Random Thoughts About “Room to Destroy”

Jerald Miller cleaning-up the front of CVS after rioters burned the store (courtesy usatoday.com)

When the Mayor of Baltimore told a justifiably panicked public that she was giving “protesters” “room to destroy” she was speaking truth to powerlessness. Once again, the Mayor of a city abandoned law-abiding citizens to rampant criminality. Once again, peaceable people in an economically-challenged, ethnically-segregated section of a major metropolitan area were on their own, denied direct police intervention, powerless to stop wanton destruction and unprovoked personal attacks. People who could not take the law into their own hands – a regrettable but necessary state of affairs – because they’d been denied the tools to do so. But first, the police . . .

Pro-gun people like to point out the limits of the police’s “thin blue line” with a simple expression: “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” In this case, at the sharp end, the Baltimore police were hours if not days if not permanently away. And where the cops were on scene, they gave rioters “room to destroy.” Looting, burning, attacking random people and property – the cops were too busy maintaining a shoulder-to-shoulder cordon on major streets to directly engage and arrest the thugs tearing the town apart.

This is no small point. Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rowlings-Blake had instructed the police to contain the rioting, rather than combat it. Containment served her political needs. It signaled the world that she “understood” the “protesters'” anger at the police incident that “sparked the rage.” It prevented incidents that could lead to accusations of “police brutality” that might make the rioting worse. At the same time, containment prevented the violence, destruction and theft from spilling-out into the city’s more affluent areas, where the real money (a.k.a., political power) resides.

One could point out that these areas have a higher percentage of caucasian residents and accuse the Mayor of racism but I couldn’t possibly comment. But I will say this: when push comes to shove, at that very moment, police and politics has nothing to do with it. It’s a simple matter of self-protection. They attack, you defend. Your life, your property, your loved ones, your community. You do it because no one else will. No one else can. At that point, you want the best possible tool for self-defense. You want a gun. On your person.

Maryland is what’s called a “may issue” state. Free State residents must prove their need for a concealed carry firearm to government regulators. Securing Maryland’s permission to carry a concealed firearm is an expensive, time-consuming, bureaucratic process, prone to delay. And failure. According to abc2news.com , just 2,095 people applied for a Maryland concealed carry license in 2014. Some 227 were denied. “Of that 227, 189 were denied under Maryland State Police code 0060: ‘Lacks good and substantial reason.'” So, what about this?

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency in the city and activated the National Guard to assist city and state police, calling it a “last resort” to restore order.

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake called the rioters “thugs” and said the city was imposing a 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew starting Tuesday. She said she asked Hogan to send in the Guard.

“We are deploying every resource possible to gain control of the situation and ensure peace moving forward,” she said.

Does that constitute a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a concealed firearm? Even if it does, Baltimore residents can’t apply for a concealed carry permit today and get one, say, tomorrow. So if thugs roaming the streets is a “good and substantial reason” for being “allowed” to carry a gun, the government needs to give residents a license before the rioting starts. (You know; again.) Raise your hand if you think the state would consider “I want to be armed against rioters” “a good and substantial reason” for carrying a firearm.

And yet it damn well is, isn’t it? Perhaps not as good and substantial as “I have a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms subject neither to the democratic process nor questions of social utility,” but perfectly rational nonetheless. As is the idea that the police should maintain law and order when it disintegrates. Before it disintegrates? How do you do that? Now there’s a question.

“In the days ahead, I intend to work with leaders throughout Baltimore to ensure that we can protect the security and civil rights of all residents,” Lynch said. “And I will bring the full resources of the Department of Justice to bear in protecting those under threat, investigating wrongdoing, and securing an end to violence.”

Are law-abiding Baltimore residents reassured by this paternalistic promise? Maybe. But not as reassured, not as protected, as they would be with a firearm.


  1. avatar Joe R. says:

    She was Speaking B.S. to GEDs.

    Baltimore likes to relive these episodes every ~ 20 yrs. Each time they try to look sincere.

    Only 14 more looting days ’til mutha’s day.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Saw a perfect tweet that I have [obviously] decided to steal: “Because nothing says ‘I want justice’ better than stealing from the corner store…”

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” MLK

        I have a dream that one day these protests won’t require a walk of 14 blocks to find an operating liquor store/grocery store/pharmacy/electronics supply store. . .

  2. avatar Clark says:

    My ex was denied a CCW in Maryland because she couldn’t “justify” it. Worked retail right outside of Baltimore. Walking around late at night with Thousands of dollars to deposit….had a security guard armed with….pepper spray….denied…what a state….

  3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Every so-called “gun free zone” is a potential “room to destroy” (i.e. room to commit acts of lawlessness) waiting to happen.

    This George Soros-funded descent into mob savagery will come to a head eventually (and that’s the intent). People have a natural right to defend their lives (e.g. 30,000 baseball fans held hostage) and their livelihoods (e.g. business owners who had their property destroyed and their business endeavors interfered with).

    Mobs of lawless savages do NOT have the right to destroy property or to disrupt the lives of law-abiding citizens.

    Eventually, it will be proven that an armed citizenry is the only thing that will stop this madness.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      FYI: After the intelligence community identified Armand Hammer as the long time COMINTERN bagman they began looking for potential replacements. The one name that kept coming up was one George Soros. I wouldn’t be surprised if old KGB hand Vladmir Putin has coming knocking on George’s door and informing him that his back on the payroll.

  4. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    RF is a Francis Urquhart fan! Me too, let’s put a bit of the stick about.

  5. avatar Korvis says:

    Far be it from me to defend a statist tool like Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, but I really think she just had a speak-o when she cut loose with the “space to destroy” comment. What I suspect she was trying to say (and what she subsequently has said she was trying to say) was that she had instructed the police to give peaceful “protesters” space to “protest,” but that the consequence of giving them space was that the looters also were given space. It wasn’t that she instructed the police to let the looters have at it.

    That said, the obvious net effect of her state’s and city’s anti-CCW laws are that looters have all the space to destroy that they could want.

    1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

      If she didn’t instruct the police to let the looters loot, why did they make ZERO effort to stop it?

      1. avatar Baldwin says:


      2. avatar Accur81 says:

        “Officer Safety.”

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Best BPD scanner comment of the night:

          “Turn your radios up. Put the crayons down. We can write reports later.”

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          No. There was a leash on those officers, and it wasn’t about their safety- it was about the city’s liability and the mayor’s optics.

          If it was about officer safety they would have found something better to do than be punching bags all night.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          One single rock thrower catching a load of buckshot in the face, the whole problem is over, except the trial of that officer. And he would be acquitted.

    2. avatar Aaron says:

      She said, “we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

      there is NO WAY to parse that into what you posit she was “trying” to say.

  6. avatar jans says:

    I think that what she meant was that by giving the protesters enough space to ensure their safety, she also enabled the rioters and looters.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I think that’s a fair interpretation of her original remark. The problem is, the upshot is the same: “unintended” or not, the consequence was that the rioters were allowed to run wild by the authorities. And “unintended” or not, that consequence was, or at very least should have been, entirely forseeable by the authorities. To delve into lawyerese, , “giving the destroyers space” may not have been exactly “intentional”, but it was almost certainly “knowing”.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        The rioters understood her perfectly. “Go for it, today, we will start clamping down tomorrow evening.”

  7. avatar daltona117 says:

    Just FYI, the Old Dominion (Virginia, not Maryland) is a shall-issue state. The misnamed “Free State” on the other hand, is anything but free. Anthony Bourdain put it best: “Baltimore sucks.”

    1. avatar notaTTAGreg says:

      Maryland is the Old Line state. Virginia is the Old Dominion.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Maryland was also formerly “The Free State.” No longer.

    2. avatar Bob Wall says:

      But Baltimore is named “Charm City”. Boy oh Boy, what a misnomer.

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Much like Philly is the city of brotherly love and Los Angeles is the city of angels.

        1. avatar Jay-El says:

          Isn’t Chicago also known as the City of the Big Shoulders?

          Not because of some of its more famous politicians, obviously.

      2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        Obviously named for the quark, and as we all know nothing makes sense in quantum mechanics.

    3. avatar AhClem says:

      Maryland: “The Land of Pleasant Living” or was that just a Natty Bo slogan?

  8. avatar John L. says:

    Repugnance. That’s my thought: repugnance. For the rioters and for the politicians the voted in.

  9. avatar mike says:

    Can you say “open invitation?”

  10. avatar AllAmerican says:

    For the next time any libturd tries to tell you, “you don’t need a 30 round mag”, ahem! Well, Baltimore, Ferguson, New Orleans…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I think a 5-rd mag would suffice if properly applied. These punks were coordinating on Twitter, apparently. The first time one reared back to toss a brick at police and caught a single load of buckshot in the face, you would not be able to find a single yoot in 5 minutes, citywide. 4 shots left in the mag. Those rocks were called “assault with a deadly weapon”, and should have been treated as such, especially since the rioters carried them into the area with them, specifically for that purpose (ie, “intent”).

  11. avatar miforest says:

    If the choice is tool up and live or follow the unconstitutional law and see your family beaten and maybe worse,
    well, juries ar ordinary citizens that can be understanding….

    sad choice to have to make.

  12. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    It’s nice to know that destroying others’ property is now 1st amendment speech. I’m sure it will hold true for people of all ideological stripes and not just a select, pre-approved mindset.

  13. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Said by no politician ever:

    Citizens Arm Yourselves. Prepare to defend your life, your property and your livelihood.as is your god given right and duty to your community.


    1. avatar MeRp says:

      Didn’t the Mayor of Detroit say pretty much exactly that?

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Chief of Police James Craig said it. Don’t know about the mayor.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I did not hear the mayor tell him to STFU.

  14. avatar Justin_GA says:

    Instead of “giving them room to destroy” the Mayor should have ordered the police to surround/contain them and then open fire. Yeah…Yeah…. they were just expressing whatever. The cold hard truth though is that they had a great opportunity to remove the criminals from the communities and improve the lives of the law abiding citizens who are live in the communities.

    1. avatar K-Bizz says:

      Yeah, cause who need this “due process” crap? The Bill of Rights is just a bunch of stupid words that get in the way of the government doing what it knows is best, like banning guns. /sarc

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        i wasn’t aware that looting and burning were protect First Amendment activities. Thanks for letting me know.

        1. avatar K-Bizz says:

          They aren’t, but summary executions violate the fifth amendment. The government cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process. Opening fire on a crowd, be they rioting or otherwise, is unconstitutional, and if you’re ok with ignoring one amendment, you have no ground to stand on when you complain about them ignoring another. The constitution isn’t a buffet table, it’s all or nothing.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          In times of civil disorder or natural disaster they can and have in the past.


        3. avatar Grindstone says:

          Everyone is entitled to the right of due process. From the lowliest criminal to a-holes like you.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          The guy who has fired at me twice and missed does not have a right to due process unless he survives. Saying “everybody” has that right is just wrong, and foolish. Someone will believe it means that. In the case in point, those rioters were there trying to injure/kill police officers. They should have been fired on.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The guy who has fired at me twice and missed does not have a right to due process unless he survives.

          Such a person is still subject to due process; particularly, the statutory process for justified use of deadly force in self-defense.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      And you claim to be a 2nd Amendment supporter? You sound like you’d join right in when they start confiscating…

  15. avatar DisThunder says:

    This sparked a “question of the day” -type conversation at work, and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. Sadly, my employer’s anti-gun policies are well known especially in the western US, but on the upside, that makes it hard for them to ask any of us to tool up on their behalf. But let’s say you had friends or family in a neighboring city who were watching things simmer into a B-more or Ferguson type of situation, and decided to call you up. They’re scared, and maybe they’re also armed, but they know they’re outnumbered and could lose their businesses or even their homes to a bunch of rioters. So if they asked for your help in protecting their property, would you gear up and off your “security service?”

    I’m pretty sure I would.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      I think I’d start by offering them a room for the duration.

    2. avatar Todd S. says:

      I’d be there with my “arsenal,” in media parlance.

      1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        If you’re a dem or progressive liberal you’re allowed to refer to it as your ‘collection’ vice arsenal.

    3. avatar Justin_GA says:

      I would help if nothing else could be done…..Though I wouldn’t be so worried about being overrun….I’d worry about the body count and the repercussions of such a large body count.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        That was before Chief Batts allowed them to “police.” That flaming turd lands squarely in the Mayor’s lap, where it belongs.

      2. avatar Taylor TX says:

        Id be worried about being a crispy critter after seeing how many fires there were about as equally as how to explain the mess.

    4. avatar Ing says:

      Individual friends and/or their private businesses, yes.

      The corporate campus (or in my case state campus) that, on any ordinary day, would fire and/or prosecute me for exercising my right to keep and bear arms? No.

    5. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If they were planning to stand and fight, then yes, I would join them. If they just wanted my protection of their property, absolutely not. I say that as a guy with a STRONGLY anti gun family, causing many arguments with me through the years. Suddenly they call and want me to step in with those guns they hate so bad? I think I’m busy that weekend. Likewise, any business with a “gun free” sign of whatever type, absolutely not.

  16. avatar Ray says:

    The next time I travel through Maryland I better not be stopped by the police. They stood and watched the looting and did nothing to the thugs.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      I add about two hours driving time to trips to Western Wisconsin/Eastern Minnesota from Virginia because I don’t want to get harassed by the cops if I should get stopped. The Progressive idiots who run the state would prefer to lose potential revenue from a law abiding gun owner so they can reduce the amount of gun violence.

      1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        No. Their laws have nothing to do with reducing gun violence. They are only intended to disarm the law abiding who aren’t a source of gun violence in the first place.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Once again sarcasm fails.

  17. avatar Seryoga says:

    I hope the Militsiya cleaned up well, and hopefully killed some rioters, too. Nothing like a few dead predators to curb recidivism and make the rest think twice about trying anything foolhardy.

    1. avatar notaTTAGreg says:

      No one did squat. Rioters ran loose last night while police attempted to ‘contain’ the situation. National Guard showed up, but did nothing.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        The Baltimore Police (and those of supporting jurisdictions) were quite simply overwhelmed. I know – I listened to the scanner last night. It didn’t help that the boneheaded Mayor and her pet Senator Elijah did absolutely nothing to help. And the Liberal voters got what they deserved.

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      Oh Seryoga, I don’t say this often, I call you a troll. (Also, it’s spelled militia).

      If the Militia were to act in the way you spoke,( Which the powers that be hope and pray would happen) of “killing”‘ some rioters, as in being a Vigilante(s), hell would not have the fury of the Sh-t storm that would fall upon all those that defend the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

      Which is what the Powers That Be Want.

      If you are involved in the freedom movement, the real freedom movement, you should know this, so why would you suggest such a thing? Knowing the consequence?

      Are you really a defender of the second amendment and the rule of law? Or are you something else? You have heard of an Agent Provocateur?

    3. avatar Grindstone says:

      Are you posting this from Donbass?

  18. avatar Ken says:

    They also gave the rioters a free night to loot when they decided to not start the curfew until Tuesday night.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’ll never figure that one out. I was listening to that announcement, and reading it does not do it justice. She actually EMPHASIZED the fact that it did not start until tomorrow, which I saw at the time as an invitation to “get’er done” tonight, to me, and apparently to the looters as well.

  19. avatar Zachariah says:

    As a former resident I find this infuriating. Especially having lived through the firearms safety act of 2013.

    So, I guess citizens do need their CCW permits, defensive rifles and handguns after all! I hope groups like Maryland Shall Issue and the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore seize this opportunity to remind the Maryland legislature that citizens are not living in some paranoid survivalist fantasy land when we argue for CCW permits and guns commonly used for defense.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      The Democrats don’t believe you are paranoid. The entire objective of civilian disarmament is to make sure you are at the mercy of these thugs. The left has figured out that you don’t need a heavy handed police state to control the population. You just outsource social control to gangs.

