Christie won by an overwhelming majority.......thank the NJ voters, and those who didn't vote but are now complaining, for not making a stand. You had to know from his previous term he was a gun hating rino. But then again it's not just Christie, look at all the state politicians you voted for who helped to create the legislation and push it thru to get to Christie.
So many people are disconnected from the reality of what consequences an election has. (any doubts.....just look at Obama)
Unfortunately it may be a sign of things to come. Hope not.
More [email protected]@t. You can buy and posses hollowpoints in NJ. You can't use them in the commission of a crime. Its a fine of up to 1000.00 per bullet. No jail time for the bullets, just the crime. If you are going to a competition and you preload your magazines, that's a crime since a loaded mag is a loaded gun. The crime is a loaded gun and the hollowpoint will cost you extra. Over 15 in a mag? Same thing. Plenty of people use hollow points for Home Defense in NJ.
I'm having trouble picking what's my most favorite thing about having a gun-banning RINO like Christie as the Republican candidate:
1. Is it that we'll probably see Bloomberg on a stage with him somewhere, adding credibility to his movement?
2. Is it that Democrats and late-night comedians will get a whole year of fat-jokes out of this? (You think Sarah Palin seeing Russia was bad...)
3. Is it that Libertarians, who have no plan whatsoever for governing Real America (as opposed to the fantasy one that exists in their minds), will once again be able to sit back in a state of passive, self-satisfied non-action, clicking their tongues and telling us how Republicans aren't fixing anything?
4. Is it that, in the completely unlikely chance that Christie beats Hillary, Republicans will have a fat, ineffective icon for the opposition to paint as the Bad Guy for four years?
There are so many attractive angles to this, I just can't seem to pick one out.
Stay home in 2016 as you did in 2008 and assure that the Democrat, likely Hillary, is elected just as you assured that Obama would be elected. How is that working out for you?
I have met the Governor on several occasions. I stood with him on the stage at the New Egypt Speedway at a rally of sportsmen for Christie. I don't believe that he is a "gun-grabber". Neither is he a pro-gun advocate. He will make decisions on these and other issues based on the FACTS with which he is presented. The challenge is making certain that he is getting the facts and not some politically "play it safe" advice from uninformed sources.
There are several sources from which Christie will get our side of gun issues and those voices will be heard. We need to make certain that these voices are reasonable and cogent, not strident and perpetually negative.
Make no mistake, Christie is a politician and will act accoring to his political interests BUT he will NOT do so at the price of freedom. He is not that kind of man. Neither you or I will agree with him on all things but I wouldn't expect that. You shouldn't either. Remember that sticking up for your principles gave us Obama. Has that been better?
Obama as President with Republican control of one chamber of Congress, is better than Christie as President and the Democrats controlling Congress (which is what we'll get...I appreciate that you enjoyed your handshake-moment on stage with him, but surely - you're not drinking the KoolAid and thinking Christie can win and get Congress also, are you?).
Why not? Can't you see the real issues facing the country? The next three years will determine whether the country survives intact or beomes Sweeden or The Netherlands. The determinant of that is what happens with the budget and debt reduction NOT what happens with gun laws. Once the libs have total control, your gun rights will disappear so fast you will not remember what it was like to fire a gun.
Keep you eyes on the goal, restoring America. Gun rights will naturally follow IF we have a free America.
ps I have met with the Governor several times since his election. While he is certainly a strong personality with strong views, I have found him to be a good listener and quite open minded IF you don't try to bs him. If you do and he catches you or suspects it, you are done. The Lt. Governor is much the same way.
The economic health of the country is my biggest single issue. And I stand by my previous post, on those very grounds.
With Obama as President, and the Pubs controlling (only) one chamber, we got the Sequester. That is the only time in my lifetime, and I'm betting yours also, when the Federal government got actual across-the-board spending cuts. Name a single other time. Did it happen under Reagan? Did it happen "under a Bush?" (A "tax cut" is NOT a spending cut...although Republicans seem good at fooling us into thinking it is).
My point is that the Presidency is over-rated, without the will to use it. Reagan didn't cut overall Federal spending. Neither of the Bushes cut overall Federal spending. It happened one time, for a couple years, under Obama. Is my point that Obama is a good President? Hardly. Only that for some reason, Republicans seem (in recent history at least) to shrink the budget better when they're out of power, than when they're in the White House. When Republicans have exclusive power of the purse strings, they don't seem to be able to do anything positive with it.
With compromisers like Christie in power, we'll be lucky if our fiscal sustainability over time is even as good as Sweden or the Netherlands. We have a lot more people sucking the tit than they do, and are creating and letting more in all the time.
So what you are saying is, with our political system, the elected politicians have to pay off the base of which they where elected, (big money individual contributors, special interest groups, lobbyists), before they can implement their fiscal values? Doesn't that create deficits, and in fact inflate them when they do, (tax cuts), before they are paid for by future speculation of a booming economy?
Birddogs, quote, <i>"Brian, Stay home in 2016 as you did in 2008 and assure that the Democrat, likely Hillary, is elected just as you assured that Obama would be elected. How is that working out for you?"</i>
I didn't stay home, Birddogs. That's a lie.
I voted for the candidate that best met my criteria. In fact, I voted FOR Sarah Palin because I wanted her to get a chance, and I was hoping it would put her in line for 2012 or 2016. So that meant holding my nose for McLame. I was so digusted voting for that puke that I said I would never vote for an anti-gun RINO again, and I made good on that in 2012.
And your description of Christie is that of a political opportunist who will throw anyone under the bus if he believes it helps him.
Not what I said or implied, Brian BUT, politics IS politics and these are the choices we have to vote for. Realize this; that they are a totally different class of citizen - the political class. This is a recent phenomenon but it is present in both parties. For example, Paul Ryan never had a job in the private economy. He ran for Congress as soon as he had the opportunity. and he would probably remain as long as the people elect him.
Brian, when was the last time Oregon voted for a Republican in the national election? Unless your vote is for a Democrat I doubt your vote counts anyway. Much like Ca. I do the same thing you do. I try to cast my vote as a message to the Republicans.
Darr, that's quite true. Oregon votes blue by a wide margin. In the last election by a wider margin than those who jumped ship, so here our lack of support for Romney did not amount to much in the overall scheme of things. Which makes all the angst against my voting for Johnson rather moot.
Where voting third party counts is at the local level. We've had some flat out anti-gun "conservatives" run for governor who proudly crapped on gun owners while they were in the legislature. None of the won office. Too much of their base shunned them.