Jump to content
Howard

Sweeney says no such thing as CCW in NJ

Recommended Posts

 

ANY politician who is anti-2nd Amendment or anti-CCW should not be allowed to have a CCW or allowed to surround themselves with armed security/body guards. Practice what you preach. But that will never happen.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

 

 

Not so much on this sight, but in  a lot of other places I see the need to ask why these laws are implemented and to what end. People strain to see the logic......there is none. They are incrementally dismantling our rights. I am frightened almost as much as I am fucking furious. I have been to Trenton and watched as we are all but dismissed by our elected officials as they follow this agenda.

Just about two and half centuries ago we went to war against a  type of rule/government that had one hand way too deep in our pockets  and the other hand clamped firmly over our mouths as they raped our basic rights. Tell me what is so different today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much on this sight, but in  a lot of other places I see the need to ask why these laws are implemented and to what end. People strain to see the logic......there is none. They are incrementally dismantling our rights. I am frightened almost as much as I am friggin furious. I have been to Trenton and watched as we are all but dismissed by our elected officials as they follow this agenda.

Just about two and half centuries ago we went to war against a  type of rule/government that had one hand way too deep in our pockets  and the other hand clamped firmly over our mouths as they raped our basic rights. Tell me what is so different today?

The "I'm too busy"...Comfortable life... Go along to get along...."I've got too much to lose"...mentalities all play a part I think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" If it saves a single life it is worth it. The Newtown parents made that abundantly clear. "

 

What about the parents who grieve over a child that has drowned in a pool ? Shouldn't their anguish mean that pools should be banned ?

What about the parents who grieve over a child struck down by a car ? Shouldn't cars be banned ?

 

Legislation based on emotion is BS

Magazine restrictions wouldn't have done anything to save those children ( the turd was doing tactical reloads )

What if he had gone in with a shotgun ? 00 buck could put as many as 9 ( larger than .22 cal ) projectiles in a body with a single pull of the trigger, a slug could put a gaping wound ( almost as large as or larger than 5 x .22's ) in a body.

 

What has been made abundantly clear is that Mr.Sweeney has no problem trampling on the rights of law-abiding citizens by using the grief of parents who have lost a child because of a madman ( boy ) with a gun, not that he gives a damn about the lives of children

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much on this sight, but in  a lot of other places I see the need to ask why these laws are implemented and to what end. People strain to see the logic......there is none. They are incrementally dismantling our rights. I am frightened almost as much as I am friggin furious. I have been to Trenton and watched as we are all but dismissed by our elected officials as they follow this agenda.

Just about two and half centuries ago we went to war against a  type of rule/government that had one hand way too deep in our pockets  and the other hand clamped firmly over our mouths as they raped our basic rights. Tell me what is so different today?

Set up a meeting at a bar once or twice a month with likeminded individuals like the Sons of Liberty of old. Central NJ preferably with invitations sent through PMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" If it saves a single life it is worth it. The Newtown parents made that abundantly clear. "

 

What about the parents who grieve over a child that has drowned in a pool ? Shouldn't their anguish mean that pools should be banned ?

What about the parents who grieve over a child struck down by a car ? Shouldn't cars be banned ?

 

Legislation based on emotion is BS

Magazine restrictions wouldn't have done anything to save those children ( the turd was doing tactical reloads )

What if he had gone in with a shotgun ? 00 buck could put as many as 9 ( larger than .22 cal ) projectiles in a body with a single pull of the trigger, a slug could put a gaping wound ( almost as large as or larger than 5 x .22's ) in a body.

 

What has been made abundantly clear is that Mr.Sweeney has no problem trampling on the rights of law-abiding citizens by using the grief of parents who have lost a child because of a madman ( boy ) with a gun, not that he gives a damn about the lives of children

 

Couldn't agree with you more, and I always use children's drowning in pools stats when debating safety with antis.  

 

We must recognize that we are a minority being discriminated against and vocally oppose this - just talking among ourselves on a forum does our message no good.

 

Here is what I sent to my reps.  

 

 

Dear Legislator

 
So you think you are going to make the post Sandy Hook world safer . . . by reducing autoloader magazine capacity to 10 rounds.  
 
Instead of looking at the underlying cause of this tragedy.  Adam Lanza was kid with profound mental problems . . . whose mother was irresponsible.
 
A mentally unbalanced person is at the root of most if not virtually all of these types of mass killings, not the weapon of choice.  Richard Speck used a knife.  The University of Texas sniper used a bolt action rifle.  The Garden State Plaza shooter used a shotgun.  What they all had in common was mental illness.
 
So instead of looking to the underlying cause of these tragedies and seeking solutions to provide additional help to folks with mental health issues, you think you are going to address this problem by reducing magazine capacities for law abiding citizens.  That's politically correct in today's environment, but turns a blind eye to the real problem.
 
Do you really believe that a mentally unbalanced individual or criminal will think twice about driving over to a bordering state and buying as many 10+ round mags as he/she wants?  I don't.  
 
I predict there will be another Sandy Hook or equivalent.   But the next time, you can look in the mirror to see the cause - it is YOU, MR or MRS Legislator.  You, who deny reality and brush mental health issues under the rug by enacting 'solutions to gun violence' which do not address the fundamental problem which gives rise to these tragedies.
 
New Jersey has some of the toughest gun laws in the US.  If you don't think so, do a state by state comparison and make yourself smarter . . .  if you have the courage to do so.  
 
The 30 day limit for obtaining permits?  Routinely ignored, especially by the State Police, with waits reaching 5 and 6 months.  Most of the permitting tasks are simply repeated over and over again regardless of how recently they were performed in the past, creating what are simply artificial roadblocks.  You basically treat gun owners the way some states treat the pro choice folks, with TRAP laws designed to eliminate them.    
 
I'm sure you believe you are doing your jobs.  NOW HEAR THIS  --  Baloney.
 
Virtually all gun owners have no problems with reasonable regulations which keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have access to them.
 
But this proposed 10 round limit legislation is as useful in curbing another Sandy Hook as trying to curb obesity by outlawing 32 oz beverages.
 
To put it into the vernacular -- It Ain't Gonna Change Anything.
 
You say you are going to give gun owners 'clarity' in what 'reasonable deviations' are in exchange.  I guess I didn't know I was in a negotiation for laws which are not vague.  Don't you think the reasonable deviations law should have had sufficient clarity when enacted to make the difference between compliance and non compliance crystal clear?  You are not giving us anything to which we haven't been entitled from the date of its enactment.  This is simply an example of YOU not doing your jobs, or doing them in such a rushed haphazard knee jerk fashion that common sense goes out the window and you write vague and unenforceable statutes.
 
Why don't you consider fixing the poorly drafted hollow points law which provides no exception for transporting from an old residence to a new residence?  And made someone a felon for no good reason.
 
Let me conclude by saying this -- your proposed legislation is nothing more than political window dressing.  
 
But I am serious when I say: 
 
the next Sandy Hook is on you . . . if you don't address mental health issues. . . and use magazine limits as your 'cure' for gun violence.
 
When that happens I hope that you will be able to live with yourself knowing you did nothing meaningful to 'reduce gun violence'.
 
 
 

 

Here's an easy way to find their electronic mailboxes

 

1.  Go to link below
 
2.  Select municipality
 
3.  Click on Find Representatives
 
4.  Check the boxes
 
5.  Have at it
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Set up a meeting at a bar once or twice a month with likeminded individuals like the Sons of Liberty of old. Central NJ preferably with invitations sent through PMs.

 

There's a group right here in NJ doing just that.  

 

https://www.facebook.com/NJSonsOfLiberty

 

Looks like the next meeting is on March 6th at 7pm in Columbus at the Corner House Tavern.  

 

I haven't attend either of the previous meetings due to conflicts, but it might be time to make some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" If it saves a single life it is worth it. The Newtown parents made that abundantly clear. "

 

 

Legislation based on emotion is BS

 

Yes, I'm never sure if it's legislation based on emotion to make people feel good.  Or, if it's using emotion to further a political agenda.

Or as they like to say, never let a good crisis go to waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He will then respond with the Bloomberg/Brady talking point "if it saves just one life it's worth it."

 

Yet, these types seem to avoid (or are deliberately ignoring) the obvious counter point.... "If it *costs* a life, it isn't worth it."  Witness the Short Hills shooting, or any of the cases of a home invasion where children were abducted and/or molested or killed. Or, witness the cases of those parents/children that defended themselves against an armed intruder(s) whose lives might *not* have been saved if they didn't have that HD/SD weapon (you know, the kinds of cases that, somehow, seem to be oblivious to the MSM) :icon_rolleyes:

 

I'm certainly "thinking of *those* children!"  :icon_neutral:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...