The Maryland Senate is set to vote on Gov. Martin O’Malley’s package of new gun legislation in the coming week.
If approved, the law would ban assault rifles, decrease the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines from 20 to 10, update handgun licensing requirements to include digital fingerprinting, improve school security and restrict the ability of people who have been involuntarily committed to psychiatric facilities from purchasing guns.
But gun restrictions are not new in Maryland, dating back to at least 1886, when the legislature passed a bill stating the only way someone could carry a firearm, concealed or not, was if the person was a public official who needed a firearm as part of their official equipment.
Five decades later, both nationally and in Maryland, the government attempted to eliminate crimes committed with machine guns, such as the 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago, where seven mobsters were fatally shot.
In 1933, Maryland passed the Uniform Machine Gun Act, which banned the possession and use of machine guns, except for in military, scientific and keepsake purposes. It also required that all existing machine gun owners register their firearms.
In 1934, more than five years after the massacre, Congress passed the National Firearms Act. The act imposed a tax on certain firearms, and required those firearms be registered.
Sen. Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery, said throughout history, gun legislation, like most legislation, is reactionary, and usually passed after a tragedy.
“Maryland has a strong history of firearm ownership and people are protective of their firearm rights. Something big has to take place before we are shocked into making a change,” Raskin said.
Maryland was ahead of the federal government again when, in 1966, it required a seven-day waiting period for gun purchasers, and background checks performed by the Maryland State Police.
The federal government did not pass such a requirement until 1994, when Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after James Brady, who suffered a serious gunshot wound to the head in the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., said he feels Maryland has historically been ahead of the curve on gun laws.
“I think it stemmed from the urbanization of our society, particularly Prince George’s County, and with that came the increased crime,” Miller said, adding that the urbanization in Baltimore also contributed to the increased crime. With that came a law mandating a jail sentence for illegal possession of a handgun.
In 1972, Maryland made it so that only a citizen with a “good and substantial reason” could carry a concealed handgun in public, and any person caught illegally possessing a handgun would be sentenced to jail.
Maryland’s strict carry permit law contrasts that of other states in the country in recent years. Many states, including Virginia, Texas and Florida, have looser restrictions on concealed carry permits.
But in 2012, in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan, a trial court ruled the “good and substantial reason” clause to be unconstitutionally broad, saying the law was designed to keep guns off the street, but didn’t necessarily make citizens safer. The law is allowed to stand during the appeals process.
During the 1980’s an inordinate number of crimes were being committed with low quality handguns, known as “Saturday Night Specials.” The state legislature banned these weapons, and developed the Handgun Roster Board in 1988.
The board determines what guns can or can’t be sold in Maryland.
The following year, Maryland expanded the seven-day waiting period. This bill added assault rifles, such as the AK-47, to the list of guns that required background checks.
During the 1990’s, in an effort to curb the highest violent crime rates since before 1975, Maryland passed a flurry of gun control legislation.
Starting in 1992, gun owners had to secure their firearms, so that children under 16 can’t use guns while they are unsupervised.
The following year, the General Assembly required the same background check process for purchases at gun shows. President Barack Obama is trying to pass a federal version of this law that applies in all 50 states.
In 1994, Congress instituted an assault weapons ban that lasted 10 years. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act prohibited the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic firearms. Obama wants to renew the ban.
In 1994, Gov. William Donald Schaefer and the legislature banned detachable magazines with a capacity of more than 20 rounds and certain weapons defined as assault pistols.
O’Malley wants to take this limitation a step further to ban detachable magazines of more than 10 rounds.
Some legislators in the 1994 session wanted to institute multiple restrictions on firearms. Failed proposals included: a ban on handgun and ammunition sales, a license to purchase requirement, and allowing jurisdictions more freedom to place extra restrictions on firearms.
The Maryland Gun Violence Act was a package of laws, passed in 1996, that made straw purchases a crime, and limited regulated firearms purchases to one per month.
The bill also allowed search and seizures for firearms at domestic violence locations, and allowed judges to order the surrender of firearms during the span of a protective order in a domestic violence case.
Former Gov. Parris Glendening followed up his 1996 package with one in 2000 that required all firearms be childproof and have a safety device.
The Responsible Gun Safety Act of 2000 required that all handguns made before January 1, 2003, be equipped with an external safety device. All guns that were made after that date had to have the safety device integrated into the firearm itself.
This is usually represented by a switch the operator pushes up or down to lock and unlock the firearm.
That bill also updated the Handgun Roster Board, instituted a required safety course for purchase of a handgun, and made ballistic fingerprinting a requirement in a regulated firearm purchase. O’Malley wants to update the safety course as part of his public safety package.
Allen Etzler, Capital News Service
RD Sweetman says
OK, Let me see if I have this right….
1966 Gun Legislation passed…
1972 Gun Legislation passed…
1988 Gun Legislation passed…
1989 Gun Legislation passed…
1992 Gun Legislation passed…
1993 Gun Legislation passed…
1994 Gun Legislation passed…
1996 Gun Legislation passed…
2000 Gun Legislation passed…
“Sen. Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery, said throughout history, gun legislation, like most legislation, is REACTIONARY, and usually passed after a tragedy. “Maryland has a strong history of firearm ownership and people are protective of their firearm rights. Something big has to take place before we are SHOCKED into making a change,” Raskin said….
I would like to make a change to Mr Raskin’s wording… The word “Shocked” should be changed to Coerced or Forced into making a change…..
Point being, I was shocked at the Newtown tragedy as was everyone else. But I, myself, did nothing wrong. So why am I being penalized, punished or in other words “Criminalized” because of what someone else did in another state? Apparently I can’t either be trusted to behave responsibly for myself or I’m not allowed to think for myself, and the State has decided to perform that function for me….
It’s all about Politics, not about Public Safety. As you can read in the article, we have enough laws already on the book dealing with Firearms legislation. If you read the headlines across this great land, you’ll become aware that in areas that have a dominate Democratic majority in their legislatures, they are full of spit and vinegar to tow the line and get behind the Presidents efforts to enact new national legislation. In regions of the country which are Republican majority controlled they are combining efforts to stand fast against what they say is an encroachment on 2nd Amendment liberty’s… So you see, it’s not about Public Safety, it’s about Politics. If it were truly about Public Safety, they’d all come together, do some actual research and enforce the multitude of laws already on the books and see where Mental Health comes into play. But sad to say, it’s not about Public Safety. In Maryland it’s about Control. Not Gun Control, but People Control. Not only are they addicted to taking more and more money out of your pocket, they are ever increasingly taking more control of your freedoms and your lives through restrictive and regulatory laws and legislation.
Joe Diamond says
RD,
You got it right. The article is a bit thin and, like many pieces on the subject, leave out stuff in a selective manner. The 1972 gun law was reversed I think….by the Supreme Court….cops don’t get to select who gets to exercise a right. But yes, these laws are about control of one segment of the population by another.
Joe
rd Sweetman says
Joe, I have a question for you concerning pat of your comment. “Cops don’t get to select who gets to exercise a right”…
Do they are don’t they? They all have sworn allegiance in their oaths of office, both to their respective state, county and municipalities and the US Constitutions. We are seeing certain areas of the country whereas the elected law enforcement officials have publicly stated they will not enforce any new laws which encroach or inhibit the 2nd Amendment as they see it? (The entire Utah State County Sheriffs Association for one…) A few other large city & County Police Dept. Chiefs (Such as the Baltimore County Police Dept. is an example…) are also vocally supporting new gun legislation.
When the Oath of Allegiance taken conflicts with the moral compass and conscience of those elected do they then have a moral obligation to follow their understanding, or a legal obligation?
