Christie Stands By Mag Ban Veto

Christie Stands By Mag Ban Veto

By Matt Rooney | The Save Jersey Blog

Governor Chris Christie didn’t attempt to walk-back his 10-round magazine limit bill veto decision in Keansburg on Monday, Save Jerseyans, relying on something that supporters of conservative policies all-too-often overlook: the emotion argument…


“Michael, I’ve heard the argument and so are we saying then that the 10 children, on the clip that they advocate for, that their lives are less valuable? If you take the logical conclusion of their argument, you go to zero because every life is valuable. And so why 10? Why not six? Why not two? Why not one? Why not zero? Why not just ban guns completely? I mean, you know so the logical conclusion of their argument is that you get to zero eventually. So I understand their argument. I feel extraordinary sympathy for them and the other families and all of the families across America who are the victims of gun violence including the young man who was killed in West Orange a couple of weeks ago, not with an automatic weapon, not with a clip. You know wanton gun violence is bad no matter how it’s conducted and I understand their argument. I’ve heard their argument. I don’t agree with their argument. We have a fundamental disagreement about the effectiveness of what they’re advocating for. And I’ve listened to them. I’ve met with them. I heard their arguments directly and personally. I’ve read a lot on this issue and I made the decision that I made.”

297 thoughts on “Christie Stands By Mag Ban Veto

  1. No matter what number you pick (6, 8 10, 12 etc), some lives will be saved. And in this case the number was 10. I know some here feel differently on the issue but Christie’s logic was ridiculous…..along the lines of if you can’t save everyone why save some??

  2. Please, Bob — name ONE CRIMINAL that confessed to NOT committing a gun crime because of an arbitrary number placed on the number of bullets in a gun. (Hint: The answer is sometimes called “goose egg”)

  3. Your logic is flawed. 1.Since when do criminals obey the laws, just another law to disregard. 2. The Newtown shooter dropped partially loaded magazines and reloaded. The original amount is therefore meaningless. This was feel good legislation to capitalize on a tragedy. Just as was said in this article, this was a road to an eventual ban. Weinberg was caught saying this much on a hot mic. When it was reduced to 15 we were told it was low enough. Although I feel for their horrible loss, when the Newtown group start paying my NJ Tax bill, then they can have an input into NJ laws.

  4. Bob What empirical evidence do you have that any lives would be saved? The bill was BS to hammer Big Boy on and had no practical use. How many mass shooters only go in with one weapon?

  5. Why not put traffic lights at every single intersection? That would save lives. Why not fill in every swimming pool? That would save lives. Without addressing the root of the problem the bill does nothing at all and Christie vetoed the bill because it ultimately would have done nothing to solve the underlying problem. We already have a magazine limitation to 15 and that hasnt done anything to stop gun violence, why does anyone think a reduction to 10 would do anything?

  6. We need to deal with the people who commit the crimes, not tools illegally used by them. Throughout history people have developed and used many ways to hurt other people, that will never change. Banning guns or limiting magazine size has not and will not change a person with the intent of hurting someone else or many people. People who murder should be put into prison never to see freedom again or put to death (makes no difference to me). Think about the millions and billions spent to make laws that don’t protect people or stop murders. I would rather spend money separating them from society then spending money trying to pass useless laws. Lastly why does the government have the right to regulate how I believe I should protect myself and/or family. If I was in a situation where someone was going to hurt me or my family, I should have the right to use like force to make sure I see tomorrow. There is no perfect answer or solution, but if someone was armed in one of the schools or theaters, would that have a better chance to stop the murderer than limiting a gun type or magazine size….I say yes.

  7. Banning swimming pools might make more sense, since a swimming pool is much more dangerous to a child than a gun is.

    The legislature seems to deliberately avoid noticing that they can walk over to Pennsylvania.

    In Pennsylvania, anyone can legally buy as many magazines of any capacity that he or she might wish. Bringing them into New Jersey would then be illegal, but we’re talking about someone with murder in his or her heart.

    I’d be interested in knowing what percentage of New Jersey homicides over the past 20 years involved firearms with greater than 10-round magazines. My guess is the number is very small, and that of this small number very few of those firearms were purchased legally.

Comments are closed.