Pythagoras 2 Posted April 21, 2013 +1 for a third party Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted April 21, 2013 +1 for a third party Realistically, I'd like a second party. I can hardly tell the difference between the ones we have now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duppie 73 Posted April 21, 2013 Realistically, I'd like a second party. I can hardly tell the difference between the ones we have now. Exactly....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pythagoras 2 Posted April 21, 2013 Realistically, I'd like a second party. I can hardly tell the difference between the ones we have now. Exactly....... ....yeah.....you guys are right Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted April 21, 2013 http://youtu.be/HfvvYuO6zHM Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob2222 317 Posted April 22, 2013 There are (maybe) 10 states where your vote actually matters in Presidential elections, and New Jersey isn't one of them. There may be some NJ state and congressional districts that aren't so gerrymandered that it doesn't matter but I don't live in one. After what happened to Romney last year, it's obvious the Republicans need an aggressive A-hole for the #2 spot. Whoever the Republicans nominate can look "Presidential". Christie can look/sound/act like Tony Soprano. He thinks he's going for the #1 spot, but has about as much chance of it in 2016 as Cuomo has on the Democrat ticket after his 7-round limit. In NJ, he needs to walk a fine line between not scaring the soccer moms and Volvo Republicans enough to lose in November, AND he needs avoid having Louisiana, Texas and Florida Republican primary voters going nuts at the thought of him as the #2 guy on the ticket in 2016. As he's a successful lawyer and successful politician, I'm sure that he can do it. He's younger than he looks. He'll be 54 in 2016 and still only 62 in 2024. Younger than Hillary. I doubt he wants to retire to become president of a second-tier New Jersey liberal arts college at the age of 55 when he leaves the NJ governor's job in 2018. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arizona 0 Posted April 22, 2013 It's official, Chris Christie is a gun grabber! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnp 45 Posted April 22, 2013 So did Christie actually announce anything or what? I read the first page or two and all I saw was people arguing about Christie2016. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PDM 91 Posted April 22, 2013 Complain all you want and start all of the third, fourth and fifth parties you want. You are not going to do any better than Christie in NJ. Can you name a single NJ governor in recent or not so recent memory who was pro-gun, or even better on guns than Christie? Now, can you name any NJ governors who were worse on guns than Christie? Corzine, McGreevy, Whitman, Florio .... If any of these people were in office now, we'd be facing the almost certain passage of all of the Assembly anti-gun measures, if not more. I'm no saying any of us should be happy about a .50 cal ban or additional FID hassles, nor am I saying that we shouldn't vocally oppose them. But a does of realism is called for. Christie did an impressive job of walking a tightrope (insert joke of choice here). Most of the headlines I've seen tout his new anti-violence package and talk about him "strengthening NJ's already strict gun laws" when in reality we all know his proposals amount to virtually no meaningful change at all. He's deflected much of the criticism from the rabidly anti-gun Democrats in this state by appearing to take action (and he actually did take some sensible action on the mental health front) while proposing a change to NJ law that will impact a sum total of the roughly 10 people in the state who own Barrett rifles. You don't like Christie? He's not Conservative enough for you? Think he's a "RINO". Fine, move to Texas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Melgamatic 66 Posted April 22, 2013 while proposing a change to NJ law that will impact a sum total of the roughly 10 people in the state who own Barrett rifles. This quote should be tattooed on the forehead of everyone when their .308 rifles are taken from them in two years. A lot more than 10 of us own 50BMG rifles, and since they are pretty much alone in never having been used in a crime in NJ, you are really putting your own rights in danger when you throw us under the bus. Rather than 50BMG rifles, let's ban 45cal handguns. No crimes have been committed with 50BMGs, can you say that for your cop-killer 45's? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueLineFish 615 Posted April 22, 2013 The main reason to fight it is that fact that it is a pointless law. We already have enough of those. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob2222 317 Posted April 22, 2013 Adjectives I caught about the Barrett .50 BMG ban were "new" and "semiautomatic". I didn't hear exactly what Christie said. I don't know if this means bolt-action Barrett .50 BMGs would be OK and current owners would be OK (as with NJ's original AWB registration), or if it means the reporter or editor (or even Christie) was embellishing it with adjectives instead of saying "big, black, ugly, scary" Barrett. I don't support it in the least, but it's less painful for me personally than saying "Governor Buono". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fred2 367 Posted April 22, 2013 This quote should be tattooed on the forehead of everyone when their .308 rifles are taken from them in two years. A lot more than 10 of us own 50BMG rifles, and since they are pretty much alone in never having been used in a crime in NJ, you are really putting your own rights in danger when you throw us under the bus. Rather than 50BMG rifles, let's ban 45cal handguns. No crimes have been committed with 50BMGs, can you say that for your cop-killer 45's? First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PDM 91 Posted April 22, 2013 This quote should be tattooed on the forehead of everyone when their .308 rifles are taken from them in two years. A lot more than 10 of us own 50BMG rifles, and since they are pretty much alone in never having been used in a crime in NJ, you are really putting your own rights in danger when you throw us under the bus. Rather than 50BMG rifles, let's ban 45cal handguns. No crimes have been committed with 50BMGs, can you say that for your cop-killer 45's? Did I say I thought a ban on 50BMG is ok or justified because it only affects a few people? What I said was Christie chose the one proposed bill that will impact the fewest people which was tactically a smart move on his part. True, he could have proposed no changes at all, but I am assuming that he is under enormous pressure to do something and I'm guessing he chose the ,50BMG because it will impact very few people and has a lot of BS sensationalist propaganda tied to it. Plus, isn't his proposal to ban future sales but not to confiscate or render guns that are already owned illegal? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcbethr 42 Posted April 22, 2013 Did I say I thought a ban on 50BMG is ok or justified because it only affects a few people? I think that this is akin to banning possession of unicorn tears. I've been shooting for 25 or so years and I don't know anybody who has a .50 Cal Barrett. This may be a bone that is thrown to the media and uninformed. This is almost like banning Ferraris from Civilian ownership in NJ. It's a lot easier to support something when it doesn't effect you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A-Tech 8 Posted April 22, 2013 I don't even understand the debate here. Why is it ok, in anyone's mind, to ban firearm that haven't been used in any crimes? Why is it ok to ban any firearm? Don't we all talk about how it's just another domino to fall? There is NO justification to banning. NONE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PDM 91 Posted April 22, 2013 I don't even understand the debate here. Why is it ok, in anyone's mind, to ban firearm that haven't been used in any crimes? Why is it ok to ban any firearm? Don't we all talk about how it's just another domino to fall? There is NO justification to banning. NONE. I'll try again. I agree - it's not ok to ban .50 cal and doing so will not save a single life or prevent a single crime. However, as for "justification", from Christie's point of view the "justification" is that doing nothing was not an option. He needed to throw the antis a bone and do so in a way so that it looked like he was doing something, while in reality doing as little as possible. Many of you are purists/absolutists and will slam Christie and say you will never vote for him because he proposed this ban. Fine, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. For me, while we'd all like to have RIck Perry as our Governor and Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham as our Senators, we live in NJ and I'll take Christie over Buono or another Corzine any day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
222 3 Posted April 22, 2013 Plus, isn't his proposal to ban future sales but not to confiscate or render guns that are already owned illegal? The devil is in the details. Current legislation in Assembly and Senate ban them as destructive devices. No grandfathering. If they do what NY State did with 'assault weapons', existing owners will be forces to register with serial numbers. Such legislation could test the waters for broader constitutional challenges. According to Christie's words, he wants to ban future sale. Such legislation would focus on sales in NJ, but have no jurisdiction on out of state sales. Drive out of stare and buy one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arizona 0 Posted April 22, 2013 The bottom line is we are slipping a little further down the 2A hole in the people's republic. Another "well it could have been worse" situation. Truth is Christie could veto all of these laws and it would do little to effect his popularity because most people in NJ aren't that concerned with NJ firearm laws. Much more pressing issues in the publics eye. When the firearm you posses is the one they want to ban next then you'll think they went too far. Only a matter of time..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted April 22, 2013 The bottom line is we are slipping a little further down the 2A hole in the people's republic. Another "well it could have been worse" situation. Truth is Christie could veto all of these laws and it would do little to effect his popularity because most people in NJ aren't that concerned with NJ firearm laws. Much more pressing issues in the publics eye. When the firearm you posses is the one they want to ban next then you'll think they went too far. Only a matter of time..... This pretty much. I think he figures that if he didn't do anything that the left would hammer him and lie, saying things like, "Christie supports the slaughter of innocent children" etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silverado427 10,730 Posted April 22, 2013 Why don't they just ban crime + criminals. !!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wooly bugger 1 Posted April 22, 2013 Does anyone know when the text of the Senate bills will be released? I find it disturbing that they're supposed to have hearings on the bills next Tuesday and we haven't even had a chance to review them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oofogbp 3 Posted April 22, 2013 Does anyone know when the text of the Senate bills will be released? I find it disturbing that they're supposed to have hearings on the bills next Tuesday and we haven't even had a chance to review them. check out the NJ Legislature site to view them: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillsBySubject.asp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wooly bugger 1 Posted April 22, 2013 check out the NJ Legislature site to view them: http://www.njleg.sta...lsBySubject.asp I looked through 8 pages of "Weapons" bills, and almost all of the ones that concern us were introduced during the January flurry. I don't see any recent updates. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wooly bugger 1 Posted April 22, 2013 I looked through 8 pages of "Weapons" bills, and almost all of the ones that concern us were introduced during the January flurry. I don't see any recent updates. Still nothing on the posted committee agenda. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BarkNBite 15 Posted April 22, 2013 Yup..........Christy Todd Whitman.......has a regulation Trap & Skeet Field / High & Low House on her property and it's used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oofogbp 3 Posted April 22, 2013 when you open them up you will see the status and any reprints for example in Bill A3659 1/14/2013 Introduced, Referred to Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee 2/14/2013 Reported out of Assembly Committee, 2nd Reading 2/14/2013 Assembly Floor Amendment Passed (Barnes) 2/21/2013 Passed by the Assembly (46-29-0) 2/26/2013 Received in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee the last entry shows it was received by the senate below you can see the final reprint that was sumbited Introduced - 9 pages PDF Format HTML Format Statement - ALP 2/13/13 - 2 pages PDF Format HTML Format Floor Statement - Assembly 2/14/13 - 1 pages PDF Format HTML Format Reprint - 8 pages PDF Format HTML Format Fiscal Estimate - 2/28/13; 1R - 3 pages PDF Format HTML Format Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve_G 51 Posted April 22, 2013 when you open them up you will see the status and any reprints for example in Bill A3659 1/14/2013 Introduced, Referred to Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee 2/14/2013 Reported out of Assembly Committee, 2nd Reading 2/14/2013 Assembly Floor Amendment Passed (Barnes) 2/21/2013 Passed by the Assembly (46-29-0) 2/26/2013 Received in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee the last entry shows it was received by the senate below you can see the final reprint that was sumbited Introduced - 9 pages PDF Format HTML Format Statement - ALP 2/13/13 - 2 pages PDF Format HTML Format Floor Statement - Assembly 2/14/13 - 1 pages PDF Format HTML Format Reprint - 8 pages PDF Format HTML Format Fiscal Estimate - 2/28/13; 1R - 3 pages PDF Format HTML Format Those are the Assembly bills. They don't have the Senate bills posted there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wooly bugger 1 Posted April 22, 2013 Hmm, that's disappointing. Looks like there's been no change to the text. But these are still Assembly bills. I don't think this is the final version of what will be voted on. They don't even list any Senate sponsore. Here's an example: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A4000/3772_I1.HTM Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve_G 51 Posted April 22, 2013 Here you go: http://www.njleg.sta...lsByKeyword.asp Type in weapons in the search box. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites