Previous Post
Next Post

NJ SWAT team (courtesy

“We want law enforcement to have the ultimate say over who can be armed in public — not lobbyists with the NRA. Thankfully, the Supreme Court’s brush-off of this latest challenge reaffirms that.” – Editorial, U.S. Supreme Court shrugs off weak challenge to NJ gun law [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. In the 80’s I trained cops….talk about insulted!

    This is what happens when the motto “To Serve and Protect” becomes a political statement rather than a creed to live by.

    • As people, cops as individuals included, become more disconnected and disenfranchised from society and the country they once believed in, factions will pop up that contort the meaning of “To Protect and to Serve” to mean only themselves. On a sinking ship, you save your family first, and these people have already lost faith.

      This is what’s happening in the world today, but more so in the US because of the globalist focus to bring the US down. WWI prison philosopher Antonio Gramsci pointed out that captors need only destroy a man’s relationships in ethnicity, nationality and religion if they wish to gain control of a prisoner’s mind; a tact which author Holly Sklar has so aptly pointed out during her blistering criticism of the globalists. They are intentionally destroying our cultural values so as to weaken any bonding we have between our fellow countrymen. And in each man’s desire to stay alive, he will sooner or later turn in his neighbor or even family for another few weeks of life ……… and they know this. This is no mere quirk in the chaotic history of mankind.

      This is why globalism must be stopped and the perpetrators held accountable.

      • Continued Tribalism is no solution either. I take it you are not a fan of the Expanding Circle school of ethical thinking.

    • I think the first transformers movie borrowed the car for barricade from the NJ state police. It clearly says “To punish and enslave” right on the side of it.

    • Why have legislatures decide who can carry within the limits set on them by the Constitution when we can have non-elected heavily armed above the law government agents to impose their own wills on us without limits?

  2. I’ve noticed all of these articles slip in the phrase “so called guns everywhere law.” It is as though they want the reader to believe it is the NRAs affectionate nickname for the legislation, and not the hysterical scare-branding of Bloomberg.

    • That moniker was applied more than two weeks ago. Most of what passes for journalists these days can’t remember that far back and don’t care where it came from, long as they can use it to bias their articles.

      • And bump up their word count. The poor babies. It must be Hell to have to work under a deadline with a hangover and without being buzzed.

  3. I just cant understand why so many people want to give all the power to a select group. You know, because that’s never gone horribly awry or anything.

    • @Shire-man, its easy to understand if you remember the brain washing of the godvernment skools that has occurred over the last oh…40 years or so. Yes, I said godvernment.

    • It’s easier to follow than to lead, to obey than to question, and to kneel rather than to stand.

      It’s all about one word, weakness.

      • Yes, and as another commenter said a few months ago they have the mentality of not only being in chains but wondering why everyone else isn’t as well.

        Instead of desiring freedom for themselves they’d rather have oppression for everyone else.

        • Once they implement the position of handicapper general we will all finally be equal. Except for those handicapping us of course.

        • Is that the “hopey changey” thing everyone was so excited about a couple of years ago?

      • It’s not just social, it’s economical. Progressives admit to attempting to make everyone equal, the problem is that the lowest can’t be brought to the highest, or even the low middle, thus everyone has to be reduced to the level of the least so we can all be ‘equal’. This is true of rights, liberties and economics. They would have you believe that if you are more responsible and higher performing you do something evil to those who aren’t. It’s more a form of mental illness than a legitimate school of political thought, but there it is.

  4. Da, reminds me of my motherland when we all had guns. Then Comrade Lenin rallied us to overthrow the oppressor. Then comrade Lenin said we no need gun anymore so he took them away to protect us. But then we needed guns again but no one had any except military and police…Is True story comrade.

  5. At the end of the article you’ll find a poll asking the question; “Should NJ gun owners be allowed to carry in public without having to show urgent need?”. Right now it’s 85% in favor with about 7200 votes cast. Let’s run up the score.

  6. Uh, law enforcement isn’t supposed to have the ultimate say in any law, ever. That’s the job of the legislature, and occasionally the courts (under state and federal constitutions).
    Law enforcement is supposed to enforce laws. Who taught these idiots to read?

  7. Funny, when I clicked on this I was thinking, ‘ultimate authority, that would be God, right?’ Now cops want to pretend their God? No wonder people hate them.

  8. Well there you have it folks.. the Judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one.. It doesnt get any more in your face then that…

  9. People, calm yourselves and stop overacting! If you simply read into it, it means that all of us just need to be in law enforcement! It’s an easy solution to a non-problem – just don’t be of average or higher intelligence though, otherwise you forfeit your rights. Apply now!


  10. “This is important because New Jersey isn’t Georgia. A strong majority of the people here support strict gun laws. They don’t want to live in a state that just passed a so-called “guns everywhere” law — allowing firearms in bars, school zones, government buildings and even airports.” I think he misunderstood where the strong support lies seeing as their own poll is currently over 84% in favor of concealed carry without showing a “justifiable need”

  11. So they want…what exactly? Judge Dredd? That seems to be what they want, but why in the world would they?

  12. Amazing.

    These people are such hypocritical tools. In the early 90’s and even after Clinton was elected, law enforcement was always portrayed as oppressive. They were mocked, disrespected, and undervalued.

    Now that progressives are in power and control so many of the levers of government, law enforcement are the ultimate white knights, the righteous agents of government.

    Funny to see this shift in attitude over the past decade or so.

    • As Ron Silver (before he awakened to reality) said to a (then) fellow progressive at Clinton’s inauguration–Don’t complain, those are OUR planes now…The accuracy of your statement first hit me with the Elian Gonzalez thing, when it was over all the screaming liberals were literally lionizing the jackboots from INS as “heroes”. Because, of course, they were ultimately serving the interests of that great Progressive humanitarian, Fidel Castro.

  13. The human right to self defense dictates who can be armed. Its not something you can take away.

    Oh and ‘murica!

  14. If the people of New Jersey are unhappy with the gun laws in their state, they have the power to change it. That’s why we have elections. I understand the anger. At one time this would have upset me as well. Apparently, the majority of voters agree with these laws, they continue to elect the very politicians who enact them. Same with New York, Maryland, or any other state.

    • True, that’s the reality for now. But it isn’t supposed to be that way in our Republic. The tyranny of the majority is something that by definition will not be fixed at the polling place.

    • Judging by recent poll results, if the people of NJ are unhappy with people who want to keep (or have restored) their human, natural right to armed self defense, maybe THEY should move. Maybe across the river to NYC or Filthadelphia, where the populace thinks more like them.

      • Except for Philly, PA is more pro gun than NJ is. It’s mainly the big cities bullying the rest of the states.

  15. 15% want to tell the rest how to live. The threshold of implementation (imposing a will on a population) is 22-26%.

  16. Since when does law enforcement [legally] dictate anything?!?

    These plonkers are about as far off the mark as one can be; to use a shooting analogy, they couldn’t hit a barn from the inside.

    • Or, to quote one of my favorite characters:

      “From what I hear, {they} couldn’t hit water if {they} fell out of a {expletive} boat.”

  17. I think the state librarians should have final say before any editorials are allowed to be published.

  18. Punishment from the original story relating to this photo equals:

    “LaBruno , 59, will retire shortly with an estimated $147,555 annual pension, plus a one-time payment of between $275,000 and $375,000, as per his contract with the city. That includes compensation for 150 unused vacation days and $150,000 in termination pay.”

  19. Yeah Rob Aught; the “rebels” in the sixties fighting against the establishment and the man are now the establishment and using the man to persecute any resistance to the their perfect society.

    Usually when a revolution is successful, the control structure that is created is more oppressive and homicidal than what was in place before.

    The liberal/ progressives definitely fulfill historical expectations. 50 million babies murdered; indefinite detention without trial, no knock warrants, asset forfieture, forced to buy a product(health insurance) at the point of a gun. It just goes on and on.

    Every freedom this country was built upon has been subverted, outlawed, regulated and controlled by the Statists/liberal/ progressives.

    And this author glories in his chains and calls anyone that believes in freedom and the constitution “terrorists”.

  20. Ah yes, today’s elites put the common people’s wills first and they also know what is best for us. (sarc off)

  21. “But the message the Supreme Court is sending is clear: Common sense gun laws are constitutional.”

    “That’s not what we want for New Jersey.”

    — “Common-sense”. “We want”. Who are the editorial journalist goons writing these Soviet-style Ms.-Information pieces?

    “Yet over and over, it’s been defeated.”

    — The goons can’t even write properly. Edit: “its” no apostrophe needed for the possessive.

    The former Soviets are now increasingly more capitalists and the Amerikkkans are now increasingly more socialists. Go figure.

    • “The goons can’t even write properly. Edit: “its” no apostrophe needed for the possessive.”

      That isn’t a possessive sentence, but rather a contraction. The apostrophe is correct.

      Yet over and over, it has been defeated.

    • ““Yet over and over, it’s been defeated.”

      — The goons can’t even write properly. Edit: “its” no apostrophe needed for the possessive.”

      If you’re going to nitpick, at least please factcheck. The sentence says, “Yet over and over, it has been defeated.” So in this case, the apostrophe was right.

  22. Oh sure, they want Police to dictate who has guns or not…. UNTIL THEY DON’T.

    Like when ALL of the Sheriffs come out AGAINST their stupid gun control laws in Colorado and sue the state – or when the NY Sheriff’s refuse to support ‘SAFE’ act.

    Don’t see them supporting the Police stance then huh?

    By and large, most police are strong supporters of the 2ND. These Anti-Gun zealots are amazing in their ability to spew BS and lies.

  23. Yes, surely we want unaccountable public sector unions in charge of our civil rights. Because so far that’s working out so well

  24. Too bad King George didn’t have ultimate authority over who could possess weapons.

    Or we could live in the world of Judge Dredd…

  25. I still chafe at the term “law enforcement officer.” as well as when I am told (by ANYBODY, though my department doesn’t say things like this) that my primary responsibility is to “enforce/ensure compliance” or to “enforce” anything. I also hate when people refer to the various police agencies as “the force.” I know it’s an old and archaic term, but force should be applied judiciously and only in certain circumstances….it annoys me severely to hear that word base being used so cavalierly. I consider myself a peace officer first and an enforcer….well, not even second. maybe a distant fourth. maybe fifth.

    I was taught that the primary goals WERE to serve and protect, and funnily enough, that the Constitution, not the government, and not law enforcement agencies, has the ultimate authority. guess times really have changed.

    it may sound silly to some, and it may sound overly nostalgic to a time when I wasn’t even born, but I want to go back to helping old ladies cross the street, helping little Johnny find his mother, ensuring Otis the drunk knows where the cell is when he ties one on, and solving minor mysteries while helping folks out. I want to go back to when kids were taught that cops were still good guys they could turn to in times of need. and it’s a two way street. I did over 5 years in a SWAT unit, and I’ve done lots of other duties as well. of course there are always bad apples – name me a job where there aren’t any – but most of the guys in my experience have been stand up guys most of the PotG here would enjoy a brew with. I do stress most in both cases because bad apples on both sides exist. perhaps I’ve been lucky.

    this “poll” sounds like it flopped horribly, which makes me giggle a little inside. but the fact that the idea of legislation even appeared on that idea just….nauseates me. it sounds like the NJ poll shows that people don’t want that level of babysitting. why else would the antis be crying? or have I missed something?

    ETA: I posted this above as a reply to someone else accidentally….butterfingers I guess this morning.

  26. “We want law enforcement to have the ultimate say over who can be armed in public — not lobbyists with the NRA.

    Sure. How about the American people choose who can be armed in public? Better the NRA with their 5 million members hiring lobbyists than have no voice at all. We have a voice too you know. I know we are not employee’s of Monsanto and have back room deals with the FDA on spermicidal corn for everyone’s ingestion… but hey… we would like to be heard also.

  27. From the editorial referenced in this story, “We want law enforcement to have the ultimate say over who can be armed in public …”

    So where does it stop? Does law enforcement have the ultimate say over what kind of vehicle you can own in public? Does law enforcement have the ultimate say over who can exercise free speech in public?

    This is really bad precedent.

    • “We want law enforcement to have the ultimate say over who can be armedperform legal activities in public …”

      It needed a correction.

      • Wow, now that is profound. Unfortunately it is profound in the sense that it is incredibly accurate while simultaneously revealing the real mindset of the people who support disarming We the People.

        • Don’t you mean Us the People? Or just The People? That’s more like English and less like mindless sloganeering.

  28. We should also point out that “saying who can be armed in public” does absolutely nothing to physically prevent a person from actually BEING armed in public.

  29. Law enforcement should NEVER be the final say on anything. That is for our elected representatives. Not even the sheriffs who get elected should be the final say on any law.

  30. And I want world peace, end to all hunger and poverty, and guess what, those won’t happen either…

  31. I once saw an academy award-winning film in which law enforcement had the ultimate say over who could or could not be armed in public. It was called Schindler’s List.

  32. With the purpose in Mind of merely providing points for consideration…

    ‘Since the 1600’s in America, it’s been a Moral Obligation and Duty of all adult-age males as Freemen to provide themselves with and to keep and bear arms in defense of self, family, other persons, property and possessions.
    Likewise, under the ideas, ideals, principles, standards, values, terms and agreements embodied as the American Constitutional Republic form of government, it is the Moral Obligation and Duty of all those within and acting on behalf of ‘government’ to avoid any interference with Freemen as Citizens in fulfilling their personal Moral Obligations and Duties.
    Any ‘government’ making it ‘illegal’ or ‘unlawful’ for the Citizens to keep and bear arms at least equal to those which common criminals and armed agents of government would use against them to violate their ‘Rights’ is an Immoral government. Period.’

    In context of the issue at hand, pertinent excerpt from one of America’s Founding Documents as follows:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

  33. I had to click the link. I was sure this was satire, but no. This is a genuine opinion from a honest to God newspaper editorial writer. Presumably at least some of their readers agree; perhaps the majority of them. Sometimes I think we might be doomed.

  34. Hell, I could have written that whole editorial in just a few letters: “Baaa–baaaa.” Talk about sheeple….

  35. It cannot be done it is against the second Amendent. Where the hell is the governer.

  36. “We want law enforcement to have the ultimate say over who can be armed in public…”

    Isn’t that part of the definition of Police State?

Comments are closed.