Seems to me we are fast approaching a similar crossroads as when decisions were made years ago to stand up to a tyrant.
joe diamond says
RD,
I can dig this out for ya but…..from memory, the 1972 Open Carry Law in MD was struck down by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS)………I’m pretty sure about that. The idea was that IF the right to bear arms is a right the cops (MD State Police) do not have constitutional standing to grant or bar citizens from a right that is guaranteed by the constitution. One of the concepts was that citizens have to show carrying a gun was a “reasonable precaution against an apprehended danger.”
I’ll dig out a source and ….making my words out of ice cream because it is easier to eat them…I’ll go look…………..Where is a lawyer or Historical Society member when ya need one?
Your second question is deeper. I can think of situations where persons sworn to obey (Oath of Allegiance) saw that what was being asked of them was against their personal morality but they followed their sworn oath ……and regretted it. It is hard to know when to jump from the bus. There are also examples of individuals who abandoned their oath or changed their moral views and jumped from the bus. At a minimum, persons under such a conflict should resign their position rather that continue with a major conflict of conscience; not an easy thing.
Joe
Joe Diamond says
RD,
Here ya go…………from the Baltimore Sun…………not SCOTUS , my bad!
State gun-carry law unconstitutional, federal judge rules
Attorney general plans to appeal decision
March 05, 2012|By Tricia Bishop, The Baltimore Sun
A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a provision in Maryland law regulating who can carry a handgun, effectively loosening the restrictions governing firearm possession on the state’s streets.
In a 23-page memorandum opinion, made public Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Benson E. Legg said a state requirement forcing those applying for a gun-carry permit to show that they have a “good and substantial reason” to do so “impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms,” as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
It goes on to give exapmles, including one where a gun permit was not renewed because the citizen had different circumstances…the 2nd ammendment had not gone away, however.
J.M.Blakeney says
Most people on the anti gun law don’t know the fact that the shooter in Newtown did not use a AR-15 or any weapon that was like one. The AR-15 was in the trunk of the car. The media pushes for gun control, but never state the facts.
joe diamond says
JM,
I think that is thr wrong case to screw around with. The shooter shot his mother and it was her gun in the trunk of her car. He probably would have asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan. What the media and everyone else wants is a way to predict and disarm dangerous and unstable agressors.
Also there are / were enough laws on thre books to make the shooter a felon unable to buy a gun. ….so he took some.
Joe
Stu Cawley says
“If it were truly about public safety, they’d all pull together.” Really?! Cuz lately we’ve seen so much of that from our legislators when there’s plenty at stake. And while I agree that reactionary legislation is not the most sensible way to go (for example, $ spent to PREVENT natural disasters goes a lot further than that spent AFTER them, but politicians greatly prefer looking like heroes to people in need since that translates into more votes next time ’round), just because it’s reactionary doesn’t mean that it’s not, in fact, long overdue.
rd Sweetman says
And with that Mr. Cawley you make my point precisely. It’s not about Public Safety, but about Politics. You are correct that they attempting to present themselves as Hero’s to the public and “therein doth the Wolves hide amongst the flocks”…
So, if it’s about Politics, is Reactionary (Reactive) policy making still acceptable vs. proactive legislation enactment?
I beg to differ with your assumption that it’s “Long Overdue” simply because something needs to be done. Usually when this type of process is enabled, it is an easy way out for the Politicians to forfeit their responsibilities to us, their constituents, and they then put in the quick fix, instead of actually taking the time and working on the real problems. And when that occurs, unforeseen consequences usually unfold and require more fixes down the road.
The knee jerk reaction here in Maryland harms law abiding citizens who followed all the laws and obtained firearms legally. How in your way of thinking does implementing these new regulations which will automatically turn some citizens into law breakers, become something that is “Long Overdue”?
The impression that we have that Police Dept.’s are out there to protect us so citizens have no need for semi automatic or multiple shot weapons (i.e. Revolvers) in our own personal homes can be likened to the false assumption that because we Have Fire Dept.’s, we no longer have need for Fire Extinguishers in our home’s and businesses.
As I said earlier, It’s not about Gun Control. It’s about People Control.
Stu cawley says
Mr. Sweetman, it matters not to me whether the legislation is proactive or reactive as long as it’s well thought-out. I do not see the current legislation as being likely to be all that effective, but nor do I see how it’s gonna hurt any. Handgun control is the far larger issue, but one I doubt has any chance of making headway in the US. I say the legislation is long overdue because the NRA has held the gov’t & our citizens hostage for far too long, succeeding in bending gun laws so far past common sense that there was bound to be a reaction. The proliferation of firearms in our country has failed to make us safer, having in fact had the opposite effect. How will the new legislation, if passed, “automatically turn some citizens into lawbreakers” unless they refuse to comply w/ them? How is that any different than drivers refusing to use hands-free devices after that law was passed?
RD Sweetman says
Mr Cawley, I don’t understand your reasoning. From personal experience reactive thinking is not good, as it basically is an attempt at a “Quick Fix”, which usually needs to be addressed again and again in the future. (As we see with the present history of the Gun legislation here in Maryland since the 60’s…) Proactive thinking usually develops into long term solutions with positive results. Your mentioning that you don’t see the current legislation as likely being effective, but not seeing how it’ll hurt any, is confusing to me. Why even attempt to do so until they have all the issues in front of them? What they are doing now is totally political, and not anything else. The head honchos have gone to the metro areas such as Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, Baltimore City and County to hold Public “town Halls” and even held a Google Chat online. They have not gone into Southern, Western or Eastern Maryland areas and held the so called Town Halls, because they know they have no support from the majority in those areas. Even the Google Chat the Lt Gov. held was not truly an open forum as opposing views we not solicited or given fair and equal opportunities to rebut their argument. When the Senate held a Public Hearing on the senate version of the Gun Legislation, Thousands showed up in opposition to the Senate bill version. But you barely saw that on the Local TV news Media did you? It’s a knee jerk reaction by the politicians and the citizens of the state are owed more than this no matter what party affiliation is held. I’m not a member of the NRA, but this doesn’t involve the NRA alone. There are other major gun owner lobbying efforts that oppose these political shenanigans, both here in Maryland and across the country. And you comment about the NRA bending the Gun Laws!!! Come man, look at the time line list I posted above! Those Laws are from the Maryland Legislature, not the NRA!
We Already have enough of them on the books that aren’t being enforced now, let alone piling more on our law enforcement and court resources to deal with.
I disagree with your analysis about the proliferation of firearms making us less safer, and don’t know what world you live in that has that reality because it sure isn’t here in the USA.. Chicago and other Major Metro areas in the USA have some of the most stringent Gun legislation laws in the country, and those laws aren’t working. Other areas like Texas, Utah and Idaho, where restrictions are almost non existent have lower crime rates.
And Like I’ve said earlier. I’ve obeyed the Laws. I followed all the rules to legally own a firearm. I keep them secured and out of anyone elses hands. It is my 2nd Amendment right to do so. I own a vehicle and operate it responsibly and follow the rules and laws to do so. I recognize that the process involved with an automobile is a “Privilege” granted to me by the State, vs. the “Right” of owning a gun is afforded to me by the Constitution. One is a Right, the other a Privilege. That’s your difference. A Big Difference.
Back in the 1940’s, Japaneses Americans who were law abiding responsible citizens which had done nothing wrong against their country had new laws thrust upon them and forcibly were moved from their communities and friends and thrown into camps because they were considered a threat to the national well being and security. Same thing is happening in a smaller degree “at this point” to Legal Gun Owners here in Maryland and across the country. Responsible owners are being looked upon as the bad guys and the villains and having new laws developed to remove their property from them simply because of a “Manufactured” fear created for Political Expediency and Populace Control. How about we change the wording and say your choice and right to purchase a car with a high performance V8 engine is suddenly defined as dangerous because you “May” decide to run over some people and children because someone else with mental health issues did the same thing in another state? THAT is how Law abiding Citizens are being turned into Law Breakers.
Joe Diamond says
Why do they skip the good stuff?……………….Settle down kids and I’ll tell you the beginning of the story:
Maryland’s weapon carry laws:
A brief chronology
By Henry Heymering
” 1642
“Noe man able to bear arms to goe to church or Chappell or any considerable distance from
home without fixed gunn and 1 Charge at least of powder and Shott.” (Maryland Statute of
1642) Presumably this included indentured servants and blacks as well as whites – as it did
in Massachusetts. Every able man had to have a gun and carry it with him whenever he left
home.
1715
“And be it Enacted, by the Authority, Advice and Consent aforesaid, That no Negro or other
Slave, within this Province, shall be permitted to carry any Gun or any other offensive
Weapon, from off their Master’s Land, without Licence from their said Master….” (Archives
of Maryland 75:268 XXXIII) The first Maryland restriction on carrying weapons applied only
to blacks and/or slaves – as slaves were being imported in larger numbers, and neither
blacks nor slaves were citizens. A license from their master is equivalent to a note from a
parent.
1776
“That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England … and to the
benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen
hundred and seventy-six.” (Declaration of Rights, Art. 5a in both the original (1776) and
current Maryland Constitutions)
Under English Common Law around the time our Maryland and U.S. Constitutions were
being written, it was not only a right to have and carry arms for self-defense but it was
considered the duty of citizens to protect themselves as well as others: “The right of his
majesty’s Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful
purposes, is most clear and undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient
laws of this kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty; for all the subjects of the realm, who
are able to bear arms, are bound to be ready, at all times, to assist the sheriff, and other civil
magistrates, in the execution of the laws and the preservation of the public peace.” Opinion
of the Recorder of London, 1780 (The Recorder of London was the foremost legal advisor to
the city.)
As neighboring Virginian Patrick Henry put it during Virginia’s ratification convention 1788,
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
(The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at
386, Jonathan Elliot, New York, Burt Franklin: 1888)1809
A law prohibiting any carry of weapons “with the intent feloniously to assault any person.”
(Archives of Maryland 570:94) Any carry, concealed or open, with no permit required, was
still legal as long as it was without felonious intent.
1831
A statewide law that requires free blacks (only) to obtain a license from a local court for
possession or carry (open or concealed) of firearms. (Archives of Maryland, 213:448) This is
clearly racist. Why did it happen? It was a reaction to the Turner Rebellion of slaves in
Virginia earlier that year.”
There is more………………the Dred Scott decision is next.
Joe
joe diamond says
FROM THE ABOVE ARTICLE : “Sen. Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery, said throughout history, gun legislation, like most legislation, is reactionary, and usually passed after a tragedy.”
Always been true……the earliest Maryland gun laws controled guns and disarmed various groups……….Catholics, Indians African Americans, Tories were all denied guns because it was preceived that it was unacceptable persons who could not be trusted with guns. Even after insane and angry persons were added to the list along with people with bad intentions the problems with guns persisted.
Joe
Gren Whitman says
Back off, gun crazies!
The article reports: “If approved, the law would ban assault rifles, decrease the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines from 20 to 10, update handgun licensing requirements to include digital fingerprinting, improve school security and restrict the ability of people who have been involuntarily committed to psychiatric facilities from purchasing guns.”
Is there ANYTHING here that isn’t common sense is we want to prevent more gratuitous gun violence? Who needs an assault rifle? Who needs a giant ammo clip? What’s wrong with digital fingerprinting? What’s wrong with more school security? Why should anyone mentally disabled have access to a firearm?
Michael Hildebrand says
Last time I check, it’s not your job to decide nor is it the governments job to determine my “needs”!
RD Sweetman says
Mr. Whitman
Guess I’ll be the 1st “Gun Crazy” that will jump up on the pulpit here. First and Foremost, just your very salutation starting your comment displays to me that you have a biased and closed-minded attitude towards the whole issue. Maybe my reply will address your thinking, maybe it won’t….
Explain to me what an “Assault Rifle” is. I have an AKDAL MKA AR-15 “look-alike” 12 Gauge shotgun. It is a functional 12 Gauge Shotgun, a unique collectable. It looks like an AR-15. Is it, according to your view an “Assault Rifle or Weapon”? Or is it a Look alike? Either, according to the legislation being presented, that weapon would become illegal to own if the law is passed. Why? It is a working 12 Gauge shotgun, that simply has the cosmetic appearance of an old M-16 infantry rifle, and a pistol grip. Does the appearance suddenly turn it into something else other than a Shotgun?
The issue concerning restricting weapons from individuals who have been committed to Mental Health facilities, sounds fine and dandy, however it hasn’t been decided yet as to the time and the circumstances of being voluntarily or involuntarily committed. There were a flurry of amendments which were submitted, one being the voluntary commitment clause would now be included, i.e. someone going in for alcohol/addictions recovery on their own would no longer be allowed to possess or own a firearm…What happens if someone has been clean and sober for an extended period of time? Do they earn the right to again possess a hunting rifle or shotgun? There is nothing written in the law addressing this issue.
Magazine limitations. This makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Lets say they pass the law. What’s to prevent a crazy from using two 10 round magazines vs. just using one 20 round magazine? None.
Digital Fingerprinting. There is no need for this either. The state of Maryland has had a contract with Maryland Live Scan to conduct digital fingerprinting for all services, both Federal,State, local and municipal not only for Gun licensing, but also for Daycare applicants, Correctional related issues, Criminal background checks, Locksmithing, etc, etc.., since 2009. And they already charge a fee for these services.
School Security is an issue that I believe should be addressed by either armed Law Enforcement or qualified Security personnel and services. not this “Gun Free- Lockdown Zones” nonsense. If that works so well, how about we put up “Gun Free Zone” signs around the White House and Capital Hill and see how well that works?.. Point being it doesn’t work because there is a small Army of Law enforcement which is on guard 24/7 around them. Do we honestly think that Lock down capabilities and Gun Free Zones actually protect our most precious asset in this country?
You Make good points Mr. Whitman, however I believe much much more emphasis needs to be placed upon the Mental Health/illness aspect vs. everything else.
I have done nothing wrong. I have followed all the laws, performed the background checks, followed the prescribed checklist of what Maryland now to date requires me to fulfill in order to obtain and own weapons. And now, I’m being told that I’m no longer responsible, that I threaten your safety here in Maryland simply because of a tragedy performed by a young man with documented mental health issues, who broke already existing laws, in another state? …Who’s the real Crazy here?
Gren Whitman says
@ “RD”
An “assault rifle” is like pornography … I know what it is when I see it.
Despite your wasted verbiage, you do too.
All the guns we can buy with no concern for consequences!
Is this a great country, or what?
Fire! Aim! Ready! Whee!
RD Sweetman says
@Gren:
I respect but disagree your view on what constitutes an “Assault Rifle” …Remember the name Charles Whitman? He killed his wife and mother and then killed 14 more people and wounded 32 from a tower in the Texas State University back in 1966. Did he use an AK47 or AR15 type “Assault Rifle” with a large multiple round magazine? No, he used a Remington 700 Bolt action rifle with a 3 (three) round internal magazine. It’s not the weapon, it’s the person.
