NJ Governor Chris Christie: Gun Control Can Be a Part of “Violence Control”

“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) shrugged off the suggestion that he’s not conservative enough to win the Republican presidential nomination on Sunday and stood by his belief that gun control can be a necessary part of violence prevention,” huffingtonpost.com reports, regurgitating his Fox News Sunday interview [3:00 above]. “‘If you look at what we’ve done in New Jersey we want to control violence . . . And some of that may involve firearms, but a lot of it doesn’t.'” Christie goes on to say gun control “can be” part of “violence control.” “In New Jersey I’ve signed some of those measures. But I’ve also vetoed some measures I thought were over-reaching and not consistent with Second Amendment rights.” Christie trots out the “c” word (“common sense”) and lectures anyone who isn’t a gun control pragmatist (like him). “We need to have adults in the room who make decisions based upon controlling violence in our society.”

comments

  1. avatar PapaChop says:

    Too bad when Christie is in the room there isn’t room for anyone else.

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      The best one-sentence summary of his governing methods that I’ve heard.

  2. avatar USMCVeteran says:

    I’d say that “Politician Control” can be a part of “Violence Control”. Read “Death By Government”, by R. J. Rummel.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Christie says gun control can be a part of violence control but that is completely false. Controlling guns does not in any way control violence.

      On a side note… the questioning was funny…

      Question1 answer: Listen, I’m the governor of new jersey…
      Question2 answer: I’m not interested in that… i’m the governor of new jersey
      Question3 answer: That’s DC politics, and I’m the governor of new jersey
      QuestionX answer: …I’m the governor of new jersey…

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        One would wonder why he is on a NATIONAL sunday morning tv show…

  3. avatar Totenglocke says:

    Sadly, the Republican party is corrupt and idiotic enough that it’s almost a certainty that they WILL nominate Jabb the Hutt. He’s a RINO, so Democrats will love him and if he’s elected (I’d day he’s got a 55-60% chance of winning), we will get new Federal gun control legislation, because the Republican Senators and Congressmen will be creaming their pants to rubberstamp anything he wants.

    1. avatar Model 31 says:

      Democrats will love him through the primary…afterward he will be a racist, anti-abortion, anti-choice wife beater/girlfriend rapist that wants kids to starve, the middle class without heat or healthcare and to push old people out of tall buildings. It happened with McCain and Romney.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        The key endorsement from the NYT during the primaries says it all. First the Times opens it’s yap about how great a certain republican is then once it’s a horse race with the democratic looter the republican is satan incarnate.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        You are correct. But the bloated oxygen thief won’t be running for Rep nomination. More likely will running for dem nom. The Dems have similar issue as the RINOs/big time Rep party. The dem “bench” is totally infested with far leftwing loons of the Obuma stripe. These twits are the red tofu the dem “mainstreamers'” love/will primary. But not electible. The puppetmasters in dem party will be looking for an “electible”/”commonsense” candidate. Primary or smokefilled (pot that is) room that is who they will nominate. And not going to be the witch of LittleRock/Chicago/NY/Bengazi.

        Christie wouldn’t have the balls to show up in Iowa to Primary for Rep nom. Would blow off our caucus process (see also McCain). In Iowa the Rep Party has the same issues as the National Rep Party but East Coast RINOs are NOT part of the plan. And blowhards don’t play. At this point Ted Cruse would easily take the rural vote in Rep primary and win the urban primary. No on else would come close. Cand. don’t win Primary process in Iowa but can dang sure loose the Primary process in Iowa.

  4. avatar Gyufygy says:

    Because all your efforts have done such a wonderful job of making Jersey hellholes like Camden safe.

    1. avatar rjoguillory says:

      …listen to me…..I was raised in the St. Louis area…hung out as a teen and young man in the strip clubs of East St. Louis during the 80’s…..all of this during the disco/drugs & decadence periods…. then I worked all over the world for US DoD…war zones…forest fires…Bosnia, Hungary…Germany, Japan… …then…one day I found myself in New Jersey for work….somehow I ended up a little lost and took an exit into Camden NJ….WoW!

      Talk about Mad-Max Zones….burning fire barrels… homeless men standing around on corners…it was one of the scariest places I have ever seen…and I’ve seen a lot of “scary”….

      Now…tell me again about how great the “Elephant in the Room” is?

      No..what we are going to get is the next character in line with the fake elections…in order to “fake” the American Public again….(I mean…where and why do you think they cam up white a half-black man named “Barack Hussein Obama” at just the right time?)

      No…Christie is in place to give you the impression that you are going to be getting America back..and that you do not have to “fight for it”… but they are afraid that many will know that Christie is a White-Cow-Shill-in-waiting and hopefully will ignore him…

      For those seeking more liberty…I’d suggest we ask Mr Ron Paul and Mr. Paul Craig Roberts to run as a Libertarian ticket….

      Regards,

      RJ O’Guillory
      Author-
      Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I’m a Libertarian, but I’d vote for Ted Cruz. I’d kinda like to see him hire some decent writers for Sarah Palin, put her in a Wonder Woman suit, and have her carry an AR-15. “Hey! I’m no Joe Biden! Or Dick Cheney, for that matter!”

        BTW, that pic of her in the bikini was fake:
        http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/this-is-the-sarah-palin-bikini-shot-you-are-looking-for-and-no-its-not-real/

  5. avatar BillF says:

    I heard the interview. Christie was making a big effort to keep talking without saying anything. He waffled as much as he could on the last legislation, trying to pacify as many Jersey voters as possible. He won’t be worried about that now.

  6. avatar Hasdrubal says:

    Anyone who votes for this man thinking he’s anything but a statist looking to control everything possible is a fool.

    1. avatar Anmut says:

      X 1000

      This guy is an insult to the word “conservative.”

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Republicans nominated Bob Dole, Bush Jr., twice, and Mitt Romney, among other grievous errors. Its very possible they haven’t learned their lesson even yet. We need to do everything possible in the next two years to destroy any possibility that this RINO will ever be seriously considered as a Republican candidate for president, unless you really want to listen to Hillary preach (screech) at us for eight years.

      1. avatar Alex Peters says:

        You forgot to mention the biggest RINO of them all, John McCain.

  7. avatar Jim R says:

    No, the Democrats won’t love Christie. In fact they hate him.

    Consider New Coke. Coke wanted a new drink to convince Pepsi drinkers to switch back. Instead the Coke drinkers hated it because it wasn’t what they liked about Coke, and the Pepsi drinkers hated it because it wasn’t Pepsi.

    Same thing happening to the GOP. They shift more and more to the Left and alienate more and more of their base, while the Democrats STILL won’t vote for them because they AREN’T DEMOCRATS.

    Here’s what I think will happen. If Christie runs in 2016, the media will latch onto him as their favorite GOP candidate, because he’s likely to be the most liberal person running in the GOP–just like what they did with Romney. They latched onto the biggest RINO they could find that conservatives would hate, trumped him up and destroyed his competition. They set up an easy win for Obama in 2012 that way, and they’ll do the same for whoever gets the Democrat nod in ’16. They will sing his praises until he wins the GOP primary, then tear him down like they tore down all the rest.

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      Anybody who thinks the GOP is shifting to the left on anything has not been paying attention to the House of Representatives. Gerrymandered, thoroughly safe districts permit and even encourage the election of ideologically extreme candidates at both ends of the spectrum. This is particularly visible when the career moderates who are skilled at forging compromises are primaried out by poo-flinging monkeys with no interest in actually governing.

      I’ll just emphasize, for the reading-comprehension impaired who might be gearing up to flame me to cinders, that I see this on BOTH ends of the spectrum. Look at what we have to contend with in the CA legislature, for example.

      1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

        I think you are correct about the House, but Blue Dogs and RINOs are still to be found in the Senate.

        I also think that if you look at the accelerating rate of public debt accumulated in the last ten or so years, combined with the health care business, the growing power of the EPA, Homeland Security, and every other part of government that could enforce an Executive Order, that the usefulness of a poliical moderate is at an end. Back in the Clinton days, the liberals got the AWB, and it cost them. They stopped pushing for a long time.

        Now, with the polarization you described, they don’t care if it costs them. Look at the people recalled out of CO. No remorse, no regrets, no understanding or caring that the public genuinely didn’t like what they did. How do you compromise with that? Why should we? This is why I didn’t mind the shutdown, although it only stopped what, 17% of federal spending?

        The time for moderates is at an end. If for no other reason than that those of us who love the Constitution are now being labeled not just extremists, but even terrorists.

      2. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

        The government is best that governs least. We wouldn’t have half the problems we do were it not for the gung-ho go-go gadget government types who think they and they alone are endowed with the wisdom to decide what’s best for 300 million individual Americans.

        I’m all for poo flingers who want to shake it up and who don’t regard thirty years spent racking up seniority so they can become Chairman of the House Subcommittee of Silly Walks as the be all end all of their career and legacy in this life.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Amen to that. If there is a Democrat who legitimately supports 2A freedom, the Bill Of Rights, and limited government, then they will earn my vote. Ditto for an Independent or Republican. Christie does not support the 2nd, or limited government. Pass.

        2. avatar MothaLova says:

          I aree with you, Accur81, but the last Democratic presidential candidate to take those positions was John W. Davis in 1924, so don’t hold your breath: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1924

      3. avatar rosignol says:

        This is particularly visible when the career moderates who are skilled at forging compromises are primaried out by poo-flinging monkeys with no interest in actually governing.

        The compromises those ‘career moderates’ are making don’t get us anything we want, they just persuade the leftists to settle for less than they initially wanted. And the leftists are smart to take the deal, because they can always come back for more. They’ve been getting what they want through incrementalism for a long time, and those establishment ‘career moderates’ you like were enabling them.

        Enough of that crap.

      4. avatar neiowa says:

        Sounds to me like you have a love in going with “career moderates who are skilled at forging compromises”

        Any/all of these useless flaming CAREER jackasses NEED to be “primaried out”. That includes McCain, Graham, etc.

        Just being good, at times, on the 2nd is not good enough to keep the Fudd dems in offices who are otherwise far left extreamists. Proimary them also.

        Now speakup/define, by name, who you insult as “poo-flinging monkeys” Mr RINO

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      I’d be interested to hear your ideas about Pepsi Clear.

      1. avatar Gyufygy says:

        An abomination that should be purged from human memory like one of Stalin’s enemies.

        … “Hyperbole”? What’s that?

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Do you recall which company, at that same time, put out the clear motor oil? I was waiting for New Heinz Ketchup Klear, but it never happened….

      2. avatar B says:

        I loved Crystal Pepsi, though not half as much as I loved crystal gravy.

  8. avatar mitch says:

    Don’t worry, guys. Hillary has our 2nd amendment rights covered. I feel so secure, I may have just pooped my pants. The oligarchy is beginning to come unglued. Cmon Cruse… We need you at the very top of your game!

    1. avatar Jay1987 says:

      Paul/Cruz or Cruz/Paul 2016!

      1. avatar CA.Ben says:

        Paul/Cruz or Cruz/Paul will never work. Besides, there needs to be SOME diversity. Now, I am not suggesting that the VP candidate should be more to the left, far to the contrary. But, if the republicans really want to win, then have either Cruz or Paul lead the ticket (my preference is Cruz), then have the VP candidate be a strongly conservative woman with a background in healthcare. Woman, because we WILL be going against Hillary. Healthcare, because Obamacare has even gotten liberals upset.

        No more RINOs.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          I could definitely get on board with that. Cruz or Paul with a conservative independent woman VP candidate. Lets split the woman vote away from Hillary – I wouldn’t trust her as a crossing guard.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          The plank for “Healthcare” is – The IRS (Fed Gov’t) has no role in your medical care. That is between you and your doctor.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          If she’s supposed to split the woman vote off I hope she’s better than the last VP nominee who was supposed to do that..

      2. avatar CarlosT says:

        I’d vote for any ticket headed by Ted Cruz, and I never imagined I’d say that about a Republican.

  9. avatar gloomhound says:

    Look we are doomed. The Republicans are fading fast and the Libertarian party is feeding off the corpse. The Leftists are going to control this country if for no other reason other than demographics.

    In the end all I can say is, buy more ammo.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Dang. Your handle is Truth in Advertising.

    2. avatar raincrow says:

      2nd amendment supporters are just like the real cowboys when the barbed wire went up,it’s just a matter of time.

  10. avatar dwb says:

    reminder: it takes 60 senators to pass legislation, and a majority of the house. 57 senators voted for national reciprocal carry. i worry about picking up a few more in 2014 and 2016. Christie or whomever the nominee is is only a small part of the picture.

  11. avatar stateisevil says:

    As regime prosecutor, bag o’ lipids Christie was a fierce proponent of the “assault weapons” ban. He is a diehard enemy of all freedom. Yet, should the GOP be foolish enough to run him against Hitlery, many neocons, even on this forum will vote for him as the “lesser of two evils”. Thus our current situation.

    1. avatar LS/HD says:

      Well, I hope it doesn’t come down to this, but if the choice is between him or Hillary, we have to hold our collective nose and vote for him. No staying home, or trying out a third party.

      We can’t risk four or eight more years of far-left Supreme Court nominees.

      And, yes. It sucks.

      1. avatar Tarrou says:

        No, what we can’t afford is another republican appointing reliable liberal justices and passing gun control. Christie is a no-go.

        1. avatar MothaLova says:

          Exactly. We’ve had enough Republican-appointed-justices-turned-liberal. At least Reagan appointed Scalia (and not just O’Connor and Kennedy), and Bush I appointed Thomas (and not just Souter), and Bush II appointed Alito (and not just Roberts), but Christie’s track record appointing justices shows that he would ALWAYS appoint liberal justices. Making Christie president would be akin to rolling over and dying, as a party.

  12. avatar Kyle says:

    The GOP will not succeed with weak, wobbly, candidates on the important issues, but IMO it also will not succeed with candidates like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, etc…who are perceived as being too far right-wing by people. We need a candidate who comes across as a conservative, but a more moderate conservative. What we often tag as “moderate conservatives” too often come across as light-hearted Democrats, and thus lose (for example, a Bob Dole, John McCain, etc…). My idea of a moderate conservative is someone who is very clearly conservative, but not perceived as too far right by the Independent and moderate voters that we need. One thing this requires though is people who can explain conservative principles, as some conservative principles sound wacky to people until they are explained in some depth. The problem is too many Republicans themselves don’t know how to explain them and thus move away from them, thus becoming just a light-hearted Democrat.

    Unfortunately, I fear that unless/until the GOP stops being against things like same-sex marriage, it is never going to win another Presidential election. I hope I am wrong though.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      The Republican Party, I think, cannot exist, as is, much past 2018. Nor can the twin-party sham exist much long than that. Which dam bursts first is a toss-up.

    2. That conservative that appeals to liberals? Why can’t that be Rand Paul?

      Anti-Drug War
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/23/cory-booker-looks-forward-to-working-on-drug-policy-reform-with-rand-paul/

      Pro-Diplomacy (but carry big stick)
      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/15/peace_through_strength_us_iran_nuclear_negotiations

      Anti-Survelance
      Anti-Drone Diplomacy

      so…. ?

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Hey, I’m there with you although I’m sure his fiscal policies are not anywhere near the liberal spectrum.

    3. avatar Steve (CT) says:

      I feel that former governors probably make the best Presidents since its a similar job. Perhaps Scott Walker or someone similar. How’s that attractive governor of South Carolina doing?

      1. avatar MothaLova says:

        A Walker-Haley or Haley-Walker ticket would be attractive to many Republicans. Both have been successful in passing conservative legislation as governors, and both have shown themselves steady and unflappable under liberal pressure.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        How’s about wives of former southern governors? That one workin’ for ya?

      3. Koch Brothers shill, loathed by women, hated by blue-collar workers, legitimate ethical charges stuck to him like glue – and assuming the TTAG crowd feels strongly about State’s Rights and state constitutions, about as anti-constitutionalist as it gets (i.e. locking the public out of the statehouse, process-bypassing closed-door gambits, etc.) Add to that dim-witted, sleepy-looking and an impressive track record of driving WI into the dirt on every measurable economic factor possible. He’s your nightmare candidate: a lightning rod for contempt who will mobilize the left and do nothing to aid in the GOP’s demographic nightmare. He would do very well in the $ game, though.

    4. avatar doesky2 says:

      Gawd I hate the MFM with a passion. Accuse 3/4ths of the Republican party of being “extremist far right” but yet cannot seem to find a single democrat to be “far left”. This despite the fact that if you ask most Democrats how they differ in policy from any socialist European country they would only give you a blank stare. The MFM coupled together with a leftist controlled K-grad education system spells DOOM.

  13. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

    How about this: Remove your lap band and learn to control your caloric intake, then we can discuss controlling my guns.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      here is hoping for a heart attack after a Krispy Kreme binge . . . .

      1. avatar Hkfan says:

        Stay classy, TTAG.

  14. avatar Jay1987 says:

    How about writing the GOP and telling them not to run Krispy Kreme err Christie at all? Here’s the link.
    http://www.gop.com/contact-us/

  15. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    Well I wouldn’t trust the huffing and puffing post to tell me that water is wet. However, if Christy get the presidential nod the democrats will win another presidency. The last thing thing the republicans need is another rino. However as I am a Constitutionalist I trust neither party to do the correct thing.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    I’d rather douse my underwear in lighter fluid and set them on fire — while I’m wearing them — than vote for the elephant in the room. But if it’s Christie against Hillary, I’ll vote for Christie. Because with that cvnt in the White House, we won’t last ten minutes.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Atta boy, Ralphie! Ignore the Libertarian candidate that would actually support your rights, vote for the scumbag with a long record of being anti-gun and anti-civil rights!

      1. avatar dwb says:

        a vote for a third party is probably a vote for Hillary. see: VA.

        the house and Senate is where the real action is. POTUS can only sign stuff sent to him. the trick is to hold Senators and Congressmen accountable.

        1. avatar ropingdown says:

          This. What we should be looking for is a candidate for Pres that has republican coat tails, big ones if possible, which sounds like Christie. I’ve seen his coat.

          Republican core issues vary a good bit by congressional district and state. Republicans need to understand that the national banner is in fact an umbrella, and must be, for that reason.

          I’m ready to be flamed (though leave my underwear out of this): My republican views are not identical to those of a typical Rep voter in South Carolina, Texas, or Oregon. There is overlap. Our presidential candidate must be someone whose record and ability to campaign are widely in the acceptable range. Our state and district candidates need to hew closely to what we voters care about in our states and districts. It is not cynical to believe this, it is simple a reflection of the system’s mechanics and the realities of regionalism.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “a vote for a third party is probably a vote for Hillary”

          WRONG!!!!

          A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for a third-party candidate. It’s the only way to really vote against both the giant douche and the turd sandwich.

          I think that Real Soon Now, what with the Oath Keepers, the CSPOA, the Tenth Amendment Center, the Libertarian Party, the Ron Paul Channel, and the Liberty Movement in general, the Washington DC enemies of the Constitution may very well be rendered moot.

        3. avatar Totenglocke says:

          No, a vote for a third party is just that – a vote for a third party. It’s this childish way of thinking that “You must vote for the Republican who wants to take away your rights or the Democrats that wants to take away your rights” that has caused the never-ending downward spiral we’re in.

        4. avatar Hobbez says:

          Totenglocke, that idea is true as an Ideal but, in reality, it will never happen. The majority of folks who would be willing to vote 3rd party are a certain breed. Independant, fairly conservative, self thinkers. You know who DOESNT EVER vote 3rd party? Liberals. Liberals ALWAYS vote Democrat. So, when it comes right down to brass tacks…3rd party candidates very, very rarely win and are typically Republican vote stealers.

          Set aside emotion and look at just the facts and statistics (you know, like we try so hard to do with the gun rights issue?) and you see that a vote for a 3rd pary candidate IS just a wasted vote. Worse yet, it might just as well be a vote for the Democrat.

        5. avatar Rich Grise says:

          My vote might be “wasted” in that we haven’t won many elections (so far), but at least I can live with myself knowing I didn’t vote for more evil.

        6. avatar doesky2 says:

          No, voting for a sure loser of a 3rd party is childish. Libertarians are great, the Libertarian Party is a disaster. Libertarians are free to run in the Republican party and win as evidenced multiple times. If you want to support a Libertarian then fine go and support them in the Republican primary. However running as a Libertarian candidate is SOLELY a vanity project and will only help the gun-grabbers.

        7. avatar vioshi says:

          I tried this and still got Obama. I think that nothing will change, if nothing changes.

          So I, for one, am planning on voting my conscience even if that’s not a republican and even if it costs us the race. GOP will no longer have my vote with out earning it.

        8. avatar MothaLova says:

          A third-party candidate doesn’t have to win in order to change the policies of the GOP. He just has to get enough of the vote that the GOP is forced to shift its positions in that direction so as to gain the support of those voters. Sitting on one’s hands, as GOP voters did in 2006, is another way to alert the party to its errors

          Another, better way to change the party is to support primary challengers to the conventional GOP candidates, as many voters did with regard to Mike Lee, for instance.

          But the idea that we have an obligation to vote for one of the two nominees of the major parties is baseless.

        9. avatar beanfield says:

          Many people have a hard time “throwing their vote away”. It’s important to remember how our electoral system works, the popular vote doesn’t win elections. Many people live in states that always cast electoral votes for one party. If you know your state is going to use its electoral votes for the opposing party’s candidate, why not use your conscience to guide your vote and ignore the popularity contest of your party?

        10. avatar Rich Grise says:

          For the most party, they don’t have principles – they merely want to be a member of the biggest herd.

        11. avatar neiowa says:

          All you “third party groupies” need to look at the Virginia Governor race last week. The 3rd way was in this case the puppet of the dem radicals. But he got a leftwing tool elected gov. If a strong conservative would have won the office.

          You want to play third party games? Put together a moderate dem to run and stripe votes from the Obumaesk candidates.

          OR, and more importantly, particularily in the NE, reclaim the Rep party as the party of the Constitution. And you can’t wait until 2016 to get started. You have to force the GOP RINOs (and their money) out NOW. Make them play third part with McCain types as the Wing Candidate.

        12. avatar Model 31 says:

          “All you “third party groupies” need to look at the Virginia Governor race last week.”
          Yup, why don’t these groupies hold up Virginia as the standard by which pro gun folk can get their voices heard in the government? If these groupies had stayed at home, the outcome would have been identical. They’ll spout some noise about how they pulled some D votes from Mcauliffe. If the Dems had any hint of a rumor that Mr. 7% was pulling Dem votes, he would have been labeled a Rep plant, burned in effigy, accused of pedophilia, noted his proximity to the orphanage when it burned down and how he was the secret right hand man to GWB. That’s the problem with running an unknown “nobody”…The media defines them.

    2. avatar jerry says:

      Thank u ralph. Fight for a limited government, pro-2A candidate in the primary, but if Christie is the nominee, there will be no option, at least for me, but to vote christie. A republican or a democrat will be president. Period. To believe otherwise is foolish.

    3. avatar beanfield says:

      Having a Republican that is pro gun confiscation could be even worse than having a Democrat. In that situation, Republican legislators will be far less likely to oppose gun confiscation under pressure from the public and their own political party. With a Democrat in office, the Republicans tend to rally against such legislation (as what happened with Reid’s latest bill, heavily supported by Obama). Had Christie been in office, I find it far more likely that we would have some sort of new “common sense” federal law. I would much rather vote third party.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        BINGO. The same thing is true for a pro-war democrat.

  17. avatar Ryan says:

    The funny thing about New Jersey is that we are a cautionary tale about what happens when citizens become apathetic with their rights.

    Our ID card system from 1963 effectively gutted the Second Amendment in New Jersey, not because it made it “hard” to get a gun, but because it made it a pain in the neck. Throw up a few roadblocks with fingerprinting and paperwork and the FID card applications languish on the kitchen table… which is right where our state government wants them to languish.

    Over time as gun owners died off or moved to Florida, there were fewer and fewer people who owned guns. Think about this: how did you get into shooting? Did you wake up one morning and decide to buy a gun, or did your dad, or a co-worker or a friend take you to the range one day?

    NJ’s FID system essentially reduced the pool of gun-owners so that you are left with an entire state where nobody owns a gun, nobody knows anybody who owns a gun, and guns just aren’t in the mental orbit of the average person.

    So is it surprising that someone like Governor Christie, who grew up in Livingston, NJ. Who attended Rutgers and Monmouth College, isn’t exactly a 2A supporter? He never really left the state. Ne never saw how other people lived. He may have never even fired a gun or had any real desire to own one because he grew up just like 86% of the other residents of NJ: in a home free from firearms.

    But all that being said, after living in NJ under Governor Corzine, I have to admit I’ll take Christie any day. Under Corzine the attacks were coming at us every week. Under Christie he may not be helping us, but he isn’t trying to actively hurt us like Florio, McGreevy and Corzine.

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      This is a key point: the left sets up laws to impede traditional behavior (e.g., possessing and carrying a gun) or even to compel leftist indoctrination (e.g., public schools), and within a generation or so, the citizenry has been habituated to its new ways of living. After two generations, very few can even remember what was lost.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        “Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again; poor fools. And their grand-children are once more slaves.”
        – D. H. Lawrence

  18. avatar Rich Grise says:

    Correction: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (RINO)

  19. avatar Ima Yeti says:

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing. Control violence and there’s no need to regulate the myriad weapons used to perpetrate it.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Well, it’s been demonstrated over and over and over and over again ad nauseam that gun control is the opposite of violence control. Gun-Free Zones are crime free-for-alls, in every single case.

  20. avatar pat says:

    This fat Guido can FOAD.

  21. avatar Billy says:

    It’s not about controlling violence, it’s about improving the conditions which breed violence. I have not heard one single politician understand the logic of violence.

    1. avatar Gyufygy says:

      Bandaid solutions are easier and play better amidst all the 24hr/10sec sound bite noise, I mean, news.

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      It’s not about controlling violence, it’s about controlling people. Anyone who is for gun control is an enemy of the Constitution.

      But Jersey is already a shithole, so it’s not that great a loss.

  22. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Christie is a Liberal in disguise

  23. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Not my guy, but if it’s him or Hillary, he will be.

  24. avatar Joe Grine says:

    Man, I hope we can do better than fat ass Christie.

  25. avatar cdphil says:

    I wouldnt vote for him and no way in hell for Hillary. ..Im going to vote independent/libertarian or not vote at all be cause our system is more and more rigged and showing the rooftops might be a good place to vote from

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Ever hear the saying, “if voting could change anything, they’d make it illegal?”

      1. avatar cdphil says:

        Yup minor changes only no major course corrections allowed

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Yup. Witness 2012. Without the massive fraud and corruption, Ron Paul could have ushered in World Peace I.

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      I can see you know in the voting both stomping your little feet and pulling the Libertarian lever and yelling “Oh that will teach em!”.

      Hillary will be laughing at you when she adds BHO to the Supremes for the next 40 years. Think about that for a second….. 40 more years of decrees from BHO!

    3. avatar Chip says:

      “…or not vote at all be cause ”

      This is absolutely the WORST thing you can do.

      You may think a vote for _____ is simply throwing away your vote so why bother. If every single person who thought that way voted anyway the results could be truly surprising.

      And not voting because you think it wont make a difference is the same thing as giving up your right to Vote. ‘They’ don’t want to take away your guns, they just want to make it difficult enough to own them that you don’t bother. It is the same with your vote….. don’t let them win just because they tried to convince you there is no way to beat them.

      F*&@ING VOTE!

  26. avatar jp says:

    Sorry, you will not be receiving my vote.

  27. avatar Nelson says:

    Why the fuck does anyone give a fuck what Bobby Bacala deludes?

    America, despite all her problems, will NEVER (s)elect a morbidly obese RINO POS, whom the neoCon Trotskyites love.

    Never.

    IF by some chance the establishment get their way and place him, that, along with the tyrannical trajectory oBUSHma & GWB has put the nation on, will clearly signal the official death of the American Constitutional Republic.

    Unless we get Rand Paul to become the POTUS, this ship is toast.

    Sorry folks, don’t care what or how many different ways they want to twist it: dig Cruz, but he is a Canadian. No ifs ends or buts.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      This country cannot be saved by Rand Paul especially when he got all DREAMy for the immigration talks. He ain’t no fvcking George Washington.

      Re: Cruz being Canadian….oh please….stop watching MSNBC.

  28. avatar B says:

    He is a fat disgusting piece of crap who runs the worst state in the US like a union boss. Yes, even worse than NY and Illinois. NJ is a boil on the buttcheeks of America, and Christie is the perfect poster boy for that boil. He won NJ because the hollowing of that state is nearly complete. If the GOP wants a 3-pete they can go ahead and nominate him, but thats the sign that I am done with them.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      The last Republican I supported was Barry Goldwater in 1964. I was a member of the YAF, the Young Americans for Freedom. Ever since the Vietnam rout, I’ve been a Libertarian and proud of it! We might not have won a lot of elections yet, but I really enjoy being a thorn in the side of both wings of the Statist party. I really have to chuckle when election losers blame the Libertarians – there ain’t no such thing as bad publicity!

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Oh yeah you’re really sticking to da man. Please grow up.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          I’m sure you convinced him with that argument.

      2. avatar MothaLova says:

        Do you mean that the Vietnam War made you leave the GOP and become libertarian, or that your support for the Vietnam War was the main thing that kept you in the GOP, and when the war was over you became libertarian?

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I graduated high school in 1967. Did a half-year of college and dropped out because I was so sick and tired of school – college was just like grade school and high school, but without adult supervision. They had the draft back then, so I dodged it by joining the Air Force. I was in until 1976, and had not voted at all. (I was too young to vote for Goldwater, I just helped with bumper stickers and stuff).

          But actually, I think I was born Libertarian. The last Republican who had any integrity was Eisenhower; we were hoping Goldwater would bring back some of that. It was amusing, in a sick sort of way, that Goldwater lost to Johnson because people were afraid he would bomb North Vietnam. So they elected Johnson, and the first thing he did was start bombing North Vietnam.

          But that was before they had turned the schools into propaganda mills – the teachers actually taught stuff about why America is America and so on. I had two separate teachers, on two separate occasions, who told the story about that experiment in socialism: “This semester, everybody gets an A regardless.” Of course, no one in that class did squat, and at the end of the semester all that they had learned is that socialism makes even the “ambitious” kids lazy. “1984,” “Animal Farm,” “Brave New World,” “Lord of the Flies,” and that sort of thing were cautionary tales, and in those days, kids were smart enough and well-educated enough to recognize them as such. At least I know they had significant impact on me. Now i see them coming true, and it sickens me. Oh, yeah – back then, they taught us about the Constitution too. After I got out of the AF, I didn’t get very involved in politics, and actually didn’t vote very much because, well, what’s the point? The R and D wings of the establishment were pretty much indistinguishable even back then, and I was too busy trying to get laid to bother much with politics.

          When the Libertarians finally came to light, it was like a freakin’ epiphany. “Finally! Somebody who’s got some SENSE!”

          I guess that’s my history in a nutshell.

        2. avatar MothaLova says:

          Thank you for testifying, brother.

          Thank you also for setting the example at a time when so many others were lauding their own laziness and cowardice as principled patriotism.

          I am a born and raised conservative who joined the world while you were fighting in Vietnam. My impression of college was about the same as yours, so I went to OCS in an attempt to supply the education I could not find there. Later, I changed my mind about OCS (which was not the right decision, looking back on it), and finished college at my parents’ urging (also not the right decision, looking back on it). Before that, I went through the public school system that had already been purged (le mot juste, I believe) of all that had been good about it when you were in grade school.

          I am a conservative, not a libertarian, but I can understand many of the reasons that libertarians give for their viewpoint, especially after witnessing the spinelessness of so-called conservatives in failing to fight leftist statism, and, indeed, their active support for expanding the state whenever they are in charge. I remain in favor of fighting to the end to make the GOP what it once was – the party of Calvin Coolidge. I know the chances are slim, but more unusual things have happened in history than this. It helps to hear about how things once were, even as late as the mid-1960’s, and how they could be again.

          Again, thanks for answering my question.

  29. avatar Nanashi says:

    Off topic a bit, but I just noticed the “The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Reads TTAG” bit off to the side.

  30. avatar Anonymous says:

    Well… Bloomberg is a republican. Over there near the waters edge, republicans and democrats are basically the same.

    They are all the same everywhere when it comes to your civil rights.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      Um, no. Nanny Bloomberg is a Democrat who realized it was more cost-effective to buy the R nomination than to fight his way through the Democrat primary process.

      He was registered (D) pretty much until he decided to run for Mayor.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        Yea… I’ll agree with that…
        But he was elected as a republican for that mayorship.

  31. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “In New Jersey I’ve signed some of those measures. But I’ve also vetoed some measures I thought were over-reaching and not consistent with Second Amendment rights.” — Governor Chris Christie

    And there you go … our “rights” are only whatever someone like Governor Christie thinks they should be. Of course that means they are not rights at all.

    I shall repeat the concept of a right. A citizen has the right to do anything they want as long as they don’t harm another person. A citizen who simply possesses a firearm does not harm anyone. Up until the moment a citizen uses a firearm to harm someone, they have a right to possess it. The firearm’s “destructive potential” is irrelevant.

  32. avatar Skyler says:

    I could almost tolerate Christie except that he is a bully. That’s not a good trait for someone who wants power. And he’s a liberal. And he wants to take my gun rights away. And if he hasn’t got any personal discipline over his diet, how will he constrain himself when at the highest office? Yeah I would like him were he not thoroughly repulsive as a human being, tyrannical, gun grabbing, rude, obnoxious, loud mouthed, egotistical, obese, smart-assed, and Obama hugging. But he’s better than nominating another Bush.

  33. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Have mercy…

  34. avatar Downtown says:

    Consistent with the Second Amendment means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Because a few gang bangers were raised without morals and an absent father doesn’t mean the gov’t has any business saying what I can and can’t own in the privacy of my own home. Controlling guns does nothing. Look at NYC…a gun controlists utopia. No one is armed…except the bad guys. There was a shooting in Bryant Park a couple days ago. Everyone was left cowering in fear…no one could defend themselves or do anything.

    I like Christie…but if he doesn’t show his allegiance to the Constitution then there is no way he’d have my vote…ever.

  35. avatar Joseph B Campbell says:

    My method of controlling violence is stopping it when it comes in my door. That is my right! Not wait for the police to come and sweep up the pieces.

  36. avatar Fug says:

    They will probably nominate this human buffet barge and that is scary. I have been telling every fellow Republican who will listen we should probably back Santorum, but everyone seems scared of the gays and some kind of “backlash.”

    I say grow a spine.

    I think we need to put up a good man that the politically organized perverts and radical feminists have tried to malign in the media. Even if we lose, we put the fear back in them. They’re tripping on “gay marriage” and “gun control” like they were the same tab of acid and I think they deserve a bad trip, we can make it happen.

    They already know how to get at Christie. He is superbly predictable, aside from being obese and dopey. Conservatives need a war leader and they think they have already hobbled Santorum by tying his name on Google searches to “anal discharge” among other things. All they have done is pull a prank on the internet and it is up to us if we want to win the next election or not. Trick the Dems into trotting out certifiable narcissist Dan Savage who came up with that campaign and they will be hurting BAD over night.

    Honestly, in the wake of Obama I don’t really see how a man like Santorum could lose as long as he had a solid running mate. Who thinks I’m crazy? About this, specifically mind you.

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      I think you’re right. The media will pull out the long knives for any GOP nominee, whether liberal or conservative, so we might as well nominate a conservative who will actually roll back liberal policies rather than simply slowing down their implementation.

      On the GOP side, Santorum would have to do some serious outreach to the more libertarian-ish Republicans, and I’m not sure yet that he could do it (he made some imprudent statements against libertarians in the last cycle – I agreed with the statements, but they were still imprudent). But a number of his positions – like getting the federal government out of education – match up with the libertarian agenda.

      In any case, details aside, I think your larger point is exactly right.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      I don’t think you’re crazy, but have a different view of Santorum, and he is, for me, a local politician. He thinks abortion is bad just until his wife thinks she needs one. He thinks caps on malpractice are a good idea just until his wife has a malpractice claim. He will never hold PA again. How on earth could he win an election nationally?

      1. avatar Fug says:

        As far as the abortion thing, my understanding is that the pregnancy was no longer viable and his wife’s life was at risk. I might be mistaken, but if that is correct then it is very different from terminating a healthy pregnancy which I believe to be generally immoral. As far as the malpractice thing goes I don’t know enough about it to comment. I will concede that you may be better informed about Santorum than I am, being that he is in your backyard.

        I bring him up because the Republican field is so poor and he adheres to conservative principles. The media is very familiar with Rick Santorum and his previous candidacy for the Republican nomination. He has been vilified unfairly by organized homosexuals, against whom I believe a national backlash is brewing. He has a beautiful family and appeals to the working man, he is also a Roman Catholic which will ultimately work in his favor in my view. Consider the popularity of Pope Francis.

        He has stated he is open to running for President again. I can’t see anyone better poised to fight radical leftists tooth and nail on the national stage. For Rick, it would be personal.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Ron Paul made mincemeat of Santorum, on one of the rare occasions that the Ministry of Truth actually let Dr. Paul speak.

  37. avatar John Butler says:

    If any gun control advocate can show me where any of these measures actually work, then I will be open for discussion. I won’t accept more murders by knife, hammer, or any other instrument other then a gun. Just the numbers of the victims. The tool used to murder is irrelevant!! Of course, gotta admit gun control is working in all of our major cities controlled by democrats. Hello New York City, back to the past for you!!!

  38. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “If you look at what we’ve done in New Jersey we want to control violence.”

    How’s that working out for you? Been to Camden lately? Trenton? Newark? Atlantic City?

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      Yes, his lies have become downright brazen.

  39. avatar Ardent says:

    The current defeatist mindset within the GOP is as disturbing as it is confusing. It’s almost as if many on the right have such short memories that they aren’t aware that of the last 12 presidential elections they have won 7, meaning they are ‘winning’ on average.

    It also seems that they are blind to the formula that there is always a backlash to the last Democrat president and thus running actual conservatives in the wake of 8 years of a progressive is a winning strategy. The GOP of late seems to take a loss as meaning its candidate wasn’t moderate enough. I submit that the lost of the last 2 presidential elections was because its candidates weren’t conservative enough (and in the case of McCain not a conservative at all).

    I have little doubt that many within the GOP hierarchy think Christie, who most certainly doesn’t have a conservative bone in his body, is an excellent choice for 2016 specifically because he isn’t conservative enough to ‘offend’ anyone on the left. This sort of reasoning is defeatist but I think its origins come from some fundamental confusion within the party about which direction it wants to go.

    The real outlet for social libertarians (not to be confused with ‘liberals’) is the GOP. This may not be intuitive but the party of ‘do whatever you want just don’t hurt anyone’ really does have a home in the party of ‘do only what our interpretation of the bible tells you to’. This is because religious conservatism really is a political third rail and those who touch it very often or very hard won’t be around in the next election cycle. Never mind that such ideas as making abortion illegal again or passing morality laws are non starters in the Congress and simply foolish on their face, tying oneself firmly to these ideas simply makes one unelectable in most locals, plus the party itself will marginalize such a person before they can say something stupid.

    Given the decline of religious conservatism within the GOP there is a vacuum that begs to be filled. To the extent that the GOP is refreshed with libertarians taking these positions it becomes more vital, however the degree to which it is infiltrated by progressives in disguise, such as McCain and Christie it becomes not an alternant choice for independents or a rallying point for conservatives but a moderate off-shoot of the Democratic party. Allow this to come to fruition and after enough cycles of democrats (growing ever more progressive as the situation allows) the eventual backlash will be some hyper conservative third party, not a rise of an independent libertarian party, since all the libertarians will already have been co-opted into the now essentially defunct GOP where they would fit and would have already established roots.

    Before this becomes a treatise instead of a comment I’m going to stop with the why and cut to the what:
    To all conservatives: Vote the primaries for the most conservative candidate you prefer with absolutely no thought as to who is ‘electable’. With the backlash coming off Obama you might be shocked at how conservative a candidate could be elected.

    To all Independents: Register republican and vote the most libertarian (NOT LIBERAL) candidate you can agree with, with no thought as to electability. Regardless of outcome continue doing this for several election cycles. Eventually you’ll begin to pull momentum from conservatives in the primaries who realize your more libertarian candidates can win and they will side with you out of pragmatism.
    To all: Any democrat or any vote that assists a democrat in being elected is a vote for statist collectivism. Democrats are not liberals, they are progressives, actively engaged in reshaping the country in ways I don’t think pro 2a or pro rights people will like. No matter what ‘your’ Democratic candidate says or even believes, you empower statist collectivism every time you elect a Democrat, regardless of how ‘moderate’ any particular one might be. Just as the libertarians need to ‘take over’ the GOP, the progressives already ‘own’ the Democratic Party and you can’t win it back from them. Figure out where in the GOP you fit in and vote the primaries that way, then vote the candidate who ever it ends up being.

  40. avatar DerryM says:

    “Christie goes on to say gun control “can be” part of “violence control.” “In New Jersey I’ve signed some of those measures. But I’ve also vetoed some measures I thought were over-reaching and not consistent with Second Amendment rights.”

    Ugh! He and Jerry Brown must have had lunch together because that would be exactly what Jerry Brown could say.

    If the GOP ends-up running Christie in 2016, the Conservative votes will fragment to the point the Democrats could run SpongeBob SquarePants and win…possibly by a landslide. Might as well vote for the person you know is going to screw you over than for the person who’s going to stab you in the back. Pretty dismal outlook for 2016 Presidential Election.

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      Christie will go down to defeat in the presidential primaries, under sustained and serious attacks from candidates like Paul, Cruz, and who knows which GOP governors who run. Christie’s record is liberal. It’s not as liberal as Obama’s, but it’s a liberal record.

      Giuliani had several things on his side that Christie doesn’t: anti-crime success, serious budget cutting, pro-religious culture warring (e.g., his opposition to MoMA), and 9/11.

      Likewise, Romney as governor had done several things Christie hasn’t, fighting the Democratic legislature on a number of issues on which Christie hasn’t deigned to act. And, of course, Romney could run as a religious man, while Christie is only nominally religious. (Not that you have to be religious to be the GOP nominee, but it helps one’s appeal to a number of primary voters.)

      Christie is a balloon that will pop in 2016.

  41. avatar Ted says:

    This is why, in the last election, I voted for Ken Kaplan.

    Buono was a no-go, and I couldn’t hold my nose long enough to pull the lever for Christie.

  42. avatar Jeh says:

    Nothing says crowd control like gangbangers running wild and armed security in front of Pizza Hut.

  43. avatar Jus Bill says:

    This is an utterly perfect example of using both sides of your mouth to say something that means nothing. Christie is a masterful politician (as opposed to “Public Servant.”) He can pull off a nonsensical statement like that and have the gullible MSM bullhorn it as a sound bite. I fear for the future of this Republic.

  44. avatar PW in KY says:

    Will not vote for Christie. Ever. GOP can nominate someone else, or they can lose. It’s their choice.

  45. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    Better than Hillary would be (or o’Malley, or Cuomo, or almost any other Dem). Still, no more freaking RINOs, please. By 2016, I don’t think the people who stood against Obama Care will be viewed negatively at all.

  46. avatar Christian says:

    If Christie get the nomination, I’m voting for the Democratic candidate. I would far and away rather have a recognizable enemy than a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I’ve had it with having to hold my nose and vote for a scumbag RINO. I might as WELL vote for a Democrat. At least then there will be NO QUESTION who is to blame for the state of the country.

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      I hadn’t considered voting for the 2016 Democratic nominee as an option, but you make a persuasive case for doing so in the event that the GOP nominee is Christie.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I wish there were some way to get you “lesser of two evils” tools to sane up and vote Libertarian, even if only for the sake of looking at yourself in the mirror and knowing that you didn’t just vote for another four years of expanding evil.

        1. avatar MothaLova says:

          Rich, if it makes you feel better, I voted libertarian in the Jersey governor’s race last week. But Christian’s argument is a serious one, and it’s not the typical lesser of two evils argument, either.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          WOW! 7,452 TTAG comments on CHRIS CHRISTIE!!! What a popular guy!

    2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Yes, there would be no question as to who is the blame, and you would be one of those people. I can understand sticking to your principals and voting third party (or even writing someone in). It’s not the most practical approach, but I get it. But outright voting for the enemy makes no sense at all.

      1. avatar Christian says:

        Here’s why:
        Because Christie will roll over and do whatever the Democrats want.
        Because Republican Leadership already sings kumbayah while holding hands with the Democrats and voting their legislation through.
        Because we need a Republican who provides CONTRAST to what the Democrats stand for.

        We’re facing the slow asphyxiation of our rights, and if the Republicans won’t even TRY to stop it, then what’s the point? I’d rather have a Democrat that we can clearly label as Constitutional Enemy #1 than a sleazeball bipartisan RINO who will sign away our rights in the name of Bipartisanship.

  47. avatar Pat says:

    Sadly, He is the only one who can beat the Earth Mother Hag. Choose your effing poison. Rhino beats Donkey for gun rights (and most other things, by the way). Support your favorite, early on, but choose the lesser of the two evils on election day when your favorite is a write-in (along with Donald Duck and Hitler).
    Elections have consequences, as we have learned so horribly with the election of Barry the Worthless Liar.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      So I’m curious as to how you’d choose between being burned at the stake or drawn and quartered?

      1. avatar Pat says:

        Saying Mitt is equal to or less than Barry is simply insane thinking. Obummercare and the lunatic gun grab would never have taken place. If you think so, then there can be no further discussion, as it would be a waste of time.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Thank god for Romneycare.

          You’re right; there can be no further discussion. Mormon presidents ROCK!

        2. avatar Pat says:

          I think you know there are WORLDS of difference between Obummercare and what Mitt was part of.
          Do you TRULY believe that Mitt would have come out of nowhere and tried to ram a Nationwide fiasco down our throats after being elected prez?
          Wise up.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Yeah – Obamneycare would have only bankrupted one state.

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          “I think you know there are WORLDS of difference between Obummercare and what Mitt was part of.”

          Unaware of supporting data. Request of said “supporting data”.

        5. avatar MothaLova says:

          If Romney had been president during the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, there would not have been a lunatic gun grab, I agree. Instead, there would have been a semi-lunatic gun grab, this time led by a Republican president instead of a Democratic president, which would have caused a number of Republican reps and senators to give in, so that the bills would have passed. Just as the GOP rarely even questioned what Bush II did, they would likewise have bowed to Romney’s agenda, and Romney’s agenda would sometimes have been liberal.

          Sometimes a Democratic president is better than a half-liberal Republican president, because the GOP are much more likely to resist the liberalism of the Democratic president.

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “Rhino beats Donkey for gun rights ”

      Except when he doesn’t.

      There is no “H” word in “Republican in Name Only.”

      If Ted Cruz and/or Rand Paul don’t win the presidency, then we might as well just have a funeral for Freedom forever.

      Please don’t hasten that by voting for evil.

    3. avatar Pat says:

      William and Rich, I am talking about the general election, not who you or I support before that day, and to what extent. Romney (not my favorite, or first choice) would have been INFINITELY superior to the pencil necked, Jug eared, statist monster currently occupying the throne (and his libtard, gun grabbing democrat associates). Throwing your vote away on Donald Duck because your favored candidate did note make it to the championship round is childish and destructive. You choose the best option given at the time with a chance to WIN, because elections matter, and they have consequences.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Sorry, I refuse to vote for evil just because the other guy is more evil.

        Murdering one person is arguably a “lesser evil” than murdering six million people, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything acceptable about murder, even if you only do it one person at a time.

        1. avatar Pat says:

          On continuing your line of thinking in regards to the murdering of one person compared to six million, I choose a potential Vietnam damage level outcome (Mitt) to a WWll one (Barry). Barry is LIGHT YEARS worse than Mitt could ever have been. Elections (on election day) are about WINNING, because there are consequences to losing. So your (or my) favorite candidate washed out before the general election after we supported them for several months. It don’t mean you throw your vote away because you didn’t get your exact choice. The general election is EXACTLY about choosing the lesser of two evils….or….as I would optimistically phrase….choosing the greater of two goods.

        2. avatar rjoguillory says:

          Pat…..
          …………with all due respect….how old are you? How much time…how many decades do we have to watch the same circle-jerk among these “competitors”….especially with e-voting (what a joke!)….have you not watched and been subjected to the illegality, the idiocy…the Unconstitutional behavior they have exhibited since before they blew JFK’s head off?

          You seem to be sadly blind to the reality of your country collapsing….I’m sorry…I mean your Constitutional Government collapsing…..the corrupt one will just keep trying to go…broke and all…. …martial law and all…millions of dead…as long as there is “continuity of government”…as the traitors Bush/Cheney/Bush/Clinton/Gore/Rumsfeld…and their war-criminal cabal have planned…I hope they are convicted of treason and hung…

          Regards,

          RJ O’Guillory
          Author-
          Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and Gary Johnson in the general. I wouldn’t vote for a lamestream candidate at gunpoint, which is what “sacred honor” means.

          “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
          http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Pat says:
          “The general election is EXACTLY about choosing the lesser of two evils….or….as I would optimistically phrase….choosing the greater of two goods.”

          There we have it, folks! In Pat’s universe, murder is good, as long as it’s only one person at a time.

          Pat, there is no “good” in evil.

        5. avatar Pat says:

          Yet, we are (and will probably always be) a two party system. I will not engage in a “moral victory” masturbation exercise by throwing my vote away during the general election on a write in that less will choose than Donald Duck, thus securing the horrors (and tender mercies) of Earth Mother (Hillary).
          Elections have consequences. Your beliefs are what primaries are for. Support your favorites until they are beyond life support, then choose the candidate that has the best chance to help your cause (and the country).

        6. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Well, at least I’m confident that when I get to the Pearly Gates, while St. Peter is checking my permanent record, he won’t say, “Hmmmm. Voted for evil here. Sorry!” In the interim, if you’re not a part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

  48. avatar Steve B says:

    As a registered Republican who sees how corrupt this current administration is and hates what Obama is doing to this country, I still would not support Christie. I am a hard right guy from a fiscal perpective and I am against big goverment, but I am more moderate on social issues. That being said, NO WAY I WILL VOTE FOR CHRISTIE! I don’t believe in him as a Republican and I do not trust him. Hell, he hasn’t spoken out against Obamacare until recently and that is most likely because he knows how unpopular it is and he wants to run for president. If Obamacare was popular, he’d have his nose back up Obama’s a**. If Chistie gets the nomination my wife and I will be staying home on election day

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Come on, at least make a protest vote! The third party guy might not win, but I know from personal experience the sense of smug self-satisfaction that comes from actively voting against the crook.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Against TWO crooks! That’s twice as good.

    2. avatar Pat says:

      Steve, it depends on the alternative. Can you possibly imagine ‘Earthmother’ Hillary…and…gulp…first husband Bubba.
      Support your favorite, but vote to win on election day to get the best possible outcome. Or accept the consequences.

      1. avatar MothaLova says:

        We are already living with the consequences of voting for Republican nominees only because they are not as bad as the Democratic nominees. Bush I signed the Clean Air Act. He also signed the gun free schools legislation, and, I believe, the order to deprive military personnel of their guns while on federal property (the victims of Major Hassan are grateful). And he raised taxes, and, to top it all off, appointed Souter to the Supreme Court.

        Looking back on it, there was a good case to be made for sitting on our hands in 1988.

        1. avatar Pat says:

          I am simply stating that the last two GOP candidates were FAR less monstrous than “Barry the Beast”. This forced socialistic power grab (Obummercare) could be a Republic killer.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Please don’t insult Mother Earth like that. Shrillary is just a socialist with a hole in the middle.

        1. avatar Pat says:

          We may…gulp…all be sucked into that dirty, little hole. Now THATS a horrible thought…wait…strike that thought from our minds, or go mad.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email