  20. avatar William B. says:

    So, lemme see, Hitler turns the Jews in the Warsaw ghettos, er, I mean, the Mayor turns the poor minority folk in the inner city over to the rampant violence of the mob, leaving them defenseless. The truth is that most of those folks are far more likely to need a gun to defend themselves than most of us ever are. Few if any policies more racist than gun control still exist in this country.

  21. avatar RetLEO says:

    Maryland sucks as far as the 2A goes. This display is a perfect illustration of the limits, inability, or unwillingness of the .gov to protect the lives or property of the people. We should use this (cue emotional stories and music) to hammer home why individuals NEED the ability to protect themselves.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with “needs”. The right preceeds any subsequent “use” of the right. Don’t confuse “regulatory” need/requiremet/bureaucratic impediment with the rights of the people.

      1. avatar RetLEO says:

        Not confused about the 2A at all. The point was to do what the anti’s do…use a current event to stoke an emotional response. We already know we have facts and the COTUS on our side. But playing to emotions is a powerful tool, thus far used primarily by the other side. The images of wanton destruction and looting provides a potent backdrop to use their tactics to further our points.

        1. avatar Baldwin says:

          I hear what you’re saying. I just disagree that we need to justify a need for firearms. I don’t have to convince anyone of my need (or desire) to keep, carry, or aquire any firearm (or any other weapon/arm). To that end I feel we are taking the wrong path to that reality by quibbling with the anti’s IRT rules, beauacracy, and needs. The RTBA is an absolute. Period.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Only until SCOTUS says it is not. At that time it is completely over until the constitution is rewritten and ratified. And first you have to have a temporary government to replace the deceased one, in order to have a framework within which a constitution can be written. Simply demanding a right which we know exists should be a last resort.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:


      I get what you mean. A need isn’t required but there obviously is a real need nonetheless. Good post!

  22. avatar Paul says:

    The rioting in Baltimore is mild compared to what will likely happen this summer when there is another police killing under questionable circumstances in a large city. I am expecting LA or NY but it could be anywhere. It will be 1967 or 68 over again. In one of these riots, a gang banger will open up at the store owner as they prepare to loot a liquor store. He will hold a handgun sideways and probably miss. And then the store owner is going to open up on the crowd as they enter his liquor store. He will have an AK or an AR and empty it toward the doorway at anything that comes in. They will be 30 rounders in spite of the laws in the likely locations of the riots. He will not miss. It will not be pretty. The anti’s and especially the President will seize on the 30 round issue again even though the store owner will have been defending himself. It will not be pretty. I need to buy a few more magazines now before it gets too warm outside.

  23. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    The neighborhood store owners took the biggest hit. Some of them, those working on the ragged edge, lost everything the had and won’t be able to reopen. Sad. Where’s the Oathkeepers when we need them? I guess they’re just not welcome in the slave states.

  24. avatar Sammy says:

    Baltimore suffers from an overdose of:


  25. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Is it G&S now? Loretta Lynch cannot put an armed Federal agent at my front door. Gov. Hogan can’t put an armed National Guardsman there either.

    It’s time.

  26. avatar offspring23 says:

    According to the 2010 Census, 63.7% of the population of Baltimore was Black. I rest my case.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I thought that, as well. Blacks are 13-14% of the population. These folks have a black President, a black AG replacing a black AG, a black mayor and a black chief of police, and they want to claim racial prejudice? You have to be kidding.

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    The bums who are rioting because Freddie Gray died are the same bums who would have gladly shot Freddie Gray in the head for wearing the wrong color bandanna.

    Do the country a favor and let Baltimore burn.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      I hear you Ralph. Maybe folks will fight for the 2A(just kidding). My son lives in a nearby burb and is an avid disarmer. I posted on his fakebook page about “arming up”. After some “friend” of his talked about young people making bad decisions that would affect the rest of their lives(maybe being gang member lowlifes).. Whatever-praise the LORD and pass the ammunition folks. Baltimore is at least 65% black and is unfixable.

  28. avatar Jus Bill says:

    This is another of the “Democratic Intelligentsia” that run things and come from Baltimore. He is an embarrassment to Maryland at the national level.


