Friday, February 22, 2013

- President Christie And Gun Control

Yesterday the NJ assembly passed a long list of new anti-gun regulations. Some suspend due process entirely, others are simply short sighted and stupid. None will reduce crime or violence in any way, but all of them will make it tougher on the law abiding supporters of the Democrat's political opponents. Which is exactly the point.

The NJ legislature is controlled by Democrats who in aggregate have an average IQ of about 85. But dim as they are, they know that law abiding gun owners are overwhelmingly conservative, and are therefore not their friends. So anything they can do to punish someone who would otherwise own a gun is seen as a political plus. Violence Schmi-lence, They don't care about that. They know criminals aren't going to obey the new laws anymore than they are obeying the old ones. For them, this is about politics not crime.

But that's not the problem. The problem is Chris Christie.

It's no secret that Chris Christie has ambition. He wants to be President Christie one day. I once asked Frithguild (our local expert in the political machines) if there was such a thing as a pro-gun Republican in NJ. He pondered a minute and then flatly said "Um.... no." And Chris Christie is that flavor of Republican. He was a big supporter of the original Assault Weapons ban which is still in effect in NJ.

But in truth that was 1994, and 1994 was a long time ago. He could probably explain that away - or at least he can convince himself that it can be explained away. Whether the public will buy it is anyone's guess. But if he signs this new stack of bills that among other things, suspends a constitutionally protected right without due process, his national ambitions are finished.

Team Christie may be thinking, "Well we'll have to see how we look against Hillary or Cuomo or whoever the Democrats put forward" but that's not what they should be thinking. No anti-gun Republican Presidential candidate will survive the primary. People like me will make sure of that. You may have us all on the ropes in NJ, but try going to Texas, or Virginia or... Florida. Let's see how a gun banning, due process suspending squishy liberal "Blue-State" Republican will do in a Presidential primary in those states with several million howling NRA members adding to the discussion.

Here's the thing the left can't seem to get through their skulls when it comes to guns. For me, and people like me, it's a first principles issue. It's the same for me as it would be for them if someone were trying to take away their vote.

It's something I and the people like me simply refuse to give up ... period. My right to use force to defend my person and property, is what makes me a 'free man'. It prevents other from forcing me to do what they order me to. Just possessing a gun limits the power of those who would rule me because it gives me the ability to push back at them as hard as they push me. And I will vote against any candidate who supports gun control. I will fund any campaign to prevent it. And if it comes to it, I will break any law that demands I do otherwise.

I'm a good citizen. I'm peaceful, law abiding, and productive. I work hard, I eat right, I exercise regularly. I don't even cheat on my taxes or park in a handicapped zone. I'm exactly the kind of citizen that people in government should want to encourage others to emulate. But instead the Democrats in NJ legislature see me as a part of the problem.

It's obvious that their proposed gun control laws aren't really designed to "reduce violence". They're really only designed to punish people like me because they don't like my politics. People like me may be rare enough in NJ, bu tit isn't that way in the rest of the country. It's NJ that's the special case here. There 100 million homes with guns in them in this country, and all of those people vote.

So take heed "President" Christie. The 100 million gun owners in this country won't take kindly to you signing a suite of laws that are designed to do nothing but punish them for their politics. If you ever want to be President, you had better act like you can hear them from Trenton because you won't be able to explain this away.


In case you're wondering what provision I'm talking about when I mention 'suspending due process', it's the business about preventing anyone on the "Terrorist Watch List" from buying a gun. you don't have to be convicted of a crime to get on the Terrorist Watch list. You don't have to be accused of one. You don't even have to be suspected of one. It's an absolutely arbitrary bureaucratic designation that 100% of the citizens of NJ can be put on without any evidence whatsoever. and once you go on, there is no reasonable way to be take off.

An ambitious anti-gun pol could simply put 100% of the registered Republicans or firearm permit purchasers in an area on the watch list and presto - universal disarmament. That would take bigger cajones than most of them have but it could be done.

That's a constitutionally protected right just like free speech or the vote - totally suspended by bureaucratic fiat. This is what the Democrats call "common sense regulation".


ikaika said...

I just read that retarded NY Times article on Gun Owner Liability insurance.
These Libs still can't distinguish a Privelege from a Right. Well they like to blur it on purpose.

JimInTx said...

I think abortion, not voting is the libs' equivalent to our view of gun rights. Try negotiating a middle ground with a lib by offering to give up your gun rights for their abortion rights and see what happens. Substitute voting for abortion and the lib will see it as a no-brainer, in my view probably because they don't believe their vote matters anyway.

Anonymous said...

The danger to red state holdouts like Florida and Texas is the unmitigated immigration of blue state refugees trying to obtain that thing which they don't have in their home states, namely: Jobs, freedom and warm weather. Not necessarily in that order.

Once having gained these things the newly arrive refugees will work diligently to turn their newly adopted states into political facsimiles of what they escaped. This is just one of the many joyous hypocrisies of political liberalism.

My obligation to obey the law ends when the law becomes so onerous and conceited as to deny me The Right to defend myself. Christie should focus first and foremost on reducing his fat ass to something that could fit into a size XXL waistband. He's a fat fuck and I just can't take a fat fuck seriously.

Anonymous said...

To Tom: Excellent point on the "Terrorist Watch List". I am getting quite skeptical on this thing called the "War on Terror,". The temptation to use a watch list, drones, and all this other cryptic crap is going to be too great for intellectual and moral lilliputians like team Obama to ignore. It will simply be too alluring to a political left with no other moral code then "The end justifies the means". Wasn't this all put in place by the ostensibly neo-conservitive "W" & crony John Ashcroft? They're all corrupt. If only Gov Christie would eat them all. Problem solved.

Tom said...

I played football in high school with a guy who was only a little thinner than Christie. But he also ran a 40 yard dash in under 5 seconds. He'd have easily been a star in the pros had he not blown out his knee his freshman year at Penn State.

It's a mistake to underestimate a man because of his looks. Whatever his looks are.

Anonymous said...

@ Tom, do not disagree with you and I know it demeans a debate to go after someone's physical attributes. E.g. Rush Limbaugh in the early 90's.
I am prior military and in infantry training saw a guy I never thought would pass basic excel despite excessive weight. At the same time I've never got beyond the glass houses issue. I'm a few years younger than you from what I glean but I don't have the metabolism I used to so I work hard to stay trim. I think how you present yourself, carry yourself, comport yourself matters. When I see Christie I think intrinsically, "What a fat slob" though I know that's a superficial reaction and not a kind one. His politics, though I previously thought he had some you, guns are the #1 issue for me. The NRA is the biggest ACLU going. With his cheap shots @ 2A he has exposed he cares more for his career than our rights. If someone of his stature is going to engage in such cheap maneuvering at our expense, the temptation to respond in kind is too powerful. I have traveled widely. Rarely in my travels in the developing world have I seen obesity. Period. Obesity is not a hereditary issue, its a calorie issue and by extension it's a discipline issue. Maybe the governor has a pituitary issue but that's beyond my concern. If the man can't get control over his own weight, he's likely got a disciplinary issue. This is not the guy I want deciding whether I get to carry a firearm. I'm not trying to defend this sort of attack tactic as I agree with you on this but I have just lost it for politicians who are jumping on the firearms bandwagon. The left has utilized vitriol and rhetoric for decades now with great success. There is definitely a reticence among conservatives to engage in similar methods and I think that needs to change. I also appreciate the nuanced tone of RFNJ and will work to maintain that in my own missives. Christie has taken the gloves off on this issue, for me at least. I prefer that he should be made to feel there are consequences for his actions on this issue as our recourses are otherwise very limited. SInking to their level may not be advisable but might also be unavoidable given the stakes.