4 ms·

In Maryland, did they actually take away any guns particularly?

• craftyguy 8y ago
  No, GP is just echoing rhetoric they heard.
  • harryh 8y ago
    On April 4, 2013, the Maryland General Assembly approved legislation imposing significant new restrictions on gun ownership. The bills ban the sale of certain semi-automatic firearms that they define as assault weapons, limit magazine capacity to ten rounds, require that handgun purchasers be fingerprinted and pass a training class in order to obtain a handgun license, and bar persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution from possessing firearms. Martin O'Malley Governor at the time, signed the legislation into law on May 16, 2013.[14] Regarding ten round magazine limits for rifles purchased in Maryland, 'standard' 30 round magazines may be purchased outside Maryland and brought into the state for personal use. Those standard magazines may not be transferred, given, sold or manufactured inside Maryland.[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland
    • craftyguy 8y ago
      The GP comment is still wrong. They didn't take away firearms from anyone. Limiting sale != taking away what is already owned.
      • rayiner 8y ago
        I didn’t say they took away guns, I said they took away gun rights. Restricting the kinds of guns you can buy, or ability to sell ir transfer existing proprty, is taking away part of your rights.
        • craftyguy 8y ago
          Meh. It's more of a clarification of rights. When the second amendment was written, firearms were quite rudimentary by today's standards. I'm curious how the conversation will turn when we have 'laser guns', hand-held railguns and other weapons in the future that we cannot even comprehend today. Will folks complain about the government taking away their rights to owning an automatic railgun? Probably. Did the writers of the second amendment mean for it to apply to massively overpowered weapons? Probably not. If you believe it did, then why aren't you complaining about the government not letting you own ICBMs?
          • RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
            >When the second amendment was written, firearms were quite rudimentary by today's standards. When the first amendment was written, the press was quite rudimentary by today’s standards. TV, radio, and internet were not envisioned. Maybe the government is allowed to regulate all news that isn’t physical printed. Also, it should be able to ban automatic printing presses. The printing presses of the timer were manual, one press one page. Nowadays the printing presses can spew thousands of pages with a single press of a button.
            • krapp 8y ago
              Thomas Jefferson wanted a revolution every 20 years, but we don't string up, draw and quarter our entire government every other decade. It isn't ridiculous to question whether eighteenth century political and cultural standards should always apply to a 21st century state. The Constitution isn't holy writ. Somehow much of the rest of the world manages to have free, democratic states without a 2nd Amendment or its thesis that a free state requires an armed and violent populace and a lack of any regulation on firearms.
              • cuboidGoat 8y ago
                >Thomas Jefferson wanted a revolution every 20 years, but we don't string up, draw and quarter our entire government every other decade. Not your own one. Jefferson did get his wish granted in some ways however. Possibly by a malignant genie with a keen sense of irony.