From Del. Rick Impallaria:
Annapolis Update #5 — February 21, 2012
As you probably know by now, the gay marriage bill has passed the House and is going on to the Senate. There is no telling what will happen on the Senate side, but I do believe it will pass. On the House side, the bill did get two amendments – one that would prevent the law from going into effect until after the referendum process and vote by citizens has taken place. The second amendment provides that if there are any legal challenges to the bill, the bill will not go into effect until the challenges have been exhausted, and if any part of the bill is found to be unconstitutional, the bill will be struck. That doesn’t mean that the courts couldn’t decide that both of those amendments did not withstand Constitutional challenges. There is a question on the number of votes that the bill passed by. On the night that it passed, the tote board said 71, which could be seen on all the news stations. But it was reported to have passed by 72 votes. I have never seen this happen in my 10 years here, so due to this discrepancy (also a first time in my 10 years), we could not access the minutes from the previous day, which is the record of the vote. Oh, what games they play! As soon as the referendum is in place, I will shoot you an e-mail and explain all the rules and the websites where you can sign on-line, or where to go in person, and I believe these signatures will be collected even faster than the signatures opposing the in-state tuition for illegals were collected. Gay marriage has gone on the ballot in 31 other states, and has failed in all 31.
Also, I have introduced two additional bills – one for gaming in American Legion and VFW organizations in Baltimore and Harford County, giving them the same rights as the Eastern Shore has, to have slot machines to help their charitable donations and to aid in maintaining upkeep on their property. The second bill is to stop pedophiles from voting in polling places, and was heard in the Ways and Means Committee. The bill was opposed by 5 members of the pro-pedophile lobby. Can you believe that?
There was a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on my bill regarding failure to report abuse of children, and that bill was supported by child welfare advocates noting that Maryland is one of three states that do not have a law in effect requiring the reporting of abuse of children to proper authorities.
On a positive note, it appears that the County Executive is working very closely with the Essex Sky Park to allow a long-term lease for the purchase of the property by the non-profit that is currently operating it, which will ensure the on-going operations and needed improvements to the facility.
Today, I had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on the “shall issue” bill which will give Marylanders the right to carry a concealed weapon and would remove the almost impossible hurdle of the State Police requirement of a “clear and convincing purpose for carrying a hand gun.” The bill hearing had over 100 supporters and has co-sponsors that are both Democrats and Republicans. If you are interested in this subject, call the House Judiciary Committee (410-841-3488) and lobby for the passage of this bill.
Delegate Rick Impallaria, District 7
Is there a reason that people don’t want people to Love the one there are with? How often do you hear of Domistic Violence from a gay couple. Never ! Because they are happy with there life. It is ashame that we can’t accept that. Done with that !
Wrong! As any law enforcement officer can tell you gay couples have the same domestic squabbles as straight couples do – and also result in abuse, assaults, and other crimes.
White, black, Red, and Gay all go to jail the same for Domestic Violence. In Maryland, you live together and you fight and someones is injured, then you go to jail.
wow ,, Rick actually went out and pushed for some bils that help the people who he is supposed to represent.. That’s a first. Too bad he put it all at the end of his statement. Come on man.. flip thoe Tea patry wimps off, take a good look around your area, go actually listen to all ( yes,, ALL) sides in your area. and start working for all of us.
Chip is “egregiously” wrong! Gay homicide is often characterized as “overkill”, meaning that the ferocity and frequency of wounds inflicted by one gay upon another represent substantially more than would be required to cause death!
No reasonable person would object to two consenting adults engaging in “long term, monogamous” relationships. Unfortunately, the gay liberation movement has adopted, as one of founding tenets, the right – and expectation! – to engage in frequent, often anonymous, promiscuous sex, with all the horrible consequences. IMO, mainstream America will never accept gay liberation until the gays have renounced the deadly practice of gay promiscuity. If mainstream Mormons can renounce polygamy, then the gays can certainly renounce rampant promiscuity. Only then will acceptance be more viable.
Because there are no promiscious heterosexuals?????
…because there are no Mormon polygamy? There are tens of thousands of them.
I agree with the other posters. Rick, get your act together and work on bills that help people you represent. Focus on the economy – reducing taxes, reducing gov’t spending and attracting businesses to Harford County that will create jobs (not $7/hr warehouse jobs but rather the ones that pay salaries so people can buy homes), improving public transportation and roads, making a Community College education free a reduced for those receiving unemployment…
Please let go of topics like opposing gay marriage, and changing the concealed carry law.
REGULARDUDE3, It’s not going to happen. Rick will ALWAYS focus on the “hot button” issues that get the “crazies” enraged. B.W.W., its not the “gay marriage bill” Ricky, it’s the “civil marriage bill”. Also, what’s wrong with civil liberties for all citizens?
Common Cent$
I read through the posts on this thread. Almost all of the comments are in support of same sex marriage. Are these the crazies you reference?
Yes, let make every thing free! Lets make the working men and women pay for their kids college and everyone else too. Would we give them the Education Dependence Card and could all working Americans get a status update on the grades of their dependent student!! I was always taught nothing is free and you must work for what you get. But the Libs just want to take and take from everyone else and call it progress.
No its the 1% who take from everyone else and call it progress.
Hey Proud,
“No its the 1% who take from everyone else and call it progress.” – The 1% actually pays about 40% of the federal taxes; whereas the bottom 50% only pay about 3%. So, in essence, the top 1% actually give more while the bottom 1% actually give less and take more.
Anyways, have a nice day.
But Paul the top 400 families have more wealth that 150,000,000 regular Americans. The 1% do NOT pay their FAIR share. Are you one of those HTBRS (hopeing to be rich someday)?
We must confiscate the wealth from the 1% and redistribute it to the 99%. No one should make more than $100K a year, if they do we take the rest.
“But Paul the top 400 families have more wealth that 150,000,000 regular Americans.” – So? We live in a capitalistic society. They earned the money.
“The 1% do NOT pay their FAIR share.” – I guess that depends on what your definition of fair is. They pay the highest tax rate for earned income; and they also pay 15% tax rate on their capital gains. They pay more then the rest.
“Are you one of those HTBRS (hopeing to be rich someday)?” ABSOLUTELY! And when I am, I will do like most of the rich, pay more taxes then most people and give considerable amounts of money to charities.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Hey Proud,
“We must confiscate the wealth from the 1% and redistribute it to the 99%. No one should make more than $100K a year, if they do we take the rest.” – That is rediculous. First, 100k a year is NOT a lot of money. Second, why? How about people better themselves and make more money. Third, take the rest? Theft? Are you a criminal?
Anyways, have a nice day.
We need a simpler more controlled society with social justice and income equality.
@PTBML, I do sincerely hope you’re being sarcastic. As the tax code alone will show you, “simpler” and “more controlled” are contradictions in terms. The simplest things have the least controls. Additionally, as the 1st-2nd Century Roman orator, lawyer and historian Publius Tacitus famously noted, the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government(as it is usually rendered).
We have never tried a truly progressive and liberal approach in the US. I am an Occupy Wall Street advocate and we need social justice and income equality for the 99%. The only way we can make things fair is by taking the money from the 1% and redistributing it to the masses.
We should have no millionaires or billionaires in the land of the free and home of the brave.
You are scary
Love the American Legion / VFW gaming bills — good move!
I see that Impallaria is up to his old tricks of sponsoring ridiculous bills in order to ingratiate himself with the far right wing of his party. Do we really need people carrying concealed weapons into bars and churches as they do in Arizona? I called and voiced my opposition to HB 488.
People carry concealed weapons into churches and bars now; only difference will be that some of them would do so legally.
Do you carry a gun to church? Can you imagine why anyone would want to do that?
Across the country there were plenty of concealed guns in Catholic churches today with people getting their ashes on Ash Wednesday. And there were no gun incidents.
I love Arizona. Proud, will I see you in church?
There are lots of retired people in Arizona. Will I see you there?
Correction, Marylanders will not be “given” their right to carry a firearm, it will be RESTORED after a ridiculous span of time when this infringement of 2nd Amendment rights will hopefully come to an end.
PTBL, don’t forget such unrestricted carry laws began in Vermont and found their way through Alaska before arriving in Arizona. And can also be found in Wyoming.
You asked: “Do we really need people carrying concealed weapons…?”
First, it is only a weapon if used to harm a person. That said, the late Ted Kennedy’s car was more a weapon than my firearms.
Second, to answer your question – no. We also don’t need internet access, cable TV, or anything else beyond the essentials of life. However, you have the right to watch pay television, access the internet, and enjoy a host of other items beyond the essentials of life.
The issue here is one of fundamentals of being a free American. Maryland law in 1642 mandated that every man carry a firearm for self defense. Somewhere along the way we became reliant on the government to protect us – and infringe on our rights. The time has come for this thinking to go extinct.
You will turn Maryland into a freefire zone. Why not move to Baltimore? There are lots of people who carry concealed weapons there. Is that safe? I have two children in law enforcement and I sure don’t want more nut cases carrying guns. And don’t tell me they won’t get them. Remember the shooter at Va Tech leagally bought his guns.
Hey Proud,
“You will turn Maryland into a freefire zone.” – That really is an absurd argument. A freefire zone? Seriously?
“Why not move to Baltimore? There are lots of people who carry concealed weapons there. Is that safe?” – The majority of those that currently carry concealed do so illegally.
“I have two children in law enforcement and I sure don’t want more nut cases carrying guns.” – Noone wants anyone that is a ‘nut’ carrying a weapon of any type.
“And don’t tell me they won’t get them.” – Yes, those that really want a weapon get them, right now, it is only the criminals that have them.
