Jailtime for Air Soft guns in NJ
jerry920 sends us a link to an article in Fox News about the strict gun laws in New Jersey which include BB guns and Air Soft guns, apparently.
As recently as October, a man was arrested in New Jersey for shooting an airsoft gun at a rubber duck for target practice, in his own yard. Idyriss Thomas, 22, was arrested in Glassboro, N.J., after police responded to multiple 911 calls from neighbors who reported seeing a man with a gun. Once police determined the gun was unlicensed, Thomas was taken to jail and charged with unlawful possession of a weapon. His family posted a $2,500 bond.
“I didn’t realize that what I had in my hand would cause the events that happened today,” Thomas told Philadelphia’s WPVI. “I had the airsoft gun in my hand, playing with it, taking shots at a rubber ducky – not harming anybody.”
Understandably, the law treats criminals with BB and other toys as if they had a real weapon in the commission of their various crimes, but the example above is just stupid. A fellow in his yard, shooting at targets isn’t hurting anyone. Yeah, his neighbors were upset, but that’s their problem for being ignorant hand-wringing pussies.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
NY and NJ continue their march towards utopia.
Very sad.
Wow. Airsoft, BB gun – all manifestations of a —
Sorry, I just can’t do this with a straight face. Just glad I don’t live in New Jersey any more.
I used to live near Camden, which was a decent place to live back then. Now, it’s a worse hellhole than Detroit. But it’s more important to arrest people who are not actually criminals (because it’s easier) than it is to clean up that pisshole Camden. Way to go, Christie. You get lower and lower on my scale of people I would ever vcte for.
“NY and NJ continue their march towards
utopiadistopia.Very sad”
Fixed that for ya, H1.
Thanks Hondo.
This was just added to the pile.
AP: NJ City to Quiz Gun Vendors on Safety Issues
http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=21164781&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pagunblog.com%2F2013%2F12%2F10%2Fpolitics-in-law-enforcement-procurement%2F
Blaming Christie for this one is misguided, Ex-PH2. NJ’s Graves Act dates to 1981, and its expansion mandating prison terms dates to 2008. Christie was in college when the Graves Act passed and wasn’t sworn in as NJ Governor until Jan 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_X._Graves,_Jr.
Also: last time I checked, Governors don’t usually have much control over local police, either.
NEVER underestimate the stupidity and incompetence of liberal governance!!
I wonder how Snake Eyes made it this long without being busted.
Doesn’t matter, Hondo.
He allows it to continue when he could have repealed it. Oh, yeah, the local police in Joisey? Some of the more fine examples of police corruption, almost as bad as Chicago police.
Ex-PH2: Governors can’t unilaterally repeal laws; doing that requires legislative action. All a Governor can do is lobby, sign, or veto.
You think Christie has the votes in that libidiot-infested swamp to repeal (or even significantly modify) NJ’s Graves Act? IMO, hell no – and he knows it. That’s one reason why he hasn’t tried.
I invite the good people of the liberal Northeast to spend some time in West ‘By God’ Virginia where we enjoy the right to blow up rubber duckies any darn time we like. The invitation is NOT extended to those who voted for The Emperor or who didn’t bother to show up to vote against him.
Hondo, we could probably debate it for a while, but the guy who ‘repealed’ Prohibition was not the guy who ‘passed’ it.
That’s the parallell, and if the Prohibition Act proved, in spades, that restrictions on these things don’t work, then when are the morons who want them going to ‘get’ that? Answer is obviously ‘probably never’, but you know what I mean.
Uruguay has legalized marijuana now, just FYI.
Ex-PH2: no “guy” was responsible for the repeal of Prohibition. Constitutional amendments don’t require approval by any official – they’re ratified by the states.
Even then, if you want to give FDR “credit” for prohibition’s repeal, he had both public opinion and Congress on his side – and knew it. Congress actually passed the 21st Amendment proposal (repeal of Prohibition) prior to FDR taking office. FDR had to do precisely nothing to ensure it’s passage.
In contrast, IMO Christie does not have either widespread popular support in NJ nor the votes in the NJ legislature to make major changes in NJ’s gun laws. Today, too many liberal cowards live there who are scared of their own shadow. That’s reflected in the makeup of the NJ state legislature.
Christie was a prosecutor for many years. He knows damn well it’s a bad idea to even attempt to make a case you simply cannot win.
However, a few high-profile cases like this might change things. Public ridicule of stupidity can indeed change public opinion – and eventually, the makeup of legislatures.
Hondo, stop being so LITERAL. I know that. I was making a point. 🙂 Note the quote marks. Someone had to start the process. I used a general term ‘guy’.
Ex-PH2: noted. I was also making a point: blaming Christie for not attempting something he knows a priori is doomed to failure at the present time makes little sense. He hasn’t the power to change this law without substantial legislative or public support, and currently he has neither.
“Know when to hold them, know when to fold them.”
Wow, I guess I was more clairvoyant than I thought, in the other threads. It sounds like these East Coast bastions really are populated with a bunch of pussies.
Now, before you get your Irish up, Master Chief, not everyone there is, but a majority, obviously, are.
Hondo, it is well known that Christie is a gun control proponent (which is one of the reasons he will never get my vote if he runs for President), so I think Ex-PH2 is on to something about his lack of desire to work to get the law changed. As for executive power; Obumbles uses it all the time to go around congress; why can’t Christie?
OT – so if it comes down to Hillary v. Christie you would ????
soory, just couldn’t resist twisting the dragon’s tail a little….
@17…if it came down to that I’d be leaving the country.
@17: If Christie is the GOP nominee, I will vote 3rd party.
Well, it all depends. If conservatives (not to be confused with Republicans) take the Senate and keep the House, the whole situation changes. Americans do like the tension that is supposed to come with having opposite parties in the WH and in the legislative majority. What we have learned since 2008, however, is that the tension isn’t assured when the opposite party caves. For the very finest example of this, see John “Kleenex” Bonehead and John “I-was-young-once-and- sane” McCain.
Old Trooper: you do realize that – in the absence of a 3rd Party candidate with a realistic chance of success – that voting 3rd Party is equivalent to voting for the candidate you like LEAST, right? As is staying home?
Both of those reduce the number of votes the candidate you like LEAST needs to win by one. Do either of those, and you might as well vote for the candidate you like least explicitly.
@21 — A murderer, A rapist( both electable) and a good guy(unelectable) are all running for the same office.
A vote for the good guy is not a de facto vote for either of the other two “electable” candidates, But a vote for a good guy.
Vote your values, and your values will be elected…eventually.
A survey was taken of 1123 people (yes, that’s a HUGE demographic!) regarding who they would vote for.
http://news.msn.com/us/poll-clinton-has-big-edge-in-advance-of-2016-elections
Clinton has a wide margin of approval, far ahead of jodaveep and those who follow him drop even lower. She has few, if any, opponents in the dumpstercraps.
Christie, on the other hand, has a lot of competition in the GOP/conservative side of the political fence. He is followed by Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, and others, including Rubio, Cruz, and Palin with Rick Perry down at the bottom of the list. Whoever the conservatives pick needs to be more personable than Clinton by a country mile, or it won’t work.
I would not vote for Christie because he is too belligerent and volatile for a job that does require a certain degree of self-control. He is overly reactive, which has already been recorded in video, and as OT points out, he’s in favor of gun control. While I don’t have a gun, I do not wish to be told by any sitting president that I can’t have one if I feel that I need it.
Well, 2016 is not exactly next week, is it? No. And a lot can happen in the next six weeks. We’ve seen that already since the beginning of October. Things are changing. Let’s just hope they change for the better. And yes, this debacle with bodaprez, one thing after another, will probably come up a lot in the next election.
@17:
Voting for a quisling GOPer in that case is simply putting a GOP face on the ongoing destructionism.
But, all in all, even a true conservative in the POTUS office, and/or even a sweep for the GOP enough to control both houses, only slows down the destructionism and only temporarily.
For so long as the media is allowed to play their leftist indoc games, and for so long as the left is allowed to exist in strength (and control our institutions education), we’re going to continue toward national insolvency, loss of sovereign control of our own borders, etc and so on, until we’re no longer even recognizable as a nation.
Grab a cup of clue, y’all. There is no peaceful way out of this mess.
What Grimmy said.
Sparky: “Our ancestors would be shooting by now.”
Me: “Our ancestors WERE shooting by now.”
@26:
Kinda begs the question, don’t it.
@22: eventually sometimes doesn’t come.
What you describe is likely what many German citizens though when they voted for marginal or unelectable candidates in 1928 and/or 1932. They didn’t get another chance for vote for well over a decade. If they survived that long, that is. Many didn’t.
Yes, that’s an extreme example. But it’s also happened many times in history. Democracies that degenerate into autocracies generally do so from within.
Sometimes who you vote against is more important than who you vote for.
@21: Hondo, I have held my nose and voted for the lesser of 2 evils in the last 2 Presidential elections and what did it get me? Also, voting for an establishment GOP candidate is the same as voting for the lite version of the democrat candidate. They’re both going to screw you, it’s just that the establishment GOPer is gonna let you have a reach around while they’re doing it.
I will vote my values from now on. If the GOP wants to win elections, then they should put up candidates that don’t look like a lite version of the democrat.
Old Trooper: many did not. They stayed home or cast protest votes.
