Blue Jersey Supports Joe Cryan and 5 round limits

[woodentoe 14]

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_VzYEeL9mdrlqli2e6XyhWL

 

Gross.

[unclenunzie 3]

Ok, keep voting for anti-gun Dems so you can have your "free" healthcare and your "social justice", How did the disarming of the people in Germany work out for the disarmed? How about Russia? China? Cambodia? Numerous countries in Africa? It's great that you want all of your free stuff and that the rich should be taxed more so you can have more free stuff (social justice), just remember, without the 2nd Amendment, you are no longer a free person. And if you don't think that all of these Dems that you LOVE so much because they will give you "social justice" don't want to disarm you, then you are a bigger fool than you already sound like.

 

Your ranting and personal insults are unconvincing. But if it helps any, Social justice does not mean "free stuff" for undeserving moochers paid by punitive taxes extorted from job-creating rich people. It means fully funding public education, ending the drug war, medicare for all, and getting corporations out of the political influence business. It means public support of basic scientific research so we can compete technologically with other countries. Rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure across the country. Creating a new Civilian Conservation Corp to suck up unemployed and disaffected youth, to teach them civic duty and the honest rewards it brings. I agree that the democrats suck on gun rights. But the republicans deny marriage equality, hamper working people's rights, ignore the poor, and suppress the right to vote wherever they can. And spare me false claims of voter fraud as justification for repressive voter ID laws. While the republicans have in the past had plenty to offer in balancing the excesses of the democrats, they have in recent years driven moderates out of the party and promoted nuttiness as a virtue. They have marginalized the legitimate interests of a large portion of the american people, and have suffered political defeats as a result.

 

A pox on both their houses, democrats and republicans alike. Between these two lamentable choices, I will take the democrats and counter their failings through support of relatively apolitical gun rights organizations. I cannot directly support republicans on gun rights alone, because of their stands on other areas that are important to me. My hope for gun rights is in the courts, which of late have been supportive.

[unclenunzie 3]

Gross.

 

Indeed. Reading that article I can just see how that would go down. Man that is just so trashy. And Corzine.... "lapse in judgement", I'll bet. He seems to be a whole bag of that.

[njpilot 671]

Your ranting and personal insults are unconvincing. But if it helps any, Social justice does not mean "free stuff" for undeserving moochers paid by punitive taxes extorted from job-creating rich people. It means fully funding public education, ending the drug war, medicare for all, and getting corporations out of the political influence business. It means public support of basic scientific research so we can compete technologically with other countries. Rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure across the country. Creating a new Civilian Conservation Corp to suck up unemployed and disaffected youth, to teach them civic duty and the honest rewards it brings. I agree that the democrats suck on gun rights. But the republicans deny marriage equality, hamper working people's rights, ignore the poor, and suppress the right to vote wherever they can. And spare me false claims of voter fraud as justification for repressive voter ID laws. While the republicans have in the past had plenty to offer in balancing the excesses of the democrats, they have in recent years driven moderates out of the party and promoted nuttiness as a virtue. They have marginalized the legitimate interests of a large portion of the american people, and have suffered political defeats as a result.

 

A pox on both their houses, democrats and republicans alike. Between these two lamentable choices, I will take the democrats and counter their failings through support of relatively apolitical gun rights organizations. I cannot directly support republicans on gun rights alone, because of their stands on other areas that are important to me. My hope for gun rights is in the courts, which of late have been supportive.

 

Well then you are using the wrong term. Social justice means something totally different to Obama and the Dems. I can agree with most of what you call "SJ".

 

I'm not a Republican, but an Independent who is fiscally conservative and a moderate on social issues. Not all Repubs are against gay marriage. If you say Repubs are "hampering workers rights", I guess you mean they aren't for unions that are destroying most of the governments in the country as well as many companies.

 

Tell you what, I'll spare you the "false claims" of voter fraud if you spare me the b.s. of voter suppression.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

Tell you what, I'll spare you the "false claims" of voter fraud if you spare me the b.s. of voter suppression.

 

Voter suppression is a myth......a bunch a crap. So called 'progressives' tried to pull the 'republican boogie man' crap here in NJ, until they realized NJ requires Gov ID to even register!! And ID must be verified before voting for the first time. Voter ID laws are ok, but only in Blue states.

