I went to the NJ SAFE Task Force hearing in Newark this past Thursday evening. The room was full -- over 100 people. The audience basically broke down this way: 70% vocal pro gun (virtually all white); 20% African American, local from Newark for the most part; 10% politicians, and a few random people whose main issue was mental health, not guns.

 

What struck me is that the representatives of the Newark community, including community activists, were passionate, sometimes emotional, and not necessarily "anti-gun." My take away was that people like me living in suburbia read about what goes on in the inner city but don't really feel what is going on there. Listening to these people brought it home. The anguish of not knowing if your kid will come home in the evening. Poverty and lack of resources. Etc.

 

The representatives from these areas are reflexively anti-gun. One idiot assemblyman (Ross Baraka [sp?]) made the ridiculous point that calling people law abiding is meaningless because law abiding people can become criminals, which is patently false based on every criminology study I've ever seen. However, I don't think the ordinary people that live in Newark feel that way. I didn't get the impression that they really are interested in stricter gun laws per se. It's the white liberals, like the law school dean, that want that. I got the impression that these people want real solutions -- keeping guns off the streets, social, economic and educational issues, etc.

 

I have no idea how to go about doing this, but I think that one way in which we could, theoretically make progress in thsi state on the gun rights issue is to seek dialogue with activists and other people living in urban areas. Any thoughts?

That's an interesting point from Ron Baraka....law abiding citizens CAN become criminals.....when politicians MAKE them criminals at the stroke of a pen.

Let's see what the ratio is of politicians becoming criminals compared to the average law-abiding citizen. I would say the former would have a much higher rate then the latter,

That's an interesting point from Ron Baraka....law abiding citizens CAN become criminals.....when politicians MAKE them criminals at the stroke of a pen.

Exactly!

Let's see what the ratio is of politicians becoming criminals compared to the average law-abiding citizen. I would say the former would have a much higher rate then the latter,

 

Brilliant!

 

The Mayor of Trenton comes to mind off the top of my head...

When I think of legal gun owners "becoming" criminals, I tend to think of crimes of passion and revenge shootings.

 

A woman looks in her husband's briefcase, finds a pair of panties, goes and get's her husband's legally owned S&W 686 from her husbands dresser drawer and shoots him in the head. This is one of those cases where the Violence Policy Center is right. If you have a gun in the home you are more likely to be killed by a gun. But of course, If you keep a tiger as a pet, you are more likely to get mauled by a tiger. If you own a pool, you are more likely to drown... and so on.

 

I also think that there are many people who are afraid of somebody "snapping." I think this is what people like Baraka mean when they say that the law abiding can become criminals. Somebody gets fired, they feel wronged, they go home, get their gun and come back to work.

 

You may be rolling your eyes right now, but it does happen. In almost any other state, a guy can get fired, go directly to the gun store, buy a gun and ammo in 30 minutes and come back to the office. This *never* happens in New Jersey.

 

What we have to understand is that people like Baraka genuinely think that when a person buys a gun for purposes other than hunting, they believe that person becomes a potential time bomb. You may disagree with this theory, and I do too, but this is what they think. They can wrap their heads around hunting and skeet. They may even be able to understand wanting to keep a revolver in a safe by your bed. But this is what they mean when they look at an AR-15 and call it a "weapon of war." They can think of no useful purpose at all other than killing as many human beings as quickly as possible.

 

There is also no way of preventing crimes of passion at all if a gun is already in the house. None. The only way to prevent it is to reduce the number of firearms in households, something NJ has done very well.

 

There is no way of preventing revenge shootings unless, again, you make firearms acquisition so hard that it's impossible to get a gun easily.

 

The question is whether you are willing to accept the good with the bad. If you want Freedom of Speech, you have to accept Martian Luther King and you have to accept the Westboro Baptist Church. If you want the aility to protect yourself, you also have to accept that once in a while, someone is going to get a hold of a gun and do something horrible with it.

 

The people we are fighting only see the bad. We just have to figure out how to convince other how to see the good.

Get this guy .He is saying we need people like him to protect us from ourselves. Pompous a$$.

I've often wondered what would happen if the AfricanAmerican community got behind a pro 2A candidate.

