Quote of the Day: Jokers to the Left of Me Edition

N.J. Governor Chris Chrisitie, N.J. Senate President Stephen Sweeney (courtesy cbsnewyorkfiles.wordpress.co)

“To lawful gun owners – who I have great deal of respect for – we’re not hurting one of them. For sportsmen, we’re not hurting one. And if it prevents one child or one person from losing their life, we should do it.” N.J. Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D., Gloucester), N.J. Democrats propose limiting capacity of gun magazines [via philly.com]


  1. avatar ST says:

    The term ‘law abiding gun owner’ has no meaning to an urban NJ Democrat . All of us here are criminals as far as his kind are concerned.

    1. avatar Wassim Absood says:

      How about the Chief Republican of the Garden State?

      1. avatar Avid Reader says:

        I think the term is “RINO”.

        1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

          Stop making fun of his size! (I kid)

    2. avatar Morgan Y. says:

      We’re law abiding criminals here.

      1. avatar William Burke says:


    3. avatar JasonM says:

      Sure it does. It means somebody who’s willing to continuously compromise, giving up his rights (and his guns, ammo, and accessories) one by one, until he has nothing left.

  2. avatar 'liljoe says:

    Respect… they keep using that word….

    1. avatar Anthony Leanza says:

      ….but I do not think it means what they think it means.

    2. avatar Kelly in GA says:

      We respect people’s right to free speech and freedom of expression, but if we can save one child’s life, we should ban Facebook.
      ETA: sarc.

      1. avatar Rambeast says:

        10 word limit when speaking in public or private. 7 in NY.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          You are allowed to mouth up to ten words, but you can only say seven of them.

        2. avatar Fuque says:

          If they are dubbed in ( think Godzilla ) they you are allowed only 5

  3. avatar pwrserge says:

    I smell a veto. Cristie has presidential aspirations, sign this, and he won’t be able to get elected dog catcher on a GOP ticket.

    1. avatar moveableDO says:

      I already would never vote for him. There is no way he is a 2A supporter in the way we need him to be at this time.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        You really wouldn’t vote for him over O’Malley or H. R. Clinton? Really?

        I mean, I woud push almost any other candidate in a primary, but if Christie was the GOP nominee, you’d stay home? Now I understand why Obama is a two-term president.

        1. avatar DisThunder says:

          Obama being in office is the only reason the GOP fought him back on gun control. Had Romney won, he would’ve no doubt done something just as bad (look at MA) and the majority of the party would’ve joined him.
          I don’t even like the thought of this, but Hillary would be a more manageable threat to gun rights than Chris Christie would. Especially considering that even most Democrats don’t even like her.
          ….there is the problem of just how much of a country there would be left after 12 years of this kinda statist agenda, but at least we’d be able to roam the badlands armed.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Vote against all the commie barstids! Write me in in 2016: http://rich_grise.tripod.com/cgi-bin/index.pl .

          I’ll fire the whole damn government!

        3. avatar Wassim Absood says:

          I wouldn’t vote for him, period – I am a liberal Democrat. If you want me to sit out voting for ‘my team’ for being anti-2A, I expect the same commitment in return.

        4. avatar Parnell says:

          I have to agree with you. I really don’t dislike the Governor and I find his distain for stupid reporters and voters to be refreshing. I think he might veto this one like he did the 50BMG bill last year as addressing a non-existent problem. He also said that we already have strict gun laws , why pass more? He may not be our perfect choice, but he’s a hell of a lot better than the opposition.

        5. avatar William Burke says:

          I wouldn’t vote for any of them at gunpoint. My vote means a lot to me, which is why I wouldn’t vote for any of ’em. Don’t waste your vote on any of those clowns. Keep it.

          Or write in “None of the Above”; one day, he’ll win.

    2. avatar Mat says:

      I think that’s the reason they are doing it, they have nothing to lose but he does. If he signs he creates issues with the 2A base in both his own state and nationally for a presidential run. If he vetoes he gives his next gubernatorial challenger ammunition.

      1. avatar Parnell says:

        He can’t run again. Two-term limit in NJ.

  4. avatar jwm says:

    Lord knows a killer can’t get the job done with a 10 round mag. Instead of 2 15 rounders he’ll have to carry 3 10 rounders. See how that’ll save so many lives.

    1. avatar Ann M says:

      But see – that will serve 2 purposes: Slows down a killer (supposedly) AND promotes math education (maybe it’s part of the Common Core?). >sarc<

    2. avatar Geoff says:

      Worked in columbine…. they only had 10rd mags….. and Virgina tech …

    3. avatar Fuque says:

      After the Mags, they go after cargo pants with deep pockets… Your Pockets can lawfully be *this* deep

      1. avatar William Burke says:


        “What’s in your pocket, son?”

        You don’t really want to know.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          ““What’s in your pocket, son?”; You don’t really want to know.”

          A Jewish kid was carrying a loaf of bread home from the market, with his other hand in his pocket. A rabbi happened by and said, “I see you have the staff of life in your hand, but what’s that in your other hand?”

          “A loaf of bread, Rabbi.”

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          ALL RIGHT!

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    So limiting gearing on bikes doesnt hurt bike racers?
    Limiting stride doesnt hurt road runners?
    Limiting horsepower doesnt hurt car racers?

    Another anti who either doesnt know or doesnt care about shooting sports.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Nah, they’re not “hurting” us today, in that no skin was broken, but they sure are setting us up to round us all up and load us onto boxcars tomorrow.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        It sure seems so.

  6. avatar Roll says:

    The same argument can be made for the pro gun argument. If we can save one life it should be done. If you respected our rights Mr. Sweeney(which you don’t), you wouldnt be trying to infringe upon them.

    1. avatar BlueBronco says:

      We all need to use this as one of our arguments.

      1. avatar Alex Peters says:

        To expand upon this, where are groups like the NRA on this issue? Sure, they give the papers some quotes about infringement, but they seriously fail in stopping these bills from becoming laws. How about taking a page from the anti-‘s playbook and marching in victims who needed (and used) more than 10 rounds to defend their lives and the lives of their families. Where are their testimonies? How about a LEO who needed more than 10 rounds to take down a couple of bad guys? This is what is needed to be put in front of state legislators. Until they do this, they will continue to lose states and millions of citizens who are bound to the arbitrary 10-round magazine.

        1. avatar Rambeast says:

          They’re too busy paying useless board members and scaring up donations with email campaigns.

        2. avatar gtfoxy says:

          GOA is the only one on the front line really “Doing” Anything. NRA is a bunch of old has-beens that either need to crap or get off the pot. They are dead space in their half-hearted attempts at liberty retention.

        3. avatar Fred says:

          Unfortunately, the NRA seems to love this kind of anti-gun legislation. Such scares boost their membership. Slow on everyday anti-gun legislation but quick to be right at the forefront of a full-blown gun scare. That’s one major reason I’m not an NRA member.

        4. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

          I don’t know where the NRA is, but I do know where it isn’t: in NJ.

        5. avatar Jus Bill says:

          I always have to wonder if the anti-NRA posts are from legitimate users or MDA sock puppets.

        6. avatar MothaLova says:

          Alex’s comment seems not only legitimate but correct.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      In any (dishonest) debate the best tactic of the man with the weaker or unsustainable argument is to change the subject or focus.

      Anti-2A people will always try to get you to engage in “dialogue” about “reasonable” gun control AND bring in the argument about saving children. This is nothing more than a debating distraction intentionally diverting you from the single main and insurmountable point, The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 2:

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arm, shall not be infringed.

      They CANNOT argue that this is not the law of the land, clearly and concisely stated, giving the government no authority to legislate on this matter and in fact prohibiting the government from infringing in any way on this natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right.

      Since to bring this up represents an instant loss for their position they will always try to re-direct the debate and pretend the Second Amendment does not exist as a full stop to their agenda. If you take the bait then you have tacitly agreed to at least one point of their platform – that the subject of civilian disarmament can be discussed and is a viable, legal and Constitutional option, when in fact it is not.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “Free State” doesn’t mean a geopolitical entity that has carte blanche to run around willy-nilly doing whatever its chairman wants, it means a condition of Liberty, just like “State of the Union” cited in Article II, section 3 mean what condition the country’s in. That’s another one of the major misunderstandings being exploited by the gun-grabbers and other statists.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          I just dropped in to see what condition my country’s condition was in. I didn’t like what I saw.

          What I saw is not likely to be fixed by votes alone.

  7. avatar Hal J. says:

    And if it prevents one child or one person from losing their life, we should do it.”

    Ah, the old “If it only saves one life” canard.

    “To lawful gun owners – who I have great deal of respect for – we’re not hurting one of them.

    So a NJ gun owner currently using 15 round magazines in his Glock 22 isn’t “lawful”?

    1. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

      What I really don’t get is why even have mag capacity limits, since you are prohibited from taking your gun outside your home in NJ unless you’re going to a range. Law abiding citizens aren’t even taking their guns past the front door, let alone carry them in public, and yet it is us who are constantly being punished for the crimes of those who don’t obey any laws, not just gun laws. Whenever the government passes legislation that “feels good”, run for your lives!

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      “To lawful gun owners – who I have great deal of respect for – we’re not hurting one of them.”

      To the contrary, we’re hurting all of them.

  8. avatar ThomasR says:

    I agree, if it saves the life of one child; let’s limit abortion. Oh; wait a minute, we’re talking about something that actually increases the risk of death to a child; I guess that’s why statists want this; they have shown an implacable hatred of all human life; especially that of the most defenseless human among us.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Gee how about you take this TOTALLY OFF TOPIC rant over to a Right to Life board? All you will accomplish here is to annoy the pro gun people who happen to disagree with you on this issue.

      1. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

        Or he could be pointing out a logical inconsistency with the tired old phrase that the Left uses, “If it could save one child’s life…”

      2. avatar Anon in CT says:

        It’s a fair point – the left talks about “just one life” and then protects the likes of Kermit Gosnell who killed full-term infants and at least one adult woman.

      3. avatar MothaLova says:

        “Lighten up, Frances.”

      4. avatar El Mac says:

        @ SteveInCO – The same could be said of you: “Why don’t you take it to a pro-baby killing forum bro?”

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      They’re flat-out racists. What they REALLY are into is limiting the number of BLACK babies. cf: Margaret Sanger, who said as much.

  9. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Isn’t this just a boilerplate press release with only the names and places changed?

    Or in other words, we’ve heard this ALL before….

  10. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

    Christie scares me just as much as Obama. Another wishy-washy representative of the party machine.

    Yeah, he talks tough sometimes, but I don’t think he really has any principles. He’d throw us under the bus in a New Jersey minute if he maintained his extra-large seat in the governor’s office by doing so.

    1. avatar gtfoxy says:

      Is that longer or shorter than a NY minute?

      Just remember, Christie is “On the Jersey Side of this sespool”

    2. avatar SuperiorPosture says:

      He was just reelected. He cannot be elected for more than two consecutive terms. And by the time the next election rolls around, he’ll be knee deep in presidential campaigning anyway. So moot point even if he DID manage to change the gubernatorial term limits. He needs to veto this if he plans on running, and he knows it.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Can he be elected to another NON-consecutive term in NJ? In Virginia, for instance, there is a two-term limit for governors, and they cannot be consecutive.

    3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Yes, Christie is a RINO. He wouldn’t be my first (or 50th) choice for POTUS. That said, he has proven that he will be tough in the face of opposition. I can easily see him coming in and pushing to cut spending on various programs and at various agencies, even if people grumble over it. Most RINOs wouldn’t.

      He’s no friend of gun owners. He’d sign some gun control bills that Lee, Paul, or Cruz wouldn’t. However, I don’t see him actively pushing gun control. So, even though he isn’t a friend, I don’t see him being the enemy that any of the commonly discussed Dem candidates would be. If I have a choice between Christie and Hillary (or almost any other Dem), I’ll take Christie. If the GOP can hold either the House or the Senate (or preferably both) we should be decent shape with Christie (or at least, far better shape than we are now).

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        But know that if he does somehow assume occupancy of the “People’s House” on Pennsylvania Avenue, he’ll be bought and paid for by yet another host of puppet masters. Rinse and repeat.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          If they make the doors wider, maybe.

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Yeah, that’s ugly. Anyone opposed to carry is by definition opposed to RTKBA. But do you see President Christie spending political capitol to push new gun control legislation, when Obama hasn’t even been able to get anything through a Senate that Harry Reid controls? I could be wrong, but I don’t see it happening. I just don’t think it would be a priority for him. Contrast that with almost any serious DNC candidate, and I still like my chances with Christie (especially with at least partial GOP control of the legislature).

        Don’t get me wrong. I’d vote against Christie in the primaries if I were registered GOP (I’ve considering registering just for that purpose, actually). I’d rate President Christie at about a swift kick in the nuts. Four more years of Progressive rot would be more along the lines of a shotgun blast to the face.

        1. avatar MothaLova says:

          Old Ben – I think your prediction is right. My concern is that, given how much ground we have lost in the last several decades, we can’t afford to settle for someone who won’t attack our rights. We need someone who will increase protection for our rights (e.g., lifting the ban on carrying on federal property, promoting national carry legislation, etc.).

  11. avatar LJM says:

    “We’re not hurting one of them”…. Except that you are.

    Perhaps we should put limits on the 1st amendment to save ourselves for this idiocy.

  12. avatar Anthony Leanza says:

    Will this Magazine Capacity Law apply to all the king’s men as well, or just the peasants?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Surely you jest…

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        I just thought, “Pfffft!”

  13. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Ah, the old “if it saves one life” gag, classic!

    1. avatar Alex Peters says:

      Magazine capacity limits save plenty of lives…criminals’ lives.

    2. avatar Hal J. says:

      The sad part is, he thinks his “If it only saves one life” canard will persuade many, many people.

      The sadder part is…he’s right.

  14. avatar Richard W. in Texas says:

    Well, there is also the other argument that I hope someone in NJ brings up that larger magazines will SAVE LIVES of homeowners from criminal home intrusions. More lives have been saved with real stats of events that can be proven then will be supposedly lost from the ban on possible events that have not happened yet.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      They’ve been told by our own government whom they worship that this is the case. Still oblivious.

    2. avatar Paul G. says:

      But the child it saves would be the gang-banger breaking down the door to your house!!

  15. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

    I am sick of hearing the trope, “If one child’s life could be saved…” That meme is simply an excuse not to use one’s brain. And yes, the ironic truth is that this is highly hypocritical coming from a Leftist.

  16. avatar JackieO says:

    Jersey is as close to a lost cause as you are likely to get. What is more important is to consider why any 2A minded person, regardless of party affiliation would even consider Christie as a positive candidate for president. You need your head examined as we use to say. HE IS THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE WITH THE THIRD STRICTEST GUN CONTROL IN THE COUNTRY!!!
    He used a loophole excuse to veto the last gun bill so he could appear safely neutral. Remember this is a state where if you are caught with a centerfire hollow point cartridge you are going to jail. You don’t even need the gun, just the ammo. Hello!!
    Don’t let the media tell you who you like.

    1. avatar SuperiorPosture says:

      You must not be from around here, then. The laws were already as strict as they are long before Christie took office. Given the makeup of the state legislature, there’s no way he’d ever get ANY pro-gun bills passed. And also given the insane financial problems the state was facing at the time of his election, I’d say he probably didn’t have much time.

      As to your other point, hollow points are not illegal in NJ. You can buy them in any gun store. You can take them to the range with you for practice. You can have them at home. Since those are the only 3 places where guns are allowed under the current may-(not)-issue CCW status, it seems to me that you are allowed to have hollow points anywhere you are allowed to have a gun.

      To be fair, I’m not defending NJ. I dislike this state and check for job openings in Alaska once a month. I hate it here. But just like the Jersey folk you see on TV (see: Sopranos, Jersey Shore, Desperate Housewives… actually, don’t see it), it’s not actually as bad as it looks. It’s bad… just not AS bad.

      1. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

        Yes, I think the only ban on HPs in NJ is in your carry gun, but since nobody can legally carry, that’s a moot point. However, even though it’s legal to take them to the range, I decided not to do it. I know from experience that some cops are just not aware of the legal status of HP bullets here, so why take that risk.

      2. avatar MothaLova says:

        Superior Posture –

        Christie signed MORE gun control bills, and his administration is currently petitioning the Supreme Court AGAINST review of the anti-carrying law: http://www.northjersey.com/news/246849501_Christie_s_gun_stance_at_odds_with_GOP_s.html

        Furthermore, there are things he could have done even with a Democratic legislature. He could have gotten through changes to the worst “traps for the unwary” in NJ laws. For instance, the gun of a registered owner cannot be used by his spouse to defend herself. That sort of thing could have been cleared up. But Christie has never wanted to do anything to change the gun laws in NJ. In fact, he defends them and he’s made them worse (see my first paragraph).

        1. avatar superiorposture says:

          As I said, I’m not defending the state or Christie. The fact is inescapable that NJ was on lock down long before he got in office. Regardless of what he said he would or wouldn’t support (all things leading up to an election he HAD to win in order to have any chance at a presidential run), the fact is there was no way anything pro-gun right would get passed. Zero. Zilch. Nada. If he patently veto’d every bill that came across his desk last year, Buono would be czarina… I mean… governor… and bills banning all guns would be be in committee by now. He has to pick his battles wisely in the political minefield he’s navigating en route to Washington.

          Could he be better for the pro-gun rights side? Yes. But make no mistake, he will veto the magazine limit bill.

        2. avatar MothaLova says:

          That’s the standard defense of Christie by those sympathetic to him, and I won’t say there’s nothing to it. But it would hold more water if Christie actually picked any battles to fight in order to advance conservative policies. But he’s either spent his time merely parrying Democratic attacks or actually giving in to them. Even his vaunted strong stance against the teacher unions was a sham: he ran for re-election on the slogan, “The most education funding ever!” (See, e.g., http://www.cbsnews.com/news/christie-jersey-proud-in-new-campaign-ad/)

          And his judicial appointments have been worse than awful – egregiously leftist.

  17. avatar Steve in MD says:

    So are they banning possession of more than 10 rd magazines? Or just the sale, transfer, and manufacture of them like MD did?

    Because all that does is cause every gun store on the other side of the state border to jack up their magazine prices.

  18. avatar Pulatso says:

    We need a PR campaign to convince anti corporate types (which include a lot of progs) to be against mag limits. How? Call it corporate welfare for magazine manufacturers.

    Before, you could carry 30 rounds by only buying two mags. Now you have to buy an additional magazine to carry the same amount. It’s nothing but a handout to the gun manufacturers! You know the gun lobby (NRA) is behind this measure! Vote no on mag limits! End corporate greed!

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      It’s not just that.

      It’s trying to shop on line for a new pistol – where so many are only offered with full capacity mags. So you have a more limited selection, or pay a premium to get less. And how about folks who participate in 3-gun or other competitions?

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        How about, an unconstitutional law isn’t a law?

        Don’t make excuses for the Supreme Law of the Land!

      2. avatar SuperiorPosture says:

        Just about every hand gun is available with a “California Legal” 10-round alternative. The real hard part is finding a 15-round mag under the current limits. If a handgun holds 17, any reduced capacity will be a 10-rounder because that covers all the ban states, whereas NJ was the only one (until recently) that used 15.

  19. avatar gtfoxy says:

    What a Crock!

  20. avatar MW Lima says:

    More demodouchebaggery. It never ends with them.

  21. avatar El Mac says:

    One wonders how they stand to look at themselves in the mirror everyday.

  22. avatar Pascal says:

    The phrase “who I have great deal of respect for” is like “with all due respect” or “I don’t me to insult you but” or so many others. When they start off like that, you know the next sentence is when they are going to screw you over. They really don’t mean the first part, they are just trying to be nice about the fact that they are going to screw you in about 2 seconds.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “I like the Second Amendment, but…”
      “I love you, but…”

      The ‘but’ cancels whatever went before it.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        “It’s not you, it’s me… ”

        That’s more acurate ^

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Yeah, but in this case, it is you. 😀
          (just kidding!)

  23. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “Hello, my name is Chris ‘Krispy Kreme’ Christie. Is there any way I can deliver my career stillborn to the GOP Presidential primaries, so that I never rise higher than Governor of this God-forsaken and forgotten little bit of Hell that is New Jersey?”

    Why, yes. Yes, there is. In fact, you may want to dust off W’s old “Mission Accomplished” banner right now.

  24. avatar EagleScout87 says:

    Guys, NJ firearms owners could use your help. Flooding Christie’s mailbox with your wish to veto any legislation passed by Anti-gun Steve Sweeney’s legislature and how his decision weighs on your decision come Presidential election time will help the national movement for Arms rights, as well as help New Jerseyians who are firearms owners. Firearms owners didn’t vote these people into office, but culture, stigma and draconian laws have made firearms owners in NJ dwindle so their political clout is very limited. Legislatures push these measures with impunity. They know Colorado won’t happen to them. Calling Christie fat, or saying NJ deserves these laws doesn’t help anything and it paints 2nd Amendment supporters as children.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      It’s too late, pal. NJ et. al. had their chance(s) for generations and they let it slip away. Decades of neglect of their civil duty to hold their politicians accountable can’t be undone with a few emails.

      Sure, we’ll do what we can, like withold contributions and support. We here in Texas will continue, for as long as we can, to elect Constitutional conservatives to the House and Senate; but let’s not kid ourselves. America is in a decline fast becoming a plummet. The die is cast, the tipping point reached, however you care to describe it, but the unavoidable result is the same. This country has been taken over by takers: politicians who take our rights and our money, and leaches who take that money in exchange for voting in the politicians.

      Nothing short of once-in-a-century type action can reverse it, and that’s not going to happen. That doesn’t necessarily mean violence, but that, too. There won’t be a Civil War II any more than there would be another Constitutional Convention to rewrite the whole thing in ironclad terms. There are no leaders who could pull any of that off. Look anywhere, in government, business, anywhere. You won’t find a single would-be Washington, Jefferson, Adams or Madison among them.

      It’s fun to chit chat here, but when you sign off, just know that there’s no turning back. In twenty years, America will be, in all regards, not just in terms of firearms, basically the unloved abominable love child of England and Mexico. Better start learning Spanish and getting on welfare, because that’s the future. Or, jump ship to the Kleptocrat Party, er, I mean Democrat, and try to get in the inside while there’s still time.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I guess you’ve never heard of the Weimar Republic, or Venezuela, or Ukraine, or any of a number of other failed socialist utopias. In your own personal fantsay world, who pays the bills?

        1. avatar Scott P says:

          He isn’t defending socialism but saying based on current demographics and trends it will be the future. Also that Americans will be too timid to revolt and just take it in stride. Bread and circuses afterall.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Oh, of course. So who pays the bills when nobody’s producing and everybody’s only consuming? Because there are people who will take up arms to resist being enslaved for the good of the statists.

  25. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Yes, if it saves one good persons life we are not doing it, fixed it for you sweetie. I guess I should be gratefull, its now double super illegal for more than one person to attack a good guy in NJ.

  26. avatar TheSleeperHasAwakened says:


  27. avatar former water walker says:

    Why the vitriol toward the NRA? GOA or any other pro gun group is almost NEVER mentioned in any gun rights FIGHT. NRA did a helluva good job for Illinois in the right to carry(not to mention even possessing a handgun in Chicago). No fan of Christie though.

  28. avatar BigDaddy says:

    I’m going to run for office. My platform is going to be “If you like your gun, you can keep your gun”

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      I’m already running: Write me in in 2016: http://rich_grise.tripod.com/cgi-bin/index.pl .
      I’ll fire the whole damn government!

  29. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

    I propose to limit the amount of time each person drives daily to 10 minutes. Nobody needs to drive longer than that. And if you do, you’re risking hitting a child. And if we could save just one life, we should do it. This sort of “logic” that Sweeney advocates can be applied to many other daily activities, household items or even OTC drugs which can be inherently risky. Should we impose arbitrary limits on everything? Thanks government, but no thanks. What a hopeless state NJ is.

  30. avatar Anonymous says:

    And here it is… again… the “if it saves one life fallacy”

    “And if it prevents one child or one person from losing their life, we should do it.”

    “No free society worth its salt operates anywhere close to the principle that a law that could save “one life” is automatically worth passing, or that “actions” that result in “only saving one life” are axiomatically “worth taking.”

    “banning Ibuprofen would probably save “one life” in the next few years, but that doesn’t mean we should do it”


  31. avatar WayneMHK says:

    “we’re not hurting one of them..”

    Yes you are. Not the point.

  32. avatar John Smith says:

    Jokers are to the right…

    Clowns are to the left.

  33. avatar NJDevil says:

    For a long, long time some of us who lived in NJ called it the People’s Republic of New Jersey. One can see why.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      It’s an interesting case study. My wife is from NJ and even learned to shoot at a NJ range back in the 80’s at the tender age of 8. I used to play cops and robbers in my neighborhood in Queens with “realistic-looking” toy guns with all the other kids on the block. How fast these areas have changed to be so incredibly restrictive is truly sad and astonishing to me. I can’t even have conversations about guns with some of those kids I played with back then. I had a conversation with one of my old friends about her kids and got on the topic of toy guns. She became incensed when I reminded her that she used to play cops and robbers with us and she didn’t turn into a killer. It shows how people that were once reasonable on certain issues can become indoctrinated by the right combination of political group think and other media propaganda.

      1. avatar MothaLova says:

        OH yes, indeed. Almost all my neighbors have utterly unthinking anti-gun reactions as soon as the subject arises. There’s no chance of reasoning with them. All the more reason to do everything possible to bring about changes in the law so that people will become habituated to lawful carry and realize that crime will not go up as a result.

  34. avatar T says:

    Problem is you been doing these type of laws for years and you have nothing to show for it. Cadmen,Newark,Trenton,Jersey City, out of which of these cities did your great laws work to help reduce crime?

  35. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    To lawn owners – for whom I have great respect – we’re not hurting a one. For users of public drinking fountains, we’re not hurting a one. But if it saves just one person from tripping…

    — Ben Dover, D Newark, on reducing firehose sizes to 3/4″x25′, limit one per ladder company.

  36. avatar twency says:

    “When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril.”

    -State v. Pelleteri, 294 N.J. Super. 330, 683 A2d 555

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      Exactly, and thank you for the reminder of that little bit of judicial tyranny.

      The court got it almost right. Allow me to correct the sentence:

      “When dealing with guns, the government acts at his peril.”

  37. avatar GS650G says:

    Preventing crime by wagging the dog to say the least. I still fail to see how criminals are being impacted by any of this, but I don’t live in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey so I guess that makes me naive.

  38. avatar jirdesteva says:

    Stephen M. Sweeney (D)
    (Senate President)

    935 Kings Highway
    Suite 400
    West Deptford, NJ 08086

    199 East Broadway
    1st Floor
    Suite G
    Salem, NJ 08079

    PHONE NUMBERS: (856) 251-9801 (West Deptford)
    (856) 339-0808 (Salem)

  39. avatar Roadrunner says:

    Sad thing is Sweeney is our next governor.

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      If you’re lucky, you mean. Quite possibly the next NJ governor will be Loretta Weinberg, who makes Sweeney look like a brilliant man of conservative principle.

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