Decision in Kolbe!

[sino26]

Go under User Control Panel, Options, and change the number of posts per page to 30. The will reduce the number of pages to read.

Thank you!

 

[RoboRay]

Go under User Control Panel, Options, and change the number of posts per page to 30. The will reduce the number of pages to read.

Do I have to be in VA or PA to do that, or is it okay to have that many posts per page in MD?

 

[fred333]

Do I have to be in VA or PA to do that, or is it okay to have that many posts per page in MD?

Yes, too much information's dangerous. If you're a good person, you'll self-limit your intake to the standard set by default. It's for the children.

 

[ar154u]

See this link for a summary description of the MSP training requirements. High school diploma plus six months academy = MSP.

http://mdsp.maryland.gov/careers/pages/training.aspx

Firearms training is 2 weeks out of 26 or 7% of the curriculum.

I still would argue that there are citizens who shoot regularly are more proficient shooters than police are.

 

[Mark75H]

Do I have to be in VA or PA to do that, or is it okay to have that many posts per page in MD?

Its not ... high capacity pages are dangerous unless you have proper training or are LEO

 

[kgain673]

I have been told by a LEO Firearms Trainer that some of them really struggle with qualification. In addition the average recreational shooter on this forum probably shoots more rounds in a year than some LEO's shoot in a whole career.

Police work is not all about shooting despite what the movies make us believe. Driving a squad car while running code is far more dangerous. Police should be required to meet minimum standard set by the state training comission. If they can't pass suspension until they can. But not everyone will be a expert marksmen. I'd rather have a cop be an expert homicide investigator, then an expert marksmen who can't get a conviction in court for a simple criminal charge. Also I would love to see the "average" civilian shooter on this forum on a timed qualification range wearing body armor, duty belt and shooting from a draw with a time limit, also being required to move and decide shoot don't shoot.

 

[woodstock]

Police work is not all about shooting despite what the movies make us believe. Driving a squad car while running code is far more dangerous. Police should be required to meet minimum standard set by the state training comission. If they can't pass suspension until they can. But not everyone will be a expert marksmen. I'd rather have a cop be an expert homicide investigator, then an expert marksmen who can't get a conviction in court for a simple criminal charge. Also I would love to see the "average" civilian shooter on this forum on a timed qualification range wearing body armor, duty belt and shooting from a draw with a time limit, also being required to move and decide shoot don't shoot.

meet us at the Thurmont training and conservation center for an IDPA match. love to have you, if for anything, observe.

 

[frogman68]

Police work is not all about shooting despite what the movies make us believe. Driving a squad car while running code is far more dangerous. Police should be required to meet minimum standard set by the state training comission. If they can't pass suspension until they can. But not everyone will be a expert marksmen. I'd rather have a cop be an expert homicide investigator, then an expert marksmen who can't get a conviction in court for a simple criminal charge. Also I would love to see the "average" civilian shooter on this forum on a timed qualification range wearing body armor, duty belt and shooting from a draw with a time limit, also being required to move and decide shoot don't shoot.

Quite different to police a community then to be able to defend yourself.
As a police officer you must make decisions that , could cause riots. As a civilian you are only defending your life . No one can make that decision for you. Will the courts agree with you ? That depends , police officers are usually given more lee way . I would love to try the course just for fun

 

[Vile Shadow]

Well Homeland Security has determined that a burst capable M4 with a 14 inch barrel is a personal defensive weapon but an AR-15 is an assault rifle. Go figure

Those declarations were made by two different idiots.

 

[Vile Shadow]

Well, this community is pretty intolerant of anyone who does not agree with it 100 percent.

Insulting terms get tossed about in this echo chamber.

There are a lot of intelligent people here and I get educated on all things firearms every day, but the insistence on pure conservatism or GTFO gets tiresome.

I don't plan on going anywhere any time soon, either.

People that support those who see fit to ban a rifle for no other reason it's havin' a "shoulder thing that goes up" are libtards and deserve to be called out for the statists they are.

End of story.

 

[chuck]

That would be Doug, right? He seems to be a decent guy, but he tends to cloister himself with interest groups. I once asked him when he would throw a town hall so we could discuss issues like taxes and 2A. He came back with an HOA meeting in Mitchellville.

I think he sold out.

He was the only D I voted for when I lived in his district. I kept getting his emails because I was interested in what he was up to. Unsubscribed yesterday because I think he is too far gone.

 

[RoadDawg]

The other side of that is that LEO's and military, unlike citizens who want to exercise their rights, aren't burdened with having to pay out-of-pocket for their own training. In fact, the former two groups are paid to take the training as part of their job.

Why not take the position that if the government is going to accept LEO and military training, it should offer free training for private citizens, too, to make it equal for all?

As a compromise, maybe we could settle for just the basics instead of weeks of military or LEO training. On second thought, why compromise? Does the Left? No.

Not quite the case Jim. When I went through the training I agreed to a set number of years of service in return for the provided training. There most certainly IS a cost that must be paid by the person being trained.

LEO and Military members who are trained have signed up to volunteer their life's blood if it is required of them... And years of service in return.

Training should be, as I said earlier, available at cost to those who wish to avail themselves. It should include basic firearms care and handling AND laws which apply to CCW for both State and Fed. And completion should be recognized with a certificate from the state which grants the person a CCW and HQL.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

It's an interesting topic. The Board of Elections provides free training for the use of their voting machines. I don't need to take a writing class to submit a letter of redress to my government. Although I did get a free education to assist in writing a letter.

 

[RoadDawg]

It's an interesting topic. The Board of Elections provides free training for the use of their voting machines. I don't need to take a writing class to submit a letter of redress to my government. Although I did get a free education to assist in writing a letter.

Politicians want you to vote...
• Free voter training
• No ID required
• No background checks
• Transportation available
• Coaching on voting machines available on site at polls

But, CARRY A FIREARM?
• No training offered
• Multiple forms of ID required
• EXTENSIVE background checks, fingerprints, photos
• Transportation RESTRICTED
• NO firearms allowed at polls

See any patterns?

 

[Vile Shadow]

Also I would love to see the "average" civilian shooter on this forum on a timed qualification range wearing body armor, duty belt and shooting from a draw with a time limit, also being required to move and decide shoot don't shoot.

If there's a place where non-LEO's can go to learn such thangs, then I'm certainly willin' to give it a go.

 

[rambling_one]

He was the only D I voted for when I lived in his district. I kept getting his emails because I was interested in what he was up to. Unsubscribed yesterday because I think he is too far gone.

You must not be one of the "jumping for joy" felons who may now vote prior to completing their sentence.

 

[BeoBill]

He was the only D I voted for when I lived in his district. I kept getting his emails because I was interested in what he was up to. Unsubscribed yesterday because I think he is too far gone.

You must not be one of the "jumping for joy" felons who may now vote prior to completing their sentence.

I'd vote him out, but he ran unopposed last time. Maybe OweMaley will move down here and run against him. Then I wouldn't cast a ballot for that office again.

 

[chuck]

You must not be one of the "jumping for joy" felons who may now vote prior to completing their sentence.

Of course not, I moved out of his district.

 

[Alutacon]

Wow, talk about a thread going off the rails.

And, I can't help but contribute.

I partially agree with what I think NavyATFP is trying to say.

I also agree with Norton.

However, it is possible to hold some positions that are defined as "liberal" in today's political scene and not be a Marxist.

It is possible to not consider yourself a Conservative and still fully support the Second Amendment with no limits or "buts."

I myself am in this position; I believe some things that are considered conservative and others that are considered liberal. No one fully represents me and I don't have to justify myself to anyone.

However, one has to decide his priorities and back them. In my case, I've decided that the Second Amendment is so fundamental to our freedom and all other rights that it takes precedent over everything in my political life.

If some politician supported every position that I do and I completely agreed with him on all platforms, but if he was mushy on the Second Amendment, I would not support him.

Some of you might think that if a person does not have 100 percent conservative credentials then he's a fellow traveler. Well, that's just too bad. You're wrong.

Oh, and -- yea Kolbe decision!!

I agree with you on this. I abhor the very notion of the strictly single issue voter or someone who dedicates their political philosophy to the consideration of a single issue. I do so because as you consider the full panoply of issues that confront the continued prosperity of our society and our culture I simply don't believe it's possible for anyone to simply say I am going to go with this group because I identify with them on a single issue to the exclusion of all others. That is called group think and I refuse to be intellectually mired down in something so inane as that. However, I also agree that while you can certainly have different points of views on different issues, some more left leaning and some more right, you do have to prioritize those issues. I am left leaning on some things, very left on some things, right on some and very right on others. I do have some that aren't subject to as much compromise though and some that are subject to none.

For my part, I refuse to give up my guns. I also refuse to entertain the arguments of gun control advocates because I've never been exposed to a single one that you can believe. I strongly believe that no matter what "limited" restrictions they say they want they all want to take all of the guns. Not just your "assault weapons", but your handguns as well, your hunting rifle, your shotgun and every thing else you own that goes boom.

So in the end you look at an O'Malley and a Hogan and for my part I see no difference at all. O'Malley effed us over by pushing through the ban and completely violating our 2nd Amendment rights. Hogan is just as bad for assuming the office of the governor and outright refusing to even attempt to do anything about it. That makes him just as much of an offender and violator of my 2A rights in my consideration. Yet he is a conservative and O'Malley a liberal. As it relates to one of them versus the other, in the end, what's the difference?

 

[Jim12]

I agree with you on this. I abhor the very notion of the strictly single issue voter or someone who dedicates their political philosophy to the consideration of a single issue. I do so because as you consider the full panoply of issues that confront the continued prosperity of our society and our culture I simply don't believe it's possible for anyone to simply say I am going to go with this group because I identify with them on a single issue to the exclusion of all others. That is called group think and I refuse to be intellectually mired down in something so inane as that. However, I also agree that while you can certainly have different points of views on different issues, some more left leaning and some more right, you do have to prioritize those issues. I am left leaning on some things, very left on some things, right on some and very right on others. I do have some that aren't subject to as much compromise though and some that are subject to none.

For my part, I refuse to give up my guns. I also refuse to entertain the arguments of gun control advocates because I've never been exposed to a single one that you can believe. I strongly believe that no matter what "limited" restrictions they say they want they all want to take all of the guns. Not just your "assault weapons", but your handguns as well, your hunting rifle, your shotgun and every thing else you own that goes boom.

So in the end you look at an O'Malley and a Hogan and for my part I see no difference at all. O'Malley effed us over by pushing through the ban and completely violating our 2nd Amendment rights. Hogan is just as bad for assuming the office of the governor and outright refusing to even attempt to do anything about it. That makes him just as much of an offender and violator of my 2A rights in my consideration. Yet he is a conservative and O'Malley a liberal. As it relates to one of them versus the other, in the end, what's the difference?

What could Hogan do that wouldn't immediately give potent ammunition to the liberal majority in this state that would virtually guarantee his loss of the influence and popularity he currently enjoys, as well as guarantee he loses re-election ability to accomplish anything at all in a second term?

As others have pointed out, MD had urgent fiscal and structural issues that needed immediate attention, and his successes there have bolstered his potential ability to do more in the future with popular support.

But bear in mind the political reality. Gads, man, the MGA just today overrode his veto of a bill, by 2/3 majority, to restore felons' rights before they've served their debt to society. We still have a general assembly led by irresponsible, petulant, left wingers, backed by a body of like-minded drones.