In Their Own Words; A Blueprint to Ban Handguns by Joe Curran

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Mule

    Just Mule
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 14, 2013
    652
    I truly feel that each and every gun control legislator needs to face down true criminal elements/threats/attackers while being unarmed and without paid guards until police respond to a 911 call to come to their aid.

    I completely agree with this principle, and firmly believe that the best way to change the minds of those who are anti-gun is to give them a force-on-force training experience.

    Having taken force-on-force training, where Simunitions were used, the perspective one gains from that type of course is considerable.

    It’s amazing to see the speed at which events unfold, the unpredictability of the other person’s behavior, and the way various factors impact your response.

    This type of training also hammers home, usually with tactile feedback, that there are direct consequences if you fail.

    Equally important, those scenarios make it crystal clear that:

    1.) Unarmed individuals are just along for the ride, and are subject to the whims of their assailant.

    2.) When one carries a firearm, their ability to influence the situation increases considerably, and the chances of a negative outcome are greatly reduced.

    3.) Even if one does have a firearm, there is still uncertainty, and there’s always the possibility that their outcome may still be negative, regardless.

    4.) In this type of encounter, virtually everyone would want to have the tools needed to defend themselves

    To drive the lesson home, the legislators should have multiple opportunities to run through the scenarios - first without a firearm, then again with firearms. That way, they can see what it’s like to be in that type of encounter, both with and without a firearm, and they’ll all have a common point of reference upon which to base their views.

    Unfortunately, we live in “The Free Infringed State”, where people don’t seem to understand that categorical bans of “scary things” won’t magically make everything better.

    Also, if our elected officials won’t give us more than 60-120 seconds for testimony, and some of those legislators don’t even have the basic decency to stay and listen to citizens who are providing input on a bill that they introduced, then I’m sure they probably won’t want to devote a couple of hours to force-on-force training.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,058
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    I completely agree with this principle, and firmly believe that the best way to change the minds of those who are anti-gun is to give them an MS-13 based life threatening experience...

    FIFY. That will leave a LASTING impression on them.
     

    chilipeppermaniac

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Quote:
    I completely agree with this principle, and firmly believe that the best way to
    change the minds of those who are anti-gun is to give them an MS-13 based life threatening experience...

    Beo, This is exactly what I proposed. NO SIMULATIONS, JUST COP KILLING, NO REMORSE, FULL Blooded KILLERS putting all of them in piss your pants, fight or flight, do or die experiences.

    Then let's see how their rhetoric and laws work out for them.
     

    Oldline6

    Member
    Apr 1, 2018
    53
    The attached 63-page planning paper was written and published by J. Joseph Curran in 1999. For those not familiar, Curran was Maryland's fanatically anti-gun Attorney General from 1987-2007 before he retired and Gansler took the reigns. Curran was a darling of the Cease Fire crowd and worked closely with them throughout the years.

    In this plan Curran does a good job of outlining the anti-gun crowd's multifaceted plan for gradually chipping away at, and in some cases eventually banning, private gun ownership, especially of handguns. From "educating the children" to think correctly to taking background checks to draconian levels to suing the manufacturers and dealers into oblivion, it's all in there.

    The report was available for a long time on the State AG's website. It's was eventually taken down, perhaps at least partially in the hope that the Pro-2A movement would forget such a bold and detailed statement from an elected official regarding the true methods and goals of gun control in this state existed. However, the Internet Archive is a wonderful thing.

    Bear in mind his closing statement:

    p.63

    That's interesting, the date, 1999. I first saw this while I was sitting second chair to an assistant state's attorney in the Baltimore City Northern District Court. That assistant state's attorney was Martin O'Malley and he was at that time dating Katie, Joe Curran's daughter.

    That had to be around 1990 or so, maybe '89. It has been around for awhile. I was gobsmacked back then when I read it, still am today. I guess it was a draft at that stage, I never saw it published anywhere.
     

    Beastmode1985

    Member
    Jan 16, 2021
    24
    The attached 63-page planning paper was written and published by J. Joseph Curran in 1999. For those not familiar, Curran was Maryland's fanatically anti-gun Attorney General from 1987-2007 before he retired and Gansler took the reigns. Curran was a darling of the Cease Fire crowd and worked closely with them throughout the years.

    In this plan Curran does a good job of outlining the anti-gun crowd's multifaceted plan for gradually chipping away at, and in some cases eventually banning, private gun ownership, especially of handguns. From "educating the children" to think correctly to taking background checks to draconian levels to suing the manufacturers and dealers into oblivion, it's all in there.

    The report was available for a long time on the State AG's website. It's was eventually taken down, perhaps at least partially in the hope that the Pro-2A movement would forget such a bold and detailed statement from an elected official regarding the true methods and goals of gun control in this state existed. However, the Internet Archive is a wonderful thing.

    Bear in mind his closing statement:

    p.63
    Wow
     

    Bullfrog

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 8, 2009
    15,152
    Carroll County
    I see he's still around, at 90 years old.


    I hope he's healthy and well, and also of sound mind enough to see his tyrannical utopia drifting further away.

    Maybe he should have retired to New Zealand, or Canada, instead of Florida. Too many handguns down there.
     

    JohnnyE

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 18, 2013
    9,460
    MoCo
    ...and his daughter, Catherine "Katie" Curran O'Malley, is now running for Maryland Attorney General.
     

    dannyp

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 30, 2018
    1,463
    I completely agree with this principle, and firmly believe that the best way to change the minds of those who are anti-gun is to give them a force-on-force training experience.

    Having taken force-on-force training, where Simunitions were used, the perspective one gains from that type of course is considerable.

    It’s amazing to see the speed at which events unfold, the unpredictability of the other person’s behavior, and the way various factors impact your response.

    This type of training also hammers home, usually with tactile feedback, that there are direct consequences if you fail.

    Equally important, those scenarios make it crystal clear that:

    1.) Unarmed individuals are just along for the ride, and are subject to the whims of their assailant.

    2.) When one carries a firearm, their ability to influence the situation increases considerably, and the chances of a negative outcome are greatly reduced.

    3.) Even if one does have a firearm, there is still uncertainty, and there’s always the possibility that their outcome may still be negative, regardless.

    4.) In this type of encounter, virtually everyone would want to have the tools needed to defend themselves

    To drive the lesson home, the legislators should have multiple opportunities to run through the scenarios - first without a firearm, then again with firearms. That way, they can see what it’s like to be in that type of encounter, both with and without a firearm, and they’ll all have a common point of reference upon which to base their views.

    Unfortunately, we live in “The Free Infringed State”, where people don’t seem to understand that categorical bans of “scary things” won’t magically make everything better.

    Also, if our elected officials won’t give us more than 60-120 seconds for testimony, and some of those legislators don’t even have the basic decency to stay and listen to citizens who are providing input on a bill that they introduced, then I’m sure they probably won’t want to devote a couple of hours to force-on-force training.
    this .
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,151
    Sun City West, AZ
    ...and his daughter, Catherine "Katie" Curran O'Malley, is now running for Maryland Attorney General.

    The one thing Martin O'Malley said that I agree with (referring to the Bush and Clinton families) is that the Presidency is not a crown to be handed back and forth between a couple of families.

    The same can be said for state politics such as the AG or other office.
     

    Cold Steel

    Active Member
    Sep 26, 2006
    801
    Bethesda, MD
    This is why we cannot give these bastards an inch. Those inches quickly turn into feet and yards. And we cannot lower our guard because the public momentum is with us right now. There could very well come a time when the pendulum swings the other way, and we find ourselves on the defensive again as was the case in the 1990's.
    Yes, in compromise both sides give. In the gun control issue, our side is always called upon to give up rights, while the other side settles for taking our rights more slowly. In the end we always lose rights, and Curran’s side always takes them less slowly. That’s called “common sense” gun control. In fact, recoil from that term whenever you hear it.