    You get the government you deserve. Get out the vote!

  29. avatar maltwit says:

    With that statement of giving “room to destroy”, could the mayor be sued in civil court by, say, CVS for “inciting a riot”?

    Could she face criminal charges?

  30. avatar Jus Bill says:

    From the police scanner……

    Police Scanner: Officers are in open conflict with the Bloods and Black Guerilla Family; possibly 70-150 in this group.

    Also, rules of engagement were just made clear. The police do not need to request use of chemicals anymore, up to the commanding officers discretion.

    Police Scanner: Officers are holding ground against Bloods and the BGF. Deploying tear gas.

    Police Scanner: It is confirmed that two gangs, the Bloods and BGF are coming towards the BPD contingents

  31. avatar John in Ohio says:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is “a good and substantial reason.”

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is another "good and substantial reason.”

    What we have in day to day reality is the illusion of the free exercise of an individual right. Government has pulled a confidence game on the People. It took what is yours and gave you an illusion in return. You've gained nothing; only lost.

  32. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    You voted for them because they were black. You voted for them because they were homosexual. You voted for them because it was the first woman. Or you only vote for the white guy. Or vote only Democrat or only republican. Try voting for freedom for a change.

    Maryland is a Democrat state. Baltimore is a “chocolate city of Democrats “. That is not a slur. Black democrats have run that town for forty years. Guns stores have been closing in the Baltimore area since last year. Regulated to death.

    When the blacks with money start to lose lots of it things will change for the better. But by then the inner harbor tourist area will become a ghost town. I just heard the Orioles will now play to a empty stadium for safety reasons. That’s a pile of money down the toilet.

  33. avatar ghost says:

    But, but, I thought only us red neck southern states had racial problems. All us white folks with guns shooting people, you know.

  34. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Its not about guns or lawful self protection, law abiders view the world through good citizenship. What’s happening in Baltimore, similar to Ferguson, is the police beat down on the poor. Day in & day out, tickets, fines, reduction of liberty, no knock, warrant less searches. 1.5 million black men gone, either dead or in prison. Single mothers with multiple kids, no fathers to guide the young ones. Schools doing task complete instead of inspiring a fatherless boy and girl to be better.

    Against this backdrop, a government promise undelivered, serve & protect shelved for collecting coin from the group who can least afford it. Minor offense, arrest and bail and sucking coffers dry.

    Then the ultimate failure…police failing to protect, because deep down they know why the natives are restless.. They stand covered & alined waiting for ten really pissed off well disciplined shooters who had enough, sending well aimed rounds down range.

    Meanwhile the city confused lack of leadership says more about overall failure and responsibility for the hand off to the Guard because if the blue crew goes hard, well they might snap a few more spines.

    It’s all theatre folks.

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      Expressed my thoughts exactly.

  35. avatar philthegardner says:

    I get that Baltimore and the rest of Maryland are May Issue. But nowhere does it say that there is any law against owning a Biden-esque double barrel shotgun or even an old fashioned pump action job with just 5 in the tube. I understand that it is essentially impossible for poor black people to get cc licenses. But is it also impossible for them to get a surplus bolt action Mosin or a Mini14 with a 5 round magazine or a Hipoint Carbine or even just a break-open Handi Rifle? Is it against the law to have such weapons in your property, your home, your front yard?
    I guess the point I am trying to make is that B-more is burning not because it is impossible to get the means to defend your person or property. It is more than what is being implied in this article. It is something deeper. And perhaps others who have replied to this article have already touched on it.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      One can still get AR’s in Maryland. The only one’s they banned are government profile/pencil barrel/thin barrel 5.56 rifles. You can still get heavy barrel 5.56 or any other caliber AR in the standard format complete with flash suppressor, bayonet lug, collapsible stock, pistol grip, and can buy normal capacity mags out of state to own you just cannot get them in Maryland. Being a small state it is not a huge deal but still is a pain in the ass.

      AK’s have been screwed over by the law unless you owned one prior to the new law that had all the standard features. Only AK’s in imported sporter format, AK pistols, and AK SBR’s are legal.

      Yea Maryland has crappy gun laws but still not as bad as the other anti-gun states. Most rifles and shotguns including various “assault weapons” are cash and carry only needing a 4473. No universal background for long guns so don’t need a FFL to sell to someone. Pistol roster is a joke since they practically allow every modern handgun available on the market that is not a Derringer or “assault pistol” even when they are approving new “assault pistols” on the list. C&R pistols are exempt from the new law and if you have a C&R license like my buddy has you can avoid the Maryland BS altogether to acquire them just like other people in most states that have a C&R license. One gun a month only applies to handguns now but you can get a free exemption from the State Police filling out a notarized form.

  36. avatar Silver says:

    I like when blue states show their true colors. It’s like a prog who lets slip in an angered fit how much they truly wish to oppress and kill any who disagree with them.

  37. avatar Buba Gump says:

    The right to carry a CONCEALED weapon is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on my ears. How is a CONCEALED weapon a necessity. If you say it detours would be robbers and assailants from trying to do no good to you, I say, that is a lie you are telling yourself, so you can look in the mirror and say “Atta Boy” to yourself. It is a crutch, used to justify another tool of mass destuction in your pittiful arms race against your fellow armed gun loving because you are to scared to go into this world without an excessive edge just in case you may feel the need to exercise excessive force. Thank God, you all aren’t allow to carry concealed Nuecelar Bombs. We all know how Russia and the US loved thier Big Guns (H-Bombs, and how the arms race esculated into a kinder garden mind set of “MY Guns bigger than your gun.
    I have never seen a gun used by anyone I know who has one on hand for those emergency situations we all know how you love to daydream about where someone breaks into your home and you pull out your stainless Ruger 44 mag a pull the trigger – you can see your fellow gun nuts saying “Your a Hero”, and you should be allowed to have the carcuss stuffed and mounted in your living room. Ha.
    The only thing I have ever seen from someone bringing a hand gun into their home was, 1. a child was shot or shot another child, 2. the gun was pulled and stuck in someones face who wasn’t doing anything to justify force of any kind let alone a fire arm, 3. The person that was disrespected by having a gun shoved in their face, apologized profusely, until they were allowed to leave with their tail between their legs, or so the gun owner thought, and later returned with a firearm, but instead of using it as a bully tactic to scare some one in to painting a perception of themselves in public, as a cowardly wimp who a cowardly submissive wimp, they came back and with malice of forethought and executed the cowardly person or cowardly pack who hid behind a bullying tactic of gunmanship.
    But I digress, forgive me. The concealed weapon is NO detriment at all, because of the very fact it is CONCEALED. If you would like to debate this point and convince me it is a valid detriment, a must say, you are creating a crutch – a lie to yourself to justify the action of carrying a concealed weapon.
    A true detriment would be to carry a side arm in a holster like the cowboys of the old west, prominently displayed for all to see that make a statement tha tsays, “Not only can I defend myself, I can also defend myself with the possibility of deadly force being used as my defense” – “so do ya feel lucky punk, or maybe you take your GANGSTA attitude out of my sight and you will look away and allow me to pass without even making eye contact.” Now that is justifiable deterrent – a holstered sidearm – prominently displayed for all to see of your ability to defend yourself with possibility of defense by deadly force.

    All I can say to those that believe a concealed weapon is a detriment is “nonsense!” … An openly displayed sidearm in a holster is a detriment, not a concealed weapon that may or may not be on hand! . . . MOTELS, MONEY, MUDDER, MADNESS.

    Let the massive amounts a hate mail begin, but I must warn you I will only respond to comments that are polite, cordial, and intelligent debating with valid points to try and convince me that your view on the subject has me wanting to take another look at my position being correct.

    Thank you for your time in listening to my run on sentence writing style.
    Here is a couple on my Billism’s for you to ponder –

    “It is not the strongest of the species that survives,
    nor the most intelligent,
    But the one most responsive to change.”

    “Investigate, Improvise, Adapt . . . Overcome.”

    1. avatar Buba Gump says:

      detriment = should be deterrent, I edited after auto correct, but my edit wasn’t posted.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email