Hear! Hear! I'm with you, brother.

I feel so safe now - especially the part about "removing gun ownership records from public disclosure rules." I'm sure that all the dangerous criminals have their guns duly registered in some massive government database that we'll be allowed to search now. Brilliant!

Hallelujah!

Agreed!

Haha... good! These laws will now keep illegal guns out of the hand of criminals!!!

Oh yes, it's much better to do nothing if you can't stop every criminal. Why bother with any laws at all, right? Nice logic you have going there.

So Pete, please go on record for us with your prediction for which of the new laws will effectively stop one single criminal from doing one single crime that he would have otherwise committed had the new law not been passed.
.
These new laws are akin to passing a new law that says "It is illegal to talk on your cell phone while driving faster than the speed limit." If you are already willing to break the speed limit anyway, is adding one more redundant law on top of that going to actually do anything to slow you down? I don't think so.

It is already illegal to commit murder in all 50 states. How many murders has that law failed to stop?

Great. Now criminals with the means to find out, will know who has guns in their homes and who do not. A law that gives bad guys an edge. A well-intentioned effort leading on a road to calamity. Now these legislators can say they did something about this immoral world and they get to take a state trooper home to keep them safe. Meanwhile law abiding low class, and the weak, are left defenseless with big target circles on their backs.

Where does it say and WHO said they are taking 300 million guns? Show me where it says that? Show me where it says they are TAKING anyone's guns away from them???Controls mean just that CONTROLS.. Background checks, mental health checks, waiting periods, sale of guns at "tent shows" is what the law is about, NOT taking anyones guns....Seems you can read, but you CAN'T comprehend what you read. Unless of course you just Watch FOX NOISE and go by what they say.....

This is where it says they are trying to take the guns away. That has always been there adjenda. Stop being such a foolish sheep and see what they are really up to!!!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Rich, Missouri is talking about taking away large magazines and assault weapons. But I'm sure you know that. It just sounds better for your argument when you can pretend the boogie man is coming to take away ALL your guns.

Well, these laws they passed don't really have ANYTHING to do with curbing gun violence. Tell me how these laws will make the streets of Newark, Camden or Jersey City safer? I mean, we all know that the terrorist buying armor piercing ammo online are the ones causing all the problems in the streets.

You would be in violation if you were unlawfully possessing a firearm within one of these zones:
1000' of schools, college, university building or facility - 500' of day care centers, public housing facilities, and public buildings, such as libraries, museums and public parks. A zone would include school buses too.

If you go to Garfield, NJ, there is a wonderful Sporting Goods store, Meltzer's. They are right across the street from the high school. Are they now going to have to move or stop selling guns?? I was at these hearings yesterday, and I will tell you that most of those legislators do not care one bit about what the public thinks or has to say. Yes, there were emotional moments, especially when the head of the committee tried to stop the public comments because it was "taking too much time". Really? They come up with 43 new bills (only half were addressed yesterday), and they don't want anyone to discuss them? This is the kind of government we now have. No representation and no say. The only sane person on the committee seemed to be Allison Littel McHose. Pathetic bunch of pompous fools. I see a mass exodus from NJ if these go into effect. BTW, the only sensible bill that actually does any good is the one that keeps gun owners' info. from being made public. The others do NOTHING to stem the tide of violence and do not affect the safety of children in school. Many are redundant bills that already exist and are not being upheld. This is a "feel good" piece of legislation that will only hurt NJ and won't help to stop criminals who own guns or are intent on violence with ANY weapon.

I'd have to see the proposed legislation, but I suspect that private property would be exempt as it was under federal law (i.e., you can have a gun in your home even if you live in a "gun-free" zone).

good bye

These gun laws don't really mean anything. Unless you are a terrorist trying to buy armor piercing bullets (that are already illegal here in NJ...right?).

I would say the first 11 commenters, since your comment is every bit as pro-gun as the question I asked and the answer provided. Try to be open minded and give your neighbors a second chance instead of just giving up on them.

I love it when women make statements like this. Men are more gentle than they have ever been, is violence less? Instead of pointing the finger at one sex maybe you should consider that it's a larger problem. The fact is. When people get desperate, civilization goes out the window. History proves this. So why are people desperate?

That will be a surprise when you try to travel and are then notified you may not fly. As far as who gets on that list, that is arbitrarily decided by people such as Janet Napalitano. If you are part of a patriotic group who cares passionately about the misdirection of our country over the past few years, you could be branded a terrorist. Oh, and don't forget, she already decided that our veterans coming back from service in Iraq and Afghanistan are very likely to find themselves on that list. That's one helluva a "thank you for your service"!

