Monday, February 25, 2013

N.J. Moms Want Their Guns

Garden State Moms Sound Off On Our Second Amendment Rights

By Synnove Bakke

The Save Jersey Blog

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end, and no sense of responsibility at the other.”  ~ Ronald Reagan

It’s already been established that the NJ Assembly passed 21 New gun laws “for us” this past cold but sunny Thursday afternoon. In a follow up, I have a lot more to opine about. You will learn, as you read my articles, if you choose, that I opine a whole lot!

Keep in mind that even though the new laws passed Assembly, they also have to pass the Senate as well. I know there’s quite a few Democrat Senators, including Senate Majority leader, Sweeney, that represent rural districts with lots of hunters. This lawmaker, and others, may suffer when it comes to re-election time, and maybe they should think twice before approving all these crazy restrictive gun laws. If all of these laws come into effect in NJ, we will have more restrictive gun laws than New York, and will then have the strictest gun laws in the nation as well as the highest property taxes in the nation… I just had to put that in there.

Some believe these gun laws are nothing but a Democrat trick to finally land a punch on Christie’s re-election campaign in an effort to make his current 74% approval rating drop. Keep in mind that Governor Christie also has an approval rating of 53% when it comes to Democrats in New Jersey. That’s something to think about. For all the criticism he’s taken, our Governor is still going strong with NJ’ans from both sides of the isle.

Growing up in country filled with fishermen and hunters, I have never been a stranger to guns, and I, thankfully, don’t have any misguided fear of them. My Dad and his friends used to hunt for deer, moose, and other very eatable forest creatures.

I promise that once you, or someone close to you, know how to handle a gun properly, you feel real comfort having them around.

I especially felt that comfort recently during a Florida vacation.

We were staying at a resort right on the beach, and one morning when my husband walked out of our room, he witnessed two men posing for pictures with something that looked like a machine gun! The two men were near our older boys’ hotel room (being that we have four kids, we had to split up our rooms). I was petrified when he told me, as I was trying to wake up, and instantly ran to my boys room in my PJs. My husband called our friend that were staying in a room below us, one of whom happens to be former US Army and Retired NYPD (one of our nation’s heroes); it immediately put me at ease. The fear you have when you feel your kids may be in danger, are one of the worst feelings any Mom could have. I am eternally grateful when I think of the comfort I felt when our friend came along!

After some time that felt like an eternity, the local police arrived. They looked, and kind of acted, like the comedians from the show, Honeymooners, Ralph and Norton. If this wasn’t such a traumatic incident for me, I would have laughed out loud. The “Honeymooners” questioned the men, and found out they were leaving the same day that they had checked in. The suspicious men (in my eyes only, it seemed) and the police were acting like that’s a perfectly normal thing to do on the evening before New Years Eve.

After 9/11, and living in NYC at the time, an incident like that puts instant fear in my mind. It ended up that the machine gun looking thing they had was a strange looking crossbow that was designed to look like an AR 15, something the cops, aka the “Honeymooners” said they had never seen before. They confiscated it, and the men checked out a few hours later. Thankfully, this story ended up with no more drama, and no one was hurt. But, let me tell you, if I had my own gun at the time to defend my family, I would have felt much more in control during those moments of fear for my boys.

Incredibly, even after this incident I procrastinated, but I finally went to my local town the other day and submitted an application for a permit to buy a fire arm of my own. It’s officially on the record, so lets see how long NJ takes to give me, a law abiding citizen, a mom, and a tiger when it comes to protecting my children, with no criminal background, a gun. I will keep you posted on that one.

After my trip to the municipality, I made some phone calls around to my local friends that are gun owning moms. At this point I’m resentful that I took so long to get one of my own. I called one of my friends that’s also a grandma, and asked her how she feels about the new laws.

