Jump to content
Cemeterys Gun Blob

Gov Chrisite could announce his gun control package tomorrow

Recommended Posts

Well, the wait might be over, Gov Christie could announce his gun control outline as soon as tomorrow.

 

The governor declined to answer a question asked by a reporter Thursday during a Long Branch news conference about how he felt about the way federal lawmakers voted earlier this week on a gun control bill in Washington, D.C.

 

Christie, before quickly moving on to the next question, said he would state his position Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how much he wants to run for president in 2016. If he signs any of the bills into law, he would have quite an uphill battle to get the republican nomination. I'm hoping he only signs the "minor" ones, such as the bill requiring gun safety training for FID applicants, etc....in order to placate the mindless liberals and make it appear that he's doing "something".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends on how much he wants to run for president in 2016. If he signs any of the bills into law, he would have quite an uphill battle to get the republican nomination. I'm hoping he only signs the "minor" ones, such as the bill requiring gun safety training for FID applicants, etc....in order to placate the mindless liberals and make it appear that he's doing "something".

 

Christie isn't going to be nominated. I really don't know why everyone still holds that notion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how much he wants to run for president in 2016. If he signs any of the bills into law, he would have quite an uphill battle to get the republican nomination. I'm hoping he only signs the "minor" ones, such as the bill requiring gun safety training for FID applicants, etc....in order to placate the mindless liberals and make it appear that he's doing "something".

 

I'm sometimes amazed at the stupid comments people make but I'd never support a speaking class as a requirement to exercise a civil right such as the freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you guys will think Im nuts but I'm honestly hoping for a Christie nomination. I think a moderate such as himself who can win broad appeal among independants is our best chance of a republican president in 2016. Hence why I'm hoping for him to come out swinging and veto every bill that makes it through the senate. But that's probably a longshot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm sometimes amazed at the stupid comments people make but I'd never support a speaking class as a requirement to exercise a civil right such as the freedom of speech.

 

I don't personally support this bill. I agree with you...Just saying if we can get away with just a relatively minor bill signed into law such as gun safety training, we'd be fortunate overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you guys will think Im nuts but I'm honestly hoping for a Christie nomination. I think a moderate such as himself who can win broad appeal among independants is our best chance of a republican president in 2016. Hence why I'm hoping for him to come out swinging and veto every bill that makes it through the senate. But that's probably a longshot.

 

HAHA. worked so well the last 2 elections. That's been the same exact justification for McCain and Romney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised at just how many people support 'training' in order to engage in one's civil rights.......guess they haven't read about 'Emily Gets Her Gun', and all the hoops she had to got through with regards to getting training in DC. You actually think NJ will allow John and Jane Public to simply call up any instructor and take a class?

 

And stop with Christie getting the nomination....Romney was a 'moderate', and look what happened to him....Christie will NEVER get the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to remind everyone that Christie has ALWAYS been anti-gun. The only thing that makes him a Republican is the ( R ) next to his name. He has a better chance of being nominated if he changed party's. Christie is the last person I want nominated to get us out of this hole. I'm almost positive that if he announces any gun control, that it won't be good. Buckle up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All im saying is that the demographics of the country are changing and its going to be really difficult to get a "true conservative" elected as a result. Christie can win over the coveted Independent vote. Trust me the last thing i want to see is another democrat elected in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "independent" vote is a sham. There is no such thing as this amorphous group of voters that swing from election to election. All there is are two blocs, and one of the two becomes less enthused than the other to actually get out and vote.

 

Trust me, the last two candidates were chosen under that exact prescription "they can appeal to those middle-of-the-road people!" instead what happens is they fail to excite a solid base and they are the ones who in turn don't show up.

 

Think about it: how many people do you actually know that legitimately vote for an R today and D tomorrow, and back again? That's absurd. Anyone who thinks they do that and are "enlightened" are morons. As far as I'm concerned there are no good democrats and maybe 2 or 3 good republicans. the rest are forgettable.

 

Reagan (ran as, key word) an ardent neo-conservative. He was unapologetic. He crushed his opponent.

 

This coming from a person who is sympathetic to libertarianism: Moderates are a farce. Republicans and democrats are a farce (to me you are either a statist or proponent of liberty, the party labels are just nonsense) But the fact is republicans lose because every time they castrate themselves trying to sound like compassionate progressives, and that is not in fact what their base and libertarian outliers want to hear. They haven't seemed to learn their lesson in 10 years, except briefly in 2010 when they latched on to this "tea party" movement and saw wild gains. They would be smart to continue down that path of liberty and reject large government and statism at every turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "independent" vote is a sham. There is no such thing as this amorphous group of voters that swing from election to election. All there is are two blocs, and one of the two becomes less enthused than the other to actually get out and vote.

 

Trust me, the last two candidates were chosen under that exact prescription "they can appeal to those middle-of-the-road people!" instead what happens is they fail to excite a solid base and they are the ones who in turn don't show up.

 

Think about it: how many people do you actually know that legitimately vote for an R today and D tomorrow, and back again? That's absurd. Anyone who thinks they do that and are "enlightened" are morons. As far as I'm concerned there are no good democrats and maybe 2 or 3 good republicans. the rest are forgettable.

Z

Reagan (ran as, key word) an ardent neo-conservative. He was unapologetic. He crushed his opponent.

