NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

What is our thoughts on this?

My biggest issue other then the obvious infringement of our rights issue is how would I be fairly reimbursed for these if this law was to go through.

Also what the heck is the point, just more and more limitations that limit the second amendment.

From what I understand the hearing is Thursday.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Do you really want to get me started? ;)


Reimbursement? Haha.... the only reimbursement you'll get is one jackboot on your neck instead of two if you don't resist too much.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

It's idiotic. If people aren't going to follow the laws regarding purchasing guns, they sure as hell won't follow magazine limits. All this does is hurt law-abiding citizens

btownguy btownguy
Mar '14

my predictions; assembly will pass it, the senate will not post it for a vote, and it dies right there

if i am wrong and somehow it gets to the governors desk, it will be vetoed outright, or pocket vetoed,

haven't seen the text of this bill yet, do you guys know what it actually says? or have a link?

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Uh, the Senate President is the most rabid supporter of this bill... it WILL pass the Senate (despite a recent NJ.com poll indicating that 95% of respondents oppose it).

The bill is A2006... It's a single change (from "15" to "10" in one line of the existing law)

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A2500/2006_I1.HTM

http://www.anjrpc.org/

Christie will hopefully veto it, but we can't let up on the pressure for him to do so.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

http://www.guns.com/2014/02/24/nj-bill-compromise-cap-magazines-10-rounds-allow-shooters-stop-coffee/

and here is the actual bill

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A2500/2006_I1.PDF

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

So... this is going to apply to law enforcement as well, right?

LOL... just jokes... I kill me sometimes.

ianimal ianimal
Mar '14

NJ is already very restrictive with handguns - why the need to go further? Have there been shootings in NJ where high capacity magazines aided the shooter?

D-ManPV D-ManPV
Mar '14

Their "compromise" and the likely passage (but hopeful veto) of this bill is their last hurrah before the SCOTUS spanks down NJ's "justifiable need" for concealed carry as un-Constitutional.

Think it can't happen? Here are a few more names that will soon accompany Heller and McDonald in gun grabbers' nightmares:

Peruta:

http://www.nraila.org/legal/articles/2014/victory-in-peruta-v-san-diego-ninth-circuit-confirms-right-to-carry-arms-in-public.aspx


Richards:

http://bearingarms.com/ninth-circuit-crushes-another-good-cause-permitting-scheme-in-richards-v-prieto/



Here's the key summary from Peruta's successful appeal:

"In its opinion reversing the district court’s decision, the Court of Appeals held that San Diego’s “good cause” policy is unconstitutional, and echoed the points made in the briefs and by Mr. Clement at oral argument; that the government can ban open carry or concealed carry, but the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning both."

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Or, we could all just become felons, like in CT. Molon Labe.

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2014/03/10/molon-labe-connecticuts-terrifying-start-of-gun-confiscation-n1806403

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

I can't believe CT even has made it that far. What is America coming to, land of the free it isn't that's for sure

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Just another bill to persecute law abiding gun owners, that has no chance of actually preventing crime. Sigh......

Calico696 Calico696
Mar '14

Yea how long does it take to change a clip ? I can see no 30 round mags but 15 to 10 what's the point

Tombo Tombo
Mar '14

Tombo - I would think it's "their" plan to then go from 10 to 5 and then 5 to 0.

Calico696 Calico696
Mar '14

Calico you are absolutely correct, they will just keep limiting and limiting, and before you know it we wont have any magazines and everything will be single load, making plinking or any other sport impossible and more aggravating then its worth, which brings me to my next point, I feel the reason for stupid changes to the laws such as this one which creates more disruption then it does good is done to simply annoy gun owners in such a way that they just give up.

Trust me, it is absolute bogus, someone can do just as much damage with a 30 round clip as they can with 3 10 round clips, nobody is running up to them to stop them by force in that time. But as in CA they made the clips non-removable unless you have a tool, which happens to be a bullet. The laws will keep limiting and limiting law abiding citizens based on facts taken from criminals, which makes absolutely no sense.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

They're already gunning for 5 rounds....

"Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum,
tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm."

By that definition, even a double-action revolver holding 6 rounds would be banned (and apparently considered a "semi-automatic" weapon.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/S1000/600_I1.PDF


It's no "secret" anymore what they are trying to do. The people are waking up in droves, finally. And I find it interesting that the anti-gunners have suddenly become very sparse around here.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Just get a subscription and they you will get new magazines every month :>)

But for the record, while I support the 10-round magazine movement, especially against HUGE magazines like 100-rounds, NJ is one of the toughest gun law states and safest gun state already.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

thanks for the correction, why would sweeny be pushing this bill?

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

time to contact your representatives down in Trenton, make you voices heard,

from the article linked above:

"if enacted, A2006 would put the cap on what the state calls a ‘large capacity magazine’ at ten rounds.

Unlike other states, it would include fixed magazines as well, meaning that guns such as the .22 caliber Marin Model 60, which has an underbarrel tubular magazine, would not be allowed in New Jersey if passed. The current limit on magazines size in the state is 15 rounds, which retired police officers would still be able to possess.

Just weeks ago gun-control advocates in the Garden State called this sort of arbitrary magazine capacity limit, “Our top priority” according to Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, a faith-based organization focused on gun control.

“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster,” Miller said. “We expect the legislative leadership to get behind this and the governor to see some sense.”

http://www.guns.com/2014/02/24/nj-bill-compromise-cap-magazines-10-rounds-allow-shooters-stop-coffee/

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

NJ is one of the toughest gun law states and safest gun state already.

WOW! did this just come from MG?!?!?!?!?!

BD, I am sure sweeny got major heat for being the one to turn down the bill last time.

Yeah according to the bill my dad's old boy scout gun, a .22 will now be considered a assault firearm and I will get 10 years in jail for possessing it.......WTF REALLY?

"Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster"

So what was legislative thinking when they made the 15 round law then? Next it will be 5 rounds, then 1 round, then no guns.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

It came from the other thread where I posted it to show that states with the toughest background checks and gun laws also mostly rank as the least likely states to be killed by a gun. NJ is in the top ten for both laws and lack of gun deaths.

Also shows how geography rules in that states with loose gun laws and weak background checks tend to "bleed" guns to states with tougher checks and laws. Thus Chicago, being an island of toughness does not stand a chance.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Most of these laws have nothing to do with making NJ safer from criminals. They have a lot to do with making a name for politicians because it is such a hot issue for them. NJ has some of the strictest laws in the nation, if they are enforced which rarely happens. For instance, if you are convicted of commiting a crime with a gun there is an automatic 3 year prison sentence added to whatever else you are convicted of. The key word being CONVICTED. Most of these crimes are plea bargained or downgraded so no conviction takes place thereby by passing that law.
All these laws do is make it harder for citizens to obtain and own firearms. Criminals will just buy what they want on the street illegally which is why they are criminals. They could care less how many laws they break. If caught just plea bargain.

boobalaa boobalaa
Mar '14

presumably 15 round magazines will be grandfathered? how will this be enforceable since they look identical? same problem they are having now in CT and NY

skippy skippy
Mar '14

No grandfathering. The law simply bans *possession* of magazines over a certain size, not the purchase of new ones. Magazines are not serialized, so there is no way to verify date of ownership (which proves that these laws are unenforceable even in states that do grandfather them). And of course the onus is on YOU to prove your innocence... 180 degrees off from the intent of the justice system.

This is why laws that address the "potential" for misuse are garbage. It would be like giving everyone a speeding ticket (and a 10 year stretch in the clink) simply because the car in their driveway is capable of going 100+ MPH or being driven while drunk, even if there's no gas in the tank and it never leaves the person's driveway.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

Guns are not the issue, but they work well for politicians as a scapegoat.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

Gun control is sexist as well... it puts women at even *more* of a disadvantage against criminals.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

isn;t the 15 round limit just recent? ti was kncked down from 30 round mags to 15 round mags just a short while ago?

correct?

this alone proves that they will never stop with the limitations until they get them all outlawed. that is what they really want. they are coming for the guns, just check with CT.

we need to stop them , now, no more compromises with this political agenda.

it stops here, and it stops now.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Would The ban be for the bloods and the crypts in Newark, Camden and Trenton also or just for the law abiding citizens?

wally85 wally85
Mar '14

The 15 round limit dates back to the days of the Federal Assault Weapons ban. While the rest of the country figured out that those laws did nothing to stop violence (and were thus allowed to expire), NJ has continually doubled-down on trampling the rights of her citizens.

Even more vile is that last year Sweeney refused to allow the 10-round limit to come up for a vote and promised many people, in person, that he did not support a magazine capacity reduction. Welll..... that was BS just so he could get one last election under his belt (South Jersey has a lot of gun owners) and look what happens a few months after the election. He's the biggest cheerleader for the reduction.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

"Would The ban be for the bloods and the crypts in Newark, Camden and Trenton also..."


Of course not. This is who it affects:

http://www.mbstudioproductions.tv/html/psa.html

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

"Potential for misuse"??? What is this, the Minority Report?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

That movie brought CHILLS to my spine, thank you very much for posting that mark, point proven.

The last line is the whole point in this discussion, why should the government decide how many rounds we need to protect our family?

You always here anti gunners attacking hunters. Saying "how many rounds does it take to kill a deer" and "if you haven't killed it with 5 rounds it shouldn't die". Never do they acknowledge that by second amendment RIGHTS we are allowed to protect our homes, and who should have the power to limit our capacities when there is the possibility of a criminal having more rounds?

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Great video Mark. Thanks for posting it.

Calico696 Calico696
Mar '14

it also bans tube fed 22 rifles used for plinking and safe firearm handling education for children. it's completely ridiculous

skippy skippy
Mar '14

Banning safe firearms handling education for children... sure, that makes sense. In order to fully prohibit firearms, they need them to be as UNSAFE as possible. SO, the more children the politicians can get killed, the better. Nice.

If the anti-gunners can't see that, they are far more stupid than I had realized.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

JR, Why do you think the media dwells so much on school shootings and not the thug shootings that happen in bad areas every day?

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Children are the ultimate emotional-knee-jerk tactic to get people onboard an issue.... "save the children", "save the planet for the children".... funny how the govt doesn't seem to care about SPENDING AWAY OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURES.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Despite a recent NJ.com poll showing ~95% opposition...

Despite ~90% of those in attendance at today's committee hearing opposing the bill...

The Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee passed the bill A2006 along party lines (5D for, 3R against).

Now on to the full Assembly.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Oh, you thought our representatives were supposed to be REPRESENTATIVE of their constituency?

Silly you.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

This pretty much sums it up.

Calico696 Calico696
Mar '14

"Oh, you thought our representatives were supposed to be REPRESENTATIVE of their constituency?"

*I* know they're not... *You* know they're not...

I'm just hopeful more and more people wake up before the next election.

At least the rep from our district voted against it.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Wtf!
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/03/assembly_committee_approves_lower_limit_for_gun_magazines.html

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Well, "no Glock for her!" if this passes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2gCFOtaZPo

Wouldn't it be interesting if they showed her being cuffed and led off to a Jersey Jail?

I don't think Gunny would take kindly to that.

jjmonth4 jjmonth4
Mar '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

So there will never be another firearm crime again after today, right?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

A real-life situation TODAY NOT the make-believe garbage some of you people are putting up A Houston-area father fatally shot a 17-year-old boy who was inside his teen daughter's bedroom early Thursday morning, MyFoxHouston.com reported.

The father, who was not identified, was notified by one of his children that there was someone in his 16-year-old daughter's room, the report said. He reportedly found his daughter in bed with the teen.

The confrontation occurred around 2:20 a.m. The father had a gun and asked the teen to identify himself, police said, according to the report. His daughter reportedly told her father that she did not know the teen and that the two were not in bed.

The father said he told the teen not to move, but reportedly saw the teen reach for something, at which point police say the father opened fire. The teen did not have a gun. His daughter later confessed that she did indeed know the teen,

oldred
Mar '14

So how would a magazine reduction (from 15 to 10) have prevented that, oldred?



Oh, by the way, plenty of recent results for defensive gun uses that save lives:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

oldred, what is your point??? So....guns should be all together banned, still not seeing your point.
Be carefull which side you take with this, because for your one story I am assuring you we can find as many as you may want that are pro gun, again what is your point?

"NOT the make-believe garbage some of you people are putting up"

Is that really the route you want to take???

The way I see it, the daughter told her dad someone was in the house she did not know, her dad went to investigate, the boy made a quick move for something and the father defended his home as his daughter told him she did not know who was there........and this is the guns fault??? Are you really really sure that the daughter was not at all to blame??? IF NOT, I am sorry, I have tried being nice.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Until more facts come out (which may never happen), that daughter shares a lot of the blame. If your dad is pointing a gun at your boyfriend, you don't say "I have no idea who he is or why he's here..."

If someone strange was in your young daughter's room, seemingly unknown to her, at 2 am, I'm sure you'd just make some nice hot tea and sit down for a civilized chat, eh?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Also, many police officers have been cleared of wrongdoing when someone, held at gunpoint, makes a move to get/grab something prompting a shooting. And those are highly trained (supposedly) individuals with specific rules of engagement, who don't have their teenage daughter in harm's way.

If you're looking down the barrel of a gun, and it's not a random criminal on the street attacking you, it's generally a good idea to do what the person asks and hold still.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

"If you're looking down the barrel of a gun, and it's not a random criminal on the street attacking you, it's generally a good idea to do what the person asks and hold still."

Really?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Except when they say "get into the car."

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

Good luck to all of you here. Moving to South Carolina next month, will have my CCW in 60 t0 90 days. It will be refreshing to live in a red State.

Fortherepublic Fortherepublic
Mar '14

did the assembly pass the bill?

they are going to outlaw grandpa's old .22 rifle?

really?

they are completely out of their minds down in trenton, time to join the commonwealth of Pa.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

^ The link Darrin added for the NJ.com article mentions that the tube-fed magazine restriction for .22 rifles was removed from the bill.

D-ManPV D-ManPV
Mar '14

Note to self: teach son that you should always sneak girls OUT of the house in the middle of the night. NEVER sneak in yourself.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

Yes, MG, if an officer (right or wrong) or the owner of a house *I snuck into* points a gun at me, the smart thing to do is hold still.

If a thug on the street points a gun at me, it's a different story, because there is no guarantee they won't kill me even after I give them my wallet.

Exactly what point are you trying to prove here?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

While generally a good ideal to hold still, definitely don't get into the car. That's all. Basically just what I said.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

All you have is this guys word that the kid did anything. He might have been pissed that the kid was nailing his daughter and shot him in cold blood with no other provocation at all.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

What kind of moron finds someone in bed with his daughter and believes her when she says that she doesn't know him? That's so ridiculous, it would be comical if not for the tragic result.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

And if that is the case, then the father should be held accountable, nobody is arguing that.

Would it have been better for the dad to bash the kid's skull with a baseball bat, instead?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

It would have been better if the guy was a rational human being who could have properly assessed the situation and told the kid to get the hell out of his house and not to come back... but those kinds of people may be few and far between in the Houston area.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

If I read the story, he reacted when he saw what the kid was packing. Envy?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

I don;t agree with ianimal, the daughter told the father someone was in her room that she didn't know, to him it could of been a robber.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

No, according to the story, a DIFFERENT child told the father someone was in the room with the daughter. He found them in bed together when he entered the room... according to what oldred originally posted. I think you read it wrong.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

As of now, the prosecutor agrees - no initial charges (subject to a grand jury review).

At that moment in time (not what the daughter admitted to after the fact), an unidentified person was illegally inside someone's home, at an unusual hour, in the bedroom (supposedly *under* the bed according to what the younger brother saw) of a minor female who denied knowing him.

Perhaps poor decision making on everyone's part (starting with the daughter), but the father was responding to the information available to him at the time - and it's not like young women never get raped by unknown men inside their own home...

Also, the family had just moved in so it's plausible to think that the daughter wouldn't know many people in the area, especially those well enough to sneak in at zero-dark thirty for a romp in the sack.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/14/charges-unlikely-for-houston-dad-accused-shooting-daughters-boyfriend/

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

"Good luck to all of you here. Moving to South Carolina next month, will have my CCW in 60 t0 90 days. It will be refreshing to live in a red State."

Congratulations and good luck! There will be some (relatively minor) battles for you, such as allowing open carry, but that pales in comparison to NJ.

I've toyed with the idea of SC some day in my future. I have family in Myrtle Beach and Murrels Inlet. If I was going to move there it would probably be the Greenville/Spartanburg area since it's not *quite* as hot and humid as the rest of the state...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Let me get this straight "NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round" Now how would putting a limit on rounds in a magazine in NJ have prevented a father in Texas from shooting someone his daughter was entertaining that evening.

ignatz ignatz
Mar '14

It wouldn't have. Nor will a magazine restriction have any effect whatsoever on shootings of any kind- including mass shootings. People will just bring more magazines.

It's really simple, really.

The only way to stop ALL shooting by people who are not already criminals and have an illegal, illegaly-obtained firearm, is to prohibit private firearms ownership of ALL kinds, for ALL reasons.

Good luck with that.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Considering there's no one left to refute what the guy's saying, charges are unlikely. A wrongful death suit is another story, since the parent is responsible for the lies of the daughter.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

Besides, this is Texas, where you're allowed to shoot people in the back as they're running away and claim self defense, lol.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

Only if they're on your property. ;)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

"Considering there's no one left to refute what the guy's saying, charges are unlikely. A wrongful death suit is another story, since the parent is responsible for the lies of the daughter."

True, even if there is no criminal prosecution the family of the deceased has the right to sue for damages due to a wrongful death. Some states limit the judgement to compensatory damages (i.e. funeral expenses and such, since there are likely no dependents, mortgages, liens, etc. in the 17 year old's name.) I believe Texas also has punitive damage allowances (i.e. financial "punishment") but the technicalities of that likely keep a lot of lawyers very busy and rich.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

For me, it would be a moot point. If it was my son, I'd tell the guy at the cemetery that he may as well dig a second hole. The only question I would struggle with is whether or not the daughter goes in the hole with her old man. Probably not...

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

Waaaa!Waaaa! How can I prove what a big tough man I am if I don't have a gun?

Pathetic and sickening. Studies show that women and children are not safer in homes with fire arms. Those of you moving to the red states that allow any idiot to have a gun with no restrictions - please GO and don't let the door hit ya!

smartherthanyou smartherthanyou
Mar '14

why has sweeny chnaged his mind? here is what he said on May 06, 2013 at 2:13 PM


Sweeney says new limits on gun clips are 'arbitrary'

TRENTON — State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) said creating new limits on the size of clips in high-power rifles is arbitrary, would do little to curb gun violence and infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

He said the debate on reducing the number of bullets in a clip from 15 to 10 has overshadowed the Senate Democrats’ package of gun control measures that he says would tighten the state’s already stringent gun laws.

“I didn’t see the gun folks applauding our bills,” Sweeney said in a brief interview today.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/sweeney_says_new_limits_on_gun.html

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

BrotherDog - Because he had to win one last election to the Senate, and that would not have happened if he supported that bill last year.

Election is over, the true colors are showing.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

SOS- Same Old Shit. I'm not convinced NJ isn't a lost cause at this point.... people are leaving... rats fleeing a sinking ship.... (and not just over the gun issue)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

No, JR, the rats are *driving* the ship, and the good passengers are getting off at the first available stop.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

I stand corrected.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

The 15 round to 10 round limitation is indeed as Sweeney says. No one can prove that 10 rounds is safer than 15; there is no relevant data.

And to red flag other parts of the bill, some of which might even speed things along for you gunnies, like "The Senate Democrats package of bills includes instant background checks and new restriction on ammo purchases. He called the instant background checks a national model that would allow sellers to quickly check an applicant’s criminal and mental health history" seems silly over a gun clip restriction in a highly restricted, highly regulated and very gun-safe state (in the scheme things for that uber violent gun country we call America).

I would rather see better, faster, background checks and ammo restrictions than a minor clip modification.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

mg, I am so confused by your stand on the gun issue, on one forum you are posting anti-gun tactics up the kazoo, and then this one you are pro-gun

No offence, but are you bi-polar or something we don't know about??

If so, could you please use the names mistergoogle1 and mistergoogle2 so we know what mess we are getting into?

Can you please clear up your actual beliefs, and please for the sake of humanity, keep whatever numbers you may think you have out of it.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

" No one can prove that 10 rounds is safer than 15; there is no relevant data. "

If there is no relevant data, doesn't that imply the inverse is also true, that no one can prove 15 rounds are more hazardous than 10?

justintime justintime
Mar '14

hmm... WHY would I ever need more than 10 rounds?

http://m.wkow.com/w/main/story/111407308/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Yes, our elected officials will increasingly legislate all of our rights away...if we let them. Good for this young girl. She found her voice. I hope we can all learn something from her.....quickly!!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/14/watch-the-amazing-pro-gun-speech-given-by-a-9-year-old-that-ended-in-roaring-applause/

lizat
Mar '14

Absolutely horrific story jr. And a very good point.

The limitation is just that, a limitation. Law makers have no good reason for it, they are just allowed to make laws and then the citizens have to fight for them to be removed.

If this law does make it through I would like to see how are what NJ will do to enforce it and get the millions of 15 round magazines out of our hands. Or will we all just instantly be considered criminals like in Connecticut?

How come the 15 round limitation was never considered unconstitutional? When will this end?

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Ahhh....the fundamentals of freedom.

A friend accepted a job in Wyoming. He arrived Tuesday and moved into his rental home. Wednesday he went to DMV to get a WY driver's license and to register his truck. Thursday he went to a gun shop and brought home a new 9mm pistol. :-)

Calico696 Calico696
Mar '14

Yes Darrin, one can be for reduction in LCMs and against this bill at the same time. The funny part is that the story above is 2013. After recently meeting with Newtown parents, Sweeney supports the bill now. And it just passed by a panel 5-3.

As JIT says, both sides of the equation can not be proved and as much as I believe that facts show that smaller clips are safer for our society than larger ones, that alone is hard enough to factually prove. No one can prove that 10 is safer than 15, factually or, as JIT says 15 is more dangerous than 10.

When combined with NJ's current laws being some of the toughest in the country and NJ's murder-by-gun rate as being one of the lowest, I think the legislature can focus on other aspects of gun legislation (unless this is a highly transparent ploy to achieve compromise on other pending bills which apparently it isn't). The only good part about this bill is that, if passed, if will force Christie's trigger finger on the national stage, but then again, who cares about that anymore either.

But apparently that is not happening since the clip restriction bill is only combined with a bill that will let you shooters use the gas station restroom while driving to and from the shooting range so it's not a compromise ploy and Christie's national goose looks cooked so why kick the dog when he's down for what looks like the count.

Can't really tell what other laws are truly pending since there are many of them listed and they seem to rise and fall haphazardly for being voted upon.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

" let you shooters use the gas station restroom while driving to and from the shooting range so it's not a compromise"

I believe we were already allowed to do this, but the old laws were just as grey as the new laws. So all they are trying to do is put sugar on the bullshit mag restriction, but when you bite, you find out it is not sugar it is actually salt, and you were really tricked.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

i posted the 2013 statements by sweeny to demonstrate how he has flip flopped and is inconsistent, he surprised me by changing his view on this 180 degrees, i thought he was a different kind of democrat, my bubble just got burst regarding steve sweeny and wanted to communicate that here in this thread.

there is nothing wrong with a gun with a 15 round clip that is in the right hands.

outlawing them for everybody is overkill. it's not right, and it does impact the ability to defend yourself or your family if attacked by someone who has 15 rounds or more in their clip. why give the criminals a step up? it only hurts the law abiding, Christie will veto it, he has nothing to lose here in new jersey by vetoing it, he can;t run for governor again, but he still has a chance outside the state that will be impacted negatively if he signs it into law.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

So does this mean that everyone who owns 10 round clips has to turn them in? If that's the case that is REALLY SCARY! Is this America or Amerika? What happened to "Shall NOT be infringed!" The WHOLE IDEA behind the 2nd Ammendment was that the militia (citizens who were trained in the proper use of a firearm, like myself and my family) were to have weapons that at least equaled that of the "standing army" for the express purpose of fighting the "standing army" meaning our own military, if the time came where our government became tyrranical. Personally I am starting to think the time is now.

It seems to me that all the "gun control" advocates have NO CLUE what the 2nd Ammendment was for. It had NOTHING to do with hunting, skeet shooting or target practice -- it had to do with the citizenry of America protecting themselves from a government out of control - which we have now since our President said he "has a pen" and he feels he can do whatever he wants without congress. I don't want any President Dem, Rep or Ind...to wield that kind of dicatorial power.

I believe this whole incremental gun confiscation is heading us in the direction of a citizenry unable to defend themselves from what seems to be coming. Go ahead, laugh and call me crazy if you want.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

you are ABSOLUTELY correct emily1......Great Post!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

spot on emily1, very well said, i must say

you give me hope that the younger generation is not all lost to us.

keep fighting the good fight

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Actually, it has to do with a "well regulated militia".

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

Correct. And I have shown, again and again, in their own words, what "militia" meant.

I won't post it yet again, because truth is wasted on gun grabbers who have already made up their minds.

Aw, what the hell... there are probably at least a FEW people around here willing to accept the truth...

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])



"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)



"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)



"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)



"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)



"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)



"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)



"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))



"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

BTW emily, you're not crazy. You're just recognizing the truth instead of remaining blind to it, like so many people are doing (whether by choice because "they don't think people should have guns", or by default because they assume "that could never happen").

Stick to your guns. ;)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Something's not right, only old fat white guys like guns, right? Emily must be lying ;)

Either that, or people just don't want to shake that stereotype... I know plenty of young people (men and women) that are interested in guns (either ownership or just the truth about them). It's a good sign that at least some others are waking up.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Gee Emily and Darrin, the President has wielded the dictatorial pen since the beginning of the Republic and this President has not even come close in number or scope to other Presidents so what has your knickers in a know for this one?

Oh wait, the previous guy was a conservative and Fox didn't have viewers for the last Democrat.

Only in America can you become Vice President, own lots of guns, make serious mistakes that send 4,000 hero's to their death in order to remove invisible WMDs, then change the mission to providing Jeffersonian democracy to Middle East Muslims, shoot an old man in the face, and not only keep your job, but be a favored "fair and unbalanced" opinion maker on TV. Probably because these "accidents" hardly ever happen being that they are exceedingly rare.

And you gun advocates want to take to the streets for the tyrannical actions of a guy just trying to get health insurance to all US citizens.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Back to topic. I wrote the flowing to the Governor

Mar 10 at 9:33 PM

I would hope you veto these new magazine laws being purposed. We have enough un constitutional laws now in this State. I belong to the NRA but I never had a gun except the one Uncle Sam gave me and took back. I support all my sane neighbors having one, even concealed as there constitutional right.
Being a 84 year long New Jersey resident I hope you consider my concerns for this country and the Constitution.
Thank You

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

totally missed the point, again,

by offering a knee jerk defense in a typical pavlov's dog reflexive response for our current guy in the white house has caused you to miss emily's spot on point -


emily1 wrote -

"It seems to me that all the "gun control" advocates have NO CLUE what the 2nd Ammendment was for. It had NOTHING to do with hunting, skeet shooting or target practice -- it had to do with the citizenry of America protecting themselves from a government out of control - "

and she is 100 percent correct

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Plus 1 for Emily

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

gadfly has a good point - "Actually, it has to do with a "well regulated militia"."

but "a well regulated militia" is the predicate to the subject of the sentence, the subject of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the subject of the amendment. that is what it is about.

btw, what comprises "the militia"? and then what does "well regulated" really mean?

Emily1, what does your historical understanding tell you about that?

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Old Gent, thank you for your service and for continuing to uphold your oath to protect the Constitution.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Well punk didi fire 15 or ten rounds well punk do you feel lucky ? dose this bill take the th larger number rouds mag out of the hand of the ill doer no

Caged Animal Caged Animal
Mar '14

Old gent thank you for your support

Mg, take your exceeding rare back to the other post, I can't deal with your unreasonable statements on this post too!!!! LMAO

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

And no doubt an EXCEEDINGLY large laugh.

well-regulated = plenty of fiber :>)

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

In the context of the 2nd amendment, "well regulated", IMO, means highly proficient or sufficiently trained in the use of firearms; it certainly doesn't mean overly legislated, lol.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

ianimal has a very good point - that "well regulated" ,"means highly proficient or sufficiently trained in the use of firearms; it certainly doesn't mean overly legislated"

this is correct.

also - "to keep and bear arms" - "to keep" means to own, to have with you, on your person or in your house; - "to bear" means to carry it about on your person, to have with you as you live your daily life.

to keep and bear, does not mean 'locked up in the national guard armory' for use when indicated by higher authorities, but rather that the individual has the right "to keep and bear arms"

it means what it says, simply and un-equivocally,

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Apparently NJ and other states legislation believes differently when they decided to make it impossible for us to get cc permits.

The problem is how do we fight these laws? Read some of the articles on how my lunch opposition there was at this magazine limitation meeting, law makes didn't care what the public has to say, not one bit. Which goes to show that we have lost Control of our government. They want to make us powerless and do so by getting people on board with the sympathy of school shootings and such.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

you are correct Darrin, we need to get more republicans elected to state office, the democratic majority in both the assembly and the senate are out of control.

i think christie will veto this bill, and i am still unsure if it will get through the senate

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Sooner or later, Christie won't be governor, and a democrat will be. These bills will continue to be brought up for votes every single year until they are passed, no matter how long it takes. Because that is govt's ultimate agenda. While I would love NJ to wake up, I don't see a republican-controlled NJ govt in my lifetime.

Just trying to be a realist. I hope NJ proves me wrong. I would LOVE to be wrong.

(not that I'm a fan of the GOP either, but on this issue, they are of course light-years better than the democrats.)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

NJ is beyond repair legislatively.

The only hope is judicial correction.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

So the only help for NJ is activist judges in the extreme? I always thought that was the most evil thing imaginable and Constitutionally unthinkable. Or is there some paradox I'm unaware of??


GC,

The paradox would be for future SC judges to actually STICK TO the constitution (considered "extreme" in today's world). So, in effect, it would take "activist judges in the extreme" to REVERSE what the "activist judges in the extreme" have done.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

The recent SC decisions I've heard about have actually come down on the side of the 2nd amendment. But State's rights have to be defended as well, no? Different states have different needs. Or do you think that the Federal government should dictate to all states and that all gun control should be on the Federal level?

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

The FEDERAL SC decisions, recently, have been pro-2A. I'm not "thinking" anything... just saying that I think THIS issue will be quite important re: states rights vs. federal power.

Originally, except for a very few thing enumerated in the constitution, the states were basically to be left to govern themselves. It's clear the founders thought federal govt should remain as small as possible, not "one ring (DC) to rule them all" on all issues. If that were the case, why even have state laws?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

States can decide, for example, whether they prefer to allow open or concealed carry (or both), but they cannot ban both or it infringes on the 2nd Amendment.

Considering the 10th Amendment enumerates powers to the state only if not prohibited by the Constitution, that just leaves a little wiggle room before there is infringement (which is prohibited - regardless of needs).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

gc - it's not activist for the judiciary to decide on the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative branch, that's why they are there.

i know you know all this already, and i am not trying to be preachy and sorry if it reads that way because that is not my intention;

our republic is designed to be managed by three equal co-branches:

legislative, executive and judicial

the founders wanted a robust, and sometimes challenging relationship between the three branches to keep them all in line. it was thought that this would limit the inevitable 'bracket creep' that all other governments before in human history had fallen prey to, and ultimately failed.

i do believe it is wrong for judges to create law, (they sometimes do and get away with it), but in view of what's happening in NJ and NY and CT (and other places) I think the over zealous restrictions on firearms are unconstitutional. In my view (and many,many others) the magazine limits in particular are on shaky constitutional ground, (and there are other laws/restrictions that i believe will be overturned, like the one in NJ about CCW)

and outlawing the bayonet lugs on the end of rifle barrels, i mean come on, really? our lawmakers are worried about attacks with mounted bayonets? is there even one case of an assault or robbery in NJ with a rifle with a mounted bayonet? (because i cannot find even one case) so who are we protecting? and from what?

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

I too believe that bayonet lugs is overreach but also believe the people are within their constitutional rights to determine what the people feel is reasonable in terms of firepower for "the people" and thus restrictions on type of weaponry like tanks, bombs, RPG's and even magazine size is reasonable within the constitution where we even place limitations on free speech. That said, the safety advantage of 10 versus 15 bullets per mag can not be proved and NJ already has tough laws in this regard and one of the best safety records in the union, I think, as a result. I also have no problem with police, military, etc. having more firepower. At some level, they are the people too, but chartered with protection of the people and deserve any legal advantage to conduct that task.

While I have a healthy wariness about these organizations, I certainly do not fear them or fear a possible takeover by them. As BDog said, there's a healthy and robust, and challenging nature in our government which makes a potential takeover very difficult. Frankly I fear organizations like the NRA much more since they are mostly funded by merchants of death whose main goal is to protect and expand the revenues of those organizations. There is no challenging debate in the NRA, it is primarily dictated by the desires of it's major funders.

And if a restrictive law is passed, sure, the courts are within their rights to overturn. That works both ways, for and against any given topic.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Control Control Control Control

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

March 15th, 2014, in Connecticut:

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ Connecticut officials are urging owners of now-illegal assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines to relinquish them to the police or make them permanently inoperable.

The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection announced Friday it had sent a letter to owners who had failed to register the items by a Jan. 1 deadline, part of last year’s gun control law. Officials offered advice on what to do now with the weapons and magazines.

The letter says gun owners are in compliance with the new state law if their items are no longer in Connecticut or were sold to an authorized gun dealer.

Those who fail to comply face charges of possessing an unregistered assault weapon and/or high capacity magazine.

Commissioner Dora Schriro denied rumors DESPP is confiscating weapons.

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2014/03/15/state-agency-offers-advice-to-gun-magazine-owners/

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

That whole situation makes me want to throw up!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

It's good that you can exhibit so much control :>)

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

It just shows you that confiscation CAN happen

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

lou greenwald has to go, he needs to be voted out of office - last thursday he said -

""If you're a sportsman, if you're a shooter, a hunter, you don't need that high magazine capacity clip," Assembly Majority Leader Louis D. Greenwald (D., Camden)"


"Assemblyman Erik Peterson (R., Huntderdon), who voted against the bill, countered with the story of a woman who had run out of ammunition while trying to defend herself from a criminal who had invaded her home.

"We're going after the law-abiding individual. And we're not going after the criminal," Peterson said, adding that criminals could simply cross the Delaware River and buy high-capacity magazines in Pennsylvania.

Perhaps of most immediate concern, opponents said, was that hundreds of thousands of guns with 15-round magazines would become illegal overnight if the bill were to become law. Greenwald said the bill would not ban those guns because they also could accommodate 10 rounds.

http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-15/news/48225884_1_greenwald-gun-advocates-bill

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

A.2006 now goes to the full Assembly for a vote which could occur as early as next week. Please contact your two Assemblymen immediately and respectfully ask them to oppose this unconstitutional restriction on your Second Amendment rights. Contact information for your Assemblymen can be found here.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/abcroster.asp

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

"Greenwald said the bill would not ban those guns because they also could accommodate 10 rounds."

And next year it will be 7, then 5, the 3, then 1... except for theirs. The politicians that carry their own firearms will, of course, be exempt (as will the criminals, and not because they can just get them in PA, but because they *already have them in violation of the current law* and they won't be turning them in).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

how right you are mark, it stops here, and it stops now.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

BD and Mark, We can only hope, signs are not good, they obviously have a agenda to meet and don't care what the public thinks, even if it is unconstitutional, they will vote it in and make us fight it in court.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Do you really expect anything else? I've been fighting this one so long, nothing the govt does surprises me anymore. Just a matter of time....

Buy what you can now, and be prepared to lie to law enforcement, and hide your "newly illegal contraband" when the time comes... and it is coming....

Not being defeatist, being realist. NJ-realist, anyway. Just a matter of time before NJ follows CA, CT, and NY down the yellow brick road to confiscation. It's a slippery slope, and getting slippery-er.

The day is coming when govt will push "a bridge too far".

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

here goes Rhode Island - March 18th 2014 - blue to a fault, faulty blue if you ask me! Where does this trend end?



PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — The debate over gun control is returning to the Rhode Island Statehouse, but it’s unclear if anything has changed from last year, when a proposal to ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons fell flat.

Gun rights supporters say they’ll gather at the capitol Tuesday as lawmakers review legislation that would ban the sale of semi-automatic firearms. The bill was first introduced last year following the 2012 Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

Supporters say restrictions on the weapons would reduce the risk of a mass shooting as well as more common acts of gun violence. But gun rights supporters say the proposal would infringe on Second Amendment rights and do little to address the problem of gun crime.

Lawmakers will also review legislation to ban large-capacity magazines.

No votes have been scheduled.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2014/03/18/gun-control-debate-returns-to-rhode-island-statehouse/

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

I hate to say it, and I wish it was not this way, But I agree

There will be a time where they take it too far, I would rather fight for my constitutional rights in court then Have my freedom infringed.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

COURT? lol

Good luck with that....

I guess it would be our "last line of defense"... before the LAST line.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

True, JR. If the SCOTUS accepts one of the pending cases (such as Drake) and the "Heller/McDonald 5" decide in favor of the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it will still be YEARS before NJ complies.

Look how states are ignoring the decisions in Heller/McDonald where SCOTUS said that banning entire classes of weapons in common use is not allowed... they still try to ban all semi-automatic rifles, etc... The government knows that even if they pass laws in direct violation of SCOTUS decisions, once those laws are on the books it still takes tons of time/money to challenge them.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Ok, so out of interest, I remember hearing that lanza did use a ar-15 at the school shooting, then he didn't, so which was it?? Because here are two totally different stories

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/adam-lanza-sandy-hook-magazines-magpul_n_4344175.html

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

I know this was a while ago, but which is it??? I remember seeing video of the investigation immediately following the shooting and they said a assault rifle was used. I know this is old news, but why is there so much descepency with this info, according to the first story posted there were so many empty rifle rounds you couldn't even walk in the school, and the second story was just hand guns.....does anyone know what this is about?

I would like to know why there is even this discrepancy, is it that much of a challenge to figure out, or do they want us to believe untrue info?

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

it was his mother's legally purchased ar-15 that he stole from her, legal in ct at the time, to buy , to own and to use.

it wasn't the gun, it was the nut job behind it . . . .

increase background checks, but do it responsibly, she is dead, but sad to say I do believe she should have seen the potential and taken steps to avoid it by locking and hiding the key from her son.

there is nothing to fear from a gun that is in the right hands. (even an ar-15)
nothing to fear. *IF* it is in the right hands. and if it is in the wrong hands, then it sure would be good to have soemone nearby who had the same capability.

as the cops say and train for : "Meet force with equal force and drive on"

you just can't do that if the law abiding citizen is disarmed and has to face an attacker who is fully armed.

that's a conundrum that i don't want to have to face.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/watch-gun-owners-burn-registration-forms/

watch the third video down

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Ok, they want to do it again.

Think about it. The police dept. will have to change their capacity too.

New York State did the same thing what is good for one should be good for the other.

All the comments in favor of the crazy bill should look around at the other states.

Let's hope our governor realizes that the NJ State police and other law enforcement officials will and should by the law if passed.

Enough is enough.

Charlie

Charlie Charlie
Mar '14

Now that we have citizens defying law and not registering or in some cases surrendering their previously-legal weapons in some states, the states will eventually have no choice but to start confiscation exercises, in one way or another. Things are going to start getting very ugly from here on out.

Don't say I didn't warn you. Where are all the "we don't want to take your guns" people hiding now?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

People keep mentioning the "well regulated militia" and what it means or does not mean. I take my meaning from history and what the "well regulated militia" was at the time - because I believe that what they were doing at the time the amendment was written would (obviously, to me anyway) best describe what they meant.

So, what WAS the "well regulated militia?" It was simply men and young boys trained in the proper use of firearms. If you read history they were groups, with a "leader" that would practice and march and clean/work on their guns. They were fathers, sons, neighbors, your boss, your pastor and they guy who owned the hardware store on the corner who were keeping themselves "on the ready" to defend their families, their town, their state or their country. These were not soldiers as most gun grabbers like to suggest. They were townsfolk who were ready to help the local police and military OR fight AGAINST them if tyranny took over.

Even though I don't think women should be in combat (yeah I know I should because I am a girl!) but I know there is no way I would be able to carry my male comrade over my shoulder, out of the jungle after he got shot by the enemy - and I don't think that's fair to the men. BUT I do think that all women (and men) should be properly trained in the PROPER use of a firearm and should be ready to fight if something were to happen.

I believe that part of the reason for all these shootings going on (when there are less guns around than there were before when nobody was shooting up schools) is because of the LACK of education regarding firearms, coupled with half the kids of today on mind-altering medications AND parents who are so busy working and dating that the teens are neglected and nobody notices when there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Education, not confiscation is the answer. Confiscation is exactly what the 2nd amendment was designed to fight against.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Intimidation has begun...

SAN DIEGO – With a search warrant in hand, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confiscated computers, customer lists and the questionable polymer 80 percent lower receivers from four Ares Armor store locations throughout San Diego County over the weekend.

“There were women and children inside our retail establishment when the (ATF) agents came in with guns drawn,” said Ares Armor Executive Officer Dimitrios Karras. “They came into our firearms manufacturing facility saying, ‘Arms up!’ like they were invading Iraq.”

The raid happened three days after Ares owner was granted a temporary restraining by a judge to stop ATF agents from searching their stores.

The ATF confirmed they were investigating the stores for federal firearm violations stemming from the sale of a new plastic version of the 80 percent lowers, which gun enthusiast use to build their own AR-15 rifles.

Building a rifle with specific versions of the 80 percent receivers is legal. The polymer lower receiver appears to be manufactured differently with two parts, making them a firearm and illegal sell, according to the ATF.

“We did ask the court to clarify if these things were firearms or not,” said Karras. “We did ask for protection as this gets resolved within the court system.”

Karras said they had their polymer lower receivers locked in a closet ready to turn over to the ATF since Wednesday. He was more concerned about the federal agents taking lists of his customers’ information.

“If anybody is a criminal organization that should be investigated, I think they should look in the mirror. We gave them a black eye publicly,” Karras said. “They tried to do an underhanded deal with us. They said, ‘Hey hush, hush. Keep it secret and nobody’s going to know that we took the customer list from you. Nobody’s going to know we took this from you.’”

The investigation has some customers nervous about their right to bear arms.

“I’m on that list, and I’m waiting for the knock on the door to tell me they are here to remove my second amendment rights,” one customer told Fox 5.



Read more: http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/17/feds-raid-gun-parts-stores-despite-court-order/#ixzz2wQvE2dwX

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

"Think about it. The police dept. will have to change their capacity too."

Police (active and retired) are specifically exempt from these capacity limitations.

How convenient that the chairman of the assembly committee that passed the bill (Charles Mainor) is a police detective in Jersey City - exempting himself from the very laws that he is passing.

This is the same Charles Mainor that stopped a vote for last year's gun control bills *in the middle of the roll call* because they wouldn't have had enough yes votes. They then re-assigned that bill to a completely different committee with enough Democrat members to ram it through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7ZwQf5EZQE

This is the same Charles Mainor that wants to vote on bills *BEFORE* hearing any public comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouNuaMdXmyM



Representative government, my ass...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

I forgot to mention that my dad told me that he used to have rifle shooting in school! All his friends had guns and he said not once, ever, did anyone ever shoot anybody - ever. Although he did say there was a kid in his town who shot his own pinky toe off one summer when he was walking barefoot in the woods to hunt squirrels. His name was Charlie Baker and they nicknamed him "nine-toed Chuck" haha! Dad showed me his yearbook and under Charlie's picture it said "AKA Nine-Toed Chuck." Guess nobody freaked out about it like they would now.

I could only imagine if one of my friends shot their toe off -- Geez, all the cable news channels would be here, probably the FBI, CIA and I'm sure Obama would hold a press conference, while holding up a severed toe, stating "This, people, is what guns do to children." Am I right???

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Emily, you are absolutely correct. I applaud your interest In guns and more importantly your knowledge of the real reasons the constitution was created.

I feel this rise we are seeing is both because of a rise in mental health issues, as well, bigger yet, that fact you can become a instant celebrity. This is the medias fault. If we held whole family accountable for a close family member commiting a mass shooting, I wonder if they would still happen? I honestly feel it is a form of suicide but people are now realizing, thanks to the media, there is a way for them to go out with a bang and let everyone know who they are.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

I tried to post this on my phone, but I do not see it showing up.

Emily, you are absolutely correct. I applaud your interest in firearms and more importantly your knowledge of the real reasons the 2nd amendment was created.

I feel this rise we are seeing is both because of a rise in mental health issues, as well, bigger yet, the fact that you can become a instant celebrity. This is the media's fault. If we held whole families accountable for a close family member committing a mass shooting, I wonder if they would happen as much? I honestly feel a person committing a mass shooting is a form of suicide, people are now realizing, thanks to the media, there is a way for them to go out with a bang and have everyone know who they are. If the media would stop making everyone who does this a celebrity I would guarantee we would see a decrease in this.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Thanks Darrin. It just makes me so mad when gun control people make anyone who owns a firearm out to be the next mass murderer. My dad got his first gun when he was 7 years old. In today's age my grandparents would probably be put in prison for "child endangerment" or something. It just really ticks me off when I see how far we have come -- from every able bodied citizen owning a firearm to anybody who owns one must be either a whack-job, conspiracy theorist, or a gang banger. That's what the Democrats and Progressives are trying to make the dumb people of this country believe. From a couple of the posts on this site, it seems it's working with some people. I find that it's usually the people that wouldn't know a semi-auto handgun from a muzzleloader rifle that have the most to say about guns. Seems to me, if you don't know what your talking about you should refrain from giving an opinion until you are educated and can make an educated argument. Just saying...

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

"Seems to me, if you don't know what your talking about you should refrain from giving an opinion until you are educated and can make an educated argument."

+1 emily. I hold nothing against those who aren't knowledgeable regarding firearms. There are a lot of things I don't know about... but then I don't go around trying to change state/federal laws on the things I don't understand.

This is well evidenced by people like California State Senator Kevin De Leon stating some guns can fire a "30 magazine clip in half a second” It's just a gibberish statement, but he managed to get all the scary words in there...

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/01/21/california-democrat-decries-30-caliber-magazine-clip-guns-in-stunning-display-of-idiocy-n1782105/page/full

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

+1 emily, you are awesome

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

From ANJRPC email:



ASSEMBLY PASSES A2006 GUN BAN / MAG BAN

Passes A2777 Without Amendment to Restore Judicial Discretion on Firearms Transportation


This afternoon, the New Jersey Assembly passed A2006 (gun ban / mag ban) on a partisan vote of 46-31. The Assembly also passed A2777 (reasonable deviations in firearms transportation) without the simple one-word amendment that would have made it an incremental improvement over existing law instead of making it worse, on a partisan vote of 42-29 with 4 abstentions.

Full attention is now on the state Senate, which could take the legislation up next week. Please continue to contact every State Senator by email, and your State Senator by phone and fax, and urge them to oppose S993 (gun ban / mag ban). Please also continue to contact Governor Christie with the same message.

Today's Assembly proceedings can be viewed here (select Thursday, March 20, 2014 when it becomes available, then click "view"). In a subsequent alert, we will publish the full voting list on A2006 and A2777.

The following Assembly members made pro-Second Amendment floor speeches in defense of freedom, in the following order:

Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll (R-25)
Assemblyman Parker Space (R-24)
Assemblywoman Alison McHose (R-24)
Assemblyman David Rible (R-30)
Assembly Minority Leader John Bramnick (R-21)

Please watch for further updates on impending Senate action in the next few days.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

My interpretation is that partisan vote = Christie will veto both of these bills.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Yup, just got a call from the NRA regarding A2006 and A2777 passing. Hubby and I will be emailing a calling for sure.

Calico696 Calico696
Mar '14

But what happens when Christie ISN'T over gov anymore? And especially if it's a democrat instead? They will re-introduce these bills every single year until they pass into law, or until republicans and/or independents can take over state congress. In this state, that is a very tall order.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Besides... Christie hasn't actually had much of a history of being pro 2nd Amendment, has he? I wouldn't be surprised if he signed them, to be honest. He probably won't, because he still has delusions about a Presidential run, I'm sure, and that would be political suicide, obviously. But he WANTS to sign them...

I also think the ratio of Dems to Reps in this State is growing every day; it's a losing battle. The 2nd Amendment is going to continue to be gutted in this state until someone submits a formal Constitutional challenge to SCOTUS and they have the stones to hear arguments and act on it. It's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better.

ianimal ianimal
Mar '14

Christie vetoed some of the more obnoxious bills last year (FID tied to driver's license, 50 cal ban, etc.)

NJ will definitely be the most stubborn state... but keep your head up, even Hawaii took a small step towards becoming shall issue CCW today.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-ninth-circuit-makes-hawaii-shall-issue-state/

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

ia,

Totally agree 100% on your last post.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

I'm ordering my "I will not comply" t-shirt right now - just in case Christie is as dumb as these other tyrannical idiots. I think it's more about power than guns. They just like to screw with Constitution loving Americans - especially if they happen to be Christians - because they know we are a bunch of hard working people who don't have time to march or occupy anything because we are busy working, getting good grades, doing things with our families, going to church and volunteering our time. Unlike the LGBT, and other progressive groups who seem to have all the time in the world to march, assemble, occupy and yell. They seem to get a pass and get their way. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say.

Time to start squeaking.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

I've been squeaking for years.... glad to see the crowd is finally growing!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Jr, yes the crowd is growing but I still think it is all too late. These congress dummies have already made up their mind on the way they want the laws to go. They have a hidden agenda that we do not know about. Over the next few months we will be turned into criminals with the new laws. And that is just what they want, they want to throw so many laws at us that the law abiding citizen gives up because it is too much, and then they will put us all over the news as criminals

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

All the while right down the street from the state house, there are still plenty of drugs, thugs, and illegal guns despite the laws that get passed.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Of course Mark, But that adds fuel to their fire, they want to use this double standard to their advantage to disarm law abiding citizens.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Ironic, isn't it Mark Mc.? All the gang members in Trenton, Newark, Camden, etc., will have all the guns, ammo and clips of whatever size they want. But my straight A, church youth band member, animal shelter volunteering little brother, who wouldn't hurt a fly will be a criminal and will have to tun in his clips he uses for target practice - or become an instant FELON! Crazy. The whole thing is upside down and backwards.

I don't understand why the police can't do something to help. If the state and local police would stand up and explain to these dummies who they would rather have possessing guns (most police I and my family have talked to are fine with law-abiding, well-trained citizens being armed) I think the politicians would listen to them - there is no way they could make the ENTIRE NJ police force look like nut-cases, like they have the entire 2nd Amendment crowd.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Unfortunately it happened in Connecticut Emily. They have a agenda, and they don;t care who says what.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/breaking-conn-police-officers-refuse-to-confiscate-will-not-be-party-to-the-oppression-of-the-people_032014

Particularly:

"Connecticut faces massive civilian resistance, with police officers refusing to enforce a law that to most citizens crosses a line that is unacceptable in a free society"

The police are, or at least were, refusing to abide to the new law.....yet the law is still in place?

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Maybe if they got involved BEFORE the law was passed - like when it was first presented. If a bunch of well-respected state police officers and local police chiefs would speak in Trenton or go on TV I think it would help. Also, they should be saying NOW that IF the law passes they will NOT abide by this law. And it has to be all of them banning together not just a few who the politicians will lump in with the "whacko gun people." I think it's too late to wait till a law passes (while saying nothing or very little while it's being tossed around) and then refusing to abide by it.

Where were those cops for the 2 years this thing was going through the process of passing? Here in NJ this clip issue has been around for a while and just now people are getting concerned. Why always wait till it passes the 1st step - or in the case of Connecticut, all steps to completion - and then complain?

I would like to see multiple busloads of state and local police, municipal judges, prosecutors, etc swarming Trenton and speaking out. I think that would go much farther than a bunch of citizens.

My dad went a few years ago with an NRA group and had the podium for 20 minutes. All the major news outlets were there with cameras rolling. He spoke, the guy from the NRA spoke, a guy from a 2nd Amendment group spoke - and guess what? NONE of that made it on the news. The ONLY thing one newscast (out of about 8 that were there) showed was the one weirdo guy who sounded like a nut and made no sense at all. I think they did that totally on purpose.

I don't think they could ignore busloads of state and local police!

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

WOW.... CT about to get ugly... I just another story this morning where CT police confiscated the guns of a guy who was going thru alcohol rehab... because depression is a side effect of rehab. Nice, eh? Problem is, getting firearms back is extremely difficult to do, lots of time and red tape... if the firearms aren't destroyed first.

(I'm sure the gun grabbers here would have no problem with anyone that has ever been depressed being prohibited from ever owning firearms.)

Love that quote: "refusing to enforce a law that to most citizens crosses a line that is UNACCEPTABLE IN A FREE SOCIETY"

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Interesting.... where are all the gun grabbers on this forum??? Haven't heard from them in DAYS....

-crickets-

Their silence speaks VOLUMES. "We don't want to take your guns" is a LIE, or at best a gross ignorance on their part.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Can you get an FID card in NJ if you check "yes" to the question "Are you an alcoholic?". My guess would be no...

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

"He spoke, the guy from the NRA spoke, a guy from a 2nd Amendment group spoke - and guess what? NONE of that made it on the news. The ONLY thing one newscast (out of about 8 that were there) showed was the one weirdo guy who sounded like a nut and made no sense at all. I think they did that totally on purpose. "

And there you go, my point exactly, media has a agenda that is fueled by the government, who obviously have a agenda we all know, complete confiscation.

First they will make us felons for not abiding, then they will take our guns because we are felons.

The problem is, no cop has the balls to speak out, especially not in bus loads. To speak out against law is completely against the code of conduct for a police officer, they are to abide and uphold any and all laws. I could see it working, but getting it to happen is the problem.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Interesting.... where are all the gun grabbers on this forum??? Haven't heard from them in DAYS...

This is because they have learned we have our facts straight, they are more then welcome to come on here with their ridiculous statements, which we will face with FACTS.

I think at this point, they just know better, they will just keep cackling about it like a bunch of school children under some pet forum or something.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

"Unlike the LGBT, and other progressive groups who seem to have all the time in the world to march, assemble, occupy and yell. They seem to get a pass and get their way. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. "

This good Christian certainly had plenty of time to "squeak", picketing over 53,000 events... glad he finally got "greased".

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/us/westboro-church-founder-dead/

ianimal ianimal
Mar '14

jr - please link the story of the confiscation you mentioned? i can't find it

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Your comment would make more sense if by "greased" you meant killed, but he died of natural causes.......

"The 84-year-old died of natural causes at 11:15 p.m. Wednesday, according to church spokesman Steve Drain."

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Oh paaaaleeez! If the only example you have is of ONE fruitcake who calls himself a Christian. The church was founded in 1955...and in all that time they only ever had about 80 members at any given time - mostly made up of families. So really they had maybe 30 families at a time. They were known fro being fruitcakes and even the Christian and Catholic churches said they were nuts.

Why even bring them up??? Is that all you got?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Darrin, I gotta work with the material I'm given. Certain literary license must be employed in some cases. Try not to read too deeply into these things (-;

ianimal ianimal
Mar '14

I think I like emily, hope she is not really a dude, I would hate for that to happen again!

" Phelps had advocated for gays and lesbians to be put to death." Geez this guy was hardcore!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

I'm sorry, Emily... did you not also lump an entire community of people into a single example? Do you not like when it gets turned around on you?

Do you think every gay person in this country spends all of his or her time marching in parades? Do you think that they are not hard-working Constitution-loving Americans who deserve the same rights as you? Even as some would try to alter the Constitution to DENY them those same rights?

Paaaleeez is right.

ianimal ianimal
Mar '14

ianimal, you are on the wrong forum.....go to the gay pride one!

http://alerts.cnn.com/2014/03/13/us/north-carolina-500-pound-boar/?iref=obinsite\

I am surprised to see CNN running this, considering the guy used a scary AR-10 to hunt......I thought that semi-automatic rifles are never used to hunt.....OHHHHH, that's just want politicians WANT us to believe!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

I try to bring ignorance into the light wherever I find it, my friend... besides, I agree with you guys about guns. How will I get my daily quota of pointless argument if I don't find something to argue about? (-;

ianimal ianimal
Mar '14

I understand, but guns are our 2nd amendment right and freedom of religion would be our first amendment right.
You can't fault someone because their religion is against gays, that would be unconstitutional as would be the confiscation of guns.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Um, ianimal...your question was : I'm sorry, Emily... did you not also lump an entire community of people into a single example?

I lumped an entire half the country into a single example -- like a million people. How many people are in the LGBT, Progressive movement and consider themselves Democrats - -MILLIONS! You choose ONE GUY? One nutty guy with 80 followers against the LGBT group, the Progressive movement and all Democrats???? Give me a break. You really need to get real. That was by far the lamest most impotent argument I have ever heard.

And to all those questioning who/what I am - yes I am really a girl. I am on home instruction because of Lyme Disease - which is why I'm not in school for a few weeks. I know I sound like an old, white guy sitting in boxers and a dirty undershirt with a tin-foil hat on my head (lol!!!) but I assure you I am a girl! Don't want to get too specific cause I'm sure our family is on Obama's "terrorist watch list," haha! I was just raised to think with my head and not run on emotion and feelings. I was also raised to educate myself before making dumb comments - I won't mention who I'm talking about ^^^^^

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

JACKPOT! We found a keeper!

You do not see many women well educated in the field of guns, it's nice to find someone who obviously has their facts straight.

How long have you had lymes? I had it once and had to go on nasty meds for weeks, but it cleared up, as I went on the meds right after I got bit and saw the mark.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

"How many people are in the LGBT, Progressive movement and consider themselves Democrats - -MILLIONS! You choose ONE GUY? One nutty guy with 80 followers against the LGBT group, the Progressive movement and all Democrats???? Give me a break. You really need to get real. That was by far the lamest most impotent argument I have ever heard."

OK, I'll play along... how many people are in the anti-LGBT, anti-progressive movement and consider themselves conservative Christian Republicans? It's a hell of a lot more than one nutty guy. It's a hell of a lot more than the pro-LGBT side.

And all of those LGBT marches you speak of, how many counterdemonstrators are typically there? It's a hell of a lot more than the Westboro Baptist Church.

The problem with "self-education" is that you tend to concentrate on that which coincides with your own existing prejudices and you never really "learn" anything new. Too bad...

ianimal ianimal
Mar '14

Well I have been to a number of LGBT marches as my sister happens to be gay and lives in in the heart of San Francisco and my aunt is gay and lives on Fire Island full time (runs a hotel there as well) so I take exception to your "assumption" that I am some wet behind the ears Christian girl who knows nothing - -I probably know a lot more than you do. I happen to be very "educated" on this subject, thank you.

You ask..."And all of those LGBT marches you speak of, how many counter-demonstrators are typically there? It's a hell of a lot more than the Westboro Baptist Church."

Um, the last San Fran march had over 1 million marchers. The biggest gay pride parade in history was in Brazil (is actually in the Guinness Book of World records) and boast that 3.2 million people were in attendance as SUPPORTERS.

Usually there are a few protesters from various churches, anti-gay groups, and others but they are in the low thousands. Even sometimes hundreds (there are stats you can Google them to "educate" yourself.

You sound very one sided to me.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Hi Darrin - thanks for the compliment. I have had Lyme's since pre-school. I was misdiagnosed for 2 years so I now have flair-ups. It really stinks because when I feel good I feel really good - but when I have a flare I feel really, really sick. I get such fatigue and pain everywhere and severe headaches. Iv'e been to a bunch of Lyme doctors and infectious disease doctors and they say that it's going to be chronic.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

So, San Francisco and Brazil are your data points of reference? Those are what we call "outliers" in the data analysis world.

In most of the country, those numbers would be reversed (by percentage, if not actual quantity; obviously you aren't going to get a million people on either side in Little Rock, Arkansas or somewhere similar).

ianimal ianimal
Mar '14

oh man that sucks! When I had it, it never got that bad, I did feel some fatigue but I almost think that was the strong medication I was put on. I have known quite a few people that have it, my mom included and it really sucks!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Well, ianimal .. typical Liberal drivel. If you don't like the answer, simply change the question. You keep changing the reason for and point of your question. Instead of replying to what my answer you change the "reason" for the question. Not gonna work with me.

First you said - "Do you think every gay person in this country spends all of his or her time marching in parades"? And I showed you that yes, in fact a LARGE percentage do (over 1 million people at the average parade). Much larger than any other group. Give me one example of any march by any other group that had 1 million to 3.2 million in attendance - go ahead, try.

When you didn't like that answer you said gave me the example of ONE GUY with a following of 80 people.

Then you said - "And all of those LGBT marches you speak of, how many counterdemonstrators are typically there? To which I answered - no where near 1 million, more like 1,000.

You didn't want to hear that so then you said - "So, San Francisco and Brazil are your data points of reference? Those are what we call "outliers" in the data analysis world".

We were talking numbers of people...now we are talking "data analysis?" Do you really want to got there with me? I got lot's of data for you on this subject...where's yours? You seem to just keep asking questions. If you wanna talk data - I got plenty.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

So.. the example of ONE GUY is out of line (because he's obviously the only person who ever considered himself Christian and was virulently anti-gay... there aren't any other people like that walking the streets) but the example of ONE PLACE is indicative of a universal trend and perfectly acceptable? LOL, ok...

Over one million gay people at an "average" parade? Are you kidding?

And one million gay people on the streets in San Francisco isn't even necessarily a "parade"... they call it "lunchtime".

And one day your education will progress that you will realize that "talking numbers of people" and "data analysis" are one and the same.

And thanks for calling me "liberal"... that's almost as funny as the dopes who call me "conservative" because I support the 2nd amendment. One day, you'll also learn that there are plenty of people out there who have formed opinions on individual topics based on logic and reason and not simply for the sake of toeing some party line.

ianimal ianimal
Mar '14

BD,

The CT story I mentioned wasn't a news story... yet. It was posted on FB- by the person themselves- with photos- of CT police confiscating his weapons, and the reason why. I'm sure it'll become a news story, it's no doubt why he posted it on FB in the first place, social media moves faster than mainstream media. The Blaze, or another pro-2A website, will no doubt pick up the story first, if they haven't already. If I find it again, I'll post a link here.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

I never called you a Liberal. I said "typical Liberal drivel." Meaning that's what the talking points are for them. Pick ONE example against a ton and that't their argument.

I can see you just like to argue and incite instead of give "data" of your own. If you think there are just as many people marching, demonstrating, etc in the Christian world as are gay pride celebrations and other demonstrations, sit-ins etc I have a bridge to sell you.

Any idiot with a calculator (there's your "data analysis") can see that.

Still waiting for the ONE example of a march that came close to my 2 examples. Don't have any, do you? Nope, didn't think so or else you would have mentioned them somewhere along the line of your 4+ posts.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Just another log to add to the fire...

Here's another problem, Obama just last week tried to appoint Vivek Murthy, who believes everyone in the country who posses a firearms is mentally defective. He is trying to equivocate gun ownership to a health i.e. mental health issue. i.e. Since we like "dangerous" guns, their must be something wrong with all of us. Imagine, that the US President, tried to nominate a person in the highest level of medical authority in the country, who believes gun ownership is a form of mental illness - this is a slippery slope which we need to remain vigilant against. IMHO, "gun people" are the sanest people on this earth, since they believe in the preservation of human life.


It appears that the only reason Murthy was considered is his political support for Obama and left-wing causes. In 2008 he founded the group “Doctors for Obama” to help elect the president. After Obama’s election, Murthy renamed the group “Doctors for America” and supported massively expanding the federal government’s role in healthcare, and what eventually became the Affordable Care Act.
But that did not stir the NRA to opposition. Murthy also used this group to push gun control. For example, in 2012 he tweeted, “Tired of politicians playing politics [with] guns, putting lives at risk [because] they’re scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.”

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Not to mention that Murthy has almost no actual medical experience...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Calling Iman a liberal is proof how rabid the right can be.

Calling Iman "an idiot with a calculator," well, that's priceless :>)

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Reading this is all well and good, but calling your legislators would better help the cause.

USAfirst USAfirst
Mar '14

USAfirst,

Because..... you think we haven't already?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Man robs liquor store with AR-15 w/collapsible stock and 30-round magazine.

http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/news/local/mount-holly-liquor-store-robbed-by-armed-bandit/article_353d8966-efbe-5757-8c48-a5ba88a452ca.html


WHAT?!?!? HOW can this happen??? That gun is ILLEGAL!!! Because we have laws making those guns illegal this kind of thing shouldn't happen.... right?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Number one, emily... it wasn't a "march"; it was a parade. Assuming for a second that the "one million" number is correct, which it probably isn't, how many out of that million do you think were actually gay and not heterosexual family members or simply people who just like to watch a flamboyant party? There were probably 500,000 people at the St. Patrick's Day parade in NYC last week... do you think they were all (or even mostly) Irish? Were there more gays or Irish there? Who knows?

And what I originally asked you was "do you think that every gay person in America spends all their time marching in parades? " and I questioned your implication that all gay people were somehow less hard-working and Constitution-loving than Christians...but like a good little dittohead, you managed to sidestep that one and since I was too busy to do more than shoot off quick, short responses to your responses, I completely forgot the original point and we went round and round the merry-go-round, lol.

The issue isn't whether some of them go to one parade a year or two parades a year or ten parades a year. Lots of people go to parades for several different reasons. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 8,000,000 people visit the Vatican every year... I assume most of them are Catholic, but some might be gay Irish atheists who just like the architecture. Does that preclude them from being hard-working and Constitution loving in your eyes?

ianimal ianimal
Mar '14

Yeah...I just heard thousands of heads exploding. Wait, what?!? I though we BANNED those?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

emily...

Problem is, they're not exploding... they're smiling... because all is going as planned....

Where are the anti-gunners in this thread? -POOF!- gone...

I have said it before and I'll say it again- the only way to "ensure" that legal guns don't get used for crimes is to make ALL gun ownership illegal. Period. That IS the end game, despite what anyone says. They're either lying, or grossly ignorant.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

I have no idea where you are going or what you are blathering on about. The Vatican is a historical destination. Architects, Catholics, everyone that ever visits Italy goes there. What that has to do with the fact that the LGBT groups are more vocal and outspoken that most Christian groups is beyond me (or anyone else with a brain). You sound like one of those people that defend in any way possible - even if it makes no sense whatsoever.

Your posts have devolved right into the liberal talking points (oh, that's right your not a Lib, hahahaha!). No facts and answers every single question with a question - because you have NO answers. I am over even trying to reason with you - you obviously have tour anger and hatred out there for all to see and there is no talking to someone who only wants to make fun and spew BS. Now I see why nobody else bothered to respond -- it's totally pointless. There is no discussion, no debate just "well what about....? This is below my intelligence for sure.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Haha. Again you refuse to answer the question at hand, whether or not you truly believe that gay people are less hard working and Constitution loving than their Christian counterparts. But nice deflection... Rush would be proud.

And of course gay people would be more outspoken and vocal. They have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of and people are actively trying to discriminate against them. Only the true believers of their opponents would publicly voice their bigotry, because they don't care who knows that they're bigots. The rest spend their time posting their ignorance anonymously online.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

Oh this is rich....

Americans buy enough guns in 2 months to outfit the entire chinese and indian armies.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/americans-buy-enough-guns-in-last-two-months-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-army/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Best to buy as many as you can, while you still can. The guy who owns the place we buy our ammo said that Obama has been the best thing that ever happened to his business!

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

And by the way iPhone-imal...I don't answer stupid questions that have nothing to do with the argument. That's what your types always do. Change the subject. Ask some outrageous question and then name call. I am not playing that game. If you or your butt buddy ianimal want to keep to the issue I will answer. But I am not here to play some ridiculous game answering silly questions. You and he obviously have no real interest in my views - you just want to make a mockery of the whole thing. I will not lower myself, thank you.

Like someone else on here said - go start a gay pride topic and you can all agree with each other and pat each other on the back for being so "enlightened."

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

You just used the phrase "butt buddy" and you claim that you won't lower yourself? Obviously, it's bc you can't get much lower.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

Good call Gadfly, perhaps it was a Freudian slip?

positive positive
Mar '14

Lol, Emily... I was going to tell you that if you refer to people who aren't trying to take your guns or take your money and give it to someone else as a "liberal"... that you "might" be a bigot. But you could always use a slur such as "butt-buddy" and prove it to everyone before I even got the chance to. Way to take the bull by the horns.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

Ah!! Gun-grabbers have checked back in!!! But apparently, not to discuss the topic at hand.... curiouser and curiouser....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

"If you or your butt buddy ianimal"

Now I know for sure I like emily. Up till now only I have used such an expression. I love it!

Now now lets go back to playing nice. You guys ever notice that this happens in just about every forum? Hell it even happens in youtube comment sections. IMHO I think it mainly happens due to the lack of tone when expressing your feelings via text as opposed to in person. It's all just one big misunderstanding!

Also emily, most people are sitting this out cause wits battles can go on forever and only end by the better person giving up. Trust me I have involved in my fair share of them, probably even with imal somewhere in the past.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

some cops in Ct can't wait to get the order to go kick doors in and confiscate rifles -


“I’ve had contact with a police officer in my home town, I live in Branford, and his words straight out were, ‘I cannot wait to get the order to kick your door in,’” Cinque said.

“It happened on facebook… he posted to a thread on my wall,” Cinque said. “I have known him personally for 20 years. He was interacting with other friends of mine and it was directly about the video.”

In multiple screenshots captured from the lengthy conversation, Peterson continually argued that law enforcement were not obligated to defy unconstitutional laws. Instead, Peterson stated that he would follow any order given, even if it meant confiscating firearms from close friends.

“But like I said I didn’t make the law,” Peterson told Cinque. “But if it comes down to that then I guess we see how you would respond…”

“I’m not going for any warrants… but if my dept gets them and we have to serve them I will see you then.”

As the conversation’s audience continued to grow, Peterson repeated his pledge, telling multiple people that he would never hesitate to carry out confiscation.

“So if they make a law confiscating guns… You will enforce it?” a Cameron Smith asks in a separate screenshot as Peterson reiterates his stance.

Angered by comments pointing out the state’s unconstitutional law, Peterson goes as far as to say that he would love to knock down Smith’s door personally.

“I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun,” Peterson said. “Hey everyone Cameron is a criminal law breaking psycho.”

Receiving considerable backlash, Peterson quietly disabled his Facebook page following the conversation, although a screenshot was obtained beforehand.

Despite the inability of some officers to understand what a constitutional law entails, Cinque revealed that countless Conn. officers are opposed to the state’s ruling.

“As for the cops who will stand with the people… there are many,” Cinque said. “None have spoken publicly but in private i know many who do not like this one bit… they realize they are being used.”

“They are supporters of the Constitutional rights of the people, but they need to speak publicly soon.”

Officer Peterson’s mentality is eerily similar to that of Conn. State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance, who recently told one woman that he was “the master” after being asked about gun confiscation.

Although police have begun sending out letters demanding residents comply with the law, Second Amendment activists are standing by their line in the sand. As the police leadership takes its time to analyze the situation, one gun group is now demanding the law be enforced or repealed.

“If the state does not have the stomach to enforce these laws, then the legislature has until May 7th, 2014 to completely repeal these immoral edicts and let the residents of Connecticut return to their rightfully owned property and former exercise of constitutional rights and practices without any threat of State violence,” a press release from Connecticut Carry reads.

Just last month, gun blogger Mike Vanderboegh was informed that multiple cops and politicians wanted him “dead” for sending a 16,000 word email to the Conn. State Police and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. In the email, Vanderboegh warned that violence would surely unfold if officers attempted confiscation.

Despite denial by a few, the agenda of the country’s most powerful gun control groups has been thoroughly exposed. Only one month after the Sandy Hook shooting, rejected democrat proposals from New York’s SAFE Act gun bill were revealed to include outright gun confiscation. New York mayor Andrew Cuomo even publicly supported the idea, stating, ‘You could say confiscation is an option’ during an interview on station WGDJ.

Also last month, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Mayor John C. Tkazyik announced his resignation from Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) group, pointing out the group’s hidden gun confiscation agenda.

“Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens,” Tkazyik wrote. “Nearly 50 pro-Second Amendment mayors have left the organization. They left for the same reason I did.”

During a Moms Demand Action gun control rally last year, a group that recently merged with MAIG, Austin, Texas City Councilman Mike Martinez admitted that his group was pushing gun control in order to reach an outright ban as well.

Unfortunately for them, even with tens of millions of dollars, the popularity of such groups continues to plummet even faster than the country’s gun crime.

This article was posted: Monday, March 10, 2014 at 9:42 am

UPDATE: Since the release of this article, Branford Police have confirmed that Officer Peterson has been placed on paid leave while an internal investigation is carried out.

http://www.infowars.com/conn-cop-i-will-kick-down-doors-to-confiscate-guns/

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

"Peterson stated that he would follow any order given, even if it meant confiscating firearms from close friends."

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

I think all the police who plan on standing up for the Constitution should lock all the gun-grabbing, tyrannical cops that are planning to break in doors in a jail cell as criminals. What we need are a few brave cops to arrest their own for crimes against humanity and we need a few good judges who will either fine or convict them. Not sure exactly how it would go down - but there's got to be a way.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

This cop Peterson better hope he isn't first through the breach....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Police who do their job - enforce the law as written - aren't the problem (although this particular officer seems to have his own agenda). What else would anyone expect from an officer of the law? Surely you don't want every officer picking and choosing what they enforce based on their own personal agendas?

Bad laws are the problem, and so any anger and action should be directed at the legislature, and of course the judiciary that rubber stamps the idiocy due to political agendas. I would hope, however, that common sense prevails before someone gets hurt over this. Taking the steps CT has is very dangerous, in addition to being very stupid.

justintime justintime
Mar '14

Somehow I didn't catch this on the news, but at least one politician from NJ is vocal about the nonsense of this proposal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVrUf-GDPec

Joe M Joe M
Mar '14

Great link Joe. It should be forcefully played on every tv station using the emergency broadcasting system just so everyone can hear the perspective.

justintime justintime
Mar '14

JR, if you're referring to me, I'm not a "gun grabber" or "anti-gunner". I haven't been involved in this thread bc 1. I don't have much opinion on the move from 15 to 10 rounds, and 2. This has been one of the most inane threads in the history of HL. However, I do despise people throwing hateful slurs around, so I thought I'd check in.

But please, don't let me interrupt this very intelligent discussion. Maybe Emily could tell us more about how the good cops should arrest all of the bad cops for conspiring to enforce the law of the land. Or perhaps Darrin could tell us about some of the many "wits battles" he's been in and how the only way to win them is to keep posting until the other person gets tired.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

I didn't say the "good cops should arrest the bad cops" that's just stupid. Even as a 16 year old I know that! What I said was; the cops that are not following the Constitution (which by the way is SUPPOSED TO BE the law of the land) should be arrested for not following the law. Just like a President is supposed to be impeached for not following the Constitution (law), even though Obama seems to get a pass.

The problem is, the Constitution of the United States of America is supposed to be what all laws are based upon. You and most Americans have forgotten (or don't understand) that. If a law violates the Constitution (as I feel this whole gun issue does -- as it is certainly "infringing" on my ability to arm myself properly), then it is an illegal law and should not be followed. Just like, say if some Senator from Vermont decided certain individuals had no 1st amendment rights in that state and somehow got a vote on it and it passed - that would violate the Constitution and should not be followed by anyone claiming to "uphold the law," even if a bunch of idiots voted on it and they paid the governor off enough to sign it.

Now we get into "who's" law? They didn't even bother to amend the 2nd Amendment -- just went ahead and "decided" what they want it to mean. So, is the Constitution of the United States of America what we base our laws on or should we base our laws on the whim of some Senator or Governor or worse yet, some rogue President who has a pen?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

"This has been one of the most inane threads in the history of HL"

Lol then you haven't been around long enough! I give credit to Mother Nature, and to Myers-Briggs for trying to qualify why these kinds of threads happen.

justintime justintime
Mar '14

gadfly

"I don't have much opinion on the change from 15 rounds to 10 rounds"..... means exactly... what? Certainly you HAVE an opinion, as you have been as "rabid" on this topic in the past as the pro-2A have been.

(not that I care what your opinion is, just trying to get you to "out" it.... no pun intended)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Gladfy....for someone who doesn't want to get involed you have one hell of a way of insulting everyone in one shot.....get lost! !!!

And for the record you turned what I said around to make it more appealing to your point, childish really!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

I said " and only end by the better person giving up"

Which is the complete OPPOSITE of how you portray it....so go away, I do have time for bullcrap childs play like that.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

I have said it before and I'll say it again- the only way to "ensure" that illegal guns don't get used for crimes is to make ALL gun ownership legal. Period. Any kind of gun, any kind of person. Everything legal. Nothing illegal. It's in the Constitution and anything less is tyranny. The answer has always been more guns. How to stop mass murders in schools? Teachers with guns. Bank Robberies? Tellers with guns. Prostitution? Tail gunners. How to stop bad guys with bad guns or good guys with good guns who become bad guys with good guns or good guys on a bad day with a good gun? More guns. How to stop more guns? More guns. Bigger guns. Guns that blow things up. Fat guns, skinny guns, even kid-guns that go pop pop. That IS the end game, despite what anyone says. They're either lying, or grossly ignorant.

I think I might have read that somewhere on the NRA page, I'm not sure.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Reductio ad absurdum?

Joe M Joe M
Mar '14

I'm pretty sure I heard that in a speech LaPierre gave after one of the recent mass shootings.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

JR, my position on gun control is pretty moderate. The only people that would consider my opinions "rabid" are extremists on one side or the other. I recall one time arguing that the second amendment rights to bear arms may be limited without violating the constitution and that most people would agree. Surely, I argued, no one would interpret the second amendment broadly enough to protect an individuals right to own nuclear weapons. As I recall, you refused to acknowledge even that limitation on second amendment rights. So, I have to ask. Who's the rabid extremist?

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

You mean Peppy Lapew? Like the Peppy quotes from CPAC excerpted by Media Matters on: "Five Laughably Paranoid Claims From NRA's Wayne LaPierre At CPAC"

"All across America, everywhere I go, people come up to me, and they say, 'Wayne, I've never been worried about this country until now.' And they say it not with anger, but they say it with sadness in their eyes. 'I've never been worried about this country until now.' We're worried about the economic crisis choking our budgets and shrinking our retirement, we're worried about providing decent healthcare and a college education for our own children. We fear for the safety of our families. It's why neighborhood streets that were once filled with bicycles and skateboards and laughter in the air now sit empty and silent. In virtually every way, for the things we care about most, we feel profound loss. We're sad, not because we fear something is going wrong, but because we know something already has gone wrong."

Yes, yes, the streets of Hackettstown are vacant, tumbleweeds blow down Main. The children don't laugh anymore :>( Only more guns can help.

"It's why more and more Americans are buying firearms and ammunition. Not to cause trouble, but because that America is already in trouble. We know that sooner or later reckless government actions and policies have consequences, that when government corrupts the truth and breaks faith with the American people, the entire fabric of society, everything we believe in and count on, is then in jeopardy."

And then the children can laugh again!! And buy more guns. :>)

"One of America's greatest threats is a national news media that fails to provide a level playing field for the truth. Now it's all entertainment, ratings, personal celebrity, the next sensational story, and the deliberate spinning and purposeful use of words and language, truth be damned, to advance their own agenda. You see it every day in this country. And here's how you know the media is lying: they still call themselves journalists. I'll tell you they've never been honest about the NRA. They hate us. Just for saying out loud and sticking up for what we believe. As if we have no right. So they try to ridicule us into oblivion or shame us into submission. But their moral indignation, it should be directed right into their own makeup mirrors. The media's intentional corruption of the truth is an abomination. And NRA members will never, and I mean never, submit or surrender to the national media."

By the way, have you seen our new website design, nra.org ? It's the most sophisticated high tech media cyberspace extravaganza to ever punctuate a pixel. Why it's slicker than deer guts on the doorknob. We hired a the world's premier media spinmeister specialist to advance our agenda.....what....oh right, right. ummm, never mind. It's just sumptin my kid whipped up on his iPhone. Uh, where was I.

"We don't trust government, because government itself has proven unworthy of our trust. We trust ourselves and we trust what we know in our hearts to be right. We trust our freedom. In this uncertain world, surrounded by lies and corruption everywhere you look, there is no greater freedom than the right to survive and protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns, and handguns we want. We know in the world that surrounds us there are terrorists and there are home invaders, drug cartels, carjackers, knockout gamers, and rapers, and haters, and campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse our society that sustains us all."

Like in Hackettstown where we too are surrounded by: "terrorists and there are home invaders, drug cartels, carjackers, knockout gamers, and rapers, and haters, and campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse our society that sustains us all." (psssst: this is when you are supposed to go out and place your orders for guns and ammo. Wayne has done what he is paid for, so let's wrap er up)

"This election, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise, it's going to be a bare-knuckled street fight. They're going after every House seat, every Senate seat, every governor's chair, every statehouse they can get their hands on. And they're laying the groundwork to put another Clinton back in the White House. They fully intend to finish the job, to fulfill their commitment, their dream, of fundamentally transforming America. Into an America that I guarantee you won't recognize. But mark my words -- the NRA will not go quietly into the night. We will fight. I promise you that."

Uh, Wayne. Americans with guns at home faired really, really, really badly in that affair you took the quote from..............

So what's Wayne's point kids?

1. "America Becoming Too Dangerous For Children To Play Outside"
2. "Americans Buying Guns Because Of "Reckless Government Actions" And Because The "Entire Fabric Of Society" Is In "Jeopardy""
3. "The National Media Is One Of America's "Greatest Threats"
4. ""Knockout Gamers" And "Haters" Just Two Reasons We Need Unlimited Rifles, Shotguns, And Pistols (Also "Waves Of Chemicals" Could Collapse Society At Any Moment)"
5. ""Independence Day" At Speech's Emotional Peak: The NRA "Will Not Go Quietly Into The Night!""

So we got the plea, we got the pitch, and we closed on the life or death ultimatum misplaced movie quote. Or, it's all over, you're doomed, buy guns, and viva Will Smith!

But I ask you gun advocates. Is this why you bought your last gun? Is this what you are all about?

Because I think this loon is funnier than Joe Biden on 2-4-1 draft night.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Wow. Stretch Armstrong didn't even distort as much as this thread has.

justintime justintime
Mar '14

Um, Gadfly...The second amendment gives the right to bear "arms" which means "firearm." Only an complete idiot would even use the word nuclear weapon and firearm in the same sentence. Talk about moronic.

That said...the "well regulated militia" or trained townsfolk, should have the same weapons used by the military. The 2nd amendment specifically states that the militia should be armed in the same capacity as the US military. So, therefor, I should be able to have a machine gun, according to the 2nd amendment.

Maybe you should read the entire 2nd amendment it in it's entirety before you comment so you could get a sense of what the writers intended at the time. It's obvious you only know a portion of what you think it says.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

"they've never been honest about the NRA. They hate us. Just for saying out loud and sticking up for what we believe. As if we have no right. So they try to ridicule us into oblivion or shame us into submission. "

mr g has just proved this claim true with his last post, he hates everything the nra does, just because it's from the nra. talk about bigoted behavior, there it is in back and white for you all to see for yourselves

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Yes, yes, I have proven my hatred and especially my bigotry?? by quoting their leader. Oh the inhumanity of it all.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

I believe Mr. G is beginning to understand, this is a Government of the people, by the people with the right to uphold and defend the Constitution The second amendment is one way to do it, if necessary and may we always keep that option open.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

No Old Gent. misterg was being, well, misterg. The post I think you are referring to (from about 5 hours ago) was 100% sarcasm.

The only thing he understands is how to be a childish wise ass who gets his kicks from tweaking others who disagree with him.

justintime justintime
Mar '14

media matters using cherry picked out of context quotes, with fantastical agenda driven spin is wrong headed. media matters? that's the source? give me a break already with their agenda driven progressive George Soros funded liberal squawk box of inanities. they and msnbc don't like the guy, media matters and msnbc don't like the nra, we get that.

it's their own hatred poorly disguised in a typical cloak of absurd ridicule and is chosen by them to attempt to shame and denigrate the nra.

guess what? it's not working.

over 5 million regular everyday americans are who makes up the NRA. they are your friends, your family, your neighbors, your colleagues at work, maybe you boss, or maybe your employees, NRA members have jobs, they own homes, and raise families. they have children who go to school with your children. they are people you care about, and membership in the NRA is growing. it is a healthy vibrant organization that has a message and purpose that resonates with americans. too bad the Hungarian billionaire George Soro's mouthpiece media matters, msnbc and their ilk keep missing the boat on this organization's charter and purpose.

the bill of rights should be taken in it's whole seriously, the whole document, not just the 1st, 4th , 5th and 14th amendments, but all of them, not just the convenient parts

what part of 'shall not be infringed' is so hard for the progressives to understand?

emily1 is spot on and quite correct in her comments, the rest of you older people could learn a thing or two from her. please try.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

thank you for the spontaneous exclamation. there is a lot truth in this honest ex-parte' admission -

"Yes, yes, I have proven my hatred and especially my bigotry"

self-awareness is the first step in dealing with a problem, i stand by ready to help with the rehab program.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

1. Yes, yes, yes, I am beginning to understand. If I just close my eyes and click my heels three times......

2. "The only thing he understands is how to be a childish wise ass who gets his kicks from tweaking others who disagree with him."
Sticks n stones mate, sticks and stones.

3. No, Wayne LaPierre is the source. Cherry pick? Out of context? Did you see how long they were? It was most of the major points of the speech. What out of context, they are the context. Get a grip on what your faderland espouses on your behalf, oh owner of the NRA. And it's not that I don't respect the 2nd, I do. I just don't respect Wayne at all, he is a paid-for shill for the gunmakers, and therefore respect the NRA very little. I respect NRA members but not NRA funders who pull Wayne's strings, there's a difference.

Here's the whole speech so you can judge the cherry pickin, out of contextin, spinnin. And who's doin it. Why it's Peppy Lappew.

It’s great to be here today, thanks for having me. I really appreciate your warm welcome.

There must be some NRA members out there! To each of you, I thank you for being here with me and for your support and vigilance in defending our freedom. You and NRA members all over the country have made a real difference in making this nation and our freedoms safer.

A little over a year ago, the NRA offered a simple, honest and effective proposal to make our schools safer. The political and media elites responded by calling me just about every nasty name in the book. You remember.

But Americans responded differently. In city after county after school board after statehouse, teachers, parents, police and legislators agreed with us and put armed security safeguards in place.

History has proven again the truth that President Obama and anti-freedom activists everywhere deny and try to suppress — the truth that firearms in the hands of good people save lives.

The political elites can’t escape and the darlings of the liberal media can’t change the God-given right of good people to protect themselves. For that fundamental human right, the NRA stands unflinching and unapologetic. And in defense of our freedom,

NRA’s 5 million members and America’s 100 million gun owners will not back down — not now, not ever!

Freedom has never needed our defense more than now. Almost everywhere you look, something has gone wrong.

You feel it in your heart, you know it in your gut. Something has gone wrong. The core values we believe in, the things we care about most, are changing. Eroding.

Our right to speak. Our right to gather. Our right to privacy. The freedom to work, and practice our religion, and raise and protect our families the way we see fit.

Those aren’t old values. They aren’t new values. They are core freedoms. The core values that have always defined us as a nation and we feel them — we feel them — slipping away.

All across America, everywhere I go, people come up to me and say, “Wayne, I’ve never been worried about this country … until now.”

Not with anger, but with sadness in their eyes. “I’ve never been worried about this country … until now.”

We’re worried about the economic crisis choking our budgets and shrinking our retirement. We’re worried about providing decent health care and a college education for our children. We fear for the safety of our families — it’s why neighborhood streets that were once filled with bicycles and skateboards, laughter in the air, now sit empty and silent.

In virtually every way, for the things we care about most, we feel profound loss. We are sad not because we fear something IS going wrong, but because we know something already HAS gone wrong.

It’s why more and more Americans are buying firearms and ammunition — not to cause trouble, but because we sense that America is already IN trouble.

We know that, sooner or later, reckless government actions and policies have consequences. That when government corrupts the truth and breaks faith with the American people, the entire fabric of our society — everything we believe in and count on — is in jeopardy.

Political dishonesty and media dishonesty have linked together, joined forces, to misinform and deceive the American public. Let’s be straight about it — the political and media elites are lying to us.

They lie bills into law. They pass legislation they haven’t even read, yet eagerly defend on television. Health care policies, economic policies, foreign affairs all seem repeatedly reckless.

The IRS is now a weapon. A weapon to punish anyone who disagrees with them, and that means every one of you.

They try to regulate our religion. They collect our cell phone and email data. They give us Solyndra, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Obamacare,

massive unemployment, a debt that will choke our grandchildren and one executive order on top of another.

Rather than expose government dishonesty and scandal — like they used to — the media elites whitewash it. Move on, they tell us, there’s nothing to see here.

Yet, one of America’s greatest threats is a national news media that fails to provide a level playing field for the truth. Now it’s all entertainment, ratings and personal celebrity. The next sensational story and the deliberate spinning and purposeful use of words and language — truth be damned — to advance their own agenda.

Here’s how you know the media is lying. They still call themselves “journalists.”

They’ve never been honest about the NRA. They hate us, just for saying out loud and sticking up for what we believe, as if we have no right.

So they try to ridicule us into oblivion or shame us into submission. But their moral indignation should be directed into their own make-up
mirrors. The media’s intentional corruption of the truth is an abomination and NRA members will never — and I mean never — submit or surrender to the national media!

People have become so weary of all the government and media dishonesty, the all-too-commonplace lying, that most Americans have stopped listening.

It’s why the president’s State of the Union Address was largely ignored by the public. It’s why, according to a recent poll, 90 percent of Americans disapprove of Washington.

It’s why a majority of Americans, in poll after poll, say we don’t trust the White House, we don’t trust Congress, we don’t much trust either national political party, and we sure as heck don’t trust the national news media!

We don’t trust government, because government itself has proven unworthy of our trust. We trust ourselves and we trust what we know in our hearts to be right.

We trust our freedom. In this uncertain world, surrounded by lies and corruption, there is no greater freedom than the right to survive, to protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns and handguns we want.

We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and car-jackers and knock-out gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all.

I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

"But I ask you gun advocates. Is this why you bought your last gun?"

Actually, I buy them just to twist your knickers. I've got one more permit to use up... what should I get?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

"Yes, yes, yes, I am beginning to understand"

another spontaneous exclamation. another truthful admission -
you are starting to come around, mr. tweaker, keep trying, one day you may get there.


"Get a grip on what your faderland espouses on your behalf, oh owner of the NRA."

what is your intent in expressing yourself this way mr. tweaker?

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

emily 1 wrote - "That said...the "well regulated militia" or trained townsfolk, should have the same weapons used by the military. The 2nd amendment specifically states that the militia should be armed in the same capacity as the US military. So, therefor, I should be able to have a machine gun, according to the 2nd amendment. "

and she is essentially correct.

what part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

No Mr G , I don't trust the government to protect me. They have lead us into no win situations since word war 2. They think money can buy love and everything else. Just look at our open borders.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

I am afraid I won't live long enough to read the books that MG keeps posting.

And, I absolutely do NOT trust anyone to protect me. Why should I trust my life and my family's life in the hands of someone else when I am perfectly capable of defending myself?....After all the police are only a phone call away.....It's real nice to talk to someone on the phone, wait 15 minutes for someone to actually show up, all while your wife is being raped and you are being beaten at gun point......won't be me!

You can call it anything you want, but I know that I am well prepared to defend my home need be, and when the police and government won't protect the citizens, who will they be going to....citizens that have been armed and prepared this whole time.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

a. "Actually, I buy them just to twist your knickers. I've got one more permit to use up... what should I get?" And thus Wayne Peppy Lapew did not get it right when he summarized why people are buying guns. And get whatever is legal and makes you happy.

b. ""Get a grip on what your faderland espouses on your behalf, oh owner of the NRA." what is your intent in expressing yourself this way mr. tweaker?" Well, mr. dog, my intent was to say, while the NRA may be made up of everyday joes, as owners, with everyday feelings, it's leader sounds like a Nazi spewing hate-mongering fear-laden propaganda with a veiled pitch that only more guns is the final solution. For this Wayne makes over $1M per year off you; the head of the Red Cross makes $650, United Way $375. Sure, there are other non-prof's ceo's that make more like the Heritage Foundation guy (a Koch Bro enterprise) but most run hospitals and you pay Dwayno one of the top ten non prof salaries in the country. Nice work oh regular-guy-what-owns-the-nra. Given what you pay him to spew this crab, I guess that means you eat .........oh nevermind.

So here's my point(s) boys and then you can change the angle once more.

1a. the second amendment is there just like the others, it ain't sacrosanct just like the others are not sacrosanct as multiple Supreme Court cases have shown. They have all been interpreted differently at different times of the Republic. NOR can it not have limitations placed upon it as multiple other Bill of Right amendments as well as the second already have limitations placed upon them.

2b. The leadership of the NRA are gunmaker's puppets and totally out of control. If you put your thinking hats on about all the bad things Unions have done, at times and not all Unions, then put that same hat on and look at the NRA. It's leadership is bought and paid for and it feeds you a line a crap wrapped in a gold-leaf marketing package designed for only one thing: to get you to buy more guns and ammo. Lots more. Today the NRA marketing thrust is to bring more women on board. Tomorrow it will be Blacks and Latinos. While membership may be mom and pop, It is funded by the gun manufacturers with a single purpose. Sales. And fear and hatred sells as good as sex.

Don't believe me, try nra.org. It is a beautiful piece of work and like I said, slicker than deer guts on a doorknob.

3c. I am with you on the lack of need to reduce clip size from 15 to 10; that's just polishing a turd. May get a bit shinier, but it's still a ...... But this other stuff you're saying, and the stuff Peppy is saying, well, I tried to keep it light, but you kept coming and coming so sorry. I mean, my goodness, someone used the words liberal and Iman in the same passage. I mean, Emily even thinks the militia gets all mil-spec weaponry they want. I mean these boys can't even keep a website up and she wants to arm them to the teeth?

4d. I do want to thank you for your support. I first entered your market in 2008 and I have to say, it was fabulous. Between the Bush end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it and your FOOBA (fear of Obama Bad A$$), gun and ammo sales went off da hook and my investments flourished. Seems that the worse it got for the world, the better it got for me. Hope that all that 2008 sacrifice for more guns, more bullets, that put bread on my table was as worth it to you as to me. Over the years I divested but in 2011 it seemed good to try again just in case you would still have FOOBA and again you did not let me down. So keep up the good work cuz mistergoogle need new shoes. So the real self-serving answer for me Mark, is buy a real expensive one, don't cheap out, I want good shoes.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Gadfly,

Nuclear weapons? Really? Look, if you can't explain your position as "reasonable" without bringing nukes into the discussion...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

"I am afraid I won't live long enough to read the books that MG keeps posting."


NO KIDDING!!!

While it has been wrongfully attributed to Einstein, I think the quote is quite apt in the case of MrGoogle:

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

I've said it before: regardless of who is right and who is wrong (we would need the Founders here to tell us that in person, and even then anti-gunners would disagree with them).... it all comes down to OPINION. FEELINGS. Anti-gunners don't give a crap what 2A says, or what the Founder's meant. THEY don't "like" guns, therefore YOU shouldn't have them. Simple as that. And if they can get the courts to sway their way (yes, courts do indeed sway with political leaning, zeitgeist, and current dogma), they will.

That's the difference: WE are basing our opinions on the subject on original intent (clearly shown over and over again), THEY are basing theirs on their emotion. (similar to the healthcare debacle: THEY "believe" everyone has a "right" to healthcare, even tho no such right has ever existed in the founding documents: again, based on nothing but what they WANT, and their feelings/emotions.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Gee, and all we have to do is turn the mirror and we have you, in spades.

That's the funny part about seeing the world in black and white, red or blue, good or evil, us or them.

But it isn't the truth, and therefore you must lie. Mustn't you?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Mr G, FYI there are more groups that think the NRA is not tough enough with large member ships,

OpenSecrets Blog


No-Compromise Gun Group Drives Lobbying

by Russ Choma on May 2, 2013 12:38 PM

The latest lobbying reports show that despite decades of dominance on the issue of gun rights, the National Rifle Association was shoved aside by a newcomer -- and it wasn't a new gun control advocacy group.

NAGR.jpgThe National Association for Gun Rights, a "no-compromise" gun rights group with close ties to Ron and Rand Paul, spent more than $1.8 million in the first quarter of 2013 -- almost $1 million more than the $830,000 spent by the NRA. It's the first time the group has lobbied at the federal level.

When it comes to shelling out for lobbyists, the NRA has regularly outspent all other groups that count guns as their primary issue. But even though the NRA spent more in the first quarter of this year than in the final quarter of 2012, it was swamped by the NAGR, which regards the NRA as too soft on gun rights.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

The logical extension of an unlimited right to bear arms is the right of individuals to own such things as nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, and anti-aircraft guns.

Certainly the amendment does not specifically exclude these things. It does not specially refer to guns. Why then are these arms not allowed by the second ammendment?

B/c the individual's second ammendment rights are balanced against competing rights, and are therefore reasonably limited WITHOUT and breach of constitutionality. This parallels various limitations on free speech which include exceptions for slander, threats, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

The question then is not whether the right to bear arms can be reasonable limited. Obviously it can. The question is where the lines should be drawn to reasonably balance the competing rights.

This is what the gun control debate is all about, trying to figure out where those reasonable limitations should be placed. The 2A crowd likes to cry that any limitation is an infringement. But if that's true, they should be able to sell flame throwers and rocket launchers at the sporting goods section of Walmart.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

emily1 is essentially right in her comments on the 2nd amendment, she is more spot on at the age of 16 than other commenters/detractors on this thread.

the NRA is controlled by it's dues paying members, not the manufacturers, those indicting otherwise have no idea how the NRA is actually organized and works.

media matters is controlled by the billionaire George Soro's, who wants to disarm law abiding Americans. anything from them needs to be vetted in the full light of a clear day.

this bill reducing clip sizes is just more do nothing feel good knee jerk legislation made up by unrepresentative elected leaders who don't know what they are talking about.

contact your state senators and tell them to vote NO on this bill.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

"This parallels various limitations on free speech which include exceptions for slander, threats, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre."

OMG, are you rolling out this tired crap again? "Free Speech" isn't limited by those acts... it's the "ACT" of slander or causing a threat/panic that's punishable.

They don't duct tape your mouth shut before entering a theater just because you might yell fire. They don't ban pens just because they may write an editorial that's slanderous.

The only equivalency you can draw is that the "ACT" of murder is the only legitimate limitation on the 2nd Amendment, because that is where your rights (or your misuse of those rights) infringe upon those of another individual.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/the-second-amendment-the-first-amendment-and-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-auditorium/

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

It's been shown over and over, and courts have agreed, that 2A refers to "arms in common use for lawful purposes." Nukes are not "in common use", nor are land mines and anti-aircraft guns.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

We don't want nukes and flamethrowers... we just want our semi-automatic weapons and ANY-capacity magazines left the hell alone. Technically, there was a time when fully-automatic weapons were "in common use", altho arguably for UNlawful purposes (the mob), which is no doubt why public sentiment was enough to get them heavily restricted. Altho I could still own one, if I went thru the hoops and paid the fee for a Class III license. So what's the point in even restricting them then?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

gadfly<

AT $78,000 per missle, and $126,000 per firing unit, don't think you would see too many going off to be honest.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

and that is without the "illegal" $$$ markup

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

"I am afraid I won't live long enough to read the books that MG keeps posting."
NO KIDDING!!!

OMG JR, I post excerpted quotes, they say I cherry picked. I post the entire speech, they say it's too long. But never do you talk about the contents nor answer the questions. Instead you shoot the messenger.

The only consistent thing you folks can agree upon is that I am wrong and you are right. And I mean so far right you've left.

And this is when we agree on the original topic. You guys are just amazing.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

This should scare the bejeebers out of you. Rise up and be heard!! Do not be part of the HERD
Obama's College Classmate Speaks Out

This is it in a nutshell !!

If he is re-elected in 2012, the US is finished. The following is in simple language that everyone can understand. Not the gibberish that our government keeps telling people. Please read this carefully and make sure you keep this message going.

This needs to be emailed to everyone in the USA .
OBAMA'S COLLEGE CLASSMATE SPEAKS OUT

By Wayne Allyn Root , June 6th, 2010
Barack Hussien Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent.
To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Hussien Obama was my college classmate

He is a devout Muslim do not be fooled.
Look at his Czars...anti-business..anti- american.
As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussien Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University . They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands.

Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government.

Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

Universal health care . The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government .
Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state?
Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers.
But this has been Barack Hussien Obama's plan all along.
His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants.
Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security .

Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go?
It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out
(after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).

All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussien Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussien Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan .

"Correctly attributed" says snopes!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp

Cliff R Cliff R
Mar '14

This is where my family moved to. Be sure to read the last few sentences.

http://www.thepostnewspapers.com/medina_county_news/article_522291e8-9770-589a-b594-8ee0f394b0f0.html#user-comment-area

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

So Old Gent, based on the article, it looks like no harm came from not infringing on their rights.

“A lot of police officers were worried,” Miller said. “That concern has proven to be unfounded.”

On the other hand, Miller said he is unaware of any incidents in Medina County in which an armed civilian prevented a crime or stopped one in progress.

Joe M Joe M
Mar '14

In other words, it didn't become the Wild West.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Nor was it the Wild West before the law went into affect. It's a very nice place, well educated with a pretty low crime rate, even lower violent crime rate. Has been that way before, and so far, after this law.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

calling people nazi like sort of ends the discussion, (godwins law)

i don't agree with everything Wayne says or does, he sometimes makes us look bad to the other side, i get that. but he is a good and decent guy who has been in the trenches a long time on this issue. If sometimes he shows a little emotion, or color, it's understandable. and he was speaking at cpac. so what did you expect? btw , most of his speech was right on the money, like this nugget i cheerfully cherry picked:

"Rather than expose government dishonesty and scandal — like they used to — the media elites whitewash it. Move on, they tell us, there’s nothing to see here."

"Here’s how you know the media is lying. They still call themselves “journalists.”
They’ve never been honest about the NRA. They hate us, just for saying out loud and sticking up for what we believe, as if we have no right. So they try to ridicule us into oblivion or shame us into submission. But their moral indignation should be directed into their own make-up mirrors. The media’s intentional corruption of the truth is an abomination and NRA members will never — and I mean never — submit or surrender to the national media!"


Wayne speaks the truth on this plain and outspoken, deal with it.


but you do agree with us on the current bill seeking to reduce clip size, ant that's a good thing. and I quote:

" I am with you on the lack of need to reduce clip size from 15 to 10; "

i knew that from a while back and i thank you for it, but it's nice that you want to emphasize it now, last year you were all about clip size reductions (relentlessly and quite vehemently). So this is another good start to add your spontaneous exclamations back up the thread, there is some truth in those, and i think that's a good thing going forward.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

I guess they want to keep it that way.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

They do have a drug problem like every where with ODs

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

Georgia Passes Sweeping PRO-Gun Legislation....

Pro- and anti-gun forces do not agree on much, but they do agree on the breathtaking sweep of the Georgia legislation allowing guns in bars, schools, restaurants, churches and airports that is now awaiting the signature of Gov. Nathan Deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/amid-wave-of-pro-gun-legislation-georgia-proposes-sweeping-law.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0


...let's see if "gun crime increases" or if it "turns into the wild west".... my prediction: NO on both counts...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

SO....my question is why are we only fighting off the 15 to 10 round ban, seems to me the 15 round limitation is already a infringement.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

I am with "uncle" Ted Nugent - the 2nd amendment is my CCW.

skippy skippy
Mar '14

Infringement and New Jersey go hand in hand... long before this issue and long after...


BDog: I was careful not to call "people" nazis, and not even call Wayne a nazi, but to say "it's leader sounds like a Nazi." I also prefaced this with "my intent was to say, while the NRA may be made up of everyday joes, as owners, with everyday feelings" clearly indicating that I was not castigating the membership.

But....but.....his solution, buy guns, is indeed "a veiled pitch that only more guns is indeed a final solution. I mean you have a perceived problem propagandized at exaggerated levels the goal of which is to instill fear in the masses followed by a solution that has the sole purpose of putting bullets in the air. Did he press for tougher punishments? No. Did he press for any other solution except: buy guns? No. I do not fault the membership for what Wayne says. They don't own him, the gun manufacturers do. But...but the membership should be appalled not applaud.

And the fact that you can cherry pick a nugget or two not withstanding.

My stance on LCMs as WMDs has not changed; it's just that NJ has already removed LCMs and I can live with 15 per clip (versus my beloved 10) as a compromise. Also, having researched the topic, I realize that there is no relevant data to prove whether 10 or 15 would show any statistical difference. I believe it would, but crikey, would take years to validate.

But no, I see no value to the people having LCMs versus the destruction they cause and still feel that a combination of bans, penalties, and buy-backs would cure the problem in a few years IF nationally applied. State-by-state is a compromise, but apparently that's the way it is.

And I applaud the GA experiment. First, it is far enough away that any spillover across borders won't bother me. Second, sure let's see if having loaded guns in all those places adds a few more needless gun deaths to our 10,000 needed gun deaths per year. I especially like the bar rule where it's OK to have a loaded gun as long as you don't drink. That has "brilliant' written all over it. So let's see if GA wants to be a petri dish and grow a wild-west culture and whether that's a good thing or bad thing.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

"SO....my question is why are we only fighting off the 15 to 10 round ban, seems to me the 15 round limitation is already a infringement."

Indeed it is. But this is PRNJ - the People's Republik of New Jersey.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Also the fact that we can't carry in NJ is an infringement. The second amendment clearly states, right to "bear" (wear, carry, have on your person, etc) arms. What good does my firearm do home, locked in a safe, with the ammo in another location, with am empty 5 round clip (where we are going next) and a trigger lock (they want that too) If I am jogging alone and get raped and murdered by some nut-case? Or, if my home is being invaded? By the time you get the key, open the safe, unlock the trigger, put the clip in the gun...let's face it you and your entire family are toast. At that point the only help the cops will be is to "check it out" when some guy walking his beagle sees my half-naked, bloody, lifeless body lying in the brush or after the neighbors call to say they thought they might have heard gunshots 2 nights ago and haven't seen me or my family leave the house in that many days.

In both scenarios - a little late....

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

mg said

"My stance on LCMs as WMDs has not changed; it's just that NJ has already removed LCMs and I can live with 15 per clip (versus my beloved 10) as a compromise. Also, having researched the topic, I realize that there is no relevant data to prove whether 10 or 15 would show any statistical difference. I believe it would, but crikey, would take years to validate."


OMG... has ENLIGHTENMENT begun???

Tell you what... you want 10, but can live with 15. I want unlimited, but can live with 30.

Unfortunately, no one makes 22.5 round magazines. :)



" I especially like the bar rule where it's OK to have a loaded gun as long as you don't drink. That has "brilliant' written all over it"

LOL. Yeah, I have to admit... when I heard that, it "made me go hmm..."

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

"I especially like the bar rule where it's OK to have a loaded gun as long as you don't drink. That has "brilliant' written all over it. "

So I assume you refuse to enter a restaurant/bar that serves alcohol in Pennsylvania, Virginia, or any other number of states, right? If not, it must amaze you that you were able to walk out alive. After all, in these states it's legal to carry a firearm AND drink if you so choose (in Virginia you have to be openly carrying, at the moment).

People who fear guns tend to think that all of these "brilliant" laws are in states far away, so they can pretend that guns don't really exist here... truth is, just 20 miles away is one of the most permissive states in the country as far as firearms go. Guns everywhere... in bars, in cars, in gas stations, in malls, in amusement parks, in the forests, on the lakes... you don't even need to take a "test" to get a permit to carry. Just fill out a form at the Sheriff's office and 15 minutes later you're good to go. No magazine limits... no assault weapons bans... buy as many handguns in a month as you want... heck you can even get fully automatic weapons with flash and noise suppressors if you have the cash.

Yet nobody has a problem vacationing in the Poconos for a peaceful, quiet weekend, or heading to the outlets for a nice shopping experience. That's because people who carry guns aren't out to kill you, as long as you don't attack them first.

Think about that next time you're in PA. Approximately 7% of residents are legally carrying firearms. If you go to the mall, there are approximately 50 - 100 people with guns walking around as well, and yet you feel pretty darn safe, right?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Actually I'm luckier than you apparently know.

In 2011, PA which has fairly loose gun laws, ranked as the number 3 state in the total number of gun deaths that was only beat by CA and TX. About 475 across the state (versus NJ with tough gun laws at 269 that year). 74% of all murders that year were by gun by gum because if you wanted to murder, chances are you had a gun.

It was a 3% increase of death by gun in a year when gun deaths fell by 3% across the US, PA bucking the trend. PA was number 9 in gun deaths per 100,000 citizens, number 10 in firearm robberies and middle of the pack for gun assaults. Not a stellar place for gun safety in my book.

And PA's loose gun laws bleeeed into NJ.

"“If you’re in Trenton and can walk over a bridge to Pennsylvania and buy a gun at a gun show, it’s a lot easier, less expensive and less time-consuming than buying a gun here,” said Nicola Bocour, director of Ceasefire NJ, a gun-control advocacy group. “That’s why 80 percent of the crime guns in New Jersey are coming from out of state.”" http://www.northjersey.com/news/other-states-hamper-n-j-s-tough-gun-laws-1.571337

So as you dine in PA "You've got to ask yourself one question. Do I feel lucky?"

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

yes i would prefer to rotate Wayne out of the point position and promote tom selleck to be our point guy, tom has more credibility and when he talks i believe more people on the other side will tune in, or at least not tune him out 'just because he is from th NRA'

the bigotry shown towards the NRA and it's members is a problem for me. this bigotry is regularly displayed, promoted and encouraged by the msm and many Democrats, (and a few republicans) and it's wrong.

once again the tolerant inclusive pc crowd shows rabid intolerance in practice,

i just don't get it, how can so many be ok with their behavior?

the 2nd amendment and SCOTUS rulings do support emily1's description of a citizens militia made of ordinary citizens who are well practiced and familiar with the weapons of the day. that means the small arms that the pentagon outfits the armed forces with. that includes ar-15's (w/30 round mags) and the like. the 1939 SCOTUS decision rejecting the sawed off shotgun because it is not a weapon typically used by the armed forces implies that other weapons that are typically used by the armed forces would be permissible.

there are many cases bubbling up through the court system right now that i believe will help further define and support the above contentions.

can't wait for that to happen.

in our history it was the effectiveness of the shooting accuracy of the infantryman in the USA's armed forces that made the strategic difference in most wars we were involved with. from the revolution through WW2, the average American conscripts skill and familiarity with rifle shooting literally made the difference between success and failure.

sadly since Vietnam we have not had that same emphasis. and our win/lose/inconclusive results streak continues to this day partly as a direct result of not having similar skills in rifle shooting.

for instance in Afghanistan right now the military has standardized on the m4 rifle, which has a limited accuracy and range compared to rifles used prior. The talibann mountain men know this, and stay a 100 yards out of effective reach while using older British enfield ww1 style bolt action rifles which can hit our guys at the same distance. this makes it harder to win the battles on the ground, having an enemy who can shoot more accurately at longer distances than we can. we need more effective small arms and the skills to use them accurately to win in Afghanistan, and we just don't have them

it was the American rifleman's individual skills that made a significant strategic difference in the revolutionary war where british officers called the Pennsylvania rifle 'the widow maker'. in the civil war the south hung on as long as it did due to the superior (on average) rifleman skills by the confederates that allowed them to win against a better funded and equipped northern army. this was due to the fact the southerners were more practiced in hunting than the northerners were. their rifle accuracy was a significant strategic advantage that allowed the south to hang on as long as it did.

in WW1, it was the expertise of the American rifleman who made a strategic difference in the static unmoving trench warfare that existed in Europe for about 3 years. once our boys landed in France, the scales were tipped. the accuracy of our infantry with rifles was the most significant factor in changing the stale static quo that existed before.

this is why the founders wrote the amendment this way. it is an individual right, and it is important that regular everyday citizens have the capability to be familiar with the standard arms of the day, that is why 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.

it's not just an anachronistic outdated relic of a concept from a more primitive time. it is as valid and important today as it was in the 18th century.

comment as you see fit . . .. . . (yes, that's Lionel's line )

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

"Tell you what... you want 10, but can live with 15. I want unlimited, but can live with 30."

This is the problem.....everyone "can live with 30, or can live with 15"

But, the fact of the matter is if you "could live with a car that did 95, and on race day your opponent's car happened to do 100, you still loose.

Get my drift?

There should be no legal limitations, who is the government to say how many rounds I need inside my home to defend myself, or my family? That should be my choice.

With the government laws you give a inch they take a mile, look what happened, they put a 15 round ban on years ago, the people "could live with it" now they want to lower it yet again. We need to quit giving into their agenda.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

BTW Skippy - I'm with Ted too. He makes the gun grabbers look foolish. I wish I could be so calm and eloquent when I speak on this topic. He always chews 'em up and spits 'em out and they end up tongue tied and blathering. I have to learn to be less emotional, like him. But then, he's "The Nuge" and was always cool. My dad saw him many times in concert during the late 70's and 80's and is a huge fan.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Cars are not guns Darrin. Never will be.

Although if there are, should we start listing all the limitations, regulations, and safety specifications places on cars? Would that be a fair comparison?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

"In 2011, PA which has fairly loose gun laws, ranked as the number 3 state in the total number of gun deaths that was only beat by CA and TX. About 475 across the state (versus NJ with tough gun laws at 269 that year). 74% of all murders that year were by gun by gum because if you wanted to murder, chances are you had a gun."


Gee, go figure. More guns = more gun deaths. I'm more likely to get run over by a Prius in California, but it doesn't necessarily mean my overall chances of a vehicular death are based solely on the number of Toyota dealerships. That's just one tool in the murderer's (or reckless driver's) arsenal.

So riddle me this... how come the *total homicide rate* for New Jersey is positively mediocre (we're actually *below* average)? Yes, PA, is worse, but there are also plenty of states with "loose" gun laws where you are 4x less likely be be killed by any means than you are in New Jersey.

Actually, the first state known for "tough" gun laws is only the 7th safest overall.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

(Also note, PA has ~45% more population than NJ, so per capita gun deaths are the almost identical in New Jersey and Pennsylvania despite the vast difference in gun laws. How convenient you only use "raw" numbers and not the whole truth... again...)

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Darrin,

We are in agreement, however- I am also a realist. NO limitations will never happen, until the 2nd Revolution... I would more accurately call it the "Reclamation". But at this point, I would be perfectly happy for gun control to JUST STOP. No MORE limitations. But we all know that's not going to happen.

Even if we win this "battle", eventually, over time, 2A rights will erode to the point of civil disobedience (already happening in CT- people are burning their "gun registration letters"), and then on to UNcivil disobedience. It is only a matter of time. Not being defeatist- but I've been at this a long time- I'm being REAList.

I see very little hope in running back into the burning building in an attempt to save it.... no- I see us having to run THROUGH the burning building, watching it burn, and then rebuilding on the other side.

When you have an entire batch of bad apples, with only 1 or 2 "good" ones, it takes a very very long time to "vote" in more good apples, in the meantime the whole batch is rotting. Better to throw out the whole batch, pick some more, and start from scratch.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

It appears most of NJ is against any further magazine restrictions... and this is how this poll turns out EVERY TIME they try it...

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/03/poll_should_nj_pass_gun_bill_reducing_size_of_ammunition_magazines_from_15_to_10_rounds.html

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

thanks emily :)

skippy skippy
Mar '14

"and this is how this poll turns out EVERY TIME they try it..."

AND the responses far outnumber those for the polls which they hold as gospel, such as:

* 90% of Americans Support Background Checks (sample size 1,181)

* 40% of guns are bought without a background check (sample size 251... performed 20 years ago... before NICS background checks were widely required...)

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

"once again the tolerant inclusive pc crowd shows rabid intolerance in practice," says BDog.

Now you know how we feel when the intolerant pc crowd lets loose.

Like when FOX launches their tirades about the evil, cheating, handout lovin livin high on the hog poor from one side of their face claiming we are being robbed blind by these rat-parasites and on the other side of the face defend to the death the job making rich and corps for taking advantage of loopholes to the point of paying negative taxes to a far greater robber tune. It ain't the numbers, it's the tone and name calling from both sides of the intolerant FOX pc face --- poor/bad, rich/goooood.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/v9wjc4/fox-news-welfare-academy

and the other side of midnight

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/mlw5q1/2014--a-waste-odyssey

Yeah, it feels pretty bad to be progressive too.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Soon there will be a NO round capacity! This is yet another form of Gov. control. So much for selpf protection! So much for the 2nd amendment! This is one step closer to complete control.

Larry
Mar '14

Cars are not guns Darrin. Never will be.

Although if there are, should we start listing all the limitations, regulations, and safety specifications places on cars? Would that be a fair comparison?

Oh jesus MG, can't you understand a simple analogy.

Basically saying if you have 10 rounds and the criminal has 15, who's got the better chance?

Anyone can get a car, and to legally drive it is a basic knowledge test. to get a gun you need permits, background checks, etc.....so there is your saftey for comparison.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Also last I checked, our fathers never listed "cars" in the constitution.........point made

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

"Also last I checked, our fathers never listed "cars" in the constitution.........point made"


On the same point, they also didn't list "muskets". They wrote "arms". I guess MG will say that means they were really talking about arms- the kind with a hand and fingers at the end of them LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Uh oh, JR... we have 10 fingers.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

wow... you anti-gunners should be really proud of your elected representatives (this is RI, but still...)

"go f*#k yourself"..... from an elected official. Nice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo98fDcFbtc&feature=youtu.be

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Childish really

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

So why are the sandy hook residents bothering with our laws anyways, why don't they worry about their state laws and leave other states out of it?? The shooting that occurred had absolutely nothing to do with NJ, as he certainly did not get his 30 rounders from our state.

It seems that 30 round clips were used at the shooting.......we only allow 15 rounds......move on!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

the 2nd amendment and SCOTUS rulings do support emily1's description of a citizens militia made of ordinary citizens who are well practiced and familiar with the weapons of the day. that means the small arms that the pentagon outfits the armed forces with. that includes ar-15's (w/30 round mags) and the like. the 1939 SCOTUS decision rejecting the sawed off shotgun because it is not a weapon typically used by the armed forces implies that other weapons that are typically used by the armed forces would be permissible.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

I think a lot of this banter could be put to rest if people actually read the 2nd amendment -- all of it -- not the short version that all the schools and books show. WHAT is the well regulated militia? WHO are the militia members? WHAT was the militia's purpose? WHY were the militia members supposed to have the same caliber/type/firepower/ammo as the military? WHY were the people supposed to me part of the militia at all? WHY were they supposed to be at the ready" and READY FOR WHAT?

I believe (maybe stupidly) that if the American people really understood the REASON FOR and INTENT OF the 2nd amendment, more (not all, you always have your limp- wristed, apathetic, "my daddy the government will take care of me" types) people would take a stand and oppose all this infringement on the 2nd amendment going on currently.

Maybe a little pollyannish but a girl can dream, right?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

So for Emily, the world is divided between people who think like her and "limp- wristed, apathetic, "my daddy the government will take care of me" types)"

Sweeeeet.

And amazingly these HL-experts see absolutely no room for debate on the second which has been debated vigorously, word by word, even by the foundling fathers.

Brilliant.

The world is indeed simple for those with a narrow mind.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Emily, one day, god forbid that the tragedy the second amendment protects us from actually happens, all anti-gun people will be very very sorry, and will be looking for protection from their neighbors that have prepared, protection that they may not receive.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

So mistergoogle...what do YOU call a "man" who tells another man that he doesn't need a gun because that's what the "police are for." There are people right here on this thread who have said that very thing. If that's not "letting daddy take care of you," then what is? I, personally want to protect and defend myself. And, if something does hit the fan (like totally tyranny) the one's who are armed with have to protect those that are not.

I have no problem with "debate" on the 2nd...IF the person I am debating knows what the intent was. Most don't.

Here...I'll debate you...Tell us how, if the people are supposed to be able to defend themselves against the military (which nobody disputes or debates, that was obviously the whole intent of the 2nd amendment) am I supposed to do that if my gun/ammo/number of rounds is not equal to the gun/ammo/number of rounds as the person I am fighting?

What you want is the militia to fight the army with a 10 round clip when the soldier has a 30 to 100 round capacity clip? How is that going to work? Please explain.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

BTW...I am going to hate going back to school next week! This has been really eye opening. Last night I showed my dad what I was writing and he said I was "giving the men a run for their money!" Lol!

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

"The world is indeed simple for those with a narrow mind."

Actually, the world is a very complex place. The narrow minded may be inclined to think that everyone can be controlled by an overbearing government whose dictates correlate nicely with what they personally believe, but that simple view ignores the fact that not one single subject of discussion will ever be agreed on by everyone. So when a majority can take "control" over the minority, is it because they are thinking from their own narrow view of the world or because they understand that everyone is different?

justintime justintime
Mar '14

all you Second Amendment gun nuts don't want any restrictions. But you seem to forget there are restrictions all through the Constitution. You have the right to free speech but you don't have the right to holler fire in a crowded movie theater.

oldred
Mar '14

Also...mrgoogle your comment stating -

"...the second which has been debated vigorously, word by word, even by the foundling fathers."

Makes it even more clear to me that what they finally agreed to put pen to paper (or quill to paper) after much debate, banter and even outright fighting was the FINAL wording that BEST described exactly what they all wanted. If you read their individual writings you can see that they were ALL armed - EVERY SINGLE ONE. That right there should say something to you.

Why , if these men spent so much time, blood, sweat and tears to get the document to say EXACTLY the thing that they could finally ALL agree on would YOU feel inclined to debate their intent all these years later?

You just admitted how difficult and time consuming it was for them to get this thing right -- now you want to undo and undermine all that?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

"all you Second Amendment gun nuts don't want any restrictions. But you seem to forget there are restrictions all through the Constitution. You have the right to free speech but you don't have the right to holler fire in a crowded movie theater."

Whew. I don't know where to begin.

"all"
...incorrect. Many pro-2A people are no longer fighting the many MANY restrictions ALREADY put upon us, we would just like there to be NO MORE. At least for starters. Every single gun control law on the books is, by definition, a "compromise."

"gun nuts"
... so if you are pro-2A, you are a "nut"... well, that certainly tells us that YOU are the close-minded one, whose mind was made up long ago, and not capable of intelligent debate.

"don't want any restrictions"
...se above.

"there are restrictions all through the Constitution"
...here's where it gets good. You DO realize, that the Bill of Rights was indeed a list of RESTRICTIONS...placed UPON THE GOVERNMENT, right? Not restriction for the PEOPLE, restrictions for the GOVERNMENT. Rights they were not allowed to infringe or remove. They are not rights GRANTED BY the govt; they are rights INHERENT in the people, and the govt CANNOT infringe or remove those rights.

That is the crux of most arguments these days: where the founders told the govt what they could NOT do, many people today think the govt tells the PEOPLE what THEY cannot do. They have it the wrong way 'round.

"don't have a right to holler fire in a crowded theater"
...ah, that ol' nugget.
Let's look at this in context, shall we?
The Schenck case

Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war.

Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

So, in what way, oldred, do you equate "not having the right to shout fire in a theater" to the gun control issue?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

That's right oldred because it gives you freedom of religion, speech, the press, to assemble and petition. It DOES NOT SAY the right to lie, scare people on purpose, cause a stampede or any other dumb thing. That SHOULD go without saying.

Just like the 2nd amendment gives all citizens the right to bear arms and be as armed as the military but it does NOT give you the right to shoot up a school, shoot your neighbor because they are not cutting their grass enough, shoot your spouse because your mad or any other dumb thing.

I guess our founding fathers gave us more credit than we deserve. They never though that giving someone the right to free speech would warrant someone yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, or during a legal assembly, shitting on a police car for the media cameras, or taking an antidepressant and shooting up a bunch of 3rd graders.

Maybe we should stop people from doing stupid things with their rights instead of taking the rights away entirely.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

"I guess our founding fathers gave us more credit than we deserve. They never though that giving someone the right to free speech would warrant someone yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, or during a legal assembly, shitting on a police car for the media cameras, or taking an antidepressant and shooting up a bunch of 3rd graders. "

Wow, just excellent emily. Well done!


We need to have an "HL Shooter's Happy Hour"! (guns OR alcohol, not both LOL)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

the 1939 SCOTUS decision rejecting the sawed off shotgun because it is not a weapon typically used by the armed forces implies that other weapons that are typically used by the armed forces would be permissible.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Thanks JeffersonRepub! A little common sense goes a long way...but something sadly missing in our last few generations.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

I am still astonished by Emily's knowledge in this topic......very impressive!

oldred, If you are actually a senior I appologise, but to be totally honest anyone that has been around as long as the name "oldred" suggests would not compare 2nd amendment rights to the right to scream fire in a movie theater, that is honestly very silly.

"That SHOULD go without saying" pretty impressive that a 16 year old girl understood this.......but not you?!?!?!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Oh Emily, are we really going to debate whether a 100-round clip or 10-round clip will be more successful against a full on assault by the US Armed Forces? I think the answer is the same as NJ's proposal to limit from 15 rounds per to 10 rounds per ---- can't be proved statistically as being of any value whatsoever. Just can't imagine any different outcome in the battle between either a 10rounder or a 100rounder versus the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force.

And thanks Emily, for admitting: "I guess our founding fathers gave us more credit than we deserve. They never though that giving someone the right to free speech would warrant someone yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, or during a legal assembly, shitting on a police car for the media cameras, or taking an antidepressant and shooting up a bunch of 3rd graders" you actually forgot to mention how those LIMITATIONS that the founding fathers left out got clarified and became actual law. It's called the Supreme Court, an organization designed by the founding fathers with powers agreed-upon by the founding fathers. The following cases that spell out the actual laws for what you were talking about are listed belwo from the Foundation for Freedom: "Limits of Freedom of Speech

"Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”

Also see What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.

In Miller v. California (1973), the court refined the definition of “obscenity” established in Roth v. United States (1957). It also rejected the “utterly without redeeming social value” test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.

In the three-part Miller test, three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered “obscene”:
1.Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest?
2.Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
3.Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

One must distinguish “obscene” material, speech not protected by the First Amendment, from “indecent” material, speech protected for adults but not for children. The Supreme Court also ruled that “higher standards” may be established to protect minors from exposure to indecent material over the airwaves. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation the court “recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language.”

Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests
Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.

To ensure a fair trial without disclosure of prejudicial information before or during a trial, a judge may place a “gag” order on participants in the trial, including attorneys. Placing prior restraint upon the media usually is unconstitutional. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), the Supreme Court established three criteria that must be met before a judge can issue a gag order and restrain the media during a trial.

Time, Place, and Manner
These regulations of expression are content-neutral. A question to ask: Did the expression occur at a time or place, or did the speaker use a method of communicating, that interferes with a legitimate government interest? For example, distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certain times and in certain places."

Emily, since many of your supporters list SCOTUS decisions supporting gun advocacy, I would gather these are acceptable as legal limitations to the first amendment as you have summarized as well. I would also gather that if Emily and SCOTUS can see the wisdom in these limitations to the first amendment that the possibility of SCOTUS limitations on the second must be possible as well.

Nicely done Emily, nicely done.

And ps: why couldn't a woman hold her own on Hackettstown Life? I would have never ever thought differently.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

mistergoogle again you are way off base, especially with your comment stating:

"Oh Emily, are we really going to debate whether a 100-round clip or 10-round clip will be more successful against a full on assault by the US Armed Forces? Just can't imagine any different outcome in the battle between either a 10 rounder or a 100 rounder versus the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force."

What?!?!? So, if hell broke loose and 50 soldiers were marching into Hackettstown carrying have AR-15's with 60 round mags (which are standard during traveling foot battle) and the town militia (a large group of people from right here in town who are armed and trained, like myself) also had AR-15's and 60 round mags - I bet we could take 'em down and win. Why not? We would be equally armed (as the original intent of the 2nd amendment).

So you - mrgoogle - would prefer me and my brother's and sisters to try to stave off a military overtake of Hackettstown with what? You would PREFER we only had a shotgun or an "allowed" semi-auto with 10 round mags? Yeah mrgoogle THAT makes a lot of sense!!! Can we agree that your idea is a dumb one?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

"And ps: why couldn't a woman hold her own on Hackettstown Life? I would have never ever thought differently."

You missed the point MG, it's that she is 16 and OBVIOUSLY is more knowledgeable then you on the topic.

MG, I am sorry, but you really kill your point with words, aint nobody got the time for that!!!!! Try spitting it out in a few less!!!! PLEASE!!!!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

I know everybody...mrgoogle can stave off a tyrannical government takeover or social unrest with a really, really big loaf of Italian bread. Or maybe a tennis racket. Or a baseball bat. I would say a water pistol but that's probably to dangerous for him -- looks too much like those real guns that have a propensity to suddenly jump up and kill people.

He wants the rest of us to be kept impotent with a little itty-bitty gun that doesn't look all scary with a teeny, tiny 5 or 10 round mag so we can't shoot to fast. That's what he and his ilk really want.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

And one last thing mrgoogle... I read EVERY WORD of your diatribe and one thing stands out about your points and its that every single...EVERY SINGLE one of your arguments relates to A BEHAVIOR.

....Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I....

...“English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” ...

I can copy and paste every single example you used ans they are all behaviors that are unacceptable.

A gun is an OBJECT so show me cases where OBJECTS were banned (other than child porn - which is actually a bad behavior) and then we can talk.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

" I would say a water pistol but that's probably to dangerous for him"

No worries, in time the government will ban those too!!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Emily,

MG is giving examples of speech or expression that are limited despite the first amendments, and you discount them bc they are "behaviors"? And instead want him to provide examples of objects? How is that logical? How are objects relevant to to specific question of the limitations on free speech?

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

If you can't see the difference then I can't help you Gadfly. Also, the 1st amendment had limitations to keep from inciting "fights" and "hate." limiting guns does nothing to help anybody. Limiting my ability to slander you or cause a riot in a public venue is for the good of all. How does your idea to make all my 15 round magazines illegal and make me go buy new, smaller ones help you or anybody else?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

emily is SIXTEEN?!?!?!?! I'm bursting with pride like a father..... maybe there is hope for the future of this great country after all....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

So first there's an anti-gun politician in RI that tells firearm enthusiasts to, quote, "Go F*** yourself"...

Now, a very anti-gun state senator in California has been arrested for... wait for it... illegally selling guns in cahoots with organized crime. Maybe he wants to make guns illegal to jack up the black market prices that line his pockets.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-anti-gun-california-senator-leland-yee-charged-gun-running/

And people question why we doubt the morality, ethics, and ulterior motives of anti-gun legislators.

Also note... the illegal guns were imported through NEW JERSEY... how ironic. Wonder who is on the payroll here.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Wow. Unbelievable (meaning, TOTALLY BELIEVABLE)!!!

Fear the government that fears your gun.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Amazing that Emily is 16 years old with such a wealth of knowledge and can certainly debate and hold her own!! Perhaps a child prodigy?

I'm extremely impressed...good for you Emily!

I can learn a lot from you and I'm more than twice your age. Lol

positive positive
Mar '14

Thank you very much, but I don't need you to explain the difference between objects and actions. MG was demonstrating a point that was contested earlier, about limitations on the first amendment. It stands to reason that allowable limits on one right has some bearing on whether their may be constitutional limits on others. Now, you can choose to not be dissuaded by that argument. But you cannot deflate the argument by saying that the limitations on free speech are not valid bc they are not objects, which of course is absurd.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

many of the posters here could learn from emily, i hope they do, she has been spot on re: the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

the 2nd amendment is not an anachronistic outdated relic from a more primitive time. it is as valid and important today as it was when it was written.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

When any of these free speech limitations ban specific words, whether you intended to speak them or not, thrn you can claim equivalency.

Until then, banning the misuse of speech (where it *actually harms another* such as slander/inciting panic) is not the same as prior restraint on the right to keep and bear arms. We have laws addressing the misuse of arms (where it *actually harms another* such as murder/assault) and generally those laws are not contested by anyone here.

Edit: I guess they're trying to chip away at the first amendment in the same way... no surprise Feinstein also hates guns (except the one she carries concealed).

http://www.westernjournalism.com/feinstein-first-amendment-special-privilege-right/

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

I did not, anywhere in my writings say the limits on free speech are not valid -- as a matter of fact, just the opposite. They are very valid because each and every one of them is for the greater good (not incite a riot, not slander someone, not say something that could cause a mass panic, etc) which is always a good thing. What I DID SAY is that they are not applicable. The reason they are not applicable to the gun argument is because starting a riot is dangerous and stupid or slandering someone's name (which is not the same as complaining about someone) should obviously never be done -- HOWEVER, that has nothing to do with gun control because my having a 15 round mag (as opposed to a 10 round) or an AR-15 does not affect anyone else in a negative way.

I ask you Gadfly...have my guns and my magazines done anything to hurt or bother you? Of course not. So why do you want to take them away from me? But I can certainly see why you would not want me to find out who you really are and your address and write a big lie about you and slander your name all over town. See the difference???

One would hurt you (the slander). And one is none of your business and doesn't affect you at all (my guns and magazines) Get it?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Mark Mc.
I read further on the California Senator. It makes Jersey Poles look like pikers. Amazing story and so big and organized. Scary

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

hmm....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Haha, love that JeffersonRepub!! Gonna have to share that one.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

That is exactly right Mark Mc. ..."Until then, banning the misuse of speech (where it *actually harms another* such as slander/inciting panic) is not the same as prior restraint on the right to keep and bear arms. We have laws addressing the misuse of arms (where it *actually harms another* such as murder/assault) and generally those laws are not contested by anyone here."...

You said it much better than I did. I was trying to say that he was comparing apples to oranges but you said it better.

The limitations on the 1st amendment are basically do no harm, ie: no slander, incitement, etc and nobody could argue that those limitations are wrong. They do NOT limit HOW MANY words you say or HOW MANY syllables the words you use can have or HOW FAST you can speak.

The limitations on the 2nd amendment should be exactly the same, do no harm, ie: no murder, injuring another, etc and nobody could argue that those limitations are wrong either. They should NOT limit HOW MANY guns you can have or HOW MANY rounds it can hold or HOW FAST it can shoot.

If Gadfly and mrgoogle want to compare the two THAT's where the comparison is.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Old Gent, I'm curious who is involved in the gun smuggling operation from NJ.

You don't just schedule $2M worth of rocket launchers and machine guns to randomly arrive at a local port from the Phillipines without having someone here to grease the wheels.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

I'm sorry Emily but your logic is flawed. The 1st ammendment protects speech, an action or behavior. Examples were given on limitations to those actions. The 2nd protects ownership and possession. Limitations on ownership and possession are therefore exactly analogous to the limits provided for the first amendment. I'm not sure how to make that any clearer.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

Such is the slippery slope... progressives will proclaim that just because there are *some* limitations on the 1st (which they can't accept only affect the use of that right against another) that justifies *all* limitations on the 2nd (even when it describes something that may affect someone's possessions at home where no others are present).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Mark,

I'm not trying to justify *all* limitations on 2a rights. In fact, I'm not trying to justify *any* limits on 2a rights. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that it is theoretically possible to have one or more limitations on 2a rights without violating the constitution, which seems to be more than any of you are willing to admit.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

I have no Idea Mark.
Who knows what is in all those containers in the port.
I was more concerned with the Senator and who dose vetting anymore. We know nothing about our President. They were all fooled in Calf. All that counts is MONEY. Any sweet talker can raise money and the best tongue wins it seems. They promise one thing and do another. The population sold their sole for a promise of something for nothing. If they have a conviction they loose. With all the dirt that go's on who needs to get involved and have their family destroyed.
I am waiting for some one that cares about the future of this country, not today.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

Gadfly, I accept that there are limitations on the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. I can't intentionally shoot you without consequences (except for self defense). I can't intentionally cause panic by brandishing a firearm in public (actual brandishing, not holstered open carry).

Things like that are the only logical equivalent to the limitations on the 1st, which are very few, very specific, and limited to quantifiable harm/damages against other individuals. Not potential harm... not icky words... but actual, active misuse of the right.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

"I am waiting for some one that cares about the future of this country"

With young adults like Emily (and hopefully some of her friends) that vocally support liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility over the illusion of a government safety net and training wheels for real life, there may be hope...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Rather than debating the legality of restricting rights of constitutional amendments, and saying "because you can't yell 'fire' in a crowed theatre, you also can't own certain weapons".... let's cut right to the ENTIRE POINT OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT:

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the populace remains sufficiently armed to overthrow a tyrannical government, if necessary, just like was done in the Revolutionary War. Like it, don't, not my problem - but that's the fact. I suspect some of you find the prospect of a 2nd Revolution "too scary" to consider, and would rather disarm the citizenry than risk such a confrontation. You are wrong. You are also in disagreement in HOW this country was founded. Back then, you would have been called a loyalist (I wonder if that thought doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.)

That's it. That's the purpose. Overthrow of the govt. as a last resort. Now, I'm not saying anyone WANTS such a thing (you'd have to be nuts), but that's the WHOLE POINT: we have the 2A in hopes that the THREAT OF IT is enough to keep the govt from becoming tyrannical. We don't want to ever have to USE 2A, and neither does the govt want us to... which is why they are taking the "teeth" out if it, year after year. Remove that threat (through ever-encroaching gun control), and the govt walks all over everybody. Read your history. The founders were smarter than you are.

Think of 2A like car or homeowner's insurance: you never want to use it, but you're damn glad it's there if you ever NEED to use it.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

"which seems to be more than any of you are willing to admit."

this is not true at all, just another slide by dig at those who disagree with your personal take on things. can't seem to stop doing that, can you? or can you?

emily1, mark and darrin and JR are correct about this, the restrictions on the 1st are different in character than those being suggested on the 2nd.

the reduction in clip sizes, the banning of certain semi-auto rifles (and soon semi-auto pistols will added to the 'common sense controls' on firearm restrictions, it's already been discussed in several state legislatures) are fundamentally different than someone who chooses to use the word 'Fire' in a public theater setting thereby setting off a panicked stampede. the individual choses to use the word in a public setting and is held accountable and responsible for their actions. these gun bans affect everybody, (the law abifding citizens) and it is different fundamentally. If i act irresponsibly with a firearm (let's say a .22 single shot rifle) i will be held individually accountable for my lawless actions. it's not the rifle that is to blame, it is me. do you think there should be a prohibition on .22 caliber rifles because of my actions or should i be held individually responsible? same thing with the word 'fire'. the word is not banned, but my choosing to use it in a theater setting is.

huge difference, not nuanced, but logically easy to see the difference, not illogical as claimed above (incorrectly)

it stops here , and it stops now. no more compromises on the 2nd amendment provisions.

the rabid anti-gunners (most of whom have never owned or used firearms) out there will never stop coming for more and more restrictions.

that's why we are saying "it stops here , and it stops now" no more compromises on the 2nd amendment provisions"

notice the use of the phrase 'no more', that implies logically that there is admission that there are some restrictions already in existence.

btw, who is funding the trips for the parents of the sandyhook victims? they are being shuttled all over the country. NYC, Trenton, Virgina, Colorado, and elsewhere. who is funding their plane fares, paying for their meals and hotels? they have been used as pawns in an attempt to pull at emotional heart strings to get more and more senseless 'common sense' restrictions on firearms. I feel badly for any victim of gun crimes, but as already been stated, there are laws about this already. and they should be enforced, fairly and more importantly, consistently.

there is nothing to fear from a gun that is in the right hands.

nothing.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Shazam! Well said JeffersonRepub!! It's so frustrating trying to explain this over and over and over and over again.

It makes me sad to see so many people -- even people here in Hackettstown, possibly my neighbors, like mrgoogle and Gadfly -- that just DON'T UNDERSTAND the intent and purpose of the 2nd. When they start going off on "limits on freedom of speech" and "mandated car insurance" and other nonsense it becomes hard to even have a debate when the person you are debating 1) does not know the true history behind what they are debating, 2) does not know the original, intended PURPOSE of what they are debating, 3) is going on feelings and emotions instead of facts and truth and 4) starts going on about saving children from being shot and then make up crazy numbers about all the kids who "shoot themselves accidentally" (bunch of BS as even the federal government's own numbers don't support that premise - and they HATE that American's have guns and would be screaming the numbers if they were bad).

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Yes indeed, Emily knows more than most. However, when she says: "What?!?!? So, if hell broke loose and 50 soldiers were marching into Hackettstown carrying have AR-15's with 60 round mags (which are standard during traveling foot battle) and the town militia (a large group of people from right here in town who are armed and trained, like myself) also had AR-15's and 60 round mags - I bet we could take 'em down and win. Why not? We would be equally armed (as the original intent of the 2nd amendment)."

Emily, with all her knowledge, believes the second amendment has the original intent for the government and private citizens to be equally armed. It does not say this.

In her example, if memory serves, with all things being equal, odds go to the defender.

However, her example is pure flippin fantasy. If there is a government takeover, they will not come at you on an equal footing ---- ever.

Lastly, Emily's example counters the famed conclusion offered up regularly by the gunnites. That is that for mass murderers, clip size does not matter because a deranged lunatic with mental health problems can change a ten-clip mag almost as fast as shooting a 100-round LCM. Therefore, according to the gunnites, reducing clip-size offers no change to firepower. Apparently, for Emily, a well-trained, well-regulated militia-person can not do this and MUST have equal clip size. I guess clip-size matters to the militia but just not to mass murderers.

It's a fantasy example with erroneous conclusions that fly in the face of what the gunnites have previously posted.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

"I know everybody...mrgoogle can stave off a tyrannical government takeover or social unrest with a really, really big loaf of Italian bread."

Jesus took on Rome with loaves and fishes.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Emily, since the first amendment covers all forms of speech, objects of communication are included also. It's clearly stated in the SCOTUS decisions noted in all those words above.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

" limiting guns does nothing to help anybody. Limiting my ability to slander you or cause a riot in a public venue is for the good of all."

That's because guns at a public venue don't cause riots, people waving and shooting guns at a public venue cause riots. What a riot Columbine was.

Wait, there's more. Let's go to the tape and check the rest of the world to see if limitations on guns help anyone.

Why yes it does.

Matter of fact the top safest gun states in the US also have the toughest gun laws. Conversely, the ten more dangerous gun states have the loosest gun laws. Go figure.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Excellent analysis on the whole ridiculous "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowed theatre" defense:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/foghorn/second-amendment-yelling-fire-crowded-theatre/

...and an excellent summary posted by a reader:

I equate gun ownership restrictions not with being constrained from shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, but rather with having your mouth duct-taped shut on the way into the theater because you might shout “Fire.”

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

"However, her example is pure flippin fantasy. If there is a government takeover, they will not come at you on an equal footing ---- ever."


Ah, the famous "but the govt has tanks" defense. (which, by the way, could have also been used in the Founders' time, as the British forces were much more heavily armed than the revolutionary forces.)

Some more interesting reading (I did not write it):

From time to time, we see variations of comments like this one, pulled from one of our Facebook posts:

Curious, I do not care if people own guns, each their own, but people say we should own guns to keep the government in check. How does a gun help against a rocket fired miles away, a drone or airplane flying overhead, or a massive tank driving through your house?

It’s a fairly common question, and it deserves an answer.

The simple answer to the question is “assymetric warfare.” Smart fighters don’t put their troops in front of the enemy’s best weapons. They use their best troops against their enemy’s week points, and exploit those weak points mercilessly.

In the hypothetical event that the federal government attempted to impose tyranny upon the citizenry of the United States, it would likely trigger the largest insurgency that the modern world has ever known.

Despite all of our awesome technology, we stink at fighting insurgencies.

We lost in Vietnam. We won the conventional war against the Iraqi military easily, but we didn’t defeat the insurgency. We’re losing Afghanistan, and our leadership has no intention of fighting to win.

All of these insurgencies have been overseas, where the supply lines were long, but relatively well-protected. The producers and supply chain itself were never threatened.
In the event of an American insurgency, it wouldn’t be a straight-up fight of partisans with rifles fighting against regime tanks, helicopters, and drones.

It would be a war where “killing” a fighter jet occurs by assassinating aircraft mechanics, or burning the homes of employees of the companies that make crucial replacement parts. It would be a war where every elected official, government employee, and skilled worker in the supply chain would be a target, every day of their lives.

In short, it would be a nasty, brutish conflict full of atrocities with no battle lines, no rear areas, no retreat, and little chance for government forces to survive over the long term.

As long as the American public outguns the military—and they do by more than 90 million firearms—no sane government would dare turn on the American people. That is the reason it is so important for the citizenry to jealously guard their Second Amendment rights.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

better to have the 30 round clips available in a fire fight with a better equipped army than just grandad's ole' double barrel shotgun. i mean it gives you a better chance, correct? they may still have the edge but you have a better chance with the semi-auto rifle with the 30 rounders in them yes? why disarm the law-abiding?

again, the Afghanistanies have successfully held off the 2 most mechanized high tech armies in the world (the USA and Mother Russia) for over 25 years running just by using small hand held and carried arms, some of them left over relics from the 1st world war. very successful indeed.

so it can be done, because it has been done, and it is being done right now.

this statement is quoted from above - "believes the second amendment has the original intent for the government and private citizens to be equally armed. It does not say this."

what does it say then?

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

where is all the money coming from that funds the trips for the parents of the sandyhook victims?

Where?

They are being shuttled all over the country. Washington DC; (multiple times) NYC, Trenton, Virgina, Colorado, Arizona, California and elsewhere.

Who pays for airline tickets, meals, lodging, other transportation. who pays for proudcing the slick handout materails they distribute to lawmakers and news people?

Looks like they are being used as pawns for a political agenda. who is telling them where to go and what to say? who is funding all of this activity?

the real goal is a complete ban, followed by confiscations. that's when they will stop, when everyone is disarmed and has no right to own or possess firearms of any type.

that's the goal. we need to stop this now, and right here in NJ.

kill the bill in the senate, and then support NJ's CCW statute,

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

So mrgoogle says..."Emily, with all her knowledge, believes the second amendment has the original intent for the government and private citizens to be equally armed. It does not say this."

Um...what about this then?

The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state is "It is useful in repelling enemy invasions” (p.24). What is also protected are " weapons in common use by the military OF THE TIME" (p.55).

Yup...that's what it says.

This doesn't mean weapons in common use “at that time,” meaning the 18th Century!! It says OF the time. Again I repeat myself...Maybe you should READ the original documents BEFORE you say something really silly? Or not...I can keep going into the founding documents and cutting and pasting for you.

Yes folks, this IS the intelligence of our citizens. Most don't even know this stuff because in school they only read the article and not all the Congressional notes that went along with it. I blame the schools for people like mrgoogle.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

@emily1,

I do believe the goog will be glad when you go back to school.

ignatz ignatz
Mar '14

"I do believe the goog will be glad when you go back to school."

ROFL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

I love reading all these comments. It sounds like our founding Fathers. In the end they got it right. It's to bad this is not discussed like this on the major media but, it is in the general population. The Media is afraid of the thinking citizens just as the Government is, thanks to the 2nd amendment. The insurgency's are sometimes successful, but not with out weapons. Governments that clean them out have no fear of change.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

"I equate gun ownership restrictions not with being constrained from shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, but rather with having your mouth duct-taped shut on the way into the theater because you might shout “Fire.”"

The question is not about equivalency of the limitation but on the Constitutional ability to place, via law, limitations on Constitutional rights including the Amendments. And there the law is clear; limitations can be put in place. The first amendment example just proves it in fact. There are other limitations on other parts of the Constitution as well.

Equivalency of the limitation is not the question. The gunnites just want to change the question to fit their contrived answer.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

" I blame the schools for people like mrgoogle."

Emily - don't underestimate mistergoogle. He knows and understands *exactly* what the 2nd Amendment means. He just doesn't like it.

He'll claim that he's not against "all guns"... just the following (if I understand his long history correctly)

* He wants bans on magazines over a certain capacity (10-15 rounds, definitely less than 30)
* He wants bans on so called "assault weapons"
* He wants tougher storage laws in the home

He claims this will significantly reduce gun deaths, but then he posts statistics that include ALL gun deaths. Not just those above 10-15 rounds, or by "assault weapons" or accidental deaths. His data includes people killed by the first bullet, from a handgun or shotgun, or those who commit suicuide (and would just as soon tie a rope around their neck of they couldn't find a gun).

He does this because the number of people killed by the 16th or 31st bullet, from an AR-15, or accidentally is so small that it wouldn't elicit the same emotional response. The only solution to the problem he presents is a complete and total ban on firearms (assuming that would magically work), but he claims he's against that... such an enigma this mistergoogle...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

The progressives have put so many limitations in the Constitution that this is the last defense of any Freedom left. That's why we are so concerned.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

Emily,
Obviously that is not from the second amendment.

What SCOTUS decision are you referring to?

I would gather the first citation referencing page 24, is from the SCOTUS Heller decision and I see nothing wrong with this. The actual text reads:

"There are many reasons why the militia was thought to
be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story
§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions
and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large
standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander
Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed.
1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."

However no one is discounting the right to have a well-regulated militia. Also, that is by far not the main conclusion of Heller, just part of the opinion. But we'll give you the obvious even if you didn't source it to the pro-gun blog you pulled it from.

The second one that refers to page 55; which refers to the Heller SCOTUS decision. However, even from the pro-gun blog, you just happened to leave off the important part of the text that you pasted from (you really should source it) which reads : "A full ruling has not been made, as this was not in the scope the court was asked to rule on in the D.C. vs. Heller case, but they left the door open for future ruling." Un oh --- BUSTED

And Heller, while affirming the individual's right to bear arms, actually opened the door for legal limitations as well.

And if is not the second amendment, but a SCOTUS decision about the second amendment.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

True Old Gent... and don't forget, just because there are other limitations on Constitutional rights doesn't mean we are just blindly accepting all of those as well.

The chipping away, over and over, taking a little bit here and a little bit there, has finally gotten to the point where a lot of people have had enough (not just for guns)...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

yer little boys who think someone's going take your favorite toy away. grow up.

MrCharlie2
Mar '14

mrgoogle...PLEASE answer me one question...

If the Constitution meant for the citizens to be armed, without infringement and to the extent that the military of the time's capabilities, to fend off a tyrannical government or an invasion from foreign enemies...

My question to you is (and I am serious - I want to understand) why WOULD you want to limit that? For what reason EXACTLY?

Whenever I get in a debate with someone who is for gun control of any degree, they never explain WHY SPECIFICALLY they hold that particular view.

WHY do you want me to have to turn in my 15 round mags and purchase 10 rounders instead?

WHY do you want limitations on the "type" or "caliber" gun I can have?

WHY do you think the 2nd amendment should be changed?

I just read through every word you have said on this thread going all the way back to your first post 2 weeks ago and I found a lot of arguments on WHAT you think should be done but NOT ONE REASON WHY.

I really am trying to understand WHY the gun control folks even want my rights infringed. Please explain, if you can.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Its plain and simple, more laws, when the new laws don't do a damn thing to fix gun violence...make more laws....repeat until total confiscation occurs....and then wait there is still gun violence..... HOW SO????

Look, Nj is already at 15, the same excuses to take us to 10 will then take us to 5, then to 1, then to none...why some people cannot see this pattern is beyond me.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Darrin, I don't think anyone here is arguing for a 10 round limit. So, who are you arguing with?

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

"Emily - don't underestimate mistergoogle. He knows and understands *exactly* what the 2nd Amendment means. He just doesn't like it."

Yup. And that goes for the others as well.

Don't like it? Gather enough public opinion to force a constitutional convention and REPEAL 2A... if you can (of course, gather public opinion thru all of their "if just one more child's life is saved" diatribe is EXACTLY what they have been doing.)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

And let's not forget... it IS possible for SCOTUS to be WRONG. They are not Gods, they are not infallible. They are driven by political leanings, just like all politicians. Once again, if you want to get into the debate of SCOTUS and what they have done over the course of our nation, read Men In Black by Mark Levin, himself a constitutional attorney.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Great reading suggestion. Another great one is Liberty and Tyranny also by Mark Levin.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Still waiting for mrgoogle's explanation on WHY he wants what he wants.

Still waiting...

Waiting...

I go back to school on Monday so hopefully by then?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

You know the answer emily... it's all based on "feeling". They "feel" this is the "right" thing to do. Emotions. For the children. Save just one life. How many more. It takes a village.

("save the children": unless they are UNBORN children of course; but I digress)

The government and it's ever-encroaching laws will NEVER keep you 100% safe. Ever. Life is danger. Danger walking down the street, danger driving in your car. Danger going to work, or the mall, or to school. It's simply LIFE. And the inherent danger in existence cannot be legislated away. A "cradle to grave" society is not possible.

I wish they would stop trying to make it so. It is a fool's errand. For in the end, even if they "get their way", people will still be dying... in cars, in pools, walking down the street, in bombings, in shootings...in abortions (but I digress). The danger of life will never end. And "minimizing" the danger has already been as achieved as is possible (of course this is where all the opinion comes in, obviously they disagree).

But, before we start confiscating guns, I'd sure like to hear their side scream about so many other killers..... tobacco, drugs, automobiles, drowning, the list goes on and on and on.... and includes abortion (but I digress again, apologies.)


And, on re-reading my post, to add:

They are being used. They THINK they are "trying to save lives". Their elected representatives sell that story. When in reality, they are pawns in a larger game... the govt is not interested in saving lives, only in disarming the populace for ultimate control. The gun control "nuts" (if I should be allowed to use their own language against them) are being used. And they aren't even clever enough to realize it.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

JR - It's very interesting you should first bring up Mark Levin and then go on about "feeling" and the emotionality of modern politics. Levin and his friend Robert Bork were the ones to create the methodology of "Original Intent" in order to by pass Constitutionality in favor of their own view points. To the tune of even demanding an over turn to something as Constitutionally set as Marbury vs Madison. Levin is the one to urge his boss Ed Meese to put Bork up as their nomination. The book is a treatise on how to dismantle the Constitution, not how to protect it. To the point he insinuates Thomas Jefferson didn't even want a federal government as strong as the Articles of Confederation let alone the Constitution. He clearly demonizes Hamilton, Madison, and Jay for the Federalist Papers (because he promotes dismantling federal government), and uses that as the original argument *for* activist judges based on what they feel instead of what the Law (ie Constitution) says.


Emily,
I am no fan of Mark Levin either. On the larger out look I believe they are afraid of Freedom and taking responsibility for there own lives. They are happy to let the Government lead us like a big brother. As JR says' "The government and it's ever-encroaching laws will NEVER keep you 100% safe. Ever. Life is danger". It will own you like a slave in the end. My Faith is in the Lord through Jesus.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

Levin's positions on constitutional matters and original intent are based on study of the founder's works and words; I have done quite a bit of this study myself, not on his feelings or opinions. The whole point is to discover what the FOUNDERS feelings and opinions were on something.

Now, if you don't like what they did, and want to change it, fine. They put in place a method to accomplish that: constitutional convention to amend the constitution. But, it's easier to leave the constitution alone (ignore it) and simply pass laws/infringe rights, change rights and laws from the bench through "interpretation" of original intent.... that way, while the govt is changing things constantly, but slowly, the constitution itself isn't actually being touched... giving less cause for alarm from the people. AND they are using feelings and emotions ("its all for the children") to get us to willingly cede our inherent rights... we WANT the govt to infringe upon us, giving us the FALSE sense of more safety and security. It's a facade. Much like the old "frog in boiling water" story.

If you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out immediately. If you put him in a pot of cool water and slowly turn up the heat, before he realizes he needs to jump out, he'll be cooked.

Now please- someone tell me that since the analogy is scientifically flawed (you couldn't really cook a frog that way), everything else I have said here is too. You guys do it all the time- you can't debate with substance, so you deflect.

I suggest anyone that is interested in the relationships of the liberty we inherently have, and how it has been slowly encroached on/infringed, and how the Supreme Court has played a hand in it (tho it's not all their fault- they are but one cog in the machine)- to ACTUALLY READ "Liberty and Tyranny", and "Men In Black." Instead of forming your opinion of Mark Levin based on a few soundbites you've heard over the years. Yes, he gets mad, and yes, he can be quite grumpy on the radio. But I dare you to actually READ HIS WORK and then tell me he's wrong. While YOU would still be wrong (lol) I could at least respect your opinion as being based on SOMETHING, rather than knee-jerk reaction to soundbites and what you've read about him in the liberal media.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

BTW, GC- that isn't aimed DIRECTLY at you; you have obviously read SOMETHING Levin has wrote. It was aimed at anyone dismissing him out of hand.

you're still wrong tho. :)

It's not about dismantling the constitution, it's about RESTORING the constitution. The constitution, by design, was a MINIMALIST paper. Not complicated. Simple. By design. He wants the federal govt to be minimalist, as was the original intent. Do you really think the founders WANTED a large behemoth, big brother govt AFTER HAVING JUST DEFEATED ONE WITH GREAT STRUGGLE AND HARDSHIP? Keep the federal govt at bay is the PRIME REASON for the document. IDK if libertarianism existed back then, but most of the founders would be considered libertarians today.

And more evidence that the founders wanted a minimalist fed govt- some of them wanted NO fed govt at all; just a continued confederation of states. So some founders wanted no fed, some wanted a very small fed, and a couple (like Hamilton) were for bigger govt (I chalk this up to the standard disease of power corrupting: Hamilton was one of the original politicians who, from the beginning, wanted a king, a fed bank, and more centralized control over the people.)

And I'm totally with him on Hamilton- not everything he did was bad, but we have been suffering from his actions since the beginning. In the "Jefferson vs Hamilton" debate, I'm squarely with Jefferson, and I think Washington could have done a better job as president with that. But I have to cut him some slack- he did just fight and win the Revolutionary War, and he was the FIRST president- with no idea what a president is actually supposed to do. But I think you and I have went 'round on that one before.

It's all about keeping govt as small as possible, and only letting it grow as large as necessary. I'd say as a country we have failed miserably in that part of the great self-governming experiment.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Getting back closer to the topic...

These anti-gunners are "nuts" (if I should be allowed to use their own language against them)...

Angered by Georgia's pending expansion of concealed carry laws within state lines, liberal radio host Mike Malloy said he'd like to invite an NRA board member to come meet him, then shoot the board member and claim "Stand Your Ground" in defense.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/27/Radio-Host-To-NRA-Board-Member-I-ll-Shoot-You

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

I see this thread has all the usual suspects the keyboard Rambo brigade they all talk a good game but very few have actually played it. Your favorite catchphrases I have a right it's in the Constitution Second Amendment. The brigade loves to throw all these words around but 99% of them couldn't actually bring yourselves to serve the country they say they love so much. And even fewer actually put their life on the line for it. I have no doubt that the Rambo brigade loves this country as long as they don't have to do anything to protect it

oldred
Mar '14

Helloooo....mrgoogle? ....still waiting for your enlightening explanation of WHY you want to take away my 15 round mags and my semi-auto guns and God knows what else...

Yawn......................

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

"Still waiting for mrgoogle's explanation on WHY he wants what he wants.
Still waiting... Waiting...
I go back to school on Monday so hopefully by then?"

My, my. And what is it that you think I want? Because it certainly is not what you think I want. In this thread, I am in agreement with the current NJ statute's 15 round max and think the new statute can not be proven to be more valuable than the current. I have said it multiple times and others have confirmed that for you and to you. In general, against 100-round LCMs, I support the common sense movement's recommended limitation to 10. However, as I have stated here, no one can prove any advantage between 10 or 15; there could be, but no one can statistically prove it. So the pending NJ law seems to be a wasted effort. And I believe the founding fathers, through the SCOTUS, a process designed by the founding fathers, allowed for limitations, restrictions, and clarifications to the amendments in the Constitution.

In other treads I have noted support for the other common sense movement's laws on LCMs, including buybacks, stricter penalties for transgressions, etc. but you can find them there, not here. And no where have I ever called for taking guns away from folks, quite the opposite, I have said that's useless. But I think we could successfully rid the US of LCMs increasing our safety as other countries have.

I have also used NJ's tough gun laws, as well as tough and loose gun laws in other states to, IMHO, prove the correlation between tough gun laws and loose gun laws in regards to gun safety for our citizens. Most of these laws revolve around background checks, not confiscation.

As to your army equivalency Red Dawn theory, I still say that's just silly. As to your Afghanistan, etc. scenario's, not one of the those country's arms have been protected by the Constitution, not any Constitution, and most often are the most God-awful lawless third-world pits of hell in the world. But if that's what you are holding up as a shining example of our second amendment......... Also, they have been able to fight what they see as their aggressors, not because of a second amendment right, but because of outside support with money, arms, supplies, and even men. So using your example, I would not rely on the Constitution, but instead I would make friends in Canada and Mexico.

Lastly, I find it so amazingly that if you don't agree with Emily and the gunnites (a new band?), it's because people who don't think exactly like Emily about the 2nd and guns:

"just DON'T UNDERSTAND the intent and purpose of the 2nd."
"does not know the true history behind what they are debating"
"is going on feelings and emotions instead of facts and truth"
"going on about saving children from being shot and then make up crazy numbers about all the kids who "shoot themselves accidentally"
"they HATE that American's have guns"

Prove it. You have until Monday.

I think that's the gist of it and glad I could summarize for you.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Emily,

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, you might want to stop behaving so obnoxious and immature.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

I did not read Levin's book, My reference was from listening to him Rush and Hannity all during the Bush years defending him and claiming to be Conservative. I gave up on all of them. They have no core beliefs.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

This law only makes it safer FOR criminals not safer from criminals. Also possessing any tube feed 22 makes you a felon. The real issue here is that the people who write these ridicules laws somehow got elected!

Tae111 Tae111
Mar '14

Emily, since you're only 16, technically *you* don't have any 15-round magazines or semi-auto weapons. Unless, of course, you obtained them illegally?

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

Thanks iPhone, I've been wanting to make that point for a while now.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

Not necessarily true. Perhaps Emily hasn't always lived in NJ and she received the guns as gifts while out of this state. You needto be 18 to *buy* long guns/ammo and 21 to *buy* handguns/ammo. NJ requires FID for all transfers (not sure if there is an age requirement on that since I'm older anyway), but most states have no such additional requirements so mom and dad can easily buy little Emily just about anything.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

NJ LAW

"No person under the age of 18 shall purchase, barter or otherwise acquire a firearm, and no person under the age of 21 shall purchase, barter or otherwise acquire a handgun (unless the person is authorized to possess a handgun in connection with the performance of official duties).1 Permits to purchase a handgun will not be issued to any person under age 21, while Firearms Purchaser Identification Cards (FPIC) – for long guns – will not be issued to any person under age 18"

No where in there does it say anyone under the age of 18 can use a gun purchased LEGALLY. I think at this point you are nit-picking, she never claimed owner ship of guns, just claimed a wealth of knowledge.

Nothing in this law stops her parents from purchasing guns and teaching her how to responsibly use them, which judging by her statements, responsibility has been the number one thing her parents taught.

Quit the nit picking on how people say things and stay on the topic at hand, I don;t understand why everyone always has to take a stupid forum post to the personal level!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

No, but I'm the only one in the family who uses them because I am a member of the Junior 2 (J2) USA Shooting Sports Club and the National Junior Rifle Development Team. It seems you, Gadfly and your pal mrgoogle want to take the objects I USE in my sport away. Technically nothing is *mine* since I didn't purchase anything I own since I just turned 16 and just started working.

Your suggestion iphoneimal that I obtained my firearms and any accessories illegally is offensive and immature as well. Don't you know that kids shoot? Ever hear about the Boy Scouts of America Shooting Club? Those are young kids who are learning to become marksmen. They don't technically *own* their guns either, but they all have them. Why do you think they make small guns, pink guns (for little girls) and beginner guns? I didn't *purchase* my furniture in my room either but that doesn't mean I don't consider it *mine*!! Ridiculous.

Also your comment...

Emily,

"If you want to have an intelligent discussion, you might want to stop behaving so obnoxious and immature"

What's obnoxious and immature? That I am waiting for mrgoogle to reply? I asked him a simple question and for someone who is on here so much, he seems to have suddenly clammed up. Since he has said how interested he is in the subject and how fine he would be to take away my ability to use my weapons as I see fit - it seems very strange that all of a sudden when asked a real question he shut's up.

Personally I think he doesn't have an answer.

And by the way...why do you feel it necessary to protect mrgoogle from a question from a dumb, stupid, felonious (I guess since I have firearms) girl? Can't he handle the heat without you coming to his rescue? Maybe I'll have my dad come on here and protect me from all you mean, obnoxious anti 2nd amendment types.

Nah, I can hold my own. Too bad mrgoogle needs someone sticking up for him and calling me names for him.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

MG say:

" I am in agreement with the current NJ statute's 15 round max and think the new statute can not be proven to be more valuable than the current"

then in the next SENTENCE:

" I support the common sense movement's recommended limitation to 10. "

Then in the next sentence

"However, as I have stated here, no one can prove any advantage between 10 or 15;"

Mistergoogle, I am sorry, but MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! What you just stated, in those three lines, is why everyone is COMPLETELY CONFUSED about your standings....you argue on a NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round forum and bounce your beliefs back and forth, seems to me like you need to fight either one side or the other, because until you can make up your mind, you are just creating confusion.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Me, I like a 50 caliber machine gun ... mounted on my boat. Why can't I have that?

MrCharlie2
Mar '14

It makes me feel secure

MrCharlie2
Mar '14

"Your suggestion iphoneimal that I obtained my firearms and any accessories illegally is offensive and immature as well. Don't you know that kids shoot? Ever hear about the Boy Scouts of America Shooting Club? Those are young kids who are learning to become marksmen. They don't technically *own* their guns either, but they all have them. Why do you think they make small guns, pink guns (for little girls) and beginner guns? I didn't *purchase* my furniture in my room either but that doesn't mean I don't consider it *mine*!! Ridiculous. "

I didn't suggest that you did; merely presented the only possible way you could "own" them. I assumed that they legally belonged to your father. As for the furniture in your room, I'm unaware of any legal age requirement for owning furniture, so you can safely say that they are "yours". Just keeping the "facts" straight... my comments have nothing to do with anyone else's posts.

And the other comment you attributed to me wasn't mine at all. And for you to call me anti-2nd Amendment means you haven't been paying attention. I'm as fiercely pro-Constitution as anyone on here. Completely agree with just about everything you've said on here in defense of the 2A. You just got a little ahead of yourself from a legal standpoint. That's all.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Mar '14

Sorry -- I meant to direct the last part about sticking up for mrgoogle to Gadfly. In my haste I omitted that. My bad.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

I find it very refreshing that a young women is so knowledgeable about a serious subject. She is concerned about her freedoms being chipped away at a very young age. She is looking out for her future! That's a good thing we all can agree on. She enjoys guns, she enjoys shooting them. I for one have NO right to take that freedom away from her, nor should anyone else. I hope for her sake she will be able to continue to enjoy her passion when she turns 21,31,41,51,61,71,81,91 and hopefully 101. You go girl!!

auntiel auntiel
Mar '14

"Emily,

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, you might want to stop behaving so obnoxious and immature."

When you can't debate the topic, assassinate their character. Deflect.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

LMAO JR!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

From Bloomberg News
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-25/how-to-understand-georgias-guns-everywhere-law-four-blunt-points

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

Here is a good one for you. Anti-gun California state senator busted for illegal gun trafficking. This is the stuff the media does not want you to know about.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/3/fbi-arrests-anti-gun-california-senator-on-firearm-trafficking-charges.aspx

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/28/corruption-probes-hitting-dems-across-country/

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Darrin:

Yes, I could see where a nuance might escape you. If you read way, way farther up there is much more detail the first time I mentioned it, but the word --- compromise --- comes into play for my feelings about the current 15-round law. Plus the fact that a statistical difference between 10 and 15 will not be proven in our lifetimes.

I tried to shorten it this time since Emily requested a do-over.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

the rabid anti-gunners (most of whom have never owned or used firearms) out there will never stop coming for more and more restrictions.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Darrin wrote:

"Here is a good one for you. Anti-gun California state senator busted for illegal gun trafficking. This is the stuff the media does not want you to know about."

I just did a Google News search on this topic. There are currently 1560 stories on this topic. How can you possibly claim that media not want us to know about this story? Do you have something to back up that statement? Or are you just repeating something you heard from Rush?

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

Gladfly, Since you have nothing to say about the topic you decide on picking on how the poster posted it. Nice try but I don't play that game.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

the rabid anti-gun-nutters out there will never stop asking for more and more restrictions, more compromises,

many of them have never owed or used firearms their whole lives, but are perfectly fine in not asking, but demanding 'common sense' givebacks from gun owners.

they won't stop until all of us are completely disarmed, that's the goal

it's stops here, and it stops now, kill the bill in the senate that limits magazine sizes

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Game? It seems you're playing the game, and I'm just pointing it out. More than 1500 stories online, and you want to claim the tired conservative storyline, "the big bad liberal media doesn't want us to know about this". The only question is whether you actually believe it yourself. I think you do.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

the wording of the 2nd amendment and SCOTUS rulings do support emily1's postings.

The 1939 SCOTUS decision rejecting the sawed off shotgun because it is not a weapon typically used by the armed forces indicates strongly that the court would be accepting of the individual to have an individual right to keep and bear weapons that are typically used by the armed forces.

this is correct of emily1 to point this out.

i have advocated for decades that all young americans (both men and women) be expected to complete two years of service to their country, and to learn how to use these weapons, and be familiar with them.

i think it would be good for our country to do this.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Hey Gadfly...If the media wanted us to know about these things why are they not mentioning them? You have to dig deep to find all these stories and articles and it takes time and effort to find out what bills are doing in the various stages of passing/failing. You have to go to Trenton and sit in on the meetings to find out what's going on and share it on various sites.

But yet we get 24/7 about what diet Angelina Joli is on or how high Justin Bieber's alcohol level was when he got pulled over. I have yet to turn on the news (any news -- cable or local channel stuff) and see anyone talking about this. I don't know why -- you would think that changing an article of the Constitution of the United States wold be a little more important than J-Lo's latest break-up?

Bottom line if they wanted us to know about it they would MENTION IT! No?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Emily,

There are more than 1500 stories online right now about Leland Yee. How can you claim they are "not mentioning it"? Go to any major media source and search for Yee. There is widespread coverage. And yet Darrin claims the media doesn't want us to know, and you're backing him up. How can you take that position despite the mountain of readily available evidence to the contrary? Do facts even matter to you?

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

Go to NBC News and do a search on Leland Yee. You'll see all the articles they have about it.

Here is a link if you want.

http://www.nbcnews.com/search/Leland%20Yee

Joe M Joe M
Mar '14

BD
"i have advocated for decades that all young americans (both men and women) be expected to complete two years of service to their country, and to learn how to use these weapons, and be familiar with them."

Israel & Switzerland do it. They are defensive ,not proactive Country's like us.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

it's because the msm (which includes nbc) is about 80% registered Democrats and they take care of their own while at he same time holding republicans and conservatives to a different standard,

can't believe how many liberals are blind to this, and it's an epidemic of one sided reporting by cbs, nbc, abc, nyt's, Washington post, la times, Chicago tribune, most of the local affiliates, and a whole host of other biased , partisan outlets that i don't have time to list out for you.

they are loaded with 8 out of 10 employees who have a personal stake in promoting democrats at the expense of republicans.

it's way past time to get real

and most of them are fervent, emotional driven, anti-gunnites who have an agenda to keep pushing out more and more firearms restrictions claiming 'common sense'.

appalling, just appalling.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Gadfly...you just MADE my POINT! Thanks. You wrote...

Emily,

".....Go to any major media source and SEARCH FOR YEE (capitols mine). And yet Darrin claims the media doesn't want us to know, and you're backing him up. How can you take that position despite the mountain of readily available evidence to the contrary? Do facts even matter to you?

Trust me Gadfly, when the media wants us to know something - like Moochelle's latest comment on what we should eat, they don't make us SEARCH FOR it. The mere fact that I have to SEARCH for this very important information says it all. Most Americans are too lazy to SEARCH for anything. If it's not right there on the 10 o'clock news, right after the Kardashian's or the Bachelor, then they don't even know about it.

If you think the average American is SEARCHING for info on the Constitution you are crazy!

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

hehe

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

"i have advocated for decades that all young americans (both men and women) be expected to complete two years of service to their country, and to learn how to use these weapons, and be familiar with them."

Sounds like one of those well-regulated militias. I would favor this as a pre-condition for individual gun ownership, and voting

MrCharlie2
Mar '14

Actually the court did not say "armed forces" in Miller in 1939, but used the terms from the second amendment; "well-regulated militia." Since then, both gunnites and anti-gunnites have claimed victory because of that.

Anti gun because Miller clearly indicates the government's authority in rejecting legal challenges to federal firearm regulations. They criminalized shipment of a sawed-off shotgun across state lines because it was against federal regulations.

Gunnites because they feel they should be granted access to any arms for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit at present. However, the court actually said: "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." which is not exactly a compelling confirmation.

In other words, you can have your guns and regulate them too but this gun, which many feel the military use on a regular basis, is not necessarily guaranteed by the second amendment, was federally illegal to ship across state lines and thus, a criminal act.

Of course since the case was remanded by SCOTUS back to Federal District Court, one can say that Miller never really decided anything.

However, in Lewis, in 1980, the court used Miller when it concluded: "Further, the Court reaffirmed the position first established in U.S. v. Miller that "the Second Amendment guarantees not right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’" (ABA) While this open the "reasonable relationship" door, it also re-established the Federal Government's right to limit firearms outside the scope of the second amendment.

However, in Heller, in 2008, "While the decision ruled that the ban of handguns in Washington, D.C. is unconstitutional, it stressed that certain regulations are legitimate. In addition to limiting the type of firearms that can be owned, the decision also upheld prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms." (ABA)

Certain regulations are legitimate. Prohibitions limiting the type of firearms that can be owned are legitimate. Hmmmmm.

Now that said, if you follow the regulations and pay the tax, you can own kind-of machine guns, rpgs, lots of cool stuff, but not really military grade. Anything with explosives is hard to get, even if you can fill out the forms, stand the checks, and pay the taxes. So, close, but no cigar.

And the people have the right to regulated, limit, and tax, upheld by SCOTUS. And if you feel under the heel of government jack-booted thugs now, wait to you hand in that application for your almost-mil-spec toy.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Joe M, Your right, nothing there on NBC. I wonder why?

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

Emily,

You continue to say things that are patently and demonstrably false. I'm not sure if it's because you care more about "winning" an argument than what is true, or if you just can't be bothered to try to verify what your saying. Or both?

The Yee story is still on the front page of every major paper in CA today. It received much wider coverage around the country when the story actually broke.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

MrCharlie2...I don't recall reading ANYWHERE in the Constitution where there were "pre-conditions" to owning a gun. The owning of the gun was a right. They "asked" all able bodies men with guns to "join" a militia, it was not a prerequisite nor should it be.

Also the well regulated militia was totally apart from the military -- they were supposed to be ready to FIGHT the military if necessary.

PLEASE PEOPLE READ AND LEARN BEFORE COMMENTING!!!

Man this is crazy! I honestly had no idea how little people actually knew about the 2nd and the Constitution. It's downright scary! I sort of knew my generation was clueless...but adults?!?!?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

FYI
The American Citizenship Quiz. There are 100 Questions and you need 58 right to pass. I got 89. Most of what I got wrong pertained to Music which is not my strong point. Try this for the privilege to Vote.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0104/Could-you-pass-a-US-citizenship-test/Who-signs-bills

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

"Man this is crazy! I honestly had no idea how little people actually knew about the 2nd and the Constitution. It's downright scary! I sort of knew my generation was clueless...but adults?!?!?"

It's not all their fault.... the public education system in this country has been taken over by libs decades ago, and indoctrination has been going on for as long... and it's far worse on college campuses. You believe what you are told in school, because school is supposed to be teaching the TRUTH - the WHOLE truth- that hasn't happened in a very long time, with regards to the founding, the Founders, and the founding documents.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Gladfly, you have certainly taken over for MG's absence......maybe I was wrong by saying it was not being covered....is that what you want to hear???? Jesus get off you high horse already. You are like a annoying child who never grew up, and to think you had the courage to tell emily she was immature? ?? Astonishing really!

I will say it again, if your childish side chooses they would rather piddle amongst how statements are made as opposed to staying on topic take your comments elsewhere and let us adults have a conversation.

The point is that anything anti gun is spread for weeks, months and turned into a story it never was. I dont have the time or patience to read through all the 1500 arcticles you claim to be on google, but I assure you they are different from each other, maybe suddel or maybe huge, but my point has been made, that news wants you to believe what they want. And I assure you the only reason they are making a story of it is because the illegal guns part, they most likely are not focusing on the fact that he was against guns all together.

Lets watch and see if we see this story all over the tv for months like the anti gun stuff has been, I bet not!!

I also ask, why is it that people that have no interest or common knowledge of a topic always choose to get involved to to nit pick on how things are said, are you really that board? Either get a life or educate yourself on the topic.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Funny Darrin. You make a very inflammatory statement of great political importance, "this is the stuff the media doesn't want you to know about". I prove that you're wrong, and for that, I'm childish.

Maybe you don't understand why that statement is so important to current political debate. Maybe you should consider why you accept this conservative storyline as a universal truth even, as in this example, when all evidence is to the contary.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

On the contrary the childish statement was based off your forum posts before you even chose to direct them my way, I have been watching your posts, your claimed to not have a concern with the topic at hand but continued to harass everyone on the forum with you left field statements that had more impact on the person posting then on the topic we are all concrened about. I said I was mistaken, i based my statement off the medias past, which every single knowlegeable person on this forum can vouch for me on, yet you want to keep going......what is it you are seeking because you have added not a bit of valuable info to this post.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Forget it Darrin, Gadfly is off his meds or something. I don't know what happened to mrgoogle, but I think he has slunk back under his rock.

I go back to school Monday so I will have to miss all the banter, but this has been the most educational week I ever spent. This was a real eye-opener and it really gave me a good sense of how little people like mrgoogle and Gadfly know about the issues. It kind of scares me to think that we have come so far -- from the founding fathers to some of the people on here.

I am going to try to talk about this stuff (the 2nd and gun rights and the Constitution) at school (if I can) because I really think it is unfair how the public (government run) schools keep us so uneducated and naive. Some teachers are more tyrannical than others but there are a few (very few) teachers who are truth seekers and truth tellers (although most of them not in the classes, usually outside during talks or during after school clubs, etc).

It's almost like the Liberal/Progressives try to shut down and scare the liberty wanting, America loving, Constitution understanding, individual rights seeking people by making us look like fruitcakes. I am personally going to do whatever it takes (in my own small way) to fight them by educating myself and fighting their emotionalism with American history.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Oh, and one last thing...they ain't getting my (well, my fathers - since I don't actually own my guns...) firearms without one hell of a fight.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Emily,

I am still you're huckleberry. And I did respond to all your questions; you still have till Monday to launch your response.

Meanwhile, if you refrain from the rudeness, it would be appreciated. I know you think that anyone who does not agree with you is stupid, but that just is not so. Nor do they slink, live under rocks, or any of the other rude things you conjure up.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Be careful Emile. Schools and society in general are very touchy, feely these days. Today you can get your family in trouble for your actions. Free speech is not as free as it used to be. May God bless you as you journey onward.

Old Gent Old Gent
Mar '14

Whew!


"The point is that anything anti gun is spread for weeks, months and turned into a story it never was. I dont have the time or patience to read through all the 1500 arcticles you claim to be on google, but I assure you they are different from each other, maybe suddel or maybe huge"

"they are different from each other" Yeah, what are you smoking. I would bet hands-down they are mostly exactly the same.

And you gunnites have one of the most prolific PR machines in the world, the NRA. They can place a story whenever they want to so give me a break.

And Peppy Lepew can turn up at a girl scout meeting just to buy cookies and the press will be all over him.

And you have zero governing agency. You guys print BAD news, let it cycle for a turn, let it get trashed for being false, and then 8 months later print the same proven-false piece again and start the cycle all over.

You are so downtrodden, newsworthy speaking. Yeah, right. Give me a break.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Darrin and Emily,

It's clear you believe that an intelligent discussion is comprised a few people repeating soundbytes they've picked up from their favorite conservative websites and radio shows, and patting each other on the back. Anyone who disagrees are childish, harassing, "know nothing about the topic", and add "not a bit of valuable info".

You should try to broaden your minds a bit. Even if you disagree with people, it's hard to have an intelligent discussion, and impossible to have a productive debate, without disagreement.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

I don't get ANY of my info from whatever you are talking about. I don't listen to talk radio - I listen to my music on my iPod and we don't own a TV. The only time I ever see TV is at friends houses. I Don't know what your talking about conservative websites either. I do Facebook and that's about it.

I get my information from reading the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, The Gettysburg Address, The Virginia Plan, The Homestead Act of of 1862, the Monroe Doctrine, etc.

I would say my mind is pretty darn broad. Would you like to discuss/debate any of the important documents above with me? I bet you can't.

And it is obvious you know nothing about the topic, just by your statements that contradicts what's in the documents you are pretending to have any knowledge about.

The thing is, when you are arguing with people about a document, article, law, amendment, what have you, it really helps to actually have read and understand it first - which you obviously have not.

Maybe we can play a game and I can ask questions about the content of the above named American documents and you and Darrin and JeffersonRepub can answer and we will see who wins.

The winner(s) would be the ones who have the right to comment - the person that doesn't know anything -does not.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

so go back to school emily1 and maybe when you return you may be a little less full of yourself---geeze

5catmom 5catmom
Mar '14

Gadfly, nicely said.

Sadly, most of these conversations happen with a bit too much sarcasm, emotion, and name calling, and I hope you'll reread your post and notice that it applies equally well to others posting in this thread regardless of which "side" of the debate they're on (if you get my drift). That particular posting style draws out the same in others because that's the poster's strategy - to intentionally rile up the other guy. It's best to not even go there IMO.

justintime justintime
Mar '14

Thanks for the compliment JIT. Saying that someone is being immature for taunting another poster is quite different than calling people names for disagreeing with your arguments. I'm sure you would agree.

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

I notice that all the people on here calling names "full of myself" (5catmom), "immature" (mrgoogle), "uneducated" (Gadfly) but, funny not ONE of you has yet to say how YOU interpret any of this. All I hear is Fox News, Conservative media, Conservative blogs, blah, blah, blah.

So, I ask again (I guess that makes me immature) please give me your interpretation of the 2nd and the Constitution, and what the founders wrote in their papers. If you have a different take tell us. All I hear is put downs, name calling (getting it right back though!) and how you don't "care" about the difference between 5, 10 or 15 rounds. But we have yet to hear WHY you feel that way or WHAT part of the papers you are using to bolster your argument.

And 5catmom - I have been trying desperately to have a real debate and if you read all of Gandfly and mrgoogle's comments you wont find ONE piece of proof, evidence or law that bolsters their argument. Why don't you ask them yourself?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Pretty bad when an adult calls a kid names like that too. Bet if a teacher said some of those things to your kids you'd be at a lawyers office!

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Emily, I think you'll find that you're confusing criticism with name calling. I also believe you are incorrect about me calling you "uneducated".

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

emily, like I said in a previous post, your wealth of knowledge at your age is very impressive, but throwing insults just cheapens what you are trying to say.

Being respectful towards others even if they disagree is a sign of maturity. I'm sure you will get there one day.

Just advice from someone much older, not insulting you. :)

positive positive
Mar '14

Gadfly, I understand. If you recall, I've allowed myself to get entangled in these discussions from time to time ;)

IMO either case results in closed-mindedness because of the offense taken by the target of the comments. Like I said, it's best to not even go there, which I think is why most of HL's participants stay away from this kind of thing (the truly intelligent among us lol). It's hard to discuss something intelligently when it's certain to devolve into a playground scuffle.

justintime justintime
Mar '14

retreating to the lounge - won't be back- well said positive

5catmom 5catmom
Mar '14

^
This

MrCharlie2
Mar '14

Well. I have tried. Maybe I am just stupid because I have read every response from mrgoogle and Gadfly and maybe it's just me but I still don't see any answer/example/law, amendment or anything that supports their opinions.

I get that people have different opinions and I respect that - if they are based of fact - but what I get really frustrated with is this type of thing where people say things like they "don't care" about the size clips and then say "but they should be smaller." Or, say what their "opinion" is regarding what a militia is by just going on their "feelings" and refuse to show where in the founding documents someone said anything to support that opinion.

I have been on here a week now and I see a lot emotionalism (from myself included), opinions, feelings and stubbornness (from myself included) but not a lot of knowledge of the Congressional Papers, The Constitution and other important documents that SHOULD govern what we do today in regards to the 2nd amendment.

I guess I get my dander up because as Americans we all SHOULD know this stuff and it frustrates me to no end that most don't.

I also find that people will not just admit they never read some of this stuff and can't say they don't really know when it is painfully obvious that they don't. Instead they say things like "you got that from FOX News." That's when I tend to lose my cool because um...no I got it from our founding documents.

I feel statements like that cheapen our country and put down those who make the effort and take the time to learn our history - about guns or anything else - because it seems like it should be important to all of us.

I guess that makes me "full of myself" (according to 5catmom).

I sincerely hope we never NEED the 2nd amendment militia but if we do, I see at least a few people here in Hackettstown who will will be trained and ready. We will have to protect all the anti-gun people if the time comes even after they have insulted us for wanting to be armed with plenty of ammo.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

No, you are the opposite of stupid emily! Being passionate about something is a wonderful thing, but to keep your emotions in check is quite another thing.

Don't let the opposers get to you, I think they like a good debate and that's what you have given them.

I think everyone on here is in awe of you... don't let your emotions and ego get in the way.

positive positive
Mar '14

Emily just turned 16, I cant understand what the problem with maturity is......she is 16!!!! Obviously she has some growing up to do, but after reading posts by gladfly, it has become obvious we all do, so get off the personal level and get back to the topic at hand!

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

When Emily says "I notice that all the people on here calling names "full of myself" (5catmom), "immature" (mrgoogle), "uneducated" (Gadfly) but, funny not ONE of you has yet to say how YOU interpret any of this" I think she might be mistaken. I don't think I have called her immature, can't find it. Perhaps Emily, since you are the offended, you might point out the error of my ways where I called you this. Thanks.

Also, when Emily says: "That's when I tend to lose my cool because um...no I got it from our founding documents." which she likes to repeat like: "I get my information from reading the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, The Gettysburg Address, The Virginia Plan, The Homestead Act of of 1862, the Monroe Doctrine, etc."

However, when Emily posted: "The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state is "It is useful in repelling enemy invasions” (p.24). What is also protected are " weapons in common use by the military OF THE TIME" (p.55)." apparently she did not follow her own truths although it "looks" like she is citing SCOTUS cases. She did not write this.

Actually she plagiarized this from PolicyMic and did not attribute it to the source. http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment. While it was copied, PolicyMic is a really cool site and the material is good. But this is still not Emily's own work from the original documents that she likes to tout as the only way she gets er done. The article is an op-ed piece by PolicyMic.

PolicyMic is cool though, here's a backgrounder: http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/even_more_interactive_news.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

back to the topic, we have obviously all somehow agreed there is no proven need to go from 15 to 10 rounds, but has there been any new news on this law, or are they still putting it off?

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

The bill is still in the state Senate, but for some reason has not yet come up for a vote.

Last week at Christie's town hall meeting he was very wishy-washy about it when asked.

Seems he "doesn't know" when it will come up for vote and "doesn't know" if he will veto this if it makes it to his desk. I am hoping that since he vetoed three gun control bills last year he would do the same with this one.

I don't get why he won't just say what he will do.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

OMG mrgoogle.. I did not get that from PolicyMic (never even heard of it!) but where do you think they got those quotes from?

I am not going to even respond anymore because you seem to want to parse words, argue and criticize instead of sticking to the VERY important issue at hand (at least for me and a few others on this site).

Darrin is right. Wasting time arguing about the United States Constitution keeps getting us off the topic that is very important to me and many of my co-Patriots in this country. Let's stick to how we (those of us who want to) are going to fight this or deal with this if it does pass. And how we are going to stop the slow, but steady encroachment on our 2nd amendment rights. That's the main thing.

Fighting with mrgoogle and Gandfly just really wasted my time, their time and aggravated everyone on this site (sorry I let myself fall in the trap, my bad) who are concerned about the ever-strengthening anti-gun lobby, who want real answers to this slow loss of our freedom.

I will control my urge to respond and stick to the original intent of the post. Sorry, Darrin, for devolving and messing up your discussion.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

"I don't get why he won't just say what he will do.

Because you don't show your cards in poker until the hand is over.

The bill is still pending a vote in the Senate, but it has been delayed until some time in April.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Nope it originated at PolicyMic and someone plagiarized it from there. You did not do your own work as you said and you did not attribute it to PolicyMic or wherever you copied it from.

And I am surprised that JR, Mark and your other cheerleaders have not voice in. Generally we take unattributed copy/paste as pretty serious. One reason is that it violates the originator's intellectual property and this can put the site at risk for all of us. Another is that it is just a low class thing to copy someone else's work and claim credit for it.

As to where PolicyMic got the info, they actually attempted, poorly but they did attempt, to source the data to the actual pages in the original documents, Consitution, SCOTUS, and otherwise. You did not.

As far as getting back to it, I have posted my summary as you requested and have sourced most, if not all, of my points to other documents. For the limitations discussion, I used mostly SCOTUS decisions or documents describing those decisions. If you don't " don't see any answer/example/law, amendment or anything that supports their opinions." that is a choice but the citations are there.

Of course you have also chosen not to respond to any of the queries I posted for you.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Emily don't be sorry, I myself should not talk I Am the number one person To get into these heated discussion on the Bergen tool topic. It seems no matter where you go people are more interested with how you say stuff that the actual topic at hand. Happens to me all the time. you can't blame someone for being emotional for what they truly believe in and quite frankly I feel it is a great quality. I have actually Learned a great deal from your postings and am very impressed with your knowledge.

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

Emily1;

im gonna point this our to you before the googler posts his typical 'BUSTED' diatribe,

this is quoted from your post a few days ago

""It is useful in repelling enemy invasions” (p.24)"

a google search on that links directly to this page :

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment

looks like the information is from them, or least it is duplicated on that page, maybe some others as well, not sure about that.

you are correct though,. and the gun-banners on here are wrong about the 2nd amendment, it is an individual right, it does include the weapons of the day, and it is for the defense of the people against invasions as well as tyrannical governments.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms also cannot be abridged in a quid pro quo policy consideration having to do with balancing individual rights with murders, deaths and/or other crime control, the right is enumerated in this way to be taken out of these otherwise worthwhile 'policy' debates.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Seems to me that mrgoogle and Gadfly spent an enormous amount of time trying to prove they are smarter than a 16 year old.

As for the vote, I am hopeful that cooler heads will prevail and this will never get through and if it does I am hoping Christie will veto it. I agree that he has been very "wishy -washy" on this lately, which makes me wonder, but I still remain hopeful nevertheless.

I really don't even get why this would be up for vote. What the heck is going from 15 to 10 rounds going to do for anything. Seems like just another stepping stone on the path to total gun confiscation. Not to mention make millions of law abiding American citizens instant felons with the stroke of a pen.


"And I am surprised that JR, Mark and your other cheerleaders have not voice in.

You know where I stand on the actual original topic. Emily seems perfectly capable of defending her *method* of debate.



"As far as getting back to it, I have posted my summary as you requested and have sourced most, if not all, of my points to other documents. "

So you admit there is a possibility that you have done the exact same that thing you're trying to crucify Emily for? Got it.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

BobG,

"Seems to me that mrgoogle and Gadfly spent an enormous amount of time trying to prove they are smarter than a 16 year old".

LMAO

They lost, they were taken to school.

Ignatz Ignatz
Mar '14

Darrin, some of us have a problem with the "emotional" approach because of the way our brains tend to discount opposing facts when we are emotionally invested in something. Why do you think news outlets like MSNBC and FOX are so successful? It's because they go for the emotional jugular, drawing in people who feel passionately about what they believe and are thus inclined to agree with the positions being peddled without questioning the facts supporting the views they present. I think when Gadfly asks for "intelligent discussion" what he/she is really asking that we treat each other respectfully (IOW, keep our emotions in check) and without the usual name calling and sarcasm that tends to come with the passion of our positions. Think about it for a moment: It's almost impossible to have an open mind with someone who is intent on insulting you, isn't it?

Because we are all different, having different personalities, life experiences, predispositions, etc, it will forever be impossible for all of us to agree on anything. My personal views come from understanding that fact, which leads me to my perspective of individuality, freedom, and personal responsibility. Nearly every position I take is from that perspective.

Ask yourself what is your "baseline", and where does your perspective flow from? Then ask what is the baseline of others? Finally, remember that one's mind will not change unless they are willing to self-evaluate their own perspectives. Will insulting someone ever cause that to happen?

justintime justintime
Mar '14

Oh, the humanity! There are three lines taken directly from Policymic.

Here are two, taken from different sections of the Policymic article:

****The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state is "It is useful in repelling enemy invasions” (p.24). What is also protected are " weapons in common use by the military OF THE TIME" (p.55).*****

Then, presumably Emily's own words:

"Yup...that's what it says."

Then, back to Policymic:

********This doesn't mean weapons in common use “at that time,” meaning the 18th Century!! *****

Then, Emily's words, in which she explicitly claims to be sourcing "founding documents":

"Again I repeat myself...Maybe you should READ the original documents BEFORE you say something really silly? Or not...I can keep going into the founding documents and cutting and pasting for you."

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

the article is based on the founding documents and subsequent court decisions,
and emily1 is quite correct in her assertions, so don't overlook them in your ocd haste to cast critical stones of hypocrisy:

the 2nd amendment, it is an individual right, it does include the weapons of the day, and it is for the defense of the people against invasions as well as tyrannical governments.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms also cannot be abridged in a quid pro quo policy consideration having to do with balancing individual rights with murders, deaths and/or other crime control, the right is enumerated in this way to be taken out of these otherwise worthwhile 'policy' debates.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Which stones of hypocrisy are those, exactly?

Gadfly Gadfly
Mar '14

JR - "it's about RESTORING the constitution". I completely understand that and the others things you said as a philosophy. In many ways I agree with most of what you said. But what I disagree on so much that your "it" is in no way Levin. That's one of the most dangerous things about the book. He doesn't discuss Marbury vs Madison just as a matter of big vs small government. He doesn't do it even in the arguments for and against states rights vs. federal government which was what many of the original writings were about. Instead he questions why the Supreme Court was allowed to have the job determining Constitutionality, go so far as to out right question why the Supreme Court should even be allowed to exist. To him the only thing he could think of was rubber stamping the Executive.

That's not exactly a position done out of the blue - Levin was supporting a strategy for his boss Ed Meese to have that job. That includes the strategy to eliminate Miranda as well as support the seizure of assets without return before issuing a warrant. Meese felt that was unnecessary "technicalities". If you want a serious insight into how Levin, Meese, and Bork are all anti-Consitutional it's how they wanted to undo the Fourth Amendment.

If all of the things you stated are what you want, then Levin is nor your guy.


open both eyes, all of them at once, the left eye, and the right eye

the two of them when opened together will give the most balanced view of the world around you

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Can everyone agree that *all* of the founding fathers believed freedom and liberty were the foundational elements of our new government, and that the Constitution was intended, as a whole, to preserve as much freedom and liberty as possible while still providing for a limited form of government to meet the needs of our society? If so, recall the definitions of freedom and liberty. Not our personal version of them, but what the words actually mean.

This entire discussion is really about how much freedom and liberty we want our fellow citizens to have based on our personal views. When put in the context of the perspective of why the Constitution was written, 15 vs 10 round clips is a ridiculously irrelevant discussion. Even more disconcerting is the desire to have the government control every little aspect of our lives, as that most definitely was not what was originally intended. Quite the opposite, actually.

justintime justintime
Mar '14

this is beyond sublime and well past ridiculous - might be fun to send the whole thread out for critiques........preferably to history teachers - hmmmmm - might be a concept

5catmom 5catmom
Mar '14

are there trees in the forest?

you can't know for sure with only one eye opened. open both of them to see more.

when officiating sports, i hate it when a coach only sees half of the game. when his players get fouled he yells out 'call it both ways Ref', and when his players foul the other team? (crickets) His silence is deafening and quite revealing. he is only watching half the game, not seeing the other half of the game at all.

this is bad, no?

the 2nd amendment, is an individual right, does include the weapons currently in use today, it is for the people to defend themselves from invasions and tyrannical governments, maybe even their own government.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed by considerations in policy debates. It is an enumerated right , that is part of our inherent beings, (the right to self defense) and this right should be taken out of other worthwhile 'policy' decisions.

and while i cry and grieve for them, (and i do, trust me) it is hard to understand that the 27 victims in sandyhook should not be part of the debate on which guns are allowed or not allowed. as noted by others, reasonable 'regulations' can be (and are) created and enforced, but regulations should not get to the point of abrogating everyone's inherent rights to self defense as enumerated in the 2nd amendment which prohibits the federal government from infringing on. (outside of that which is needed for a 'well regulated militia') btw, this includes popular weapons of the day (AR-15's with 30 round clips, and many other's etc)

it should be noted that you can legally own artillery pieces, anti tank weapons, BAR's, anti-aircraft guns, and other light and heavy weaponry, etc, there are many events with these weapons held around the country that have many active participants. you can own tanks, no rule against it, you can own half tracks and other armored personnel carriers,

why disarm the citizenry? for what purpose? (answer: control is the only answer)'

feel good, do nothing legislation proposed by lawmakers who in many case have never owned or fired a weapon in their entire lives, is wrong,

it stops here, and it stops right now.

no more compromises.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

I'm with you BrotherDog!

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

BTW 5catmom, most history teachers don't know this stuff either. They teach out of the history books that distort the facts to fit the liberal agenda. If you go through my World History or Western Civilization books you can easily pick out many, many lies, half-truths, misinterpretations and outright propaganda. So many parents have no idea what their kids are being taught in school. I think you would be surprised.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

"this is beyond sublime and well past ridiculous"

Interesting observation 5catmom. I agree for the most part, but since you just posted that maturity can be found in the "fantasy" thread, the one that is 100% for fun but has zero basis in reality, it's kind of hard to read the above comment without chuckling a bit. ;-)

emily, we had revisionist history as children as well. The difference today seems to be that everyone assumes that the sole source of a child's education is the public school system. That's impossible, and in fact not even desirable. Everyone should be expected to seek out information and not just be content with it being delivered to them through a controlled and mandated education system.

justintime justintime
Mar '14

That's true justintime. So many parents don't even look at what's in their kids school books or ask what the teachers are saying to them.

My parents had a bunch of friends over and somehow they got on the subject of what kids were "learning in school these days" and my dad asked me for my history and English book and was showing the other adults some of the stuff he found. They were all totally shocked. After everyone left, my parents were talking and saying how they couldn't believe that nobody even knew all the "errors and omissions" (as my mom calls them) that we are being told as 100% truth. There are even outright mistakes - but if it's in the book the teachers just go with it.

Oh jeez...hope I don't start another angry firestorm again!

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Speaking of revisionist history btw, the person you are "debating" with emily, the one who called you out for not attributing your work correctly, has his own history of not being completely forthright about the subject matter he posts:

http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/301655#t302492
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/300100#t300308
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/435905#t436416
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/190127#t200712

Sometimes a bit of humility should be exercised when criticizing others...

justintime justintime
Mar '14

Ha, justintime... good catches. I knew he did that but didn't recall exactly which threads they were in...

Can someone say... BUSTED!

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

JIT said:
"This entire discussion is really about how much freedom and liberty we want our fellow citizens to have based on our personal views."

BINGO.


What I still find ironic, and I hate to keep bringing it up, but I do see it as totally morally relevant- is that (in general) the anti-gunners want to take away your right to own guns because they *MIGHT* end up killing someone, someday, somehow. Yet they want to retain the right to kill an unborn baby in the womb... which is taking a life, right here, right now, no maybe about it. They even worry about SUICIDE with legal weapons, yet don't worry at all about what amounts to murder in my eyes (abortion.)

I find that moral conflict indefensible. Until someone can be pro-life, I frankly have no interest in their thoughts on rights of any other nature.

I'm sure that'll piss a bunch of people off, but I don't care. The moral conflict is indefensible, except with the "I should be allowed to do what I want to do with my own body" defense (which is really only HALF a defense in the first place, since their are TWO lives involved)... but if they feel that way, they should be 100% FOR suicide and euthanasia. To be morally un-conflicted.

SO, I guess if someone is pro-abortion, pro-suicide, and pro-euthansia, at least they would be consistent, which would at least be something I could respect.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

emily - Where do you go to school? I can tell you that's not how students at WMRHSD are taught history. In 2005 one of WMC's history teachers was awarded the National History Teacher of the Year award.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051014-11.html


JR, that's why I find it funny when people try to label me as an extreme conservative or a right wing nut-job. I'm not very religious, I'm pro-choice, and I have no problem with gay marriage, but I also think the government should get out of the business of telling us how to live our lives and providing wealth redistribution and hand-outs to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that asks for them.

I know you and I probably have vastly different views on some of those topics, and obviously strongly agree on others. Where we seem to stand out is that despite our potentially differing views we both "agree to disagree" and we strongly oppose people who try to forcefully impose *their* views onto *all others*, regardless of which side they're on - which is what things like gun control are really about.

Heck, despite our potential differences we managed to hang out in person, heavily armed, and both of us managed to have a good time and walk away smiling - which is more than I could predict for some other personalities on here.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Mark,

JR says, "until someone can be pro-life, I frankly have no interest in their thoughts on rights of any other nature".

You are pro-choice. So, JR is not interested in your thoughts on rights. I'm glad this does not bother you and you both can still have a heavily-armed good time together! :-)


Doesn't bother me at all. My beliefs aren't contingent upon him being interested in them, and until either he or I use our beliefs to try and infringe upon each other's rights (through the threat of armed government agents) we can still manage to have fun shooting together despite people thinking guns + disagreements automatically means one of us going to become a murderer.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

I agree with JeffersonRepub. Even as a young female I am strictly pro-life because I believe that life begins at conception. Even more importantly, my favorite cousin was conceived in the violent act of rape when my aunt was only my age. She decided not to fight evil with more evil and had carried cousin Becky and kept her - and are we so happy she did not abort her - she's one of the best people I know! Every Thanksgiving my aunt has a few glasses of wine and makes her teary eyed speech about how Becky was a gift that God just gave her in a strange way.

Obviously cousin Becky is fiercely pro-life too and she tells all the pro-abortion people exactly how she feels when they pull out the "what about in the case of rape" card. Boy, you should see their faces - it's priceless!

Actually being pro-gun is also being pro-life because it is about PROTECTION from bodily harm (at least for me) and protection from Tyranny (which reduces my chance to pursue LIFE, liberty and happiness).

Protecting the unborn from abortions and protecting myself and my neighbors from harm - it seems like pro-life all around to me.

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

I'm digressing away from the 15 to 10 round thing again...STOP THAT!

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

JIT: I am so happy you keep a scrap book; I am flattered. The first one is not plagiarism, it's just a lot of my typing as I stated. Sorry, it's all me babe. The second is not either, the flippin source is listed and linked. So you are batting 500.

Yes early on, your examples are 2 and 4 years ago I made some mistakes and you all corrected me. Apparently you feel what was not OK for me is A-OK for Emily and that was my point. Worse yet, Emily boldly states she only uses original documents as she plagiarizes from secondary sources, a bit more egregious that dropping some quote marks and a citation.

When you all spent days in thread upon thread questioning my very character for lack of a quote mark, I took it to heart. Just appears that you are not equal in your ire when the offender agrees with you.

But that said, BDog is right when describing the second as illuminated by SCOTUS cases: "it is an individual right, it does include the weapons of the day, and it is for the defense of the people against invasions as well as tyrannical governments." And yes, given you pay the fare, pass the tests, and follow the regs you can get almost anything (except explosives); however, most are still not mil-spec. Plus, what B-Dog leaves out is the other part of the SCOTUS decisions illuminating the right to provide limitations on rights guaranteed in the Constitution. It's the other side of midnight........

As far as Emily arguing about the pending NJ law, not sure who she is fighting with; everyone seems to agree. As far as her mish-mosh of other arguments, since she has opted NOT to respond to my request and queries instead continuing to launch invectives, I honestly am not sure where she is coming from except that if you don't agree with her you get labeled as less than competent and called a bad name. Hopefully she has spilled all her venom before returning to school, that would be nice.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

"(in general) the anti-gunners want to take away your right to own guns because they *MIGHT* end up killing someone, someday, somehow. Yet they want to retain the right to kill an unborn baby in the womb... which is taking a life, right here, right now, no maybe about it. They even worry about SUICIDE with legal weapons, yet don't worry at all about what amounts to murder in my eyes (abortion.)"

Just not true, sorry.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

Is mrgoogle one angry dude or what? Sheesh! Is there anybody on this site besides Gadfly that you haven't blasted? If we are all such dumb, plagiarizing, FOX news watching (not!), dangerous people who are just seconds away from becoming the next mass murderers with our "arsenals of dangerous weapons," why do you keep trying to - I don't know what exactly - prove how smart you are? What's your point exactly? Does anybody know? I don't even understand what you are fighting about anymore and what question? Did anyone see a question?

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

Oops, darn it! I said I wasn't going to engage with Mrgoogle anymore. Meh, I succumbed...

emily1 emily1
Mar '14

"it should be noted that you can legally own artillery pieces, anti tank weapons, BAR's, anti-aircraft guns, and other light and heavy weaponry, etc, there are many events with these weapons held around the country that have many active participants. you can own tanks, no rule against it, you can own half tracks and other armored personnel carriers,"

Umm, BD, is it legal to keep this wonderful ordnance operational ? A BAR would suit me fine, but I some how doubt uncle would approve.

BTW, do you know milspec ?

Emily, fyi, from about 1776 to 1916-17 the militia WAS the army, or at least the bulk of it. Think Saratoga.

MrCharlie2
Mar '14

"Umm, BD, is it legal to keep this wonderful ordnance operational ? A BAR would suit me fine, but I some how doubt uncle would approve."

Absolutely legal...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEo8yRiDU0w


But the BAR's got nothing on privately owned mini-guns (amongst others).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpgY8hA_zdk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kUKwfM3CDY

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

I should have been a little clearer... my comments were made in regards to the issue we are discussing: constitutional gun rights, or any constitutional rights for that matter.

If someone thinks it's ok to take a life through abortion, but it's not ok to own a firearm that *might* *someday* take someone's life, I am not interested in their views on anything, because they are being morally dishonest. Mark, for example, believes people have the right to make BOTH those decisions for FOR THEMSELVES. That's my point: either people can make BOTH those decisions for themselves, or NEITHER. Any other opinion is morally conflicted, and therefore invalid (imo)... it would simply be "this is what *I* want, I don't care what you want" (JIT's point above that I quoted), It would not be an opinion based on any sort of logic or moral consistency. (whatever your morals might be... pro-delf-decision or anti-self-decision).

Of course, none of this even touches on the fact that a firearm can't kill anyone, and that owning one does not mean it, or it's owner, will kill anyone..... quite the opposite, in fact, in the MILLIONS, as far as statistics go. So, frankly, it's not even a direct comparison: abortion IS death, a gun MIGHT be death (altho very very very highly highly highly unlikely).

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

I guess I just find it ironic that people who want to tell me THEY think I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, or a 30-round magazine, or a semi-automatic firearm, get really pissed off when someone tells them they shouldn't be allowed to kill an unborn child.

And, while I do have personal beliefs regarding abortion, you don't see me yelling for anti-abortion laws. (altho to me they would be no different than the anti-murder laws already on the books).




"and until either he or I use our beliefs to try and infringe upon each other's rights (through the threat of armed government agents) we can still manage to have fun shooting together "

Well said, Mark.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

misterg, I did not defend emily at all, I just took an opportunity to point out the hypocrisy in criticizing others when you obviously use very similar tactics. I completely agree with you that if you use the words of another they should be sourced. In emily's case, she is guilty of exaggerating her statements. Point made, hopefully point taken.

And I don't keep a scrap book, I just happen to remember BS when I hear it. Before you reply, please try to remember that you are not the only one who is skilled at "googling", and that if you are going to outright lie it's likely you will be caught.

The content of your post in the first link may have come from here:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/380873/Middle-Ages

I just looked again and did not see a link in the thread. If you did post it, I'm sorry but I didn't see it.

You:
"The 13th century was the apex of medieval civilization. That's the cat's pajamas to you morons. The classic formulations of Gothic architecture and sculpture were achieved. Many different kinds of social units proliferated, including guilds, associations, civic councils, and monastic chapters, each eager to obtain some measure of autonomy. But their were no teacher Unions. The crucial legal concept of representation developed, resulting in the political assembly whose members had plena potestas—full power—to make decisions binding upon the communities that had selected them. Intellectual life, dominated by the Roman Catholic Church, culminated in the philosophical method of Scholasticism, whose preeminent exponent, St. Thomas Aquinas, achieved in his writings on Aristotle and the Church Fathers one of the greatest syntheses in Western intellectual history. The peasants were really partying then --- oh boy, oh boy it was good to live in the 1200's and be part of the Renaissance fair as Goths and Romans, and Eastern/Western Europeans peons intermingled with the Mediterean peoples. It was a good time be almost anything except a non-Christian but Charely had killed most of them by then so it was pretty much OK for everyone left alive."

Brittanica:
"The 13th century was the apex of medieval civilization. The classic formulations of Gothic architecture and sculpture were achieved. Many different kinds of social units proliferated, including guilds, associations, civic councils, and monastic chapters, each eager to obtain some measure of autonomy. The crucial legal concept of representation developed, resulting in the political assembly whose members had plena potestas—full power—to make decisions binding upon the communities that had selected them. Intellectual life, dominated by the Roman Catholic Church, culminated in the philosophical method of Scholasticism, whose preeminent exponent, St. Thomas Aquinas, achieved in his writings on Aristotle and the Church Fathers one of the greatest syntheses in Western intellectual history."

The second link, yes, I see now that you had posted the link in a prior posting from the one where you had pasted the content.

The next two were 100% plagiarism without the added misterg flourish, so I'm not going to copy and paste either because they match exactly.

The third link was possibly sourced here:
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/mass-shootings-newtown-connecticut/2012/07/20/id/445971/

The forth link may have come from here:
http://www.sierranevadasilver.com/how-it-works.html

Is this relevant? Not really, but it does make the point that keeping an open mind and seeking information for ourselves is quite important. If we just listened to what people tell us, knowing that they themselves are probably regurgitating what someone else has said, there's a chance that misinformation will be perpetuated. Read, research, verify. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

justintime justintime
Mar '14

Hmmm, it is okay to be pro-choice, but only if you are pro-gun as well? I must admit I have not seen this linked before.


"Hmmm, it is okay to be pro-choice, but only if you are pro-gun as well? I must admit I have not seen this linked before."


Considering both are pro-"government should stay out of my personal decisions" I don't find anything illogical about it.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

jd2,

You're missing the point, on purpose perhaps? It would be morally opposing to value the life of someone who *MIGHT* get killed (like the children of the Newtown massacre), and restrict a person's rights (a person who has broken no laws, mind you) based on that, but then to NOT value the life of someone (an unborn child) who is DEFINITELY going to be killed (through abortion), and NOT restrict a person's (the mother's) rights based on that.

It seems to me, you should either value life, or you don't. And to take the point even further, I find it LUDICROUS that someone would restrict the rights of someone else who has done nothing wrong, but MAYBE, MIGHT, in the FUTURE, POSSIBLY, in a 1-in-a-million-shot, decide to do something wrong (kill another human being with a firearm), but NOT restrict the rights of a person to murder their own unborn child. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. In one instance, murder of a defenseless child is wrong, but in the other it's ok.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Mark:
"government should stay out of my personal decisions... as long as I don't bring harm to others"

There, fixed it for you. ;-)

A valid role of government is enforce laws that punish you for harming others, and vice versa. In this case, it would be the protection of the unborn from a procedure that would cause irreparable harm - death. So there is definitely a place for law enforcement in abortion, but that place depends on where the vague line is drawn defining when a person is, well, a person and deserving of the same rights you fight so hard for. Always a touchy subject, but one that definitely includes laws and law enforcement.

justintime justintime
Mar '14

No, not missing any point on purpose. Just haven't seen anyone make the link, that's all. It doesn't really make sense to me that, if we're talking about murder, as you see it, it is acceptable (i.e. not murder) as long as you are strong on gun rights.

Oh well, enough from me on this difficult subject.


Yeah, you're twisting the point. But whatever. If my last post doesn't explain it clearly enough for you, nothing will.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

mrcharlie wrote - "VBTW, do you know milspec ?"

what are you asking about ?

i know stuff for sure, but not sure if i know what you are curious about.

please provide details?

here is something i've been thinking about last few days since we have been referencing the SCOTUS miller case:

the miller decision in 1939 was made without full testimony re: short shotguns.
the court decided against miller saying that the sawed off shotgun was not a weapon that was typically used by a well regulated militia, but they were wrong about that, (and there was no evidence presented to them so that they could know about it) but in fact shortened shotguns were used extensively in ww1 in the trenches.

the fighting in ww1 was very intense and the trenches presented logistical problems for defense, the army developed and used a 'trench shotgun' to great effect, this was made by a couple of different gun makers, stevens arms and winchester, and they were shotguns with very short barrels so that you could turn around quickly in tight quarters. these days you can still get a reproduction trench shotgun although now it has a 20" barrel, in the miller case the barrel was 18 inches.

these short barreled shotguns were used by the army in the trenches, and in two world wars

today we know these as 'combat shotguns' or 'tactical shotguns' and they are used extensively by swat teams and police departments all across the country.

i think if the SCOTUS heard this case today they might very well come down with a different ruling, that indeed a short barreled shotgun is indeed a weapon that is commonly used in a 'well regulated militia'

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Barrel length is interesting. At the moment, the minimum length for shotguns is 18" with an overall firearm length of 27". Not sure if the military uses anything shorter than this, but they might.

However, rifles have a minimum barrel length of 16" and the military most definitely uses shorter barrels. You can get, for example, a 14.5" barrel, but you must permanently add a muzzle brake or suppressor (flash or sound, both of which are illegal in NJ) to bring it up to 16" or else it is considered a short barreled rifle (SBR) which is subject to extremely strict NFA restrictions (fully banned in NJ), the same as fully automatic weapons (which would also apply to the sound suppressor by itself even if you didn't have a gun).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Flash suppressors are legal if they are the ONLY "evil feature" (i.e., you can't have a rifle with a pistol grip (evil feature) AND a flash suppressor(evil feature). 2 "evil features" (on a rifle with a detachable magazine) makes it an "assault weapon" and therefore "banned".

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Which just proves how arbitrary those laws are...

Also, gotta love state laws that require our firearms to be blinding and harmful to hearing.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Yes, it is "evil" to supress sound, or flash, or have an ergonomically-friendly pistol grip, and of course the detachable magazine is evil incarnate...

...which is why ALL law enforcement and military have and make use of ALL those "Evil" features....

So I guess law enforcement and the military is allowed to "fight fire (evil) with fire (evil)", but we, as mere citizens, are not. We must be controlled by and allow ourselves to be harmed by, "evil."

Perhaps try hiding, with a pair of scissors?

http://nypost.com/2013/01/31/homeland-security-has-advice-for-confronting-mass-murders-scissors/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

Well, obviously it means the police and soldiers are just out for murder, since that's all those weapons/features are good for.

Funny how *actual assault rifles* with all the bells and whistles are called "Personal Defense Weapons" when the government buys them, but the neutered semi-auto, typically non-suppressed, reduced capacity civilian versions are evil.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Mar '14

Yes, yes.... LOGIC ABOUNDS on this topic, doesn't it?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Mar '14

"If we are all such dumb, plagiarizing, FOX news watching (not!), dangerous people who are just seconds away from becoming the next mass murderers with our "arsenals of dangerous weapons," why do you keep trying to - I don't know what exactly - prove how smart you are?"

Did I say any of this besides the plagiarizing part? Ever?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

"misterg, I did not defend emily at all" No, you did not indicate any issue at all. And after all the times, this one included, you have gone long and hard to call others on it, especially me, one would expect you to play on a level playing field. Your BS radar appears to be one of limited focus where you engage only when you dislike the author or author's message rather than provide a 360-degree scan.

You are not alone. I am always amazed generally how HackettstownLife stops and often the message is completely obliterated whenever sources are not cited. It felt cruel when it happened to me but it seems to be part of our culture, one that I did not invent but have fallen prey to a few times and so, I am surprised how many lifers want to give a mulligan on this one. Of the soft slap as you just did. Seems like a good opportunity for learning to me.

" I just took an opportunity to point out the hypocrisy in criticizing others when you obviously use very similar tactics." And that's my point. You have no problem pointing at me, calling me out for things apologized for and way long in the past, but stand silent on others with the same transgression. And to catch me, you had to go 2 to 4 years back.........and still could only bat 500. And then you redid your work. That's dogged pursuit with little compassion.

When you finally do succumb, we get a weak "In emily's case, she is guilty of exaggerating her statements." No. She plagiarized. Then she attempted to cover up by saying she only uses primary sources so it couldn't be true. There's a difference.

Whenever I made this mistake and was called on it, I stepped up, owned it, and have not (at least I think I have not) made the same mistake in years. Big difference.

Even when you go the distance of over 4 years, many, many, many, posts and then even double-check my push back, you can only half-heartedly condemn others. So, in your 4-times accusation, I tossed back two; you came back on one. So I looked deeper.

In the Middle Ages tome, I originally said in preface: "I remember a summary of The Middle Ages on the History Channel (which is where I found the text). Don't hold me to it, but from memory it went:" OK, most certainly some exaggeration but I did attribute the source albeit weakly. Not to mention that I am pretty sure this is NOT copy written given the wide usage in popular print: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GDIS_enUS565US565&q=The+classic+formulations+of+Gothic+architecture+and+sculpture+were+achieved.+Many+different+kinds+of+social+units+proliferated%2C+including+guilds%2C+associations%2C+civic+councils%2C+and+monastic+chapters%2C+each+eager+to+obtain+some+measure+of+autonomy.

But nonetheless, it was much, but not all my writing and I stand corrected. No apology was given since it went unnoticed at the time and like I said, I think it is allowed to be used.

Britannica itself states: "You may display, reproduce, print or download content on the Services only for your personal, non-commercial use. If you are a teacher, scholar or student, you may copy reasonable portions of the content for lesson plans, interactive whiteboards, reports, dissertations, presentations, school newspapers and for similar nonprofit educational purposes to the extent permitted by applicable law. In each case, however, you may not remove or alter any copyright, trademark, service mark or other proprietary notices or legends." I did not alter any copyright from the History channel and probably fall under the scholar for presentation category although debatable.

And we are not sure it is even Britannica: there are some many usages that I am not sure which came first. Perhaps on your next data dig into this you can determine the archetype.

So again, I fully admit that over 2 years ago, I did not source something. Whenever called upon such "exaggerations" as you call them, I stepped up, owned, and generally apologized. I did not defend or attempt to diffuse by saying "it ain't so" unless, like for Britannica, it was not so.

And yes, now, unlike you this time JIT, I call em whenever I see em because it's not only the right thing to do, but also seemingly part of that little ole culture we call HackettstownLife. That's really all I ask for here is that others do what they normally do when this occurs on our neighborhood site.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

BD: Milspec is a little company in Belvidere that specializes in restoration of vintage military vehicles. Hidden behind that old mill across from S. Johnson's. Last time I looked they had a Sherman tank in the shop. I doubt that they would make anyone's tank fully operational, just driveable.

MrCharlie2
Mar '14

thanks mrcharlie, i did not know that, will have to stop by and check them out.

there was an original army jeep ww2 vintage for sale a few years back, it was stuck in the middle of the woods on the back roads between here and lebanon. looked like it was in great shape for sure.

anyways, the 'trench guns' used in ww1 and ww2 evolved into 'combat shotguns' used in Korea and Vietnam, and now today are 'tactical shotguns' used by virtually every police dept and swat team today.

if we are to use the SCOTUS standard set in the 1939 decision, then we must conclude that short barreled shotguns are typically used in a well regulated militia.

they should not be banned.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

That is not the entirety of the Miller decision opinion.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Mar '14

i'm gonna put this out there, i don't like liars, and once revealed as such, i don't care to deal with them.

there are some in this gun debate who have lied straight through their teeth, repeatedly

and, I. Just. Don't. Care. For. It.

period.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Mar '14

Hmmm, turns out gladfly was right, all the big media was covering the senator scandel....

http://conservatives4palin.com/2014/03/cnns-double-hypocrisy-leland-yee.html

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/03/29/cnncom-hasnt-covered-leland-yee-arrest-gets-snippy-when-challenged

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/03/29/Leland-Yee-Blackout-After-Gushing-over-Wendy-Davis-CNN-Claims-They-Cover-State-Senators-About-Never

... except the biggest democratic station of them all....cnn, they claimed they would not cover the story because it was a "local crime story" any comments gladfly?

Darrin Darrin
Mar '14

If you were to take a poll, I'd bet my life savings that more Americans know about Christie's "bridge gate" than know about Leland's completely illegal gun-running activities.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Yup, it's true, search Leland yee on CNN......and........no results!

http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=leland+yee&x=0&y=0&primaryType=mixed&sortBy=relevance&intl=false

And I don't see most of the stations saying that Leland was a big time anti-gunner......while in office either, they seem to want to make the story about the illegal gun trafficking, not the fact that he was a hypocrite.

Yee said "no one will convince me it's anything other than a joke to say that having multiple clips and semi-automatic weapons that can shoot 100 or more bullets at a time is necessary in this state or in this country, it's ridiculous (quoted from the original news story I posted)

So I will repeat what i said, and stand by it "This is the stuff the media does not want you to know about" As this is OBVIOUSLY true....why would one of the biggest news stations refuse to report this........oh that's right, because it goes against the democratic agenda they are trying to meet!

On a side note, why the hell do I have to read a essay length pity story of claimed unfairness from mistergoogle.....get some tissues and get back on topic, if you can't handle it, then LEAVE!

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

"....it was a 'local crime story'..."

This sounds accurate. Little or no relevance to me as a NJ resident.


Detroit: Fatal self-defense shootings up, crime DOWN

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/17950-detroit-fatal-self-defense-shootings-up-crime-down

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Watch out, JR. All those shootings (even justified self defense and police shootings) will be rolled up into one "gun violence" statistic.

Somehow there are people that think it's morally superior to let a criminal rape/assault/murder you or your family (maybe using *only* a knife or a baseball bat) than it is to fight back with a gun.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

jd2,

Once again, spinning the POINT (of fair news coverage). So- then all the major news networks should NOT have reported on "Bridge gate", because it was a "local news story"... we ONLY should have heard about that on NY and NJ local stations, right?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

I feel school shootings are a local news story, they have no affect on NJ...... why do we hear about them for weeks....or even months then?

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

"This sounds accurate. Little or no relevance to me as a NJ resident."

Did you miss the part about how Yee planned on funneling rocket launchers and machine guns through a receiving port in NJ? Do you think those illegal guns just magically transport themselves to California from there, or maybe a few get lost (or used as payment) along the way?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

+1 Mark

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

cnn said it was just a local news story and that cnn as a national outlet doesn't get into covering state senators in the state legislatures.

but they went wall to wall coverage of the state senator in texas who filibustered about the abortion bill, they turned her into a hero, and they went wall to wall coverage supporting her run for governor.

cnn does this because that fits their liberal agenda, to support democratic candidates and democratic issues at the expense of Republican issues and conservative issues,

they are liars and hypocrites, just like nbc news is for the same reasons.

the liberal based national news media is invested in minimizing the negative effect of showing one of their own as an illegal gun running hypocrite. it doesn't fit their liberal agenda

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

"Bridgegate" is a national story because Christie has become a national figure, with presidential aspirations.

A major school shooting is too horrible to be ignored as a purely local story. But I agree it gets overplayed.

Yes, Mark, I did miss that. I still think that what this one idiot allegedly did is not very important to me. The real story may be why some on the right think it IS major.

But I can see why the gun community wants to have fun with this, okay. Fair enough. You're entitled.


So I do apologize for originally posting that statement without the time to properly gather the supporting facts before being beaned by Gladfly.....but turns out there is plenty supporting info for my statement, thanks guys.

Absolutely jd2...it is very hypocritical to not tell the whole story isn't it? They spend plenty of their time with gun stories, but refuse to post this one?

http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=shooting&x=0&y=0&primaryType=mixed&sortBy=relevance&intl=false

http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=gun%20violence&sortBy=relevance

see, huge results when you search CNN for shootings or gun violence, all mostly local stories by the way, but zero results if it does not fit their agenda. Point proven!

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

Maybe so, Darrin, about CNN. I don't watch it, so I have no basis to refute.


First, Christie is a national figure preparing to run for President; Yee is a Senator. I would not expect the same level of coverage. And Christie is a bully; he bullies the public, the opposition, and the press: the fall from grace for those of that bent is always harder (which I have alluded too numerous times here).

Second, there is some coverage:
BusinessWeek - today
Christian Science Monitor - yesterday
Huffington Post - today
LA Times - 3.30 and multiple others.
Washington Post (multiple....)

and many local ABC, CBS, and NBC TV stories.

But it does seem that a story this strong would get at least 15 minutes over a few days ------ everywhere and at least to the point we would be tired of it instead of really wanting to hear more about it. And then more coverage on indictment, major trial maneuvers, trial, etc.

I agree that there's somptin strange going on and link to the National Review's description: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/374483/mainstream-media-runs-away-democratic-chinatown-gangstergun-controller-story-alec. Their conclusion seems valid: "Being a Democrat — even (or perhaps especially) a disgraced Democrat — comes with a lot of perks." So does being a Republican (Mitt's financial disclosures were a joke for example, Cheney shoots a guy in the face and walks......), but wrong is wrong.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

jd2....

basically accusing the pro-gun side of spinning a view to meet our agenda?!?! Pot, meet kettle. But I can see why you "to have fun with this, okay. Fair enough. You're entitled."

The bottom line is this: BOTH were national news stories, but BOTH were NOT reported equally. And the CA gun-running story is EASILY a MUCH LARGER CONCERN than bridge gate was. For someone who supports more gun control, to attempt to deny that is self-delusional.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Wow jd2 - you're trying awfully hard to not see the fact that an very vocal, very anti-gun state senator, with aspirations to be the California Secretary of State getting caught running - or at least greasing the wheels - in an interstate (and actually international) gun smuggling operation is something of national significance.

Certainly not as nationally significant as some of these other stories that *are* on the front page of CNN at the moment:

"See joyful beagle, owner reunion" (with video)
"Clinton parodies wife's epic photo"
"Coach breaks leg on first pitch"
"Man flips bird and... instant karma"
"Best April Fool's pranks ever"
"Guess which celebs wore this bling"
"Sexy celebs in their 50's"

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

JR, I wouldn't assume that I support more gun control.

Maybe a lot of us don't spend a lot of time thinking about guns?

Mark, I would just say that since I never heard of this guy before, the fact that he is a major hypocrite and criminal is not going to register big time. If he had been someone I looked up to, that would be different, of course.

I don't watch CNN. Of course they do a lot of puff pieces to try and keep people interested.


"First, Christie is a national figure preparing to run for President; Yee is a Senator. I would not expect the same level of coverage. And Christie is a bully; he bullies the public, the opposition, and the press: the fall from grace for those of that bent is always harder (which I have alluded too numerous times here). "

MG is this something that Governor Christie has announced, or you are claiming based off what people who live in NJ think? What has made Christie a national figure as opposed to a NJ Governor?

LMAO MARK!

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

"since I never heard of this guy before, the fact that he is a major hypocrite and criminal is not going to register big time"

Isn't that the point of the news and journalism... to bring to light events which one may not be aware of? That's a whole lot more efficient than me searching every day for something that someone might have done (but didn't), or a natural disaster that may have occurred (but didn't).

Whether you, personally, are interested in reading the article is irrelevant and I don't fault you for not being interested. But it doesn't let the news organizations off the hook when they obviously have no qualms about publishing "local news" regarding each and every event that portrays any gun owner (or whatever other agenda they have) in a bad light.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

"Christie is a national figure preparing to run for President"

I want to know the source for this, I do not believe he has once said he will be running, all of NJ is suspicious of course, but I am sure the nation has no idea

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

guys guys..... let them come up for air LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Notice fewer and fewer are able to even breathe??

Seems a couple of them have drowned...in FACTS!

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

[whoops... looks like jd2 removed, or is editing, his last post as I was posting my reply...]



So, to jd2, a state senator involved in illegal gun running isn't, apparently, *important*, but a traffic jam caused by the staff of (not the man himself: after all, it was "proven") gov. christie IS *important*, and big news that needs to be widely reported.

Please, allow me:

"I never said that."

We know. We ALL know what you are REALLY saying.

Now, take a deep breath!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

"Isn't that the point of the news and journalism... to bring to light events which one may not be aware of?"

Yes, to bring to light *important* events. That's the crux of the problem - what's important? We're never going to see eye to eye on this. As to your concern, Mark, I can accept that you make a valid point; at the same time, I don't think things are nearly as bad as you make out.

It's statements like "the news media doesn't want you to know....." (fill in the blank) that I reject out of hand, utterly and completely. Could be true for some less-than-stellar individual organizations, sure.

Shall we stop there for now?


same thing, i just grabbed my post back too....

absolutely not jd2....

Why is it we have to constantly hear about the governments attempts to limit guns, on a federal level, yet when one of their big time supporters is found to be involved in exactly what they are claiming to try to stop, we hear nothing?

seems like the whole gun law issue has been national for quite some time now, yet they pick and choose what to tell.

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

Personally, I love stories about two-faced corrupt politicians who get their comeuppance. But what does Yee, a California State senator, have to do with gun control on a federal level? Seems to me he's California's problem and theirs alone. It's not like he's Feinstein or Boxer...

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

"But what does Yee, a California State senator, have to do with gun control on a federal level? "

Because, much like NJ, California tries to "pave the way" for federal regulation. The handguns I buy have features (some of which I don't agree with) because manufacturers had to add them in order to comply with CA's "safe handgun" roster.

Same way a lot of the automotive laws that affect the cars we buy originated in California.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

^ what mark said ^

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

What do state politics/laws/policies have to do with the same at a federal level?

Ask Clinton where his "Assault Weapons Ban" came from.... I'll give you a hint... the Sopranos live there....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Mark, that sounds more like an issue with gun makers maximizing their profits by adding uniformity to their guns than with any real power CA has over the rest of the nation. There's no law that says they can't make non-CA weapons to non-CA specifications.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

Actually Mark it is at least 7 states requiring drop tests and/or various safety design features and I don't think any of these design features are new. Drop tests are drop tests and while I know that guns don't drop, people drop guns, nonetheless it's seems to be a nice feature that they don't go off when the person treats their poor gun poorly. Firing tests just ensure the gun retains performance during repeated firing. Again, not the gun's fault if a person decides to fire over and over, but seems nice that the person does not hurt himself by doing it. Certainly it's not the gun's fault if a person fires too much.

According to the law center, the design features are: "In California, as of January 1, 2006, an “unsafe handgun” includes any pistol that does not have either a chamber load indicator or a magazine disconnect mechanism. As of January 1, 2007, handguns in California are required to have both a chamber load indicator and, if they have a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism. California is the only state that requires both a chamber load indicator and a magazine safety disconnect. As of January 1, 2010, California requires that all new
semiautomatic pistols be equipped with microstamping technology in order to be sold in California. Detailed information on microstamping technology is contained in our summary on Microstamping & Ballistic Identification." Seems fair enough for new guns, but not sure if safety features are retroactive or not; that would seem unfair.

How much do you think these safety features set you back? Can't be too much, otherwise, the manufacturer would make multiple models I would gather.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

cnn said that they don't cover local stuff like this , but they did give wendy davis in Texas loads of air time coverage:

'"The difference between Davis and Yee is that Davis is a female Democrat who was standing up for a liberal cause that could help liberals gin up the "war on women" rhetoric. Yee, on the other hand, is a minority Democrat indicted on corruption charges that could tarnish the image of Democrats and liberals that CNN desperately tries to protect as one of the left's most dogged palace guards."

from Breitbart

CNN dismissed complaints that the network was not covering last week's shocking arrest of Democrat Leland Yee, the California state senator who was arrested for alleged arms trafficking and bribery, and falsely asserted that it does not give attention to state senators.

That standard did not apply to Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, whom CNN covered relentlessly. This was long before she even considered a gubernatorial run after filibustering a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks and make those conducted before then safer.

Viewers and readers on Friday complained that the network, just like Politico, was not reporting or discussing Yee's scandal online, and the official and verified @CNNWriters account tweeted to one critic that ignoring Yee's arrest was standard practice:


The INDYpundit @TheINDYpundit

Curious that the Leland Yee story appears nowhere on @CNN's website. What say you, @CNNWriters ?

CNN.com Writers &#10004; @CNNWriters
Follow

@TheINDYpundit It's in line with us covering state senators & state secretary of state races just about never. You see another conspiracy?


In just one of many stories on CNN about Wendy Davis, the network gushed over and played up her biography--without even vetting it--after her filibuster made her their heroine. That bill eventually became law, and an appeals court upheld the law last week.

Davis also appeared on many of CNN's primetime shows in 2013 as it blanketed its airwaves and online real estate with puff pieces about Davis, the state senator, long before she was even a gubernatorial candidate.

As Weasel Zippers noted, CNN has also covered the California state Senate candidacy of Sandra Fluke and Yee on many occasions.

The difference between Davis and Yee is that Davis is a female Democrat who was standing up for a liberal cause that could help liberals gin up the "war on women" rhetoric. Yee, on the other hand, is a minority Democrat indicted on corruption charges that could tarnish the image of Democrats and liberals that CNN desperately tries to protect as one of the left's most dogged palace guards.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/03/29/Leland-Yee-Blackout-After-Gushing-over-Wendy-Davis-CNN-Claims-They-Cover-State-Senators-About-Never

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

Weasel Zippers? I'm not familiar with his work...

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

me neither, never heard of them before, but please don't miss the point.

CNN covered Sandra Fluke and Wendy Davis relentlessly while downplaying coverage of Lee and then claiming that they don't do that.

looks like they do when it's an issue that fits their ultra-liberal predilections.

about 80 % of newsrooms at the big media news outlets are registered democrats, and that colors everything they choose to put on their airwaves

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

Sandra Fluke? Was she the woman that Limbaugh called a whore? That's the only reason I remember who she is. Not familiar with Wendy Davis either.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

And that's the only reason you remember who she is BECAUSE THE MEDIA ATTACKED LIMBAUGH FOR SAYING THAT. The media didn't think it worthy of reporting that her position was that all women should get free contraceptives all the time.... payed for with taxpayer dollars; no- that's not *important*, but a radio talk show host calling her a whore *is*

Frankly, the NEWS is what they DIDN'T report, what they DID report was gossip, and OPINION of a dj. But that's always the M.O.: we must distract people from the REAL issue, so they won't pay attention to it, so let's demonize someone/something to get everybody all outraged. "watch what the right hand is doing (pay no attention to the left hand)"

I'm not saying Limbaugh's comments didn't earn him mention in the news; they did. But FAR LESS than the REAL issue SHOULD HAVE.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Here's an idea... have Rush refer to him as "the distinguished gun-running Chink from San Fag-cisco". I'm sure CNN will give it all the airtime you need.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

And THAT, sir, is THE PROBLEM. You're a smart guy- I'm sure you see that.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

In this specific instance, yes. But as far as some woman who has the opinion that someone else should pay for her birth control? You think that's as newsworthy as some talking head schmuck calling her a whore on his nationally syndicated radio program? I would definitely disagree with that.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

Yes, I think a woman who thinks *I* should PAY for all the birth control SHE wants is more newsworthy than a dj blowing off his mouth.

The former AFFECTS me, the latter does NOT.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

hmmmm and I should pay for your viagra and cialis?? or your implant --- really?

5catmom 5catmom
Apr '14

that's a different question,

CNN covered her campaign in California on national tv while this week saying that state Senator issues are 'local' and not news worthy to a national audience.

so which is it? (looks like it depends on what their innate biased predilections are)

you know what Ian, i got the feeling you are playing with us a little bit here. please tell me i'm wrong.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

Really, Jeff.... you think the news should be full of the opinions of individuals who disagree with you? I think you'd have a hard time keeping up, lol... there wouldn't be enough hours in the day for you to watch it all. And apparently good old Limpbough launched her right into a CA political career, lol. Maybe she can run for Yee's seat. And her thing wasn't that the taxpayer should fund it, just that catholic universities shouldn't be able to deny it to their employees. Agree or disagree, I find it hard to believe that her opinion is worthy of national news coverage.

BrotherDog, playing with you in what way? Do I think that CNN is politically motivated and biased toward the left? Absolutely. Am I going to spend 10 seconds worrying about it? Not on your life. Who cares? Take it for what it's worth and console yourself with the fact that Fox is just as bad in the other direction. There is no such thing (and probably never was, as much as you'd hate to admit it) as unbiased news, as it is always influenced by the prejudices of those who present it. I think the difference is that you used to share the prejudices of all or the old school newscasters and all of the broadcasters of that era. In the 60s and 70s, tv networks were staunchly conservative, no? I wasn't watching, but I would imagine that the liberalization of network media is a far more recent occurrence than that... might have even started with cable news in general and CNN specifically, no?

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

"There's no law that says they can't make non-CA weapons to non-CA specifications."

Yes, but you asked how CA law affects us in NJ. I gave you an example. Don't use the tactics that others here (who will remain nameless) use to try and change the strawman argument now.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

Sandra Fluke stood in front of Congress claiming she "couldn't afford birth control" at what, $25 for a pack of pills or whatever condoms cost. But she can afford Georgetown University (expensive), a Cadillac Escalade (aren't Dems supposed to drive electric cars or ride bikes for the environment?), cancelled an interview to go Hawaii for spring break and has traveled all over Europe. I don't know who the guy is who called her a whore - but I would call her a liar. They didn't see how condescending she is?

The media shows her 24/7 for months and never once mentioned something that happened at the SAME time -- Did anybody hear about the 12 year old girl who shot the guy who broke into her house at night in Dayton Ohio? No because all you saw was Fluke and everybody talking about women all needing their stuff for free.

That girl is in my shooting club. She got no press even though she shot an armed intruder who came to rape her mom (and who knows what else) because he knew her dad was away on business. She's a hero and Fluke is a liar - but the media rather hear a liar - plus a good story about guns for protection with a happy ending (especially with the hero being a young girl) isn't part of their "agenda."

emily1 emily1
Apr '14

we are on the same page, thank you for confirming that:

"There is no such thing (and probably never was, as much as you'd hate to admit it) as unbiased news, as it is always influenced by the prejudices of those who present it."

hate to admit it? i have said this multiple times in multiple ways here for a long time. every news story has an inherit bias in it. from every source, i have always maintained that position, you and i agree on this point

" I think the difference is that you used to share the prejudices of all or the old school newscasters and all of the broadcasters of that era. In the 60s and 70s, tv networks were staunchly conservative, no?"

i don't agree with this, they always leaned left, but you are correct, it is much more pronounced now. and i have never shared the prejudices of the old school newscasters. i was raised to be fiercely to be my own individual, period. a free man like the vikings were. (and some still are)

i did vote for McGovern in 72' because nixon broke his promise from the 68' campaign, he said he would end the war in Vietnam in four years, he didn't do it and i voted the other way. McGovern was a good man with intelligence and a balanced platform. I always have wondered what the 70's would have been like if we had elected him president. It could have been a much better decade than it turned out to be.

i voted for carter in 76' because he was a navy man, a scientist, and a farmer and a governor who was from outside the beltway, i thought it would be good to give him a shot, boy oh boy was i disappointed 3 years later.

i always vote for the candidate who i think will do the best job, don't care which party they are attached to. i have often voted for a third party candidate in local, statewide and national elections.

the three big networks have always trended left, cbs, nbc, abc, always left leaning, but now are far left wing zealots. they were never conservative.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

It ain't CA law that's affecting you; it's the greed of the gunmakers. They get to sell you a higher priced weapon with crap on it that you not only don't need but don't even like and just blame it on California. And you eat it up. Tell them to make weapons without all that other crap on them for sale in New Jersey. Or blame California if you want. Just don't expect me to blindly agree with it. It's not a logical progression that because California requires certain things that all guns that are manufactured have to comply.

If your argument is that gun makers capitalize on California law to screw the rest of their customers, I'll agree with that being a consequence of California influence... for what little that's worth.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

MY argument is the media only tells you what they WANT to, as opposed to what the ACTUAL NEWS *that might affect you* is.

Taxpayer dollars paying for birth control is news; a radio dj calling someone a name is not news. The former belongs in mainstream media, the latter in a tabloid rag.

But that's what America has become: a dumbed-down, reality-show-loving, star-wanna-be-ing, half-empty-headed, less-than-half-voting, herd of sheople.

When more people know who "The Situation" is than know who Sandra Fluke is, it's very telling.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

The situation regarding Fluck had nothing to do with taxpayers providing contraception or any other kind of healthcare. Maybe you should learn the facts before going any further with your tirade. Meet you back here later.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

Actually, i-man, I think YOU need to go read up on the story.... "free contraception" (regardless of the reason) and "healthcare" (as in "I have a RIGHT to it") have EVERYTHING to do with the Fluke story.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Had nothing to do with "taxpayer funded" anything. It had to do with whether Georgetown University could deny contraception to their employees and students as part of their healthcare plan. So, it was an employee-employer issue, not a taxpayer issue, which is what you've been screaming about all afternoon. "Taxpayer dollars paying for birth control is news." "A woman who thinks *I* should pay for all the birth control she wants is news"

Now you're saying that it doesn't matter if you weren't the one expected to pay for it? C'mon, MAN!!!


So the fact that you don't know any of the facts... does that make you a sheople, since you are obviously aware of The Situation?

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

When I said it affected "me", I am talking about the people- affecting OTHER people, other people's WALLETS. While I certainly admit it's not taxpayers paying for her contraception, it IS every single student and all the faculty at Georgetown that would be paying for it. THEY pay for it because SHE feels she has a RIGHT to it.... which of course, takes us back to the entire healthcare/obamacare debacle in the first place.

So, yes- when some WANTS something -feels they have a RIGHT to something- that OTHER PEOPLE must pay for, I call that news.

When a radio dj blowhard calls someone a name, the only people it affects is Ms. Fluke (if she wanted to press charges for slander) and Mr. Limbaugh. It affects NO ONE else. The NATION at large should not care about the "Limbaugh called Fluke a whore" issue, except to decide if the agree with him, or stop listening to him. The NATION at large SHOULD pay attention to Ms. Fluke's feeling she has a right to contraception paid for by others, as that sets a precedent, and is in DIRECT RELATION to the entire national healthcare debate (which is still ongoing).

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

"Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round" I think that is the subject.

"What are our thoughts"

"Sandra Fluke stood in front of Congress claiming she "couldn't afford birth control" at what, $25 for a pack of pills or whatever condoms cost" Ah, finally an expert.

"Don't use the tactics that others here (who will remain nameless) use to try and change the strawman argument now." The best part is that it's an anonymous website so I guess everyone can remain "nameless."

And Darrin: I said it. Thus no quotes nor sourcing. But if you want a "named" source, jgi.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

Oh, was that the "royal me" you were employing there? My mistake, lol.

But even if I give you that wiggle room, you are still extremely deficient on the facts. The question wasn't whether she should have been entitled to free contraception when no one else was; Obamacare already mandated free contraception for all college student insurance plans and for all employer-based plans.

The argument was whether a Catholic-based university was entitled to the same exemption from this requirement as a church. Her opinion was no. Your opinion may differ and I have no desire to argue the merits of the argument. I'm just pointing out that your grasp of the facts of the situation is basically non-existent.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

mg- YOU are one to talk for straying off-topic!! LOLOLOLOLOL

oh crap- that's right. It was about the religious exemption. That's a sticky wicket. But since I'm against OC as a whole, I already know where I stand on that one... bringing the religious exemption into it only further forties MY POINT:

My point, that is was a worthy and relevant news story, when Rush calling her a "whore" wasn't, still stands.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

"The best part is that it's an anonymous website so I guess everyone can remain nameless."

I'm using my real name, as do several others here. Why hide behind a fake handle unless you don't want your thoughts/opinions associated with your "real life" self?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

so....mg,

"And Darrin: I said it. Thus no quotes nor sourcing"

This coming from the guy who has been ragging and ragging on people for not using sourced info....now you are posting assumptions, of course assuming all your other posts were factual.

Hmmmmm..... a lot can be said about that. But the one thing I will say is the whole nation does not know the NJ assumption that Christie has thoughts of running for president, so that is certainly not what made him a national figure, and certainly does not explain why the bridge scandal was shown on news reports all over the nation.

I have come to the conclusion that imal disregards the human instinct of taking sides and just creates hell all over the place, regardless of the nature of the discussion.

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

That's the fun thing about being Libertarian, Darrin... you can find something to argue about with just about everyone (-;

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
Apr '14

"I'm using my real name, as do several others here. Why hide behind a fake handle unless you don't want your thoughts/opinions associated with your "real life" self?" "

I do it, in an effort to demonstrate "where I'm coming from", in my case, Thomas Jefferson's original republican (little "r") views. In today's world, most people probably don't get that, having never read Jefferson and knowing nothing of him beyond the fact that he was a founding father, so my effort is likely wasted. But, oh well. :)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Wow, this thread has really gone off the rails.

Darrin,

Christie is most certainly known throughout the country as a leading candidate in for republican presidential ticket in 2016. This is not a NJ secret by any stretch of the imagination. He was in Las Vegas this past weekend courting support from Sheldon Adelson, along with other top contenders. And, yes, the implications for his presidential bid is exactly why Bridgegate has received such widespread coverage.

Gadfly Gadfly
Apr '14

Gladfly, shall I suggest you read up some and respond to some of the comments and questions you conveniently missed before jumping into the new topic?

Just a suggestion

the key word in your last post is implications.....nothing has even been said or confirmed, everyone just assumes and apparently makes a story of it.

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

1. The first line from a January article in USA Today:

"It's hard to imagine what in the state of New Jersey Chris Christie's people could have done to more severely wound his presidential hopes than to take one of his constituents' biggest headaches -- traffic -- and needlessly and vindictively make it worse."

2. The title of a January piece from the LA Times:

"Email scandal mars Christie's chances for presidency; governor apologizes"

3. From a January opinion piece in the Bangor Daily News:

"This gets to Christie as presidential timber. Any misuse of the disaster funds would be, well, a disaster for Christie whose huge re-election victory and tailwind as the Republican presidential nominee are in large part the result of his perceived handling of the storm."

4. January article from Chicago Tribune, titled:

"Chris Christie for president? Fuggedaboutit."

5. January piece from Upper Michigan Source:

"Will bridge scandal hurt Chris Christie's presidential chances?"

6. January, Seattle PI:

"Chris Christie takes a tumble in presidential poll"

7. From Utah, January Deseret News article, titled:

"Is the road to the presidency closed for Gov. Chris Christie?"

8. Editorial in Myrtle Beach online from January:

"Is the road to the presidency closed for Gov. Chris Christie?"


How many more do you need to be convinced? Of course I avoided the myriad national media outlets that had similar coverage. Do you want international as well?

Gadfly Gadfly
Apr '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

Yes I do, and will only accept untranslated versions

but in all seriousness, you can post as many ASSUMPTIONS as you want....FACT is Christie has not yet said he WILL run for president, so as of now everything you just posted is hear-say

still avoiding prior comments I see

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

lmao I had to post this

http://www.guns.com/2011/12/08/media-uses-fake-guns-from-halo-to-criticize-assault-weapons/

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

It's a mistake to refuse to admit when you're wrong, Darrin.

These stories were all around the nation when the press was making hay about bridgegate. They exist. They are facts.

You wrote:

"But the one thing I will say is the whole nation does not know the NJ assumption that Christie has thoughts of running for president, so that is certainly not what made him a national figure, and certainly does not explain why the bridge scandal was shown on news reports all over the nation."

And

"I want to know the source for this, I do not believe he has once said he will be running, all of NJ is suspicious of course, but I am sure the nation has no idea"

Obviously, the nation did know that Christie was a 2016 contender during the bridgegate coverage. They knew it in Los Angeles, Des Moines, Upper Michigan, Myrtle Beach, Chicago, and Utah. They knew it across the country. Most people know that. But, you can't accept it when the evidence is presented to you on a platter?

Gadfly Gadfly
Apr '14

absolutely not gladfly, show me one piece of FACTUAL info where Christe has said he will be running for president, and not the hear-say assumptions you have posted!

people can assume and make up whatever stories they want

still avoiding the ladder I see.

"It's a mistake to refuse to admit when you're wrong, Darrin."

more importantly it is a mistake to conveniently disappear when your previous posts are debunked yet you continue to ignore 3 trials to get you to read previous posts

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

Clearly, Christie has been for some time doing everything he can to position himself for a presidential run. The fact that he may ultimately decide not to run officially does not change that fact.


Darrin, do I have to apologize to you for not posting while I was at work?

You are clearly wrong. You're claimed repeatedly that the the country wasn't aware of "NJ assumption that Christie has thoughts of running for president". " NJ is suspicious of course, but I am sure the nation has no idea". Those are your words.

The whole nation knew that Christie was a contender. Your statements and your argument were wrong. Clearly, you're not up for admitting that. So be be it. The facts are clear for all to read.

Gadfly Gadfly
Apr '14

Gladfly you keep getting stuck, the whole point of a debate is to figure things out, why do you keep requiring me to stop and beg for fogiveness for being wrong? This is something I will not do, because likewise with the news comment you were proven wrong once I had the time to put in my research. Answer the question at hand and stop trying to disguise it.
again......
show me one piece of FACTUAL info where Christe has said he will be running for president, and not the hear-say assumptions you have posted!

I am not in dis-agreeance, I know Christie wants to run, but you are missing the point, that he has not said he will run.

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

This is not the question, the question was how can yee not be considered a national topic when his weapons were going over seas and such, sounds to me like he is a international threat, yet cnn claims he is a local news story?

Cnn obviously doesn't want its viewers to know about the corruption of one of their own.

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

Apparently you guys do have troubles jgi, but, for the record, I said: "First, Christie is a national figure preparing to run for President" which I think is fair and balanced for an opinion.

I did not say, as you might have imagined: "Christe has said he will be running for president," you said that. I said preparing.....

I did not say he has said or not said he will run --- you are talking about that.

"But the one thing I will say is the whole nation does not know the NJ assumption that Christie has thoughts of running for president, so that is certainly not what made him a national figure, and certainly does not explain why the bridge scandal was shown on news reports all over the nation." You got to be kidding, right? This guy has hit every major network, most major talk shows, even went to Howard Stern's Birthday Party in New York. He spends as much time in the other fifty states as he does in NJ and even heads to Vegas to chase Jewish Republican dollars. What campaign do you think he needs dollars for?

Here's the man in his own words from Fox through The Daily News showing, once more, how he can turn up on Fox and get re-reported by many other media outlets. Why ----- because he is national news. But here's what he said:

"Chris Christie says he isn’t letting the still-evolving Bridgegate scandal weigh down his potential 2016 plans.

The embattled New Jersey governor told Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File” that the political problems arising from the suspicious closures of multiple traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge last year won’t affect whether he’ll run for president.

“If you don’t have baggage they’ll create baggage for you. That’s politics in America today,” Christie said when asked if he has “too much baggage” to run.

“In the end people don’t judge you on that stuff. People look into your eyes and they try to decide what’s in here and that’s how they vote,” he said. “They vote for what they believe is in your heart. And can they trust you?”

The comments, which mark the second installment of a two-part interview with the Garden State chief, come just days after a Christie-ordered internal report showed that the governor had no personal involvement in the September traffic jams purportedly ordered by his top aide and confidantes.

The review, conducted by Christie’s personal attorney, has come under criticism for being incomplete and possibly one-sided.

Despite suggesting he’s still a possible presidential candidate, Christie declined to name himself as one of the “top three” Republican options to run in 2016.

“I don’t know if I could restrict myself to three but I’ll give you the ones I think are really good,” Christie said in the interview, the second part of which will air Monday night.

“Jeb Bush would be an outstanding candidate for president. I think Scott Walker would be a good candidate for president. I think Paul Ryan would be a good candidate for president,” he added.

Christie, nevertheless, hinted that he may still be the best choice.

“I think I’m older and more experienced,” he said. “It’s certainly something I’ve said to everybody that I’ll consider.”

A wink is as good as a nod.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

"Christie, nevertheless, hinted that he may still be the best choice"

KEY WORD: hinted!

Everything you just posted is hint, obviously we get the hint....but the fact here is everything you just posted is still ASSUMPTION, not once has Christie said the words "I will run for president"....not once! So until then all you "facts" are not really facts, they are more less assumptions based from hints Christie has thrown out there.

So basically you are saying the news plays stories based on assumptions....got it.

I just sent a wink back your way

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

The way the system usually works nowadays, people start running for president well ahead of the time they formally announce. And so Christie has been running, no doubt.

He can of course pull back if he chooses.

We may recall that the OP who introduced the Bridgegate thread in this forum called him or herself "byebye2016"!


jd2, I agree, but my point is that he has not SAID he IS running, he as only hinted.

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

Darrin: So what? I said: " preparing to run for President." I never said he said "the words." Move on and pick another topic that is not about the topic.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

a state senator, a leader in anti-gun running, is busted for illegal gun smuggling, a national threat.....this was the original topic I brought to the table...... think it goes hand in hand with this pro gun thread

If you are not getting my drift, go back and read some posts, you and gladfly were the two that pulled away from this topic, so, just a sugestion, but I would start practicing what you preach

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

I do not think it goes with the original question at all but it is your thread so OK, a seemingly very hypocritical CA state senator who lobbies against guns caught in a gun running sting means something important to the discussion of a pending NJ law to limit mags from 15 to 10 rounds.

However, that is not what you and I have been discussing; we have been discussing Christ Christie and whether my statement of him "preparing to run for President" actually means what you think: "I (Chris Christie) will run for president."

I think the answer is obvious but you seem to desire to dwell on it.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

actually this has been a pretty open discussion on gun laws in general, it started off on the topic of the nj law, and being there has not been any new news currently, it went into general gun laws.....

all I did was simply state, that for someone who wants to stick to the facts when other people are bring in info, they are pretty quick to use non factual info, and went on to say that Christie has not said he will run, I am not seeing the issue here

not dwelling on anything, been over it

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

Solid weekend, first time out since the weather has broke!

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

Nice Darrin. Mossberg or Remington? Where can you shoot around here?

LJRubi LJRubi
Apr '14

That is a remingtom 870 tactical with a adjustable side folding stock. I shoot at a private secret location, but I think around here most join shooting clubs that have ranges

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

Lookout Darrin, that's a "Police Style Shotgun" that will be next on the chopping block!

As far as places to shoot, I just drive 10 minutes to Shongum since I'm a member there. Private land is better if you can find it, since there's a bit more flexibility in what you can shoot. I don't think my club would appreciate pumpkin/watermelon chunks all over the range. I'm pretty much limited to water bottles and clay targets.

If you (or someone in your party) has a hunting license you can also use some of the WMA's. There's a monthly "Shotgun Shootout" at the Clinton WMA with a bunch of guys (and gals) from njgunforums.com. Even new and non-gun owners are welcome, since most guys will let you borrow their shotgun for a few rounds.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

Nice. I had to choose between that and the Mossberg 590A1. Needless to say, the Berg stole my heart.

LJRubi LJRubi
Apr '14

"private secret location" .... love it!!!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

"Nice. I had to choose between that and the Mossberg 590A1. Needless to say, the Berg stole my heart."

Until Remington leaves NY and/or Mossberg leaves CT, I won't buy any of their products. I try to avoid sending money to states that stomp on 2nd Amendment rights, whenever that's possible (unfortunately I can't avoid much in NJ).

I bought a Winchester SXP instead. The R&D for Winchester is in Utah, and the SXP models are manufactured in Turkey. I'd rather send my dollars to Istanbul than Ilion or North Haven. (I think Mossberg 500's are made/assembled in Texas, but the company is headquartered in Connecticut).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

A mossberg 500 20ga is on my to get list, so wifey has something easier to handle for clays.

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

I've got a Rem 870, bought years ago, which I have modded into the "tactical" model... 18" barrel, extended feed tube, sling/swivels, and side mount shell caddy. No "door breacher" lol

But I'm with Mark on not sending $$ to anti-2A companies/states. It's the only way to make our voices heard with the manufacturers themselves.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

I really don't want to get into that but that just doesn't make sense. You have an anti-2A gun company u don't want to support? You think by shorting a gun company located in a state with tough gun laws you are somehow helping your cause? What kind a whack poli-financial assessment is that?

You'd rather spend money on Turkish than workers from Utah?

I do know Winchester, the division, aka Olin, the corporation, aka chemicals, chemical transport, guns and bullets. Full service for the gunnies so investors get them coming and can get them for life.

What I always liked about this stock was that the guns were kinda hidden underneath the chemicals. You can't buy Winchester, you have to buy Olin. For some reason, I always liked that. Seems stealthy and less bloodthirsty when I do it that way.

Another advantage is that you can use their products to take care of a problem and then use their chemicals to clean up the evidence. Nothing like a little bleach to stop that luminal from working. And you may know where the guns n bullets revenues come from but 2/3rds of the Olin money comes from chemicals and distribution. And guess what ----- there's lots of factories everywhere. So when you buy your Turkish gun, you are putting in revenue to a company that makes more of it's revenue from states like NY, CA, WA and even a couple of factories in Canada. Nice job.

But once again, great purchase and I thank you for your financial support of my portfolio (oh shoot, you're funding a liberal....... :>)

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

I honestly was going to ask the same thing, not to sound naive, but isn't it better to buy american guns over spending money of foreign guns, I mean is it really the gun manufactures fault that the state has horrid laws? They are still there making their guns....and most of these manufactures may have been there before these states went down the drain with anti-gun laws, you can;t really expect them to pack up shop and move a whole operation just because of this, that would put most companies out of business.

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

I'd rather put money in Turkey (with some going to Utah) than New York or Connecticut, because the company based in Utah doesn't pay taxes to a state hell bent on infringing on the Constitution.

How would rewarding a company that decides to stay in such a state help our cause? I can't avoid ALL money staying out of those states, but I can avoid most of it.

So you own stock in a company that manufacturs firearms? Why the hypocrisy with all the anti-NRA statements if they exist only to line the pockets of firearm manufacturers?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

Mark,

You have posed a paradox; you ask mg to be logical?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Darrin, we don't expect an overnight packing up and moving, but some companies expressed NO resistance to their local governments, while others said SEEYA LATER and actually moved (or at least built new plant, refused to do business with government (or sell them anything a private citizen couldn't buy), etc.

Which company would you rather support?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

Back on topic, the Senate committee is scheduled to hear S993 on Monday, May 5 at 10:30 am (Committe Room 10 at the State House Annex).

Please attend in-person or at least contact the members of the commitee to voice opposition to this bill.

MEMBERS OF THE NEW JERSEY SENATE LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:

Donald Norcross (Chair) (D5)
sennorcross@njleg.org
Phone: 856-547-4800
Fax: 856-547-5496

Linda Greenstein (Vice Chair) (D14)
sengreenstein@njleg.org
Phone: 609-395-9911
Fax: 609-395-9032

Nick Sacco (D32)
sensacco@njleg.org
Phone: 201-295-0200
Fax: 201-295-8294

Christopher "Kip" Bateman (R16)
senbateman@njleg.org
Phone: 908-526-3600
Fax: 908-707-4578

James Holzapfel (R10)
senholzapfel@njleg.org
Phone: 732-840-9028
Fax: 732-840-9757

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

Too bad this girl didn't have a loaded weapon in her nightstand... she's damn lucky she lived... (she's in critical condition)

Just another case where "calling the police" would have done zero good. The police can't protect you. You have to protect yourself, the police just write the reports after the crime has been committed- hopefully not after your murder...or that of your spouse, child, etc.

Had this happened in my bedroom, there would be one less criminal/attempted murderer on this planet.

http://pix11.com/2014/04/28/18-year-old-woman-brutally-attacked-in-her-nj-bedroom/#axzz30BzdhPJS


http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_jersey&id=9518397

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Okay, I understand your points, But you gotta admit, gun manufactures must love this limiting talk, they obviously don't when limits are actually set, because then they have to R&D new compliant weapons, but just the talk alone is enough to spark a major sale booster. The government may or may not realize it, but all they have done is boosted the sale for guns and ammo with all this talk.

I think as long as gun manufactures are not infringed on what they develop for other states they will probably be staying put, it's not until the state starts messing with what they can build in that particular state that they may pack up and move out, but in the same sense I see how that can be looked at as supporting a anti-2A state.

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

Hmmm. So Mark would not like to spend money in Utah, but has no problem in spending money in a country that's 99% Muslim. Guess he agrees with their gun control policies.

Bear in mind that I am just saying. I have no issue with your purchase and Turkey is the most Western of the Muslim states. It's a pretty cool place except for the countries it borders.

I have no more problem investing in a well-run chemical company with 33% of it's revenue coming form legally produced arms than you do supporting foreign Muslim workers and U.S. liberals with your purchases. The Turkish part you made sound like a thoughtful conscious decision as was mine when I bought Olin. However, as I said in an earlier thread, to be honest, I am not holding today. Not because of any politics, but it just got too hot to hold and I realized the profits. But it is a good one to watch, maybe in 2015 if Hillary starts getting hot would be good timing. You guys tend to stock up the closer a Democrat gets to being in office.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat, repeat, repeat myself but I am not not anti-gun, am not anti-2A. I am anti-LCMs and I think I have Constitutional grounds to do so. But IMHO the NJ law is unnecessary because I have no issue compromising at 15-rounds and the difference between 10 and 15 is probably marginal and impossible to statistically prove. But does being against LCMs mean I am anti-gun? You can how your view, but again, I am saying you can have all the guns you want too.

I am totally for making money off your legal gun purchases while at the same time being more than willing to ban LCMs above 10-rounds. I sleep well at night, more so when you keep buying and buying guns. Your guns bring me peace.

Nor do I have problems with strict common sense gun control laws like background checks. I don't see this as hypocritical at all. The company is legal. I do not want to ban guns. I still say buy all the guns you want, put my kids through college, but do it legally. If that means waiting, if that means fingerprints, as far as I am concerned a true gun advocate would advocate being as sure as possible that guns are as safe as possible.

And unlike you, I buy stock in pro-gun and anti-gun states, no issues with that either. And I like things from Turkey too.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

Where did I say I wouldn't like to spend money in Utah?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

Actually you said NY and CT; just replace Utah with that. Sorry, don't really track states by gun rights advocacy.

But there really was no issue here, not picking on you, just fyi-ing that when you bought from Turkey, you bought from a company that not only supports Muslim factory workers but a company with a number of factories in the very states you want to avoid supporting.

Not to mention that I have to imagine that current gun profits are being directly invested into chemical business expansion in those strict gun law states.

"It's a small world after all....."

Trying to be political with your purchases is difficult and pretty meaningless in terms of sending any sort of recognizable message. And they're may be unintended consequences like support of liberal stock holders as well. Not only that but I know we found that marketing to the "Buy America" crowd was not really a revenue boon even if true, if patriotic, or anything else. So we did it, but we didn't really expend extra dollars to do it.

Again, no big deal, just saying.

mistergoolge mistergoolge
Apr '14

And I recognize that I'll never keep 100% of my money away from those I disagree with, and that my "contribution" may be insignificant by itself.

Same way the ozone layer doesn't care about your individual Prius... but collectively it may make a difference.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

Again not to sound naive, I understand your point, but isn't this just what the anti-2A people want?

Less business to american gun manufactures due to people turning just to prove a point to the government means the gun manufacturer could go out of business, but on the other hand, if it was a problem they would move, if they had the funding.

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

Sooner or later you have to stand on principle, assuming one has any.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

For every gun I didn't buy from Remington, I bought one from Winchester. If Remington goes out of business (whether that's due to principles or their spotty quality since being acquired by Freedom Group), other brands would pick up the slack.

I bet Remington would love to not have pissed off many gun owners now that they have to pay for a recall on ~1 million Model 700's and a luke warm (at best) launch of R51 handguns (that are already being called back for repairs/engineering fixes).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

it is possible to support remington, american mamufacturing, american factory workers and not support cumo.

both are doable

didn't remignton come out and say they wouldn't sell or market to certain LE agenices that are in the states with overbearing restrictions?

if yes, then why not throw a few bucks their way to make up the difference?

i do support voitng with your consumer dollars, it sends a powerfull message.

btw, avoid BOA because they are rejecting loans and calling loans made to gun manufacturers, BOA has a new policy of not having any financial dealings with firearms manufacturers and parts suppliers so we need to stop using BOA credit cards and also move our money out of there. check it out.

BOA is also a big supporter of Obama, 'nough said right there

sends a powerful message

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

What "principles" are you alluding to?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

"didn't remignton come out and say they wouldn't sell or market to certain LE agenices that are in the states with overbearing restrictions?"

I don't think Remington made any such statement... I could be wrong... but manufacturers like Barrett certainly made that promise (and uphold it). I doubt Remington made such a promise because in the midst of all this gun-control / pick your sides / who supports the 2nd Amendment brouhaha, Remington signed an $80 million contract with the government to supply sniper rifles.

Here's an article about that, with comments on both side about boycotting their products:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/robert-farago/remington-staying-in-new-york-boycott-to-follow/

And just to show that other manufacturers ARE worth your hard earned dollars, here is just one article showing that some did decide to leave these anti-gun states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/business/wooed-by-gun-friendly-states-some-manufacturers-pull-up-stakes.html?_r=0

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

"BOA is also a big supporter of Obama, 'nough said right there"

I'm not going to look further at the rest of your "facts" BDog, but it really does not take a rocket scientist to smell a web rumor that has grown and grown.

In 2012, BOA mostly through individuals, but through PACs as well, supported with their contributions Republicans over Democrats at almost a 2:1 ratio.

One example:
Mitt Romney - $1,018,652
Barak Obama - $262,597

Pick any year, the story is the same. You are probably alluding to this rabid dog story that reeks of professionalism: http://sloggingtowardliberty.blogspot.com/2012/04/this-is-bit-of-departure-for-me-but-i.html

But as you can see, the actual donations tell a far, far different story. PS --- for any given year BOA spends scads more on conservatives than liberals.

If they could prove financial harm, they could sue you for such falsehoods.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

Report Reveals Obama Campaign Borrowed $15 Million From Bank of America

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/20/report-reveals-obama-campaign-borrowed-15-million-from-bank-of-america/

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

Washington Free Beacon notes that Bank of America and the Obama administration have a number of ties:

Warren Buffett, Obama donor and namesake of the infamous “Buffett Rule,” invested $5 billion in Bank of America last year in an effort to help the ailing financial institution. Last month, two weeks after OFA took out the loan, Bank of America announced a plan that would lay off 16,000 workers by the end of the year.

…The bank contributed $20 million toward the cost of the Democrat National Convention earlier this year. Bank of America stadium, home to the Carolina Panthers, was supposed to host Obama’s acceptance speech.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

auntiel - i enjoy your posts, and generally agree that our local police forces are becoming over-militarized. armored cars and trucks, and everything else

here is how to place a link in a response, you just copy and paste the url from your browsers address bar into the editor.

to copy a url,: click on it once so it is highlighted, right click your mouse and choose 'copy' from the subtext menu or you can hit the combination key code 'ctl+c',

then switch back to your response window and click in the text box so the the mouse cursor is there, (you can see it blinking as a vertical bar) then right click your mouse one more time and choose 'paste' from the sub-text menu or use the combination key code 'ctl+v'

you should see your link in your response, let me know if this doesn't work for you

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

I din't realize there was such a hatred against Remington!

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

mg,

The concept of principles might be "eluding" YOU....(like that?... turned "allude" into "elude")... it's pretty simple really- you support actions you agree with, and do not support actions you do not agree with. Whether it is through the voting booth, or patronizing a business financially.

For example, if one were a gun hater who wishes 2A would be repealed, buying stock in a firearms company that sells to the public to turn a profit from an action one does not believe in would be hypocritical and unprincipled.

(not saying you hate guns or want 2A repealed, we all know how much you LOVE guns and 2A)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Remington Outdoor Company, the country’s oldest firearms manufacturer, announced Monday that it is expanding into Alabama in a move some observers think is a response to strict gun control laws in the company’s home state of New York.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/17/remington-expands-into-alabama-after-new-york-enacts-strict-gun-laws/#ixzz30NDNGkMX

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

vote with your consumer dollars, it sends a powerful message:


The list of companies that have stopped selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies in states that are restricting the Second Amendment has more than doubled since Wednesday and is more than five times larger than just one week ago. There are 44 companies on our list, with more being added as we receive notification. Here are the additions since Wednesday:

Barrett Firearms
Exile Machine
Tier One Arms
Bravo Company USA
Primary Weapons Systems
Crusader Weaponry
Top Gun Supply
Kiss Tactical
Clark Fork Tactical
OFA Tactical
One Source Tactical
Templar Tactical Arms
NEMO Arms
Old Grouch’s Military Surplus
Big Horn Armory
Midway USA
CMMG Inc
Rocky Top Tactical
Badger Peak
Controlled Chaos Arms
SRT Arms
Norton Firearms
Citizen Arms
Evolution Weaponry
Doublestar Corp
JCW Industries
Huntertown Arms

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/23/gaining-momentum-now-42-gun-companies-have-stopped-selling-to-law-enforcement-in-anti-2nd-amendment-states/

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

here's a fuller list, maybe we should contact these firms and tell them we won't be buying from them if they still sell to NJ's law enforcement agencies if NJ passes this new round of restrictions?

http://www.ncgunblog.com/new-york-boycott/

New York Boycott Participants:

LaRue Tactical ; Olympic Arms ; Extreme Firepower Inc ; Templar Custom; York Arms; Cheaper Than Dirt; Bullwater Enterprises; West Fork Armory ; Smith Enterprise; Alex Arms ; Spike’s Tactical; Quality Arms Idaho; Liberty Suppressors; Doublestar Corp; American Spirit Arms; Trident Armory; Head Down Products; J&G Sales; Barrett Firearms; Exile Machine; Tier One Arms; Bravo Company USA ; Primary Weapons Systems; Crusader Weaponry; Top Gun Supply ; Kiss Tactical ; Clark Fork Tactical ; OFA Tactical;
One Source Tactical ; Templar Tactical Arms ; NEMO Arms ; Old Grouch’s Military Surplus ; Big Horn Armory ; Midway USA ; CMMG Inc ; Rocky Top Tactical ; Badger Peak ; Controlled Chaos Arms; SRT Arms; Norton Firearms ; Umlaut Industries ; Predator Intelligence ; Citizen Arms ;
Evolution Weaponry; Chaos Arms ; Warbirds Custom Guns ; JBTAC; Stoner Arms ; Ammoclip ; 3 Rivers Precision ; 2A Firearms; Lanco Tactical ; Predator Tactical; Arrowhead Shooting Sports; Boise Tactical ; Huntertown Arms; Lauer Custom Weaponry; 556 Tactical; Iron Goat Guns; Dead Bang Guns; Southern Appalachian Arms; Thunder Beast Arms; Delmarva Shooting Supply; OJ’s Gun Shop; OCS Guns; Progressive Micro Devices ; Semper Fi Arms; Climags ; Southwest Shooting Authority; Csspecs Magazines; MFI ; Critical Survival ; DogLeg Arms ; Victory Defense Consulting ; GWACS Armory ; Allegiance Ammunition; 2A Armament; Daniel Byer FFL ; Black Mountain Survival ; Hill Country Black Rifles; Big Sky Ammunition ; Allstar Tactical; Precision Firearms; Alpine Guns; Umbrella Corp; Bison Armory; 3RI Technologies; The Tactical Toolbox; JCW Industries ; Volquartsen Custom ;
Paige Firearms; Franklin Armory; West Michigan Tactical ; West Acre Sporting Goods; Shade’s Landing; GunUp; RL Hydro-Graphix; Jeremy Kupper’s Gunsmithing; Hansohn Brothers; Deep South Ammo; King Armory; Bison Tactical; RRC Firearms; Wilson Combat; DownRange Defense; Snake Hound Machine ; Allied Armory ; Reaper Tactical; Truly Tactical ; Competition Machine; MagPul ; Vltor; Antares Arms; Midwest PX ; Wolfpit Tactical; West Desert Tactical; Specialized Dynamics; Aero Precision; DeGroat Tactical Armament; Able Company Sports; Gadsden Guns ; Western Firearms Company; Badlands Arsenal; Armtac; Element Arms; Hawks Tactical; Battle Creek Supply; Wolverine Technologies; Black Hat Firearms; Lone Star Shooting Supply; Lono Group; Oregon Precision Firearms; NFA Gear; Rhino Arms; Serbu Firearms; Black Dragon Firearms; Black Label Armament; Safety Harbor Firearms;

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

Literally so pissed, just tried to watch a video on you tube and had to watch the forced commercial before my video (the one you cannot skip), it was a anti-gun video mocking anything the NRA has ever said, what is this coming to, If you tube is going to support anti-gunners I guess now I refuse to watch you tube!

Darrin Darrin
Apr '14

Thank goodness my principles are intact in regards to my purchase of Olin stock in the past and thank you for your financial support of my family and our principles. I think if anyone of us was to be judged on our normal purchases against our "principles," wants, and desires, we would be found wanting. Even the uber-principled JR. So I would not be casting stones especially if I was buying guns from Muslims.

Meanwhile in other breaking financial news BDog ignores the total fabrication that he posted an instead goes to the rest of the thread to say "see, but some of it is true!" I tried to give him the hint that once you find a snake in the woodpile.....but no, he wants to dig more compost.

Yes, Obama's campaign "took a $15M loan in Oct of 2012 from BOA;" gosh it's deep rooted since they did the exact same thing in 2008. And at the same time, not doubt to cover his tracks, Obama sues BOA for $1B for mortgage fraud 10/12; they settled another one with BOA for $335M in 2011 --- the largest payout ever

Meanwhile it is also true that the $15M loan was unusual and ominous. I mean what did they need a loan for. And one that was almost twice the $8M that the Republicans borrowed from the failing bank Wachovia which in 2010, paid $160M for laundering drug money by Mexican and Columbian concerns. Wachovia lent the Repubs the cash even while freezing the assets of thousands of customers as apparently their preferred, special, we-really-like-you wink wink customers. Later Wachovia was deemed too big to fail ---- you betcha --- and was bought by Wells Fargo. No problem in Congress on that one. Wachovia also lent the Repubs $9M in 2006 which they didn't even pay back until 2008 (pssst, can we get a few more months, we can't find our checkbook). Of course this loan was based on fraudulent paperwork by an embezzling Republican Party Treasurer which was easy to do since they had not run an internal audit since 2003 (isn't this the "business" party?)

Wachovia's PAC contributions to Repubs are in a 2:1 ratio favor over dems even in Democratic states. The CEO, a Bush Sr. Treasury Undersecretary appointee in the past, donated over $100K in the past three elections. He did give $5K to Dems, mostly in his own state. John Edwards gave his back. He has more principles (MG said tongue in cheek, foot in mouth).

And yes: "Warren Buffett, Obama donor, invested $5 billion in Bank of America last year." Was it politically motivated? Over 40% of Berkshire is in finance. Among other things he gets a guaranteed 6% dividend paid quarterly for the BOA investment. Now I don't care what party BOA supports or does not support or how they feel about guns or buns ----- can I buy some of this please????

By far, at $15B investment level, Wells Fargo has always been Buffet's biggest bet; you know, the bank that bought Wachovia (you wanna bet whether they asked Warren's advice?), Wachovia being in bed with the Republicans, and therefore........I guess Buffet swings both ways? WFargo is also BOA's biggest competitor, oh Buffet you incestuous whore; why you're just willing to make money wherever good business by legal companies is being done. Why that's just not good politics.

Get the point?

USBancorp is Buffet's second largest holding; I hear they like Alec Baldwin. Goldman is next (arent' they Jewish), followed by M&T (these guys are from Buffalo, need I say more) which is completing it's acquisition of Hudson Bank ----- oh no, Warren Buffet invests in and supports New Jersey......oh the humanity. Now he owns a corner in Hackettstown and rents some strip mall space in Mansfield.

Meanwhile, "BOA announced a plan that would lay off 16,000 workers by the end of the year." In top secret breaking news hidden from our eyes ---- lots of companies laid off people. So what?

"The bank contributed $20 million toward the cost of the Democrat National Convention earlier this year."
Uh oh, actually this one is 100% not true. Oops, another total falsehood. A number of companies including BOA, Wells Fargo (remember, they own Wachovia), AT&T, US Airways, Duke Energy, and McGuireWoods, and others put in. Duke secured $11M of the 20M so BOA and Fargo would be far less.

Yes "they own the Bank of America stadium where the Obama acceptance speech was supposed to be given" OK, you got me there. You caught Obama red-handed not supporting the Chicago Bears. Busted.

Point is BDog dug into the compost pile and posted what he found. Upon being told his first story was full of it, he reiterated the rest as being a compelling tale of collusion and conspiracy. Nice job.

Now I am sure politics and personal feelings come into any decision that anyone makes but if you see great evil being done in any of these transactions, then first, both sides do it, and second, you're smoking something or looking to promote this drivel that makes up the underbelly of internet "news."

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

facts are facts, what the feckless do with them is on them.

account of bank of americas behavior -

McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an "account analysis" meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.

At this point I interrupted him and asked "Can I possibly save you some time so that you don't waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer want my business?"

"That is correct" he says.

I replied "That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won't mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?"

"You have to do what you must" he said.

"So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?"

Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing let for him to say.

I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don't agree with a business' political position I can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

Once again, mg pens a tome'


I can't help but keep thinking, if you really need that many words to defend your position, or to explain your thoughts.....?

mg, have you ever boycotted a company? Would you have not given Chik-fil-a your money because the owner did something you didn't agree with? Or not invest with a particular investment firm because of the golden parachute it's CEO got?

Or, like most people, are you only interested in what works for YOU, right NOW, regardless of what long-term consequences may result?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

Its just human nature to sell your sole for money these days because everybody does it.
I just read this this afternoon.
.Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Monday said that Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling's racist rant is only news because he didn't contribute enough to President Barack Obama's campaign.
"This is not news to anybody who has known of this guy," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "This guy is a big Democrat. The only reason he’s in trouble is because he did not give enough money to Obama."
While some conservative commentators and outlets pegged Sterling as a Democrat based on a few donations he made to Democratic candidates in the 80s and 90s, the Clippers owner is actually registered as a Republican.
Limbaugh said on his show that he learned 10 to 15 years ago that Sterling was a racist, and that everybody in Los Angeles ignored it because the Clippers were overshadowed by the Lakers anyway.
"It’s been so widely known by everybody in the NBA, everybody in the sports media for 10-15 years," Limbaugh said. "Everybody in the media, from LA to New York, who’s acting shocked about this, I’m telling you they’ve known who this guy is for the longest time. They’ve known he is a slum lord. They know that he is a racist. They know that he’s basically a despicable human being, and now he may be demented."
He also forgot the NAACP giving him awards [for Money}
Just saying.

Old Gent Old Gent
Apr '14

This one is really getting funny.

"facts are facts, what the feckless do with them is on them." Ah, feckless, the new general purpose ad hominem from the righteous ones. But I agree. That's why I corrected your misstatements and lies. It was not to say you're wrong except to copy and paste them blindly but to point out that pulling stories from the underbelly of the internet is often highly inaccurate. You should not trust and also verity.

As to your "account of American behavior" which you pulled from the font of all news: Facebook, but did not attribute or source, here's the backgrounder according to Snopes: mix of undetermined and FALSE: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bankofamerica.asp

==================
Once again, mg pens a tome' I can't help but keep thinking, if you really need that many words to defend your position, or to explain your thoughts.....?
Yes.

mg, have you ever boycotted a company?
Yes

Would you have not given Chik-fil-a your money because the owner did something you didn't agree with?
Don't know, never been to one, don't see me going.

Or not invest with a particular investment firm because of the golden parachute it's CEO got?
No. I do not base my investments on parachutes, salaries or other pay package elements but instead I tend to use the bottom line. If you are basing your investments this way, you are going broke.

Or, like most people, are you only interested in what works for YOU, right NOW, regardless of what long-term consequences may result?
Wow, that's not exactly a high regard you have for "most people" as you stand in your own judgment of them. And No, my investments include a mix of short term and long term vehicles, however, I am very interested in what works for me, what works for me is very important when I invest. And not only now but also for generations to come. As to long-term consequences of investing in Olin; please illuminate us with your crystal ball as to what those are. Thank you.

Amazing that you are so upset that I invested in a chemical company that also legally produces firearms and ammunition even though I support the 2A and gun ownership but would like to see restrictions placed on LCMs. Just what is your problem with my investment in a legal arms manufacturer that has not broken any laws that I know of?

Feckless? Lack of integrity? Principles? You guys are the ones attacking someone for supporting a gun manufacturer. "Oh the humanity of it all........"

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Apr '14

mg said

"I do not base my investments on parachutes, salaries or other pay package elements but instead I tend to use the bottom line."

Ah. So you are a PURE CAPITALIST. Excellent! Don't listen to what "they" say!! Profit is not evil!! The rich are not evil!!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Apr '14

here's a current list of firearms businesses that are boycotting New York State because of its onerous gun restrictions:

http://www.ncgunblog.com/new-york-boycott/

maybe doing business with them will help send a message to new york politicians who are out in left field.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Apr '14

MG, might want to address high capacity armrests first. It would be more effective.

This man killed more people (2) with an armrest in one incident than those who were murdered by a rifle across THE WHOLE COUNTRY on that same day (approximately 1.7 on average).

Where there's a will, there's a way, and it's got nothing to do with the configuration of metal and plastic that is used as a weapon. Whether it's a gun, a knife, a hammer, a car, a golf club, or apparanty even an armrest, people will find a way to kill each other no matter how many bans are in place. You can't legislate hatred and evil away, especially by taking away the most effective tools for self defense when you become the target of that hatred or evil.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/texas-man-in-nursing-home-is-charged-with-murder.html

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Apr '14

Actually, I want to clarify that it isn't necessarily 1.7 people *murdered* with a rifle each day. It's 1.7 deaths where the weapon used was a rifle. That includes justifiable homicides (self defense), police shootings, suicide, and murder.

Even if every single death where a rifle was used was actually a crime (and not self defense or suicide), it's far outnumbered by other means including but not limited to hammers and baseball bats. Since "large" capacity magazines (more accurately referred to as "standard" capacity magazines) are typically associated with rifles, they are simply not used in a significant number of crimes.

In 2011, there were 323 deaths due to rifles, 356 with shotguns, 496 with hammers/clubs, and 1,694 with knives. Items that you have in your kitchen contributed to 5 times as many deaths as rifle magazines of any capacity.

(Note, in my original stat for 1.7 rifle deaths per day, I think that site had combined rifles and shotguns into one "long gun" category. The actual number may be half of what I initially described.)

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

" Ah. So you are a PURE CAPITALIST. Excellent! Don't listen to what "they" say!! Profit is not evil!! The rich are not evil!!"

Sure, I am a capitalist. Not sure what a PURE one is though. I am really not sure what you are getting at but certainly that is not even close to what I said. I said I TEND to use the bottom line NOT that I ONLY use the bottom line. For example, if a company has a new product about to introduced, the bottom line is only a guideline. If they are just introducing a new product, the bottom line might be crap because of start-up costs. It's an "it depends." And the rich are not evil any more than you and your friends are; they do get unnecessary perks and loopholes.

Now, I have answered all your questions, are you ready to tell us the long-term consequences of investing in Olin?

And pray, tell us your criteria for investing? I would love to hear how you use principled-based investing to avoid PURE CAPITALISM and the "what's it for me" issues you bring up as e v I l.

Let me guess: JR's top ten financial assessment criteria
1. do they support guns
2. do they work, live, or visit anti-gun states
3. how much does the CEO make and does his contract include unnecessary financial perks
4. do they agree with your principles on social and political issues
5. has the CEO ever dated a liberal or someone who visited an anti-gun state
6. does the CEO use too many words
7. are they PURE CAPITALISTS
8.. what are their long-term consequences plans
9. do they have factories in foreign Muslim populated countries (this is a positive)
10. is the company blessed by the NRA

I am probably off-base, but please tell us how you pick your investments, especially the qualifications you use to be sure they align with your principles. Or is buying bullets your long-term financial plan to protect and grow your personal wealth?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

"Or is buying bullets your long-term financial plan to protect and grow your personal wealth?"

Have you seen the prices of ammunition lately? It was probably one of the best % gains of any "investment" over the past couple years if you look at retail pricing. Sure, it's dropping off a little now, but depending on the caliber it was up 200 to 300% in a matter of months.

(Winchester makes ammunition too... you're welcome.)

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

People should realize that it is very difficult to have a intelligent debate with someone who cannot tolerate being wrong and has to top it off by constantly trying to be a smart ass.

Maybe this post should be on the" A "Venting" Thread - 8th Edition"

Ignatz Ignatz
May '14

Mark: Yes I noticed that about ammo prices and wondered how such a simple product with commodity ingredients could rise so much in price just because of demand. Not like there's a gunpowder shortage or you need specialty workers....

And yes, I had noted earlier the perk of Winchester providing a greater value add than just guns to that market. You can bet the margins increased as well, at least $$$-wise.

Speaking of value add, oh Ignatz, how untrue and unnecessary. I also am amazed how when you post a bunch of facts, sourced to legitimate proven news sources, that people come away with ---- "gee, you can't tolerate being wrong" Where was the intolerance in the facts I presented? Where was the wrong? And I am sorry you don't appreciate my attempts at humor; I don't appreciate you calling me names either.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

mg,

Actually, I could care less what a CEO makes. I'm not a "99%-er".

But yes- I like to support companies that agree with my beliefs, as much as possible. Much like politicians I vote for. If I hear a company is anti-gun, or anti-Salvation Army (or any charity ringing a bell in front of their establishment), I do not do business with them.

Whereas, by your definition- even if you were gay you would still by clothes at an anti-gay establishment if if meant you saved YOUR money... or invest in an company that is anti-gay because you could turn a profit, despite the fact they would be going against your beliefs.

(IDK if you're gay, I just picked a controversial issue)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

"People should realize that it is very difficult to have a intelligent debate with someone who cannot tolerate being wrong and has to top it off by constantly trying to be a smart ass."

+ 1 ignatz,

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

How does buying stock in an arms company when I am for the 2A, I am for gun ownership, but I am against LCMs above 10 bullets become such a morality play for you? Are you really that much of a financial prude?

It's like saying I want to invest in the very profitable and growing Rainbow Paint company but I am against the color black which they produce so therefore I should not invest (just trying to expand upon your gay weirdness rant with a little tint of race double entendre for color).

How can you only support companies that agree with 100% with your social and political beliefs and discount those who might only agree with most of your beliefs like Olin does mine? Or do you draw a line at 80% principle-concurrence (whatever the heck that is). How can you base investments primarily on principles versus accounting statements? Doesn't that leave you with a small pool of mostly loser companies? Again, pray tell, show us some of this blessed companies that fit your bill.

How can you assume you understand my "definition" for investment selection when all you know is I tend to look at the bottom line, I am a capitalist (isn't everyone who invests?), and I have purchased Olin upon occasion? That's not knowing very much for you to assume you understand my investment selection criteria much less be able to judge me and my principles on it. (Hint --- there's a very large spreadsheet with lots of numbers and only one of them is the bottom line and, for other decisions --- there's a dart board).

My goodness, I can only imagine what you must think when I day trade upon rare occasion (like when the wife is out :>) That must be like a financial brothel to you.

Perhaps you can respond to some of the queries (heh heh) stacking up which you seem to want to keep avoiding in lieu rushing to a myriad of judgments against me based on imagined assumptions.

One other note. When you look above at only a portion of Buffet's banking portfolio, you should note that there is really not much there based on social or political beliefs and principles. If you look further at Warren's or most financial investors including the Koch Bros, I think you will find the same. Just saying.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

@mistergoogle,

I had made a general statement please point out where I specifically mentioned your name. Did I touch a spot or maybe you thought the shoe fit. Either way babble on..

Ignatz Ignatz
May '14

"People should realize that it is very difficult to have a intelligent debate with someone who cannot tolerate being wrong and has to top it off by constantly trying to be a smart ass." Ignatz issuing a bold nonspecific general blue-sky statement which no one has boldly stated before.

So someone from the general audience responds " how untrue and unnecessary..... Where was the intolerance in the facts I presented? Where was the wrong? .... I don't appreciate you calling me names either." MG

Instead of responding to the specific questions and allegations, Ignatz reminds him it was a general statement, made to everyone in general, but never to him specifically because it was in general, to everyone, but he is not mentioned. It's like a single circle Venn diagram and I am the dot outside the circle. And then I am asked to "prove it" that my name was mentioned from the general statement to everyone. Well, that was a waste of time. And then I am told since I responded, I must have thought the shoe fit, so I guess it was to me, but not to me or to something or someone, but not to me at least specifically, but maybe, possibly to me generally, oh wait, I am touching a spot, I am babbling......oh that feels good.

Dude, there's only about four or five people droning on in this thread each of which might as well consider your "general" statement to be top-dead-center (car talk for Darrin) specific for them. It's not a large single circle Venn Diagram with only five people and literally the entire population might as well figure they are dead bang (shooting metaphor credit for JR) in the center of your target.

And then Ignatz who likes to call names but not name names, calls me, specifically, a "babbler" after Ignatz basically called the entire Venn Diagram, including me, smart asses. That's BDog, Mark, JR, and Darrin I think potentially in the circle and I can't imagine any of us dreaming we were outside the circle. Yeah, Iggy, this one would have popped better on the vent thread instead of on a thread where the general gets pretty specific to the small audience of participants.

But the funny part, beyond the previous Rock n Roll joke, is when one of the obvious "smart assed, intolerant, participants denies being part of our general group of five and gives Ignatz a "thumbs up' attaboy. Guess BDog saw the general part and figured "it was those other three guys I have been calling names and responding to with the frequency of movement of Saturday Darrin's trigger finger on a lonely, undisclosed, private field with a full 100-round LCM equipped weapon in his hand....."

PLEASE NOTE that the previous message was meant as clarification not as intolerant proof that I have to be right. Nor was it expected to be the last word on the topic, however the author does reserve the right to respond to responses and to boldly babble where no man has blathered before. (cue the theremin-based opening credit theme song).

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

BankUnited Discriminates Against Gun Dealers, Local Store Owners Claim

The Libertis' battle with BankUnited began last month. For seven years, they say, they had no problem with the Miami Lakes-based bank. T.R. had run a gun store in the Garden State, and when he opened Top-Gun Firearms on Calle Ocho, BankUnited operated the account.

But when T.R. decided to retire and let Elizabeth take the store online -- under the new name Discount Ammo-N-Guns -- the Libertis found themselves suddenly under fire.

A March 12 letter mysteriously informed them that BankUnited was closing their checking account "pursuant to the terms and conditions listed in our Depositor's Agreement." It gave the Libertis three days to transfer their cash elsewhere. When the Libertis called BankUnited for an explanation, they were politely informed that none would be forthcoming.

"I was very angry," Elizabeth says. "They were very inconsiderate. We had all our credit cards going through that bank. All of a sudden, we had to run and find another bank to keep our business going. We shut down for two weeks, and they wouldn't even tell us why."

After a day of dialing different BankUnited divisions and directors, the Libertis finally found out.

"This letter in no way reflects any derogatory reasons for such action on your behalf. But rather one of industry," wrote Coral Way branch manager Ricardo Garcia. "Unfortunately your company's line of business is not commensurate with the industries we work with."

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/04/bank_united_discriminating_aga.php

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

@mistergoogle,

All I can say is Mission accomplished.

Ignatz Ignatz
May '14

I am happy for you.

Knew you wouldn't actually answer the questions.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/gun_control_bills_up_in_nj_senate_committee_monday.html

"Families of victims of the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., pushed for the magazine limit, noting the shooter used high-capacity magazines."

I am sorry, i do feel for these people, but worry about your own state, leave us alone, we had nothing to do with what happened!

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

I wouldn't trust that snake (Weinberg) as far as I could throw her... (and that wouldn't be very far...)

(Oops, Darrin removed his link to the"deal" that Weinberg wants to make with the NRA)

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

And this is why:

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/05/loretta-weinberg-on-guns-confiscate-confiscate-confiscate/

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

By the way - the 10 round limit (S993) was passed out of committee today.

Now on to the full Senate.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Darrin, Am I missing something? I am really not sure what to make of this wackiness from the sons of liberty crowd.

First, do you really have a problem with people from another state, upon being invited, offering information and advice based on their experience? Or do you really feel that we should just stop all information, ideas, and advice coming in from across Jersey lines?

Second, are people really against selling guns ----- if they have cool smart technology. To the point of making death threats? I can see being against a mandatory law, but to stop all sales, to curtail the open market, with threats of violence just does not seem to be the NRA way. Or is it?

I just don't see how you can be for limiting freedom of speech and for limiting the open market when it suits you and vehemently against it when it doesn't. It would appear you're OK with gunnies threatening violence to restrict sales but against the government using law to restrict sales.

I mean if I want a smart gun, why do you have the right to stop me from buying one --- much less at the point of a gun. much less in another state beyond Jersey when the law these outsiders are protesting is a Jersey law. It's time to call out the real jack-booted thugs; I just don't see how you can condone that.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

@misterbabble,

I knew you couldn't let it rest. Just had to have the last word, eh.

Carrie on.

Ignatz Ignatz
May '14

Yes I do have a problem with it when what those "invited" (emphasis on the quotes) people are trying to push is unconstitutional. And I emphasize because their trip to the meetings is full paid for by the very people trying to get the law passed. Seems more like a bribe to make a stronger point, and hit on the emotional side all the time, bit hey that's just me. Why don't they tell those very people to stay on topic at the meetings? And not to tell the story of their children at every single meeting......emotional reaction. (Period)

And I am not saying dont make smart guns, I am saying dont make smart guns and take away the real guns, as the article portrays.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

from the article linked above:

The Star-Ledger reported last Friday that after a closed-door hearing on gun control in the New Jersey Senate the previous day, three state senators–believed to be Democrats Loretta Weinberg, Sandra Cunningham and Linda Greenstein–were caught on tape, complaining that bills introduced in the Garden State–including one that would require mandatory training to possess a firearm–don’t go far enough.

First, a voice is heard complaining, “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” Then, the trio apparently focuses its ire on gun control opponents who say that the way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to throw the book at them.

Weinberg, willing to have no part of it, says “They want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don’t have any regulations to do it.” Cunningham then snipes, “They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them,” and Greenstein chimes in that enforcing existing law is “the line they have developed.”

Strong rhetoric that reveals how gun control supporters really feel about their issue is nothing new, of course. Nearly 20 years ago, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that if she had been able to muster the votes, her 1994 “assault weapon” ban would not have merely prohibited various guns from being made with pistol grips, folding stocks and flash suppressors, but would have required a far harsher outcome; as Sen. Feinstein put it, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.”

However, the fact that gun control supporters still feel that way, after violent crime rates have plummeted as gun controls have been eliminated and gun sales and gun ownership rates have soared, suggests that we’re up against ideologically driven adversaries with whom there can be no negotiation–only victory or defeat.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

"their trip to the meetings is full paid for by the very people trying to get the law passed."

right, who is paying for these parents to go all over the country to push their anti-gun agenda?

follow the money and you find people like gorge soros and micheal bloomberg funding these expensive trips for the sandy hook families to go state by state, over and over again to tell their stories.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

please, please defend us from those parents with their anti-gun agenda!! who speaks up for the poor guns? who are these breeders to tell US how to live? just have another kid and shut up.

MrCharlie2
May '14

and, who speaks up for the men who love those Guns?

MrCharlie2
May '14

Lobbying takes place on BOTH sides of the isle, on this issue and EVERY issue. Calling out the NRA as a lobby is meaningless.... actually, it's less than meaningless... most lobbies have corporations funding them, at least the NRA is funded by millions of American people, directly, as a public interest group instead of a pure-for-profit-making group (like say, Monsanto).

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

"please, please defend us from those parents with their anti-gun agenda!! "

parent's words are pretty strong when they are sent on all expense paid trips around america my anti-gun millionaires and paid to tell the story of their child's life over and over again in order to spark emotion within. Seems like the anti-gunner's are playing on the fact that these parent's lost their children.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

I get you and that's fine to have that opinion. I do not have an issue with free speech whether from in-state or out-of-state sources and whether I agree or not. As far as funding, I have no problem with that either, especially if it is transparent. No issue with Koch Bro's doing it either although transparency is not exactly their style. I do have issues when the folks they fund lie, misstate facts or other dirty tricks like death threats to gun sellers. Strange that no one here is speaking out about that.

And JR, I have responded to you on this many times but once again, while the NRA membership is made up of the American people, a large portion, if not overwhelming portion of NRA funding comes from about 22 gun makers. Clearly each of these gun makers has a larger voice that any citizen. http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1#!JtVCH

Heck, the NRA even benefits from website and publication advertising and you know where that comes from. Don't see any members putting up spashy ads.

And on the other side including a nice history of the NRA that apparently time has forgot: http://www.policymic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear

I think gun owners using threats of violence to stop gun sellers from selling certain guns is about as hypocritical as it gets. If you don't like the law, use legal means to get your message out and change the law. I think the NJ smart gun law sounds like a nice blue-sky idea but certainly seems nebulous, impractical, and perhaps illegal. I mean how grey is it to force smart gun sales when you think they're readily available. And even if readily available, if the cost is prohibitive to the point of stopping gun sales, does that not conflict with the 2A to essentially create an embargo at the state line? Not to mention that the effect at that point will be for gun owners to "import' cost effective guns across our state lines ---- legal or not.

But work to change the law, not issue death threats to gun sellers obeying the law and trying to get buyers what they desire on the free market.

Meanwhile, have you guys bought your gun insurance to protect your family from excessive legal fees in the event of a legal shooting? Think it's only about $8 per month and all the rage. However, you may not be able to purchase; they like to sell to gun owners who don't openly espouse violence or in JRs case: a l l u d e to it as a certainty in society today, except not by him :>) Better pick some up and protect the family from financial ruin due to good aim.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

misterg, please explain what smart guns are and how they would help get "real" guns out of criminals hands.

Will smart guns have backdoor access of control by the government like airplanes do? We can get into another conversation over this......


And also freedom of speech is quickly loosing the "freedom" part when these parents are being PAID to speak FOR anti-gunners, they are no longer voicing their words, just voicing what they are told to. As I said, seems anti-gunners are paying for the parent's STORY. Everyone knows guns can save lives just as easily as they can end lives, what they are bringing to the table is a emotional story to sway the lawmakers, children are the highest emotional factor, why do you think the media and anti-gunners prey on school shootings so much?

Darrin Darrin
May '14

confiscation is the goal as the article linked above documents:

" as Sen. Feinstein put it, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.” "

" a voice is heard complaining, “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” "

this is their end game.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

these three need to be voted out of office ASAP:

Democrats Loretta Weinberg, Sandra Cunningham and Linda Greenstein

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

Not a chance. Their all in safe districts.

Old Gent Old Gent
May '14

mg,

So, are you "ok" with Bloomberg, spending millions of dollars in an attempt to affect the outcomes of elections (just like the NRA does) so that anti-gun candidates win? There's no difference. Both are lobbies. IDK where all of Bloomie's money comes from, if it's all personal profit or if he has contributors, but the bottom line is this: the NRA (and other pro-gun organizations) spend money to try to get the people elected who represent their wants for the country. Just like Bloomberg and ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR YOU CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF, BE IT CORPORATION, NON-PROFIT GROUP, OR PRIVATE CITIZEN.

What make the NRA worse than Bloomberg? Who has proclaimed his personal crusade to destroy the NRA (which is a smoke screen; it's just an avenue to get to banning and confiscation of private, legally-owned firearms.)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

I have no problem with either the NRA or Bloomberg spending their money in this way. My point was that you were deluded if you thought the NRA money was mostly from individual members; they are more a gun maker's lobby than yours. Maybe that's why when you look at the NRA history you'll find that it's foundation has crumbled quite a bit.

Now I do have real problems with the Supreme Court's recent two rulings allowing Bloomberg, Koch Bro's, NRA, Exxon, and any other individual, organization, or business spending their money in this way with virtually no caps whatsoever. I do not think that an unlimited bankroll should give you an unlimited volume of your message. And worse than that list of newly unleashed monetary voice is the probability with these new Supreme Court no-limit spending rules is that it's only a matter of time until a Chinese-backed individual or a Chinese/American company starts spending at a no cap level to affect our way of life in favor of their agenda.

But at least we will still be able to say a Christian prayer before a town meeting to cheer us up.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

"they are more a gun maker's lobby than yours"

What is wrong with this? If are bans put into place, many many gun companies will be forced out of business, including the thousands of companies that make accessories for the very guns. The amount of damage a simple ban could produce is unforeseen.

Something that nobody has brought up if you ban private gun sales, or even infringe upon them enough that gun companies stop making particular models of weapons, companies may not be able to afford to stay in business, and this could be a gun company that provides to our military too, but survives due to civilian sales.....so then what?

Darrin Darrin
May '14

this bill must be defeated:

Supporters and detractors of the measure were very passionate in expressing their views.

“New Jersey can remain in the forefront in this important struggle to address the gun violence that ravages our communities,” said Ron Schwartz, a member of the Bergen County Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. “Sadly, there are many examples of how limiting the size of ammunition magazines has been necessary to save lives.”

Critics of the legislation also had their say before the Senate panel.

“The cold, hard truth is that no one will be any safer under this feel-good legislation because criminals and madmen will either ignore it or find another tool,” said Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. “In Virginia Tech, 10-round magazines were used. In Columbine, 10-round magazines were used.”

According to Bach, it is absurd to think a criminal can have a 10-round magazine, but not a 15-round magazine. Schwartz said that limiting magazine clips to 10 rounds will make New Jersey safer for children and communities.

Under current law, 15-round ammunition magazines are legal in New Jersey. The 10-round limit would bring the Garden State’s laws in line with the limits in the 1994 assault weapons ban. The bill was approved by the full Assembly in March and now awaits final legislative approval by the full Senate, before heading to the desk of Gov. Chris Christie.

http://nj1015.com/senate-panel-approves-gun-magazine-limit-audio/?trackback=tsmclip

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

mg,

We agree on the unlimited funding thing.


Interesting you felt the need, for some reason, to take a parting shot at Christianity for some reason, in a thread about gun control. Not sure what bearing that has on the subject? Or is that just you HAVING to be a smartass because you simply can't resist the urge?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

There's nothing wrong with the NRA being a gun maker's lobby; I was just clarifying a comment about the NRA funding sources and who really pays their salaries.

JR, no Christian poke, I am all for praying regularly and often as your faith intends. However, forcing people to pray or to sit silent while others pray or to get up and leave if offended at a town meeting or other governmental function seems against the concept of separation of church and state.

It IS a poke at the Supreme Court's recent decisions like the spending limits, decisions which are getting more loony tune every day.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

"It IS a poke at the Supreme Court's recent decisions like the spending limits, decisions which are getting more loony tune every day."

I agree that they got this one wrong. More and more it's becoming tyranny of the majority (something the Constitution was written to prevent). One shouldn't have to leave a *government* meeting to avoid a *prayer* session that you may not agree with, just because most of the room is Christian and that's the prayer they chose.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

You betcha Mark. And while the current court leans conservative, these decisions are not conservative ---- they are just weird.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

I don't think this debate will ever end...

emily1 emily1
May '14

While the NRA may very well lobby for gun makers, they also lobby for gun OWNERS- American citizens. You may not separate the two, but they are separate entities.

NRA (or GOA, or JPFO), have members who pay membership fees. And donate additional monies if they desire, to have a group help represent them in Washington. Now, while I am "for" completely banning ALL lobbies- gun, anti-gun, solar power, coal power, monsanto, ALL of them- there's nothing wrong with organizations like the NRA researching political candidates, giving endorsements, etc. I'd have no problem with ALL lobbies being prohibited from ever even SPEAKING with a representative. But citizen-based organizations will continue on and have at least some role to play in politics; you can't stop that.

Just because the NRA also represents gun makers in no way lessens the fact that they are an organization hat also represents citizen's interests... we PAY THEM TO.

If Monsanto wanted to start a pro-GMO membership organization, and have people send them money to try to further GMO research in our food supply, and research/endorse candidates for the same, there'd be no stopping such an action. (however, I doubt Monsanto would get very many members)

[ironically, I'm no cheerleader for the NRA; I haven't been real happy with them for years now]...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

"[ironically, I'm no cheerleader for the NRA; I haven't been real happy with them for years now]..."

I'll somewhat defend the NRA against most "attacks" because I don't agree that they are evil, pro-murder, etc. as some people characterize them.

But I do think they can be clumsy, slow to react, and tone deaf at times. Is Wayne the best face of the organization? Definitely not. Is that a reason to mock and ridicule him personally? Not at all.


NOTE: The NRA is also *right* a lot of the time. Armed guards in schools? They were relentlessly lambasted for even suggesting such a thing... OMG, guns in schools! But later, a LOT of school districts (even Newtown, CT) enacted just what the NRA had recommended.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Gee JR we agree, except that I would add "if money talks," then the NRA speaks more for them than for you (unless you happen to agree)

And no Mark, Peppy Lepew has stepped over the fear-mongering hate line one too many times; his actions and words are what ridicule him.

As far as armed guards in schools, not an issue, if done properly. Better yet, fund the police department if you really care about quality protect and serve. But the NRA wanted armed citizens as well. Here's their spin: "Some will want police officers there. Others of them will want private security guards," David Keene said in an exclusive CNN interview. "There may be some place they want volunteers to do it. We're willing to work with everybody on those questions." Uh, did they leave anyone out?

As far as will it help, the jury is still out and many places are realizing it's much more than just volunteering to come on down with your gun: "Published: January 25, 2014 - 10:35 PM A month after a local police officer and decorated combat veteran accidentally discharged his firearm in a school, the Ohio House passed legislation Wednesday that would remove liability for schools that make closed-door decisions about arming teachers." http://www.ohio.com/news/ohio-house-excuses-schools-teachers-for-gun-accidents-1.461910 ------- Ohio is passing liability waivers (good luck with that in court), mandatory training and even psych evals post shooting.

Oct 2013 ABC News "Another incident of a young boy and a gun. It happened during an anti drug school safety demonstration at an elementary school in -- California. Police say that a loaded gun mounted to a police motorcycle was on display and it accidentally discharged when a student got a hold of it."

Now I can go farther and I am sure you can find good news too. The point is we really don't know if this is productive or not and we, like in Ohio and CA, are rapidly discovering that more guns in schools mean gun accidents in schools. And that more and more laws will be needed to protect everyone. And yes I know, more blood was drawn in school with paper cuts :>) than with guns carried by non-villains.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

over 5 million regular everyday Americans make up the NRA and the majority of their funding, not gun makers. more and more individual americian citizens join every day and in total provide the majority of funding that the NRA receives.

why believe sources that come from people who are not members (and who have never been members) who have an agenda to denigrate and dismiss this grass roots organization.

the agenda driven attack pieces from those who are anti-gun and anti-nra need to be examined in a bright light.

the nra is as strong as it is primarily because it is made up of millions of individuals, that's scary to the gun control crowd, they can't deal with it.

bloomberg shelping the sandy victims parents around the country at his expense should be shown for exactly what it is. Shamelessly grandstanding and standing on the dead bodies of children for his own personal agenda. not good of him. he's not a nice guy using grieving families this way

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

mg said
"As far as armed guards in schools, not an issue, if done properly. Better yet, fund the police department if you really care about quality protect and serve"


Fail. Failed in Columbine, Failed in Newtown. Police (as opposed to armed guards in schools) can't prevent these crimes, or even stop them immediately. They can only force the criminals to commit suicide after all the damage has been done, and write up the reports.

BTW- I'm sure you know this, but the Supreme Court has verified the police have NO DUTY to "protect" you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Obvious supporter of Paul Blart for school defense :>)

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

Humor is the last resort of an indefensible position.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

"A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It's jolted by every pebble on the road."
Henry Ward Beecher

"Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing."
William James

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

We all have a sense of humor, mg- but it seems, as of late, it's ALL you've got... every reply you post has some snark/clever/tongue-in-cheek "humor", like it's all you've got left to debate with. You use your "humor" to try to make others look foolish. All it does is make you look like you've lost the debate.

But whatever- joke on.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

So basically you said in your last post that "Police (as opposed to armed guards in schools) can't prevent these crimes, or even stop them immediately."

Now I am sure on the face of it you can find armed guards that are better than police as well as police who fall down on the job.

But if you are telling us that, on average, armed guards are better trained than police, yeah, that's a pretty funny one and IMHO worthy of a poke.

That said, I am sure there are well-trained armed guards out there but I bet you end up paying as much you would for police. Not to mention that a major reason to used armed guards over police is cost, cost, cost and ultimately you get what you scrimp on.

Fact is it's a probably mostly a really incredibly mind numbing boring job most of the time and for long periods of time; that's probably why they make so many bonehead mistakes like losing their guns, firing rounds while cleaning their gun on the job, etc. etc. etc. And since mostly police and ex-police have been used to-date, of course all accidents, tragedies, and mistakes involve them. There just hasn't been enough time under the new paradigm of anything goes.

And if you tell me therefore we should just arm NRA-trained volunteers and teachers, yeah, it will be another poke.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

mg,

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand this:

The reason an armed guard at a school would be better than "calling the police" is that the armed guard is AT THE SCHOOL. Right then. As it's happening. Not after shots are fired, someone dials 911, dispatch vectors the police out to the school, after a number of people have already died.

It's the same argument for allowing people to have guns in their homes. THEY have a chance to stop the bad guy before he kills someone, way before the police can get there. Ditto for CCWs.

As far as NRA training being "bogus" (which is what you infer in your statements), if NRA training is good enough for someone to get a concealed carry permit, and it's good enough for police forces to use, why wouldn't it be good enough for teachers, or ANYONE to use? Or is this just more of your blind NRA hatred?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Ah, there's the disconnect. I was thinking that the schools would hire police, ex-police, etc. for the hours they need coverage. Not as on call but as guards.

And yes, I stand corrected that the NRA does provide firearms instruction training (and therefore firearms training) for police as well as citizens. But NRA police training is separate from other citizens like armed guards so armed guards get different training and/or training conditions than police from the NRA. And they only train firearms; that is not all there is to being trained for police work, even in a school or perhaps especially in a school.

The NRA only lists how many certificate holders it has, not how many police forces or policemen they train. They've passed 55,000 instructors in the past 50-years, 20% of which (11,000) are currently active, but no where do they indicate how many of these are police or how many police the instructors have trained. Also the number of police courses is extremely limited so it just does not seem they really have the numbers. Ten courses in a year with what looks like less than 250 students, total.

But yes, they do offer training, and they do train some number of police, in firearms use.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

ahem... speaking of "police training"..... did these guys GET any???

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wtf-23-police-officers-fire-377-bullets-2-men-0-guns-wounding-2/

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Sounds like the police are the ones that need the 10 round magazine limit.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

It's always the same thing with mg, he gets pinned down so he makes a joke of it, then gets pinned on a joke so he comes in with a completely outfield comment......

MG, it would be very adult to say, "you bring up a good point" or "hmmm, I didn't think of that" You should try it sometime, it may help remove the blinders that you seem to be wearing.

you are getting close "And yes, I stand corrected "

"Sounds like the police are the ones that need the 10 round magazine limit" LMFAO MARK!!!

Darrin Darrin
May '14

I think they should allow any (well trained, permit owning) teacher to be armed - concealed carry style. That way if some nut-case enters a school or classroom they can be taken down (hopefully) before they cause any injuries or deaths. Huddling in a corner in a dark classroom like sitting ducks, seems like a plan for failure to me.

A well trained teacher is no different than a police officer - except that they are right there at the moment, instead of having to be called and wait till they get there. The cops always show up to count the dead bodies. Again, seems like a plan to fail to me.

emily1 emily1
May '14

Pinned on a joke?
Completely outfield comment?
Blinders?

Just for you Darrin: "I think the scariest person in the world is the person with no sense of humor." Michael J. Fox

Pinned on a joke?
Completely outfield comment?

Good stuff.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

Emily,

"you bring up a good point" :>), however, NRA training alone, based on their own syllabus is clearly not "well-trained." For example, the NRA training does not teach you to aim as well as many police procedures.

Also there is the point of the possible "surround" policies and programs possibly needed such as: how often retraining or training updates are needed, possible certifications, as well as all the crud that goes on after a shooting takes place.

Police have all of this in place. I am sure reputable armed guard companies have more than nothing but how much nobody knows I gather. Schools arming teachers have absolutely nothing in place. Perhaps that is better than hiding in the corner, perhaps it is worse --- only time and experience will tell.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

"For example, the NRA training does not teach you to aim as well as many police procedures. "


What aim? From http://www.cbsnews.com/news/empire-state-building-shooting-sparks-questions-about-nypd-shot-accuracy/

"According to a 2008 analysis of NYPD firearms discharge data done by the New York Times, between 1996-2006 officers hit their intended target about 34 percent of the time."

"During a gunfight, where the target is shooting at officers, the study reported that the hit rate falls to just 18 percent. "

"The Times reported that in 2006-2007, Los Angeles police officers hit their targets between 27 and 29 percent of the time, respectively. "

"His 2003 report on the subject found that shootings involving a single officer have an approximately 50 percent hit ratio, and that low light diminishes police accuracy by up to 30 percent."


People think that police actually practice with their firearms. I bet the vast majority get their 100 - 150 round qualification in each year and call it good enough. I go to the range multiple times per year, firing anywhere from 100 rounds or more EACH TIME, and I barely scratch the surface of what some folks do (1,000's of rounds a month in practice). In general, police SUCK at shooting.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with the introduction of its NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program in 1960. Today, there are more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors. Additionally, top law enforcement shooters compete each year in eight different pistol and shotgun matches at the National Police Shooting Championships held in Jackson, Mississippi."

https://membership.nrahq.org/about-us.asp

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

National Police Shooting Championships

September 14-18, 2014

The 2014 National Police Shooting Championships will be held at the NPSC Police Pistol Combat ranges at Shooting Range Park in Albuquerque, New Mexico. You do not have to have to have a PPC Classification to register and there are no qualifying requirements.

Open to any eligible law enforcement member, the Championships will begin with a NRA Tactical Police Competition event on Saturday & Sunday, September 13th and 14th (shoot one of the two days).

http://npsc.nra.org/

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

Armed teachers? It would be a matter of time before one was disarmed by a student and shot with their own gun. That would happen much more early and often than one preventing a mass killing by a deranged intruder.

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
May '14

So are you really trying to say that armed guards or civilians would be better shots under fire than police? Really?

Some history: From civilwarguns.com: "Such bad shooting was not limited to northern troops. Captain Frank Myers of the 35th Va. Cav. related the story of an ambuscade set to catch a particularly persistent and troublesome federal patrol then making the rounds in the area of Orleans, Virginia.3 "Lieut. Chiswell, with seventeen men of Company B, was stationed in the thick bushes close along side the road, with instructions to fire when the Yankees came opposite them."...."About 3 o'clock the picket came quietly in and reported about 100 approaching." .... "After waiting anxiously, with ears strained to catch the sound, for about ten minutes, the carbines of Chiswell's men rang out." .... "Strange as it may appear, only one man was killed by the fire of Chiswell's men, although they had a rest and the distance was scarcely twelve yards, but that one man had seven bullets through him. That was the usual result of ambuscades, for under the most favorable circumstances they seldom did much damage."

More current and better validity statistically from Joan N. Vickers, University of Calgary, Canada and William Lewinski, Minnesota State University (Mankato), MN, from Performing under pressure: Gaze control, decision making and shooting performance of elite and rookie police officers

"Abstract
Gaze of elite (E) and rookie (R) officers were analyzed as they faced a potentially lethal encounter that required use of a handgun, or inhi- bition of the shot when a cell phone was drawn. The E shot more accurately than the R (E 74.60%; R 53.80%) and made fewer decisions errors in the cell condition when 18.50% of E and 61.50% of R fired at the assailant. E and R did not differ in duration of the draw/aim/fire phases, but the R’s motor onsets were later, during the final second compared to the E’s final 2.5 s. Across the final six fixations the E increased the percent of fixations on the assailant’s weapon/cell to 71% and to 86% on hits, compared to a high of 34% for the R. Before firing, the R made a rapid saccade to their own weapon on 84% of trials leading to a failure to fixate the assailant on 50% of trials as they fired. Compared to the R, the E had a longer quiet eye duration on the assailant’s weapon/cell prior to firing. The results provide new insights into officer weapon focus, firearms training and the role of optimal gaze control when under extreme pressure."

So are you really saying that police are incompetent in regards to gun usage? Do you really expect better results from Paul Blart or Marian the Librarian? Or were you just showing that everyone's proficiency suffers during the heat of battle?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

emily is right when she said "The cops always show up to count the dead bodies"

cops always take time to respond, having your own protection with you is the best way to deal with a deadly threat

not just in schools, but also women who work/walk alone at night, they need to be able to meet force with like force in order to protect themselves,

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

BrotherDog - You're forgetting that guns are only good when they are protecting money (banks) or celebrities (bodyguards).

Mere peons like most citizens, their kids, and educators should only be allowed to fight back with erasers, textbooks, and maybe (if you're lucky) ball point pens.

Also, don't forget, police only carry guns to make sure THEY get home safely. The rest of the time they're busy shooting 50% of their bullets at the wrong people (9 out of 16 rounds fired by police at the Empire State Building hit bystanders) or just hurling lead at anything that moves, forgetting the gun safety rule "know your target and *what is beyond* it, like in JR's link above where 377 rounds were fired, or the LAPD firing squad that unloaded on the wrong truck (and see all those houses in the background... that's what's beyond.)

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"So are you really saying that police are incompetent in regards to gun usage? Do you really expect better results from Paul Blart or Marian the Librarian? Or were you just showing that everyone's proficiency suffers during the heat of battle?"


First of all, you're going to compare civil war accuracy to current conditions? You do realize there was this little thing called rifling that vastly improved accuracy compared to smooth bore muzzle loaders, right? And even if they used rifled muzzle loaders, the consistency of the powder charge, projectile, etc. were questionable at best.

And if Paul Blart or Marian the Librarian fire more than the minimum qualification that most officers call sufficient, then yes I expect better results. Another thing you may have heard of is muscle memory. You don't get it firing 100 rounds once a year - it takes practice. Go look up Jerry Miculek. He's definitely an outlier on the other side of the pendulum but he didn't get that way by doing the bare minimum.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

mg, take another breath, you're going under again....

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

It would be interesting if the state would list the following.
Shootings, assault by blunt objects, death by auto, stabbings, DWI and death involved, assault and battery with injuries, arson, Auto accidents with fatalities.
Stop and think about it. Everyday there is an accident within 11 miles. How many fatal are involved, Drug overdose.
Take a survey and list them all.
I do not think law abiding citizens in New Jersey with a firearm will be in the top ten.
You only hear about it because the newspaper, radio and TV targets these problems.
Yes even police have shoot outs. NY is good for that when 2 fellow officers had a problem and shot each other. How many law officials have misused their firearm.
There are many walks of life with issues.
The news do not publish the law officers because it is bad business.
If you want to blame one and put it on TV, put everything on TV.
The hospitals are full of injured people from one reason or another.
I am quite sure it is not all gun shots.
WE NEED A SURVEY, THAN CRITICIZE WHAT LAWS TO CHANGE OR IMPROVE.
I belong to the NRA. I agree with some of their positions. So do the police and other law enforcement.
It would be nice to think that your friends or neighbor would help you when your life is threatened.
Police only arrive after the crime has been committed.
Please be open minded.
Florida thought that crime would go up . Instead crime took a large fall after people had the right to carry
Last of all. Chicago has shootings everyday and it is illegal to even own a gun there.
Explain that.
Thanks for your time Charlie

Charlie Charlie
May '14

The students don't have to know which teachers are armed...ever hear of "concealed carry?" It's called that because the gun is - wait for it - concealed (meaning you can't see it!).

emily1 emily1
May '14

Lol, students know which teachers are banging each other. You think they wont be able to figure out who's carrying a gun?

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
May '14

"You think they wont be able to figure out who's carrying a gun?

May as well disarm all the police, armored car drivers, security guards, and soldiers... after all, the bad guys could just steal their guns too, right?

And before you say "but they have training!!!!".... well, there's plenty of training available for everyone. Right here in NJ, as well. Training isn't some magical unicorn that only the police have access to.


http://gunforhire.com/ (hover over "courses" to see all the options)

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Residents of NJ now have less rights than the residents of Guam.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/foghorn/guam-passes-shall-issue-concealed-carry-legislation/

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Less free than Guam. Quite a claim for the land of the free.

Yet per 100,000 we shoot to death more than: Uruguay, Philippines, Argentina, Peru, Chile, Croatia, Serbia and every single modern nation. And we shoot to death just a tiny bit less than: Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Mexico.

The founding fathers would be proud of their creation.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

Yeah, more rights as in the right to not have 75% of your country taken by the military. More rights as in being beaten in the middle of the night if you join the wrong church. More rights as in using that gun to murder the Filipinos in the country because they're just wrong. More rights as in institutionalized racism. Sure, just a paradise of freedom.


Wow, MG. You really listed some wonderful vacation spots there.

Let's look at those places in a different light, shall we? How about comparing *total intentional homicide rate (per 100,000)* rather than cherry picking data. Homicide is a result of the intent to kill someone, not access to the objects.

Wit just a few exceptions, those places are up to 6x more dangerous than the USA. And guns are the problem? If these places shoot less people it just means that they have found other, just as effective means, to murder other people. Mexico has all the gun control laws anyone could ask for, and yet far more people are murdered there each year (maybe criminals know their victims won't be able to defend themselves, eh?)

United States: 4.8
Uruguay: 5.9
Phillipines: 5.4
Argentina: 5.5
Peru: 10.3
Chile: 3.7
Croatia: 1.4
Serbia: 1.2
Costa Rica: 10.0
Nicaragua: 12.6
Mexico: 23.7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

And my initial point holds true. Guam has more respect for the 2nd Amendment than NJ.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"There is nothing smart about pricing guns out of the reach of a single mom, raising two children in the inner city. "

Smart Gun Mandate Makes Gun Ownership Rich Man's Game

With The Washington Post pushing for New Jersey to implement a 2002 smart gun-only mandate based on the Armatix iP1, it is important to point out that such a mandate will effectively turn gun ownership into a rich man's game.

After all, the .22 caliber Armatix iP1 costs $1,800 a gun. Other .22 pistols--be they Walthers or Rugers--can be purchased brand new for $400 or less.

But the Walthers and Rugers will be illegal to sell in New Jersey once the law is implemented. For the law states that "no handgun" other than a smart gun "shall be sold or offered for sale by any registered or licensed dealer in the state."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/10/Smart-Gun-Mandate-Makes-Gun-Ownership-A-Rich-Man-s-Game

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

"Lol, students know which teachers are banging each other. You think they wont be able to figure out who's carrying a gun?"

They also know that police officers carry guns, yet do they run up to them and try to disarm them?

With the proper training, this would not happen. Obviously I agree teachers to carry would have special training. Let them go through the police firearm training, or, if you want them to actually hit something, send them to the NRA training

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Cherry picking? I just picked most of the countries in closest proximity above and below our gun homicide rating to show how third world we are when it comes to violence by gun. As for your research, thanks for the additional info to help prove the point however, none of the countries is 6x the rating for the US as you reported. US - 4.8, 6x4.8= 28.8, Mexico = 23.7. Sorry.

Vacation spot? Don't you think people think twice now before coming to the U.S.?

