“Max McGuire, a political science graduate student at Villanova University and Cranbury resident, said attempting to stop mass shooters with the law would be ‘like lowering the speed limit to stop drag racers.’” – Matt Friedman in Lower capacity for gun magazines approved by NJ Assembly panel [at nj.com]

30 Responses to Quote of the Day: Where Less is Always More Edition

  1. NEW JERSEY RESIDENTS MUST NOT COMPLY!

    They get away with this because after every new law passed NJ gun owners bend over backwards to follow the laws. So all their prior opposition gets ignored because the CRIMINALS in charge know they will just go quietly along with any legislation.

    This law WILL go into effect, if Christie vetoes it again it will come up next year and the next year until a blue gov signs it through.

  2. Now that is just plain common sense and has no place in a political debate about constitutional rights. How dare he use facts and reason

    • Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself. – Mark Twain

    • Well, applying the rules of reason and logic….

      Fact one: A grandfather clause would make sense. People owning the prohibited items would otherwise be guilty of a crime when the law goes into effect.

      Fact two: This is New Jersey.

      When we sum the facts the only logical conclusion is that there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell.

    • That issue came up, and one of the Committee members alluded to some kind of temporary amnesty, but it’s not in the bill (like Danny Griffin said).

  3. Somehow I get the feeling that went right over the heads of the politicians. In fact I bet someone will introduce llgislation to reduce the speed limit soon.

  4. Punishing law-abiding-firearm-owners for the actions of criminals or crazies is like a farmer shooting his dog because a fox got into the hen-house.

    Justice is where the guilty are punished. Tyranny is where the innocent are punished. Firearm owners haven’t seen or felt much justice over the last 30+ years.

  5. I would like to hear an anti gun legislator explain logically how a round number is selected for magazine limits. Simply explain, logically, how they arrived at the number ‘X’ – and how it was scientifically and logically proven to be more appropriate than ‘X+1’ or ‘X-1’, or ‘1’ or ‘100’ or ‘0’.
    A simple explanantion, please, and be prepared to support your position with facts, and data. And bear in mind, if you say ‘ … for the children …’ , or ‘ … if we can save just one child / person / life … ‘ we will try out a 1 round magazine on you, and see how safe that limit makes you.

    • “please, and be prepared to support your position with facts, and data. ”

      Bzzt. You fail Leftist Manipulative Reasoning 101. You NEVER use fact and data. That’s for chumps.

    • It’s incremental prohibition. If they were to introduce a bill banning all firearms, that wouldn’t fly. But they will outlaw them little by little. They will also outlaw certain parts and ammo and heavily regulate and tax the rest. Just like the seat belt laws. They used to be a secondary offense and we were promised no one would ever be pulled over solely for a seat belt violation. How long did that last?

      • I understand, and I understand that there is no logical basis whatsoever. There is a big difference, however, between reasonable people understanding that, versus forcing a proponent to admit that in front of a camera (which shouldn’t be that hard to do). It simply requires someone to do it; ask the question on camera, and keep pounding, redirecting, forcing the legislator into a box where they HAVE to provide an answer or admit they don’t have one. THAT, on video, disseminated, would be a far more powerful statement than all of those of us who already understand it continuing to agree on how ridiculous, let alone unconstitutional, the entire thing is.

        • Sure, someone could do that and force them to admit those things on camera, and I sincerely doubt it would make one bit of difference.

          Some people like political theater and don’t care about the facts.

          Some people have their mind made up based on the emotional arguments or ideological dogma and don’t care about the facts.

          Some people won’t turn off the Kardassians (or whatever they are called) long enough to watch such an interview.

          Some people are incapable of understanding the implications of those facts if they are stated.

          Some people won’t believe the facts and will simply assume the asker is trying to manipulate the discussion.

          Some people will take the fact that the person does not want to respond has that he/she is standing up to a bully…how dare they ask such questions of their betters?

          Get enough of those somes in the right column and you win elections.

  6. Who wants to hear about the 6 criminals who broke into a house and beat up the residents…10 isn’t enough

  7. Politicians are like many religious followers. They follow the dogma without thought. Drinking the cool-aid with full faith that what they are doing is correct. There is no room for logic. The DNC has decided that guns are bad and the democratic followers of the religion will do whatever it takes to make them go away because they are simply following the zealots. Done! No matter what is said, the outcome is predetermined and the public hearings are just theater to make believe they are following some legislative process and that people actually have a voice.

    When you only have one party in power, this is what happens. There is no debate.

  8. The anti-gunners mention that there was the assault weapons ban which included restricting new magazines to ten rounds as an example that it was done before. They also don’t mention that government studies showed that the ban on magazine size had absolutely no effect on the ability of criminals and psychopaths to committ crimes and mass murder.

    But that would mean that the statists /liberal/ progressives would actually base their decisions on logic and facts.

    No, the sun would more likely rise in the west before that were to happen.

  9. From the article, best newspaper typo so far today: “The bill (A2006), which was approved by a 5-3 vote along party ->lies<- after a three-hour-long hearing……"

  10. While we’re at it, why don’t we mandate smaller fuel tanks on civilians’ cars so they can run over less people at music festivals? That shouldn’t be an inconvenience to refuel every mile or so, right?

  11. I think everyone here is missing the bigger picture. The fact that
    a poli-sci grad is not only sane but has the ability to use logic
    is a major upheaval.

Leave a Reply

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