Is There Any Chance Christie Did NOT Know About the Dirty Tricks?

@Baldimo,

beat me to it.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
oralloy wrote:
maxdancona wrote:
Quite the contrary Farmerman. I want the Republican nominee to be the most radical right wing, take-no-prisoners idealogue who appeals to the smallest possble base of idiots or wealthy jagoffs.
Fortunately, most of the potential Republican candidates (other than Christie) will do just fine.

Keep in mind that, in the wake of Obama's gun control debacle, the election of a Republican president in 2016 is a virtual certainty.

I like Jeb. The Bush family is always a safe and reliable choice.

However, Mr. Christie did veto that outrageous attempt to ban .50 BMG rifles. That's worthy of support.

that's hilarious.

I was quite pleased with the way Mr. Christie defended the US Constitution from the attack that his state's Democratic Party was waging upon it.

I'm sure you were.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

I don't know how weapons are regulated in the states. My point is simply that regulating the right to bear arms is just common sense.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Automatic weapons are already illegal unless you have a Class III license.

Some states have laws which require someone to have a Curio And Relic license before they possess a full-auto weapon, but as far as federal law is concerned, the weapon merely has to be properly registered on a Form 4.

Baldimo wrote:

So you already have your wish, automatic weapons are already heavily regulated vs handguns and other types of rifles.

That depends.

I am unsure if, by "automatic", Olivier means actual full-auto, or whether he also means semi-auto weapons (particularly assault weapons). People are so sloppy in their use of the term that you can never be sure unless they clarify what they mean.

I wasn't really curious enough to ask for such a clarification when I replied to him, as it would not have impacted the nature of my response. Either way, I'd still have told him that he needed the NRA's permission before US federal law could be changed.

2 Replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I was quite pleased with the way Mr. Christie defended the US Constitution from the attack that his state's Democratic Party was waging upon it.

I'm sure you were.

Did you ever play World of Warcraft?

I've wondered for some time now if you were this guy who used to be in the same guild as me.

I'm guessing probably not. But who knows. Sometimes it's a small world.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Ask as often as you like. But keep in mind that any changes that you propose will have to pass muster with the NRA before they will be allowed to become US federal law.

Consider that the NRA is the gun manufacturers and you've identified the problem.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

The Ntional Firearms ACt defines automatic weapons adequately. Its meaning is either "full auto" or "Burst". The weapons covered , besides automatics, are sawed off shotguns , shortened barrel rifles, surpressors, and things like RPGs and grenade launchers.
These are no-nos without special licenses to own and fire, and class III covers some.

This is what Benjamin Franklin had in mind in that he hoped that the Constitution would be a "living document". He wasn't a big fan of its ultimate ratification because of the "permanency issue'. He felt that times change. No **** Ben!

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I was quite pleased with the way Mr. Christie defended the US Constitution from the attack that his state's Democratic Party was waging upon it.

I'm sure you were.

Did you ever play World of Warcraft?

I've wondered for some time now if you were this guy who used to be in the same guild as me.

I'm guessing probably not. But who knows. Sometimes it's a small world.

no, I'm not a gamer.

0 Replies

New Jersey Traffic Jam

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I figure it is going on re beaches around the world. I can certainly see a gradual pull back thing but consider that not rebuilding, over and over, what I am guessing are large places, building and rebuilding bulwarks for them, is still something I want to think about re the wisdom re the shore over time. I haven't read that article since it came out, but I thought Seabrook gave some scientist(s)' take on why the rebuild was not smart for the shore, in New Jersey and/or elsewhere.

I get it that insurance is at the forefront of the seafront. I've a longtime friend who has a multi million dollar house that is just above the high tide water line in a California area that gets wildfires burning to the beach, almost routinely threatening. I don't know the latest on the matter, just that many don't think those houses should be there. I don't know if insurance companies have turned around on it but I figure not as I'd have heard or read about it. They probably make the policies extremely expensive. When we were all much younger, the beach places were less building-significant. Not quite shacks, but sort of housing shack equivalent.

I've gotten to be a more live-lightly-on-the-land type as I get older and crankier. I still want even a small building to be built well in whatever place, re sheer forces and all that. That or quickly rebuildable with some poles and thatch, et al.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

he needed the NRA's permission before US federal law could be changed.

The USA are the best democracy money can buy...

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The Ntional Firearms ACt defines automatic weapons adequately. Its meaning is either "full auto" or "Burst". The weapons covered , besides automatics, are sawed off shotguns , shortened barrel rifles, surpressors, and things like RPGs and grenade launchers.
These are no-nos without special licenses to own and fire, and class III covers some.

This is what Benjamin Franklin had in mind in that he hoped that the Constitution would be a "living document". He wasn't a big fan of its ultimate ratification because of the "permanency issue'. He felt that times change. No **** Ben!

Do u have a quote or a link on that ?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

he needed the NRA's permission before US federal law could be changed.

Olivier5 wrote:

The USA are the best democracy money can buy...

Yes; I have financially contributed to NRA repeatedly.
Thay fight for freedom; my freedom!

David

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

Quote:

Ask as often as you like. But keep in mind that any changes that you propose will have to pass muster with the NRA before they will be allowed to become US federal law.

IRFRANK wrote:

Consider that the NRA is the gun manufacturers and you've identified the problem.

That is false; ignorant of the operative facts.
NRA has millions of members.
I have been among its Life Members for 5O years.

U falsely imply that people only care about financial profit
and that no one cares about having the ability to defend himself
from the violence of man or beast; that is nonsense.
We citizens care about freedom of self defense a lot.
If a predatory emergency arises, we want to CONTROL it
by possessing sufficient power to defeat the predator, Frank.
That is the conservative American position, going back to the 17OOs.

Gun control is un-Constitutional and contemptible.
Gun control calls upon future victims to be docile
in their submission to predators (human, or not).
That is un-American.

David

1 Reply

How did this thread turn into yet another fire arms blow by blow? Did I miss some key sentence about how this so called Bridgegate had to do with David's freedom?

I'm still interested in matters re Christie and his import re u.s. politics given new revelations.

And no, I don't think my writing about Christie going for rebuilding asap is off topic. I acknowledge many people including Obama and Farmerman are fine with that rebuilding happening fast, but the speed may well be a politically enhanced take. I get it that it isn't the most questionable of Christie's exploits over the years.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Gun control continues to be deemed constitutional. In "Heller," there is, as I recall, dictum from Scalia supporting reasonable gun control.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You can defer whatever to whenever.
It remains that it makes sense to ask for more regulation
of powerful automatic weapons than of small handguns.

I see no reason to request "more regulation" of automatic weapons.
Submachineguns are tons of fun. Tho, of course, I love the Thompson Sub,
my favorite is the H & K MP-5! Very sweet, slight recoil; compact!

I like my guns to be compact.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Let me try again:

Can you see any reason why babies shouldn't be allowed to own a functioning, loaded AK47?

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Gun control continues to be deemed constitutional.

That is BECAUSE that issue was not yet litigated, as such.
The only issue litigated in HELLER was the right to keep arms
within the home, in operable condition for swift anti-burglary defense.
U probably know that an incrementalist strategy was adopted
by the freedom of self defense community. It was decided to follow
the examples of jurisprudential evolution of the labor movement
and of the black "civil rights" movement.

Advocate wrote:

In "Heller," there is, as I recall, dictum from Scalia supporting reasonable gun control.

In HELLER, the USSC explicitly leaves open the question of 2nd Amendment protection
of civilian possession of M-16 fully automatic rifles and the like.
That question was not presented to the Court; no one argued it.
No evidence had been taken on that point. Obviously, the same applies
to "equal protection of the laws" and to the issue of our Constitutional Rights
being everywhere in America as we travel far and wide;
i.e., uniting the 2nd Amendment rights to KABA with the right to travel over State lines,
the same as taking our Bibles. As the 7th US Court of Appeals in Chicago put it in Moore v. Madigan:
the place where a citizen has the right to defend himself is the place where he is attacked.

David

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Let me try again:

Can you see any reason why babies
shouldn't be allowed to own a functioning, loaded AK47?

No. The greater danger woud be from USURPATION
of un-Constitutional power by government, not from the babies.
If government rapes the Constitution that way, then what 's next???
Declaring a moratorium on elections???? Government has no more
legitimate authority to interfere with a citizen's gun possession
than it has to make that citizen go to Church against his will, for the general welfare.
The Bill of Rights grants no exceptions to oppress babies. Children have as much right
to defend their lives as anyone else. "EQUAL protection of the laws" is required
by the Constitution; not screw the kids out of their rights.
The clear and present danger is from GOVERNMENT, not from babies.
(That does not mean that if I become a parent, I will necessarily
be in a big hurry to give my child an AK 47, but government has no authority.)

Accordingly, I began to carry a .38 revolver when I was 8 for personal protection.
If a child is physically able to lift and aim a gun and if his safety is challenged
(e.g., by attacking dogs; dogs have KILLED children and women in the streets)
then he shud kill the predator, if possible, for his own survival.
He needs immediate access to guns.

David

0 Replies

Is There Any Chance Christie Did NOT Know About the Dirty Tricks?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know