NJ Republican Signs 10 Anti-Gun Bills

[kostyanj]

When he signed these bills, I was outraged. However, I've talked to people and thought this through. The 6 neutral and 2 positive bills, I have 0 issue with. Let's take the other 2.

1) terrorist watch list.
This is a list compiled by the FBI and is maintained in secrecy. In reality, the chances of them giving NJ state police access is slim to none. Especially given all of the recent leaks. This would also be a great avenue for people to check if they're on the list by applying for their permits. The pd has to give you the reason you were denied. Can't imagine any gov agency willing to divulge that info. The bill will be DOA upon attempted implementation.

2) Mental health records submitted to NICs
From what I understand, only state facilities or correctional institutions will submit records. It used to be done by your county, now they'll know if you were ever institutionalized in the state. Private therapists and voluntary psychiatric help doesn't apply under this. Federal HIPPA still trumps nj law so doctors can't just divulge your records for the hell of it.

I'm still really afraid of what Christie is going to do with the other 3.

 

[Willie Sutton]

^^ to the above, well said. Like I said before, the "changes" are really... nothing. The watch-list law is ripe for a challenge in court, and the chances of it really affecting anyone approaches zero. The latter bill... affects *prisons* and *people comitted to state run mental health facilities*, so...ditto. So what did we "give up"? One law is going to be challenged and NJ will lose, and the other deals with people who are treated for mental health issues *in prison* or after they are comitted to a *state hospital*. Guess what? They are *prohibited persons* anyway under federal law. So.... <yawn>...

I like the idea about seeing if you are on the watch list by applying for a permit, BTW. That's a sure way to end up in federal court litigating against the watch list. Well done. The ACLU will pick that one up. Be fun to see Gura and the ACLU working from the same table. Look at the bright side: Litigation against this law might be the crack in the watch list that we need to pry open. From adversity, opportunity.



Now:

The chances of Christie signing Sweeney's omnibus bill is about zero as well. If Christie signed that he really would be dead in the water politically. He knows it, we know it, and so... he's not going to sign it.


Which brings us to this gem:

"If Christie was truly concerned about doing what was right regardless of political fallout" <snip>



NEWS FLASH!! He's not* (or maybe he is... see the * note at the bottom)

Huge further news for you: Neither is any other elected official.


That's the real world, not fantasy land.


And it's why he will likely NOT sign the only bill on his desk that we really don't want signed.


All politics is local. In order for Christie to be effective at the MANY OTHER local political problems that he is facing in NJ, he needs to hold his chair. The way he does that (like *every other politician in the world*) is to attempt to manage the disparate interests of an enormously divergant set of "expectations" from the population. The problem in NJ is that the pro-RKBA "line" is so far out of alignment with the vast majority of voters that it's impossible to "do what is right regardless of the political fallout" and not be laughed out of the room.

And that, my friends, is the real world. You can work within it, or you can work according to a fantasy of the way you wish it was. The results are achieved by working within the actual truths, not within the fantasy wishes.


I am not a fan of the terrorism watch list either myself. In order to challenge that mess, we all best recruit for and join the ACLU, since they are leading the fight against it. If you were *personally* concerned with doing what is right, regardless of the political fallout, you would send them as much as you send the SAF and NRA-ILA. Yes, they are going to litigate against prayer in school, want to remove "In God We Trust" from our coins, hate the ten commandments being on the wall in court, and are suing to prevent towns from having a creche' with Jesus in front of the town hall, are strongly in favor of gay marriage, and all of that, but as a *single issue voter* you obviously support their position on the terrorism watch list, so you are sending them money because you PERSONALLY are interested in doing what is right for the second amendment regardless of the politicical fallout, right?

I sent over five figures to the former groups last year, and none to the ACLU, so I guess you could say that I am not interested in doing what's right.... for terrorists.


Happy to debate with rational thinkers, but not so much with those unable to see the fact that grey is a real color.... <yawn>


Willie




* Or maybe he is willing to do the right thing regardless of the political fallout. MAYBE, just maybe... he is actually following his concience. MAYBE, just maybe, letting the NICS have mental health records from prisons and state run (not private) mental hospitals is a good thing and the "fallout" of some people from Texas and elsewhere who are knee-jerking is worth *doing what is right* for the general population that he represents (which, after all, are the people of NJ). And maybe, just maybe... the terrorism watch list is not a bad place to draw the line. My issue with that list is that you cannot challenge it. But that's a completely different issue, see my suggestion to join the ACLU to fight that. .


.

 

[kwguy]

I think it's a given that NJ is about as corrupt as they come. But whether Christie is doing a good job or not there is irrelevant when it comes to gun rights. He's an anti. That's about all there is to it. When he spouts that nonsense about 'assault weapons not belonging in the hands of civilians' and other junk like that, then he's 'anti'. Defend him all you want, that's fine, but don't use that as an excuse for the fact that he is against gun rights.

 

[Willie Sutton]

^^^

You're wrong.

He's a neutral.

But that, my friend, in NJ means you are as good as it gets.


For the RKBA folks, including me, that's not good enough. I was and remain dissapointed... but he's not hurt us, he's just not helped.



Willie


*PS: Find me something more recent than 20 years ago with him saying anything at all about prohibiting assault rifles. Put in some effort and let me see what you come up with.

.

 

[kwguy]

Ok. I guess the 90's doesn't count, concerning 'assault rifles'. So I guess I dated myself a little. And he may be neutral, and in Jersey, that's the best they may be able to get, I'll admit, but being neutral when it comes to rights means you really don't stand for those rights at all. He may be good for NJ, but I left there to escape just that type of stuff. I would like it to stay off the national stage.

 

[jerkface11]

*PS: Find me something more recent than 20 years ago with him saying anything at all about prohibiting assault rifles. Put in some effort and let me see what you come up with.

How about you find anything ever where he was on our side?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

^^ to the above, well said. Like I said before, the "changes" are really... nothing. The watch-list law is ripe for a challenge in court, and the chances of it really affecting anyone approaches zero.

In order to challenge a law in court, you must first have "standing". You have to prove that you were affected or harmed by the law in some way. The problem with many of the anti-terrorism laws is proving standing because the government uses the "state secrets" doctrne to deny access to critical pieces of evidence.

To give an example, several plaintiffs have sued the NSA in court over the surveillance programs. The NSA refused to provide a list of who they were surveilling because it was a state secret. The courts ruled that because the plaintiffs could not prove the NSA had spied on them (and the NSA did not have to share any relevant evidence because it was a state secret), the plaintiffs lacked standing and the case was dismissed. One of the important revelations from Snowden was that these plaintiffs had in fact been subject to surveillance.

The same dilemma would affect anyone trying to challenge the terrorist watch list - unless you can prove you are on it without having any access to the list, you don't have standing. Again, a horrible law that may only be limited because the Feds may not trust the corrupt NJ state agencies with the list.

The latter bill... affects *prisons* and *people comitted to state run mental health facilities*, so...ditto. So what did we "give up"?

As federal law is currently written, anyone who is committed to a mental institution or "adjudicated mentally ill" is prohibited from owning firearms. One problem is that certain federal circuit courts take the view that a temporary detention for observation purposes counts as being "adjudicated mentally ill" - even if you did not receive an adversarial hearing, even if you were released as OK at the end of the temporary observation period, and even if there was no finding you were a danger to yourself or others. In some of these states, a doctor's opinion is all that is necessary to be held for temporary observation and lose your firearm's rights forever.

I'm not familiar with the NJ law or what position the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals takes on the split regarding the definition of adjudicated mentally ill; but the law has the potential to grab a lot more people than most might think due to this interpretation. See: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=578051 for more detail.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"How about you find anything ever where he was on our side?"


You're on:

In response to a reporters question comparing his (lack of) response to Bloombergs's all out efforts to tighten gun control laws, we find this:



Chris Christie > NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The governor was asked by reporters at a news conference today whether the state should consider tougher gun laws, and Christie responded by essentially saying “no,”.

“I am a little bit disturbed by politicians who in the immediate aftermath of this type of tragedy, try to grandstand on it, and I’m not going to be one of those people,” Christie said.

“I feel awfully for those families,” he said. “And this is just not the appropriate time to be grandstanding about gun laws. Can we at least get through the initial grief and tragedy for these families before we start making them political pawns?”

Christie went on to say that New Jersey has enough gun laws in place and that those already on the books just need to be enforced.


So:

'How about" you now putting forth some effort yourself?

I've presented an articulate and reasoned set of opinions, based on many years of living in NJ, being involved with NJ RKBA issues, NJ politics in general, and have contributed financially towards RKBA lobbying efforts annually for the last 20 years at a level that is more than the entire net worth of many of the members here. That's my input to the discussion, framed with a small sample of my world view and past interest and involvement with the subject. I put my time and money where my "keyboard is". You can consider my opinions, or reject them, as is your choice.

But: I'm not here to educate you while you sit back and passively "ask for more from me", and would point out that debate is not a one-way firehose of information. I'll debate those who have opinions that are well researched and contemplated, and will cheerfully poke holes in poorly reasoned opinions not backed up with facts.

So, if you want to engage me in debate, spend some time researching and then get back to me with your results.



Willie



.

 

[jerkface11]

LOL simply saying he's better than the last guy isn't a very good "debate". He's never been on our side and you have no evidence to show otherwise. He's an anti-gun leftist Rino.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

*PS: Find me something more recent than 20 years ago with him saying anything at all about prohibiting assault rifles. Put in some effort and let me see what you come up with.

"Christie said New Jersey’s gun-control laws are already considered the second-toughest in the nation by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He cited the state’s assault- weapons ban, a seven-day waiting period prior to any firearm purchase, the third-strictest capacity laws on magazine capacity in the country and a one-gun-a-month law.

He is seeking to toughen laws by mandating that mental- health records are included in the instant background-check process at the time of a firearm purchase. He also is proposing bills to impose or strengthen criminal penalties for selling firearms to convicted felons, possessing a gun with the intent to unlawfully transfer, unlawfully possessing ammunition and engaging in firearms trafficking.".
Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-04-19/christie-seeks-expanded-gun-checks-video-game-crackdown

"Christie’s reply was fleet-footed and fascinating. First he emphasized that New Jersey already has an assault-weapons ban—and reminded the audience that he “said during my time as a prosecutor and my time as governor that I support that.” . Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-meeting-christie-counters-obama-on-guns.html. That is from THIS year, not 20 years ago.

The Nation states "Most immediately, he has a gubernatorial re-election that’s twelve weeks away. Christie holds a whopping thirty-two-point lead in that race, and it’s extremely unlikely that even a straight veto of all gun measures would cost him the election." Source: http://www.thenation.com/blog/175649/can-chris-christie-change-gun-control-debate#

 

[Willie Sutton]

"In order to challenge a law in court, you must first have "standing". You have to prove that you were affected or harmed by the law in some way. The problem with many of the anti-terrorism laws is proving standing because the government uses the "state secrets" doctrne to deny access to critical pieces of evidence."


And this is where the new NJ law might work to our advantage. Contemplate this hypothetical: NJ Citizen applies for and is denied a NJ FOID. No reason is given and none is forthcoming from the local PD. Citizen takes advantage of his right to apeal the denial under the provisions of the NJ Statutues. He appears before Superior Court where the denial is upheld, however no reason is given. He then files litigation reciting equal protection against the State of NJ. After filing for this, he learns thru discovery that the denial is based on his inclusion on the Watch List (or he is denied access to the information, during discovery, whereupon it is clear that the denial is based on being on the watch List). At the very least he now knows or has reason to know that he has been placed on the watch list, and from there he has standing and can continue litigation towards an outcome.

I see this as a strategic opportunity. We play chess, not checkers. It's not three steps we need to be thinking ahead about, it's fifty. See "Join the ACLU"



"He is seeking to toughen laws by mandating that mental- health records are included in the instant background-check process at the time of a firearm purchase. He also is proposing bills to impose or strengthen criminal penalties for selling firearms to convicted felons, possessing a gun with the intent to unlawfully transfer, unlawfully possessing ammunition and engaging in firearms trafficking.".



Yeah... that's really a hardcore anti-gun stance, isn't it? <yawn>... Rates wight up with Bloomberg and Pelosi <not>.

1: The "mental health records" cited are those from PRISON HOSPITALS and STATE HOSPITALS where the vast majority of "patients" have been placed under involuntary commitment... IE: are a walking and talking danger to themselves and to those around them. Want them buying guns? REALLY? No kidding... and note that PRIVATE VOLUNTARY TREATMENT for (depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc) is specifically excluded from the bill.


2: For the increased severity for those found bringing in illegal guns to sell? It's pretty hard to get upset about wanting to jail gang-bangers found on the NJ Turnpike with a trunkfull of Jennings .25's headed to Newark to arm the homies. Know what? End that nonsense by jailing the miscreants forever and maybe the decent citizens of NJ can see a relaxation in the laws that really affect us, like the rationing of handguns to one every 30 days, etc.


Bottom line is that not all gun laws are bad ones. Take for example the law he just signed prohibiting permit holders names from being part of the public record. That's one of the "ten anti gun bills" he just signed according to the knee-jerks. Note that there are a lot of BAD PEOPLE doing BAD THINGS with firearms in NJ. Drugs, gangs, crime, etc., and make no mistake about it. These people are not members of the NRA, they do not come to RKBA rallies, and belong in jail. I'm not worried about increasing penalties for their crimes. NJ has crappy gun laws... all of the REALLY crappy ones are decades old. The new stuff is either *good* (see permit holders names not being part of the public record) or are basically political grandstanding withour any real effect. <insert who gives a hoot here>. Some might even give us leverage in future litigation (see the above watch list segue)




Willie

.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

After filing for this, he learns thru discovery that the denial is based on his inclusion on the Watch List (or he is denied access to the information, during discovery, whereupon it is clear that the denial is based on being on the watch List).

Sure, all you need is a plaintiff who is not otherwise a prohibited person, who is not a terrorist; but is denied because they are on the terrorist watch list (not that they would know or be told that) who lives in NJ, and who is smart enough to figure out what is going on and contact a good constitutional lawyer. Then you'll be on step #1 to getting stonewalled on state secrets issues.

Christie went on to say that New Jersey has enough gun laws in place and that those already on the books just need to be enforced.

And then he went and signed more gun laws any way - even though he had a 32 point lead on his opponent in the Governor's race.

 

[jerkface11]

Christie went on to say that New Jersey has enough gun laws in place and that those already on the books just need to be enforced

You can tell he's anti gun because he thinks NJ has enough gun laws and not too many.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"Sure, all you need is a plaintiff who is not otherwise a prohibited person, who is not a terrorist; but is denied because they are on the terrorist watch list (not that they would know or be told that) who lives in NJ, and who is smart enough to figure out what is going on and contact a good constitutional lawyer. Then you'll be on step #1 to getting stonewalled on state secrets issues"


Welcome to the real world of how litigation challenges existing laws. Finding the plaintiff is always the hardest part.

Now... if there is nobody fitting the above description, what damage is done? And without damage... how can we complain about the unfair law?


Hmmm..... No plaintiff... no damages.... no harm done.... then why complain about it? It's like making it illegal to buy a gun if you are a Martian. When you find an agrieved Martian, let us know. Until then I'm not going to get all worked up about it.


"And then he went and signed more gun laws any way"

One of which took MY NAME away from the public record so that MY ADDRESS cannot be published by some anti-gun-nutcase reporter. And he signed a law that makes my across the street neighbor who went running amok naked in the street two years ago and who was then taken and put into the state mental health system (in handcuffs) someone who ought to be stopped at the NICS check (and good luck with that FOID application that would need to have been approved before he even got to the NICS check, and the handgun purchase permit application that would have to be approved within the last 45 days for him to even get to the NICS check) Uhh.... THANKS!! Those are not bad things.... they are either "OK" or "meaningless in the context of that which already exists".




"You can tell he's anti gun because he thinks NJ has enough gun laws and not too many"


Classic two part fallacy in reasoning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum


Step up to the plate!


So, No: You can't tell he's anti gun because he thinks NJ has enough gun laws and not too many.

With all due respect, you need to better your education in order to intelligently "tell what others mean by what they say" as opposed to taking wild guesses based on how you "feel", starting with this:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

and to round things out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic




But really, this should be your starting point. It'll really help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy




Enjoy,



Willie

.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I'm reminded of a quote I read recently.

Both parties want to strip our liberties away and take our money and give it to someone else. The only difference betwixt the two is who they want to give the money to.

Still think a third party vote is wasted?

The last two elections have taught us nothing. Running a closet liberal gun grabber just results in the openly liberal gun grabber getting elected. CC is just Romney MkIII

You early primary blue states nominate this guy and you're just locking in Hillary landslide. Romney and now CC are prime examples of why we need a NATIONAL PRIMARY all on one day

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

1: The "mental health records" cited are those from PRISON HOSPITALS and STATE HOSPITALS where the vast majority of "patients" have been placed under involuntary commitment... IE: are a walking and talking danger to themselves and to those around them. Want them buying guns? REALLY? No kidding... and note that PRIVATE VOLUNTARY TREATMENT for (depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc) is specifically excluded from the bill.

Did you not understand my argument or not read it? Take a look at this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=708635.

Depending on how the Third Circuit handles the split on the definition of "adjudicated mentally ill" and the reporting requirements of the law, that person could now be a prohibited person in NJ, despite having served as an LEO for years.

Nowhere did I make an argument against denying firearms to the mentally ill. What I argued against was having people be declared mentally ill without a court hearing and having their firearms rights suspended after a temporary observation even after a professional medical diagnosis that they were not mentally ill or a danger to themselves or others.

If the 3rd Circuit shares the view of the 1st Circuit and NJ is now reporting all temporary detenions as a result of this law from state correctional and mental facilities, then all you need to lose your firearms FOREVER is to have a cop drop you off for temporary observation. No court hearing needed. You don't even need to be found mentally ill after the observation.

This is one reason why S.480 was an important bill - it clarified this circuit split in a fair way; but it got amended to a DOA gun control bill, so the current reality is this.

Now... if there is nobody fitting the above description, what damage is done? And without damage... how can we complain about the unfair law?

So if nobody figures out they are being denied rights because they are on a secret list then there was no harm? If they figure that out and don't call a lawyer, it isn't a problem? One of the major problems with this law is the whole secrecy thing. As tough as it is to find plaintiffs in normal litigation, it gets really tough to find plaintiffs when the only valid plaintiffs have to be on a secret list that you can't see and that they don't know they are on.

 

[kwguy]

I'm not too complicated of a guy. If Christie thinks jersey has enough gun laws, and he's ok with them, well, to me that's like Feinstein saying that she's ok with Cali's laws. Of course antis would be ok with NJ gun laws, because they are horrible. Anyone who supports those draconian laws is an anti. Why? Because those very laws are anti.

Parsing words and phrases don't change the overall picture:

NJ gun laws are anti and draconian.

Christie supports them.

Why he supports them doesn't matter. Local politics? Fine, keep them local, and out of the national stage.

I feel bad for jerseyans and hope things change. I doubt it though.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"One of the major problems with this law is the whole secrecy thing. As tough as it is to find plaintiffs in normal litigation, it gets really tough to find plaintiffs when the only valid plaintiffs have to be on a secret list that you can't see and that they don't know they are on"



No argument from me. I'm not a fan of the law...

So: Got Lemons? Try to make Lemonaid. Might be hard, but... it's the world we live in.




Depending on how the Third Circuit handles the split on the definition of "adjudicated mentally ill" and the reporting requirements of the law, that person could now be a prohibited person in NJ, despite having served as an LEO for years.



Being a LEO is not a special case, but to continue: A LEO just like anyone else finding out that he's now retroactively disqualified from buying arms in NJ is no different than *all of the LEO's and others* who are retroactively disqualified from owning arms after the Lautenberg "Domestic Violence" travesty. Another "good law from NJ"... duly noting that Christie had nothing to do with it and that it is the law of the land, and has withstood challenge (to date). Don't like it? Fight it. I plan to do exactly that. Be interesting to see how it plays out given the circuit court opinions that tie into it.

Trust me, please... we are on the same side here.



"I'd rather make unintelligent contributions"

You do, very reliably in fact. Actually that's not true: It's an uneducated contribution, not an unintelligent one. The good news is that we can fix uneducated. Unintelligent is harder.

"than dishonest ones"

Logic is not your strong point, is it? If it were, you would see that your statement could be used as a textbook example of one of many types of fallacies in reasoning. I've provided sufficient resources for you to start to better your abilities here. Nobody else but you can educate you. Trust me, it'll improve your life to read a bit.




Willie

.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Trust me, please... we are on the same side here.

For people on the "same side", we sure seem to have widely divergent views on what level of restrictions on firearms are acceptable and what is acceptable behavior from our elected representatives.

 

[SuperNaut]

TBH I don't care one whit about what is good for NJ.

Christie the Presidential Candidate would be pure poison for RKBA and no amount of contextual/relativistic apologetics will convince me otherwise.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"For people on the "same side", we sure seem to have widely divergent views on what level of restrictions on firearms are acceptable and what is acceptable behavior from our elected representatives"


No, to recite:

I have spent decades opposing the firearms laws of NJ. I have been harassed by the NJSP Firearms Unit in retaliation, have been arrested by them for "manufacturing a firearm" in NJ after assembling an AR-15 from a lower that I legally bought from a NJ FFL, have been charged by them with "retailing firearms without a license" after listing a small handful of my collection for private sale, have had my house raided and many of my personal valuables stolen during a search warrant executed in support of those charges, have had my entire collection laid out on the table "bullet by shiny bullet" and had a press conference held with the NJSP smiling over the take, had my collection dissapear into the maws of the "forfeiture" system, then I FOUGHT THE BASTARDS in court, and have won 100% of those battles in court. I am the only person known to have gotten all of my guns back from the system after such an episode. I have a court order restoring my rights, and I walked into the NJSP headquarters with it and another court order for the return of my firearms, which I presented with a smile. So... I've earned the right to my opinions the very hard way.

So:

I stand as an opponent of the NJ system, the laws, and I put my money where my mouth is, to the tune of almost a $mil in hard cash donated to the RKBA process over my lifetime. I live elsewhere now, and do not and never will again posess a firearm in NJ. I do not want to expose myself to further harassment... it's not worth it. I am happy in Wisconsin, and I send my money to NJ to keep up the fight. I financially boycott the state, I moved my business and several $mil in revenue a year away from the state, and I let the politicians know exactly why. I'm sorry I did not do it decades earlier.

So... truly: We are on the same side.

I also see NJ as only someone from there can see it. We have REAL WORLD choices when it comes to our elected officials, and we have REAL WORLD POLITICS opposing us. We NEED to play the political game VERY WELL in order to not make a bad place even worse. Christie is walking a very fine line... and those of us in the REAL NJ keep our fingers crossed at all times... so far he's been a neutral. And really: That's ALL that we can hope for... for now.

Christie is an affable and decent guy. I generally trust him as a decent man. Is he perfect? No.. but he's a good guy nevertheless and his personal integrity is not in question by anyone, which is a huge contrast to the other "leaders" we have seen in NJ. IF he runs against Hillary, it's a no brainer who I'll vote for. Third party votes are a vote for the opposition, and I don't vote for the opposition. It's not a perfect world... live in it.

So, getting me upset about increasing penalties for trafficking guns and for mental health record sharing is not gonna happen. Ask me about the recent 2/1 decision regarding NJ CCW`laws and you'll get an earfull. That's the single most important thing going on in NJ, and it's not unlikely that Gura will be arguing it before SCOTUS, in a case that might make Heller seem like a sideshow. Talk to me about rationing handgun sales. Ask me about the Lautenberg laws. Those upset me. The rest of the "new laws" are just irrrelevent political sideshows.... and Christie is playing the game exactly like we expected, and frankly the way that the NJ Associations are OK with. Bottom line: You're not hearing complaints from NJ residents about the "new laws". We` "Get it".... and we don't need others telling us how to run things. We know it sucks... we don't need to have our faces rubbed into the dirt. Want to help? Send us some hard cash so we can keep our side funded.




"Christie the Presidential Candidate would be pure poison for RKBA and no amount of contextual/relativistic apologetics will convince me otherwise."

It's easy to be against things. What are you for? What candidate *who has a realistic chance of winning* do you propose as an alternate? I'm all ears. Anyone? Because you're gonna get to vote for the candidate that you dislike less... not the one you love more. None of those guys are in the race.



Willie

.

 

[kwguy]

Well, I guess we are in a world of hurt then huh? When the only choices are between those who would 'only steal' certain amounts of our rights.

How cliche. Sounds like so much of the world already. Here's a thought, lets get people into office that won't infringe on our rights at all, instead of settling on those who would only 'lightly chain' us. I like that idea.

 

[Willie Sutton]

^^

"Here's a thought, lets get people into office that won't infringe on our rights at all"


Here's a thought: Feel free to do exactly that. Think you can? Go for it! Start today, and make it happen in the next two years. Get to it! Yippee! No time to waste!


See, that was easy! All it takes is wishing *really really hard* and we can have people in office that won't infringe on our rights at all. We won't need a Supreme Court any more to ponder what those rights actually are, and every different and disparate group of people can do whatever they like. That'll be just perfect. Vote for Schmo! He promises breakfast for dinner, ice cream for breakfast, chocolate covered bacon for lunch, and immediate repeal of the NFA, GCA-68, and every other law that infringes on your rights AT ALL! Heck, sign me up! Oh damn... Schmo got elected. And guess what.... <sigh>.... he's got Congress standing in the way of all of his promises. Guess you'll need to live with the NFA and GCA and no free chocolate covered bacon, really sorry 'bout that but heck, he sincerely appreciates your vote, is concerned about your needs, will strongly consider his position, thanks you for your input, and don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way out.



Now for the rest of us who live in the real world:

Just because things aren't perfect thru the very narrow prism of one tiny pinhole of viewpoint does not make it all bad. We are a potent force for civil rights, and it's our imperative to elect the best candidate *available to us* when the opportunity presents itself. On one side we have absolute mayhem threatened. On the other hand we have some positive people, and some neutral people, but in the end Government is a series of compromises buffered by our system of checks and balances. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of what some want to believe, everything is a compromise. If you fail to understand this, you will always be angry. Life is to short to always be angry.. so get used to not always having breakfast for dinner, and ice cream for breakfast. The sad news is that no Presidential candidate is running on repealing the NFA and GCA as their main campaign points. You can live with that or you can be angry about it. The Rebublic will survive another election cycle. We've had 238 years to screw it up already, another 4 ain't gonna kill us....


Christie signing 10 gun laws, of which 2 were GOOD FOR US, 6 made absolutely no difference at all, and 2 being of VERY marginal consequence is the smallest thing I'm worried about.



Willie


.

 

[kwguy]

Whatever. Some people are happy as long as the trains run on time too.

Just saying 'well then do something about it, go run for office...' Is silly on its face.

Really?... Sure, lets just go do that. You know that not everyone has the means or ability to do that. That doesn't mean that we have to like, agree with, or accept those elected officials that we are stuck with. Not to get too far off the forum mainstream, but that's like being forced to choose between two slavemasters or something silly like that. Guess what, you don't have to choose either one. And you don't have to like what you are stuck with. Whether you personally can run for office or not.

 

[Willie Sutton]

^^

As I said, It's easy to be against something.

Being in favor of something takes far more work.


And I didn't suggest that you run for office. I'm just pointing out that your statement that we should get people elected who don't restrict our rights "at all" is silly on it's face. If it's so easy, get to it... isn't there a local office for your favorite political party? Walk in, volunteer, and make it happen. All politics are local. Start with electing a decent dog-catcher and work up to a decent town administrator. Be part of a "get out the vote" drive. Be a poll watcher. Move up... maybe you can become an Elector in the Electoral College, as several of my firiends have done. Do.... something.... just... do.... Otherwise it's just noise.


"Guess what, you don't have to choose either one"

But one will be chosen... and you're gonna live with it, like it or not. So choose the best of the possibilities, and work within the system, within your abilities, to change what you do not like.



Willie

.