And then started to demand the right to protect themselves and there belongings. Or if there ever was such a leader in there community. I've often felt anti 2A laws were a little racist being it's usually most stringent in urban areas where whites are mayor police chief and such.

But this is what they mean when they look at an AR-15 and call it a "weapon of war." They can think of no useful purpose at all other than killing as many human beings as quickly as possible.

If they can't figure out a use for it, direct them to the Department of Homeland Security since they ordered 7000 "weapons of war" with select fire and 30 round mags. Who is DHS at war with and why are they trying to kill as many human beings as quickly as possible?

If they can't figure out a use for it, direct them to the Department of Homeland Security since they ordered 7000 "weapons of war" with select fire and 30 round mags. Who is DHS at war with and why are they trying to kill as many human beings as quickly as possible?

 

The white house already authorized the killing of American citizens with drone strikes that they believe are "terrorists" and a threat to the US. So now, the white house is judge, jury, and executioner to American citizens? They are violating our constitutional rights. They were quick to give a trial by jury to foreign terrorists, but not American citizens? What is their motive? Right now, they say it's to keep our country safe. Really? What happens when they start calling gun owners terrorists? Are they going to call drone strikes against us on US soil? You may say this is paranoid thinking, but they are surly prepping for the days to come.

The part that the people we are fighting.... I honestly do not believe the antis think entirely that way without being pushed regardless of knowledge. For instance, you can't tell me that politicians all see it that way. It's not the most sensible way of looking at it. If they had any sense, they would concentrate all their efforts on real crime. Not to try create criminals that are not and may never be. Maybe a handful of politicians, but the rest on their side are doing it with ulterior motives for whatever their reasons are. The public antis for the most part are uninformed/misinformed and just jump on the band wagons with media hype. Quite a few of them could care less because of their knowledge or the lack thereof. In most cases, you could not beat it into them no matter what you say.

 

My neighbor and I just had a brief chat last week about the alleged assault weapon.

He blurted out that he sees no reason to have them especially with 10, 20, or 30 round 'clips'.... When I went to correct his calling them clips and that they were indeed mags, he stood his ground and said no! I mentioned that clips really don't exist in modern day weapons and he said yes they do.. Reaffirming that they have clips and mags in 30 rounds, etc... Just rolled my eyes...

 

We were freezing our onions off and he said we can continue this another time.

But he stood his ground.

 

 

 

When I think of legal gun owners "becoming" criminals, I tend to think of crimes of passion and revenge shootings.

 

The people we are fighting only see the bad. We just have to figure out how to convince other how to see the good.

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

Ras Baraka is part of the problem in my city. He is on his way to being part of the elite dynasty that keeps getting political office. He is pretty good at holding a sign and marching after a crime has took place but is poor at calling out the mayor and his police cronies. The whole council should be dismissed for doing nothing in this city except lining their pockets and consolidating power. Of course he is anti gun. If the citizens ever woke up and realized what a pack of charlatans the council and mayor are the national guard would have to be called in. I have lived in this city a long time and I only had one job in this city. Every other employment opportunity was afforded me out of this city. I played by the rules here and I still get the screws put to me by these people.

Get this guy .He is saying we need people like him to protect us from ourselves. Pompous a$$.

I've often wondered what would happen if the AfricanAmerican community got behind a pro 2A candidate.

And then started to demand the right to protect themselves and there belongings. Or if there ever was such a leader in there community. I've often felt anti 2A laws were a little racist being it's usually most stringent in urban areas where whites are mayor police chief and such.

Newark needs someone like this.

What happens when they start calling gun owners terrorists? Are they going to call drone strikes against us on US soil? You may say this is paranoid thinking, but they are surly prepping for the days to come.

I am thinking the same thing.

I agree.

 

You have to ask the question...why does the .gov want us disarmed so badly?

 

Is it paranoid to think that?

I agree.

 

You have to ask the question...why does the .gov want us disarmed so badly?

 

Is it paranoid to think that?

The Politicians are the criminals. Don't you read the news!

I agree.

 

You have to ask the question...why does the .gov want us disarmed so badly?

 

Is it paranoid to think that?

 

If you were part of the elite ruling class bankrupting the wealthiest nation on the planet by slowly and systematically undermining the currency which is the basis for that wealth for your own personal and political gain wouldn't you want to make sure the surfs were disarmed before the house of cards collapsed and they figured out what you were up to? Just saying.

 

I'm guilty of asking a leading question, but your answer was precisely my point.

Even Corey Booker has acknowledged that legal gun owners are not the problem, that they are rarely, if ever, involved in shootings. According to him, it's the illegal guns that are the plague of his city.

 

As for the motives of anti-gun legislators, I don't know if they are well-intended, but misguided; whether they are just seeking easy, but meaningless measures to make it look like they are doing something about gun violence; or if they are truly aiming to disarm the populace. I suspect the truth is some combination of those.

If you were part of the elite ruling class bankrupting the wealthiest nation on the planet by slowly and systematically undermining the currency which is the basis for that wealth for your own personal and political gain wouldn't you want to make sure the surfs were disarmed before the house of cards collapsed and they figured out what you were up to? Just saying.

 

I think that summarizes it nicely........that answers the question "why the rush?" They believe the economy will collapse pretty soon...

Guys, I think we all agree that most politicians in this state (and elsewhere) are venal, self-serving, incompetent, more often than not corrupt, and completely unconcerned about individual rights.

 

My point was, I think we need the African American and Latino community on our side to really make any progress in NJ. Sure, there are a precious few, but we need more. Again, I wasn't surprised by the comments by Baraka and other politicians at the Newark hearing. I was surprised -- due to my own ignorance mainly -- at the comments by members of the Newark community. They weren't yelling and ranting and raving about gun control (as the mostly white suburbanites in my town have been doing lately). They just want their kids to be safe. I didn't get the sense that this was an ideaological debate for them. Of course, they vote for politicians like Baraka, and I have no idea how that can change. A pro-freedom, more conservative (for lack of a better word) politician probably could never get the traction to make inroads in Newark, Trenton or Camden, no matter what the color of their skin.

 

The white, liberal dean of Rutgers law school and Baraka were the only ones at that hearing who I heard come out with the typical progressive gun control garbage at that hearing. I think our biggest enemy is the liberal esablishment -- Weinberg, Buono, Cryan, Gordon -- etc in this state and on the Federal level. Again, I don't have any bright ideas, but finding some way to make greater inroads into minority communities would definitely help our cause. Same could be said for the Jewish community, but I think there is a small but growing movement under way there (at least the Orthodox Jewish community).

Yep, there's always been plenty of black folks and spanish folks & portuguese that don't want ANYTHING to do with the criminals (street & elected) and the White Liberals that claim to be 'helping' them. Where you been, hiding in the 'burbs

 

Guys, I think we all agree that most politicians in this state (and elsewhere) are venal, self-serving, incompetent, more often than not corrupt, and completely unconcerned about individual rights.

 

My point was, I think we need the African American and Latino community on our side to really make any progress in NJ. Sure, there are a precious few, but we need more. Again, I wasn't surprised by the comments by Baraka and other politicians at the Newark hearing. I was surprised -- due to my own ignorance mainly -- at the comments by members of the Newark community. They weren't yelling and ranting and raving about gun control (as the mostly white suburbanites in my town have been doing lately). They just want their kids to be safe. I didn't get the sense that this was an ideaological debate for them. Of course, they vote for politicians like Baraka, and I have no idea how that can change. A pro-freedom, more conservative (for lack of a better word) politician probably could never get the traction to make inroads in Newark, Trenton or Camden, no matter what the color of their skin.

 

The white, liberal dean of Rutgers law school and Baraka were the only ones at that hearing who I heard come out with the typical progressive gun control garbage at that hearing. I think our biggest enemy is the liberal esablishment -- Weinberg, Buono, Cryan, Gordon -- etc in this state and on the Federal level. Again, I don't have any bright ideas, but finding some way to make greater inroads into minority communities would definitely help our cause. Same could be said for the Jewish community, but I think there is a small but growing movement under way there (at least the Orthodox Jewish community).

Yep, there's always been plenty of black folks and spanish folks & portuguese that don't want ANYTHING to do with the criminals (street & elected) and the White Liberals that claim to be 'helping' them. Where you been, hiding in the 'burbs

 

Yeah, I've pretty much been hunkered down in my den in my flannel robe watching Madmen on my 55" flatscreen, smoking my pipe and sipping a congac with my trusty golden retriever at my feet (and my 870 in reach at all times, of course).