Previous Post
Next Post

While examples of the old media using their power to push for ever more restrictive gun laws are so common as to be the norm, this segment by CBS is a particularly clear example: Newtown families have high hopes for N.J. gun ammo bill. Exactly one family was said to be present lobbying for the bill. The father cites a theory with little to no evidence to support the premise. An emotional father who lost a son is pushing for more gun restrictions that are virtually irrelevant to mass shootings . . .

Mass shootings are a tiny segment of homicides that occur in this country and the actual effects of the proposed law are ignored and downplayed.

As “Joe the Plumber” observed, speaking of the knife, car, and gun attack in California:

“… your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.”

This is as clear as rationality and logic can make it. Emotional appeals do not trump the rule of law. That way lies lynchings and mob rule. But at the, emotion clearly trumps the rule of law as they castigate Joe the Plumber for pointing out the irrelevance of emotional pleas. Emotions may be necessary to determine goals, such as protecting children, that we wish to achieve. But they’re absolutely terrible at determining the means to reach those goals.

New Jersey already has some of the most restrictive and illogical firearms laws in the nation. A man who won a hunting rifle in a police lottery was convicted of possessing it a few years later after New Jersey legislators, by legislative fiat, made it into an “assault” rifle. It was a clear case of the ignorant crafting legislation based on strong negative emotions. That definition is included in this new legislation.

Political pundits have speculated that New Jersey Democrat legislators have seen an opportunity to put a potential Republican presidential candidate in a bind. Pass a very bad piece of legislation that only harms legal gun owners and has no real effect on reducing crime or mass killings. Promote it via the old media as the propaganda arm of the party. This may well be the case. When the media is on your side, such tactics can work.

It’s also likely that many politicians in New Jersey are simply incapable of setting aside emotion in order to decide what to do on this issue.  Numerous irrational acts by legislators on the issue of firearms restrictions argue that they are acting from ignorance as much as they are from malice.

“For the children” is a form of political pedophilia, meant to blind people’s ordinary care and caution in order to pass legislation that would never have a chance under sane and careful examination.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Kristie’s plan is to try an quietly just let the bill become law by letting it sit on his desk for however long. I’m betting a 30 rack of PBR on it.

    • Way to hedge your bets there…. after all if the bill doesn’t become law, you win; if he takes that course of action, you are able to dispose of that without having to drink it. 😉

      • I sometimes find myself pittying many of these people from other states who only have coors, PBR, and Bud to drink, after all, not everywhere can be like the Pacific NW where between WA and OR we have over 450 excellent microbreweries to choose from.

  2. “For the children” is a tried and true ‘thought-terminating cliche’ in the same tradition as “we must dooooooooooo something,” “no true Scotsman” arguments and other forms of “Newspeak” being pushed by those in media outlets and educational institutions. “1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a ‘how to’ guide.”

  3. i don’t know whats worse about the conviction of the man who won the rifle: that those are the laws, or that the judges have absolute power to decide what a jury should and should not hear…

    if i were ever important, i think the first thing i’d work on is re-empowering juries…

    • Correct. I was confused after reading “Legilature”. Normally I have to look up the big words, this time I figured it out all by myself.

  4. Dean, you need to go to the what was actually passed rather than the bill originally tendered. The passed bill specifically excludes tube-fed .22 rifles.

    That doesn’t make it any better. For one thing, my Ruger 10/22 is still a deadly assault weapon with the removable 25 round magazines. (God help me if I ever put a pistol grip stock on it…)

    This matters because if we don’t get our facts right, it makes it easier for them to brush us off as idiots who don’t even know what’s in the bill.

    • The amendment to the bill is on the update at the end of the article on Gun Watch. It still defines .22 rifles with tubular magazines as assault rifles if they hold more than 15 rounds. That is many of the older Marlin model 60s, the Remington 552, the Remington 550, the Browning Semi-Auto in .22 short, and others. Here it is:

      Update: An amendment was added to AB 2006 before the law went to Governor Cristie. The ban on .22 semi-autos with tubular magazines was removed from the bill. Here is the amendment:

      (4) A semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding [15] 10 rounds. 1“Assault firearm” shall not include a semi-automatic rifle 2[with] which has2 an attached tubular device 2[designed to accept 15 rounds,] and 2which is2 capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.1


      y. “Large capacity ammunition magazine” means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than [15] 10 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm. 1The term shall not include an attached tubular device 2[designed to accept 15 rounds, and] which is2 capable of 2[operating only with] holding only2 .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.1

      There are still potential problems with this amendment; however it is not as clear as the previous version was in banning .22 sporting arms.

  5. The ‘for the children’ tactic has been used for years to bind emotion and grab at our ever-lightened wallets. For example:
    – We have no money for nurses ‘for the children’ at the school. We need more school levies to pass or our children will suffer
    – We need money for free-or-reduced lunch programs because it’s ‘for the children’
    – We need every student to bring a ream of copy paper to school ‘for the children’ as we have no money.

    And on and on it goes. I see parents constantly manipulated for money or political cause in small and large ways because of this age-old political tactic. I volunteer as the leader of our Youth Football Program (300 parents and players) and am a leader in the community, but never, ever use this type of tactic. We lift our kids UP, we teach them how to deal with challenge and adversity and give them tools to deal with life. We don’t use them as victims or pawns. We have a saying during our youth football practices “No victim noises – it only shows your opponent you are weak.” No whimpering or complaining. This is what so many anti-gun people do.

  6. By the way… the Santa Barbara shootings show just how useless bills like this are. The kid’s handgun was California legal. 10 rounds. He had 3 clips. What was reported over and over is how people heard 30 shots in quick succession. Having to reload didn’t matter much, did it?

  7. Every tyrant knew the power of children as props to fool the feeble minded public. Go do a search for pictures of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Kim Jong Un and Il and you’ll find plenty of pictures of them posing with children, signing tyrannical laws with children present, and so on. Obama and modern leftist politicians are following in a proud (for them) tradition.

    Add to that the modern glorification of emotion and demonization of logic, and it’s no surprise that some shallow, teary plea trumps obvious logic. We’re living in the reverse-Enlightenment.

    I don’t know why we bother paying attention to NJ, except to point and laugh. Funny how, like the North Korea it tries so hard to emulate, it’s nothing but a laughingstock.

  8. I don’t think I really need to post this for people here, but

    you can pass it along.

  9. I would not vote for Christie for President anyway, but it makes that a “no possible second thoughts” issue if Christie hasn’t got the “cojones” to just VETO the darned bill. Then, the Legislature would have to vote to override his veto, and they might pull it off (unsure of NJ Constitution on the matter), but that scenario would make Christie look like a Second Amendment supporter {and I would emphasize “look like”} and the Legislature look more like the tyrants they are. Not that it matters, except if Christie wants to stay NJ’s Governor and doesn’t want to anger the voters against him in that.

    Even Jerry Brown Vetoed two of the worst bills the Legislature Tyrants in California sent to him last year. [Note: At least one of those Laws has come back this year, and it affects magazines, denying any “grandfathering” of magazines larger than ten rounds owned prior to the Law’s passage and forces owners to surrender or destroy them, which was why Brown vetoed it in 2013.]

    Next up, per CAL-FFL NEWS: “According to the Sacramento Bee, ‘[Assemblymembers] Das Williams of Santa Barbara and Nancy Skinner of Berkeley announced they will introduce a bill that would allow concerned family members or friends to notify authorities when a loved one is at risk of committing violence.’ ” So, here it comes, a crazy law inspired by a crazy spree killer..

    Once “notified” the “authorities” would be able to seek a “restraining order” from a Judge against the named person, which would, at least, prohibit the person from buying a gun, and may enable the “authorities” to take any already acquired guns into “protective custody”…for the safety of the guns, of course. However it comes out, it shows what the mentally ill in the State Capitol are thinking. **deep, disgusted sigh**

    • What if Christie (some what anti-gun) was running against Hillary(really, really, really anti-gun). What then? Throw away your vote to a 3rd party or not vote at all and let Hillary win? Just wondering…

      • Ya got me! In the case you proposed, I would HAVE to vote for Christie, because Hillary IS the greater evil, and you really got me because I, as you apparently do, believe you should vote for the candidate that actually has a chance of winning as opposed to throwing away your vote on principle for a 3rd party guaranteed to lose Candidate, or not voting at all.

        Now that the “National Popular Vote” Campaign has gotten enough States to pass their Legislation that commits their Electoral College Votes to whoever wins the National Popular Vote (currently that amounts to 162 EV’s, per their stats), it will be very important to vote in 2016, and vote for who has a chance of winning, so voting for “lesser of two evils” might be a necessity. The NPV people have two+ years to get a few more states on board.

        So, insofar as not voting for Christie, perhaps I exaggerated a bit for emphasis. But since you’re from NJ, is he supporting this Bill? There’s no chance he would veto it? But he doesn’t want to sign it?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here