Gov. Jon Corzine says recent deadly shootings in Jersey City and Newark show "we must do everything in our power" to stem the flow of illegal guns into New Jersey.
Corzine made the remarks Wednesday as he and Attorney General Anne Milgram announced the indictments of 12 people for owning or selling firearms later used in crimes. The governor credited the weapons trafficking charges to a two-year-old federal, state, local gun-tracing partnership.
The shotgun blast that killed Jersey City Detective Marc A. DiNardo came from a weapon stolen in North Carolina and trafficked to New Jersey, authorities say.
In a related matter, Corzine said he would sign a bill limiting handgun purchases to one a month within a week.
Why are pro-gun folks so critical of governors like Corzine? Isn't it perfectly laudable what he wants to do?
What does, "the indictments of 12 people for owning or selling firearms later used in crimes" sound like? Is this an exercise in shared responsibility and an attempt to make those peripherally involved in crime pay for their part? That's what it sounds like to me. And I say it's a sensible approach.
About the one-handgun-a-month law, when we discussed it before none of the comments sounded very convincing to me. Several people mentioned that this is an infringement which goes contrary the 2nd Amendment. But aren't there already any number of "infringements" in place, for example the definition of "arms." Most people accept that it does not include heavy military weapons, missiles and rockets, and such.
Others suggested the problem with a one-gun-a-month law is that this is only the beginning and if we allow this next there'll be a one-gun-a-year law and eventually total confiscation. I say that's paranoid nonsense.
What's your opinion? Do you think with these initiatives New Jersey could improve its ranking in the Brady Campaign list? Currently number 2, I think Gov. Corzine is going for it.
What do you think?
"But aren't there already any number of "infringements" in place, for example the definition of "arms." Most people accept that it does not include heavy military weapons, missiles and rockets, and such."
ReplyDeleteA right being already infringed upon is not a good excuse to further infringe upon it.
"Others suggested the problem with a one-gun-a-month law is that this is only the beginning and if we allow this next there'll be a one-gun-a-year law and eventually total confiscation. I say that's paranoid nonsense."
I don't think it's paranoid so much as it is recognizing the pattern. 9 times out of 10, every increase in gun control has been followed by calls for more gun control.
We've gone from a country where you could go into any hardware store (even in NJ) and buy a gun like it were any other tool to a country where some people can't even take their gun home on the same day they purchase it.
It will be so interesting to watch how the gun supporters and the civilian militia confronts the government when they enact a martial law after the next terrorist attack. There tends to be a major terrorist every ten years so the time is coming for another "terrorist" attack on the Homeland. With America going bankrupt, the power axis in the world shifting to Asia and the ever growing power of the national security state, the 2010s should be an interesting time. I can understand why MikeB is living in Italy. There only the mafia has guns and they also run the country.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's paranoid so much as it is recognizing the pattern. 9 times out of 10, every increase in gun control has been followed by calls for more gun control.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't have a problem with that. Gun nuts love to wave the flag and the Constitution and scream about their rights but the reality is, this is one of those situations where your "right" to carry a gun everywhere is more likely to stop my right to live and breathe dead in its tracks.
And as long as the NRA crowd obstructs reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, their arguments about their "rights" are hollow.
My right to own and carry my gun in no way infringes upon your "right" to live.
ReplyDeleteYour logicl is like saying it's OK for the government to tell me I cant own a car because vehicular homicide infringes upon your "right to live."
Telling me I, as a law-abiding citizen, can only buy X number of a particular legal & Constitutionally protected product per month is by no means "reasonable."
You would both be screaming bloody murder if the government limited you to 10 blog posts per month.
SoBeale - 1 gun a month restricts the LEGAL sale of firearms from Federally licensed dealers.
ReplyDeleteProhibited Persons cannot buy a gun period, nor can they even possess one.
But hey, keep thinking stuff like this will work, when it hasn't lowered crime rates in any other states (including #1 Brady ranked California)
it's the economy stupid. More jobs, more wealth,less crime, less poverty.
ReplyDelete"none of the comments sounded very convincing to me"
ReplyDeleteNot surprising since it didn't come from paid anti-gun advocates. They're much more accurate than ,say, those doctored FBI statistics.
What do you suppose the Gov will do when the gun was stolen from a Jersey cop?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerseycity/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1224916015161280.xml&coll=3
Do you think this officer is liable?
"And I don't have a problem with that. Gun nuts love to wave the flag and the Constitution and scream about their rights but the reality is, this is one of those situations where your "right" to carry a gun everywhere is more likely to stop my right to live and breathe dead in its tracks."
ReplyDelete11% of police shootings kill an innocent person. About 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. In other words, your right to live and breath is more likely to be stopped by the very people you expect to protect you, rather than those exercising their right to carry.
So until you start campaigning to disarm your local police force, it's your argument that's hollow, not the NRA crowd's.
kaveman asked, "What do you suppose the Gov will do when the gun was stolen from a Jersey cop?"
ReplyDeleteThe story you linked to sounded to me like negligence on the part of the cop. If I had a safe in my house, I sure wouldn't leave the keys laying around where a thief could find them, how about you?
The Gov. would have to fire that cop.