Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
E-mail this article
Print this Article

Holly Nuun covered many of the facets of the issue of the continual and escalating campaign to disarm Americans in her article published in The Enterprise on Jan. 2. Indeed, the Democratic Party machine is gearing up both locally and nationally to exploit the hysteria generated by the tragic murder of the children in Connecticut. Following the counsel of Rahm Emanuel, who learned the ways of Saul Alinsky and communist icon Vladimir Lenin, you never let a serious crisis go to waste.

It is a sad and truly senseless thing that was done in Connecticut, but the exploitation of this brutal slaying for political purposes here in Maryland disgusts me and other sensible citizens. I have testified in committee hearings at the Maryland General Assembly. I have seen the reality and have been struck by the irony that these same Democratic politicians, Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), State Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery) and Del. Joseph F. Vallerio Jr. (D-Prince George’s, Calvert) have armed Maryland State Police at their side. Yet they stubbornly deny the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend their own lives and that of their families.

I asked Vallerio what made him more important than my babies; why should we pay for an armed guard for him, but he would deny me the right to have a firearm to protect my children? He was visibly angry and had I not been backed by about 40 other witnesses with questions of their own, I believe he would have thrown me out.

Such is the contempt these petty despots have for common citizens. They doggedly refuse to acknowledge the research that has proven the effect of disarming citizens, which leads consistently to deadly increases in violent crime. They dismiss the data that shows that merely possessing a firearm, not even brandishing it and certainly not even discharging it, terminates felonious assaults, robberies, home invasions, rapes and other heinous acts on the order of 1.8 million events each year. A 98-pound woman with a Smith and Wesson .38 is unlikely to be a rape victim when confronted by a 250-pound rapist.

They scoff at the simple but undeniable truth that, when seconds count, law-enforcement officers will be there in minutes. Then they arrive with chalk in hand to draw your outline on the ground; just doing their job. When a liberal actually becomes a victim of violent crime, they often convert to the truth that a gun in their possession would have changed the outcome.

For 10 years, the United States had an assault weapons ban. It was not renewed because it was demonstrably useless. But O’Malley and Frosh want one for Maryland. We have a law now that cost Maryland a great deal of both money and liberty that requires that every handgun sold by a dealer in Maryland submit two casings from the handgun for the record. They cannot point to a single crime that has been solved or prevented because of the existence of this silly, costly law promoted by Frosh and Vallerio.

Somebody please tell Gov. O’Malley that he already has laws giving him two of the three interconnected things he longs for. It is right now not legal for a person who is mentally defective to buy a firearm of any type, let alone an assault weapon. Maryland also bans the sale of magazines exceeding 20 rounds. Providing for school safety, his third interconnected thing, is a reasonably debatable issue. But I doubt he has the stomach for arming the people whom we employ in education nor the funds to put armed guards in schools. Anything less would be window dressing.

Benson Everett Legg, U.S. district judge, ruled last year that Maryland’s concealed-carry law requiring good and substantial reason is unconstitutional. The Maryland Democrats are panicked over this ruling. Judge Legg said that a citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.

O’Malley, Frosh and Vallerio’s solution for dealing with the court ruling would add burdensome training requirements and exclude possessing those handguns in schools or churches. Now think about that. Should we require burdensome special training to exercise your First Amendment right, say, for working as a reporter at a newspaper? Then why would we apply that logic to the Second Amendment?

Where have the mass shootings savaged so many innocent lives? Why, in the gun-free zones of schools and churches, exactly where a single firearm would have made a difference. The press works hard to conceal reports of events where lives are saved by a handgun in schools, churches and even theaters. Just a few days after the slaughter in Connecticut, a murderer in Texas chased would-be victims from a salon where he murdered his wife into a theater. You probably didn’t hear about this, because the media hid the story. He was stopped (killed) by an off-duty law-enforcement officer carrying a concealed handgun. The slaughter in Colorado happened in a theater that prohibited concealed carry firearms.

Does O’Malley understand or even care about these facts? Not at all. What O’Malley and his ilk really want is to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens. This is the logical extension of his dream if one starts from the point where the law already provides governmental oversight.

The Gallup polling organization recently proved that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor the position of the National Rifle Association and the organization itself over President Obama and the Democratic leadership. For the sake of liberty, I hope the legislators of Maryland remember this fact.

Ken Harmon, Valley Lee