[matty 810]

Whilst you may have a more coherent vision of what you think should bedone, it's way too easily hijacked by the corrupt politicians, freeloaders, treasury looters and control freaks.

It means fully funding public education,

 

Already hugely funded, with NJ having some of the highest per-pupil spending especially in cities. So what's 'fully' mean?

 

ending the drug war,

 

I agree completely 100% END IT NOW!

 

medicare for all,

 

No, Able bodied and working adults should not be on free healthcare.

 

and getting corporations out of the political influence business.

 

OK, unions, 529s, non profits, NGOs, foreign donations and super PACS too.

 

It means public support of basic scientific research so we can compete technologically with other countries.

 

This is being done, it tends to get pushed down in priority. The DoD does a lot of this actually.

 

Rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure across the country.

 

Agree, but remember 'Shovel ready'? Whatever happened to that? Corruption in action

 

Creating a new Civilian Conservation Corp to suck up unemployed and disaffected youth, to teach them civic duty and the honest rewards it brings.

 

If you haven't, read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut. (Reeks and Wrecks) The social order in that tome seems to be where we're going.

 

I agree that the democrats suck on gun rights.

 

They simply don't believe in them, period, from the highest part of the party to the lowest. You are a rare exception.

 

 

But the republicans deny marriage equality,

 

How so? Voters in many states have approved Gay Marriage. Some have not

 

hamper working people's rights,

 

Citation please

 

ignore the poor,

 

Citation please

 

and suppress the right to vote wherever they can.

 

Really need citation, please

 

 

 

 

A pox on both their houses, democrats and republicans alike.

 

 

I agree on this as well!

[unclenunzie 3]

The difference here is that once registered, after years of voting in every election, you're not going to be thrown off the voter rolls and sent a letter demanding proof of citizenship to get your voting rights back..... right before an important election. That's what our friends in Florida were doing, an important swing state. And closing down early voting hours, not supplying enough voting machines in urban and minority areas so people are on line for hours, as was the case in OH. All of this tends to suppress the vote, and targets more democrats than republicans. Intentionally.

 

I'd have the same problem with any democrat controlled states that tried to suppress republican or independent voters too. Access to political participation should be made as easy as possible. Old people, disabled people, working poor should not have to stand in lines for 8 hours to cast a ballot. No one should. NY State is a messed up example too, as they have terribly long lines and don't have early voting. The democrats aren't paragons of efficiency, but at least they spread their ineptitude onto everyone

 

I don't have a problem with ID requirements as a whole. What I object to is creating hurdles that affect people unequally, and manufacturing barriers to make the process as difficult as possible. Voting is our right as citizens, equal to any right in the BOR, and should be standardized for access and requirements across the country. On a constitutional basis, we might not be able to apply uniform rules and access to state/local level elections, but for federal elections we can and should. Further I think it is unwise in a democracy for any elected official to control the election process. We should have independent management that ensures standardized processes, equipment and access is the same everywhere.

[unclenunzie 3]

Matty I'll reply once I have enough energy. Between holidays, work, and responding to ignorant gun-control attack dogs elsewhere, I'm beat.

[njpilot 671]

Whilst you may have a more coherent vision of what you think should bedone, it's way too easily hijacked by the corrupt politicians, freeloaders, treasury looters and control freaks.

 

Agreed.

[njpilot 671]

The difference here is that once registered, after years of voting in every election, you're not going to be thrown off the voter rolls and sent a letter demanding proof of citizenship to get your voting rights back..... right before an important election. That's what our friends in Florida were doing, an important swing state. And closing down early voting hours, not supplying enough voting machines in urban and minority areas so people are on line for hours, as was the case in OH. All of this tends to suppress the vote, and targets more democrats than republicans. Intentionally.

