Saturday, July 5, 2014

Christie Vetoes the Magazine Limitation Law


Gov. Chris Christie today vetoed a gun control bill that would have reduced the permitted size of ammunition magazines, saying it would do nothing to reduce gun violence.

“This is the very embodiment of reform in name only. It simply defies common sense to believe that imposing a new and entirely arbitrary number of bullets that can be lawfully loaded into a firearm will somehow eradicate, or even reduce, future instances of mass violence,” Christie said. “Nor is it sufficient to claim that a ten-round capacity might spare an eleventh victim.”

Everything he said is wrong. As inanimate objects go, there's nothing more evil and destructive than high-capacity magazines. Lanza would have had to change magazines 15 times instead of only 5. Loughner killed someone with the 13th round. Nevertheless, lying gun-rights fanatics insist the magazine size makes no difference. And now we know for sure which side Gov. Christie is on.

18 comments:

  1. Christie can only call himself a Republican because he's being graded on a curve. Last year, this was his record,

    "Overall, the Legislature has sent 15 gun-related bills to the governor’s desk, with the governor signing a total of 11 into law. "

    http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/08/09/christie-signs-extensive-package-of-gun-control-bills-into-law/

    Sort of like California's governor,

    "In all, Brown signed 10 new gun control bills and vetoed seven."

    http://news.yahoo.com/california-governor-vetoes-several-tough-gun-control-bills-202721952.html;_ylt=A0LEVyl1ALhToEoA57tXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzMTFkMG5rBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ2Nl8x

    I personally think that both are doing the politician thing and throwing a minor bone to gun rights voters in hopes of gleaning a vote or two. Maybe they are well though out, as in those easiest to explain. Overall though a net win for gun control advocates.
    His vetoes of a couple of bills aren't going to make his attempt to run for president a successful one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Newtown shooter reloaded more than five times. Some of the magazines he dropped with half the rounds still in. So why would someone determined to get the biggest body count do something which you claim saves lives?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your stubbornness and bias are second to none. If Lanza had had only 10-round mags, lives would have been saved. Same in Tucson. But something in you refuses to allow those obvious conclusions.

      Delete
    2. Don't forget that he also had multiple guns with him. He was never empty.

      Why do you think he chose to reload more often than needed?

      Delete
    3. You obviously missed the ABC interview with one of the kids from Columbine. He said he and five other children were just going to be shot when the shooter had to stop and reload. That allowed all 6 kids to run before he reloaded and shot again. They are all alive to day because the shooter had to stop and reload.
      Smaller capacity magazines save lives.

      Delete
    4. Post a link and we'll talk about it.

      Delete
    5. No, you do your own homework, then get back.
      To put yourself up as knowledgeable about this issue then claim you have never heard this before (this is not the only eyewitness story about getting away from a shooter while the shooter reloaded) is disingenuous and I'm not going to waste my time on GC like tactics.
      I don't play gotcha, but you have just proven you don't know what you are talking about.

      Delete
    6. "No, you do your own homework, then get back. "

      Anon, if you make an assertion that a particular event took place, it isn't unreasonable for someone to ask for a cite to prove it. Perhaps Mike can give his opinion since with him owning the blog, he is much more knowledgeable on such etiquette.
      You have often asked me for such cites.

      Delete
    7. BS.
      TS is making a claim that smaller clips would save nothing. He's making the claim and obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. Just pointing out that TS has no clue what he is talking about.
      And I'm tired of the GC debate tactics.
      Are you aware of the MANY eyewitness statements proving lives were saved because a shooter had to stop and reload?
      Etiquette presumes one knows what they are talking about when they make a claim. Asking questions, is different. TS is not asking, he's telling. He is wrong.
      Site: ABC, interview with Columbine survivors.

      Delete
    8. Geez, all I did was ask which interview you're talking about so we can discuss it. Believe it or not, but there are a lot of hits when searching for "Newtown Survivor interview".

      Delete
    9. I don't think we need another interview to more clearly state the position. It's been made clear enough and I find it unbelievable that gun rights fanatics refuse to agree. I suppose they're afraid of the slippery slope, a fear which dictates much of their argument - as opposed to honesty, for example.

      Delete
    10. Apparently you think this is some kind of a gotcha question.

      "Why do you think he chose to reload more often than needed?"

      Why don't you just explain it to us?

      Delete
  3. And won't the criminals just drive over to PA to get magazines? That's the excuse you make anytime I point to evidence that state level gun control doesn't work. So this ban is only for good citizens then. Also NJ already has a magazine ban in place. Why don't you guys try lying in the bed you make for once, and stop constantly changing your mind and validate gun owner's concerns over the slippery slop?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True, some would, but not all. You good citizens are the source of almost all the shooting equipment used by criminals, so obviously if you good citizens were limited to 10-round mags, that's what many of the criminals would be using in the future. Lives would be saved, but to you that's secondary to the protection of your so-called rights.

      Delete
    2. The the so-called "right" to not be imprisoned for possession of a box with a spring in it, is pretty important. It's frivolous criminalization.

      Delete
    3. Gunsuck ammosexuals are paranoid losers. If its not this, it's dust mites, ants or something else to make them decide that the world is against them. A bunch of pansy losers, A to Z.

      Delete
    4. Since when is saving lives frivolous criminalization? And have you come up with an example yet of someone going to jail for an oversize magazine?

      Delete