Christie vetoes reduction in permitted size of ammunition magazines

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/christie_guns_and_2016_why_his_veto_matters.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Matty]

Good work, Governor. You're still a statist goon, but good work.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If only Camden, NJ had more guns, then they wouldn't have crime any more

[Maistre]

Christie will not be the nominee.

[NHI]

Christie will not be the nominee.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Hello President Clinton.

[Supersonic]

Christie will not be the nominee.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Hello President Clinton.

Faith in Mitt.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Christie will not be the nominee.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. Hello President Clinton.

[Rockefeller GOP]

If only Camden, NJ had more guns, then they wouldn't have crime any more

We just need to tell those crooks they can't have any guns.  Then, you know, they just won't!

[JRP1994]

If only Camden, NJ had more guns, then they wouldn't have crime any more

We just need to tell those crooks they can't have any guns.  Then, you know, they just won't!

I tend to be more on the pro-gun freedom side of the argument, but we do need to fairly address the other side. The argument is that, by making guns more difficult to obtain, the number of criminals receiving guns would be reduced.

[Deus Naturae]

If only Camden, NJ had more guns, then they wouldn't have crime any more

We just need to tell those crooks they can't have any guns.  Then, you know, they just won't!

I tend to be more on the pro-gun freedom side of the argument, but we do need to fairly address the other side. The argument is that, by making guns more difficult to obtain, the number of criminals receiving guns would be reduced.

You think most criminals in Camden purchased their firearms in accordance with NJ's current gun laws?

[bedstuy]

If only Camden, NJ had more guns, then they wouldn't have crime any more

We just need to tell those crooks they can't have any guns.  Then, you know, they just won't!

I tend to be more on the pro-gun freedom side of the argument, but we do need to fairly address the other side. The argument is that, by making guns more difficult to obtain, the number of criminals receiving guns would be reduced.

You think most criminals in Camden purchased their firearms in accordance with NJ's current gun laws?

The criminals aren't hand-crafting their own guns so clearly the legal market affects the black market. 

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If only Camden, NJ had more guns, then they wouldn't have crime any more

We just need to tell those crooks they can't have any guns.  Then, you know, they just won't!

Couldn't this argument be extended to oppose literally every law?

[homelycooking]

Of what use are laws? Criminals are just going to break them anyway.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Of what use are laws? Criminals are just going to break them anyway.

Most laws don't infringe on the RIGHTS of law-abiding citizens because of the wrong actions of a few.

[Franzl]

Of what use are laws? Criminals are just going to break them anyway.

Most laws don't infringe on the RIGHTS of law-abiding citizens because of the wrong actions of a few.

Just going on about "rights" because they were included in a document several centuries ago doesn't help your argument.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Good.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Of what use are laws? Criminals are just going to break them anyway.

Most laws don't infringe on the RIGHTS of law-abiding citizens because of the wrong actions of a few.

Just going on about "rights" because they were included in a document several centuries ago doesn't help your argument.

A document that was supposed to outline basic rights that no future government or movement could infringe upon?  I'll use that all day long.

[Franzl]

Of what use are laws? Criminals are just going to break them anyway.

Most laws don't infringe on the RIGHTS of law-abiding citizens because of the wrong actions of a few.

Just going on about "rights" because they were included in a document several centuries ago doesn't help your argument.

A document that was supposed to outline basic rights that no future government or movement could infringe upon?  I'll use that all day long.

That doesn't mean every single "right" outlined in the 18th century is practical (or desirable) in modern society. Especially when it's a particularly odd right unlike that which any other first world society finds reasonable. Sure, that alone isn't an argument either, but you might want to actually consider why there are rational reasons against what you consider to be a cherished right.

[homelycooking]

Of what use are laws? Criminals are just going to break them anyway.

Most laws don't infringe on the RIGHTS of law-abiding citizens because of the wrong actions of a few.

I fully support your right to own as many flintlock muskets as you'd like.

[Indy Texas]

To the pro-gun-at-all-costs people who think this is purely a mental health issue:

Are you implying that Americans are significantly more mentally ill than people in the rest of the developed world?

[illegaloperation]

I am siding with Christie on this.

At what point does this restriction ends?

If Christie signs this, is the next governor going to reduce it further to five?

[Deus Naturae]

Of what use are laws? Criminals are just going to break them anyway.

Most laws don't infringe on the RIGHTS of law-abiding citizens because of the wrong actions of a few.

Just going on about "rights" because they were included in a document several centuries ago doesn't help your argument.

A document that was supposed to outline basic rights that no future government or movement could infringe upon?  I'll use that all day long.

That doesn't mean every single "right" outlined in the 18th century is practical (or desirable) in modern society. Especially when it's a particularly odd right unlike that which any other first world society finds reasonable. Sure, that alone isn't an argument either, but you might want to actually consider why there are rational reasons against what you consider to be a cherished right.

Switzerland and Israel aren't first-world countries?

[bedstuy]

Of what use are laws? Criminals are just going to break them anyway.

Most laws don't infringe on the RIGHTS of law-abiding citizens because of the wrong actions of a few.

Just going on about "rights" because they were included in a document several centuries ago doesn't help your argument.

A document that was supposed to outline basic rights that no future government or movement could infringe upon?  I'll use that all day long.

That doesn't mean every single "right" outlined in the 18th century is practical (or desirable) in modern society. Especially when it's a particularly odd right unlike that which any other first world society finds reasonable. Sure, that alone isn't an argument either, but you might want to actually consider why there are rational reasons against what you consider to be a cherished right.

Switzerland and Israel aren't first-world countries?

I don't know about Switzerland.  But, if America had the gun control policies of Israel, gun control advocates would be beyond elated.  They have a much stronger system of regulation and responsibility in Israel.