Same was true in 1992 and 1996; look how those turned out – and at the result. And many did the same in 2000, thinking Bush(43) was “insufficiently conservative”. That damn near gave us a Gore Presidency – which IMO would have been an unmitigated disaster.
My point: for the foreseeable future, virtually any state or national election will be won by someone with a (D) or (R) behind their name. Anyone else winning will be a fluke. Ergo, you’re going to get one or the other of those two – no matter what.
“Play by my rules or I’ll refuse to play and go home,” is IMO childish, and is an incredibly poor strategy. That essentially is saying, “I don’t care, and I’m willing to accept whatever I get without a voice.”
Do that if you like; it’s still a free country. (For how much longer, I dunno.) Just have the good taste not to bitch about how things turn out, or what the winner does, if you take that tack. Why? Because you had a chance, and you voluntarily refused to get involved in determining the outcome.
In politics, perfect candidates are so rare as to be essentially nonexistent. You’re only rarely voting for someone who you agree with more than maybe 55% or 60%. But IMO, the proverbial “half a loaf” beats the hell out of “diddly squat”.
YMMV.
Off soapbox. (smile)
Woa there, Hondo: I still have every right to bitch, even if I don’t vote for the D or R, because I am involved in the process to determine the outcome; it’s called voting. Just because I don’t vote for the darling of the day doesn’t mean my vote doesn’t mean anything, because it does. If more people voted their values, instead of listening to establishment types claim that if they don’t vote for the D or R, they are throwing away their vote, then we might not be in this fucked up situation to begin with.
Yeah, a lot of people stayed home in 08 and 12, which should tell the establishment GOPers something, but they’re too fucking stoopid to figure it out and we have Bonehead Boehner and the RINO club happily going along chastizing people like Cruz and me for not toeing the limp wristed party line. If Boehner would get Reid’s dick out of his mouth long enough to listen to the American people, he might cop a fucking clue, but that ain’t happening any time soon. The ONLY reason I voted for McCain was that he put Palin on the ticket, otherwise he might not have gotten my vote then.
I am done voting against someone and will return to voting for someone.
Old Trooper: to each his own. I personally find it in rather bad taste when someone complains about an outcome in which they could have had a say, but opted not to participate.
And don’t delude yourself: staying home or casting a “protest” vote for a 3rd party candidate having no realistic chance of winning are equivalent. Both effectively are refusing to make a choice, and both help the major-party candidate you like LEAST via reducing the number of votes they need to win by one.
Of course, on occasion a 3rd party candidate actually wins. That always works out for the best – remember Governor Ventura? (I hope the sarcasm in this last paragraph is obvious.)
One should always vote. And in our 2-party system, one should IMO always vote for the major party candidate who you think will do the least damage – because you’re almost always going to get either them or the other major party candidate as the winner.
and having started this whole mess…. when it’s an election whose results are semi-preordained like 2012, 2004, etc. I feel free to vote as I damn well please and happily vote for any old Tinkerbell 3rd party person who strikes my fancy… hell, I voted for Kinky Friedman in Texas knowing he wouldn’t win. But when it’s an honest dogfight, diluting the election with a Perot, Paul, or Paulsen is just plain shortsighted and can lead to the wrong person getting in.
Hondo,
You need to speak to my wife. Although, she did not vote Obama, she did not vote for McCain. I personally blame all people like my wife for Obama Care. In addition, we should ponder how GHW Bush feels about the founder of EDS.
In a two party everyone must vote, in three way race, vote and be very careful.
I kept my wife because she is a great mom, smokin’ hot and makes 3 times my salary.
MCPO: there’s a helluva lot I didn’t like about McCain or Romney. But between either of them and the current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC – for me, it’s a damned easy choice.
Lemme guess–any air-powered Nerf foam blaster is also considered a firearm. Wait…those have high capacity magazines, pistol grips and telescoping stocks. Them’s assault rifles.
It is difficult trying to explain how our system works to people who are more interested how the system can work for them rather than good of their nation.
Last couple of hours have been occupied discussing the paintballer with a friend who claims to be a gun owner.
Here’s a snapshot of liberal-think (OK, an oxymoron): He feels no one anywhere should point anything gunshaped, even a toy, at anything at any time unless it is on the range, hunting, or from behind a badge.
I spoent two hours trying to debate logically. A doomed effort, or apparently I am not articulate enough.
David: “What we’ve got here is . . . failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach.”
What you are missing, Hondo and Old Trooper, is not that this is a this & that party system. And it isn’t just two parties; that is a fallacy. The other parties don’t get the media’s attention the way they should because the media are overpoweringly liberal and slant their reporting toward what and who THEY want in the seat of power, NOT to actually covering the politcial process or the fact that we have multiple parites in this country.
I’d like to remind both of you that Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose ticket and won. And before that, the Whigs were a major political party, displaced by the Democrats.
The media have gone to a great deal of trouble deciding who will get elected and who won’t, and while they are not supposed to forecast the outcome of elections, they do so, anyway. This discourages people from even bothering with going to the polls to vote. Like the pissants they are, they start guesstimating who will get the highest vote results before half the voting populace has even crawled out of bed, forgetting that most people go and vote before work or wait until after work to do so. None of this should be allowed, but it is — freedom of the press, and all that, you know.
If the Republicans can stop trying to spin everything and please everybody, but put up people who have enough sense to stay away from the so-called handlers whose entire focus seems to be bent on destroying a candidate’s career, they might actually win the next election. But if they pick more weak kneed, lame-ass dorks who get caught on hidden cameras making stupid off-the-cuff remarks, they will NEVER win, period. It will take more than scandals in the dumpstercraps to get a win for the GOP, unless they find an articulate, personable candidate with some fucking common sense.
When the election process in this country becomes one of catching a candidate in a ‘gotcha!’, it’s no longer a free electorate. It’s a fraud.
@38. I pretty much agree with that for purposes of gun safety lessons UNLESS it’s a water gun, a nerf gun, a rubber-band gun, or, as we did when we were kids, an air gun whose muzzle somebody stuck about two inches in the dirt before firing it at someone else.
@40: I’m not stuck on the 2 party system. If you read what I said, I’m all for voting 3rd party if that candidate represents what I believe is best for the country. I have always voted that way, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to let someone tell me I have to vote for the R or D simply because they are part of the establishment. Remember that chick up in NY that got the republican nod over someone that was actually conservative (she was way left, but she had the establishment support and that magic R behind her name), she lost, but it wouldn’t have mattered if she won, because she was actually more liberal than the democrat. Who do you vote for in that instance??
Well, maybe I wasn’t clear enough, OT. The media does its best to control and swing the vote by misreporting or failing to accurately report things, or by flat-out lying.
If anyone in the media ever develops a case of honesty in reporting, I’ll be surprised.
How many little school children have to die to satisfy your blood lust for guns? No more. Many more. All. And you gun nut statisticions how many children died of gun shots in the last five years I dare you to anwser that question! And as for you right to lifers the bible say a fetus is not a human being re-read chroncles and if you would stop opposeing birth controll teaching in schools and punishing girls who don’t want abortions with draconian welfare rules to punish them for not getting an abortion. All you would have left is rape incest or the life of the mother which YOU say is an insignificant percentage of abortions!
Their blood is on your and your ideological brethren’s hands, vietnam war protestor.
You and your ilk made it impossible for Adam Lanza’s mother to have him involuntarily committed. To you, a madman’s “rights” were more important that the lives of innocent children.
Their blood. Your hands. Remember that every time you look in the mirror, asshole.
Ex-PH2: sorry, but the European multiparty system isn’t something I want to see here – ever.
Yes, the US 2-party system sucks. But multiparty systems are less stable, and they suck much worse.
— break —
Old Trooper: you vote for the candidate that would do the least harm. In the case you reference, you vote for the Democrat – just like you vote for the crook vice the Klansman if you’re living in Louisiana in the early 1990s.
What you don’t do is throw your vote in the toilet by staying home or casting a protest vote to “send a message”. Doing that is tantamount to supporting the candidate you like LEAST.
Ex-PH2: you might want to check your history. TR won when he ran as a Republican in 1904. He lost when he ran as a Progressive (AKA “Bull Moose”) in 1912 – and in the process, handed the Presidency to that “most wonderful” POTUS, Woodrow Wilson.
Also, the Whigs were not replaced by the Democratic party. Jefferson and Andrew Jackson are generally regarded as being Democrats. The Whig party dissolved in the 1840s. Its eventual successor as a major party was the GOP – albeit after over a decade of one-party Democratic rule.
@45 I am truly sorry you are not getting the mental health help you need. It was under reagan that the mentally ill were turned out onto the streets to halfway houses that were not funded as reagan called himself “reaganhood I steal from the poor to give to the rich! And look how conservative republicans on the supreme court voted on mental health issues!
I am still waiting for you gun nut statiticians to tell us how many children died of gun shot wounds. Waiting and waiting and waiting.
vietnam war protestor: and we’re waiting for you to quit using murdered children – children whose blood is on your and your ideological allies hands – as political props.
Have you no shame? Don’t bother to answer, dipstick; the question was rhetorical. We all already know you and your ideological allies don’t know the meaning of the word shame. Or hypocrisy.
FYI: the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill far predated Reagan. George Carlin joked about it in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Reagan didn’t become POTUS until 1981.
Now, why don’t you do us all a favor and GFY – then STFU. (Warning: link NSFW/children/clergy/prudes.)