My friend, Claire Rosenthal, told me over the phone that she had never really thought about becoming a gun owner until she realized she may lose her 2nd amendment right, and the more she thought about it, the more convinced she became that this is the right thing for her to do. Here’s a little note she sent me,

I am a 65 year old mother and grandmother. I recently purchased my first handgun because it is my 2nd amendment right to do so. I resent the government attempting to infringe on that right. I went through the several month process of obtaining a permit legally. The only people that will be affected by these new laws are the law abiding citizens who don’t need them. People who want to do harm will always find a way to do so.”

My other friend Barbara Gonzalez had this to say:

The second amendment of the Constitution does not say “applies only to politicians and celebrities.” We all have the right to protect and defend our families and children. All of the shootings that they refer to were done in “gun free zones.” I feel that my children and grandchildren are targets because of that. That announces to a criminal that no one at these locations are armed. If the concern of some, is that their children would be afraid to see a policeman or trusted teacher with a gun, I would wholeheartedly disagree. I have spoken to children and college students who would rather have armed, trusted people there to protect them. Has anyone bothered to ask the children what they want? Have they asked teachers, who would instinctively put themselves between a shooter and the children in their care? None of these new bills and laws will do anything to stop a madman from committing these horrendous crimes. As usual, the government is barking up the wrong tree.”

My friend, Christine Conlon had this to say:

I am a married mother of 3, ages 13, 16 & 24. Born and raised in New Jersey for 42 years, and a proud licensed gun owner. I feel extremely targeted right now, with the passing of 21 gun laws this week that will only make it more difficult for us law-abiding citizens. We have to go through the 2nd most restrictive state process to get licensed and each and every time I wish to purchase a gun or ammo. I find most people are uneducated when it comes to what they call assault guns, especially politicians who really have no clue. I have the right to protect my family & property according to the 2nd amendment but with each law that is passed against it, we are giving more control to the career politicians who eventually will yield so much power over us that we will be at their mercy when we are threatened. I thought I would never leave New Jersey but I’m seriously considering a move due to the way our state is being run by the Democratic controlled legislature. If Governor Christie decides not to veto ALL these bills I will make sure I stick around long enough to work against him in his re-election and all future offices. This is coming from someone who worked on his campaign in 2009.”

Here’s my friend, Kim Tita’s take:

As I prepare for motherhood, obtaining a firearm with which to protect my family, is a top priority. I know the consequences of violent crime and will take every precaution to prevent my children and loved ones from experiencing a similar fate. My choice, as a citizen of the United States, would be to explain to the police the injured man in my living room as opposed to a lifetime of pain bestowed upon my family at the hands of a criminal.”

There you have it. My fellow moms agree, like Clint Eastwood famously said, “I have a very strict gun control policy: if there’s a gun around, I want to be in control of it.”

Link: NJ Mom's Want Their Guns

Saturday, February 23, 2013

25 Proposed Gun Laws Are Up for Vote in the N.J. Assembly: It's the Wrong Approach

25 Proposed Gun Laws Are Up for Vote in the N.J. Assembly: It's the Wrong Approach

"We need to take a harder look at what’s really going on. Stop trying to treat the symptoms and treat the cause of the problem. Maybe we should try a little harder to help these kids before they feel so cornered that they turn into monsters." - Aaron B. Powell, United States Marine who served in Iraq

The new gun bills up for vote today in the N.J. Assembly are too many for me, a Political Junkie, to fully understand, and that says a lot.

As a parent, I was heartbroken after the tragedy in Newtown, CT. I hugged my children as soon as they walked in the door from school, and spoke with them at length about what had happened.

Among other things, I explained that there are some people in this world with mental problems, and it sometimes makes them do very bad things. I explained that they are safe, and being that I am their mom and protector, they believed me. They understood. However, some of our lawmakers do not seem to understand much.

Demonizing the right to bear arms with knee jerk laws will not bring back the poor victims in Newtown, CT. New gun laws will only prevent law-abiding citizens from the ability to protect themselves, and their families, as we know the mentally ill and criminals, with their illegal guns, will not be affected by current or any new laws.

There are over 100 million law-abiding American citizens who responsibly own firearms for target shooting, hunting, personal and home defense and collecting. They care deeply about the Second Amendment and they are the ones being targeted now.

I believe efforts to impose new restrictions on law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners are misguided. We already have the strictest gun laws in the nation. Well, after NY, that is.

Now, take this Bill, A58: It prohibits possession of ammo capable of penetrating body armor. This is already Federal law, and simply needs to be enforced.

These 25 gun bills were thrown together within months of the Newtown, CT., tragedy. I wish the Democrat controlled legislature in N.J. would work this hard and fast when it comes to our budget issues, and our state's financial issues. Instead they drag their feet and stonewall Governor Christie every step of the way.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) argues in a recent press release that violent crimes with firearms have declined since the Federal Assaults weapons ban, which for a decade restricted sale of semiautomatic rifles, and limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds, expired in '04. The study was conducted by the Department of Justice.

Camden, N.J., is the most dangerous city in the nation. Why is it that N.J. cities like Newark, Camden and Trenton etc., which belong to a state with one of the strictest gun laws in the nation, have the most shootings? Even Mayor Cory Booker of Newark stated that creating new laws will not stop criminals from getting illegal weapons, and using them.

It would make sense to me that, by making all these laws, we will only empower and pad the pockets of criminals selling guns on the black market at an even higher monetary, and human cost in the long run.

In my opinion, all this talk of so-called assault weapons seems like nothing more than misguided attempts to appeal to, but only serve to fool, the uneducated public about guns. Or maybe it is that the lawmakers of our legislature are uneducated on the issue themselves? These 25 new laws up for vote tomorrow looks to me like "feel good" bills. It’s pretty much impossible to legislate unstable, mentally ill, and criminal citizens that are looking to do harm to others. They will find a way, and it won’t be through registering any weapons.

For instance, Bill A1387 - to impose gun free zones around schools. Does that look effective knowing that every mass shooting in the last 10 years has been carried out in school zones? Is a criminal or deranged person going to decide to leave his gun home because it’s a gun free zone? As a mom, I would prefer my children’s schools have at least one armed guard in the lobby, bulletproof front doors, and windows.

Our legislators' focus should be to strengthen mental healthcare in N.J., and improve the quality of data supporting the National Instant Criminal Background check system (NICS). Maybe also work more on enforcing the already strict gun laws we have in N.J.

Locally, our representatives should look at our under-reported drug problems, especially among teens but, also among citizens of all ages. Let’s look at how to better manage the mentally ill of all ages.

My final thought to our dear lawmakers: When you sit down to vote, please keep in mind that our Founding Fathers made the Second Amendment a right, and be careful before you trample on it. You will be up for re-election one day, and the electorate is watching you.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson
*** ***
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

*** *** ***
About Synnove Bakke:
Synnove, a Republican Committee woman in Middlesex County, was born in N.J. to immigrant parents, but moved back to Norway as an infant, and lived there her entire childhood and young adult years. She came back to the U.S. when she was freshly graduated as a nurse, she quickly fell in love with this country and never returned to Norway to live.

Synnove has lived in a socialist country, Norway, and from that experience, studying American political history, and comparing the two nations, realized she is a Reagan Conservative Republican. She was an activist for a few years, and belonged to a few different Tea Party groups after Obama was elected in '08.

Synnove helped restart the Young Republicans in Middlesex, and soon after she became the chair. The first campaign she worked on was a county campaign in '09, based in South Plainfield, which also had a close working relationship with the Christie for Governor Campaign. Senator Sam Thompson, this campaign, along with other organizations locally ensured the sweeping Christie win in Middlesex that year.

Synnove left the Young Republicans to working with the chair Senator Sam Thompson on the Middlesex County Republican Organization, where she still works. She is also currently working for the State in another capacity, and is a Zoning board member in East Brunswick.

Gun Control vs. 911

by Joe Sinagra on Saturday, February 23, 2013 at 12:13pm ·
“Gun control is one of the best examples of laws that corner private citizens—forcing them either to put themselves into danger or to be a lawbreaker.” ~ James Bovard (Mazel Freedom Press, 1999 Introduction to ‘Dial 911 and Die’)

We take it for granted that the police must protect each of us, those beliefs are a deception in faith. Police owe a duty to protect the public in general, but not to protect any particular individual.

On March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door in Washington, D.C., shared by three women. The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours. These women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second 911 call, the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them.

In 1987 Iowa, two men broke into a family’s home, tied up the parents, slit the mother’s throat, raped the 16-year old daughter, and drove off with the 12-year old daughter (whom they later murdered). The emergency dispatcher didn’t immediately send police to investigate the 911 call about the kidnappers/murders/rapists while the abducted little girl was still alive. First he had to take calls about a parking violation downtown and a complaint about harassing phone calls.

When the dispatcher got around to the kidnapping, he didn’t issue an all-points bulletin but instead told just one officer to come back to the police station, not even mentioning that it was an emergency. To make a long story short, even though there were many instances of incompetence and negligence the case was swiftly dismissed before going to trial as a state appeals court claimed that the authorities have no duty to protect individuals.

The general rule of law in the United States is that government owes a duty to protect the public in general, but owes no legal duty to protect any particular person from criminal attack. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the federal civil rights laws require states to protect citizens from crime.

State legislatures and courts protect government entities and police departments from civil liability for failing to provide adequate police protection.

A false and dangerous belief by gun control ideologists is that Private Citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.

Numerous court decisions and state laws have held that cops don’t have to do a thing to help you when you’re in danger. In other words the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack.

One California appellate court wrote, “police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything.”

Kansas statute precludes citizens from suing the government or the police for negligently failing to enforce the law or for failing to provide police or fire protection.

A Massachusetts decree states the government has no legal duty “to provide adequate police protection, prevent the commission of crimes, investigate, detect or solve crimes, identify or apprehend criminals or suspects, arrest or detain suspects, or enforce any law.”

Even the District of Columbia’s highest court states . . . the “that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.” (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)

In Bowers v. DeVito, (686F. 2nd 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) a federal appeals court ruled ordinary citizens have “no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

The Constitution won’t protect you either. The US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services made it clear in its declaration that “the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”

Our politicians on Capitol Hill have their own police to protect them and their families they don’t have to wait for a 911 response. The average citizen does not have that option available to them.

Gun Control will not stop the mentally insane, the criminals who rob, steal, rape and plunder. It does however prevent law abiding citizens from making the choice to protect them from harm if given the opportunity.

On average it takes officers 8.4 minutes to respond to a 911 call. There is an old saying “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

                                                                   ~ Joe Sinagra

Friday, February 1, 2013

Minimum Wage . . . an Exercise in Futility

When the minimum wage is increased above the marginal revenue product, it becomes unprofitable for businesses to hire the least productive workers and unemployment increases.

The cost of goods will rise making the increase in the minimum moot.

Raising the minimum wage is an exercise in futility.No matter how high the increase, nor how high the wage . . . in the end there will always be a minimum scale.

The Bottom Line on Job Gains

WOW, 192,000 jobs were created . . . again it is in the numbers depending on who likes to follow the sheep, looking through the wool pulled over their eyes.

To get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent in 2014 we would need over 300,000 new jobs a month, every month by then.

Most of the new jobs created since February 2010 are paying significantly lower wages than the jobs lost in January 2008, not counting a decrease in benefits.

The prime losses were higher-wage jobs paying an average of $19.05 to $31.40 an hour, the prevalent gains have been in lower-wage jobs paying an average of $9.03 to $12.91 an hour.

Bottom line it isn’t about job gains, it is more about the loss of wages and benefits.