 

I'd have the same problem with any democrat controlled states that tried to suppress republican or independent voters too. Access to political participation should be made as easy as possible. Old people, disabled people, working poor should not have to stand in lines for 8 hours to cast a ballot. No one should. NY State is a messed up example too, as they have terribly long lines and don't have early voting. The democrats aren't paragons of efficiency, but at least they spread their ineptitude onto everyone

 

I don't have a problem with ID requirements as a whole. What I object to is creating hurdles that affect people unequally, and manufacturing barriers to make the process as difficult as possible. Voting is our right as citizens, equal to any right in the BOR, and should be standardized for access and requirements across the country. On a constitutional basis, we might not be able to apply uniform rules and access to state/local level elections, but for federal elections we can and should. Further I think it is unwise in a democracy for any elected official to control the election process. We should have independent management that ensures standardized processes, equipment and access is the same everywhere.

 

I guess you're ok with "dead " people voting? Without a doubt, there have been cases of fraud no matter what the Dem spin doctors say. Maybe it was bad timing on the part of FL to do it right before the election, but you don't think voter roles should be purged of the dead or those who are no longer a resident of a state?

There was a confirmed report of someone voting in one state, then voting in another state they were registered in. Without checking and purging lists, this can and will happen. There are dishonest people everywhere, on both sides. If you are ok with this, then you are one of them (not meant as a personal attack, but how I feel). If not, then you should agree that we should know who is voting and if they are eligible, period.

 

Early voting is one thing, but 6 weeks? Just more opportunity for fraud, whether you are willing to admit it happens or not.

[unclenunzie 3]

I'm not ok with voter fraud, it is a serious crime with very serious penalties (felony 5 years, $10,000). The risk/reward factor is negative in the extreme - there is no credible incentive for the vast, vast majority of people to commit such a crime, to risk their freedom and permanent loss of rights.

 

Factually the incident level of voter fraud is very, very low, and a heavy handed approach that the disenfranchises more legitimate voters than stops frauds is a very bad idea. It doesn't rise to the level of of treason as defined in our founding documents, but it is highly unamerican.

 

How does early voting create more opportunity for fraud? The less early voting we have, the more integrity in the system? Where is the harm in opening the polls for more days - run by the same people, in the same places, in the same way? We've been having election day in the middle of a november work week for decades... There are so many people who by law cant be prevented from going to vote, but who will lose pay from work. Fine, no work no pay. But that puts unfair economic pressure of a lot of people to not exercise their right to vote. Early and weekend voting should be the standard, not just a single Tuesday that fit the needs of an agrarian culture over 150 years ago.

 

I happened to be in Florida during the early voting period this past election, and saw for myself the long lines due to cutbacks in early voting. Lee county is majority Republican, nearly 90% white and there were bitter complaints about the long lines, with old people standing in the humidity and heat waiting to get inside. It was worse in the more urban, typically democratic districts. It should be honest, open to all citizens, and take no more than an hour.

 

This might be of interest.

http://votingrights....fraud-database/

[unclenunzie 3]

Matty reply:

 

Education funding: So what's 'fully' mean? Enough to ensure that student/teacher ratios do not exceed well-established thresholds. I don't have numbers handy but we'd need to hire a lot more teachers to achieve something like 25-1 in inner cities. Don't know whats the right number but 35-1 is bad. And buildings need to be renovated to allow for proper heat/AC where needed, decent supplies and equipment.

 

Medicare for all: No, Able bodied and working adults should not be on free healthcare. Medicare is not free healthcare. It's taxpayer funded and participants pay monthly premiums. Employer based insurance is paid for by the employer and employee with monthly premiums. Here's my main point: With healthy young adults paying into medicare instead of to for-profit insurance companies , the overall pool is healthier and the costs per member go down. Right now statistically costlier people are all that are in the system (65+ and disabled). It will be cheaper for everyone in the long run if everyone who has a job is automatically in. We know that white collar jobs pay better and offer better insurance. But not everyone has these - there are many more people who work for small businesses that pay less and can't afford coverage. Like my next door neighbor who is a precision machinist. Hard working, can't afford insurance. My brother in law in texas is a regional sales manager at a car dealership. He's also hard working and proud american. They have three children, and he has health insurance. Him. Alone. They can't afford to cover anyone else and since he is the breadwinner this makes sense given the circumstances. But it means making the choice NOT to see a doctor when my sister in law or the kids are sick. With Medicare opened up, this would not be a problem and businesses would no longer have to subsidize insurance for their employees. And as a single payer, medicare system could get much lower negotiated prices for meds. I'm not saying it wouldn't cost a bit more to get everyone coverage who doesn't have it. But all you need to look at are mortality rates by country, and what their per-capita spends are for health care. We are paying a lot more, and getting a lot less in outcomes. When you think about it, it really has to turn out that way, because we have insurance companies pulling in aggregate over $200 Billion annually. What do they provide in return, management of paperwork, accounting, and obstacles to claims? The way I see it, these insurance businesses do nothing but siphon off money from everyone in the system. Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, medical equipment makers, all of these do something we need, and they have every right to profit from their efforts.

