tell others how they should live their lives! You want to see why we need guns drive through capital heights tonight with your window down and you will find out fairly soon the answer to that!

BadStatistics: If you're referring to the youtube videos, no I'm not. I'm showing that it is a pointless ban. Why make something illegal if it won't be effective?

"your second amendment right is an opinion"

It is not MY opinion but that of the US Constitution and the Courts.

Your opinion of what you should be allowed to own under the second amendment. You have the right to bear arms, the government has the right to tell you which arms you can and cannot bear. You cannot own a clip of greater than 10 rounds and you cannot own an assault rifle. Just like you cannot just own a liquor store without regulations, you cannot sell 200 proof liquor, you cannot put caffeine in your booze, you cannot call cheerios a cholesterol reducing drug. You cannot put eboli in meat you sell to citizens.

It's called regulation to prevent people from doing things that hurt people.

"You cannot own a clip of greater than 10 rounds and you cannot own an assault rifle."

YES I can and DO! there is no law against it!

"you cannot call cheerios a cholesterol reducing drug"

Yes they can and do.
http://mommydontbuythat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/cheerios.jpg

"Cheerios may reduce your cholesterol" right on every box.

Exactly, you can, you do, you can continue to, you will continue to, you can even pass it down to your children.

You can even buy a new gun.

So why the complaining?

http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm162943.htm

Government regulators made them remove this claim in 2009, the alternative was to add a warning label including all possible side effects of cheerios.

"you can even pass it down to your children."

I don't know why you bother to discuss an issue you apparently have little information on. Transfer or sale of restricted firearms and magazines will be prohibited rendering my investment worthless. A government TAKING which is a violation of the 5th Amendment.

When you are more versed on the law and forearms come on back and amuse me.

Why do I keep typing forearms? Short fingers.

Yea I remember that silliness about Cheerio labeling. Now that silliness is moving into your food store olive and salad bar. BILLIONS in new labeling in the FIRST year alone.

Only the ignorant dependent sheep demand such restrictions on labeling since they must listen to their father as Chris Rock stated. Father will take care of you.
I need no responsibility for myself.

As I said Frank. "Only the ignorant dependent sheep".

So I guess even though we have a right to free speech, the government can tell me what I can or cannot say?

This is no different.

And the second does not protect protect murder.

And that's the whole point. It s the question "is is reasonable". Is it reasonable to ban products used by law abiding sportsman every day? In my opinion, no. This is something the SCOTUS mentioned in the Heller decision. Just because criminals misuse hand guns, does not give the government the right to ban it.

@Sanchez,

You are not reading this bill. You are certainly not using Control-F to find information using key words before posting.

""you can even pass it down to your children."

I don't know why you bother to discuss an issue you apparently have little information on."

Exceptions: Section 4-302:
21 (5) the receipt of an assault [pistol] WEAPON or detachable magazine
22 by inheritance if the decedent lawfully possessed the assault [pistol] WEAPON; or
23 (6) the receipt of an assault [pistol] WEAPON or detachable magazine
24 by a personal representative of an estate for purposes of exercising the powers and
25 duties of a personal representative of an estate.

Yes it is.
http://www.soopermexican.com/2013/02/07/news-media-scrub-cop-murderers-manifesto-of-pro-obama-pro-hillary-loved-msnbc-pro-gay-and-anti-gun-comments/#more-3288

https://twitter.com/SooperMexican/statuses/299509115359744000

http://www.crimefilenews.com/

You deny most things that do not fit in your pinhead. Only to later deny you denied anything.

Oh God! Another JoeBlob conspiracy theory.

"I didn't know they were holding a angry white rally!?!"

They weren't were they? What makes you say that? What did you see to make you say such a thing?

Do you care about 50% of ALL homicide victims? Are you concerned that 38% of all homicides are committed by less than 7% of the population?

Have you had a family member murdered by a firearm? Do you know friends and family that carry? Anyone arrested for firearm offenses?

Does she want more gun laws? Is she the new gun culture?
http://gg.dailyfill.com/69cfb4d39e894353_8181c64e7af8d08a/Rihanna-.jpg

Frank the Nagger.

Non sequitur.

Nobody fighting for their Second Amendment rights is belittling these children's death.

None of these laws would have prevented the tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook.

