Email from ANJRPC: LEGISLATIVE WARNING FROM EVAN NAPPEN

[GlassFanta 0]

I do believe we can eliminate senseless killing by filtering the undesirables.

 

And this, right here, is the root of all gun control.

[bhunted 887]

Thats your response? Why not explain to me what is sensible? Or do you live in Mayberry? Explain to me what I pointed out to you as a potential scenario? What do you suggest? I'm open minded... Explain it to me... You think this response answers anything? Sorry, but I don't live in a cave!

 

 

And this, right here, is the root of all gun control.

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[Soju 153]

Here's a fun activity I like to play. We're gonna play a little game. It's called "Gun Forum Cognitive Dissonance"

 

1. Do you believe that the second amendment, "shall not be infringed" as is written in the constitution?

 

2. If so, then that makes all gun laws, including the GCA, NFA, Brady Bill etc. invalid and unconstitutional, correct?

 

3. Then, if the GCA/NFA etc. are all invalid, and an individual does something such as, buy a handgun out of state, obtain a gun with a criminal record, carry without a permit, hack a dozen inches off his shotgun barrel, how can you say they are a criminal? How can you say it is an illegal gun?

 

4. Therefore, you are left with two options. Either stop using language such as "criminals get guns illegally" or stop saying that you "believe in the second amendment as is written" because, well, you don't!

 

Just like the founders never said anything about muskets vs. full autos, they never said anything about "criminals" or interstate purchases or "mentally ill" or any of those things either.

 

Regardless of what I or most people believe in principle, or even on constitutional grounds, laws, codes, and statutes ARE enforced on those things you mentioned. The constitutionality of them is moot for practical purposes. So if you do those things, you are considered a criminal even if on principle, you shouldn't be.

 

Me personally, I would love to eliminate everything you mentioned in point 2, and allow for everything you mentioned in point 3, with only one exception. I understand and can agree with preventing violent convicted criminals from lawfully purchasing firearms, but also understand the opposite. I feel this does make sense, however it is also moot. They can get them anyways. To be fair, these people I am referring to, should be in jail anyways which would render that pointless, but that is another story.

 

In fact, I think the best solution to that (criminals being allowed to buy firearms) is in personal responsibility. Keep the NICS system. Open it up to individuals and not just FFL's and other selected groups. Just don't mandate or require its use. That would not be an infringement in any way, and would allow people the choice. In a free market society, you have the option to sell or not sell something to somebody. If you are allowed this option, and not restricted buy it, I bet dealers and individuals who right now, cannot legally sell to 'prohibited' people, would STILL not sell to them.

 

Having read your last post (below mine), my above belief would still allow those who made a mistake 30 years ago, that labels them a felon, the right to keep and bear arms. Because the discretion would be that of the seller. Contrary to some people's beliefs, some people can change, and others can sometimes see that..

[GlassFanta 0]

Thats your response? Why not explain to me what is sensible? Or do you live in Mayberry? Explain to me what I pointed out to you as a potential scenario? What do you suggest? I'm open minded... Explain it to me... You think this response answers anything? Sorry, but I don't live in a cave!

 

All gun control is to filter out undesirables. Some, like you, think "gang bangers" are the undesirables. Others think certain types of guns, or certain people, up to and including everyone without a badge, are undesirables. You are no different than an "anti" - you are simply not as far along down the path.

 

I believe in RKBA. Who is to say who is or isn't worthy of that right?

 

And even if someone does felony time, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 years later they still shouldn't have the right to defend themselves? Why should a 1 year sentence follow someone for life? In our world of "mental health care" where all they do is get people hopped up on expensive pills that list suicide and strange dreams as side effects to feed a multi billion dollar industry, who is to say who is or is not insane?

 

Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

I really don't give a shit if you are scared of true freedom. If you don't like it, go somewhere else, like, maybe England or New Jersey?

[gunguy1960 2]

Which is better, to have them slowly chip away at us, or to have the show down? Pass the total ban, now what, leo, take sides?

[bhunted 887]

At this point, I can give a ratz arse what you think either. Because unlike you, I live in the real world. "Who is to say who is" you mention... Hah! Where are your solutions?

You have not given me one single answer to the dilemma at hand. You seem to want to give the rights back to everyone. But you also fail to realize that we will never get back 100% of the original 2nd amend. as it stood when written. It has been hampered so many ways for so long that it's in a state of never turning back. So if you feel I'm scared of true freedom, that is absurd. What an asinine thing to say... Maybe you just need a reality check. I'm done arguing with you cartoons... Keep fighting your way and I'll fight my way. To think it the 2nd will ever go back to day one is only a dream in the feeble minded. It's a give and take world folks and it won't change any time soon!

 

Have a good day...

 

 

All gun control is to filter out undesirables. Some, like you, think "gang bangers" are the undesirables. Others think certain types of guns, or certain people, up to and including everyone without a badge, are undesirables. You are no different than an "anti" - you are simply not as far along down the path.

 

I believe in RKBA. Who is to say who is or isn't worthy of that right?

 

And even if someone does felony time, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 years later they still shouldn't have the right to defend themselves? Why should a 1 year sentence follow someone for life? In our world of "mental health care" where all they do is get people hopped up on expensive pills that list suicide and strange dreams as side effects to feed a multi billion dollar industry, who is to say who is or is not insane?

 

Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

I really don't give a shit if you are scared of true freedom. If you don't like it, go somewhere else, like, maybe England or New Jersey?

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[JrzyGuy30 0]

Which is better, to have them slowly chip away at us, or to have the show down? Pass the total ban, now what, leo, take sides?

 

I think a national showdown will yield a better result for America than a slow sleepy unnoticed deprivation of second amendment rights... My 0.02 though!

[GlassFanta 0]

Hah! Where are your solutions?

 

The second amendment. If you are scared of dangerous people, then defend yourself from them with those guns you own, coward.

[mipafox 438]

At this point, I can give a ratz arse what you think either. Because unlike you, I live in the real world. "Who is to say who is" you mention... Hah! Where are your solutions?

You have not given me one single answer to the dilemma at hand.

 

Solutions to what? What dilemma?

[H.M. Murdock 0]

Before this gets locked I'd just like to say....

 

[johnp 45]

If you are an American citizen and you can't be trusted to keep and bear arms, you should be either jailed or institutionalized.

 

Why does an "ex" felon lose his 2nd Amendment rights but none of his other rights?

[Soju 153]

But you also fail to realize that we will never get back 100% of the original 2nd amend. as it stood when written. To think it the 2nd will ever go back to day one is only a dream in the feeble minded. It's a give and take world folks and it won't change any time soon!

 

Have a good day...

 

So wait, you are feeble minded if you believe something can change, but you acknowledge things have changed? I'm lost. Did you just call yourself feeble minded? Seems like an odd thing to do in a debate.

 

Would you want to fear gang bangers all armed legally?

 

Are legally armed gang bangers more or less scary than illegally armed gang bangers?

 

 

 

If you are an American citizen and you can't be trusted to keep and bear arms, you should be either jailed or institutionalized.

 

Why does an "ex" felon lose his 2nd Amendment rights but none of his other rights?

 

Because guns are bad...mmkay...

 

No idea really. I hit on this earlier too.

[NicePants 58]

If you are referring to me, then explain something to me. I/we know what the def of the 2nd amend is... We also know times have changed. If you can have your way and have no rules at all. Anyone can buy a gun... Nut jobs, illegal aliens, under age children, alcoholics, etc.... What do you think would happen to people in this country? If we all had guns, would your answer to total freedom entail shooting anyone you deemed inferior? Would you want to fear gang bangers all armed legally? I'm all for our rights not being infringed, but I do believe we can eliminate senseless killing by filtering the undesirables. All the arguments here lead to know reasonable outcome in anyone's eyes obviously because all in all, there are no solutions to your ideals.

I'd like to see every law abiding citizen be allowed to own a gun if they desired. But we do not live in little towns population of 26... We are no longer just Mayberry RFD... There has to be some sensible means of letting law abiding citizens keep their rights but the nuts not....

 

 

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

 

In terms of Constitutionality, we either have unlimited rights or none at all. The idea that the system can remain in flux forever and sustain itself is laughable. At one point, one side or the other will take the high ground and those rights will start heading towards absolute freedom or absolute destruction. It's at that point that you'll have to ask yourself: Which is the greater evil, the people, or the government? An endless tug of war on the matter of the second amendment will prove fruitless in the long run. One side or the other will win, and then we'll have to live with what we have or restart the entire system, at which point the process will begin fresh once again. To quote a popular movie: This will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

[mcbethr 42]

Before this gets locked I'd just like to say....