“Remember the shooter at Va Tech leagally bought his guns.” – He should have never gotten a firearm. He was mentally unstable and rules were broken in order for him to obtain guns.
Anyways, have a nice day.
No Paul it is not true that “rules were broken in order for him to obtain guns.” All rules were followed but they were ineffective.
Hey Proud,
“No Paul it is not true that “rules were broken in order for him to obtain guns.” All rules were followed but they were ineffective.” – Actually Proud, rules were broken. As Cho was previously deemed dangerous by a judge and order to obtain psychiatric therapy, he was not permitted to obtain a firearm. As he obviously obtained a firearm, a rule was broken. Simple logic. There were also administrative procedures (rules) not followed that would have placed Cho on a federal watch list. So, you see Proud, rules were broken in order for him (Cho) to obtain guns.
Anyways, have a nice day.
NO PAUL: While it is true he was judged “dangerous by a judge and order to obtain psychiatric therapy” that information was not allowed to be accessed in order to decide if he was able to buy a gun. So you see the rules were followed but they do not work in Virginia. Have a nice day stalking me.
Hey Proud,
“NO PAUL: While it is true he was judged “dangerous by a judge and order to obtain psychiatric therapy” that information was not allowed to be accessed in order to decide if he was able to buy a gun.” – He was supposed to have been placed on a firearms watch list, a procedural rule, and wasn’t, so the rule was broken. Furthermore, on the application, it asks questions regarding your mental capacity. Cho lied, so there, another rule was broken. So, you see, clearly, rules were broken in order for Cho to obtain firearms.
“So you see the rules were followed but they do not work in Virginia.” – A criminal will get a gun when they want one. The rules are in place, they were broken.
“Have a nice day stalking me.” – Wow, resorting to name calling. Isn’t that an ad hominem attack; you know, the one you always claim other people do on here.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Proud to be Liberal please accept my Ad Hominem Liberalus Bitchius attack.
Proud To Be Liberal, I suggest you leave this country if you have such problems with firearms. As has been pointed out, the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s car was more dangerous than most guns that are owned by law abiding citizens. Second, I highly recommend you research John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime. This professor went into the subject of “gun control” with an open mind and found, much to his surprise, that states that liberalize (I.E., come into compliance with the true intent of the Second Amendment) have sharp drops in their crime rates. Why? Because criminals fear armed response when committing their acts. Personally, I think that criminals have an absolute right to be shot right out of their shoes if they attempt to rob, assault, or otherwise harm another person.
But, alas, I am afraid that you, PTBL, would prefer to just roll over, give up your wallet, and thus allow the criminal to have a productive day at the office. And, if that is indeed the case, then that is YOUR right to do so. But please, do NOT interfere with my right to defend myself and my loved ones.
Before you argue that “well, the police can protect you”, think again, as it is impossible to have a cop on every corner, and have them show up the very instant you need protection. Plus the Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have to protect you and can not be held liable for failure to do so. Here is an idea – call Dominoes, then call 911, and see who shows up at your house first. My guess is, you will be eating pizza before there is a black and white (or blue, or olive and black, or whatever) out in front of your house.
Of course, PTBL may also be a Defense Attorney, and they would not want regular citizens defending themselves with lethal force since that would eventually whittle away their clients and thus, their ability to make a living.
Oh well. To each their own…..
PTBL; Have you looked at any statistics from states that have right to carry laws or do you simply rely on the data from MSNBC and repeat their blather?
“Hi, I’m Dave Yensan and I’m completely irrelevant in local politics and still have a bug up my ass about Helton. So I have to be content with chiming in on The Dagger because no one wanted me in public office.”
Hi. I have nothing useful to say but I need people to pay attention to me, so I come on to the Dagger and type in random attacks that I think are funny but really aren’t.
Dave: I don’t use MSNBC but do you use Faux News? Here is some information for you:
“The United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, more than 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones.”
Domestic Violence
“Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence.
Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.
Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.
Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.
A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm. In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim.
Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides.
Between 1990 and 2005, individuals killed by current dating partners made up almost half of all spouse and current dating partner homicides.
A study of applicants for domestic violence restraining orders in Los Angeles found that the most common relationship between the victim and abuser was a dating relationship, and applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married.”
If you can’t even spell ‘Fox News’ correctly, no one will pay any attention to the crap you make up.
Phil Dirt – Defending Your Right To Be Ignorant
No dogs in the house…especially the bitches.
Clearly sarcasm is lost on Phil Dirt.
I wouldn’t consider that sarcasm, and 6th grade humor like changing their name to something derogatory isn’t lost on me. I just pity those who feel the need to resort to something so juvenile, but if you have no arguments on your side, I suppose you have to write soemthing.
And the “Faux News” thing was mildly humorous years ago when it first was used, but after seeing it hundreds and hundreds of times, it just looks hacky (i.e., amateurish).