 

This coming from a person who is sympathetic to libertarianism: Moderates are a farce. Republicans and democrats are a farce (to me you are either a statist or proponent of liberty, the party labels are just nonsense) But the fact is republicans lose because every time they castrate themselves trying to sound like compassionate progressives, and that is not in fact what their base and libertarian outliers want to hear. They haven't seemed to learn their lesson in 10 years, except briefly in 2010 when they latched on to this "tea party" movement and saw wild gains. They would be smart to continue down that path of liberty and reject large government and statism at every turn.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sometimes amazed at the stupid comments people make but I'd never support a speaking class as a requirement to exercise a civil right such as the freedom of speech.

 

Why? That would be a great idea - people like Pelosi and Reid would not longer be allowed to speak without taking that class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both wife and I are registered independents. I'm not sure if my wife has voted for a Democrat, at least recently. I voted for McGovern -- since the alternative was Richard Nixon, and Nixon wanted to get me killed. (The Libertarian Presidential candidate, John Hospers, received one electoral vote in 1972 when Roger MacBride, a Republican elector pledged to Nixon, cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket. So my perceptions about Nixon were not unique.) I don't think the Democrat party has presented a plausible alternative since 1972 -- well, really, not even then -- but hope springs eternal. I'd be a Libertarian, but belonging to a Libertarian Party seems somehow self-contradictory. "Independent" is the #1 party affiliation in NJ and I think there are still a fair number who switch across party lines. Look at the vote totals in the various races in different elections.

 

There were econometric models that predicted McCain's loss in 2008 and predicted 2012 was a coin toss. Romney as an out-of-touch patrician who ran an awful campaign (the Republican GOTV program exploded on election day) was probably a bigger factor than that he was too moderate.

 

Christie is 50 years old. If he's reelected in November, I don't think he wants to retire to become president of a second-tier NJ liberal arts college at the age of 55. By his own admission, he has his sights set on national office.

 

If Christie signs these bills, he has a huge problem with Republican primary voters in the 40 states that are 2A friendly. If he vetoes them, he at least needs to explain it to NJ soccer moms and Volvo Republicans for November. It's a fine line that he needs to walk. I don't think Christie can do much more than support legislation involving mental health, drugs / alcohol and schools. That's why he waited for Sweeney's move and his "NJ Safe" task force report. If Chris Christie doesn't veto any seriously anti-2A stuff that manages to make its way through the NJ Senate, he's gone with the red state Republican voters. He needs to be able to present an alternative that makes more sense than the one that the gun-grabbers are selling.

 

Sweeney has a conundrum here, too. If he passes bills that are too anti-2A he has a big problem with his own voters.

 

Christie does have problems with conservative Republicans and the T.E.A. Party so anything he vetoes gives him cred with that part of the Republican Party. I don't know if the Democrats are looking at it that way. I don't even know if Christie is looking at it that way. It could be a sort of "Pascal's Gamble" on his part, if by some chance he manages to turn off enough Volvo Republicans and soccer moms to lose in NJ this November he could instantly become a Republican front runner for 2016.

 

He's been a very successful lawyer and politician, so I'm confident that he can walk the fine line -- if he wants to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I half agree with the safety class. I hate having to pass a class to exercise a right. But I've seen people that down right scare me with guns

 

I respectfully disagree, Shawn. It's no different than a literacy test to vote.

 

Yes, I've seen people do unsafe thing. I've even done some unsafe things and I have 30 years of experience. I think the degradation of our rights ought weighs any benefits from training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for some one to explain to me how a training requirement is unconstitutional given Section 8 :

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie will NOT get the R prez nom in 2016. No way, no how, never, fugebbabout it.

MAYYYYBEEE VP. Or angle for a cabinet job and be supportive of whoever will be losing to Hillary. That's right, Hillary Clinton, unless she croaks, will be the Dem nominee in 2016 and she will win. End of story. I guarantee it. I was 100% right about Romney being a loser from the very beginning. I am 100% sure that there will be another Clinton in the WH in Jan 2017, barring her incapacity to do the job. Prepare accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Christie campaigned in 2009, the NJOA endorsed him as the outdoorsmen's friend, and promoted him on many N.J. hunting and fishing online forums. Yet Chris has teetered on the fence for his first term, not saying much that's positive in the defense of gun owners or their 2A rights. Based on that, I suspect what he will do tomorrow won't be a surprise to many, and his decision will be "what's best for New Jersey."

 

From the Rescue Our Outdoors Rally - 2009

NJOAROOR_zpscdee27c0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for some one to explain to me how a training requirement is unconstitutional given Section 8 :

 

There is a difference between having a training requirement for possession outside the home, like when concealed carrying or when hunting, and having a training requirement to merely purchase a firearm or for mere possession in the home. NJ already has a training requirement to get a NJ Permit to Carry and to get a Huntiing License. While training is always a good idea, I don't see how anyone could conclude that it is constitutional for a governement to say that you may not protect your own life in your own home with a gun unless you satisfy a training requirement first, or that you must train with something that you don't own yet in order to own it. Don't you need it first to train with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I don't buy that line of reasoning. A training requirement is either constitutional or it isn't. Weather you carry a firearm outside the home or not, it will sometime leave going to a range or some other place to be fired for practice, potentially exposing other people to ineptitude. Even inside a home if used improperly it can affect your neighbors. As for how do you train without one, how does every new driver learn how to drive if they don't have a car? This is a problem we have a solution for, to say nothing that it would create opportunities for lots of small business trainers. Hey, it's a jobs program!

 

Understand what I'm saying, I rather there not be such a law, but I can't see how such a law would be unconstitutional and maybe we need to focus more on the laws that would be. By all means, we should oppose it, but let's not fall in the hypocrisy mindset we accuse the anti-gunners about. We can dislike firearms IDs but we can't then grumble about requiring voter IDs, we can't say that the militia is everyone in the 2A but the say that section 8 doesn't apply to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...