Gottahaveone
Member
If you can stand to read it without gagging, it is a good blueprint for what ALL the politico's on that end of the spectrum want.....
http://martinomalley.com/wp-content...ence-Prevention.pdf?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_daily202
Well, now we know where O'Malley stands...
- Thread starter Gottahaveone
- Start date
- Status
If you can stand to read it without gagging, it is a good blueprint for what ALL the politico's on that end of the spectrum want.....
http://martinomalley.com/wp-content...ence-Prevention.pdf?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_daily202
plodder
Member
Duhhhhh! He is from the Northeast and there is a "D" in front of his name.
USAF_Vet
Member
Meanwhile:
Baltimore surges past Detroit in number of homicides in 2015
Baltimore has become the second most violent city in America, a Baltimore Brew survey finds, with a homicide rate exceeded only by St. Louis
https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2015/...-past-detroit-in-number-of-homicides-in-2015/
Baltimore surges past Detroit in number of homicides in 2015
Baltimore has become the second most violent city in America, a Baltimore Brew survey finds, with a homicide rate exceeded only by St. Louis
https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2015/...-past-detroit-in-number-of-homicides-in-2015/
Yeah but Maryland has retained it's rich history of hunting and outdoors sportsmanship.... you know the things the 2A is all about.
"A well regulated militia, to keep the people safe from roving hoardes of deer and other small to medium game, is essential to the outdoors sportsmen. The priviledge of the non governmental employee shall be infringed and over regulated."
Red Wind
Member
O'Malley makes Chucky Schumer look like Charlton Heston.
This man was a total disaster for Baltimore and all of Maryland. As an ex Annapolis resident, the thought of him brings on great anger. The ultimate gun grabber and self aggrandizing con artist.
This man was a total disaster for Baltimore and all of Maryland. As an ex Annapolis resident, the thought of him brings on great anger. The ultimate gun grabber and self aggrandizing con artist.
TruthTellers
member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 1,075
Go through the Democrat party and 90% of them think the same on guns. If you support the second amendment, how could you ever vote Democrat?
Literally everything Bloomberg and Everytown has espoused, O'Malley wants to make law. Guess we know who owns him.
Literally everything Bloomberg and Everytown has espoused, O'Malley wants to make law. Guess we know who owns him.
gbran
Member
The safest people in the USA are ccw'ers and he wants to curtail that. Shows his moves are political/idealogical, not common sense.
TimSr
Member
The new term "gun safety" tested much better in focus groups than "gun control".
MtnCreek
Member
Says the man that supports the killing of over 1,000,000 babies per year.
Deanimator
Member
What do you mean "now"?
His anti-gun creds were NEVER in doubt.
Of course one must recognize that he has about as much likelihood of being elected President as my mother's chihuahua...
His anti-gun creds were NEVER in doubt.
Of course one must recognize that he has about as much likelihood of being elected President as my mother's chihuahua...
Most people aren't one issue voters and gun rights are well down the list.
For me the two major parties are on different sides of important issues. I can't pick one that agrees with even 80% of my views so I have to evaluate each politician individually and pick the one that I agree with the most based on a ranking of issues.
As other's have said, O'Malley's position on guns has been well know and he has a long record on the issue.
Sav .250
Member
If you live in Maryland and do not belong to the NRA.................shame on you!
Dain Bramage
Member
Is your mother's chihuahua clean and articulate?
SSN Vet
Member
Shocker!
Liberal is as Liberal does...
Until the D party isn't totally controlled by Liberals, folks like O'Malley will continue to be a D poster child.
Liberal is as Liberal does...
Until the D party isn't totally controlled by Liberals, folks like O'Malley will continue to be a D poster child.
P5 Guy
Member
Common Sense?
Isn't is common sense to make those who break the law ineligible to have firearms?
How many FFLs, outside of the Fast&Furious gun walkers sell guns to traffickers?
Anyone with the sense geese have knows that these common sense gun laws never lead to less violent crime, but actually increase crime of all forms.
Isn't is common sense to make those who break the law ineligible to have firearms?
How many FFLs, outside of the Fast&Furious gun walkers sell guns to traffickers?
Anyone with the sense geese have knows that these common sense gun laws never lead to less violent crime, but actually increase crime of all forms.
jobu07
Contributing Member
I can't believe he didn't take the opportunity to brag on the results of his "sensible" policies!
Oh wait...
Oh wait...
jerkface11
Member
When someone says that what they mean is gun rights aren't an issue for them at all.
Deanimator
Member
Cleaner than Hillary Clinton and FAR more articulate than Joe Biden.
And smarter than Bernie Sanders... she's not a socialist.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,755
That goal will never be achieved until you start putting (and keeping) some people in prison. The ones that need to be there.
jerkface11
Member
No it means EVERY other issue is more important.
Regardless of political party, he is just a bad choice. When MOM was gov, he primary priority was working on a Presidential bid and his actions resonated this. Working with a few anti-gun groups, it went as far to paint gun owners as "dangerous" and the story of the day was "mental health" and "these dangerous gun owners."
And if you think he handled guns badly, you should see the MD Healthcare Exchange rollout. Logging into that website takes longer than browsing the internet on a 8 bit modem from the 1980s. And if you can manage to log in, you will have to log out, sell your kidney to afford the prices, and then deal with trying to log back in to sign up (at which point you have likely passed the deadline and are SOL.) The process is so slow that it may be quicker to go back to school, earn a medical degree, and then just treat yourself.