You missed his sarcastic tongue in cheek comment. Faux implies “False”. Glad I could help you out with that. Thus: Fox News is “Faux” News. Surprised you haven’t heard of it before… then again I suppose I shouldn’t be.
MSNBC and FAUX News is one and the same. But once again you failed to answer the question.
How do you explain the increased gun violence in Maryland and DC since they’ve instituted some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation?
That’s an easy one to answer: they go to Virginia which has one of the least restrictive statutes. Everyone knows that.
Go fetch!
By logical extension, auto accidents claim 35K+ live each year – a ban on motor vehicles perhaps?
PTBL, the continuous circular logic you employ in your arguments does not suggest much original or logical thinking.
Arguing that Baltimore City is a bastion of gun violence in view of the fact that this state has draconian anti-gun laws speaks for itself. How many people wielding firearms in that city and causing the crime are doing so illegally? Do you see how ridiculous the question has to be to address your point? Be liberal if it makes you proud, but for the sake of sanity use your brain!
LOCALGUY: If you can’t understand that more guns in the hands of more people, regardless of how they get there, would increase gun violence speaks volumes about your ability to think logically.
More cars cause more automobile deaths
More kitchen knives cause more stabbing deaths
More rat poison causes more liberal suicide deaths
More prescription drugs cause more overdose deaths
More liberal clap track causes more brain damage deaths
More hospice care causes more patient deaths
More medical procedures causes more operating room deaths
Hey Proud,
“LOCALGUY: If you can’t understand that more guns in the hands of more people, regardless of how they get there, would increase gun violence speaks volumes about your ability to think logically.” – Actually, that is not true. More guns in the hands of those willing to commit crimes will increase gun violence. Law abiding citizens, by the plain meaning of the term, do not commit crimes. Now, there may be situations where a law abiding citizen does use the gun, but hopefully, it is against a scum bag criminal that deserves it.
Anyways, have a nice day.
This is tiresome…
I have three firearms in my home. They have hurt no one. They will continue to hurt no one as long as I continue to obey the law. Adding another firearm will not change the statistical liklihood of my obeying the law. You seem to think it will. Please do not accuse me of being illogical. Denying my rights because others break the law or are irresponsible is an unreasonable restraint on my rights.
Localguy,
Everyone of sound mind agrees with you. I have several guns that have never harmed anyone.
LOCALGUY: Just because your guns are safe does not mean a thing. “Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injuries are the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2004) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home…However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth.”
I am certain every one of those parents thought their “guns were safe.” My point is the presents of guns in many homes, legal or not, constitutes a clear and present danger. If you can vouchsafe that every gun owner will be as responsible as you, then you can justify your points: Sadly, you cannot.
Hey Proud,
““The United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” – How many are with weapons obtained/used illegally?
“For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded.” – Ok, but again, how many are obtained/used illegally?
“Every year, more than 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence.” – Most of those are from weapons obtained illegally.
“In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones.”” – Yep, and we need to stop those that are willing to commit such crimes from obtaining weapons; we need to punish those that commit these crimes with sentences that will not allow them out to menace society again; and we need to make sure that the law abiding citizens that want firearms are able to obtain them so they may defend themselves from these criminals.
“Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence.” – Yes, so do knives, clubs, drugs, etc. A weapon will always increase the probability of death over the use of fists.
“Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.” – More information is needed, Proud. How many of these were illegal firearms? How many of these people should not have weapons to begin with?
“Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.” – Ok.
“Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.” – The abusers most likely should even have a firearm.
“A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm. In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim.” – Again, most of the abusers shouldn’t have the weapons to begin with.
“Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides.” – Those are good laws, I don’t think anyone would say a person that subject to a restraining order should be able to go out and get a weapon.
“Between 1990 and 2005, individuals killed by current dating partners made up almost half of all spouse and current dating partner homicides.” – That is irrelevant.
“A study of applicants for domestic violence restraining orders in Los Angeles found that the most common relationship between the victim and abuser was a dating relationship, and applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married.”” – Irrelevant.
Anyways, have a nice day.
“Washington School Shooting: Bremerton 3rd Grade Student Shot In Stomach” We need MORE guns in homes don’t we?
Hey Proud,
““Washington School Shooting: Bremerton 3rd Grade Student Shot In Stomach” We need MORE guns in homes don’t we?” – It was the gun owners fault, not the gun and not the other owners of guns throughout the country.
Seriously, look at your argument. Because a child was killed with a gun that another child brought to school, you think all guns should be banned. So then, if a child steals a car and kills someone, should all cars be banned? No! Of course not. What needs to happen is the person that the child obtained the gun from needs to be punished. Also, I wonder if the weapon was legal or not. I have my doubts it was.
Anyways, have a nice day.
PAUL: Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the very AVALIBILITY of guns in a home increases the chances that they will be used, either accidently or in anger, to harm someone.
Paul MC’s logic is crushing my bitch Proud to be Liberal. No dog food for you bitch.
Hey there,
“Paul MC’s logic is crushing my bitch Proud to be Liberal. No dog food for you bitch.” – While I disagree with Proud to be liberal, I find your name and statements to be derogatory and offensive. If you can’t speak in a debate using polite terms, you shouldn’t speak.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Hey Proud,
“PAUL: Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the very AVALIBILITY of guns in a home increases the chances that they will be used, either accidently or in anger, to harm someone.” – Why do you find it so difficult to understand that the majority of crimes with firearms are with firearms that were obtained illegally and by those that shouldn’t have the firearms to begin with. Prosecute the offenders to the fullest extent of the law as opposed to the ‘liberal’ mantra of thinking the criminals are just misunderstood or deserve a break or whatever. If these criminals that commit the violence were in jail (or put to death, but that is a debate for another day), then there would be less gun violence.
Anyways, have a nice day.
NO PAUL again you are sloppy with your facts. Most harm by firearms are not with “firearms that were obtained illegally” but with arms obtained leagally. Just having a gun in a house, obtained leagally or not, increases the chances of harm.
legally
You guys have officially “Jumped the Shark”.
Hey Proud,
“NO PAUL again you are sloppy with your facts. Most harm by firearms are not with “firearms that were obtained illegally” but with arms obtained leagally. Just having a gun in a house, obtained leagally or not, increases the chances of harm.” – Actually, you are incorrect.
Anyways, have a nice day.
PAUL Mc: “Irrelevant. “ “Actually, you are incorrect.” This is what I mean by your stalking. You only make a comment about another’s post but have no justification or statistics for your criticism.
You have a nice day.
Hey Proud,
“PAUL Mc: “Irrelevant. “ “Actually, you are incorrect.” This is what I mean by your stalking. You only make a comment about another’s post but have no justification or statistics for your criticism.” – That isn’t the definition of stalking. Furthermore, if the point is irrelevant, there really is no need to use statistics to disprove it.
“You have a nice day.” – I usually do.
Anyways, have a nice day.
PAUL Mc: Then by defination your points are “irrelevant”.
Proud you must have meant “deaf nation” not as you wrote “defination”.
Great retort by the way, you really know how to skool [sic] Paul MC.
The difference is cars have other purposes. Guns do not.
With all due respect…
Legal purposes
Cars – transportation, status, collecting, racing, touring
Guns – hunting, protection, target shooting, collecting, status
Illegal purposes
Cars – speeding, running over pedestrians, get away
Guns – holding up a store/bank, poaching, sniping
Your point?
Fair enough. Agree on all points. If you want to legally own a rifle for the purposes of hunting (for sport or food, doesn’t really matter), target practice, etc. That’s great. I truly support you. The “right” to conceal a 15 shot handgun in church, school, etc. Not so much.
If we allow gays to marry just to claim the same rights married people have, then what about parent/child relationships or three/four party relationships?? If my son and I live together as two adults, shouldnt we have the same rights as a married couple? If there are two guys and a girl together, do they get the same rights?? This is just opening a bad can of worms!! Why can’t we just leave the value of marriage between a man and a women alone!! We can’t afford as a state or country to make these changes finacially or morally!
I think it is illogical to assume that if you legalize gay marriage then everyone is just going to jump into it without any true reason to- at least any more than people already do!!!! I don’t think your persuasion is going to determine whether you get married for the wrong reasons, get divorced, or never marry at all.
People who are in loving, long-term commited relationships deserve to be able to get married whatever their persuasion. Why do you care? It doesn’t affect you. You don’t even have to agree with it- but it’s about equality under the law.
There are plenty of heterosexual people who live together and never decide to get married- plenty who “desecrate” the “instituition” of marriage- why would it be any different if you were gay? There are plenty of commited homosexual couples who are far better husbands or wives than- say- Newt Gingrich for example.
By God, you are right. The solution is simple: eliminate marriage as a societal institution. Married couples should have no economic advantages over any other pair or group of people co-habitating. Since such a high percentages of marriages end up in divorce anyway, they should be banned altogether.
That is a bifercated argument.
Once again, small government except when it comes to the relationships of consenting adults who don’t fit the criteria of someone’s religious beliefs. Politicians of both parties need to keep religion out of their voting practices.
Proud to be Liberal,
You said: “Just because your guns are safe does not mean a thing.”
Answer – You bet it does. It means me and my family will be unharmed by them. It means my neighbors and community at large will not suffer from my use of them.
You went on to say: “‘Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injuries are the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2004) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home…However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth.'”
Answer: Shame on parents who do not take the time and effort to protect their families. My kids are young, too young to properly handle a firearm in a safe manner. They know where they are stored and they know not to touch them. They know to touch them is to receive a stern and properly placed reminder. Not had to do that. Not just because they are locked away with trigger guards.
You went further: “I am certain every one of those parents thought their ‘guns were safe.'”
Answer – Don’t “think” they are safe – KNOW they are safe. Big difference. Shame on anyone who does not KNOW. Be responsible.
You said: “My point is the presents of guns in many homes, legal or not, constitutes a clear and present danger.”
Answer – Wrong. Potential danger. Dangerous if not properly used. The presence of a car on the road presents danger as well – unless it is properly used.
You said: “If you can vouchsafe that every gun owner will be as responsible as you, then you can justify your points: Sadly, you cannot.”
Answer – You are right on that – I cannot. That does not mean, however, that I have to surrender my rights because other people are too stupid to exercise common sense. I’m not kept from operating a motor vehicle because many people are stupid enough to drink alcohol and get behind the wheel. I’m not kept from splitting firewood with my axe because some nutcase hacked a victim to pieces. I can cut my steak with a knife despite the fact some lunatic used one to carve up a spouse. Getting my point?
I’m not responsible for other people. I am responsible to me and my family. My actions are held responsible to the community at large not to harm them. No where does that standard imply or express that my rights can be infringed to fulfill those responsibilities. Your arguments are empty.
You post statistics in some vain effort to convince me that my behaviors are somehow connected to the greater population. That you cannot connect.
I said it before and I will repeat it since you clearly overlooked it -Denying my rights because others break the law or are irresponsible is an unreasonable restraint on my rights.
It might be best to agree to disagree on this. You don’t like guns – you think they kill people. Fine, stay away from them – the criminals like it that way. Truth is, people kill people either intentionally or accidentally. If it is intentional – that is already illegal no matter what weapon is used. If it is accidental – that is tragic. I’ve been around guns most of my life and never been hurt nor hurt another. Responsible and law abiding citizens do not need to be punished because a few others are insanely irresponsible and stupid.
Proud To Be Liberal commented on Feb 22 above that he/she had two children who were in law enforcement. Perhaps Proud is concerned that one day the children will turn into some nut job and kill everyone around them. Maybe Proud’s children will one day leave their guns unsecured at home and the grandchildren will get the guns and have a tragic accident. All of which is entirely possible, but unlikely, since Proud’s children as law enforcement persons are probably very responsible people.
Proud, if you read this, please pass along my thanks to your children for their service.
Thanks Retired.
Local: “Harford County Liquor Control Board, State Healthcare Commission Member Randall Worthington Killed by Accidental Gunshot” Guns are inherently dangerous even in the hands of careful and trained people. “From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.” There are many more people wounded. These are tragic and needless accidents and I only hope your family does not have one.
As with most things in a technologically advanced society, possession of items containing great energy by the incredibly dull and stupid are all potential sources of death and destruction. This is true of guns, automobiles, snd Alternating Current. The knee jerk reaction to eliminate them from our lives is not the answer, and if you did, someone would still get their eye poked out by a sharp stick.
David: As someone said automobiles, and Alternating Current have other uses, guns only kill.
I know what you are saying, but they are a tool…. and a tool in the wrong hands is dangerous. Would you take exception to all those people that like and enjoy hunting and even do it to provide food for their families? Have you ever tasted chili made with ground venison? They are tools, and I would not outlaw them anymore than I would outlaw a circular saw or a hammer.
If you get to blame guns for causing death by gunshot, do I get to blame forks for causing death by heart attack?
Thank you for your concern. I’ll add – what Porter said.
I understand it would be great to legislate death from the human experience, but there is some sad news: no one gets out of this life alive. Before you label me a death mongering cold lizard…
I agree the tragic accidents are tragic because they are needless. And to be honest my heart aches for the losses survivors have to cope with. However, it still does not compel me to vacate rights that I possess by merely being blessed and privileged to being born in the USA.
I’m not intentionally wrapping myself in the flag when I say that. I feel just as adamant about those rights as I do about not having the government being allowed to read my e-mails because some people plot mass killings via e-mail.
If we continually allow rights to be eroded and discarded – where does it stop?
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.”
Ben Franklin
It was true then, and is still today.
LOCAL: Would you then say there is an legitimate reason for someone to own an assault weapon or a 50 Caliber snipers rifle or Teflon bullets? What rights do those items confer on you? One must balance guns with our right to public safety to say nothing about wasting tax dollars on the costs these guns bring to us. Yes “no one gets out of this life alive” but why rush it?
The role of government is to protect our God-given rights.
To this end, is there a legitimate reason to own a gun: Yes. Because you are the best equipped to protect your family and your property.
Legitimate reason to own a rifle: same.
Legitimate reason to own a handgun: same.
There doesn’t need to be a “balance” between the number of guns and this idea of “public safety”. This language is used to make it look like the free people of the United States should be forced by law to be less free. If you choose not to own guns, then please do not.
The reason that the 2nd amendment exists is because the revolutionaries who crafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights sought the ability to defend their freedom from all oppressors– whether it be invaders or their own government.
Why would anyone willingly eliminate their ability to defend their family or their home?
Patrick McGrady: You stated, “Because you are the best equipped to protect your family and your property.” That is not true. I remember an experiment where an individual was given a gun (with blanks) and told he was in an experiment to see if taking a gun to class (the site of the experiment) would provide safety. The man was told that someone (an actor) would enter the classroom with a weapon and he was to protect the class. Even though he was expecting the intruder, and this experiment was held scores of times with different subjects, the result was that having a gun did NOT protect the class and even was a negative as sometimes classmates were “shot” by the “defender.”
I personally know that police officers are given hundreds of hours of training, and regular re-training, so they will be able to function during an emergency. Even so, some make mistakes. The point is that it is very unlikely that a citizen would be competent to defend their home with a gun. It is much more likely that a tragic accident will occur with a weapon in the house.
You did not comment on assault weapons or a 50 Caliber snipers rifle or Teflon bullets. Does that mean citizens should be able to own them?
PTBL:
Regarding your statement about classrooms and firearms, any individual who is serious about protecting his family and property will understand gun safety and how to use the gun as a tool to protect his family.
The line, if I can get it right is: When seconds count, the police are always minutes away.
Yes, citizens have a right to defend their families and property. They should be able to exercise that right. It is a dangerous idea to have politicians and bureaucrats who are able to determine what level of defense I am able to use.
Do you see how this is a freedom issue?
If I recall, you often take the side of the underprivileged in other situations, but why not take the side of the 5-foot-nothing 95 pound female who is on the wrong end of a sexual assault situation? Should she be equipped with an equalizer? Why should our government forbid her from protecting herself?
The short answer to your question on what types of guns you should be able to own is simple: Yes, you should be able to own a Barrett .50cal if you have the means to operate it safely, can be shown to be competent in it’s security on your property and possess a valid FFL. William F. Buckley once said my right to hit you in the nose ends at my fist, and where your nose begins. And I will go further, the 4th amendment is the one that entitles you to the right to maintain your property without due process. As far as I am concerned that supercedes the 2nd amendment which I regard as vague to the issue of personal gun ownership. If I choose to own a 155mm howitzer or a 120mm tank gun, I should be allowed to do so, so long as I observe the rights of others, and operate it safely. And I do not mean to suggest your right to fear me is remotely enforceablbe and covered by the Constitution. As for your contention that an individual does not possess the ability to properly defend himself with a handgun, I am reminded of an interview on NPR where the reporter asked the mayor of DC about his suspended gun ban. The mayor replied “The police are only a few minutes away”. I for one do not believe a few minutes away is an adequate wait time when I am confronted with a potential assailant: “Please Mr Bad Guy, I just called the police, they said they would be here in a few minutes, can you please wait before you assault me and my family?” I believe even the NPR Reporter found this comment to be absurd.
PATRICK: You stated “any individual who is serious about protecting his family and property will understand gun safety and how to use the gun as a tool to protect his family.” I agree with that. But do you really think many people who own guns really know how to use them? I mean police officer well which is what is needed in a life and death situation? I can tell you: absolutely not! Most are careless and stupid. The most dangerous situation for a police officer is answering a domestic disturbance call because of half drunk morons that feel they have a “God given” right to these weapons. That’s bull. I have no objections to law abiding, reasonable citizens owning weapons if they are trained and the weapon is registered and they went through a THOROUGH background check.
You did not comment on assault weapons or a 50 Caliber snipers rifle or Teflon bullets. Does that mean citizens should be able to own them?
DAVID: “If I choose to own a 155mm howitzer or a 120mm tank gun, I should be allowed to do so, so long as I observe the rights of others, and operate it safely.” That is just a ridiculous statement. There are no circumstances under which a 155mm howitzer or a 120mm tank gun can be operated safely and which you would observe the rights of others.
In response to Del. Impallaria:
If your side had won the debate over gay marriage, would you still be so vocal about getting it to referendum? If your answer is ‘no’, then you are a hypocrite.
If you believe that the voters should have final say on this issue but not every other ‘very important’ issue, then you are only grandstanding for the audience. You are in essence telling everyone to look at you and watch what you are going to do next.
It is my sincere wish that a legitimate challenger from the Republican party comes to try and take your spot in the legislature, because I do believe that you are more interested in the publicity and presumed power that comes with your position than you are in actually doing the job that comes with your position. I wish I lived in your voting area so I could vote for someone (anyone) else.
Okay, I’m knee deep in the gun control side of this topic, but reading this post made me pause.
Are you suggesting that if this delegate had won his battle in the State House he’d be a hypocrite for not getting the public’s stamp of approval?
Are you equally concerned that our illustrious, incompetant governor seeks equally to prevent the voters’ voices being heard? Does that not smell of hypocrisy as well in your final analysis?
Extending your logic to its obvious conclusion would mean every measure taken by the State House would need referendum approval! Anything short of that means hypocrisy! Is this what you mean?
Please clarify because your outrage seems to employ a double standard.
My “outrage”, such that it is, is that this appears to me to be yet another case of sour grapes. I believe it smacks of hypocrisy every time one of our legislators says “the people should decide” after they have lost a vote, regardless of which side of the aisle their seat is located. I generally side with the conservatives because I get more agitated at liberal spending than I do with conservative morality, but in this case I’m agitated with the conservative morality people who only have tolerance for people who think their way. Still, as I said, my biggest concern here is Delegate Impallaria’s grandstanding. He has shown throughout the past few years that he has no problems using political issues to further his own personal agenda. He’s not the only one, for sure, but he’s the one who wrote the article.
Concerned Teacher,
My take is Del. Impallaria does not believe the majority of Marylanders support same sex marriage and is willing to put it to a vote. He is not alone in that thought process. Our Governor has repeatedly stated that a Majority of Marylanders support same sex marriage, so lets find out if that is true.
I do concur with that assessment. Again, my belief in the hypocrisy of the process is that the Delegate has not created amendments or otherwise pushed to get any other initiatives that he supported but failed to pass onto a ballot referendum. It is the picking and choosing of what legislative issues the masses should decide on and what they should not decide on that bothers me.
Let us say that the Legislature pushed through an outright ban on the death penalty. I am pro death penalty, so that goes against one of my core beliefs. However, I would have the same feelings towards anyone who decided that this was an important enough issue to take it to referendum. Who decides what is important? Either everything is important or nothing is.
Concerned Teacher,
I agree for the most part. In my view this is not about what is or is not an important enough issue to go to the voters. This is about political cover. Some who voted for same sex marriage actually want the issue to go to referendum. They are playing to both sides of the issue. If it does not pass (and they are convinced it will not) in referendum, those same legislators will say to their constituents who favored this legislation, I tried, but the people have spoken. Is this a political sham…Of course, it’s politics! In the meantime, our Governor and other leading Democrats in Maryland will get lots of press coverage. This is a game where the rules are not fair. Matter of fact, they make them up as they go along.
Concerned Teacher are you planning on teaching a gay sex doctrine in your classroom?
Nope. I don’t teach doctrine. I teach quadratic equations, Pythagorean theorem, and measures of central tendency.
However, if I were a health teacher, I would teach the health curriculum. I don’t believe that there is a heterosexual sex ‘doctrine’, so why would there be a homosexual sex ‘doctrine’?
@Concerned Teacher –
You do know that Del. Impallaria did not post the above letter to the Dagger. The Dagger editors are on Del. Impallaria’s email distribution list and they posted the letter?
He didn’t post it, but I can assume that he (or one of his staffers) authored it, yes? If it’s coming from his office, then it is his word.
@Concerned Teacher –
Certainly it is Del. Impallaria’s communication, however he wasn’t grandstanding on the Dagger…although there would be nothing wrong if he had done so.
Does anyone know if there has been any study of the opposition to gay marriage? Do those who oppose it feel repulsed by it and translate that to a cheapening of their own commitment by using the same term? Is it a case of opposing the use of the term marriage vs. actually considering gays as undeserving of equal status with regard to the laws of property, taxes and living will issues? I’m just curious what people think on the matter. While I’m not opposed to the bill, I really wish Marty would get to work now and do something for the other 98% of Marylanders… some of us that are paying the bills for his career progression are hurting. I still think this was used as a distraction from the gas tax.
AMAZED: The only thing that is a “cheapening of their own commitment” to marriage is the huge divorce rate among Evangelical “Christians” that are mostly in Red Southern states. I never hear any of you people commenting on that. Why don’t you want to strengthen marriage?
Hey PTBL, first off, if you want to respond to my post please read it carefully… then explain why you choose to use “you people”. I asked a serious, straight forward question. I do that because I’m curious – it’s a means of learning new things. You should try it. I’m sorry you don’t like my question. Unlike you, I AM interested in your opinion. I’ve stated before that I don’t oppose this bill – even though you seem to want to believe I do. Others oppose it and I’m curious where that opposition stems from.
AMAZED: Sorry. I guess I was put off by your attack on the Governor whom I respect. You have been known to be quite negitive to me in the past and I guess I’m sensitive.
I can understand that. You see my disagreement with your opinions as negativity. I’ll try to be more attentive to how I come off. You respect Marty. I don’t (then again, I can’t think of a politician I respect at the moment). He’s concentrated on causes you see as important. I think he’s ignored the vast majority of Marylanders except as a source of revenue. I think a Billion dollar deficit is more important than Illegals getting in state tuition and same sex marriage and I don’t see him doing anything to address it. While I’d lose sleep, I don’t think it even registers for him. He, like most politicians from both sides is happy to leave the state a financial wreck when he leaves – then crow about what a fine job he did and anyone that got something from his tenure will agree.
PTBL you would adore Marty because he is a self-loathing liberal hack like you.
SAM: This just shows why most people loath tea baggers.