 

 

Nobody puts Baby in the corner.

[jonfoxx 4]

+1

I'll be heading to the Carolinas if this passes; I'm already half way out of the state but this would get me to move A.S.A.P.

 

....Na... I can't say it... sorry...

 

Just LOCK IT before its gets ugly MAKS!

[Worn_Holster 2]

Me thinks ugly has already visited...

 

Christie already said that NJ has enough gun laws, and if he backs any trampling of 2A now here in NJ, he won't have any chance to go to the White House, the conservatives just won't back that kind of crap. I have no great fondness for him and his record on gun control, but he just doesn't have much wiggle room here. He might have to throw the left a bone, but I can't beleive that he could possibly back this legislation.

[Foyt20 0]

Well, the last one does happen.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Foyt20 0]

 

Yeah, this. The mental health system needs a massive boost, but what they're suggesting is an invasion of privacy and meant as gun control rather than mental health reform. How about mental health checks and a home inspection for exercising your freedom of speech? Religion? How about before you get a fair trial?

 

Meant to quote this with my reply above.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[mipafox 438]

Me thinks ugly has already visited...

 

Christie already said that NJ has enough gun laws, and if he backs any trampling of 2A now here in NJ, he won't have any chance to go to the White House, the conservatives just won't back that kind of crap.

 

 

 

Very good point. Conservatives didn't let Romney run for president specifically because he signed an Assault Weapons Ban and created Obamacare.

[Worn_Holster 2]

Ugly is back, go troll PAFOA

[M4BGRINGO 139]

Which is the greater evil, the people, or the government?

 

That's like asking which is brighter, the sun or a black hole.

 

By far, the goverment.

[Prax 8]

NJ can bleep my bleep. Helllllllllooooooo, TX! I'll spit on my last NJ road-sign on my way out.

[GlassFanta 0]

Ugly is back, go troll PAFOA

 

Why? Because people like him believe in actual freedom and shatter your safe, incorrect narrative?

[H.M. Murdock 0]

Mipafox does have an annoying habit of being perfectly logical all the time.

 

Keeping it simple is the key to consistency!

[ruger9 0]

If this passes, because of my wife I won't be able to leave NJ (unless I leave w/o her), so instead I'll be taking a boating trip with all my guns.

 

And oh yeah.... MOLON LABE.

[Bob2222 317]

Very good point. Conservatives didn't let Romney run for president specifically because he signed an Assault Weapons Ban and created Obamacare.

 

How did that work out?

 

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

 

I don't expect to see Christie on the ticket in the #1 spot in 2016.

 

Maybe paired with Martinez or Rubio and then in 2024. He'll be 62. The Naval Observatory route is a very likely path to the White House.

[mikelets456 78]

If you are referring to me, then explain something to me. I/we know what the def of the 2nd amend is... We also know times have changed. If you can have your way and have no rules at all. Anyone can buy a gun... Nut jobs, illegal aliens, under age children, alcoholics, etc.... What do you think would happen to people in this country? If we all had guns, would your answer to total freedom entail shooting anyone you deemed inferior? Would you want to fear gang bangers all armed legally? I'm all for our rights not being infringed, but I do believe we can eliminate senseless killing by filtering the undesirables. All the arguments here lead to know reasonable outcome in anyone's eyes obviously because all in all, there are no solutions to your ideals.

I'd like to see every law abiding citizen be allowed to own a gun if they desired. But we do not live in little towns population of 26... We are no longer just Mayberry RFD... There has to be some sensible means of letting law abiding citizens keep their rights but the nuts not....

 

 

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

 

The NUTS always make up the rules for the law abiding...why? What are the nuts, .0005%? But here is the main point...THE NUTS WILL ALWAYS GET THE GUNS!!!!. Honestly, is this something a college professor or PBS programming taught you. I'm going to post a list of the most dangerous countries in the world...and you know what? Guns are ILLEGAL there! Once again, you know why? BECAUSE THE NUTS WILL ALWAYS GET THEIR GUNS!!!!! Guess who is left defenseless because the NUTS WILL ALWAYS GET THEIR GUNS? Me, my family and every law abiding citizen. So the .00005% now dictate rule in the country...does that sound better?

 

Good stuff to know before a cruise, vacation or retiring.