    It’s like hearing leftist regressives speaking of our form of government. They always use the term “our Democracy!” Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, refer to our form of government as “our Republic!” In watching some of the January 6 exchanges, I heard Liz Cheney repeatedly use the former. My wife, a Democrat who hates guns, now says she misses Donald Trump desperately. Which is amazing because she hated Trump when he was in office. I had to listen to her spout off for four years about how he did that or said this. Now she admits she wishes he was back. Regardless of he said or did, and regardless of the “Pillow Guy,” and how much of the lush Guliani has become, the U.S. was respected, our gas prices were half what they are now and all those other things.

    She's now going to vote Republican for the first time. Even though she still hates guns.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    The attached 63-page planning paper was written and published by J. Joseph Curran in 1999. For those not familiar, Curran was Maryland's fanatically anti-gun Attorney General from 1987-2007 before he retired and Gansler took the reigns. Curran was a darling of the Cease Fire crowd and worked closely with them throughout the years.

    In this plan Curran does a good job of outlining the anti-gun crowd's multifaceted plan for gradually chipping away at, and in some cases eventually banning, private gun ownership, especially of handguns. From "educating the children" to think correctly to taking background checks to draconian levels to suing the manufacturers and dealers into oblivion, it's all in there.

    The report was available for a long time on the State AG's website. It's was eventually taken down, perhaps at least partially in the hope that the Pro-2A movement would forget such a bold and detailed statement from an elected official regarding the true methods and goals of gun control in this state existed. However, the Internet Archive is a wonderful thing.

    Bear in mind his closing statement:

    p.63
    Bottom line is, We take back and stand by ALL for force of legal proceedure to "Keep and Bear Arms"
    Belonging to Maryland Shall Issue in this state a must to keep any of our enumerated rights. Making donations to feed the funds it takes to legally hold them accountable.
     

    LRoberts

    Retired Master General El
    Oct 22, 2017
    241
    SM County
    The attached 63-page planning paper was written and published by J. Joseph Curran in 1999. For those not familiar, Curran was Maryland's fanatically anti-gun Attorney General from 1987-2007 before he retired and Gansler took the reigns. Curran was a darling of the Cease Fire crowd and worked closely with them throughout the years.

    In this plan Curran does a good job of outlining the anti-gun crowd's multifaceted plan for gradually chipping away at, and in some cases eventually banning, private gun ownership, especially of handguns. From "educating the children" to think correctly to taking background checks to draconian levels to suing the manufacturers and dealers into oblivion, it's all in there.

    The report was available for a long time on the State AG's website. It's was eventually taken down, perhaps at least partially in the hope that the Pro-2A movement would forget such a bold and detailed statement from an elected official regarding the true methods and goals of gun control in this state existed. However, the Internet Archive is a wonderful thing.

    Bear in mind his closing statement:

    p.63
    Isn't he the same commie prick, Curran, who was dick-tater of MD's prison "system" for awhile??
     

    LRoberts

    Retired Master General El
    Oct 22, 2017
    241
    SM County
    Yes, in compromise both sides give. In the gun control issue, our side is always called upon to give up rights, while the other side settles for taking our rights more slowly. In the end we always lose rights, and Curran’s side always takes them less slowly. That’s called “common sense” gun control. In fact, recoil from that term whenever you hear it.

    It’s like hearing leftist regressives speaking of our form of government. They always use the term “our Democracy!” Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, refer to our form of government as “our Republic!” In watching some of the January 6 exchanges, I heard Liz Cheney repeatedly use the former. My wife, a Democrat who hates guns, now says she misses Donald Trump desperately. Which is amazing because she hated Trump when he was in office. I had to listen to her spout off for four years about how he did that or said this. Now she admits she wishes he was back. Regardless of he said or did, and regardless of the “Pillow Guy,” and how much of the lush Guliani has become, the U.S. was respected, our gas prices were half what they are now and all those other things.

    She's now going to vote Republican for the first time. Even though she still hates guns.
    They took the video down...
     

    Afrikeber

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 14, 2013
    6,678
    Urbana, Md.
    Once you find yourself cornered by a human being(s) that are intent on harming you, your whole perspective on self defense changes. For some that moment of enlightenment is their last on this earth.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,917
    Messages
    7,258,586
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom