NJ Gun Control Legislation; Coming Soon to a State Near You?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Its the severe disconnect between our government and its people, just like Kent State.
Now, the question is, will those who support such things in our government be treated as uncaring, racist expletives?
Just like those who held the flags my country right or wrong, where ignorance, even if used in good hearted ways is often harmful.
Hope some get the hint here
 

Yeah, this one is a perfect case of a reactionary over zealous government dip$hit DYFS agent acting on anonymous phone calls without performing any due diligence or showing any reasonable intelligence.

The gun in the picture shoots .22LR, it just happens to be patterned after an AR-15; you know, one of those EVIL BLACK GUNS! The kid has his finger off the trigger resting on the side of the receiver; an obvious sign that he was properly taught how to handle firearms. And the kicker, his father (who took the picture) is an NRA certified firearms instructor, an NRA certifies Range Safety Officer, and a New Jersey hunter education instructor! This guy knows how to safely and responsibly handle, store, and operate firearms and knows how to train other to do the same!

No NJ laws were broken as a result of this picture being taken.

The headline misleads the events though, they did not actually raid his home.

If there is a lesson to be learned here, it is that if the cops and/or some other dip$hit government agent shows up at your door and demands to be let into your home, you have every right to refuse. They can threaten, accuse, and lie to gain entry, but without a warrant or a law being broken, the 4th and 5th Amendment are your best defense.
 
Well, regardless of the fact that Harry Reid refused to bring this to a Senate vote strictly for political reasons (to save Democrat seats in the next election) it is still a win for 2nd Amendment supporters and Americans everywhere.

Dem Drop Assault Weapons Ban in Bill

This isn't the end of it all though...
Feinstein said Reid told her there would be separate votes on two measures. One would be on her bill, including the bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, the second just on prohibiting the magazines. Many Democrats think the ban on large-capacity magazines has a better chance of getting 60 votes than the assault weapons ban.
Click to expand...
So watch out for future Senate votes to ban any detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

Also, don't forget there are many States like Colorado, Maryland, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey that have passed or are proposing State level anti-gun legislation.

Call your Federal and State Representatives, stand up for your freedom and liberty, oppose and all legislation that bans, prohibits, or reduces your ability to purchase, own, or sell legally owned firearms and accessories.
 
You want to have the right to bear arms at least use a weapon that is appropriate not a automatic with more than 15 rounds. this is unheard of.
 

With all due respect Marv, automatic weapons (a firearm that shoots more than one bullet per trigger pull) have been illegal for people to own without special permitting since 1934.

And, even though automatic weapons can be owned with special permits, there are further restrictions on that ownership. You may only own an automatic weapon that was manufactured and registered with the BATF before May 19, 1986. Weapons manufactured after that date are restricted for Military and Law Enforcement use only. On top of that, you must register the location of where automatic weapon will be stored and must notify the BATF if the weapon is going to be moved from that location.

How many rounds any given weapons holds is a fallacious argument based on fear and ignorance. The number of rounds a gun holds completely ignores how lethal the particular round is.
 
Its rather ironic from OMGs link, where anyone can call the abuse hotline and make any claim, but only certain guns to a certain amount of people can own a gun, you know, that 2nd amendment thing?

We’ve got DOJ lawyers going after Gibson guitars. There’s the ongoing Fast and Furious debacle. Add the eco-nitwit rogues at the Interior Department. Then there’s the War on Lemonade Stands.
And now, we’ve got the U.S. Attorney in Idaho filing federal charges against Jeremy Hill, a father who shot a grizzly bear on his property to protect his wife and kids — even though state officials who investigated the case thoroughly took no action against the man. He now faces up to a year in prison and a $50,000 fine. He pleaded not guilty last week and faces trial in October:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/31/feds-go-after-idaho-man-who-shot-grizzly-bear-to-protect-his-family/

A "most tremendous looking animal, and extreemly hard to kill," wrote Lewis in his journal on May 5, 1805. Clark described the grizzly as "verry large and a turrible looking animal." Clark and another member of the expedition fired 10 shots at it before it died.
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/lewisandclark/aa_lewisandclark_bears_1.html
15 rounds Marv? You sure that's OK for the feds?
What about the bears?

More experts telling the real people what they need and dont need, Id be wary of these experts Marv
 
More foolishness from those who "know" better than you n me
Until February, when Congress changed the rules, it was illegal to carry a loaded firearm in that portion of Denali. While the rule change now allows hikers to carry firearms in all areas of Denali, it still is illegal to discharge them, park officials said.
"The man, who was in the lead, drew a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol when they heard a noise coming from the brush. When the bear emerged from the thicket and ran toward the other hiker, he fired approximately nine rounds in its general direction. The bear stopped, turned, and walked back into the brush, where it quickly disappeared from view," said the release.
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/grizzly-bear-shot-and-killed-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943

Only 9 shots this time, boy lucky it doesnt take 16
Heres the problem. This is an amendment right, and after that, its the states laws that rule.
In Chicago, where people are killing themselves left n right, then create special laws, and stick to them, illegal users causing physical harm to others, throw the book out, we kinow what we need to do.
In other places in our country, whats good for Chicago, or Feinstein wont hold water for those in Alaska,Minnesota,Idaho,Montana,the Dakotas, Washington state as well as other states, besides the amendment issue.
I like some of what Feinstein does, I truly do, but I believe she is way off the mark here
 
I like the anchors response at the end, he said they might want to rethink that dangers out there.
Now, he either meant to just not do it (most likely)
or
Brings guns (yea right)

So maybe everyone in any state that has grizzlies needs to all move to a town near our faithful lib posters, some 50-60 million of them.
And if they stop hunting grizzlies, they overpopulate where they are and expand their territory, which is where man is, as is what we currently see in Alaska, as man tries to share the land with them.
I have a better idea, lets give them a few eastern states where guns are verboten, and ship the grizzlies there, as Im sure the well meaning folks there would surely know how to care for the poor beasts
 


Yeah, the liberal activists will most likely try to give the bears birth control and want to send anyone who defends their home and family to "living with bears" sensitivity training.

True story -> Several years ago, the deer population in Mercer County, NJ, exploded due to the hunting restrictions. The people of Princeton Boro and Township (the town with the University of the same name) complained to Township and County officials about how their shrubbery and landscaping was being destroyed by the deer. The County opened up certain parts on the Township to hunting and the Township even awarded a special permit to members of a hunting club to thin the herd; in return the hunting club pledged to give a portion of the meat to the local homeless shelter. The first day of the special hunt, the activists showed up and protested; they followed hunters into the woods with drums and air horns to scare the deer away. The hunting club filed a complaint with the Township Police to keep the protesters away but the best they could Township could do was to suspend the hunt until a resolution between the hunters and protesters could be reached. At the end of the hearings, the Township Committee came to the conclusion that the best way to control the deer population was to give them birth control. Yes, give deer birth control! However, what the mental giants of the Township Committee could not determine, even with all their experts and conservation geniuses, was how exactly to get the deer to take the birth control. Ultimately, after a few more Committee meetings, they realized the birth control idea was asinine and moved forward with thinning the herd, but this time they used Sharpshooters and a couple of State Police Snipers to thin the herd instead of to the members of the hunting club. Sadly, the meat was collected and destroyed.
 
So, the state has the right to shoot and kill animals, but of course it doesnt have the right to pick favorites when it comes to the meat, unless we want more cronyism.
In Minnesota, during deer season, if a dog is out wandering in the woods, he can be shot, no questions asked.
This is due to respect for deer, the hunters, and the rights/responsibility of the dog owner to have control over their pet.
Is this so hard to do and to understand?
 
Gun control advocates are facing a tougher fight to pass further federal gun control legislation than they expected.

Gun control backers struggle to win some Democrats

Mayor "Nanny State" Bloomberg is single-handedly fighting a war on the 2nd Amendment by spending $12 million of his personal dollars to run a national ad campaign aimed to promote federal legislation for "common sense" background checks. However, it is easy for anyone who has read the draconian gun control legislation recently passed in NY State that the measures are anything but common sense. While Mayor Bloomberg thinks his ad campaign is putting pressure on Senators to join his fellow Big Government Progressive Democrats in passing further gun control, he fails to realize that there are still principled Representatives willing to do the job their constituents elected them to do and Democrats who actually believe in the 2nd Amendment...
Moderate Senate Democrats like Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota are shunning Bloomberg as a meddling outsider while stressing their allegiance to their own voters' views and to gun rights..."I do not need someone from New York City to tell me how to handle crime in our state. I know that we can go after and prosecute criminals without the need to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding North Dakotans," Heitkamp said this week, citing the constitutional right to bear arms...
Click to expand...
Bloomberg's attempts are targeted at Senators who are up for election next year but are more savvy to maintaining their seat than voting for a single issue...
Mark Pryor of Arkansas...faces re-election next year, and five other Senate Democrats from Republican-leaning or closely divided states do. All six, from Southern and Western states, will face voters whose deep attachment to guns is unshakeable...Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, said Wednesday his state's voters tell him, "Don't take away our rights, our individual rights, our guns." Begich said he opposes a strict proposal requiring background checks for nearly all gun sales but will wait to see whether there is a bipartisan compromise he can support..."We have a politically savvy and a loyal voting bloc, and the politicians know that," said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the NRA...
Click to expand...
The fact that 2nd Amendment supporters are largely recognized as being more politically savvy than the typical Progressive demonstrates just how important the 2nd Amendment is to our republic. The fact that 2nd Amendment supporters reach out to their elected representatives as concerned individuals demonstrates this savvy and realization that our freedoms are rooted in the principles of personal responsibility, republicanism, and the inalienable right to self protection. Compare that to the Big Government Progressive Democrats absolute need to rally the usual mob of low-information voters and useful idiots like the SEIU, Obama-maniacs, and Occupy Wall Streeters to give a false sense of urgency to their issue-du jour.

In typical fashion, the Yahoo article regurgitates the usual statistical fallacies and lies about the number of people who support gun control...
Expanding background checks to include gun show sales got 84 percent support in an Associated Press-GfK poll earlier this year....March surveys by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found more than 9 in 10 people in Florida and Virginia backing expanded background checks
Click to expand...
Reading this, one would presume that expanded gun control is "common sense" but the article also follows up with...
Analysts say people support more background checks because they consider it an extension of the existing system. That doesn't translate to unvarnished support from lawmakers
Click to expand...
This telling follow up, written intentionally to be dismissive, understates the very statistics that Big Government Progressive Democrats want you to believe shows that the People are in favor of additional gun control and background checks. However, anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills recognizes the significant difference between the electorate supporting an extension and enforcement of existing gun control laws from additional and more restrictive gun control legislation.

So, the while progressive Democrats widely claim a false sense of superior morality over those they wish to rule over, the pundits even recognize that just because you *might* be able to pass gun control legislation that it does not actually translate into the real world of *needing* to pass further gun control legislation. This mindset, that the Big Government Progressive Elites (like Mayor Bloomberg) know what is better for the People than the People themselves is a cornerstone of most legislation proposed and passed by Progressives.

Maryland, New York, and Colorado have all passed knee-jerk gun control legislation in the wake of Newtown, CT despite the opposition and the will of the People. Several other States have proposed gun control legislation pending Committee or a vote before the State Senate. The question is, are Big Government Progressive Democrats and gun control Nanny State zealots like Mayor Bloomberg going to determine the laws the People live under or are the People going to live in a republican form of government.
 
I firmly believe in the states, and in the states where it isnt just a pack in/move to the city type states, where hunting is still held and revered is the difference between us and the rest of the world.
Intermixed with this is our amendment rights and our history, where it was illegal by writ of the King to make firearms here, and our own paid for independence, which wasnt a latter letting go, but more a ripping freee at high cost.
For those of us who dont embrace this understanding, theyre losing out, and further dont understand what it is or means, and are easily confused between our rights, our history and our oleaders who somehow think having killers and robbers are somehow tied to part of this, where those who do understand realize, it was the killers and robbers who denied us the rights to make our own guns, our own government at the time.
 
Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the United States and is making moves to implement even more restrictive gun control laws.

The proposed measures include; ban on high capacity magazines, registration requirements for existing magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, creates a new "ammunition eligibility certificate", imposes immediate universal background checks on all firearms sales, extends the existing assault weapons ban to include 100 new types of firearms, changes the definition of an assault weapon to have only one of the banned features, and the nation's first statewide "dangerous weapons offender" database.

The newly banned magazines and weapons can not be bought or sold within the state of Connecticut, anyone owning such magazines and firearms must register it with the State or face penalties.

Connecticut's Democrat controlled Legislature hails their proposal, following weeks of closed-door negotiations, as a model that shows a bi-partisan agreement "that should resound in 49 other states and in Washington, D.C. And the message is: We can get it done here and they should get it done in their respective states and nationally in Congress."

You know as well as I do that these measures will do nothing to reduce crime and prevent the next psycho from shooting up another public place. And, how the fv*k can you have a "bi-partisan" agreement when debates takes place behind closed doors and both Houses in the Connecticut Legislature is controlled by Democrats?

Conversely, Nelson, Georgia, a rural town about 50 miles (80 km) north of Atlanta that passed on Monday, April 1st, the ‘Family Protection Ordinance’, which requires the head of each household to own a gun and ammunition.

Both excellent displays of Federalism. Both excellent exercises in State's rights. But the difference being a State with an eye on expanding their laws to the nation and the other a Town embracing their Constitutional rights with an eye on building a stronger community.
 
Easy to understand, Conneticut has become the suburb of NY City, where most of the MSM from there live, is overtouted in sports reporting compared to relevance.
Thus, nanny state, similar to Californicators in Washington state in certain ways.

As fas as bipartisan, the MSM lives in Conneticut, what would you expect? Its called CYA, as most dont look up how "their" guy voted
 
They dont have to live with the rest of them, as Washington has become a seperate entity with its own agenda, and not the will of the people, in which I mean state rights being the best, or better yet, the lowest form of government made to be the strongest form.

I just wonder how stupid and aloof some are, believing Washington can fix things so diverse to begin with, when every law they right concerns everyone, not just those in the deserts, where the snow flies, in the mountains, where wild animals either :need to be protected, or man does from them.
Where oil comes from the ground in mass quatities, to, we have so many people, we only need more.

We could ban ice skating on ponds, I bet alot of folks wouldnt care, even some from where you can do such a thing.
Obviously, as diverse as this country is, I could come up with tons of things that effects only certain groups of people, but being as the left is so daft at truly being liberal, Im sure they wont see this, nor understand it either, as they hold special scenarios for certain peoples, as they tread upon our state rights
 


Unless you have a very specific Federal license, it better not be an assault rifle. That's a technical term that's being perverted by gun control people. It means a shoulder arm capable of selecting between semi-automatic and full-automatic fire.

Those people are also trying to confuse the public into thinking "semi-automatic" has any thing to do with firing more than one bullet per trigger pull, which is actually "full-automatic."

And "Assault weapon" means a scary-looking gun. Look up the laws. A pistol grip, an accessory rail, can make a weapon an assault weapon.

I hate when people confuse the terms of an argument, for either side.
 
Solutions is to regulate guns and have back round checks on everyone owning a gun and plan on purchasing one. Screw the NRA and do not them lead your life with their threats and power they think they have.Remember those kids did not die for nothing in Conn.Have a voice and speak up!
 
Now, why would she think her son would kill her?
And, if she ever did, I am sure she wouldnt have let him near the guns.

So, if someone cracks, and you dont see it coming, no matter who it is, and you own guns, where the person who might crack is a son or daughter or husband or wife, how are we to write legislation to stop this?
And does the current legislation look anything like this?
 
Oldmangamer_73

I am an endowment member of the NRA, and my opinion is that the NRA has become an embarrassment to gun owners and a force in making people despise us. I was actually thinking about a "Take back the NRA" movement to bring it back closer to the middle of the road. It's just another Tea Party now, and who will listen to that crap?

I _have_ been background checked. I _have_ registered my guns. I don't object to these measures. National registry, that I object to. It's always been a prelude to disarming the honest public.
 
I think the NRA has gotten great press, for a long time.
If that makes or breaks anyones criteria as to how good the NRA is, then yes, theyve failed.
Out of context statements taken from people on the other end of an agenda can sound like what?
If the papers, actions and words of the NRA have changed, its news to me.

Oh, wait a minute, the news hasnt changed FROM the NRA, but the attitude/position/mindset/agenda by/from those giving the news has.
What a great way to change things that have been traditional for a long long time
 


Don't get down on the NRA. The NRA hasn't changed. Their message of promoting gun safety and responsibility hasn't changed. The NRA doesn't need to move towards the middle of the road. What has changed is the media. Don't believe the media bias. The NRA is now the target of the typical progressive Alinsky style media tactics of "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

You mention the Tea Party. The media portrayed the Tea Party as a extreme right wing group of racist rich white folks who only cared about stopping Obama from becoming president. The Tea Party got slaughtered with stories that ultimately turned out to be untrue, based in false testimony, and completely contrary to reality. But, it didn't matter, the Alinsky-style attack had begun, and the damage was done. The truth no longer mattered and anything and everyone associated with the Tea Party was turned into a euphemism for racist white ignorance and hatred.

The media stating the NRA is against background checks is a lie. As you probably already know, the NRA is against is UNIVERSAL background checks. But the media makes no distinction between States that already require a background criminal/mental health check and a Federal Universal background check; which technically there is anyway in the form if NICS.

As it did with the Tea Party, so it goes now with the NRA...keep fighting the good fight and keep your powder dry!
 
What is your answer more guns and no regulation. Let the people become like the wild west again.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom