Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The only aspect of the recall I thought was worthwhile was that they didn't make it only about guns. The school funding topic is hot hot hot but wait and see, it will be labeled as racist and will fail for the same reasons as this email initiative. Hoodlum degenerate teens need more resources to teach them how not to read or add. That's why I now believe that the only way to drive a wedge between NJ liberals and their many pots of gold is through gun owners.

 

However even that demographic appears willing just to let things go. I almost feel like publishing the names of the individuals who have not responded in five days (including my three alleged pro-2A legislators) but who I'm sure have found the time to post pictures of their new puppie or last night's dinner to Facebook. 

 

I realize the vast majority of NJ residents don't care about gun rights, and in the future even fewer will. Seems that gun owners don't care that much either.

 

I'll disagreee on school funding. It's the number one driver of property tax and can put the democrats in an awkward position if they don't bring dollars back to their communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll disagreee on school funding. It's the number one driver of property tax and can put the democrats in an awkward position if they don't bring dollars back to their communities.

It's an wonderful idea but it will not pass. Period. It will expose inner-city democrats for the fake phony frauds they are. Their fellow democrat legislators will not allow that. We must maintain the myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an wonderful idea but it will not pass. Period. It will expose inner-city democrats for the fake phony frauds they are. Their fellow democrat legislators will not allow that. We must maintain the myth.

Sorry I don't think it'll ever pass either but it is a platform to pry some of the democrats that cover more middle to affluent areas out. It's a chance to get back some of the legislature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and Gents,

 

Any reports on this? Observations? How have your gun friends responded? 

Nope. All I keep hearing is it'll never pass. I'm pretty fed up with the attitude of some gun owners in this state. They refuse to even fight for their rights, and only bitch about not having them. It's pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the billboard in Sweeney and Weinberg's districts would help -

 

As well if someone can tie in the 8 year old girl shot in Camden - maybe people in gang ridden neighborhoods should be able to defend themselves against thugs?  Would love to hear Sweeney's thoughts on letting little girls die because of his selfishness.

 

You need to use the progressive/Democrat talking points against them.  "IF IT CAN ONLY SAVE ONE LIFE"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the billboard in Sweeney and Weinberg's districts would help -

 

As well if someone can tie in the 8 year old girl shot in Camden - maybe people in gang ridden neighborhoods should be able to defend themselves against thugs?  Would love to hear Sweeney's thoughts on letting little girls die because of his selfishness.

 

You need to use the progressive/Democrat talking points against them.  "IF IT CAN ONLY SAVE ONE LIFE"

You and I and most readers here know that people in NJ's armpit cities deserve and need to be able to defend themselves. They say that gun control was initiated specifically to keep blacks unarmed. That's what they say. I get the feeling, from discussions with ultra-liberal friends, that this sentiment survives but they fear even more that marauders and vilains, most of them black, will suffer disproportionately at the hands of legal gun owners. 

 

I get the self-defense, the natural God-given rights, the Constitution, I really do.

 

However, as a strategic point I do not believe these arguments will win anyone over. As noted previously these people do not believe in God or the Constitution. Self-defense = "The Wild West," which ends the argument.

 

You guys argue and cajole as befits your audience and as your judgement dictates. I believe that the hair-narrow path to accommodation is to note that citizens carry all over the US and the sky has not fallen in fact murders are down 50% from before the great wave of CC permitting. They send their kids to college in PA, NH, ME, etc. and do not fear for their lives. They vacation in Vermont and the Adirondacks without fear of being shot. Same would be true here. You could also point out that licensed, trained gun owners have a lower rate of felony convictions than cops. I personally do not believe training should ever be required but let's face it some states will always require it.

 

This is politics folks, not religion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and I and most readers here know that people in NJ's armpit cities deserve and need to be able to defend themselves. They say that gun control was initiated specifically to keep blacks unarmed. That's what they say. I get the feeling, from discussions with ultra-liberal friends, that this sentiment survives but they fear even more that marauders and vilains, most of them black, will suffer disproportionately at the hands of legal gun owners. 

 

I get the self-defense, the natural God-given rights, the Constitution, I really do.

 

However, as a strategic point I do not believe these arguments will win anyone over. As noted previously these people do not believe in God or the Constitution. Self-defense = "The Wild West," which ends the argument.

 

You guys argue and cajole as befits your audience and as your judgement dictates. I believe that the hair-narrow path to accommodation is to note that citizens carry all over the US and the sky has not fallen in fact murders are down 50% from before the great wave of CC permitting. They send their kids to college in PA, NH, ME, etc. and do not fear for their lives. They vacation in Vermont and the Adirondacks without fear of being shot. Same would be true here. You could also point out that licensed, trained gun owners have a lower rate of felony convictions than cops. I personally do not believe training should ever be required but let's face it some states will always require it.

 

This is politics folks, not religion.

This is where our country goes off the rails. If a "right" is a natural or God given right then only God can remove those rights as he see fit, but he wouldn't because God is a God of justice and mercy. However, if a society does not believe in God then government now can infringe on these "human rights" as they see fit. This leads to whomever is in charge to call the shots---literally. Hence the reason our government (Federal mostly) sees the need to remove God from every aspect of society. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Mousillini, Castro, etc  all did and the result always has the same ending---death, destruction and loss of all freedom. It's important that God is part of the equation regardless of what your stance is on the subject---because if we continue to push God out of society, inevitably something or some group/entity will fill that void and when that happens it never, ever ends well for 95% of the citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where our country goes off the rails. If a "right" is a natural or God given right then only God can remove those rights as he see fit, but he wouldn't because God is a God of justice and mercy. However, if a society does not believe in God then government now can infringe on these "human rights" as they see fit. This leads to whomever is in charge to call the shots---literally. Hence the reason our government (Federal mostly) sees the need to remove God from every aspect of society. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Mousillini, Castro, etc  all did and the result always has the same ending---death, destruction and loss of all freedom. It's important that God is part of the equation regardless of what your stance is on the subject---because if we continue to push God out of society, inevitably something or some group/entity will fill that void and when that happens it never, ever ends well for 95% of the citizens.

Good points but many people choose "natural rights" instead of God-given rights. It would be foolish for someone to say, "well let mother nature do her work then."

 

That's why I choose to leave supernatural forces out of the argument. We're not yet to the point of cattle cars and extermination camps. We still have a ways to go :)

 

That's why I believe we should focus on the tangible, demonstrable facts of gun ownership. Things that even liberals can see and feel and experience. We shouldn't brag about "Premises Protected by Smith & Wesson." That might work in W. Virginia. It will not work in NJ.

 

Like I said this is politics, not theology.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God has never and will never give me anything. I have birth rights aka natural rights.

The founders chose God given rights so government can never infringe or "trample" on those rights---if they're from God, only God can remove them. If their not from God, then government WILL remove them--a simply scroll through history reveals this EVERY time...it's that simple, remove God from society and the amendments are now open to discretion and over reach. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't the government take away god given rights, what's stopping them? God? lmao. By your argument the government could not take away natural rights because nature gave them to me. Sorry no offense but in my opinion religion and government should have nothing to do with each other. We have to live with the government but not religion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. Foundation for a "fair" society include some "golden rules" such as, everything that lives must be afforded with a "right to self preservation", to defend that life. Free Speech, Due Process, 2A etc all cover different aspects of that "right to self preservation".  

 

Its not "given", its just there. Sure, someone can decide to take it away. But then such society is no longer being fair and doesnt follow rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support NJ becoming a “shall issue” state. It has been demonstrated that as other states adopted “shall issue” legislation, crime was reduced as much as 40%.

Over many years, I have from time to time sponsored shall issue legislation. Legislative leadership has not permitted even a hearing on these bills.

Thanks for your comments. Please keep in touch as your thoughts are important to me.

Sincerely,

Senator Gerald Cardinale

******************************************************************
Thank you for your email concerning Assembly Bill A3689/S816.  Please be assured  I am 100 percent in support of the terms and conditions of the Governor's veto. 

Thank you,
Jon Bramnick
Assemblyman  
District 21
******************************************************************

wanted to thank you for your correspondence concerning the support of the conditions imposed by Governor Christie’s vetoes of A3689 and S816. I appreciate your input and passion on the matter.  I will continue to track the issue.

Again, thank you for contacting my office.


Sincerely,
Nicholas A. Chiaravalloti
Assemblyman 31st District
836 Broadway
Bayonne, NJ 07002
201-471-2347
******************************************************************

I'm for the right to carry, Period!

Best regards,
Assemblyman Robert Auth
Please like me on Facebook
******************************************************************

Thank you for contacting the 8th Legislative District Office of Senator
Dawn Marie Addiego, Assemblyman Joseph Howarth and Assemblywoman Maria Rodriguez-Gregg.

Your email is very important to us and will be replied to in the order
in which it was received. Please note, due to the high volume of emails
we received in our joint office, our response time may be delayed.

If your issue or concern requires immediate assistance, please feel
free to call or stop by our legislative office. We are located at Medford Center, 176 Route 70, Suite 13 in Medford or we can be reached by phone at 609-654-1498.



Thank you,

Senator Dawn Marie Addiego

Assemblyman Joseph Howarth

Assemblywoman Maria Rodriguez-Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received some of the same ones as well. Isn't it ironic the Dem Assembly member uses the word  "impose" when describing Christie's actions. Impose is something the Dems have been doing for a very long time.

 

I also like how they call deciding to not call a vote on his vetoes "grandstanding" by the governor - self protection for citizens is seen as a political move?  Funny but not so much.  Obviously the legislature has no obligation to take up the vetoes for a vote and can just let it die - but I wouldn't be going on the other breath and calling it grandstanding.

 

Sure maybe vetoing property taxes completely in this state would be, not in this case.  But that's how progressives talk and they engage - by shrugging off major steps towards a citizenry less dependent on government.  "What do you mean, every cab driver should be able to have a gun?  Preposterous!" - which is why I say we need to point out hypocrisy of those who would laugh off something like this which directly impacts our rights - Sweeney's CCW, little girl in Camden murdered, etc -

 

If we use their language against them ("common sense" shall-issue for crime reduction, "common sense" since 47 other states allow carry for citizens) then maybe people will wake up and realize 95% of the land in the USA allows carry - its just the other 5% stuck in a bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't the government take away god given rights, what's stopping them? God? lmao. By your argument the government could not take away natural rights because nature gave them to me. Sorry no offense but in my opinion religion and government should have nothing to do with each other. We have to live with the government but not religion.

Give them time---Progressives chip away until the new framework is in place. It's been over 100 years they've been working on this---just a bit more time when they have all the right people in all the right places and it will suddenly go dark.

 

Also, if you Don't believe me, Look at the anti-gun, high tax, progressive VS pro gun, lower tax  states would you say they have a [more] Pro-God or Anti-God citizenry? I think we all know the answer to the question...but you can believe what the media, schools and left has molded into your mind. It's no coincidence that the pro God states have MUCH, MUCH more freedom that the more "tolerant, peace loving" states like NJ, NY and CA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The founders chose God given rights so government can never infringe or "trample" on those rights---if they're from God, only God can remove them. If their not from God, then government WILL remove them--a simply scroll through history reveals this EVERY time...it's that simple, remove God from society and the amendments are now open to discretion and over reach. 

Sounds like the Hasidic Jews who denounce Israel, saying only the messiah can institute a Jewish state. 

 

If you want to preach to the heathens in Trenton go right ahead. Try speaking in Urdu though, they might get more of what you have to say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't the government take away god given rights, what's stopping them? God? lmao. By your argument the government could not take away natural rights because nature gave them to me. Sorry no offense but in my opinion religion and government should have nothing to do with each other. We have to live with the government but not religion.

What religion exactly is "God"? God is not religion. God is a concept. My version of god and yours may be completely different. It is the concept of a being not bound by the laws of man.

 

You are starting to sound like the people that scream that deporting illegal aliens is racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What religion exactly is "God"? God is not religion. God is a concept. My version of god and yours may be completely different. It is the concept of a being not bound by the laws of man.

 

You are starting to sound like the people that scream that deporting illegal aliens is racist.

god is not specific to one religion but god however you think of it is a religious idea. Yes your god and what I believe differ greatly, I'm atheist. I get the idea of not being bound by the laws of man but i dont need to belive in an "all seeig eye" to be a good person. Sorry I don't get your analogy about illegal aliens, I'm all for deporting anyone who is in the country illegally
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I've derailed this thred a bit about the religious stuff I'll shut up now

I'm fine with it, as long as God gives us concealed or open carry in NJ without the Justifiable need standard. Until then I'll put my faith behind the PO6...
  • Like 1

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...