He did do us one great thing though...Literally, he was so bad that this (incredibly blue) state elected not only a republican, but a businessman who is NOT a career politician. It was only made possible by the MOM administration actions, as it really drilled into people's heads just how crappy current leadership is, and how so many career politicians make their decisions based more on the future of their careers than the welfare of individuals (that applies to both Democrats and republicans.) Even quite a few liberal sources feel he's a pretty good leader, is following logic to benefit the welfare of citizens rather than political agendas, and is actually following through with his campaign promises. This can also benefit the republican party because this story indicates what needs to happen in the future when it comes to vetting electable candidates in new areas, rather than clinging to the one-size-must-fit-all notion.
I think this also suggests that in the future we are going to see more people being elected whom are not politicians. I think people are getting very tired of the same career politicians year-in, year-out whom get paid a small fortune to make marginal accomplishments, and they are willing to let party agendas override the wellbeing of citizens and even the USC. It's time for some new people.
And if you think he handled guns badly, you should see the MD Healthcare Exchange rollout. Logging into that website takes longer than browsing the internet on a 8 bit modem from the 1980s. And if you can manage to log in, you will have to log out, sell your kidney to afford the prices, and then deal with trying to log back in to sign up (at which point you have likely passed the deadline and are SOL.) The process is so slow that it may be quicker to go back to school, earn a medical degree, and then just treat yourself.
He did do us one great thing though...Literally, he was so bad that this (incredibly blue) state elected not only a republican, but a businessman who is NOT a career politician. It was only made possible by the MOM administration actions, as it really drilled into people's heads just how crappy current leadership is, and how so many career politicians make their decisions based more on the future of their careers than the welfare of individuals (that applies to both Democrats and republicans.) Even quite a few liberal sources feel he's a pretty good leader, is following logic to benefit the welfare of citizens rather than political agendas, and is actually following through with his campaign promises. This can also benefit the republican party because this story indicates what needs to happen in the future when it comes to vetting electable candidates in new areas, rather than clinging to the one-size-must-fit-all notion.
I think this also suggests that in the future we are going to see more people being elected whom are not politicians. I think people are getting very tired of the same career politicians year-in, year-out whom get paid a small fortune to make marginal accomplishments, and they are willing to let party agendas override the wellbeing of citizens and even the USC. It's time for some new people.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"No it means EVERY other issue is more important."
This. It's not that hard to figure out which issue is more important to you (it helps to not think about what is important to everyone else at the same time, a difficult temptation for many to resist), and then vote on whoever is on the right side of it and isn't also a nitwit who has no idea what they are saying (also not hard to figure out).
Not sure why people are so defensive of admitting what is the biggest priority in their lives, since we all know we're not gods that can direct limitless energy to everything. Maybe it's just that they aren't directing said energy like they know they should be, instead of spending it how they are.
For me, it's "guy who has a mature understanding of Americans' firearms rights," followed by "guy opposed to bureaucracy," which greatly simplifies all this supposed 'confusion.' Issue voting is how our country is supposed to effect proper representation of its individuals; not party affiliation voting, not supporting only those in your familial clan, not supporting people based on personality or looks. If your issue is important to many/most, it will be addressed thusly, and if not, you have to work to convince others to place it out front as well.
"Our nation truly should have heeded George Washington's advice about political parties."
Or voters simply need to vote with the understanding that their candidates are never walking party-platforms even if they agree with them. I know it seems like they all are, but in fact there are always differences in what each person will focus on or ignore. Obama was clearly going for healthcare more so than any other candidate (it was practically interchangeable with the 'hope and change' being bandied about), and once that was 'resolved' he kind of stumbled around looking for something to do next before honing in on gun control once Sandy Hook suggest it was a viable front, another item his background clearly suggested would be an important issue for him.
TCB
This. It's not that hard to figure out which issue is more important to you (it helps to not think about what is important to everyone else at the same time, a difficult temptation for many to resist), and then vote on whoever is on the right side of it and isn't also a nitwit who has no idea what they are saying (also not hard to figure out).
Not sure why people are so defensive of admitting what is the biggest priority in their lives, since we all know we're not gods that can direct limitless energy to everything. Maybe it's just that they aren't directing said energy like they know they should be, instead of spending it how they are.
For me, it's "guy who has a mature understanding of Americans' firearms rights," followed by "guy opposed to bureaucracy," which greatly simplifies all this supposed 'confusion.' Issue voting is how our country is supposed to effect proper representation of its individuals; not party affiliation voting, not supporting only those in your familial clan, not supporting people based on personality or looks. If your issue is important to many/most, it will be addressed thusly, and if not, you have to work to convince others to place it out front as well.
"Our nation truly should have heeded George Washington's advice about political parties."
Or voters simply need to vote with the understanding that their candidates are never walking party-platforms even if they agree with them. I know it seems like they all are, but in fact there are always differences in what each person will focus on or ignore. Obama was clearly going for healthcare more so than any other candidate (it was practically interchangeable with the 'hope and change' being bandied about), and once that was 'resolved' he kind of stumbled around looking for something to do next before honing in on gun control once Sandy Hook suggest it was a viable front, another item his background clearly suggested would be an important issue for him.
TCB
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked