NJ senators want to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate

That's the one good thing my first wife did for me, got me out on NJ some 35 years ago.

Amazing.
I'm not surprised -- really. I think a lot of us believed this is what their agenda really was despite their claims otherwise.
Another excuse for me to buy more ammunition -- again.

Assuming I can find any . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Loretta Weinberg (D-37), Sandra Cunningham (D-31), and Linda Greenstein (D-14), Nellie Pou (D-35)

Three governors talked about it after Sandy Hook. I find it very sad that these people feel comfortable in openly talking about confiscation.

It was an open-mic; they're hardly "comfortable" talking about confiscation, since they still need us to help pass it. I think the cat has been out of the bag for a while, and their sustained lies to the contrary ever since have only served to make gunowners more "paranoid" and vigilant against them.

If they'd just come out and openly say they want a repeal of the 2nd, we could actually have an honest debate, and settle this matter for the next 50 years. Whether we'd win or lose does not matter, it'll happen anyway, but will be far more efficient than subverting our whole governmental system to implement (and causing a civil war in the process)

TCB

barnbwt said:

It was an open-mic; they're hardly "comfortable" talking about confiscation, since they still need us to help pass it. I think the cat has been out of the bag for a while, and their sustained lies to the contrary ever since have only served to make gunowners more "paranoid" and vigilant against them.

Click to expand...

This could be the catalyst into getting these politicians thrown out of office. This isn't just a New Jersey problem. There could be more conversations like this going in other legislatures and we are just not aware of them. This also put New Jersey's woes onto the national spotlight and maybe perhaps NJ gun owners could get some help from the NRA and GOA.

Maybe more focus is needed on New Jersey, not just helping out NJ gun owners. But also helping us out across the country. Lest I remind anyone here that NJ has rabid anti-gun politicians that have affected the national stage.

These politicians include NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg with his infamous "Lautenberg Amendment" on prohibiting people with a misdemeanor of DV from ever owning a firearm. Now he is making noise about reloading powder.

Then there is NJ Rep William Hughes of the infamous "Hughes Amendment" which closed the machine gun registry in 1986.

Then we have NJ attorney general Arthur Sills who helped Dodd in the 1960's in anti-gun hearings leading up to the 1968 GCA which Sills gave his input to. And Mr Sills in 1966 hoisted upon law abiding citizens in NJ the Firearms ID card law. Which Illinois copied 2 years later in 1968. And later on in Massachusetts sometime after.

So just because these anti-gun politicians are in NJ and we are hundreds or thousands of miles away from there. Their influence can and will affect your ability and your neighbors and your families abilities to legally purchase firearms for self protection.

We need to help out NJ gun owners, we need to ask the NRA and GOA get involved with helping NJ gun owners. We need to help out with donations to pro-gun candidates in that state. Just because we don't live there, doesn't mean that we won't be affected by their political influence.

It isn't just New Jersey, it is also other states like NY state, CT, CO, MD, IL, and CA that need our help. We need to look out of our comfort zone of our pro-gun state and help other firearm owners in states with anti-gun politicians...otherwise we risk someday finding ourselves in the same boat.

We "Gun Toters" are a formidable bunch especially at the Polling Places.
That's why the Politicians WILL NOT STOP harassing us!
Sadly, it takes a Sandy Hook type tradgedy for a Anti-Gun Politico to resume His/Her Drum Beating.
Capitol Hill is in DIRE need of a good house cleaning.

I do not recall so many politicians being so open about it. We all knew Feinstein wanted a 100% ban, as well as their advocacy organizations, but we didn't have common politicians and governors openly advocating confiscation.

i'm not one bit surprised that anti-gun politicians in NJ want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens: They have done something like that before. Anyone remember when NJ forced folks to register their "assault weapons"? Those anti-gun NJ politicians then passed a law forcing folks to take their "assault weapons" out of state, give them to the police or destroy them. Two friends from NJ brought their dastardly "assault weapons" to my place in WV.

It has been glaringly evident to me for decades that the anti-gunners want to confiscate our guns.

Why should this surprise anyone?

We are stupid fools for keeping a watchful eye on potentially harmful federal legislation like AW bans and super background checks. It has been all an divergence tactic by the White House.

The real fight over gun control is being faught and lost in the states like NY, NJ, CT, Mass, MD, Vermont, Colorado, California and others. These bad gun laws are MUCH harder to get struck down in the courts because there are so many bad laws.

This doesn't get talked about in the open but the same thing happened in NY.

Confiscation IS VERY MUCH on the minds of gun control advocates (read democratic lawmakers) all the time.

The thing is. They want men with guns on the payroll to do the confiscating. None Of these pukes has the stones to do it themselves. I bet the wives and kids of the men doing the potential confiscating feel good about that

But the big guy says he "believes in the 2nd Amendment". Perhaps he knows not what his henchmen are up to.

I'm not sure why this is any surprise ?

It would not surprise me that these politicians want to confiscate all guns, but I think that what they meant is that they want regulations to facilitate confiscation of firearms from those who are already not allowed to own them.

bushmaster1313 said:

It would not surprise me that these politicians want to confiscate all guns, but I think that what they meant is that they want regulations to facilitate confiscation of firearms from those who are already not allowed to own them.

Click to expand...

What?

I spent 45 minutes on the phone yesterday with someone from Gov Christie's re-election campaign poll. I told them I'd vote for a hippo but not a RINO! I expect the Gov to stand tall, be factual and oppose all these bills, especially if he had any national aspirations. He is facing a loud, vocal minority of banners but there is a wide base of support for not impinging on the rights of the law-abiding and he can tap into that.

Recent studies show that a majority of people in the US think we are under siege of gun crime, primarily because of the way certain sensational stories are reported and repeated. In reality, crimes committed with firearms have decreased significantly over the past 20 years, as reported in a report by the typically liberal-leaning Pew Research:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

The impression I got was that the Gov was holding a wet finger in the air, sampling the breeze to see which way he should go. I told the pollster that I would only respect him if he stood on principle.

I could suggest to him what to do with his finger...............

I agree with the idea that all gun owners are in the fight going on in "Occupied New Jersey/New York/Rhode Island/California/etc etc". We are all only one killing spree away from a new round of foolish crusaderism and gun restriction, where the usual cast of gun grabbers will offer the same old car salesman histrionics and useless pseudo-solutions to get people behind more government control of their lives and property.
We all have to understand the mentality of the so-called "progressives" who push for all this stuff. Their goal is to get as many people as dependent on government in as many ways as possible. They don't believe that average Americans are competent enough to handle their own lives, their own health care, or their own property.
These are the kind of people who want to tell people what kind of soft drinks to drink and want to tax fatty food...but meanwhile, they refuse to obey the very laws they themselves demand that others comply with.
Forget the idea that our Washington Aristocracy wants total gun confiscation in the United States of America. Why? Because then, a Superior Aristocrat could not obtain a gun when he or she wanted it. What they do want, instead, is to have such a strangling maze of legislation that no one but they and those they prefer could ever get near a firearm.
Liberals do not like self-reliance, individualism, or religious faith. And self-reliant individualists who worship something besides government and are armed are downright dangerous to them.

Exactly. Those who flippantly respond with, "well, just move to a free state", or, "you all got what you deserved for electing those people" are blind to the bigger picture. Do you really think what happens in the "communist" states can't hurt "free America"? Consider this: Colorado now has a 15-round magazine ban, because the people of New York City elected Bloomberg to a third term.

Those responses are not flippant. You cannot win the right to keep and bear arms in those states short of violence or the threat of violence. The votes are not there. We will never convince places like California or NYC otherwise. The courts are not going to save you; they will consistently rule, and have been consistently ruling, for more government power in small steps. Since you are not willing to do what is necessary to make those politicians follow the state and Federal constitutions, then either stop complaining or move.

tomrkba said:

Those responses are not flippant. You cannot win the right to keep and bear arms in those states short of violence or the threat of violence. The votes are not there. We will never convince places like California or NYC otherwise. The courts are not going to save you; they will consistently rule, and have been consistently ruling, for more government power in small steps. Since you are not willing to do what is necessary to make those politicians follow the state and Federal constitutions, then either stop complaining or move.

Click to expand...

Here's the problem...

In liberal / left leaning states where gun control laws are highly restrictive, how many of the registered voters are gun owners? How many are single issue (2A) voters? Not enough apparently.

Education is the key, and we're losing that battle.

Moving isn't the answer. Antis move too. There are more of them then are of us, we're just louder and have law on our side. For the moment. Unless we get our heads out of our tails and start educating the masses that a firearm can't hurt you without human input and that current laws need to be enforced, we will lose a long and drawn out battle.

My in-laws are from NY/NJ. I showed Brother-in-law my deer rifle at a family gathering. Same reaction as if I was a mass murderer. Omigawd, a Gun!! Who yez gonna shoot wit dat?? Look out! it's liable to go off. Never make that mistake again. :banghead:

TheOld Man said:

My in-laws are from NY/NJ. I showed Brother-in-law my deer rifle at a family gathering. Same reaction as if I was a mass murderer. Omigawd, a Gun!! Who yez gonna shoot wit dat?? Look out! it's liable to go off. Never make that mistake again. :banghead:

Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about. Many folks in the concrete jungles see a firearm as an instrument of killing people. It's our job to change that mantra, and the only way to do it is one at a time. You "enlighten" your brother-in-law, and the next time the subject comes up amongst his crowd he'll have a different point of view on it.

That does not mean an anti-gun person will suddenly become an avid shooter. You'll just be expanding their knowledge a little.