Karen, Not true. Not true at all. The vast amount of guns used in crimes in NJ, are stolen from NJ houses while the owners are out working, and the criminals know that guns MUST be left in the house (because you can’t carry them here) and no one will be home for hours on top of hours.

Do you actually think criminals jump into cars and say – let’s drive over the border and go BUY some legal guns in Pa so we can come back here to jersey and commit some crimes? Come-on Karen, you’re smarter than that aren’t you?

Also Karen, why don't these criminals just go about robing someone in Pa, with their newly bought guns? Oh that's right, the person they target might just have a gun on them too. Okay, I see your point. Yeap, best to head back to Jersey to use your legally bought Pa guns for criminals actions where you don't have to worry about getting shot for your criminal deeds!

BillBalls are you saying that the vast majority of gun owners in NJ fail to contain their guns properly and safely in their homes?

BellairBerdan S.T.O.P putting words in my mouth. I did not say that, no not at all. Look I don’t know about you, but in my basement are all the tools any simpleminded twit will need to cut open my safe and remove my trigger locks. Got that?

Lucky for me, in my case my three dogs might provide enough of a distraction to said robber to leave and look for low hanging fruit elsewhere.

Question Berdan. If I only owned one gun, a hand gun, and I was allowed to carry it with me wherever I went, do you think someone would be able to rob that gun from me?

Oh and Berdan – I lived in a State were CC was legal. Now I know this goes against every bit of brainwashing information you gotten here in Jersey, but in 15 years of carrying a gun, I NEVER shot anyone!!!!! OMG can you believe that? In fact, in 15 years, unless you were a very close friend of mine, anyone who saw me, like standing in a line, or from a distance had no idea I was carrying a gun. Can you believe that? I never even bullied anyone with it, because in that State if you do something dumb like that they pulled your carry permit.

One more point here Berdan. My guns are purely defensive weapons, and I pray a lot I never need them, but I'm thankful I have them!

So after 15 years of carrying a gun it turns out you didn't need to?

Prentiss- After 20 years I have never needed to use my car insurance, Does that mean I don't have to carry it anymore? Or am I required to have it "just in case".

Karen, you are very misguided but I applaud you for standing up for what you feel is right. Please tell me the definition of a military assault weapon and cite an example.

Hmm... It actually seems like Karen was right:

"The letter also points out that almost 80 percent of guns used in crimes in New Jersey were originally purchased in other states. In 2011, for example, 170 crime guns came from Virginia, 145 from Georgia, and 104 from Florida. Unlike New Jersey, these states do not require background checks for the private gun sales that proliferate on the Internet and at gun shows."

I guess we all have to go to VA, FL or GA real quick before this law passes.

http://morristown.patch.com/articles/mayors-call-on-christie-to-close-background-check-loopholes?ncid=newsltuspatc00000003

How is it then that gang bangers are not shooting up VA, FL or GA (which is where apparently everyone can get a gun)?

Why are they instead heading to the otherwise serene little towns of Camden, Trenton, Newark, Jersey City and Patterson in NJ? Something in the air here that is missing elsewhere?

Mr Balls, can you tell us where you get your information and can you post some links for us? I think if you do some digging you'll find that that stolen guns are way down on the list as far as the source of guns for crimes.

From the information I have dug up, stolen guns seem to account for about 10-15% of guns used in crimes. At the top of the list is straw purchases, where someone who can legally purchase a gun turns around and resells the weapon to another party. Then you have transactions made by licensed home based sellers and commercial gun dealers with FFLs. These together account for more than 50% of crime guns.

The real story here is the low hanging fruit - 1% of gun dealers account for 50%-60% of the illegally sold guns. If we put them out of business then we'd be well on our way to cutting down on illegal gun traffic.

Stupid is what stupid does. Most of my neighbors never thought they needed an emergency generator either. Thought I was nuts to have one. Funny how fast they changed their minds when their finished basements were filling up with water. Also, in over 40 years I’ve never “needed” my smoke alarms, but I’ll be damn if I’ll sleep in a house without them! Never needed any of the fire extinguishers in the house either, but again I’m happy they are here, charged and ready to use if needed.

Karen, there is NO MAGIC that stops a drug crazed wacko from carjacking you today. NOTHING at all, and I resent your impingement into my and my family’s lives to force your la,la, la, it can’t happen here, it is the gun not the person who is bad, from allowing me to defend myself and my family as I see fit.

Karen, I’ll pray for you that you don’t change your mind on guns and our right to own and carry them, because some deranged animal decides to break into your house and rape you. Oh, and don’t bother trying to try me you aren't infringing on my rights to protect myself and my family, because you are.
Oh and Karen, you know, at the end of the day, I actually think I have less to fear from an armed criminal, then I do from my own dishonest, corrupt government. You and your friends really need to wake up to the real world you are living in!

Here you go Mr. Monk How about 600,000? That’s the number of gun stolen from private homes, and you can extrapolate that over 300,000 have been stolen from dealers, see link below. Added together that is almost a million STOLEN guns EACH YEAR!!!

Oh and just for the record, if you walk out of your local 7-11 one night and some crazed drug addict sticks a gun in your belly and says give me your wallet, then walks off into the night gun still in hand NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THAT GUN CAME FROM DO THEY?

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/local/lost-stolen.shtml

@ BillBalls "in my basement are all the tools any simpleminded twit will need to cut open my safe and remove my trigger locks. Got that?" Seems to me that it is pretty dumb or irresponsible to allow that. If you treat your weapons like that at home I doubt you would be any less cavalier about them if you carried one.

The real problems are people that want guns and have no idea how to use them, respect them, or keep them safe and contained. The other problem is thinking that just because you own a gun you all of a sudden can become Rambo or Dirty Harry.

I didn't say that women could not do those things -- you made that assumption to attack me. I responded to Jo's statement which was about boys. Women can do whatever they want and have the same rights to own guns as men, and I agree that a well-rounded person (male or female) is loving, caring, strong and brave.

But your comment "Anyone who believes that owning a pistol, shotgun, or an assault weapon [you gun-control advocates never actual define what an "assault weapon" is other than to say it is the ones that look scary] somehow keeps them free from tyranny has been overdosing on John Wayne and Sylvester Stallone movies" is wrongheaded. As another Patch blogger said: "(1) history is replete with examples of the 'weake'" vanquishing the 'stronger' (our own Revolution for one); (2) you have no idea what weapons a tyrannical government may have in the future and thus no idea whether armed citizens would have a chance against that government; (3) you have no idea what percentage of the military will support such a tyrannical government or side with the people instead; and (4) according to the NY Times, 'at any given time in the past decade, less than 1 percent of the American population has been on active military duty.'" Armed citizens might have a good chance. But more importantly, the fact that we have armed citizens helps prevent us from every getting to tyranny in the first place as it ups the stakes for any despot who thinks he/she can become a dictator here.

I’d rather be 63 -- What makes you think we aren’t about to experience a major upheaval right here in America? What qualifications do you have to say that? What data can you bring forth to support your stand?

Try and answer me this 63. In the 80ties the price of gold was about $300.00 an ounce, and our gold to dollar ratio was close to 100%. That is to say at a given price of gold being $300.00 an ounce, times the amount of gold the US treasury held in ounces, equaled a one to one ratio to “cover” the dollars we had printed. Put simply, the amount of gold in the treasury equaled that amount of fiat money we had printed.
Today, even with gold being $1750 an ounce the ratio is 1 to 15 or 15% That is to say at $1,750 an ounce, we only have enough gold to cover 15% of the fiat dollars we’ve printed. Does that scary you? It should.

It scares our government, and it IS the very reason they are working to take our arms away from us. They know what is coming! Obama’s Reverend Jeremiah Wright, was correct. America’s Chickens are coming home to roast. Jeremiah just got confused over which type chickens are coming home. He thought it was white sin chickens, but now it turns out to be US Dollar chickens!

PS. It is estimated by the end of 2013, given no major changes in QE Eternal, one ounce of gold will have to be worth $14,750 for our gold to dollar ratio to be 100% again.

funny how conservatives preach small government but then want to turn the country into a policed state if it means no additional gun laws. do you want our country to look like israel with a gun carrying officer at every corner. ok we have a policeman at every school what happens if an incident happens at a youth T Ball game? are you gonig to suggest and armed policeman at every park, football/ soccer/ baseball field, chucky cheeses, anyother place that attracts children?

What does protecting vulnerable places have to do with small government? Conservatives totally agree that law and order and defense are two primary government functions.

We already have law enforcement all over major transport hubs and public gathering places. It makes sense to have armed protection in places that are vulnerable and worth protecting - like schools.

I would rather cut teacher salaries and hire a couple of armed guards for our schools. There is plenty of research showing that parental involvement and socio-economic background is the primary determinant of a strudent's success in school. Even teached repeatedly point that out when questioned abour the poor performance in inner city schools.

So a slight cut in teacher salaries to fund a couple of armed guards will have no effect on learning outcomes in our village with all the well-to-do and extremely involved parents.

okkkk,
1 police officer at each school is not a police state. We can't protect them everywhere, so why try at all, huh? Kids are at school most of the day. Let's protect them there. We have crossing guards near schools, but not at every crosswalk in the town. Why do we do that?

That's a very good point, Bob. There are crossing guards protecting kids from getting hit by cars, why aren't there police officers/armed guards protecting kids from criminals?

However, I must say that at my High School, we had armed police there. They were the D.A.R.E. cops. They always parked their police car right at the entrance of school. If someone wanted to come to my HS and shoot someone, I am sure a police car sitting outside is quite a deterrence, never mind the armed police officers inside.

Switzerland and Finland are #3 and #4 on that list. Did you chose to leave them our for some specific reason?

Btw North Korea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tunisia and Ethipia have almost zero gun ownership. If we are going to build arguments the way you are, shouldn't we also look at outliers on the other side of the spectrum?

Of the top 15 countries by gun ownership, only 2 (Yemen and Saudi Arabia) are dictatorships. Saudi is a very stable country. Yemen was, but now has issues with Islamic militants.

Most of the bottom #15 countries by gun ownership are variously unstable, with the exception of Japan and Singapore.

I am not sure where you live but I am guessing Ridgewood/Glen Rock.

Having planted yourself in a segregated (by income/race/education) town, you seem to believe that you are forever 'safe' from everything.

Ask the people who were forced to defend their families and property in LA or NYC during the riots how desperately they needed those guns. That is when the police disappeared and people were left to fend for themselves.

You think that cannot happen here? Only happens in urban areas that are not as segregated as our peaceful little towns?

How far a drive do you think is it from Patterson to Glen Rock / Ridgewood?

The truly deluded people are the ones who forget the reason their towns are relatively 'safe.' It is not because Ridgewood has some super awesome police force. We live in towns that were designed to keep out certain kinds of people. That is all there is. Try moving to Newark and living with your same philosophy of 'trust.' Let me know how that works out.

These concepts are easy to propagate when you have isolated yourself from reality in a town that is segregated by design.

It seems like you have had the privilege of living your entire life in Ridgewood, "the 6th Safest City" or somewhere like it. Try living in Detroit and see if you feel safe relying on the police for protection. And people who have guns do not "rely on their own weapons to protect themselves RATHER THAN on a public and professional law enforcement system," they do so in addition to it.

As for dictators, please use some common sense. If you were a dictator and had the ability to do so, would you let those who might seek to overthrow you have guns or would you take them away if you could? I wonder how many people in Yemen who have guns oppose the government?

As for the definition of "assault weapon" it very much is the point. Gun-control advocates keep working to get to their real goal of eliminating all guns from the law-abiding public so that only the government, police (and criminals) will have them. They use terms like "assault weapons" to scare people when every gun (and hammer, bat, knife, etc.) could be used to "assault" someone.

As for having a police officer in school, you of course resort to the exagerated "police state" description when no such proposal was made. One police officer at each school does not create a police state.

Your last sentence "It is time we all stopped selling our freedoms so cheaply" is simply incredible. You are the one that wants to sell our 2nd Amendment freedom so cheaply.

That's smart because official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1 (D.C. 1981) Their job is to investigate crimes and arrest criminals, not to protect you or your family. Now, they may protect you if they feel like it (and probably will if they get there in time if they hope to keep their job -- few towns would be ok with a police officer refusing to try to protect) but if they choose not to protect you they will have violated no law, and you and your family will not be compensated for their refusal to protect you.

"Matt, I feel safer flying without marshals and without armed pilots."

Sure. Just ask they passengers on those 4 planes how safe they felt on 9/11 without air marshalls or armed pilots.

Oh right, they are no longer around to answer those questions.

I guess we should also disarm our police forces and millitary and build a future based on 'trust.' After all, why would you feel safe around hundreds of thousands of cops? Are you aware of the social background and capabilities of $35k a year cops? They actually make you feel 'safe,' do they?

So you feel safe when there are people there to protect you while you are flying on a plane, but you don't feel safer having someone protect your child while they are in school? hmm..... doesn't really make sense, but ok.

If there was an armed security guard at the Sandy Hook Elementary school, 28 kids would still be alive today. But the unarmed security guard who currently works at the school did a fine job protecting the children, anyway.

I'd-Rather-Be"
I'm not sure if "trust" is the basis of democracy, but it has been said that "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams

The idea of a Federal ID program is not going to fly as it gives a road map to the federal government as to who needs to be disarmed should our "progressive" fellow citizens get someone in government to circumvent the Constitution. FYI, a permit (issued by local or state not federal government), background check, and finger printing are already required under NJ law.

Exactly. "...the common goal is to stop the gun violence." And now how did this legislation keep guns off our streets?

"We need to stiffen up the laws on the people pulling the triggers, not the people filling out the paperwork!" and the people pulling the triggers are NOT the one's filling out paperwork. All this is doing is just making legal gun ownership more difficult. Not that the gangs of Newark are really trying to do things the legal way anyway.....

Really? IS that why no terrorists have managed to buy guns from even the even the most lax gun permitting states?

On the other hand, the terrorists managed to get drivers licenses with ease which allowed them access to airports in the first place. They also overstayed expired visas as illegal immigrants and were not thrown out of the country for that.

And guess which party crusading in favor of giving out licenses to everyone like candy and keeping all illegals here?

So how does the reality - of what has ACTUALLY happened - compare to the imaginary scenarios in your head?

According to a Fox News report, more than 200 people on the terror watch list bought guns in 2010 alone, Sorry Matt you are mistaken if Faux News is accurate, which we all know...never mind

See now you are evading the question. Also deriding a media source, even though I said nothing about the Star Ledger editorial board.

Was the biggest terror attack in the history of this country (or even world for that matter) a consequence of lax gun laws or lax licensing / immigration policies?

Given that stand of the two parties on both these issues, which side would you rate as 'nuts' given the reality of what has happened? Pay close attention - given what has ALREADY happened - not given some imaginary scenario that has never happened.

Neither I think, tasted great and pretty lean too.. Isn't Boudin's a sausage filled with rice?

In fairness, your dog is a Border Collie isn't it. Lot of these guys are not stupid, they just get caught up in the idea that they have to jump up and respond or react, when in actuality they need to sit back and analyze. In the wake of Newtown there has been preciious little analysis of : 1. Mental Health issues. 2. Irresponsible parenting, please note that Adam Lanza's Mother was totally irresponsible for allowing thosew weapons to be loose in her home. 3. His father was similarly irresponsible in not securing some form of proper care and treatement, especially given the extreme financial resources he had.. So when the politicians start talking to parents about acting like adults and about mental health treatment, and how we need to stop with the glorification of nihilism and violence and how having children out of wedlock and not supporting them and having them grow up to be violent gang bangers --then you will know that we are making progress.

RB:

Interesting discussion. Thanks for posting the link.

AMEN!!! This is a republic not a direct mob rule democracy. It's the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.

Mr Juctice, most of our basic freedoms do have some reasonable limitations that we all, for the most part, agree on. We can buy the car we like, but the law requires certain specifications that a vehicle must follow to be legal to drive. We can say what we like, but we cannot threaten or harrass others, or libel others, etc. We can own and use guns, but not all guns are legal for all citizens. We have decided, for many reasons, that certain members of society should not have any weapons, and that some weapons don't serve enough of a practical purpose, or they pose enough of a threat to the public that they are illegal. It is not mob rule, it's democracy in action.

As a civil society we understand that our freedoms have some limitations, and most of the time it's where one person's rights bump up against the rights of another, or others. This is not about taking away all your guns, that's not going to happen, as much as the fear mongers may claim, and as much as some may desire. It's about being reasonable.

LOL! Then this story would have about half as many comments.

Not really, Richard:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/312483/gun-control-and-police-robert-verbruggen

"Not one of the analogies that I made is ludicrous."

Really Richard? All of your analogies are completely serious and you don't get any sense of the apples vs orange sort of vibe we all feel when we read them? Not stretching reality at all?

What you're saying is that laws are meaningless because crime happens.

It bears repeating that your rights are not being taken away with gun regulation any more than speed limits take away your right to as you please on the road.

Writing styles notwithstanding, the stats show that police officers on the street favor gun regulation.

Facts are, as always, facts.

You're welcome anyway.

What you'd "rather rely on" is your own opinion.