Jump to content
Howard

My Rant of the day on mag limits bill A2006/S993

Recommended Posts

Wow. What a c--t.

 

I'm going to disagree with that.  I believe Moms Demand, Million Moms, and others like that are noble, well-intended people who want to end gun violence, but have no clue as to how to go about it.  I've written to my local paper on several occasions to explain that all of us are against gun violence (duh!), but banning guns, magazines, evil features, etc. is not going to get it done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOME of the are noble and well intentioned. Most of them, including ALL the mouthpieces, are anti-gun ideologues, who believe guns have no place in the hands of citizens. They do not mind if criminals and the government have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOME of the are noble and well intentioned. Most of them, including ALL the mouthpieces, are anti-gun ideologues, who believe guns have no place in the hands of citizens. They do not mind if criminals and the government have them.

 

I think they do mind if criminals have them. They just know (like we do) that there's nothing they can do to stop them (criminals) from getting them.

 

But they can stop law abiding citizens from getting them... and, perhaps, using them to defend against the "tyrannical govt," which they represent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to disagree with that. I believe Moms Demand, Million Moms, and others like that are noble, well-intended people who want to end gun violence, but have no clue as to how to go about it. I've written to my local paper on several occasions to explain that all of us are against gun violence (duh!), but banning guns, magazines, evil features, etc. is not going to get it done.

I'll maybe give her "well intentioned" but that's what the path to hell is paved with. They certainly lack all the qualities that would make them noble. I also don't buy that all their rancor regarding guns is some sort of misplaced frustration. Maybe that's how it started for some, but for most it goes beyond that. As we know, the problem with gun violence is the violence, and they focus on the wrong term and refuse to consider anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they do mind if criminals have them. They just know (like we do) that there's nothing they can do to stop them (criminals) from getting them.

 

But they can stop law abiding citizens from getting them... and, perhaps, using them to defend against the "tyrannical govt," which they represent.

Or to defend against criminals breaking down the door in the middle of the night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to disagree with that.  I believe Moms Demand, Million Moms, and others like that are noble, well-intended people who want to end gun violence, but have no clue as to how to go about it.  I've written to my local paper on several occasions to explain that all of us are against gun violence (duh!), but banning guns, magazines, evil features, etc. is not going to get it done.

 

 

Sorry. They're simply ignorant of what's going on in society. For instance, gun homicides are at the LOWEST since 1964! Yes and even with record amounts of people buying and carrying concealed, etc. Also, of the millions and millions of background checks, over 75,000 innocent people were denied their right and only 44 were denied correctly!!

Criminals get guns illegally and most importantly are only imprisoned for a short time and released yet honest gun owners have their lives ruined even after they followed the rules to a "T" (NY, CT, NJ).

These people don't know the facts that hundreds of millions of innocent people are killed by their own governments when guns are banned, confiscated or limited. Sorry, but these people are ignorant traitors!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, as you might have expected, the Senate Session passed S993 - Yea-22 Nay-17

 

Senators who gave excellent speeches against this legislation (and should be thanked via email) are:

 

Senator Steven Oroho - [email protected]

Senator Michael Doherty - [email protected]

Senator Gerald Cardinale - [email protected]

Senator Robert Singer - [email protected]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, as you might have expected, the Senate Session passed S993 - Yea-22 Nay-17

 

Senators who gave excellent speeches against this legislation (and should be thanked via email) are:

 

Senator Steven Oroho - [email protected]

Senator Michael Doherty - [email protected]

Senator Gerald Cardinale - [email protected]

Senator Robert Singer - [email protected]

 

Agree. Will be writing and email shortly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, as you might have expected, the Senate Session passed S993 - Yea-22 Nay-17

 

Senators who gave excellent speeches against this legislation (and should be thanked via email) are:

 

Senator Steven Oroho - [email protected]

Senator Michael Doherty - [email protected]

Senator Gerald Cardinale - [email protected]

Senator Robert Singer - [email protected]

Is there a way to see / hear their speeches for those who missed them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...Waiting on a Christie veto...

 

Man i hope so.  

it was so ridiculous listening to all of them go back and forth today.  It really makes you wonder what they really care about - certainly not the people the chose to represent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, as you might have expected, the Senate Session passed S993 - Yea-22 Nay-17

 

Senators who gave excellent speeches against this legislation (and should be thanked via email) are:

 

Senator Steven Oroho - [email protected]

Senator Michael Doherty - [email protected]

Senator Gerald Cardinale - [email protected]

Senator Robert Singer - [email protected]

 

Chalk up one more win for the criminals....God, do I wish I had the funds to move out of New Jermany...

 

 

...Waiting on a Christie veto...

 

Any word on when that may occur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chalk up one more win for the criminals....God, do I wish I had the funds to move out of New Jermany...

 

 

Any word on when that may occur?

Has to go back to the Assembly since the two bills were different. That will probably occur on the 22nd. Then it goes to CC's desk and he has about 45 days (or the next day after that when the legislature is in session) to sign or veto. If he does nothing the bill becomes law by default. No pocket veto in nj.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has to go back to the Assembly since the two bills were different. That will probably occur on the 22nd. Then it goes to CC's desk and he has about 45 days (or the next day after that when the legislature is in session) to sign or veto. If he does nothing the bill becomes law by default. No pocket veto in nj.

 

Well, like everyone is saying, if he has any aspirations of running in 2016, he better plan on a veto...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole house of cards is built on this statement that is the driving force behind everything:

 

"The Sandy Hook parents told us that as Lanza stopped to reload that 11 children were able to escape." That is the sacred Gospel

 

Does anybody here recall any report or article or anywhere that corroborates that? Anything besides a "parents" statement?

 

Obviously we in here know that's doubtful but where this info coming from? Is the Sandy Hook parents an actual group that can be called to ask them where that info came from? I know it's probably just misinformation though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has to go back to the Assembly since the two bills were different. That will probably occur on the 22nd. Then it goes to CC's desk and he has about 45 days (or the next day after that when the legislature is in session) to sign or veto. If he does nothing the bill becomes law by default. No pocket veto in nj.

So theoretically this could die in the Assembly? Unlikely I know, but I will contact Assembly rep if that's the case. I did state my opinion to my Senator via his website. The only response was the robo-reply that my message was received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So theoretically this could die in the Assembly? Unlikely I know, but I will contact Assembly rep if that's the case. I did state my opinion to my Senator via his website. The only response was the robo-reply that my message was received.

In theory, perhaps. In reality, no. Given the similarity of the two bills this will be pushed through quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me  LEO who would be restricted to 15 rounds if this is signed into law are not going to be happy. Perhaps we have a common cause. Would love to see LEO's as well bitch to Christie

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...