According to your intentional homicide data, including all "objects" of murder, most of the countries' intentional rate is still fairly close to the US again showing how third world we are with violence, most of which is fueled by gun. Chile, Croatia, and Serbia actually are lower than us in your table which should really make you pause to consider: what the heck is wrong with us? Only Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Mexico went the other way, big time, and there's out-n-out upheaval in those places so somehow being better than Mexico does not make me proud.

Note that I did not list any modern developed nations; they turn in ratings that would make you wonder if we belong on the same planet with them. Somehow, they have figured out how to act developed and modern while we cling to the MO of the third world. A total of 72 countries score HALF the rate of murder in the US including Afghanistan. Ouch. 43 of them score ONE QUARTER the murder rate of the US. 43 countries have one fourth the murder rate of the US. We are four times higher. But in guns, oh in guns, 57 countries score lower than us and only 14 score higher. We almost make the top 10 for gun-related murders.

There seems to be a correlation to places where there are lots of guns with gun murders and murders. In these places, guns are used more often to solve problems. They are not used to defend freedom, they are not the voice of democracy. They just kill. And in the US, in states where gun laws are loose, gun homicides go up. Some loose states even become gun crime exporters to tighter states. When gun laws are tighter, gun murders go down. Even in Chicago, which is a strict gun law geography, but a small island completely surrounded by loose gun law states on all sides cept the lake, people like to tout gun law failure because Chicago boosts the highest number of murders. Well, it's the third largest city, so the number will be high to begin with although first is not the direction nor spot you want. But when you look at rates per 100,000, Chicago does better than Philadelphia, Memphis, Detroit, Baltimore and many others.

Now again I am not saying turn over the 2A. I am not saying turn in your guns. And even my proposed LCM 10-round limitation does not target less guns nor does it portend less murders by gun. I am saying that common sense gun laws that tighten guidelines for purchase and carry to allow proper purchase and handling of guns while protecting all of us just seems to make common sense. I am saying there is something wrong in America with our level of violence and that guns are a big part mostly because they are every where and they are so easy to use to solve problems. We have a violence issue in America and Peppy Lepew's answer of more good guns in the hands of more good people is not a good answer.

I am not for this NJ law because it will not change anything. I do believe the NJ gun laws have made us safer in our own state and I can't imagine that any of you are being denied your guns. Perhaps delayed, but not denied. At least in your homes. Perhaps NJ's "may issue" law is too stringent. But IMHO, shall issue is often too loose. We need to do everything in our power to lessen violence in America and common sense gun laws can help. I just don't thin we want to be third world when it comes to murder, whether by gun or other means.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

"Chile, Croatia, and Serbia actually are lower than us in your table which should really make you pause to consider: what the heck is wrong with us?"

Actually, it makes me think "How much are they cooking the books on those statistics?"


"But in guns, oh in guns, 57 countries score lower than us and only 14 score higher. We almost make the top 10 for gun-related murders. "

Again, with this statement and a few others that follow, you mistakenly think all gun related deaths are murders. USA may just rate the highest in private citizens ventilating the bad guys in justifiable self defense. Add in some over-zealous police shooting 93 year old grandmothers and that could explain our stats.


"I am not for this NJ law because it will not change anything."

So did you contact your Senator and Assemblyman to ask them to vote against it? If not, I consider you just as much in support of the law as those who voted yes. Representative government and all that...


"We need to do everything in our power to lessen violence in America and common sense gun laws can help."

There is very little "common sense" about any of NJ's gun laws. If background checks are the solution to the violence problem (as those who support Universal Background Checks claim) then why does the magazine and or "evil feature" limit even apply to those who passed background checks? After all, we passed background checks. I could kill someone just as easily with the guns I am "allowed" to have, right?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

" I can't imagine that any of you are being denied your guns"

umm, yeah we are actually, with a 10 round limit in place, it once again makes certain guns illegal to own, such as tub fed magazines, or large revolvers

Darrin Darrin
May '14

From your previous thread, I believe there were a lot of rifles in the Civil War with accuracy at 150 to 400 yards if you knew how to aim, especially as the war progressed. But point taken and I only provided the passage to show that killing has always been more difficult than fantasized by boys practicing with weapons since the dawn of man.

And so you expect the mall cop, the armed guard and the teacher to be more accurate IF they "fire more than the minimum qualification that most officers call sufficient." Because of the stress factor, I beg to differ even with proficient target practice. Plus, no way will they outpace an experienced officer.

I am sure the soldiers among us who actively protected us under fire can weigh in on the difference between practice and the real thing when it comes to accuracy.

Meanwhile, let's talk Florida and it's amazing pro-2A stance making it a safer, better place or my view of its lessening of violence due to loose, very loose gun laws since someone brought it up as the shining example of gun righteousness.

I tire of the answer to our crime, violence, governmental, societal, and even family problems as always being more guns, easier access to gun purchases, less tough gun laws, hidden guns, guns at all locations and celebrations. Again, I am not against the 2A, I am not against proper gun ownership, but with more guns comes more gun murders. It's a simple fact of gun life. It is that simple. America has more guns than anyone and we certainly shoot a lot of people with them. More than most countries and much more than any modern, developed nation. We are third world when it comes to gun violence and violence. With more bullets in the clip comes more grandiose mass murders. It's that simple. And states with tough gun laws have less gun murders, states with loose gun laws not only have more but tend to export it to other states as well. It is that simple.

Sure, you can kill people with most anything, but guns sure make it easier and more guns make them more accessible.

But let's go to Florida for a look see. Mr. Charlie says "Florida thought that crime would go up . Instead crime took a large fall after people had the right to carry"

FACT: Florida violent crime down 60% since 1993. That's the number most widely touted, so sounds like Mr. Charlie is right. However overall crime is down too across the nation and in most spots in the nation so is FLA with it's loose gun laws all that different?

FACT: US violent crime was down by 50% for the same period as Florida's 60%.

FACT: Crime was going way down well before Florida became the gunshine state with many of the new laws easing gun control occurring post 1993. Castle doctrine/2005. Pre-emption/2011, Vehicle carry/2008.

FACT: Gun homicide is up in Fla. Up over 40% since 2000 from 491 per year to between 700 - 900 per year.

FACT: More important, rates are out of touch with the nation and with tough gun laws states like ----- NJ or CT. rate per 100,000 fla/US/NJ for homicide 5.3/5.1/4.0 Murder by gun 3.7/3.6/2.7. FLA clearly not doing better than the nation and notably worse than tough-gun-law-states like NJ.

FACT: According to neighborhoodscout.com, Florida hosts 11 of the top 100 most dangerous cities. While CA came close with 10, NY has 2, NJ 6. We may beat them on quality (higher city rankings for individual cities), but they have us on quantity (number of cities, number of locations, amount of area infected).

FACT: Fla has reached 1M licenses and yet they can't access the federal mental health database, they license out-of-state people who can't be licensed in their own home state, they export more guns used in crimes than any other state.

So in Florida, crime is down, murder and murder by gun is up and the state opportunity to be splayed by gun is higher than the national average and way higher than tough gun law states. They have 11 different cities that you should avoid. Worse yet, Florida is to exported guns being used in other states for crime (where tougher gun laws would stop purchase) what Mexico is to marijuana.

Florida also brought us splashy anecdotal examples of gun violence like Michael David Dunn the SUV shooter or George Zimmerman the neighborhood vigilante but there are many, many, more stories of gunmen gone mad coming from the gunshine state. Worse yet, you can find Florida gun stories for PA and many other states in the Union.

So sure, crime and violent crime are down. But Florida's numerical facts regarding guns, crime and violence are not compelling as a rationale for loosening gun laws and the wild abandon with which they allow guns to enter the market is frightening.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

mg said:
"I can't imagine that any of you are being denied your guns. "

(they are in NY and CA, but we'll just stick to NJ for now)


This just proves you are either lying to yourself so you can believe what you want to believe, or you have terrible comprehension skills.

Go back and read the current NJ gun laws, they are the Clinton Gun Ban, there are MANY guns we are not allowed to have in this state... the M1 Carbine comes to mind. Rifle, SEMI-auto, .30 caliber PISTOL round..... no reason whatsoever that gun needs to be banned... less lethal than any AR-15/.223 (using caliber size/delivered energy to calculate "lethality") A .45ACP and 9mm JHP has more "lethality".


...which just proves there is little "common sense" in your "common sense gun laws"

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Per NJ law, these guns are illegal to possess, and have been/will be confiscated (and land you in prison for years) if you own them. So yes, they have denied and confiscated PLENTY of guns from people who have done nothing wrong except own certain configurations of metal and springs.

1. Any of the following firearms:
Algimec AGM1 type
Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12"
Armalite AR-180 type
Australian Automatic Arms SAR
Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms
Beretta AR-70 and BM59 semi-automatic firearms
Bushmaster Assault Rifle
Calico M-900 Assault carbine and M-900
CETME G3
Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88 type
Colt AR-15 and CAR-15 series
Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1 and Max 2, AR 100 types
Demro TAC-1 carbine type
Encom MP-9 and MP-45 carbine types
FAMAS MAS223 types
FN-FAL, FN-LAR, or FN-FNC type semi-automatic firearms
Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12 shotguns
G3SA type
Galil type
Heckler and Koch HK91, HK93, HK94, MP5, PSG-1
Intratec TEC 9 and 22 semi-automatic firearms
M1 carbine type
M14S type
MAC 10, MAC 11, MAC 11-9 mm carbine type firearms
PJK M-68 carbine type
Plainfield Machine Company Carbine
Ruger K-Mini-14/5 F and Mini-14/5 RF
SIG AMT, SIG 550SP, SIG 551SP, SIG PE-57 types
SKS with detachable magazine type
Spectre Auto carbine type
Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48 type
Sterling MK-6, MK-7 and SAR types
Steyr A.U.G. semi-automatic firearms
USAS 12 semi-automatic type shotgun
Uzi type semi-automatic firearms
Valmet M62, M71S, M76, or M78 type semi-automatic firearms
Weaver Arm Nighthawk;
2. Any firearm manufactured under any designation, which is substantially identical to any of the firearms listed in paragraph 1 above. As used in this definition, the term "substantial" means pertaining to the substance, matter, material or essence of a thing and the term "identical" means exactly the same. Hence, a firearm is substantially
identical to another only if it is identical in all material, essential respects. A firearm is not substantially identical to a listed assault firearm unless it is identical except for differences that do not alter the essential nature of the firearm


http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/062408_title13ch54.pdf

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"Add in some over-zealous police shooting 93 year old grandmothers and that could explain our stats."

Aren't guns the great equalizer? How is a 93-year old woman with a gun any less of a lethal threat than a 22-year old gangbanger?

iPhone-imal iPhone-imal
May '14

Well I guess I imagined wrong and you are denied access to the things you love. hat you are being denied. I guess boys will always want toys they can't have. Well, there's always Florida.

Mark: thanks for the reply and yes, whenever I disagree with the data, I question the validity, discount it and then move on. In this case, the world data is indeed subject to local reporting and definition which most certainly differs in accuracy and meaning around the world. The US data is for gun homicides as defined and issued by the CDC. It most certainly does not include all gun related deaths, that number would be much, much higher. Personally, even with the inaccuracy and definitional difference, I might say that "directionally" there should be a message for Americans about the level of violence and gun violence in our country.

We are a third world nation when it comes to gun violence and violence.

And no, I will not be pursuing support or discontent with the NJ law; just not that important versus other priorities, but thank you. If you want to pass on mistergoogle's opinions, feel free.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

looks like now all we have to rely on is Governor Christie.....bill passes senate yesterday.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/nj_senate_passes_bill_to_further_limit_gun_magazines.html

some key highlights

"“If and when a final version of legislation reaches his desk, it will be carefully reviewed in the 45 days period he has prior to taking any action,” Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts said. "

"Under the ammunition magazine bill, gun owners would have 180 days to “transfer, render inoperable, or voluntarily surrender” 15-round magazines. Retired law enforcement officers would be exempt."

"The bill exempts just one model, the Marlin Model 60, which is often referred to as the “Boy Scout gun.”

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

"Well I guess I imagined wrong and you are denied access to the things you love. hat you are being denied. I guess boys will always want toys they can't have. Well, there's always Florida."


Ha, typical MG.

Gets called out on a factual error, and immediately resorts to childish antics.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"So in Florida, crime is down, murder and murder by gun is up and the state opportunity to be splayed by gun is higher than the national average and way higher than tough gun law states."

Do remember MG, they consider self defense "Murder" so if one of those people now allowed to carry a weapon defended themselves or their family and "murdered" a threat in self defence......the statistics are immediately tainted.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Boy, you are Classy! Even if you just don't get it. How can anyone imagine wrong or imagine factually incorrect. And I still say "I can't imagine that any of you are being denied your guns." Why? Because I just can't imagine it. It's just not in my imagination.

Now you have corrected me and I understand. But I still can't imagine it. Just can't. Sorry.

I mean, if you feel you have the guns you want but can't have because you live in NJ and your choices are so limited that it is not worth it, that you are so bereft of choice that why bother ---- perhaps the problem is that you live in NJ.

I just can't imagine that you don't have enough choices that you feel you are being denied. Nope, just can't do it.

By the way, what keeps you here, the taxes?

But at least I didn't poke fun at your inability to handle basic math :>~ I just corrected you and said "sorry." Personally my imagination will never be the same now that I have to be sure I imagine on a fact-only basis. Like dreaming in black and white :>)

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

Tainted because of justifiable homicide?

While FLA justifiable homicide might be up as high as 200% since 'stand yer ground' (if you believe Bloomberg) with 700-900 gun homicides per year, the total of 20-25 justifiable even at a 200% increase is still pretty much in the noise at less than 5%. Of course, if you discount Bloomberg, then it's even less. Tough choice eh Darrin :>)

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

don't feed the trolls, they always come back for more, they love throwing drive by insults, juices them all up, and they have to have the last word as if that wins all arguments.

(hint: it doesn't)

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

"looks like now all we have to rely on is Governor Christie.....bill passes senate yesterday."

Darin; my prediction is he will pocket veto the bill, not sign it, and the 45 days will pass before we know for sure. sure hope i'm right,

the SCOTUS declined to hear the right-to-carry case and so the lower court ruling affirming the denial of the license stands. that's a sad thing for us here in the garden state, (i got to get out, it's not much like america here anymore), NY state? another lost cause for sure; Connecticut? lost, big time; Massachusetts? another anti-american state; California? don't even go there.

we are rapidly devolving into two very different countries, not sure i care for this trend.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

"Ha, typical MG.

Gets called out on a factual error, and immediately resorts to childish antics."


Sigh. Yup. SOP.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

"we are rapidly devolving into two very different countries"

I think we did this once.....caused a civil war, sure hope it does not come back to that.

And you are absolutely correct BD, the lines are clearly laid down which state is on which side, with each having their own beliefs and laws.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Like I said, it you can't have it your way in NJ; there's 49 other choices, 25 of them with very loose gun laws for you to choose from and 15 more with moderate laws that might still fight your shopping needs. There's even a few of them with lower rates of gun murder and murder.

Although you might want to avoid Florida.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

"Like I said, it you can't have it your way in NJ; there's 49 other choices"

Such a lovely attitude.

If you didn't like NJ's 15 round limit, why didn't YOU just move to New York? Same logic, right?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Actually Mark it’s one of the beauties of America is that we do believe in State’s rights allowing differences from state to state, we have a single money usable and redeemable across the land, and freedom of choice to move at will to where we think the grass is greener for societal, financial, or even political reasons. And we have a large geography to choose from. Quite a huge difference from many, if not most places in the world.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

I don't think moving is a appropriate answer mg, more less just a scapegoat to having no answer to the real question, why is NJ and a select few other states allowed in infringe upon our 2A rights?

Darrin Darrin
May '14

One man's infringement is another's thank goodness.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

Mark said to mg:

"If you didn't like NJ's 15 round limit, why didn't YOU just move to New York? Same logic, right?"

Now now Mark- don't you go MAKING SENSE and USING LOGIC again, it throws mg off his game...

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Very logical except that I don't mind the 15-round limit.

But I did live for a decade or so in NY and I liked it very much.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

"Now now Mark- don't you go MAKING SENSE and USING LOGIC again, it throws mg off his game..."

Yes, I know. I guess it's OK for them to lobby the state government for changes in the gun control laws to appease *their emotions*, but when we do it to protect *everyone's rights* we're just evil rednecks, boys with our toys (despite many women on here agreeing with us), or right wing nutjobs and we should be quiet or go away...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"Very logical except that I don't mind the 15-round limit. But I did live for a decade or so in NY and I liked it very much."

Did you know people can carry concealed weapons in New York (pretty much anywhere except near the city)? And yet you still liked it there?

So maybe law abiding gun owners aren't the problem, huh?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Dammit, Mark!!! Knock it off!!!!

;)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Mark, I am just me; "them" is those other guys.

I did not "lobby the state government for changes in the gun control laws to appease *their emotions*" Nor did I lobby to appease my emotions. Nor did I lobby. Matter of fact, I thought they should just leave the law alone. (it's just not sinking in).

I do not believe you are lobbying "to protect *everyone's rights*.." How could you be; you're not lobbying to protect my rights for example. You just think you are. You are lobbying for your interpretation of the 2A, which is not my interpretation. And before you say anyone is wrong, just face it, there are arguments for either view.

I do not believe you are "evil rednecks" I don't think you could find a redneck in Hackettstown.

"boys with our toys (despite many women on here agreeing with us)" Yeah, you gots me there. Sorry for not mentioning the women but it just didn't rhyme.

"right wing nutjobs and we should be quiet or go away..." Nah

Generalizations are the root of all stereotypes. Just like making fun of me for joking around when apparently you suffer from attempts at humor as well.

Oh yeah, on point to your last bellyache. OK, upstate NY has may-issue laws and CC is pretty open. Towards the urban areas no and generally NY is a tough gun law state. Not sure how hard to obtain since you have to prove "need." But it's county by county. One weird part is you are governed by your home county so if you can carry in a restaurant there, you can carry in the restaurant of the neighboring county that does not allow it. Weird.

Not sure what this has to do with anything but not sure why you brought up NY to begin with except for that sense of humor you're developing.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

The problem is simple: American is too violent and guns are way too often the tool of offensive violence. Unfortunately the reasons are complex and therefore the solutions are not simple. And because of the complexity, we can debate reasons and solutions until the cows come home.

On the right we have zealots who feel any restriction or limitation is an affront to the Constitution and on the left zealots who want to put the deadline at the US boarders. In the middle is the majority dazed and confused.

To highlight what I mean, I quickly scanned the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state page and sorted the data into the top ten and bottom ten in each category. I appended the data with loose gun laws and tight gun laws from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and then ran some data sorts. Not statistically valid for proving correlations but proves that there’s many more variables that come into play to determine the causes and solutions for violence and gun violence in America. Sort of a chain saw approach to parsing the data yet I think it shows that it’s not as simple as a straightforward correlation between a few variables.

One of the problems with studying violence in America is that so many variables affecting the outcome. There’s population, population density, education, income, environment, history, culture, laws, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention those same variables in different forms from just across the state line(s) perhaps affecting whatever you do in your home state. Like Maryland’s statistics being affected by what happens in DC. That’s why we can argue the facts from many sides and why no easy solutions present themselves.

For example, when I sorted the data based on top ten gun murder states, by rate per 100,000, of course 6 of them had loose gun laws and 7 of them have the highest murder rates also. Eureka! I solved it! But 3 of them have strict gun laws, two of them are in the bottom lowest ten for rate of gun ownership and only one is in the top ten for gun ownership. Go figure. We’ll try something else.

Now when I look at the states with looser gun laws, there are 25 of them, only 6 of them are in the top ten for gun murder, 7 are in the top ten for murder rates, but there are also 6 with the lowest gun murder rate and 5 with the lowest murder rates. Of those 6 in the lowest gun murder rates, 3 are in the top ten for percentage of gun ownership and 4 of those have the lowest population density of the 50 states, plus the District. But none of those six with the lowest murder rates have the lowest gun ownership rates either. Again, go figure. The “truth” does not seem to just jump out at you.

Only one of the top ten states for percentage of gun ownership is in the top ten for gun murders. But the lowest percentage of gun ownership coincides almost exactly with the tough gun law states of which there are only ten. Only ten; sorry Mark, you did not pick your state wisely :>)

For the top ten states for population density, only 4 are in the top ten gun murder category and 7 of the 10 have the strictest gun laws and lowest gun ownership.

For the lowest density states, 7 have looser gun laws and 6 are in the top ten for gun ownership. And 4 of those seven low-density-loose-gun-law states are in the bottom ten for lowest gun murders.

But one fact does correlate: Florida does not fare well. Highly populated, densely populated, top ten for murders, gun murders, gun murder rate – with some of the loosest gun laws in the nation. Yet even there, at the wheel chair accessible OK corral for the old, surprisingly, they are middle of the road for percentage of gun ownership.

So what to make of this? Identifying the problem is easy; America is a third world nation when it comes to violence and American violence is most often perpetrated at the barrel of a gun. Yet it’s a difficult problem to solve with many variables at its root. Imagine if we rolled income and education in as well to this assessment as well. I guarantee that more education means less violence……but not always. Same for income levels. And we didn’t even mention the effect neighboring states might have bleeding across the state lines. That’s what makes the debate so fluid and animated, the problem is obvious, we are too violent and we use guns to solve problems too frequently (that includes criminal acts so chill). But the root causes are many intertwined multi-faceted aspects that determine our high level of violent behavior. And with the 2A stakeholder at top dead center, any change --- good, bad or no effect --- will always be difficult to agree upon. Although since Europe is less violent perhaps we just need to socialize more :>)

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

HOLY SHIT! that has to be a record mg post, no way I am reading that

Darrin Darrin
May '14

You really need to figure out a way to get your points out in less words

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Way too much time on his hands.

Philliesman Philliesman
May '14

question for you guys: Mark, Darrin and JR:

the CMP; if you join a club that is affiliated with the CMP, can you then legally purchase a M1 carbine rile here in NJ?

M1A's you can get, (that's weird, right?) but M1 garrand and M1 carbines no?

but if you are an active in the CMP with an affiliated organization then you can?

hard to figure this all out, ( I am a black powder guy)

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

I've been doing it on coffee breaks for a few weeks.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

Basically it was a long winded way to say there is little, if any, correlation to gun ownership rates and violent crime. Florida appears to be the exception, but that could just be the way the facts get contorted to fit a preconceived notion (similar to how the human mind is wired to always find faces in streaks of dirt on a mirror or the arrangement of chocolate chips in a cookie).

But guns (especially scary looking rifles) are bad, so we should ban them... for the children.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

M1 Carbines are banned completely in NJ.

I believe M1 Garands are OK.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

After all, BrotherDog, we have to get rid of these evil "high powered" assault weapons.

They are so "high powered" that many states won't let you hunt deer with them because there isn't enough power for a clean harvest.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

M1 Carbine = jail time. Mandatory, I believe.

M1 Garand I think is legal. Much more deadly caliber, btw.

I don't believe CMP hads any affect whatsoever on what is legal and what is not; in NJ the guns are banned by name (M1 Carbine) or by feature set ("evil features"- a rifle can have only so many "evil" features before it is deemed an "assault weapon" and therefore illegal.)

"evil features":

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/assltf.htm

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

The M1A's you mentioned, are made by Springfield Arms, and they are legal (most versions are, they have to conform to the laws in the link I posted above)... magazines over 15 rounds for them are illegal, however. Also- it's a .308 round, not a .30-06 like the M1 Garand or a .30 caliber like the M1 Carbine..

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

M1 carbine is banned but the M1A is ok,

makes no common sense whatsoever, the M1A is the semi-auto civilian version of the M14, select fire rifle that was modified and morphed into the venerable M16.

so why can we get one but not the other?

i am in the market for a M1A, so any experience, advice or favorite makes/models you guys have please let me know (probably in .306 caliber)

saving my money up on the side for this, gonna be a big purchase for a little guy like me.

btw, while we're talking, which 1911a model is the best one? colt? Remington? others?

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

TONS of great 1911s out there. No "best". Pick one with the looks and features (and price! LOL) you like, and get it.

The only M1A I am personally familiar with is the Springfield Armory version, and it's one hell of a gun. I don't know if it comes in .30-06 tho... I think they are all .308 The .308 is a fine round, totally comparable to .30-06

I think the biggest reason the M1 Carbines were banned was because they all had 30 round "banana" magazines, and that made them look like a guerilla warfare gun or something (it made them look "more evil")...which is funny, the M1 Carbine looks so much LESS evil than ANY AR-15 ever made.... and the .223/5.56 round is much more lethal... no common sense there whatsoever. Just bullshit "feel good" legislation.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Dept of agriculture requesting .40 caliber SUBMACHINE GUNS with HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES.... probably to "deal with" those pesky CITIZENS the next time they have a "Bundy standoff"....

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/15/uh-oh-what-federal-agency-is-now-requesting-submachine-guns/

According to a document from the Federal Business Opportunity office, the Department of Agriculture has requested .40 S&W submachine guns with the so-called “high-capacity” magazines that remain so reviled by the lunatic left.

The solicitation asks for “ambidextrous safety, semiautomatic or 2 round [bursts] trigger group, Tritium night sights front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore group) and scope (top rear), stock collapsible or folding,” and a “30 rd. capacity” magazine.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

If you have the time to read Mr babbles posts you really need to get a life.

I look at the author of the post first if it is Mr babble I move on.

Ignatz Ignatz
May '14

I'm sorry you're scared of the truth, Ignatz. Perhaps you need some medication to help you handle that?

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

JeffersonRepub,

I was not speaking about you. Read my past posts.

But anyway what kind of medication are we talking about?

Ignatz Ignatz
May '14

My sincerest apologies, Ignatz.

My preferred medication is alcohol, when needed. ;)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

"My preferred medication is alcohol, when needed. ;)"

Maybe we should medicate together sometime.

Ignatz Ignatz
May '14

Mark Mc. and I keep saying we need to have an "HL Happy Hour/Day at the Range" (range first, happy hour after.) LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Yeah, JR, but we need to find Darrin's secret shooting range so it can be more than just myself and 2 guests. ;)

Either that or get your butt in gear to join Shongum!

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"TONS of great 1911s out there. No "best". Pick one with the looks and features (and price! LOL) you like, and get it."

looking for dependable, sturdy, accurate in .45 ACP

i like the Remington with the USA grips on it. not sure if it's the most dependable. a buddy told me it's not very good for accuracy.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

Hmm... picking the "best" 1911 is a daunting task.

If you're looking in the sub $1,000 price range (new, not used) I think some of the contenders would be Springfield, Rock Island Armory, Remington, and Ruger (the SR1911 is probably what I would get just because I like Rugers).

At about $1,000 you start getting into Kimber (which look sharp but sometimes get mixed reviews depending on the model) and Colt (which *are* sharp and will slice your skin on the machined edges unless you have a gunsmith "dehorn" them). A lot of purists will probably recommend the Colt as one of the "real" 1911 manufacturers.

If you want something so expensive you should be afraid to shoot it, start looking at upper end Les Baer and Wilson Combat models.

One general note - if you want reliability stick with the full size (5") or commander (~4") sizes. I've heard the compact models below those lengths start to have difficulties with the timing that was originally designed for the longer barrels.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

@Mark: I'm on the list!!!! (I think I probably have another 9 months or so)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

JR - You're number 42 on the waiting list. I'll probably be at the club meeting next Wednesday so I'll get a count of how many new members are being added. When I joined there were about 7 or 8 others that month, but I'm sure it varies depending on how many leave/cancel/forget to pay their dues.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

i like ruger as well, also i am very partial to springfield, i really liked the remington, but was warned about accuracy issues, I liked everything else about it though.

yes, colt should be the genuine choice 1911's because they made them first, but somehow they don't make my short list and i can't even explain why.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

If you want the Ruger, they only make the SR1911 in two flavors - 4" or 5". I've heard good reviews, it's an affordable price for a 1911 (mid to upper $600's according to GunWatcher.com, which a reputable shop should try to match within about $50), and they are made in USA.

Springfield Armory offers about a half-dozen models. At the heart they are all 1911's (although the Range Officer is 9mm, not .45) it's just how much "bling" do you want (i.e. stainless vs blued, fancy grips, etc.). Note that their MIL-SPEC model doesn't have as big of a beaver-tail grip safety so it might not be as comfortable to shoot.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

dont want any bling, blued barrel, wooden grips, well made, dependable, easy to find replaceable parts, reliability, good consistent accuracy.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

I think your best bet is to just hit up some shops, see what 1911's they have in stock and start narrowing down what feels right in your hand.

Some things to keep in mind:

* Grip width - Some are wider than others and may fit your palm better.
* Beavertail vs. GI grip safety - Again, a comfort thing when you absorb the recoil.
* Trigger length/position - Some are closer to the grip than others. You want it to be in the right position on your finger.
* Sights - Adjustable vs fixed. White dot vs. tritium night sights.
* Ambidextrous thumb safety - Are you a lefty?
* Slide serrations - Can you properly grip and rack the slide. Sharp edges?
* Solid vs. Skeletonized trigger and hammer - Mostly a looks thing, but the hammer design could also effect your grip while decocking the gun (*ALWAYS ON AN EMPTY CHAMBER*).

It's kind of like buying a car... just have to find one where all the options line up to what you like. And there are no shortage of 1911 options.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

+1 to buying something locally that's IN STOCK. A pistol purchase permit only lasts 90 days, unless you get it extended. Ideally, you apply for and recieve the permit, then drive around to gun shops and see what they have in stock.

A local recommendation: well, kinda local, it's in Glen Gardener: Jim Flynn's Truck Repair (and Gun Shop)... no joke. It's right on Rt 31, you can't miss it. You'd also never know it was a gun shop. He's an old guy, has been selling for many years, doesn't sell alot of accessories like most guns shops... people go to him for guns and ammo. I bought my LC9 there, he has very good prices. He can also order whatever you want, but if I was buying, it would be worth a trip down there to inquire about what he has or could get quickly.

@Mark: thanks, I was keeping fingers crossed for this summer, this fall.... hopefully I don't "get to join" in the winter, since all the big boy ranges are outdoors/unenclosed LOL

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

"@Mark: thanks, I was keeping fingers crossed for this summer, this fall.... hopefully I don't "get to join" in the winter, since all the big boy ranges are outdoors/unenclosed LOL"

Doesn't matter... even the indoor range is barely above freezing in the winter since the ventilation system has to pump a lot of fresh air through it to keep the lead dust down...

Heck with the weather we've been having for the past few seasons it'll probably be hot this winter.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Jeff.....if your 42 you might be in by the end of summer

Philliesman Philliesman
May '14

I'll take autumn.... autumn would be PERFECT. My favorite season!

Now, if I could only find a source that ACTUALLY HAS (affordable) AMMO, I could shoot some of my current stock LOL

9mm
7.62x39 (brass case only)
.22lr .22lr .22lr .22lr ............. .22 LONG RIFLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

"Now, if I could only find a source that ACTUALLY HAS (affordable) AMMO, I could shoot some of my current stock LOL"

Gotta just keep you eyes open for online deals. Just FYI, Freedom Munitions has a $5 shipping deal through this weekend. Maybe you can pick up some 9mm there (they sell new and reloads).



".22lr .22lr .22lr .22lr ............. .22 LONG RIFLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

For this you have to really be quick on the trigger. Anything at a decent price sells out within minutes. I'm up to about 7K rounds but even then I hesitate to shoot much since it's really hard to replenish.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Oh, and with the current prices for brass 7.62x39 you're probably better off just buying a new gun that can eat the steel stuff ;)

SG Ammo has a few options, but it's north of $0.50/round before shipping. That's twice the price of the steel cased.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"Oh, and with the current prices for brass 7.62x39 you're probably better off just buying a new gun that can eat the steel stuff ;)"

I hear you, I hear you, grrrrr........ I hadn't counted on that when I made the purchase... (I love the gun, tho!)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Try ammobot.com or . net (I forget). Cool site.

Philliesman Philliesman
May '14

Ammobot is how I have gotten my last several purchases... but even then, you've got to be really quick... it's crazy how fast this stuff sells out these days, especially .22lr, and especially at current prices.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Most of the .22 deals don't last long enough to hit gunbot or other ammo searches.

I've gotten the last few batches for 6 to 7 cents/round (including shipping) after seeing tips in the "Hot Deals" section of NJ Gun Forums.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

I use www.ammoseek.com to find the deals

That's part of my problem too, I hate shooting my stock when I cannot replace it.

I recently found 556 for 18 bucks per 50 rounds, thats the cheapest I have seen, so I bought 500 rounds, just after I bought it, they sold out.

I also have a hard time finding reasonable 460 s&w. It is currently about 65 bucks for 20 rounds. And I refuse to shoot the fusion ammo, that stuff sucks

Darrin Darrin
May '14

I mostly buy .223 since 5.56 is more expensive and I don't need the little bit of extra pressure. The vast majority of mine is steel cased (averaging about 30 cents/round), but I keep some brass just in case the Russian quality control isn't so hot... those are usually upper 30's to 40-something cents/round.

I wish Walmart sold ammo in NJ. Their prices aren't bad, but if I burn $20 in fuel to check East Stroudsburg and Nazareth, it makes more sense to just get it from online suppliers.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

Please- hunters (and fishermen) - lead kills wildlife -

5catmom 5catmom
May '14

Mark,

You don't have any issues with the steel cased, I have done some reading on it and over time it can damage the barrel more so the brass, but i mean over tiiimmmmeeee, it takes a lot to see the difference.

But the reading i did concluded that the money you save in steal case actually pays off for replacing the barrel over that period of time.

I would rather spend the extra and go easier on the gun, plus I keep all my old brass just in case i ever want to get into reloading.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Too bad NJ would probably consider anything other than lead-based ammunition to be armor piercing, and therefore illegal (with the exception of steel bird shot in shotguns).

Even if it's not, good luck convincing an anti-gun judge/jury of that fact.

This is the same logic that makes hollow-point ammunition illegal in most cases (with very limited exceptions). You know, the same ammunition that EVERY police officer uses in their guns because it is both more effective AND safer for bystanders...

But those are common sense gun laws, right?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Darrin, I have no problems with steel, and like you said, it will take many thousands of rounds before any difference in wear is noticed. A lot of people are worried it will break the extractor... which costs a whole $5 or so to replace.

Being that it's about 10-15 cents per round (or more) cheaper than brass, not only could I buy a new barrel IF it ever wore out, I could just buy an entirely new gun. (Not that I'd have to, since I can change uppers in about 5 seconds.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZZNA0u3Klk

Same thing with reloading. It takes a good quantity of rounds to justify the several hundred to a thousand dollars of tumblers/presses/dies/powder/measures/etc. If you want to reload to tweak a "perfect" cartridge for a particular gun that's a different story.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

what ammo do you typically use? All that i have seen (currently) is at most 3 cents cheaper per round, if I could save that much target shooting I would definitely buy it.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

I use Wolf, Tula, and Herter's (made by Tula).

There are a whole bunch of online options for these brands ranging from $0.25 to $0.30 listed on gunbot.net. Once in a while you'll find a deal on brass that narrows the gap, but generally they are more around $0.40 and higher.

http://gunbot.net/ammo/rifle/223/

I only use this in my one rifle. My handguns all use brass.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

I know you hate humor on these serious topics, but this one's for you. While I am sure you are upright legal gun toting advocates that would never do this, but I think you enough idiots on your team that Joe Biden laughs at you. And the NRA rants on.


http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/edf7xm/guy-walks-into-a-chipotle

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/gun_control_groups_file_lawsuit_to_force_nj_attorney_general_to_report_on_smart_guns.html

uhg!

Darrin Darrin
May '14

brass is the only way to go, yes, it's more expensive, but worth it,

i look for LTR's with my rifles, you have to know where it's going to shoot to be any good with it. Changing worn out barrels throws that all out of wack. the special forces guys all have their own rifles and they know them well. same thing with the muzzle loaders, each gun is different and has it's own characteristics, you have to become one with it in order to shoot consistently. It was the accuracy of the American rifleman that made the difference in the war between the states, the revolutionary war, the war of 1812; the Mexican-american war, the Spanish-american war, and both world war 1 and 2, we started to lose this in the Korean conflict and by the time of Vietnam with the advent of the m16, accuracy by individual soldiers was not the same, it was much poorer and this gave the USA a strategic disadvantage in Vietnam and in all of our armed forces conflicts since.

so, start reloading your shells, it's a good thing. be nice as you can to your barrels,
run an oiled patch through them every month, the steel bleeds back the powder over time. try it, you'll see what i mean.

be familiar as you can with your firearms, be well practiced in their use.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

Special forces long range (i.e. sniper) rifles also cost anywhere from $4K to $10K a piece, with match grade ammo that is measured in $/round. You need that when shooting 500 or 1000 yards.

My rifle cost $675 and the Russian-made ammo is 25 cents a piece. It's still more than capable of being +/- 1 or 2 inches at 100 yards (that's the inherent accuracy of the overall platform).

Would I feed a multi-thousand $ gun cheap ammo? Nope. But my guns are mass produced and a replacement barrel/upper will be the same quality as OEM so I'll take the cost savings and replace the barrel in about 25 or 30 years.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

OMG! I HATE it when anyone (Mr. Google and other's) uses the term "my interpretation of the 2A."

Nobody should be "interpreting" the constitution. The founding fathers could not be more clear. To me it's so clear and easy to understand..."Shall not be infringed" for instance. How else can you possibly interpret that??

If I say "you shall not infringe the red haired boy from eating his cookie" how could those intentions be interpreted other than the obvious -- I don't want you to stop him from eating the cookie. Period.

It seems that through the years people who don't like something in the constitution (or the Bible) use the word "interpret" to cover up the fact that they don't agree with something. So they take the cowards way out and try to convince everyone that what they are reading doesn't "actually" say what it says...it must mean something other than what it actually says OR they use the old standby "well that was then and doesn't apply anymore." Really? Who says - the person who doesn't like it. that's who.

emily1 emily1
May '14

But emily, what if it's not *his* cookie? Is it a cookie or a biscuit (maybe he's British)?

I'm not sure if his hair is red or auburn... Is he actually eating the cookie, or just tasting it?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"Nobody should be "interpreting" the constitution."

Stay in school, Emily. Work hard. Become a Constitutional Lawyer. It's a complete career solely invested in interpreting the constitution. See Mark's example.

Or

Become a linguist; discover how the meanings of words change and evolve.

The Constitution was not even 100% crystal clear to the framers and many of them differed on the meaning of many, many, aspects. For example, to many today, a cookie can not be eaten, only shared over the internet.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

Yes, that's what they do. They get into the minutiae and overly parse each word and make everything WAY to complicated (but that's the plan confuse, confound and conquer).

Did they mean a big gun, a little gun, a black gun, metal gun, wooden handled gun, long gun, short gun, pretty gun, scary-looking gun, bullet gun, pellet gun, black powder gun, automatic gun, semi-automatic gun, pistol, rifle or shotgun???

They meant GUN.

emily1 emily1
May '14

"boy"???? Shall not infringe the red-haired BOY?!?!?!?!? Jeez, we knew the founding fathers were all racist slave owners, now we know they were all sexist too!!!!

and apparently, "hair-ist" too, since ONLY the RED HAIRED boy has an un-infringable right.

Mark, you say you shoot "dirty, dirtier, and Herters"? ;) That Herters is pretty good stuff. The other 2 really are filthy, in any gun. But hey- get what you can while you can right? In a SHTF situation, you ain't gonna' care much how dirty your ammo is.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

What if the red-haired boy is deathly allergic to the cookies? Should we permit him to commit suicide?


If he so chooses. The left are all about "choice," right?

Abortion is a choice, sexual preference is a choice, gender (medicare now pays for sex-change operations in some states) is a choice, whether to raise your own children or put them in daycare is a choice, so why not be able to choose if you want to live or die?

Seems you can only choose your "choice" if the left likes your "choice." If they don't like it...no can do.

Abortion (kill your baby) - yes
Suicide (kill yourself) - no
Right to bear arms (without infringement) - no
Right to free birth control pills - yes
Sex change operation - yes
Occupy Wall Street (while crapping and peeing on police cars) - yes
Tea Party Assembly - no
Say a prayer in school - no
Wear a Burka to school - yes
Wear a NRA t-shirt to school - no
Place a cross or manger scene on public property during Christmas time - no
Put an Atheist, "Christians are stupid" add on billboards across America - yes

Make sure you memorize the above list so you don't slip up!

emily1 emily1
May '14

Isn't suicide is illegal? On the other hand, death by abortion is legal. So if you aborted the little red-haired boy, no problem.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

All the poor little guy wanted was his damn cookie...now he's dead. :(

emily1 emily1
May '14

Ha, yeah, whatever powder those Russian's use really burns the nose too...

I clean my guns after every outing. Surprisingly, even when I shoot "clean" ammo the patches still come out dirty. ;) That's why they make bore snakes and CLP. If the soot gets too heavy at the range, one pull through the bore and a quick shot of lube keeps things moving.

BTW - Shongum added 8 members at this month's meeting, so you're probably about 6 months out. They also added a pistol "qualification" for all new members so they can make sure everyone shoots safely.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"All the poor little guy wanted was his damn cookie...now he's dead. :("

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Do you (Mr. Google) really mean to tell me that you don't know what the framers meant by gun, militia, right to bear, protection, etc. If something was written about a cookie when a cookie obviously meant "something to eat" do you really think we should be arguing about whether it now means a "cookie" placed on your computer to track your usage and remember your passwords???

Instead of all those Constitutional Lawyers fighting over their interpretation, why don't they just look into what the framers were doing, how they were doing it, why they were doing it and why they said what they said - based on what they meant at the time.

You made my point for me...

Maybe you should go back to school ad learn some American history so you will know what they meant too.

emily1 emily1
May '14

And...by the way a lot of "Constitutional Lawyers" become that TO interpret what they don't like about America (think Obama -- he was a constitutional lawyer and he knows less about our history and the framers (he went to what, 58 states, lol!).

That's what Marc Levin (a constitutional lawyer) is fighting against every day -- Lawyers who are in the business to CHANGE and "amend" our Constitution.

emily1 emily1
May '14

Do you have to pay for the "pistol qualification"? (lemme guess.... YES)

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

They didn't really go over the details. I'm sure it will be added to the application soon.

My guess is there will be no charge and you'll have the option of bringing you own gun/ammo or just using one of their loaner .22's. It will be part of the general range safety orientation. Probably 20-25 rounds down range to make sure you know how to follow the 3 rules. It's worth it for them to cover the $5 in ammo to avoid injuries on the property.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Thanks, Emily1, for your interpretation of the 2A.


"discover how the meanings of words change and evolve."

Which is why people point out that words do have meaning at the time they are spoken (or written), and it's the meaning that doesn't change even when the "creative" among us work to manipulate the language to justify an outcome they want.

Phrases such as this one are spoken for one purpose only: a desire to confuse people in an attempt to obfuscate the truth.

Here's another good one, spoken by another master of the art of manipulation:
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."

justintime justintime
May '14

I read everything emily1 said and I don't see where she interpreted anything jd2. She simply said that the framers used the word gun. That's certainly not up for interpretation.

Please show me the sentence where she was interpreting the second amendment...I must have missed it.

The whole point she was making (to me) was that the constitution should not be interpreted at all. That one should read up on history and glean what the writers of any historical document meant at the time they wrote it and that meaning should carry through even if words are used for other meanings as time passes. Like the example someone used about the word cookie. It should be obvious to even a Constitutional Lawyer that if someone wrote a document with the word "cookie" in it in the 1700 or 1800's that they were not talking about "internet cookies." That's the stupidity all the progressive " interpreters" who want to change things to suit their agenda are using.



I agree with that 100%.

Heidi Heidi
May '14

OK, this is getting pretty silly.

"Nobody should be "interpreting" the constitution.......Nobody should be "interpreting" the constitution. The founding fathers could not be more clear."

"They meant GUN"

Uh, sorry Emily. They said "arms." You must have interpreted the 2A's "arms" to mean guns.

"Do you (Mr. Google) really mean to tell me that you don't know what the framers meant by gun, militia, right to bear, protection, etc."

2A never mentions gun, protection and most definitely, etc. Etc. would have been way confusing, misleading and not doubt the last refuge of the coward, according to Emily. Wait, that's you :>)

"Maybe you should go back to school ad learn some American history so you will know what they meant too."

Ad so I shall as soon as you memorize those 27 words correctly which the framers clearly defined apparently just as you have interpreted them today based on what the framers meant at the time. Make sure you memorize the 2A so you don't slip up a third time!

JIT: if words never evolved, we would still be sounding like Shakespeare or worse yet, just grunting around the cave's campfire. That wouldn't be OK, but not to worry, OK wouldn't be a word either.

One man's manipulation is another's lack of listening.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

Well, Heidi, I guess you have seen now that the second amendment does not use the word "gun". Certainly the word that IS used, "arms", is open to interpretation. Does it include rocket propelled grenades? Tanks? Nuclear weapons?

Is there an INDIVIDUAL right to bear a weapon? If so, why didn't the writer(s) of the 2A save everyone a lot of trouble and just say so? And if there is, why confuse the issue and mention a "militia" at all? It seems that a lot has been left to "interpretation".

I know, I know, we have seen many many postings here "proving" whatever it is that the posters want to prove. But "founders" did not at all see eye to eye on many things either. Some like Madison indicated that their Constitution was meant only for its time, not for all time.

Note: I am here taking NO position on what 2A says or doesn't say- let's not get started again! I acknowledge that there have been many good postings in this forum, including many skillfully supporting an individual right, etc.


I'm sure there are plenty of writings on what "arms" meant at the time. JR is much more versed than I on the founding fathers' written word.

Even if we were to "interpret" it today, arms would cover ALL firearms... after all, they are fireARMS. So no gun bans, nada. ALL unconstitutional.

Tanks, nukes, grenades... well, those are more munitions. Even when used properly there is a probability of unintended collateral damage that doesn't really exist with the proper use of a firearm.

But baby steps... stop trying to ban any firearms, or the ammunition that they require to function and we'll deal with the explosives later.

Also, show me your press badge for your collective right to post here. After all, the 1st Amendment talks about the "press" and "people" not each individual.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

the individual has a right to keep and bear arms because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

'right of the people' means us as individuals, just like the same phrase means in the 1st amendment

well regulated militias need to be familiar with and have ready access to the arms of the day, that includes the hand guns, rifles , and other small arms that the military currently uses.

'to keep and bear' means exactly what it says, 'to keep' means to own, 'to bear' means to carry with you on your person as you go about your business. no big mystery there as to what the document states. it's clear, and unequivocal in it's simple assertion

the right of the people (that's us as individuals) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (that means by the federal government) because the security of a free state needs to be protected by a well regulated militia (which is comprised by the body of the people, that's us as individual americans)

i've said it before and i'll say it again, it is our responsibility and civic duty to be familiar and well practiced with the arms of the day so that if necessary we can be called upon to defend a free state.

this is easy-peasy to understand if you're not a self absorbed complexed overly educated conflicted 'progressive' trying to split hairs all the time, and turn things on their head, the words are written clearly, read them for yourselves and think hard on what they are actually saying.

thank the good lord that common sense is finally starting to prevail over this ultra-wacko junk law that is continually pushed by the progressive elites and an agenda driven MSM who think they know more,

(hint: they really don't know more, but are too full of themselves to ever admit it)

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

Arms. It obviously means arms. Appendages. We have the right to keep and bear our arms.

You stupid morons.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Gee, I think JR has gone ad hominem; I feel intimidated :>)

Frankly, I would Emily et al would appreciate interpretation; it's been going your way on the 2A for a few decades now.

By the by, if the Constitution is not subject to interpretation, then why did the Framers invent the Supreme Court?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

I think the issue is the intent behind the original words, and I also think that the discussions leading up to the text of the Constitution were pretty clear what those words meant and the context that framed them. At that time. As in NOT today.

If someone wanted to argue that words "evolve" (I might say devolve given the slang that's used so often today) that's fine. But why conflate the context in which the original words were written with the words themselves? Words and context are not the same - they are completely different concepts. There is ample supporting evidence in other documents that clearly show Emily's view reflects the majority view at the time that resulted in the words as they were written. Obviously there was dissent, as there always is, but the context is archived for all to see. To state otherwise is outright disinformation.

Arguing about the difference between "arms" and "guns" is kind of silly IMO when you look past the words and at the context in which they were used.

Now if one wanted to argue that today's world is a completely different place, that the issues our Founders found themselves dealing with are no longer relevant today, then OK. But to dismiss the view that the words of the Constitution, in the context in which they were written under the circumstances at the time, really don't mean what the people who wrote it said they mean just because the meaning of words has evolved is really bizarre.

justintime justintime
May '14

bans are infringements, they are not regulations

outright bans are true infringements,

i am tired of people who don't own guns, who have never fired guns, and who are scared to death of guns deciding for me and dictating to me what I can and cannot have or use.

evaluating my needs for me, as if they get to do that. just ridiculous.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

I agree that some aspects are clear, and that other aspects are not clear, and therefore have to be interpreted. As another example, who is it what may not infringe? Just the federal government? All governments? Stores? Schools? Etc.

In 1876 the Supreme Court ruled that the 2A prohibition against infringement applies to the federal government only. This is an interpretation, right? Maybe right, maybe wrong. But a ruling that well-educated fair-minded people can disagree on. The words are silent, as they are on so many aspects.

My point is not what is the correct interpretation, just that interpretation is needed. I had thought this was obvious. I guess it isn't.


Is interpretation needed to say that the original intent of the Constitution was to limit federal government powers by enumerating specifically what it *could* do (not create a list of the things that is can't do, which by it's very nature would be without end) and delegating all other aspects of governance to the individual states? Given that context, the question of who's "right" about who and what to control should be directed at the state level, not the federal government.

In fact, I think it's safe to say that the intent of the Constitution has been continually eroded since the day it was ratified. No one has every wanted to hear "limited" powers, because limited by it's very definition means we can't ask the government to provide benefits for us citizens.

When half of our federal government budget is collected strictly to redistribute the wealth of our society (ie taxes) to one another in the form of entitlements I'd say we have long since jumped the Constitutional shark. The game has not been if, but how, we should have the right to get a piece of the productivity of the more privileged. And if I recall correctly, it was pretty darn clear that our government was established to emphasize individual rights rather than collective rights (Collectivism wasn't mentioned in the Constitution or any of the Federalist papers, was it?). But here we are, with collectivism being the central tenet of our current government.

IOW, we are a long way from where we started, making this discussion about 200 years obsolete. The better question is, why was our Constitutional government so ground-breaking, so incredible, that our society flourished in spite of our inherent selfish human nature? Conversely, now that collectivism trumps individualism (and has for at least a century), can we say the same thing - that ours is still a ground-breaking, incredible society?

Some say yes, some say no. And the debate will continue for the next 200 years...

justintime justintime
May '14

If you look up the definition of "arms" it says..."arm: [ahrm] noun, 1.Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.

Then you can look up "firearms" and it says..."firearm [fahyuhr-ahrm] noun, 1. a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

Sounds like a gun to me.

From Dictionary.com

emily1 emily1
May '14

"outright bans are true infringements,"

Complete nonsense. So banning yelling fire in a crowded theater is an infringement? The person trampled to death by the lie disagrees with you. This is an oft stated and clearly supported principle that one conflicting right does not override another. Your "right" to own nuclear weapons is not overridden by our right not to die in a nuclear holocaust caused by a rogue device exploded by someone who has no ability to control something in their possession.

"Outright bans" on its own is an emotional response where logic is supposed to prevail.


GC, come on man, don't roll out the thoroughly debunked "yelling fire" analogy.

You're held just as responsible for the misuse of the 2nd amendment as you are for the misuse of the 1st. You are punished for the actual panic/injury caused no matter what word you choose to yell, and you are punished for the actual assault/murder no matter what weapon you choose to use.

And like I said before, regardless what else is or isn't considered arms (i.e. nukes), nobody can believably argue with a straight face that firearms aren't arms and are therefore off limits from any *government* infringement.

If a private property owner wants to "ban" them from their property, I don't agree with it, so I won't patronize their business. But that is not an infringement since it would be my choice to comply or go elsewhere. What other rights do you think should cease to exist at the end of your driveway or doorstep because the government says so (and in fact is banning them *inside your own home* via magazine or specific model restrictions)?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Yeah GC, we have been through this already, I suggest reading up before you try already used analogies

Darrin Darrin
May '14

"Is interpretation needed to say that the original intent of the Constitution was to limit federal government powers by enumerating specifically what it *could* do (not create a list of the things that is can't do, which by it's very nature would be without end) and delegating all other aspects of governance to the individual states?"

To put it another way, the original intent of the Constitution was to PROVIDE the federal government with some significant powers, since at the time it had very few and was not functioning. Of course, the Constitution had to reserve many powers to the states for the simple reason that the states had to be willing to ratify it! As it was, ratification was still a very close call.


The only thing I was noting was that, by law, the 2A, like any other part of the Constitution, is open to interpretation. And like I said, more often than not lately, this benefits you guys when it comes to the 2A. If it is not subject to interpretation, then you can not have guns, you can not protect, it's arms and security. And I won't even get into the strict definition of militia versus individual. And to be really strict, we may even have to talk arms as defined in 1777 if we don't want to interpret. But all of that is silly, of course we interpret the Constitution; that's all I said in response to Emily's ascertain that we shouldn't.

And Mark, on another topic, when you say "
And like I said before, regardless what else is or isn't considered arms (i.e. nukes), nobody can believably argue with a straight face that firearms aren't arms and are therefore off limits from any *government* infringement." it makes me wonder why the NRA wants limitations and bans on smart guns. Don't you like smart? It is not just an arm, a gun, etc. Why oh why is your team against guns?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

Sure jd2, but I think you are confusing the process with the intent.

People are inherently selfish - just the way it is. At that time the British government was seen to be overbearing and restrictive, the people of America feeling more like slaves than a free people. Our current system of government came out of that mindset, of limiting the scope of the government so that people could live a life of freedom rather than being under the control of an overbearing government. The Constitution came into being because without it we would all be anarchists (the opposite extreme). It was a compromise (well documented at that) to maximize the rights of the people without sacrificing the need for some centralized power.

The tenth amendment clarified the point, but the thing to remember is that, taken in aggregate and in the context of the time, the intent was to limit the federal government and enumerate only what it was allowed to do. Trying to "interpret" the Constitution, as is quite fashionable today, merely means trying to find ways around the original intent.

That's why you may have seen me write that we should stop trying to change the Constitution in its current form, scrap it, and rewrite it based on the principles that people are trying to put into practice. The days of the individual are long gone and the days of collectivism are here, yet we fight daily to justify our collective desires based on a rule of law that was written to prevent that exact thing. IOW, people who say the Constitution should be "interpreted", or that words don't have meaning except for what we want them to mean, really just want to get rid of it (or at least the parts that they think prevent them from getting something from the government that they aren't getting now). They are missing the whole point of having the Constitution in the first place.

justintime justintime
May '14

"At that time the British government was seen to be overbearing and restrictive, the people of America feeling more like slaves than a free people."

Well, of course, by 1787, when the Constitution was written, the British had been out of the picture for several years. (As a matter of fact, even in 1776 lots of people in America did not feel like slaves, were okay with the colonial system.)

In any case, I don't feel too confused. The Constitution was written and ratified in order to provide for a functioning federal government ("a more perfect Union"), "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...."

I do understand your various objections. I agree with them in part. I stop here so I can live my life today! :)


the word 'fire' is not banned, but causing a panicked stampede by calling 'fire' in public setting (when there isn;t a fire) is wrong and the person doing this should be held fully accountable

if the word was really banned, then in the case of a real fire, we would not be able to warn others by calling out 'FIRE!' . In the case of a real fire, using the word is a good thing.

the word isn't banned and never was.

banning certain rifles from being owned because they have a bayonet lug on them is a true infringement

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

The NRA is not against smart guns. The NRA, along with myself and most other gun owners, are against laws that allow ONLY smart guns to be sold, by BANNING all the rest. Get it?

If smart guns are so great, why oh why are all the police exempted from that requirement?

You want a smart gun, great. Let the market make the choice.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Actually, the NRA is against smart guns apparently because a large portion of their members are not smart enough to use them. Well, at least they are protecting the largest part of their membership which the NRA calls the "not particularly intelligent." Often they shield their protest against the NJ law, but mostly, they are just against selling guns if they are smart. From their site:

“Smart” Guns — A year ago, President Barack Obama ordered the Consumer Products Safety Commission to review manufacturing standards for gun locks and gun safes. Gun control supporters have long wanted the commission to be able to impose standards on firearms that no manufacturer could meet. NRA opposes requiring guns to be made with electronic equipment that would allow the guns to be deactivated remotely, or with other features that gun owners do not want." March 2014

Request for boycott: May 2014 "“Smart guns” have been in the news recently. A gun store owner in Maryland abandoned plans to begin selling a German-made “smart gun” after protests–some of which included death threats. Such threats are crimes, and ought to be prosecuted, if the perpetrators can be identified. However, lawful threats, such as boycotts, seem likely to deter gun stores from selling the product. Gun owner boycotts and the risk of such boycotts have historically a very powerful check on the actions of firearms businesses. A firearms business which is perceived as anti-Second Amendment is not going to stay in business very long."

"NRA does not oppose new technological developments in firearms; however, we are opposed to government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as rigging a firearm so that it could not fire unless it received an electronic signal from an electronic bracelet worn by the firearm's lawful owner (as was brought up in Holder's recent testimony). And NRA recognizes that the "smart guns" issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology (which itself is susceptible to abuse, including the remote tracking and disabling of firearms)."

“The NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda,” said the organization in a statement on their website, “opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology, and discriminating against individuals who are not particularly intelligent- one of the NRA’s larger target demographics.”

From Newslo.com:
NRA legislative director Chris Cox applauded the anonymous gun-owners who threatened Raymond’s life. “These patriots were right to express their disapproval of the store’s plans to stock a new product. There is a fine line between forcing gun owners to have the option to purchase a handgun that cannot be accidentally found and used by a six year-old child and outlawing all guns in America,” he said. “A very fine line.”

"Cox also questioned the practicality of smart gun technology. “What if you’re at your buddy’s house and a rapist comes in? You grab your buddy’s gun but it doesn’t fire and you get raped? How is that smart?”

"NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre criticized gun makers- such as German company Armatix, whose Armatix iP1 was the weapon Raymond backed down from selling- for researching smart gun technology. “They’re shooting themselves in the foot with this smart gun nonsense,” he said. “Don’t they realize it alienates easily half their customers? Not all gun owners are high school graduates!”"

Yeah, it's a 50% really dumb group that couldn't even pass High School or opted out for special reasons. It's the group that ponders......."Hey, how do you put a bracelet on, how do you do it, where does it go. does it work on either wrist, can I wear a watch, hey, how do you put a watch on?" Let's give those guys the dumb guns and set them loose. My take is perhaps the smart gun should be their first test of whether they should have a gun....... :>)

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

So with these new "smart guns" they only let the owner shoot it correct?

So what happens when I am not home and my wife needs to defend herself? Is she left with a paper weight?

Also what controls these "smart guns" will there be a back door governmental shutdown that stops the firearm from working?

Seems like too many ifs for me, but I am with mark, although they do not work for me, others they may be just the ticket for.....but you can't ban the old ones!

Darrin Darrin
May '14

"So what happens when I am not home and my wife needs to defend herself? Is she left with a paper weight?"

Yes, as will you if the bracelet/watch fails or gets more than 10" away from the gun.



"Also what controls these "smart guns" will there be a back door governmental shutdown that stops the firearm from working?"

In fact, the manufacturer applied for a patent to do just that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/robert-farago/breaking-smart-gun-maker-files-patent-remote-kill-switch/



Like most stupid gun control laws, the "smart guns only" law is actually counter-productive. By saying that everything except smart guns will be banned, there is a MASSIVE push to not sell smart guns anywhere. I'll also repeat what I said above... if they are so great, why are the police specifically exempted from their use? Could it be that they are unreliable pieces of crap?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

SO, to be clear, if there is ever a reason that our government wanted us to not be able to defend ourselves, for whatever reason that may be, they have complete control of our only lines of defense?

And who agrees with this??

I completely agree that they may be a great asset to people with children or such that do not trust themselves to secure the weapon, but this is absolute ridiculousness in all other terms

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Yes, MG, because when an intruder breaks in a zero-dark-thirty the first thing I want to do is locate a watch, type in a 4-digit code on tiny buttons, make sure the watch is within 10" of the gun and then try to defend myself... with a .22 caliber no less (since that's the only caliber that doesn't damage the electronics inside the gun).

Sounds like a great solution.


Oh, BTW - those "death threats" were bogus, even Andrew Raymond himself didn't consider them credible and the vast majority of people who expressed their displeasure were polite. But that doesn't make for a good story:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/robert-farago/engage-armament-co-owner-truth-armatix-ip1-backlash/

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

If the gun was really smart, it would let your whole family and anyone you want use it. Also one would hope you could put the watch on, activate it via PIN, and go to sleep. And frankly, I would like to PIN control a "safety off, it's live and don't need the watch anymore" feature to guarantee it no can be signal jammed. But who cares if it is good or not, or whether it has the features you say it don't; let the market decide. The NRA and gun lovers should not be in the business of restricting gun sales; they are supposedly pro-2A. That was my point and my only point --- not the pro's and con's on the gun or the NJ law.

The added NRA comment that most of it's members "not particularly intelligent- one of the NRA’s larger target demographics" or Pepe Lepew's comment: "Don’t they realize it alienates easily half their customers? Not all gun owners are high school graduates!” was just icing on the cake. Wayne-o thinks half the gun owners didn't finish high school. Sweet.

But my point was let the market decide, not an NRA ban on gun sales.

By the by, the patent information you noted does not clearly indicate a back-door feature; the gps and satellite connectivity seems to be clock related just like the one on my wall. Nor does anyone know whether there is one designed in the product; I would think the manufacturer would want to fess up on this since it's a major selling point.

And meanwhile since you seem to think that my support of the open market means gun control, here are my thoughts on the NJ smart gun law. The NJ smart gun law seems stupid both in it's ambiguity and it's unrealistic restraint of the free market. Forget the government hacking theory which is almost just as stupid, but consider the terms from the actual law: "availability of personalized handguns for retail sales purposes........ if at least one manufacturer has delivered at least one production model of a personalized handgun to a registered or licensed wholesale or retail dealer in New Jersey or any other state.......no person registered or licensed by the superintendent as a manufacturer, wholesale dealer of firearms, retail dealer of firearms or agent or employee of a wholesale or retail dealer of firearms pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:58-1 or N.J.S.2C:58-2 shall transport into this State, sell, expose for sale, possess with the intent of selling, assign or otherwise transfer any handgun unless it is a personalized handgun or an antique handgun."

Now, first, antiques, competitive shooting, and police are exempt, but the concept of "one production model" in any state is so stupid as to defy the term stupid. Let's all line up and be forced to buy the first production model of Windows, Red Dye 2, New Coke, the Seqway, or a Hydrogen Blimp. These are just a few inventions that did not work even though production-ready for either technical or market acceptance reasons. One model in one state does not equate to a fully tested product. A fully tested product would have mass availability, mass usage, and be time tested, not just lab tested.

Second, if the smart gun does not provide it's benefits with a reasonable cost, NJians will just not buy it even if forced They will use what they have or "import" cost effective alternatives. And one model in one state does not sound cheap or cost effective to me. The Armatix is $1,399 with a $399 bracelet. You guys can sound off, but that sounds a bit steep for a .22.

So the NJ law is a restraint of free trade; ok, I am not happy with that but could live with that if safety was improved dramatically at a reasonable cost and without adding risk. But forcing people to buy expensive, unproven, untested, product, which may add user risk or might not even be safe is just beyond stupid, as a law.

Let the market decide, let the market time-test the product on a mass basis over time, and let the price become competitive with the status quo before deciding to force people to a new unproven technology. And then you boys can argue that law after the results are in and there should be no argument about buying new guns that are safer, easy to use, have the features you want, and offer the same hands-off government capabilities that you have in today's models. That's my thought.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

Mg says "If the gun was really smart, it would let your whole family and anyone you want use it. Also one would hope you could put the watch on, activate it via PIN, and go to sleep. And frankly, I would like to PIN control"

So if that is your key concern what's so hard about having a gun safe with a pin number to open it? again, as you said, it is up to you as to who you give your pin out to, same as a pin and bracelet to a "smart" gun

ahahahahahaha "the gps and satellite connectivity seems to be clock related just like the one on my wall" if you believe that is all it will be used for it is really time for you to come out from under your ROCK!

"Forget the government hacking theory which is almost just as stupid" and why would that be? oh yeah I forgot, the government has never hacked phone calls, email records or anything else that completely violates our right to privacy before....thanks for reminding me.

I agree with your bitter batter somewhat mg, but the point here and if you have any common sense you can see that gun laws never stop. Just because they introduce smart guns as a "option" doesn't mean that 5 years down the road they will not force everyone to turn in their "real" guns and only allow smart guns.

I for once tried to read your essay through, and you should really try to be more open to possibilities, rather then calling them stupid. I mean honestly, if you think that the government would not try to control a back door to smart guns......it is definitely a possibility, but you call it stupid....

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Yes, MG, let's let the market decide, not an ACTUAL EXISTING New Jersey law that bans all non "smart" guns 3 years after one is sold anywhere in the USA, regardless of reliability, performance, or cost.

This isn't just a gun thing, it's an overbearing government thing. There would be just as much angst if Uncle Sam mandated that every car sold must be a hybrid, despite the fact that the batteries suck, they only hold a few passengers, and they can't haul anything.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

those who want smart guns should be able to buy them, if polled on this question the over 5 million individual NRA members would agree with this

but banning all guns except for smart guns is an overreach in regulations and should be deemed unconstitutional. that also lines up with the NRA position.

i predict the state law as written will not stand up in court, it will be overturned, and by a liberal judge as well.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

this statement quoted from above is true:

"The NRA is not against smart guns. The NRA, along with myself and most other gun owners, are against laws that allow ONLY smart guns to be sold, by BANNING all the rest. "

+1 to this

don't buy the agenda drive hype out there, the negative spin on everything the NRA does just reveals the pure emotional hatred the MSM has for the organization and it's members.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

Bitter batter? No common sense? Under a rock? All I can say is consider the toxicity of the source.

Yes, a PIN gun sounds safer, cheaper, and easier actually; nice invention.

Listening in? There's a big difference with listening with the phone and internet funded by the government. In the case of the phone system, it was designed for national security on purpose, that's why we don't allow Chinese equipment in. The internet is public, there is no expectation of privacy unless through your own encryption. But private company designing product for self-destruction of their business is pretty far-fetched unless you think the government is funding a German design. And IF your company was going to proceed this way, would you file a patent? I would be more afraid of local hackers going after the wifi on a local basis. I really doubt all smart gun manufacturers would comply with a government mandate that would destroy their business if detected and the first one that publicly says no ---- wins all the business. Yeah Mark, I would say that concept is pretty stupid.

Yes, let the market decide, yes the NJ law is premature at best, but I still don't have a problem with mandating safer guns that have "privacy" plus all the features you want plus are cost competitive with today's models ONCE they are proven equal to the quality and features of today's models.

And BDog: those are the NRA's words, Wayne's words, not MSM? They are clearly for a banning these guns which is a direct violation of the 2A. And Mark, lots of vile messages and two threats still sounds pretty bad to me and certainly not something that should be condoned, much less praised.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

"Yes, let the market decide, yes the NJ law is premature at best, but I still don't have a problem with mandating safer guns that have "privacy" plus all the features you want plus are cost competitive with today's models ONCE they are proven equal to the quality and features of today's models. "

Add one more... ALL law enforcement is to be subject to the same "smart" gun requirements as every other citizen. After all, they spend a lot of money on equipment (Level III retention holsters, etc.) and training to prevent unauthorized access to their firearms. I guarantee you, no law enforcement officer will want anything to do with a smart gun, and that says a lot.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Even the current bad law has a once-it-passes-muster clause for police inclusion.

Point is that who wouldn't want one if it is the same price, has ALL the features you want, and is safer.

But let the market decide is the right way to go for new unproven technology.

And let's face it, those unintelligent NRA types noted by the NRA's leadership (seemingly not too bright themselves) might have difficulty with a PIN :>)

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

"Even the current bad law has a once-it-passes-muster clause for police inclusion."

I'm sure that will get fixed ASAP once the AG determines that the 3-year clock is ticking.

Question: Why are California police exempted from the "Safe Handgun Roster" in their state? Shouldn't police be the *leaders* in firearm safety?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"Yes, a PIN gun sounds safer, cheaper, and easier actually; nice invention."

Cheaper??? You really do not have any sense of the current do you? a standard .22 pistol is about $300 and up lets say, a smart gun .22 starts at $1399.......a great lockable safe is $1000 and holds 15 guns lets say.....so you can buy a gun and a safe for the price of a smart gun that only protects itself.....ummmmmm (post your comment here)

"Bitter batter? No common sense? Under a rock? All I can say is consider the toxicity of the source. "

Pot meet kettle....you are the one calling all NRA members stupid, and too dumb to type in a pin, as well as knocking down others ideas as dumb, stupid, how about this, try directing less toxicity yourself if you do not want it directed back towards you. My mother always said to treat other how you want to be treated.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Darrin, the Armatix iP1 smart gun (that's at the center of all this hoopla) does indeed cost $1399.

Oh, but you actually want to SHOOT it? You'll need the RFID watch that activates the gun for an additional $399.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Mark, yeah I did forget to mention the $400 activation watch, it doesn't matter, MG will have something to say, or will just completly change the topic as usually, instead of simply saying, "good idea I didn't think of that" Like anyone that is open to ideas would

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Actually Darrin, it was the NRA and Wayne calling it's members in quotes as mostly uneducated and unintelligent; I just superimposed the word stupid instead. I take it you are a member?

Duh, I already listed the prices above, noting I was pretty sure it was expensive and asking for your response Mr.-laser-focus-on-topic. And I meant a simple PIN gun might be less expensive than a PIN gun with RFID, WIFI, and Satellite GPS technology. Geez, lighten up. Unknot, unknot, unknot.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

..typical, poke more insults, then act like it is no big deal. I am really starting to see a pattern with you mg, don;t try to turn it around now.

First off you are even further bending the story, wayne simply said not all gun owners are high school graduates, NOTHING about the nra members, NOTHING about stupid, NOTHING about unintelligent, that is YOU adding those words.

I can gaurentee you that 80% of the people on this post are members of the NRA.

And for the record, since you like to twist what was actually said to fit your own agenda here was your original quote, quoting words from the nra “Don’t they realize it alienates easily half their customers? Not all gun owners are high school graduates!”"

I was able to find your quote in true context on its original site and there is no link between half gun owners and nra members, that is words you have added. Unless that is that you are claiming all gun owners are members of the nra, which is absolutely untrue.

They say it alienates half their customers, meaning half of the people buying guns would never purchase a smart gun, me included.

Then they say that not all gun owners are high school graduates, which is absolutely true. If a single gun owner in not a high school graduate, that makes not all gun owners high school graduates.

I do not believe these two statements were said together as they are portrayed, there was not that link of the two statements like you claim there was, yet you play on it like it is all over the news, yes you did find a site that likes to adjust the way things were said, just as you do, congratulations.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Are older people who still prefer cell phones with physical push buttons "stupid"?

What about those who still use a land line?

Not everyone wants to (or has the skill to) troubleshoot complicated software-driven devices when the system crashes.

There's something to be said for simplicity and RFID enabled firearms with fragile electronics are the antithesis to simple. Current firearms are (or at least can be) magnificent in their simplicity, and yet even those can have mechanical failures. Now we need to add another list of potential failures modes to the mix with software (with NO way to revert to a purely mechanical backup)? No thank you.

The last thing you want to hear when a bad guy is getting ready to rape your wife is 'click'.... or worse yet (in a soothing GPS voice) "I'm sorry, please enter your PIN to continue."

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

The last thing you want to hear when a bad guy is getting ready to rape your wife is 'click'.... or worse yet (in a soothing GPS voice) "I'm sorry, please enter your PIN to continue."




WAIT WAIT WAIT..... the devices, in order to meet govt standards, will have to be multi-lingual, so the FIRST thing you'll hear is:

"please press 1 for english, por favor pulse 2 para espanol..."

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

Actually Darrin, I originally posted the entire Wayne-o quote including one opening sentence you left out so I don't know why you think I didn't. Much less demonize me as some kinda spinmeister general using yellow-websites to construct my message. I used the same quote as you Dude, except the longer version.

Now if you want to parse out and interpret what Wayne means in those two sentences, feel free. But he is the head of the NRA, he speaks for the NRA, and that's what he said. Perhaps it was not really sex he had with that woman........but it sure looks like he did.

And when you combine that with the NRA statement from the NRA website, the organization that Wayne leads, controls, and is the master spin artist for, that I posted before that you have ignored: "“The NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda,” said the organization in a statement on their website, “opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology, and discriminating against individuals who are not particularly intelligent- one of the NRA’s larger target demographics.”

"Not particularly intelligent....one the the NRA's larger target demographics...." I don't know; it seems that Wayne and his organization are speaking pretty clearly about the NRA membership as well as gun owners.

If you ask me, what they are really saying loud and clear that is not in the text but certainly behind the text is that to make a point, to spin a tale, they are even willing to besmirch their members. But hey, it's your club, not mine. I went to college.

And once I again I fully admit I added the stupid. How many times do I have to tell you that as if it wasn't obvious (no quotes or sourcing). But let's face it; Wayne's comments and the NRA statement are pretty stupid and really seem to dumb down the membership. I like your explanation, it is much, much better that Wayne-o's.

So let's move on to the next topic: the gun won't sell, it's too expensive, unproven, and is not a viable alternative to what you have. The NJ law is stupid. And the government will try to control us, take all our weapons, shut down all our electronics, and listen-in to anything we communicate in any medium.

Can we move on?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

"I went to college"

Is that suppose to be some sort of educational poke to others on this forum? I can guarantee most here have went to college, and if they didn't they certainly have LEARNED how to take other opinions in stride, I personally am currently obtaining my master of science, so I do not appreciate your poke, you are putting words in wayne's mouth and interpreting something he said, I am sure he did not mean it in the way you are interpreting it

Is it really that hard to admit you were wrong, or do you always have to include the demeaning "pokes". It seems you cannot just appreciate a good answer and have to always push things to the extreme?

so what, now that the focus is on you, we must "move on"??

Darrin Darrin
May '14

this statement is not on the NRA website. in fact it is not there:

"“The NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda,” said the organization in a statement on their website, “opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology, and discriminating against individuals who are not particularly intelligent- one of the NRA’s larger target demographics.”

this last part of the statement is not from the NRA at all, someone made it up,

"discriminating against individuals who are not particularly intelligent- one of the NRA’s larger target demographics"

you can find in only one place, here:

http://www.newslo.com/nra-claims-smart-guns-discriminate-less-intelligent-gun-owners/

looks like this statement was written for the newslo.com website by a humorist:

David Neilsen
David has been writing online for over 15 years, filtering reality into bite-sized and digestible pieces on a wide range of sites that have mostly faded into distant memory. He has worked both as a straight journalist and an author of original humor, and is excited to be given the opportunity to combine these two unique talents for the benefit of all Newslo readers except that one guy.

http://www.newslo.com/author/david-neilsen/

no links were provided in any of the quotes attributed to the NRA, a sure fire sign of BS and spin.

the continued pathetic attempts at character assassination directed towards NRA members reveal the hate filled agenda of the progressive crowd who will do and say anything to get more controls and restrictions written into law

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

"you can find in only one place, here:"

http://www.newslo.com/nra-claims-smart-guns-discriminate-less-intelligent-gun-owners/

Brother dog, funny you say that, while I was researching the trueness of MG's now famous quote, "Don’t they realize it alienates easily half their customers? Not all gun owners are high school graduates!”" that was the only site where I could find it as well , it shows up no where else on the internet in that same context.

"no links were provided in any of the quotes attributed to the NRA, a sure fire sign of BS and spin."

Thank you very much for shedding light onto this BD, I got to the site but was unable to go far as the credibility of the source.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Yup, I messed up and did not second source this one and Newslo is a satire news site. Oppps, sorry, I am so Busted.

Some of the postings are from the NRA site (the one's with dates) but there is no second sourcing on Wayne's quote for sure.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

I think The Onion has it right...

ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

yankeefan yankeefan
May '14

Ah, yankeefan, even though the Onion is satire they still fail to mention that more people were killed with a knife and a BMW than were killed with a gun in that event.

I assume there will be a large backlash against Bed Bath & Beyond for selling such dangerous items without background checks?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"Yup, I messed up and did not second source this one and Newslo is a satire news site. Oppps, sorry, I am so Busted."

Ahh, see MG, was that so hard?

yankeefan, sure there is a way to stop it, properly train people and allow concealed carry, that way people can actually defend themselves with proper training, rather then helplessly being pelted with bullets. If i am going to die, It certainly is not going to be from a lack of effort of self defense, that's for sure.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Darrin, I pray that the answer to our excessive violence is not be a blind acceptance of even more violence under the guise of self defense. Sure, people should be allowed to protect themselves, but the issue is violence and more guns in more places will not make violence subside even if the good guys nail the bad guys every time.

We are the most violent developed nation in the world; our gun murders alone rank us as a third world nation, not developed. Mark is correct, violence has nothing to do with guns, we can use knives, BMWs, and even dish towels. Of course, these tools rarely do the damage of a gun in a single event even if their overall "incidence" rate is higher. No knife or BMW has a trail of mass murders that the gun has. And when we start bringing our guns everywhere we bring our cars, I would bet our gun murder rate would sky rocket.

The question Americans need to ask is why we, the most violent developed nation in the world, can we do to mitigate the violence? How do we drop it down a notch and stop killing each other? It is a deep and complex question and has nothing to do with guns; they are only our violence delivery mechanism of choice especially for rampage, mass murder, or school attacks. They are not the reason for violence, they are just our most frequent facilitator especially for grandiose acts of gore.

But we do make these easy, efficient, and effective enablers of violence pretty darned simple to get; these tools even have their own lobbying group, one of the best advocates in the country. We excel at allowing the easy tools of violence in as many places as we can; seems lately we are increasing where we can carry. Lately we even see trending to having these tools at peaceful protests as our own personal support mechanisms; sort of a badge of support for the cause. Mark, perhaps better and more exhaustive background checks would be appropriate but this last one was California and I would love to know how we can improve on their strict regulations. I just do not know how we will reduce the gun play in America by just looking more closely at the buyer than they do in California. Can't wait to see the discussion of that..

Fact is we Americans seem to like violence as a problem solver and we certainly love our guns as a primary solution especially when looking for mass. But until we tackle the issue of violence, we will not solve the problem.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

first they outlaw and ban military style small arms, then they limit the magazine capacity while at the same time they ramp up plans to use the military against citizens; this is a scary proposition :

Directive outlines Obama’s policy to use the military against citizens

The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.

“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/inside-the-ring-directive-outlines-obamas-policy-t/#ixzz334TeczYL

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

" Sure, people should be allowed to protect themselves, but the issue is violence and more guns in more places will not make violence subside even if the good guys nail the bad guys every time."

this is because they make the defendant out to be a murderer, list all the other possibilities of a course of action he could of taken, and then lock him up for murdering someone! Yet when a cop shoots someone in defense, it goes over unscaved.

I at least think that if people were allowed to carry, criminals would certainly think twice, especially with the right training, how many criminals do you see robbing cops?

"We are the most violent developed nation in the world"

and that is exactly why the people of this country should be allowed to protect themselves!

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

Right. Guns for everyone! That's the solution. Unbelievable. And BD thinks he could actually overcome a hostile government attack. Which he appears to believe is imminent. Lunacy.

yankeefan yankeefan
May '14

From the website Think Progress:



Young people account for almost two thirds of gun-related violent offenses in New York, according to state data obtained by amNewYork. Some 62.8 percent of New Yorkers arrested between 2009 and 2013 for murder and attempted murder charges with an underlying firearm charge were between the age of 13 and 25.

The data reveals how access to firearms by young individuals can escalate what would otherwise be a fist fight into a deadly altercation for a population whose brains are still developing. “If you add in guns what might have been a fight can turn into a homicide very quickly. And kids have access,” St. John’s University sociology professor Judith Ryder told amNewYork. “They are lacking in impulse control.”

New York saw similar rates of gun-related arrests among youths over the past several years. Last year, the rate among the same age group was 59 percent and in 2012 it reached a high of 69 percent. Arrests don’t signal convictions. And this statistic could in part reflect disproportionate rates of young arrests overall. But the data comports with other national statistics on youth and violent firearm crime.

The median age for murder in 2010 was 26, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics figures. And in 2011, 70 percent of murders committed by those aged 12 to 24 involved a firearm. Individuals between the ages of 10 and 29 also made up 65 percent of all national arrests for weapons offenses in 2012, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation data.

This young skew tracks the high proportion of young people who are the victims of gun violence. Fifty-four percent of Americans murdered by guns in 2010 were under age 30. In fact, an American under the age of 25 dies by gunfire every 70 minutes. And guns are poised to surpass car accidents as the leading cause of death among young people. As a February Center for American Progress report notes, “Far too often, a gun not only takes the life of one young American but also contributes to ruining the life of another young person who pulls the trigger.” In striking down the harshest sentence of life without parole for some juvenile crimes, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that a juvenile’s character is not as “well formed,” meaning both that they are prone to recklessness, and that their traits are significantly more likely to change over time. Nonetheless, those charged in homicide crimes are likely to spend years if not their life in prison.

Against this backdrop, the National Rifle Association has recently made a push to invalidate bans on gun sales and permits to those under age 21. The NRA has argued that the restriction imposes an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment. But one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country turned back one of those challenges last year, and the U.S. Supreme Court has since declined to review the issue.









Close
Like ThinkProgress on Facebook




Don't show this to me again


By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policies as applicable, which can be found here.






Get ThinkProgress email alerts












About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | State Notices | Reuse Policy | RSS | Donate

© 2005-2014 Center for American Progress Action Fund

yankeefan yankeefan
May '14

Not guns for everyone (although that is their right). Just guns for those who choose to carry one.

If you don't want to have a gun, nobody is going to force one into your hands.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Wrong, guns for the people who want to get the proper training, many people on this site have already acquired the proper training. The training I am referring to would be for carrying in public

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Darrin - Extensive training is always good, but generally speaking, any adult can be taught how to safely handle any firearm in about 30 minutes. Will they be Annie Oakley hitting playing cards on their edge at 25 yards? Of course not, but that comes with practice. Also, the hope is that all firearm handling occurs at a range. When carrying in public it's generally desired that you will never have to even touch your gun, and a gun sitting in a *proper* holster is about as safe and inert as any other inanimate object.

Above and beyond that, additional training may get more into the legalities of self defense, tactics for home defense, improvement in accuracy. That's great (and recommended) but the core skills are really very simple. In fact, there are only three rules, which (if followed correctly) would prevent effectively ALL firearm accidents.

1. ALWAYS keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction.
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. ALWAYS keep firearms unloaded until they ready for use.

Even if you forget Rules 2 and 3 (or there is a mechanical malfunction), the first one is there to save the day.

All of the people that think hours upon hours of police training is required don't stop to think that maybe that training is geared towards how to work in teams (that the general public don't have), how to breach barricaded suspects (that the general public doesn't deal with), how to clear buildings of potential suspects (that the general public doesn't deal with), etc.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"If you don't want to have a gun, nobody is going to force one into your hands."

this is correct,

people who don't own firearms and who have never used firearms think they have the right to decide for everybody else that no one truly needs them, and anyone who thinks they do is a paranoid nut job.

this is wrong of them to do, but they feel they have the right to do it.

the full frontal assault at character denigration and personal insults directed at gun owners is evidence of the hate filled agenda of the progressives who will do and say anything to further their anti-firearm cause. pathetic and weak

they are on the wrong side of history,

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

Mark, Darrin, BD, et al, your comments (or versions of them) are all represented on the gun nut bingo board...

yankeefan yankeefan
May '14

Really? Passing along actual *gun safety* rules (not "gun control" falsely claiming to be "gun safety") is only for gun nuts?

Maybe you personally shouldn't own/carry a gun. But just because you don't trust yourself doesn't mean the rest of us are as irresponsible (as evidenced by the fact that although you and others do continually aggravate us, denigrate us, and belittle us - not one of us has ever used any of our guns in anger against you).

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Not yet.

yankeefan yankeefan
May '14

"continually aggravate us, denigrate us, and belittle us "

that's the only play he's ever had, cyberbullying those with whom he disagrees with,

he knows no other way, and has no real substance to add to the discussion. it's sad, pathetic and shallow.

remember : don't feed the trolls

BrotherDog BrotherDog
May '14

"Maybe you personally shouldn't own/carry a gun" I agree with that fact just because the poster is a yankee fan....YUCK!

Marc, I know and completely agree with you that proper firearm training and handling is a 30 minute task, I bought and learned how to fire my first gun from a cop, at the state police shooting range. But my point to the proper training, is that maybe that is what the nay-sayers want to see, that to get a carry permit you are required to take a course and take a carry test, much like you are for a hunting license.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

The nay sayers want nothing less than a complete ban on all firearms. They don't care a whit about what training anyone has. I will not agree to any of their pre-conditions for exercising a fundamental right. If you give an inch (say, basic training) they'll take a mile (16 hour courses costing hundreds of dollars, with year long waiting lists).

They've blown way past "reasonable" long ago, and have kept squeezing more and more. 49 other states have (or will soon have) varying degrees of concealed carry permits with as little as zero training requirements just over the nearest river to our west. NJ is on the wrong side of gun rights, our legislature knows this, and they're doing all they can to squash our rights before (some day) the laws get slapped down as unconstitutional. It may take 20 years of fighting, but almost the entire rest of the country is going in the opposite direction of NJ.

No more compromises.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Actually, update that. 49 states and 1 territory make it possible to get a concealed carry permit.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/dean-weingarten/guam-shall-issue-becomes-law/

Yes, 6 other states are "may" issue, but it is realistically possible and many residents do have permits. Like in NY, the main problem area is just in/near the city. In NJ, it was recently revealed that only approximately 0.02% of the population has a permit (i.e. the "elite" politicians and celebrities).

Dead last in 2nd Amendment rights... Some of the most dangerous and crime ridden cities in the country... and our legislators think we're "leading the way"?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"16 hour courses costing hundreds of dollars, with year long waiting lists"

Well I can see that, I looked into taking the courses to get my conceal carry in 36 states or something like that.. you had to take two courses for a total of $3000-$4000 dollars depending on the intensity of handgun training.

So I can see where you are coming from.

Darrin Darrin
May '14

"No more compromises."


Finally!!! I've been there for awhile now, which is why I don't debate this topic as much as I used to. I'm DONE. No more compromises. The antis certainly have never been interested in compromise, it's time we take as hard a line. Gridlock.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

#NotOneMore

Yankeefan Yankeefan
May '14

"Finally!!! I've been there for awhile now, which is why I don't debate this topic as much as I used to. I'm DONE."


I may be done soon as well, if for no other reason than it's hard to scroll through almost 900 messages on my cell phone.

I don't stay to convince mistergoogle and yankeefan of my position. I stay to expose the flaws in their logic (or blind hatred of gun owners). At least mistergoogle sees through the smoke on some issues - claiming he doesn't support the 10 round limit or the smart gun requirement (at this time). But I also say that silence is compliance, and by not taking action against laws that he doesn't agree with, he is complicit in their passage/approval.

Hopefully any lurkers just reading these messages without commenting can start to see that these gun control laws are NOT being passed with anyone's safety in mind.

Does anyone really think the thugs in Trenton, Camden, and Newark are referencing Evan Nappen's 500 page NJ Gun Law book before strapping their gat on for the day?

Does anyone really think these thugs stop for a second to worry about whether or not their hollow points are illegal or if the visit to 7-11 on their way to the meth-lab is a "reasonable deviation"?

Who really thinks that the most oft-regulated firearms (so called assault rifles) are used in any signficant portion of crime? That isn't because of any gun control laws, it's because even with the shortest barrel and most collapsible stock, it's just tough to conceal a rifle in the waistband of their baggy pants.

Meanwhile, the father and son who just want to plink some tin cans off the fence post have to worry about whether or not the tube fed Marlin 60 or Mossberg Plinkster (guns that are used in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts) are .22 caliber assault weapons.

The woman who lives alone or with young children can't fully load the magazines for the home defense firearm, as 2 or 3 men break in to do who-knows-what because *she* will be arrested as well.

Someone on their way to get firearm training (that so many nay-sayers want) can't stop on the way to pick up his friend or get fuel (even if those locations are right next door to the range and the guns remain safely locked in the trunk) without becoming a felon.

Reasonable? Common Sense? No... those two left the party a long time ago. All they have left now is the demonization and belittling of 100+ million Americans, your neighbors, friends, and relatives... simply because those people want to exercise a right that has been acknowledged and protected since the earliest days of this country.

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

Must be a full moon weekend coming up......:>)

I wonder what it is like to live in a house with "No more compromises." Must be.......principled.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

How awful that some of us continue to have principles, eh?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"#NotOneMore"

Yes, a hash tag is certainly the most effective way to stop crime.

How's that #WarOnDrugs going? Based on what I've read here, it's pretty darn easy to score a hit even in the local schools of our little hamlet.

Let's not actually address the real issues (economic depression, broken families, etc.)

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

It depends on the principles.

However, life without compromise sounds very lonely.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
May '14

"#NotOneMore"...... gun control law. Totally agree.

#We'reDone
#MolonLabe

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
May '14

"I may be done soon as well, if for no other reason than it's hard to scroll through almost 900 messages on my cell phone."

I agree, I can only load this thread on my computer now, When we hit 1000 I will make a second thread, this has been fun!

Darrin Darrin
May '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

Open Carry at a Chipotle in Texas. No further comment required.

yankeefan yankeefan
May '14

Yes, those guys are asses with or without guns. That is borderline brandishing, not just open carry, and they are getting called out on it by other firearms owners as well.

Question - In ANY of the open carry demonstrations has even a single person been shot?

Don't worry, I know the answer is no...

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
May '14

"Borderline brandishing?"

When does a little "borderline brandishing turn into wide-reaching intimidation? If guns turn up at peaceful protests, restaurants, etc., how long until folks are intimidated from exercising free speech and lawful assembly? I know, the answer is we just need more guns and we should all just all carry guns all the time, everywhere, and then we wouldn't be scared.

Asses? Many of these guys only sound just a tad to the right of JR. LIsten to them and ask yoiurself: "would they talk like that without holding a gun?
http://csgv.org/blog/2013/pro-gun-activists-contradict-claim-stalking-peaceful/

At Bundy's they offered to put the unarmed ladies up front to cause as much collateral damage as possible if confronted.

As guns become standard tools of peaceful protest, lawful assembly, dinnerware, and bar room cozies, it is only a matter of time before tragedy. But not to worry, more people will still be killed falling down the stairs, so getting shot during peaceful assembly will still be a very low risk. I doubt it will dent enthusiasm to exercise our other Constitutional rights.

Question: how many need to be shot during a peaceful protest before using guns to intimidate first amendment rights is terribly, terribly wrong and not just a couple of "asses" exhibiting "borderline brandishing?" Why is this behavior seemingly just a little out of bounds? Why is it getting to the point that if you disagree with a gunnie, there's a chance you will be looking down the barrel of a gun just because you do?

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jun '14

+1 and well stated, mistergoogle! some here sound as if they are hoping for an opportunity to shoot someone who is a little suspicious --- are others' lives so cheap?

5catmom 5catmom
Jun '14

Here's the problem with your logic... open carry is currently legal in at least 43 states, and your wild west fantasy just isn't happening.

So either your vacation spots outside of NJ are severely limited, or allowing people to open carry simply isn't as scary as you pretend to make it.

(Also, so far the only ones limiting our 1st Amendment at the barrel of a gun is the government itself... see First Amendment Zones...)

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jun '14

Well stated Mark.

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Jun '14

Intimidation is what had happened, so far.

Open carry, concealed carry, may be the law but I do not condone carrying arms at public events, especially at emotional settings like protests, anymore than I condone any sort of intimidation or even rude behaviors. I think that guys with guns screaming in someone's face is very scary. If you have a conflicting point, try making without hiding behind the barrel of your gun.

The fact that no shooting tragedy has happened is a blessing; but you have to admit a guy with a weapon whether gun, blade, or other, is intimidation of the first order. Their own statements, bolstered by what they carry no doubt, show their intent to intimidate.

For example, I just don't see how the Feds backing down for a free-grazing thief is a 2nd amendment victory versus a Federal victory for restraint in the face of a loss of life over some cows.

"(Also, so far the only ones limiting our 1st Amendment at the barrel of a gun is the government itself... see First Amendment Zones...)" I honestly don't see how you can not see that guys with guns stifle free speech and peaceful assembly JUST because on one died. And First Amendment Zones, even if wrong, don't make gun brandishing as a manner of expression OK.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jun '14

nobody is preventing anybody from peacefully assembling,

what a load of bs,

physical threats of violence against individuals should be prosecuted under the law.

agreed that the statements and comments linked and quoted in the article are bad, and some of them should be followed up by law enforcement. also agree that is not the right way to behave if your are trying to convince others of your position, it is counter-productive. btw, have you seen how violent much of progressive community blogs about gun owners is? the progressive 'lean forward' liberals are having a field day by posting violent and aggressive commentary, saying the most horrific things about 2nd amendment advocates and making threats against their physical well being, funny the gun control web site linked makes no mention of those comments in their rush to conflate all gun owners with a few loons.

standing outside with a firearm visible is ok. gathering in a group of like minded individuals is ok and constitutionally protected, (no matter which side of the issues you are on ) but making threatening statements of violence against this woman (as wrong headed and misguided as she is) and her family is criminal and should be prosecuted under existing laws.

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Jun '14

MG - The people openly carrying guns at the "protests" you speak of are the entire reason the "protests" exist. They are "gun rights" gatherings.

If a mass of armed folks showed up to a pro-choice convention, or a gay-rights parade (or any other non gun-rights related issue) and tried to stifle the voices, then you would have a point, but that simply isn't what's happening.

Like BrotherDog said... law or no law... open or concealed carry... assault against another human is illegal and those violating that law should be prosecuted for it. Nobody has a Constitutional right to not be scared of something/someone, especially when 99.995% of that something have never, and will never be used to hurt another human being.

(Keep in mind, 80% of the remaining 0.005% of guns that are used in crimes occur due to gang violence in the cities, and has nothing to do with open carry gatherings.)

It must be a rough life to cower in fear of something that has a 99.999% chance of not hurting you.

(Just FYI - these percentages are not made up. Even if every one of the 30,000 firearm related deaths - including suicide - was due to a different gun, when there are 150,000,000 or more that are owned by private individuals, we're talking thousandths of a percent here...)

Mark Mc Mark Mc
Jun '14

Yeah, when you go to your next rally, and the opposition comes in and is "standing outside with a firearm visible is ok. gathering in a group of like minded individuals is ok and constitutionally protected," you tell me how warm n cozy you feel. Or is that just a new sensation in the seat of your pants. There's legal and there's moral and brandishing a gun at a rally, meeting or protest is outright immoral intimidation, legal or not.

So link us this progressive rhetoric.

And the next time the Feds arrive with guns to remove Bundy's illegal free grazing moo moo's, not a peep. Not a peep. I mean they're just standing there with guns enforcing an existing law. Just doing their jobs while holding big guns.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jun '14

I feel plenty warm and cozy. I see people with guns all the time.

Now, you can't have it both ways... claiming people are afraid when they get into an argument with an armed individual. If said person is so scared, why did they approach the armed individual to get into an argument in the first place? Maybe just to create headlines about "gun bullies"?

Regardless of how anyone feels about the removal of Bundy's cattle, creating "First Amendment Zones" with snipers on the hillside to enforce them is BS, you know it, and you're just trying to deflect the issue.


PS - Why the heck is it taking 5 hours for comments to show up here?

Mark Mc Mark Mc
Jun '14

All I know is that my cousin by marriage is from Switzerland where EVERYONE can (and does) own a gun -- even kids as young as 8 can carry. You can have them in school, in restaurants, the library, the market, at the beach -- everywhere. He started carrying his first gun at the age of 8 and got a military style weapon at 10. All his friends had (and still have) them and yet, not ONE school or movie theater shooting -- not ONE.

There have been NO mass shootings in Switzerland - even with everyone owning multiple guns. He said the teachers would have them in their pockets and in holsters or their purse (if they were female) and if you got to a restaurant people sling their guns over the back of the chair like we do with backpacks here.

The thing is they look at guns as a patriotic duty to defend their country. Any boob who used that duty in the wrong way KNOWS they would be shot on site BEFORE he could even raise the barrel of his gun.

emily1 emily1
Jun '14

I think guns at a gun rally would be expected.

But no, the examples from the article(s) included a restaurant, one where an anti-gun meeting was going on. The other example is the recent Chipotle incident where the guns were brandished in a group inside the establishment, long guns.

Last Saturday, about 150 gunnies turned up at a Home Depot parking lot; this was an Open Carry demonstration but come on, location, location, location.

Even the NRA posted: "Now we love AR-15s and AKs as much as anybody, and we know that these sorts of semiautomatic carbines are among the most popular, fastest selling firearms in America today. Texas, independent-minded and liberty-loving place that it is, doesn’t ban the carrying of loaded long guns in public, nor does it require a permit for this activity. Yet some so-called firearm advocates seem determined to change this.

Recently, demonstrators have been showing up in various public places, including coffee shops and fast food restaurants, openly toting a variety of tactical long guns. Unlicensed open carry of handguns is legal in about half the U.S. states, and it is relatively common and uncontroversial in some places.

Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms.

Let’s not mince words, not only is it rare, it’s downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one’s cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates."

Maybe we can't have it both ways, but perhaps some common sense and decency might carry the day.

Meanwhile, I brought up Bundy, you deflected to 1A Zones. Who's on first?

I would have to research the topic on 1A Zones and certainly most would lean towards not wanting them. However, in the Bundy case, it was purely an attempt, lame as it was, to defuse an escalating situation. As far as snipers on the hill at the free speech zone, think you got that one mixed up; it was snipers on the Bundy family when they protested outside the free speech area. And of course they were on a hill, wouldn't you be? Personally given the Bundy's rhetoric advocating armed violence, I think armed protection would be prudent in any transaction with them. Might even carry them when buying cattle from these folks.

But I wouldn't wip them out in McDonald's later.

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jun '14

This bears repeating...

citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

yankeefan yankeefan
Jun '14

You're acting like these "free speech zones" were unique to this case. How hard did you complain when the authorities made free speech zones for the Occupy movement? How hard do you complain they do the same for the black bear protestors every year here in NJ?

And, BTW, there is no evidence that there were any snipers in the Bundy confrontation. Well, there was no evidence that there were federal snipers - that was just Bundy's claim, and he's a proven liar. There were however, documented snipers on the other side. Got their picture in the paper and everything.

gadfly gadfly
Jun '14

"How hard did you complain when the authorities made free speech zones for the Occupy movement? How hard do you complain they do the same for the black bear protestors every year here in NJ? "

I think I've made it abundantly clear that I do not support the infrgingement of anyone's Constitutional rights, no matter what number is in front of the Amendment, no matter where it happens.

Mark Mc Mark Mc
Jun '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

So yankeefan: If guns, by themselves, were the problem, how come the rate of mass shootings is effectively unchanged for the past 34 years, despite 42% more population and a MASSIVE increase in the number of guns sold in that time? Shouldn't more people owning more guns with (except for the AWB from 1994-2004) no significant changes in Federal gun control laws directly correlate to more shootings by your logic? How come that isn't happening even though a lot of states have less gun control now than they did years ago?

* Population in 1976: 218 million
* Population in 2010: 310 million

Notice that even during the years that a Federal assault weapons ban was in place the number of shootings/victims remained relatively flat (actually the worst year occurred DURING the assault weapons ban).

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/dataondemand/165757356.html

Also of note from that web page... Victims per 1 million residents:

California (LOTS of gun control) = 10.6
New York (LOTS of gun control) = 13.0
Texas (The "Wild West") = 11.2 (Not statistically different from strict states)
Florida (The "Gunshine State) = 3.8

I didn't check all 50 states, but they all bounce around to where there is NO correlation between strict gun control and a reduction in mass shooting incidents/fatalities.

Mark Mc Mark Mc
Jun '14

Since someone above mentioned Switzerland, I just read up on it in Wikipedia. It's not as claimed, everyone is not carrying, not at all. It's complicated and interesting, though. Hard to relate to the US. I recommend reading up on it for its own sake.


Nothing to see here. Doesn't fit the agenda.

http://news.msn.com/us/12-year-old-wisconsin-girls-stab-friend-19-times?ocid=fbmsnnws

JeffersonRepub JeffersonRepub
Jun '14

Just saw that on the news.......whole 15 sec devoted to it.

Philliesman Philliesman
Jun '14

Mark, part of my concern is that it is simply too easy for the wrong people to obtain weapons. Here are a few possible ways to reduce ( obviously not eliminate) these instances.
1. Appoint a full time ATF Director
2.Aggressively prosecute people who buy illegally
3.Add a second serial number or make it more difficult to remove the serial number.
4.Background checks for gun dealers employees
5.Dealers who lose their license lose their inventory
6.Require agencies to regularly communicate data on mental health and drugs
7.Require the FBI to to contact state and local officials/agencies in all cases of mental health license rejections.

Not even close to a complete list, or a solution...but suggesting the solution is that we should ALL pack a weapon is simply lunacy.

yankeefan yankeefan
Jun '14

Re: NJ bill to limit gun magazines from 15 round to 10 round

Solid bachelor party this weekend, My brother took me and my groomsmen to heritage guild in Easton Pa. Shot a G36 full auto and M249 SAW full auto, desert eagle, and a 357 mag lever. We went through $700 in ammo alone!! What a life changing experience!!!

Darrin Darrin
Jun '14

Life changing? Really?

Here's Life changing:


At least six people, including two teenagers, were shot Monday night at a laundromat in Chicago, according to multiple reports.

A seventh person was injured fleeing the scene.

The shootings took place around 8:30 p.m. at the Sudz laundry in the city's South Side. Four victims, including the two teens -- ages 14 and 16 -- are in serious-to-critical condition at area hospitals, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Most of the victims appear to be young adults, and the Chicago Sun-Times says one of the other victims is a 16-year-old boy.

“It’s too dangerous to let my kids play around the neighborhood,” construction worker Matthew Gills, who lives across the street from the laundromat, told the Sun-Times. “That’s all it is is gangs. Gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs. I don’t even want to be in Chicago because it’s too dangerous. I’m trying to move to Texas.”

Tweets from the scene showed the laundromat surrounded by crime scene tape as police worked inside.
`
One customer said she was on her way to do her laundry when the shooting began.

“I’m sitting there looking at this lady lying on the ground, crying,” Nashon Williams told CBS. “I was just about to walk through the doors.”

The Tribune reports that at least five people were also wounded in shootings elsewhere in the city on Monday evening. And CBS says there have been 23 people wounded by gunfire and seven killed in shootings since Friday.

yankeefan yankeefan
Jun '14

Oh Emily........ Yes, Switzerland has lots of guns but......"All I know is that my cousin by marriage is from Switzerland where EVERYONE can (and does) own a gun -- even kids as young as 8 can carry. You can have them in school, in restaurants, the library, the market, at the beach" -- everyone and everywhere........not likely.

Here's the truth Emily.........

The US holds the gun ownership record with about 89 guns per 100 residents; the Swiss ---- 46. Sure EVERYONE can, but not everyone does --- busted. 29% of the Swiss homes have guns ---- US = 43%. 10% of the Swiss homes have handguns --- US = 18%.

By law, in Switzerland, at 18 you can own up to three guns, with a background check and government permit. It's a "may issue" permit. Bolt-action, singles shots, antiques, are exempt. Airsoft, imitations, and clones are not exempt. Serial numbers are mandatory. Automatics and some other models are prohibited. Most enter the militia and are issued guns which they may keep and keep at home.

Yes, the Swiss start shooting at age 8, target shooting is the national sport.

There is a ban on concealed carry. To carry loaded firearms, a "may issue" permit is needed and generally is only offered to security personnel. Open carry is only allowed for direct transport from home to shooting location; you can not legally carry except to transport without valid purpose. Ammo must be separate from gun.

Since 2008, all militia ammunition is centrally stored. Ammunition sold at firing ranges must be used at firing ranges.

So, the Swiss have a lot of guns. And they treat their guns responsibly for militia protection and for sport. Shooting contests are an important part of Swiss life so guns are everywhere, shooting contests are everywhere, and the transport law is loosely enforced so one might see guns on coat racks at the local eatery. But they are probably unloaded.

The Swiss also have increasing gun violence en mass. In 2001, 15 died when a gunman cut loose in the Swiss assembly. In 2/2013, four died at a mass murder outside a Lucerne factory. Their suicide by gun rate is high and most murders, especially domestic squabbles are conducted by gun.

But the bottom line is the Swiss culture does not accept guns as a problem solver but more important, the Swiss do not accept violence as a solution as it is embraced by the US. Sure, when violence occurs in Switzerland, chances are a gun will be used, but unlike the US, the violence occurs at a much lower rate.

Again, the gun is not the problem, the root cause is the acceptance and use of violence to solve problems. However, once the decision is made to use violence, the gun is the preferred easy, efficient, and effective tool to get the job done --- in the US or Switzerland.

Emily, try this for the truth about Swiss guns and gun violence: http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2013/jan/06/facebook-posts/facebook-posting-says-gun-rich-swiss-have-lowest-f/

mistergoogle mistergoogle
Jun '14

Darrin - Sounds like fun!

I'd love to go to Knob Creek for their machine gun shoot, but $700 would barely scratch the surface there... The mini-gun ammo can cost about $1 per round and it fires anywhere from 1,000 to 4,000 rounds per minute. You do the math ;)

This is what recreation in America *should* look like...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM-6-dhL0q4

You think the machine guns sounds fast at first... the mini-gun makes them all seem like bolt actions in comparison...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0_Zf7LUR_U

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jun '14

"Not even close to a complete list, or a solution...but suggesting the solution is that we should ALL pack a weapon is simply lunacy."

First problem is your first statement about "not being close"... which means you will just want to continue to pile on more and more and more controls, when the 2nd Amendment is very clear that no infringement is permitted.

Second, I never said that everyone should pack a weapon. If you don't want to carry a gun, don't. But those of us that wish to exercise our rights should be able to do so without government permission, ESPECIALLY since (given the current requirements) we HAVE gone through multiple background checks. If background checks work, what are you worried about?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jun '14

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people.... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.... " --George Mason

BrotherDog BrotherDog
Jun '14

BrotherDog - Great quote and a lot said in a short sentence.

And to mrgoogle - you keep admitting throughout your posts that VIOLENCE is the problem and NOT guns...so then why do you keep talking about gun control, not care about the government taking away rights, and being wishy-washy on the 2A.

Why are you not instead talking about violence and the problem with over medication of our youth (which causes violence), and why are you not discussing ways to help "control" violent behavior?

And by the way...stop using fronts for the gun control lobby as your sources. Use things like the founding fathers words. I believe them more than Politico or Wikipedia for heavens sake!

Heidi Heidi
Jun '14

Heidi, as I've mentioned before, there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce violence in this country, but because they are all *hard*, they simply lash out at the tool.

* Business/economic development in cities.
* Educational opportunities for low income/troubled youth.
* Rational approach to drug laws (eliminate the black market).
* Stricter (and actually enforced) penalties for *actual* assault against other individuals.

On the "accidental" shooting front, rather than legislate 1,000's of laws that haven't seemed to help, how about:

* Subsidized firearms training (voluntary, but free) available to everyone. Pay for it with the taxes collected on firearms sales.
* Implement Eddie Eagle (or similar) firearm safety courses for children in ALL schools.
* Promote (not demonize) youth shooting sports/competition.


None of these infringe on the 2nd Amendment and would do far more to solve violence problems, but they don't make for great sound bites which is why they are swept under the rug as viable solutions...

It's almost like the government *wants* the violence to exist. How better to justify their ever expanding power, ever increasing toys (police/SWAT), and ever increasing surveillance of the citizens?

Mark Mc. Mark Mc.
Jun '14

So Mark, and BD et al....you agree with Joe the Plumber: "It’s a tragedy.

I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But:

As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights."


As a father, and as a human being, I couldn't disagre