 

Denial of Marriage rights: How so? Voters in many states have approved Gay Marriage. Some have not. Civil rights should never be put up for popular vote. They should be guaranteed as fundamental, and it is unconscionable that the federal government has legalized discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens, and unconstitutionally given the states permission to do the same. Congress does not have this authority, and I expect DOMA to be struck down next summer. Regarding put to a vote, do you think that mixed race couples should have been prevented from marriage if their states people voted to make that illegal? The southern states absolutely hated this idea and made it a crime. They had no right to do this, and eventually these laws were struck down (see loving vs virginia) As to Republicans suppressing same sex marriage, you can look at all the republican states that have banned it through constitutional amendments or statute. Last I know it is about 30 of them. Lastly, here's the Republican party platform statement on the matter:

 

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/#Item1

Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage <a href="http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/#" style="outline: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(12, 51, 91); text-decoration: initial;">(Top)

The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.

As to that last sentence, sure you do. But not with equality.

[matty 810]

Matty reply:

 

Education funding: So what's 'fully' mean? Enough to ensure that student/teacher ratios do not exceed well-established thresholds. I don't have numbers handy but we'd need to hire a lot more teachers to achieve something like 25-1 in inner cities. Don't know whats the right number but 35-1 is bad. And buildings need to be renovated to allow for proper heat/AC where needed, decent supplies and equipment.

 

When I was in elementary school, class sizes were 30+. I don't have anything handy on class sizes these days, but in observation of my own children's classes its 20-25. What districts have 35 students per class? With only a single instructor? No aides, paraprofessionals, student teachers? Again, with the Abbott districts in NJ, many urban districts way outspend per pupil vice their suburban counterparts. More than enough to renovate old buildings, if the education systems in some places weren't so corrupt. that's the real crime, kids and parents that WANT to succeed are moving to suburbs for better opportunity. Throwing more money at it hasn't solved the problem of poor education in NJ.

 

Medicare for all: No, Able bodied and working adults should not be on free healthcare. Medicare is not free healthcare. It's taxpayer funded and participants pay monthly premiums.

 

Yes, I know how Medicare works but expanding it to a SPHC system will dilute it even further, to the point where there won't be worthwhile working in healthcare/pharma anymore, that will take Medicaid. Two tier health care systems (those that have money/insurance) and those who do not (Govt healthcare of all types) are a reality here in the USA and everywhere else in the world. here in the US, the first group pays and pays, because they can, to support the second group. When they no longer can pay, then the enter the 2nd group, and costs go up for the first. Till it all gets taken over by the gov't. The objective of Obamacare is 'free' single payer 'health care'. This will not mean the same quality and quantity and options we get now. Its not that they will be more expensive, its that they simply won't be there (new drugs, specialist doctors, new equipment, medical R&D, etc.)

 

Denial of Marriage rights: How so? Voters in many states have approved Gay Marriage. Some have not. Civil rights should never be put up for popular vote.

 

Conflating lack of support for gay marriage with slavery and miscengenation laws is way over the top. Civil unions, with the same legal status as marriage are available in NJ, and other places where gay marriage in that name is not yet legal. The whole complaint with equality seems to be in the name of said state sanctioned union. If you are or have been married, then you know you can have a purely religious ceremony or civil one. If you are, in fact gay, and are unhappy that the state does not name the same thing the same thing, it will be up for a vote in NJ probably in Nov 2013. Or you can even enter into a contract or will without marriage of any kind to deal with property and inheritance. I suppose we'll have to disagree on this one. I do agree with you that it will probably happen through the USA that Gay marriage will be legal, eventually.

 

[unclenunzie 3]

I never said anything about slavery, have no idea where you got that. But miscegenation laws, yeah, they match well enough. Although the state issues are a concern, such as lack of hospital visitation rights (which no legal contract can create), states are a related but different matter. But in any case, why should SS couples have to go to the expense and difficulty of artificially constructing a legal arrangement just so they can protect some of their rights and common property that simple civil marriage provides straight couples?

 

Though there are a handful of states that will provide something similar, but not equal in legal protections and responsibilities, I am mostly talking about the federal government. You are obviously not aware that legally married SS couples are denied social security death benefits by federal law, and that spousal inheritances are subject to federal income taxes - among many other issues at the federal level. Widows of straight marriages continue to collect 1/2 of their deceased spouses social security. SS widows are cut off, by federal law. Widows of straight marriages inherit tax-free. SS widows are taxed as if their spouse was a totally unrelated stranger. SS married/civil-union solders cannot get medical coverage for their spouse nor receive any spousal benefits that a straight spouse has earned. Again, the federal government treats SS spouses as if they were strangers, by law.

 

There is a huge difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. I have no concerns about religious marriage, which anyone is free to engage in, in accord with their faith of choice, and within the rules of their church. No church has ever been required to provide marriage services to SS couples in states where it is legal, and they are explicitly protected from any such requirement in law. Civil marriage is the structure which provides for legal responsibilities and benefits, and it is civil marriage that of of concern here.

 

So to be clear, Civil unions and SS marriages in states that allow them have absolutely no effect on the federal situation. At all. And its a damn shame that so-called freedom-minded people would through the law, deliberately suppress them.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

let's not forget that even Obama kicked the SS Marriage can down the roads and says it should be left up to the States to decide......

 

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1696360/president-obama-same-sex-marriage-equality.jhtml

[unclenunzie 3]

Obama went about as far as he could go politically on the matter, just before the election last November. What people don't seem to get is that the states are obligated by the constitution (article 4) thus:

 

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

 

So a couple who got legally married in las vegas also legally is married everywhere else they might happen to be in the United States, because all states are required to recognize the legal marriages from every other state, in theory. BUT.......... In 1996 the congress created a new federal law (signed by clinton), which defined legal marriage (not religious marriage) in the familiar one man one woman, with the intended effect to not recognize SS marriages from Hawaii, where there was a court case won there. Thus no federal recognition of SS marriage. In addition, the law specifically exempted the states from article 4 full faith and credit requirements, for just this specific purpose. Now reading the clear text of article 4, many including me have come to the conclusion that congress lacks the power to exempt a state, and that only an amendment would provide that power. But in any event, there are several cases have been already decided against the law at the appeals level, and now two cases are before the SCOTUS. The two lawyers who opposed each other in Bush Vs Gore have teamed up and will argue the case against the law.

 

Personally, I feel congress violates the constitution here as they have in abusing the commerce clause authority, which is the root of their legal power to regulate firearms across state lines. I do believe national gun control is unconstitutional at least in the GCA of 1968. But even the Heller 5 won't go near that.

[quikz 34]

Ha Ha Ha....

 

NJ is just FULL of apologist radical liberal leftist 'progressive' elistist bleeding heart utopianist democrats. And they, are the mid pack democrats in NJ. Compare them to democrats in most of the rest of the country and you are now looking at radical, communist socialist totalitarian wanabes out to terrorize any Right in the US Constitution with the 2A targetted first, then all the rest til they have achieved their ultimate Utopianist Fanatasy. Just look at history for your proofs. This lil USA only been in existence couple hundred years. Now we see our rights and our powers eroded in a few decades. Other Great Civilisations took millenia to fall. Guess we are fast tracked into it. People are stupid beyond belief.

[mipafox 438]

[Joe] Cryan's proposals do make sense, and any legitimate gun owner should sign on and support these initiatives which will protect, not impinge, on, their interests

 

 

 

Send him over to my town if he wants a very fast lesson of my "interests" as an 'illegitimate gun owner.'