I do not want to get into a philosophical debate about the semantics of the 2nd Amendment or any other part of the Constitution, that is for a different thread. I simply think the article in the Times did not portray the bill accurately.
Do I think parts of the bill are infringements of the 2nd Amendment – YES
Do I think parts are not infringements of the 2nd Amendment - YES
Do I think it should be passed - NO
Did I write my representatives requesting it not be passed - YES
Am I willing to practice the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment regardless of legislation against it – YES
Do I think “this” bill, if passed, would be worth it for me personally – NO
I think it is a good to try and prevent crime. Would parts of this bill help, maybe; would armed citizens be better, I think so. I don’t think parts of this particular bill would come at a greater cost to my or others security than without them; Mayland’s carry laws however, definitely do. Other Maryland laws facilitate crime more than this bill is attempting to prevent, and I agree with Rick that those, more importantly, need to be assessed.