Your statement is invalid as an argument against civilian firearm ownership and is only meant to incite emotional response, not reasonable discussion.

Do you believe you have the right to take the life of the life growing in your womb just because you could not say no?

Oh look, Frank, the Nagger.

However Brook, you continue to argue for "rights" that you know will result in the wanton death of children and adults. It will happen and you know it. Thus, it is "collateral damage", non-intentional damage that results from a just cause.

"..argue for "rights" that you know will result in the wanton death of children and adults. It will happen and you know it."

Your statement is conjecture, pure and simple. We do not know these rights will do that. These rights have existed since the inception of this country; barring wars and genocides, why isn't our population dying in droves? Why did firearm-related murders start to peak during certain periods and decrease in others?

There are factors other than the Second Amendment and civilian ownership of firearms at work behind events like Sandy Hook. It is ignorant, uneducated, and lacking in critical thought to claim that the Second Amendment is responsible for these tragedies.

Brook, most of your arguments are fairly logical and realistic. For you not to agree that the Second Amendment as presently interpreted will not result in the wanton death of children and adults is without any merit. It is not conjecture, it is easily predictable. We just don't know the names. You are living in the land of the absurd to think otherwise.

I would say that 30,000 deaths a year is "dying in droves", what do you call it? Oh, that's right, collateral damage comes to mind.

You can make all your legal arguments about the Second Amendment you wish, but when you ignore the simple fact of the price, you lose all credibility. You become a global warming denier.

Have a good evening Brook.

"For you not to agree that the Second Amendment as presently interpreted will not result in the wanton death of children and adults is without any merit."

How is it without merit? What proof do you have that the Second Amendment has led to wanton death of children and adults? Looking at the history of this country, trends in firearm-related deaths, and the differences between states that have enacted strict or loose legislation, I see no proof whatsoever that the Second Amendment does any such thing.

"I would say that 30,000 deaths a year is "dying in droves", what do you call it?"

According to the CDC, there were 30,470 firearm-related suicides in 2010... or a total of 9.9 per 100,000 people. Deaths are always tragic, but how you present it directly affects how others perceive it. "30,000 deaths a year" sounds like "dying in droves" to some... but 9.9 per 100,000 people or 0.01% sounds like a completely different picture. Especially since, according to the FBI statistics, firearm-related murders have been decreasing at 5% per year for the past 5 years.

What you are doing is a statistical fallacy. You are presenting the statistics as an Appeal to Emotion.

"You can make all your legal arguments about the Second Amendment you wish, but when you ignore the simple fact of the price, you lose all credibility. You become a global warming denier."

Non sequitur and ad hominem. You have not proven the price of the Second Amendment and the data does not support your claimed price. In addition, equating me to a "global warming denier" because I come to a different conclusion than you is not reasonable or valid as a debate tactic.

Correct yourself Brook, there were not 30,000 gun related suicides in 2010. Your apology is accepted in advance.

"..30,470 firearm-related suicides.."

Correction. 30,470 firearm-related ~deaths~.

"Wanton deaths". Still the old melodramatic filthy mutt, eh? Climb back into the doghouse where you are safe, Fido. LMAO

We must remove all doctors since they cause 100,000 deaths a year by mistakes. Supporting doctors means you support "dying in droves" and "wanton deaths".

You"r Full of Crap. "Amazingly Diverse"?? You have to be kidding me!

The only one Full of Crap is Steve!
He can't believe so many people showed up and think differently then him.

Huh? What does one have to do with the other?

Frank the only person here using "dog whistle" codes is you when you accuse others of using dog whistle codes. My guess is this person posting under the name of our first President is a troll at best and deserves nothing more than to simply be ignored. Your continued race baiting accusations about the Tea Party being a racist group are equally as wrong as the comments he is making and just as offensive.

Amy - unfortunately - any analytic analysis requires true analytic analysis. What GW is saying is politcally incorrect, yet from a pure analytical standpoint - correct. As we look at crime areas, those being killed the most by gun violence are black. Yet for decades, our leaders, other than the "Fired up, ain't gonna take it no mo" photo opportunites have shown little interest in this issue. The question of race always comes up in an effort to slow conversation, I would question who are the racists in this situation? Those protesting now or those politicians who for fear of not getting re elected have allowed the black on black murders to continue?
Any true analytical analysis must ask in what areas are the bulk of crime, low test scores, blighted housing? That answer is here for all to see - it is not in Clarksville, Maryland.
Don't have a horse in this race as I am not a gun owner, and don't understand the attraction to having these guns, but I don't understand why folks waste tons of money on booze either. Yet, I realize some things - as long as society is generally safe, is none of my business.

Indeed. The truth about where crime is rampant is undeniable. But speak the truth and one is branded a racist. Liberal denial at its finest.

It's the curly hair, Rare. It's the Nikes. It's the rural heritage. It is a lack of education.

It is not the color of one's skin--unless, of course, you happen to be White and a racist.

Just as predicted. Hospice Ike ignores the facts and jumps right to the labeling. Libbie weepers are so predictable.

No Frank - to IGNORE the fact that the most violent areas in the country are black areas and the blacks are exponentially more likely to commit or be the victim of violent crime is racist. To ignore the fact that in spite of enormous dollars spend to revitalize and improve school systems in these areas have not worked is Racist. Facts and statistics do not lie. To trivialize the comments as you do does not help your case.
Democratic politicians have for years in the urban citiies allowed this carnage to continue, with little or now interest, as long as those still living and not in jail or hospitals as a results of the shootings vote for them - everything is status quo.
Now this is an issue - primarily because they can buy time to avoid the real issues of the economy, the enormous debt we have to deal with, the continued problems with kids in urban areas that due to their inability to speak or dress properly have no chance to do well in this counrty.
FYI - Republicans are ok with it also - as long as they can keep their seats, status quo is ok with them also.
Waving the racism flag as you and your crew do to end any discussion you may not like reflects more on you than addressing the issues at hand.

I'll support efforts to require positive ID for all gun Purchases just as soon as they pass a law requiring proof of citizenship for anyone to vote.

A law like that would certainly take quite the bite out of the Stanker's rantings.

A fabulous idea! Kind of like an IP address.

Don't be stupid. An ip is a computer address, not YOUR address. Plus, you can fake an ip, you can go through a proxy.

And those proxies are untraceable. I hope you are committing horrible felonies behind one of those proxies.

Law enforcement must have a need to know and a court order to pursue the issue, dolt.

You are being absurd. Requiring someone to register their name and the weapon they buy with the government in advance, is not the same as having the ability to compel Comcast or Verizon to divulge an IP address assignment.

Secondly, the government must first have probable cause that a crime has been committed before they can get that information.

So you believe that law abiding citizens exercising their second amendment rights should be treated the Same as someone under investigation for a crime? How twisted.

No different. You are pressing for a requirment to prove identification each time a person buys a firearm, and opposed to someone proving their identity (and citizenship) each time they vote.

Both are rights that should be protected equally.

But you don't have to pay for that registration. If registering firearms is as easy as registering to vote, and it's free, I have no objection to it.

What if it's like applying for a passport where you pay a steep, multi-agency processing fee?

Sorry no. If that we're the case I would compare it to showing ID for each vote you cast.

The right is gun ownership.

The law changed in Maryland in 2007 and convicted felons CAN register to vote once their sentence is completed (the exception to that if someone is convicted or buying or selling votes). But you're right that convicted felons can't buy firearms. Neither can anyone convicted of a misdemeanor that carriers a maximum sentence of two or more years.

is that your argument?

That's why murder of any kind is against the law Hal.

LIBERTY and the Pursuit of Happiness are why our inalienable rights guaranteed to us in the United States Constitution you are quoting shall not be infringed upon.

When those rights, granted in the main body of the Constitution, are denied by abuse of an amendment to the same document we have a problem that needs to be addressed. Remove the inalienable tag from the main body of the Constitution, or amend the 2nd Amendment?

Don't blame the Constitution for your dismal existence.

Hal you seem to be under the misconception that the original Bill Of Rights is not part of the "main body" of the Constitution when in fact they are exactly that and nothing less. Clearly you would not be a winning contestant on "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader."

Honey Pot does not know that the Constitution would never have been ratified without the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

Hal, the very first meeting to draft the Constitution was held in our capital city. The Annapolis Convention 1786.
Than damn teabaggers wrote that damn document!

Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government 1786.
Why can't we do that today? Oh wait! We can!
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:
Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.
Art. 2. The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Art. 3. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.
OH NO!!! FIFI!!! They mention GOD!!!! What are we to do? How could our Founders have believed in GOD!

Popguns would be just as effective...George died in 1800?

Are you complicit in the deaths of those killed by drunk drivers because you support the rights of the auto manufacturers to sell them at a profit?

What a twisted and obscene connection to those who exercise their constitutional civil rights legally and those who don't.

Well it does say "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That pesky Constitution!

Oops this might get your way as well..In 2008 and 2010, the Court establish an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment.

You want felons to vote!

Now carry on.

Where did I ever say I wanted felons to vote?

Wow there Westboro Steve, you are a pure propagandist. Not a good one either. The NRA is NOT "making a big push to allow felons to possess and carry firearms" at all! You just lie dude! How sick are you? Unless someone actually glances your links they may beLIEve your comment as truth when it just is not.

"voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association. That bill made gun ownership a "fundamental right," on the same level as freedom of speech or religion."

How radical is that Westboro Steve/Jack Hays? You're sick dude!

The rest of the story "An Orleans Parish judge on Thursday ruled that the state statute forbidding certain felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, in the wake of a constitutional amendment passed last year that made the right to bear arms a fundamental one in Louisiana. The issue will now go straight to the state Supreme Court, which must decide whether the statute infringes on Louisiana citizens' now-enhanced right to gun possession. "

THIS is why I have to copypasta that annoys you and a few others. One must stand up and support the truth from you propagandists.

You what I think is the real sick part? That the state needed to spell out by this amendment that the 2nd Amendment was equal to the rest! We are under that kind of attack by the progressives. That is sick and that is why you will never win this firearm argument in government. Or here.

Reading really isn't your strong suit is it JoeBlob?.

No Westboro Steve, reading is not my strong suit. That is why I didn't post anything from your link you didn't think anyone would glance at and maybe recognize a few words in it.
You posted a lie and now cannot defend it so you insult. It is apparent.

What's the difference between backed and pushed.

"voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association.

Don't worry JoeBlob nobody is gonna take your ManMaker away from you.

Westboro Steve, drop that shovel. The English language is clear. You aren't. But I guess it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is right?

Why Westboro Steve did you leave this part of your comment out? "making a big" push?

Is that the same to you as "push"? Get help Steve. You are relegated to word games instead of ideas.

Here's how....As RESPONSIBLE firearms owners, you should know that other magazines, outside the high-capacity ones, can be used for whatever you currently use your gun for today. As RESPONSIBLE firearms owners, you should step up to ensure further steps are taken to prevent these types of magazines do not get into the hands of those unlicensed to use a gun.

I'm not going to rehash my argument because you've already heard it, but to say this Constitutional argument to keep these sole high-capacity magazines is ridiculous. You know it and I know it.

This 1 year old Ed was not killed with a hi cap mag. There is no statistic that the FBI tracks for the use of hcm's. That is how insignificant it is in numbers. Rifles killed less people than mothers and fathers who killed their own children. See the FBI UCR.

I am no more responsible for this senseless random murder of a 1 year old than you are responsible for the senseless deaths from obesity because you may own stock in Entenmann's and Burger King.

You highlight RESPONSIBLE. Massive %ge of all firearm owners are responsible. How many firearms are in America? How many firearm owners? How many gun crimes?

Generation after generation of Americans have legally possessed, used and maintained firearms of all types. With no incidents. With no violence and no arrests. No one hurt intentionally or unintentionally.

The Adam Lanza's of the world are pure evil. Read about how long he planned the attack. These mass shootings are a miniscule %ge of the total number of firearm murders. Attack the majority not the minority.

Ed,
270 million firearm in American civilian hands. Some say more.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

8583 firearm murders in 2011.
FBI UCR

I can't find the illegal use of firearms overall as a total but even add
for argument sake 1,000,000 times a year, 2739 times a day across America.

1,008,583 illegal uses of a firearm in 2011. Not counting the multiple use of the same firearm multiple times which most used illegally are used multiple times, we have what percentage of all firearms used illegally?

I leave the answer to you. I am not willing to give up my right to keep and bear any more than it has been infringed to date. Any more than I am willing to give up any of my other rights to anyone who did not give them to me.

Isn't this the national debate we are supposed to be having and isn't The Patch nice enough to keep it open for us instead of some trashing a new story?