Same goes with your comment about “All the Guns we can buy with no concern for consequences!”. You’re implying that everyone and anyone who buys a handgun, shotgun or rifle is totally irresponsible. I don’t leave my weapons or gear laying around unsecured or out in the open for anyone who may stop in for a visit, and neither do ANY of my fellow Gun owners friends. Contrary to your implied reasoning, the majority of legal gun owners in this country are not as irresponsible and reckless as you think. I consider myself extremely responsible because I know what they can do, as do my friends. But then again I guess this matters not because I’m simply talking to a wall, and wasting verbiage….
joe diamond says
Gren,
That concept of “common sense” is the heart of the debate. The term is worse than ambiguous. It means so many things to so many people it should not be used. To go through a little of it, using the terms you cited:
Assault weapons is a misleading term. There is already a few laws on the books about machine guns…with a definition of what a maching gun is. All goo assault weapons have an auto fire capability therefor they are machine guns.
Likewise giant ammo clips are a tool. Poor shooters need giant ammo clips but a skilled guy can change clips of any size real fast. But if you have six bad guys coming up your stairs a big clip would be nice………..taling th advice of the current VP……five 12ga slugs would work as well.
Digital fingerprinting and more school security…..I think…..fall into the realm of cost vs benefit. If they would serve a purpose why not? But it is not clear that the increased expendature would produce the wanted result…in my opinion.
FINALLY the mental disability thing! How do you define it and predict a future event? There is even a presented objection to the term because there is a (real) fear that persons in need of psychological counseling will forgo that help because just the record of psychological help will damage work promotions (ask military officers) or persons seeking security clearance. Many job applicants are rejected for this issue without any consideration of the nature of the counseling.
Joe
Gren Whitman says
Sorry, Joe, you lost me when you said common sense is “ambiguous.”
It’s not, and that’s its enduring value.
Joe Diamond says
Ok,
Little digression…………..Common sense is an excuse or label for opinions held without factual basis for accuracy. It is common sense that the earth is flat because you can plainly see it is. You can identify gay people by the way they walk; just common sense. Since we don’t want more gun violence it is just common sense to pass laws to stop it. Why would the police arrest innocent persons? Common sense tells you that would never happen. Common sense tells you that no government would try to eliminate a minority from the population by rounding them up and killing them. Gassing and burning a creative and industrious segment of a society is not good common sense; couldn’t happen.
The term self awards the user with correctness before that fact has been demonstrated. It is like beginning an address by telling the audience they are all carzies.
Joe
RD Sweetman says
Joe Diamond….
I am just simply awe struck!
Best come back I’ve seen in a while…
Simplicity in the approach, Nuclear in the reproach….
Gren Whitman says
@ Mr. Diamond … I can’t resist … “carzies”?
As in “wild and carzy guy”?
Yeah, I know it’s just a typo … but to be taken seriously, you need to be credible.
joe diamond says
“Enduring value”…………there ya go again. Same observation as “common sense.” Maybe with the suggestion that something that was once true and valid could change with time and not endure……..like the need for and uses of guns.
Joe
Joe Diamond says
RD,
Thanks! I picked it all up from former UCMC & ARMY US guys with PhDs who taught at the ROTC HS I attended.
” Observe…….Report…..Observe & Track…..take a leak……Observe & Track……check food & ammo……Observe………MEN, if they are now close enough you will not have to either aim or take a leak.”
These quiet, gentle men also taught be techniques to detect bull shit.
Joe
joe diamond says
Never too much gun control:
Police in Sebring, Florida say a man told them that his dog accidentally shot him in the leg with a gun that he thought was unloaded.
Gregory Dale Lanier of Frostproof was riding in his truck on Feb. 23 when the dog knocked his 9mm handgun onto the floor of the truck, causing it to discharge into the man’s leg, a police report indicated.
“Sebring Police Cmdr. Steve Carr said police did not arrest the dog or detain the animal, pending the investigation,” according to Highlands Today. The police spokesperson said this was the first case of “dog shoots man” than he had ever come across.
Man shoots dog…not news! Dog shoots man, now that is news. Couldn’t happen in Maryland!
Joe