voyager9 3,417 Posted May 10, 2014 another Anti spin story on nj.com Wow. What a c--t. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msokad 3 Posted May 10, 2014 ^^what he said^^ Sent from my Galaxy S4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted May 10, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
45Doll 5,848 Posted May 10, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted May 11, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted May 11, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted May 11, 2014 Wow. What a c--t.I posted a lenghty response, but it appears to have been removed... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted May 11, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikelets456 78 Posted May 12, 2014 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! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted May 12, 2014 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] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted May 12, 2014 They also passed A2777 Reasonable deviations Yea-21 Nay-17 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msokad 3 Posted May 12, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtd771 18 Posted May 12, 2014 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaveR 42 Posted May 12, 2014 Of course, as you might have expected, the Senate Session passed S993 - Yea-22 Nay-17 ...Waiting on a Christie veto... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antimatter 139 Posted May 12, 2014 ...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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D. Stallone 1 Posted May 12, 2014 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYMetsFan86 9 Posted May 12, 2014 i think the criminal population that just scored includes the a-holes voting yay to this garbage Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted May 12, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D. Stallone 1 Posted May 12, 2014 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... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msokad 3 Posted May 12, 2014 Time to start calling, faxing and emailing the gov. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iggyort 44 Posted May 12, 2014 Last time Christie said that the ten round limit was an arbitrary number. I hope that he still feels the same way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted May 12, 2014 Here's a link for those who are interested. Be prepared to wade through a lot of BS: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/media/archive_audio2.asp?KEY=S&SESSION=2014 Click on "VIEW" Not to mention having to listen to Sweeney ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barms 98 Posted May 12, 2014 Three Dems said "this bill is flawed, but I will still vote yes" **face palm** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barms 98 Posted May 12, 2014 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted May 12, 2014 Three Dems said "this bill is flawed, but I will still vote yes" **face palm** Probably because it wasn't limiting enough. They wanted 7. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted May 12, 2014 Probably because it wasn't limiting enough. They wanted 7. Yes, I'm sure they will go for that next year. Or maybe five. A couple of years later, it's three, then one; then they can go for their dream of zero. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kc17 622 Posted May 13, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted May 13, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SJG 253 Posted May 13, 2014 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Geek 4 Posted May 13, 2014 I'd like to see all the LEOs using smart guns with 7 round limits. :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites