So, if we forbid potential victims (or even actual victims, for that matter) the means to defend themselves, that will prevent "injecting firearms into highly charged domestic disputes?" Has anyone informed the abusers of this "fact?"

But it does make a certain kind of severely twisted sense; liberals are all about "victims." If an abusee shoots an abuser, then the abuser becomes the "victim." Liberals would then have to defend the now-victimized abuser, and attack the (assumed) woman shooter. Best to avoid the whole mess, and let the woman be killed. Then they can go after the murderous abuser. I'm sure that would be a great comfort to the dead woman's family.

And the whole "may-issue" thing is a horrible joke. What it really means is, you have to "know someone" in order to exercise your Constitutional rights. It's up to Marylanders to work to make their state a "shall-issue" state, and cut the BS out of the whole process.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

No, I wasn't the abused person, but several years ago, I worked with a lady who had a mean drunk of a husband.  She would come to work showing bruises, cuts, etc.  She finally confided in me that her husband was beating her.  I told her to get out of the house, go live with family, whatever.  She didn't want to.  She felt that her husband was beating her because she was doing something wrong.  I told her that nobody deserves to be beaten.

 Long story short, I finally offered to loan her a pistol with which to protect herself.  I offered to take her out to a range and show her how to shoot it.  She refused.  "Guns are evil," she said.

 3 weeks after this conversation, my friend was dead, beaten to death by her husband who's only excuse was "it was hot, and she wouldn't shut up, you know?"

 The husband did about 4 and a half years for manslaughter, and I've heard that he's since beaten other women up, but not killed them, as far as I know.

I don't know that having a pistol would have saved my friend's life, but it might have.  I didn't push the issue, and today I still wouldn't.  I feel like as a person who is not a felon, I have the right to keep and bear arms.  My copy of the Constitution says I have that right. I don't know what copy the libs are reading.  So many people today think guns are evil, but the fact is, that if used correctly, they are no more dangerous than a hammer.  But oh, that's right, people have been killed by hammers too.  Maybe all carpenters should be licensed to carry hammers? 

"It would have changed her as a person," Ivey said. "That made sense to me."

Um... so exercising the constitutional right to self-defense through a firearm would have changed her in a worse way than getting the living daylights beat out of her?  How many kinds of stupid/insane do you have to be to find victimization a preferable alternative to self-defense?  These people are freaking nuts!

So who is worse, the drunken man who beats his wife to death because or the politician who attacked the bill that would have increased that woman's access to the firearm that might have saved her life?  One is an animalistic monster, but the other intentionally enables the former.

www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi

As a former officer, YOU can prevent what happens to you, the police CAN'T.   Being smart in defensive living and being prepared goes a long way to reduce the problem.  I use this handle for a reason, protect yourselves and your families REGARDLESS of what some politician thinks. 

Obama lied; the economy died.

                        Tony Blankley