wooly bugger

If that's the case, I may engage in the conversation to try to spark some thought.

There were a couple of responses to the email group for the bluewave group. I'm pretty sure they're trolls, because no one on the anti side would know what NICS is. No one's responded to them. I know Lisa right! I felt the same way! I mean come on now. Do they really think the CRIMINALS will ditch their 15 round mags? Are they going to wait for a Nics check? So they care if they are on the terror list? If you can say yes to any of these you need to run to a Dr. PLEASE get your reps to enforce the laws in place ! And allow us to carry our handguns legally so we can defend ourselves from those that don't! On Feb 23, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Lisa Byasil <[email protected]> wrote: I am sorry I could not make the trip. I started reading the bills that were going to be pushed through the Assembly and realized that they were not going to make anyone safer and were only going to hurt people like me that keep a gun for my personal safety. These people should start looking at the real source of violence and stop persecuting the honest, law-abiding citizens. I watched the video of the Assembly meeting and it was a travesty.

OK, well then we can embarrass Oliver by forcing her to refuse to assign these bills to committee. "So, Ms. Oliver, when will the "saving defenseless young children from psychotic terrorists" act make it to committee? "umm....." If we can just get it to committee, they have to vote for it, or they become against defenseless young children and for psychotic terrorists

Here is a classic in the making. Great production values. People need to see this.

And what if mandatory training turns out to be an 80 hour, $3000 course that requires you to bring your own gun?

This is why I want a referendum that requires all assemblymen (or at least sponsors) to submit to a short interview after each session. At least that gives us a chance to out them. Of course they would never agree to such a referendum, but the people would like it. Is there a way to get a referendum on the ballot without their agreement?

There are two separate bills on magazine capacity. 10 and 5. 10 was voted this week. 5 has yet to be introduced into assembly. Now there's a third. Cryan's 1 feature bill reduces to 7. Can't the guy at least come up with something original, instead of just slavishly copying Cuomo? I can only hope that his fate will be the same as Cuomo's.

It's all well and good to make a list, but I really think we need to focus our investment efforts on one or two targets. We can choose them based on how badly they hurt us this cycle and vulnerability. Then we need real strategies on how to unseat them in the primaries. I don't think it's realistic to hit them in the general election, given the gerrymandering of the districts. I'm hoping these discussions are taking place behind the scenes.

More potential good news. If she's pro, then her absence leads to an underestimate of our support. I think we can "encourage" her to show up for any veto override bill.

Please see my letter to Carroll below. Does anyone with political savvy know how feasible and useful it would be to follow my suggestion? If it's a good idea, may I suggest that everyone forward the suggestion to their friendly assemblymen? Can Senators introduce bills, or do they all have to start in the Assembly? If they can, then we can target friendly senators as well. Dear Mr. Carroll, As I consider the wave of anti-gun hysteria sweeping the Assembly, I wonder if it would be possible to take a page from the Democrat play book and flood the assembly with violence prevention bills addressing poverty, mental health, and drug use. Just as no one can vote no on a bill that has the word "terrorist" anywhere in the text, I would think the same would apply to our anti-violence bills. This would have the dual effect diluting the anti-gun share of voice and of leaving the Governor a wealth of non-anti-gun bills to sign into law to demonstrate his commitment to violence reduction. Please let me know if I can help in any way. I have no political education, but I am well versed in 2nd amendment issues and can write. See the letter to the editor I submitted in response to yesterday's nj.com editorial. Given the 200 word limit, I was unable to address the glaring fallacy of correlation = causation in the "study" they presented, but it will be an important concept to have in mind before any debate. I know you will have public discussions with Cryan this weekend, where it's likely he will bring this up. Please follow the link to the study in the editorial and notice the very strong correlation between gun violence and poverty and college education. The author made no attempt to adjust for these covariates in the analysis. I don't know how familiar you are with these statistical concepts. If I can in any way help you put them into more generally accessible language, call me, and we can discuss. xxx-xxx-xxxx http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/02/nj_assembly_gun_control_bills.html#incart_most-comments

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/02/nj_assembly_gun_control_bills.html#incart_most-comments Given the 200 word limit for letters to the editor, I think a few people should take a couple of points to dissect and send in multiple letters. Someone needs to attack the reference to the correlation between gun control and gun deaths. Classic fallacy of correlation = causation. And they didn't even bother to adjust the results for the many covariates that also correlate with gun deaths. There are ways to do this, and any serious study does it. In that study, one of the strongest correlations with gun deaths is poverty. Could it be that the aristocratic enclaves that favor gun control have fewer gun deaths because they have less poverty? A negative correlation was with number of college graduates. Same argument as above. Finally, "gun deaths" is the wrong endpoint. It should be total violent deaths. If in states where it's impossible to get a gun, people just stab each other instead, I wouldn't call that a resounding success. If this study were about anything but the liberal favorite of gun control, it would have gotten an F and been sent back to the author. Can anyone translate the above into 200 words accessible to the average SL reader and send it in? I've already sent one. See below. To the Editor, I would like to challenge two assertions in your editorial, "NJ Assembly Gun Control Bills Would Save Lives." You state that a person can buy a "large stockpile of ammunition online." The same person can buy a "large stockpile of ammunition" face to face. It is in fact possible to create greater accountability in online sales than in face to face sales, by requiring the vendor have a firearm ID, a credit card, and a physical address, all matching, on file in order to purchase ammunition. This would effectively prevent ineligible individuals from illegally obtaining ammunition without imposing unnecessary burdens on legal purchasers. The ban on "armor piercing bullets" is flawed. The bill incorrectly defines "armor piercing" as capable of breaching light police armor. By this definition, almost all rifles used to hunt big game are "armor piercing." Whether by error or by design, this bill essentially ends firearm deer hunting in NJ. Many of these bills seem "sensible" on the surface but, upon closer inspection, are either ineffectual or impractical. I wish that our lawmakers, and the Star Ledger editorial board, would better research the substance of these bills before advocating for them.

Maybe if that officer had been armed with a double barreled shotgun, he would have been more prudent before firing those two rounds.

I'd take anything he said 20 years ago with a grain of salt. 20 years ago, Congress gravely misjudged how pro-gun the country was. The AWB cost a lot of seats in the midterms, and Clinton admitted it was a mistake. Remember Clinton suggesting a limit of 200 rounds in anyone's house? Can you imagine someone suggesting that today at the national level? Remember Handgun Control Incorporated? They've since realized that handgun control is a dead issue and have since disguised their true agenda. Surely, Christie also learned from all this and learned the country as a whole is quite gun friendly. A lot of people learned it, as witnessed by the fact that the Feinstein bill was essential DOA. 20 years ago, it wouldn't have been. As for his weight, it's funny that people think it disqualifies him, because in 2008, people were saying that Obama's thinness was a liability, because Americans can relate better to people who look like them. Well, unfortunately, with every year, Christie is looking more and more normal. I'm slim and fit, and I have no problem with Christie's weight. After 8 years of O, I think people are going to welcome a straight shooter with a fiscally conservative outlook. He's going to be up against real pro-gun conservatives like Ted Cruz, so if he comes across as too anti-gun, he's finished.

Where indeed. Given his sponsorship of a "shall issue" bill, I think he's an ally. That is good, because when it comes to a veto override, with enough pressure, he may add one to the numbers we saw yesterday and push several bills over the 27 mark. Christie's advisors are smart enough to notice this.

My first three picks are: Cryan, Cryan, and Cryan. I think we should focus our efforts on targeting a couple of people. In my mind, Cryan is the best target, because, 1) The dirt we know on him is probably the tip of the iceberg. Before this event, I'm not sure how much scrutiny he received, 2) He had some credible challengers in last election's primary 3) The demographics of his district have changed. Irish machine voters have become middle class and moved to the suburbs. His district is now 33% Hispanic. 4) His challengers were Hispanic. I think a targeted Spanish language campaign has the possibility of taking him down.

I might have considered compromise before this whole fiasco. The other side has shown bad faith. I don't negotiate with people in bad faith. I defeat them.

Are there any undersheriffs making $111k there?

I'm sure there are people who do this research for a living. Can't we set up a fund to hire someone?

I think we should do an OPRA on his job description as undersheriff. What are the qualifications, and was the job properly posted prior to giving it to him

I recently discovered this quote, which gives me a little spark of light in a dark time. “It does not take a majority to prevail. but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” (Samuel Adams) http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/Author/147

There was a period of time where I was routinely pulled aside at customs. Apparently, there was a bad guy out there with a name similar to mine. There was another time where I kept getting pulled aside, I suspect because I was taking a lot of one way flights from NY to PA. I travel a lot for business and make last minute arrangements and one way flights all the time. A close Canadian friend of mine was detained overnight at JFK for no explanation. Neither I nor my friend are involved in any organization or activities that might land us there, and neither of us have long or unusual names. It's an arbitrary screening process, with "better safe than sorry" the motto for many lists. I don't know how that one works or how any other list works. So don't be so smug that you couldn't end up on it. I don't know which is scarier, that basic tenets of democracy are gradually being stripped away or that the frogs are cheerfully staying in the warm, comfy, gradually heating baths. Here's the other sad thing. I didn't click on the redress link, because I'm afraid to have that associated with my IP.

Apparently, yesterday, they found a guy making death threats against all the libs with two rifles, and "arsenal" of ammo, and body armor. This is getting really scary.

"common sense" apparently means that politicians are unable to vote "no" on any bill that includes the word "terrorist." Same with "children." We should come up with a more comprehensive list, and maybe get a bill introduced along the lines of, "Disqualifying terrorist children from CCW" (with provision of shall issue for everyone else.) Did you notice yesterday that that woman slipped a couple of times and called someone on the list a "terrorist?" Guilty until proven innocent...which you can't do, because you don't know why you're there or how you got there.

If I could save only two, it would be renewal and purchase ban. As much as mandatory training sucks, if they specify that something like Hunter Ed qualifies, then it's a one time hassle.