 

Have you been there without knowing this?

 

 

 

From the World Health Organization:

 

 

 

The latest Murder Statistics for the world:

 

Murders per 100,000 citizens

 

Honduras 91.6

 

El Salvador 69.2

 

Cote d'lvoire 56.9

 

Jamaica 52.2

 

Venezuela 45.1

 

Belize 41.4

 

US Virgin Islands 39.2

 

Guatemala 38.5

 

Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2

 

Zambia 38.0

 

Uganda 36.3

 

Malawi 36.0

 

Lesotho 35.2

 

Trinidad and Tobago 35.2

 

Colombia 33.4

 

South Africa 31.8

 

Congo 30.8

 

Central African Republic 29.3

 

Bahamas 27.4

 

Puerto Rico 26.2

 

Saint Lucia 25.2

 

Dominican Republic 25.0

 

Tanzania 24.5

 

Sudan 24.2

 

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9

 

Ethiopia 22.5

 

Guinea 22.5

 

Dominica 22.1

 

Burundi 21.7

 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7

 

Panama 21.6

 

Brazil 21.0

 

Equatorial Guinea 20.7

 

Guinea-Bissau 20.2

 

Kenya 20.1

 

Kyrgyzstan 20.1

 

Cameroon 19.7

 

Montserrat 19.7

 

Greenland 19.2

 

Angola 19.0

 

Guyana 18.6

 

Burkina Faso 18.0

 

Eritrea 17.8

 

Namibia 17.2

 

Rwanda 17.1

 

Mexico 16.9

 

Chad 15.8

 

Ghana 15.7

 

Ecuador 15.2

 

North Korea 15.2

 

Benin 15.1

 

Sierra Leone 14.9

 

Mauritania 14.7

 

Botswana 14.5

 

Zimbabwe 14.3

 

Gabon 13.8

 

Nicaragua 13.6

 

French Guiana 13.3

 

Papua New Guinea 13.0

 

Swaziland 12.9

 

Bermuda 12.3

 

Comoros 12.2

 

Nigeria 12.2

 

Cape Verde 11.6

 

Grenada 11.5

 

Paraguay 11.5

 

Barbados 11.3

 

Togo 10.9

 

Gambia 10.8

 

Peru 10.8

 

Myanmar 10.2

 

Russia 10.2

 

Liberia 10.1

 

Costa Rica 10.0

 

Nauru 9.8

 

Bolivia 8.9

 

Mozambique 8.8

 

Kazakhstan 8.8

 

Senegal 8.7

 

Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7

 

Mongolia 8.7

 

British Virgin Islands 8.6

 

Cayman Islands 8.4

 

Seychelles 8.3

 

Madagascar 8.1

 

Indonesia 8.1

 

Mali 8.0

 

Pakistan 7.8

 

Moldova 7.5

 

Kiribati 7.3

 

Guadeloupe 7.0

 

Haiti 6.9

 

Timor-Leste 6.9

 

Anguilla 6.8

 

Antigua and Barbuda 6.8

 

Lithuania 6.6

 

Uruguay 5.9

 

Philippines 5.4

 

Ukraine 5.2

 

Estonia 5.2

 

Cuba 5.0

 

Belarus 4.9

 

Thailand 4.8

 

Suriname 4.6

 

Laos 4.6

 

Georgia 4.3

 

Martinique 4.2

 

And

 

The United States 4.2

 

ALL the countries above America have 100% gun bans

[Malsua 1,422]

ALL the countries above America have 100% gun bans

 

Completely untrue about Honduras.

[Soju 153]

Completely untrue about Honduras.

 

As well as a bunch of others. I saw at least a half a dozen other countries that I know this to be untrue about off hand, and I'm sure there are a bunch more. This is a pro-gun forum, not sure why one would feel the need to lie about that.

[Duppie 73]

Having lived in Trinidad,Barbados and Jamaica briefly, I can tell you that guns are not banned 100% but heavily regulated. All firearms are supposedly registered with stiff penlites for committing a crime with a unregistered one.Long guns have to be warranted and proven used for hunting, protecting livestock and gun club members.Pistols are owned and licensed to the politically connected or a few merchants that can show need but very few qualify.

That being said Trinidad and Jamaica is awash with hand guns and have been since the 80's ,most smuggled in from Venezuela and Brazil.