NJ.com:

Gov. Chris Christie’s gradual pivot away from the gun control policies he had advocated as New Jersey governor took its sharpest turn yet Sunday evening on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.

The governor and Republican presidential candidate, while fielding questions from a town hall meeting, took sole credit for keeping the Second Amendment “alive” in New Jersey, which is he said is home to “some of the worst gun laws in America” despite his office voicing support for the state’s firearm laws well before he launched his presidential bid.

“The problem with guns in this country are criminals. Everything we need to make you safer is already on the books and then some,” Christie said.

“If you go to the person that’s in charge of the New Jersey Pistol and Gun Club, what he’ll tell you is the only reason that the Second Amendment is still alive in New Jersey is because I’ve been governor for the last six years,” he said.

First of all, let’s get one thing straight you collectivist windbag.  No one is safer because of your laws because you won’t allow anyone to be legally armed in their own self defense.  God gives us the right to self defense, not the second amendment.  The second amendment applies to everyone and everywhere whether you exist or not.  Therefore, you can’t take credit for anything of the sort.  You will only answer for your own refusal to acknowledge men’s rights before God.  You have everything backwards.

But as for this notion of asking the “person in charge of the New Jersey Pistol and Gun Club” about this, I don’t believe you.  I think you’re a liar.  So I’ve taken it upon myself to contact them myself and I will publish any response I get.

I think you’re a liar and you never really talked to the “person in charge” of anything pertaining to gun rights.  And I don’t think that’s what they will say at all.

Prior: Chris Christie And Guns

Philly.com:

Chris Christie wants to be president.  He has vetoed the New Jersey gun bill.

Gov. Chris Christie today vetoed a gun control bill that would have reduced the permitted size of ammunition magazines, saying it would do nothing to reduce gun violence.

“This is the very embodiment of reform in name only. It simply defies common sense to believe that imposing a new and entirely arbitrary number of bullets that can be lawfully loaded into a firearm will somehow eradicate, or even reduce, future instances of mass violence,” Christie said. “Nor is it sufficient to claim that a ten-round capacity might spare an eleventh victim.”

Chris Christie made his fame in New Jersey as a gun controller.

Back then, Carroll was known for his staunchly conservative views (he’s a Civil War re-enactor with children named Benjamin Franklin and Robert E. Lee), which he often expressed in the opinion pages of the Daily Record. But today, Carroll is one of the four Republicans on the committee investigating Governor Christie over Bridgegate.

Christie and Merkt attacked Bucco and Carroll for what they called a “Guns for Votes” campaign, claiming they had a “radical plan to legalize assault weapons.”

It’s okay for people to change their mind or revisit issues, as long as they are serious about the change rather than doing it for political gain.  So what about the rest of Christie’s statement today?

But instead of a magazine size reduction, Christie proposed a new standard for involuntary commitment of patients who are not necessarily deemed dangerous “but whose mental illness, if untreated, could deteriorate to the point of harm.”

Christie also proposed new standards for recommending patients for involuntary outpatient treatment, “streamlining” patient transfers between inpatient and outpatient programs, new training programs for first responders likely to encounter unstable people with “modern techniques for de-escalation,” and to require people forced to undergo mental health treatment to demonstrate “adequate medical evidence of suitability” if they want to get a firearms purchase identification card.

Let that wash over you again.  Chris Christie is proposing what might be the most draconian mental health measures in the nation.  He wants to codify involuntary commitment of people who, in the estimation of someone approved by the state, deems that your mental health could deteriorate to the point of harm.

Furthermore, anyone who wants to carry a weapon must undergo forced mental health “treatment” to ascertain whether someone approved by the state deems you fit for your God-given duty of self defense.  Perhaps the belief that weapons are the best defense against tyranny would be reason enough not only to prohibit ownership of weapons, but also to involuntarily commit you to an institution.

Chris Christie, in attempting to shore up his credentials as a “conservative” candidate for president, has shown his true colors.  And we are the better for it.  Collectivists will be collectivists because that’s all they can be.  Can a leopard change its spots?

Prior:

Chris Christie’s Cowardly Dishonesty On Guns

Chris Christie Is A Gun Grabber

David Codrea:

The prevalence of guns in the Philippines is complicating efforts to bring relief to survivors of Typhoon Haiyan, the diplomatic correspondent for The Daily Telegraph asserted yesterday.

[ … ]

He appears to be getting those numbers from GunPolicy.org, a project of the Sydney School of Public Health that “promotes the public health model of firearm injury prevention, as adopted by the United Nations Programme of Action on illicit small arms.” It’s hardly an endeavor sympathetic to private gun ownership, but nonetheless provides a useful resource for unwittingly showing the utter failure of globalist citizen disarmament edicts at living up to their promise of a safer world. And as with other countries this column has reported on that used the website as a resource, a summary of gun laws for the Philippines is instructive.

“The regulation of guns in the Philippines is categorised as restrictive,” the policy assessment reports, but adding “In the Philippines, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted.”

That would seem to exclude rifles …

Read the rest of David’s piece.  When the report came out I looked at what they’re citing as the rate of gun ownership, and concluded that this couldn’t possibly be the cause of the problems.  The problem is that this is on the other side of the world, they should have evacuated people before the storm, and the government is inefficient (what government is efficient?).  Guns have nothing to do with it, or so I concluded.  It’s just another chance to bring up personal freedoms and stomp on them if they can.  Oh, and by the way, I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea of using what used to be the most effective and violent fighting force on earth, the United States Marines, for missions of benevolence.  We need to find another way to conduct relief efforts.

Kurt Hofmann:

LA Times columnist George Skelton nevertheless takes Governor Brown to task for not being anti-gun enough, because one of the vast number of models of rifle the vetoed bill would have banned is supposedly the one used in the LAX “gun free zone” killing. From the LA Times:

Not that it would have mattered for Gerardo Hernandez, 39, the TSA agent who was murdered. The bill would not have taken effect until Jan. 1. And Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23, the disgruntled, alleged assassin, could have kept his semiautomatic rifle by registering it.

And, yes, he also could have armed himself with a handgun and probably inflicted the same damage.

Yep–Skelton admits that the incident he is using to bolster his argument condemning Brown’s veto would not have turned out any differently if Brown had signed the bill …

Kurt is doing what he does best.  He’s undermining the arguments of the gun controllers by examining their inconsistencies.  Gun control, like control of everything else, doesn’t work.  A person bent on killing will always do it, even if he has to learn to fabricate the tool himself.  The Texas tower shooter, Charles Whitman, used primarily bolt action rifles to inflict most of his damage.  The best option is always deregulation, i.e., get rid of gun free zones.  Gun free zones are for killers and their protectors, the lawmakers.

On another front, I didn’t know that we have U.S. federal agents doing the bidding of the Polish government?  I guess they don’t have anything else to do.

Chris Christie:

“If you look at what we’ve done in New Jersey, we want to control violence,” Christie told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “And some of that may involve firearms, but a lot of it doesn’t.”

Just reminding you again of what we’ve already discussed.  Chris Christie is an anti-gun nut from way back.  There could almost be no better reason to stay home during the next presidential election than if the GOP were to nominate him for office.  There isn’t a dime’s worth a difference between Hillary Clinton and him.  The former is a cackling, collectivist, totalitarian control freak, the later is the same thing except with a loud mouth.

Here I discussed my good experience with Springfield Armory.  It looks like I’m not the only one.

Michael Bane has some interesting comments:

… we have been having a “dialog” about the role of firearms in American society at least as long as I’ve been alive. IMHO, the “dialog” ended when the war began.

Let me say this again…we are at war with a segment of society whose sole goal is total civilian disarmament. We are not in a dialog. We are not in a debate. We are not in a healthy give-and-take in the Cornell University academic lounge. The primary weapon used by our blood enemies is the Big Lie.

It works like this…our enemy states a Big Lie, and I could list dozens, and we run around like little bitty chickens with our heads cut off, marshaling our arguments, footnoting our learned responses, bullet pointing our facts…and after the whole charade is over the enemy repeats the Big Lie, the lapdog media reports it as truth, and WE LOSE AGAIN!

Look at the thoroughly discredited “a gun in the home is 43% more likely to harm rather than protect the homeowner.” Probably more words have been written debunking that fake piece of trash than all Shakespeare’s plays and the complete transcribed Wikipedia, yet 2 weeks ago I read it presented as gospel truth in a daily newspaper website.

During the fight on the Colorado gun laws earlier this year, thousands of us came with our carefully prepared remarks, charts, studies, bullet points, facts — real honest to goodness facts. Our blood enemies, most notably Michael Bloomberg, shipped in a parade of liars…heads of fake organizations created by Bloomberg, a presentation of “polls” that wouldn’t meet even the most basic rules for polling, etc. We had the “indisputable” facts; they had the Big Lie. Who won?

Hint: It wasn’t us.

Good points all around, Michael.  But then, I’m not sure sure about this from Michael!  By the way, concerning Metcalf’s position that I discussed here, I don’t back down one bit from my position that the state is the right level for regulation of any kind, including firearms.  Of course, that’s not to say that there should be onerous regulation of firearms even at the state level.  Recall our previous discussions where I have said the fight is at the level where the founders wanted it, i.e., near the people and not with a centralized government.  The state constitutions, all of them if I am not mistaken, recognize the right to bear arms, although Illinois was late to the game (and some states are stronger than others).  The corollary to my position, of course, is that all laws made at the federal level are unconstitutional.  All of them.  Every last one.  When the states are weak, voters need to fire the politicians and put in honest men.

Kurt Hofmann:

If true–if Christie really believes that this will be enough to appease gun rights advocates–he is adding insult to the injury of the extremely draconian anti-gun bills he has signed, like the one that enables the federal government to disarm anyone it chooses, simply by designating political enemies as “suspected terrorists.” One would certainly hope that gun rights advocates are both far too intelligent and far too proud to be bought off that easily.

Yes.  Read all of Kurt’s assessment of Christie’s recent pandering in his rejection of the ban on .50 rifles.  I am equally unimpressed.  Recall that we’ve discussed Chris Christie before.  Chris Christie is a gun grabber from way back who made his fame in New Jersey by supporting the assault weapons ban.

David Codrea notes another source that points out that Christie opposed concealed carry in New Jersey and is admitted to support strict gun control.

Chris Christie is of the get the hell off the beach crowd of obnoxious, loud mouth, blow hard, windbags who like to run the lives of other people.  However, that’s not what’s really wrong with him.  I may be a loud mouth too, but at least I’m not a totalitarian.  But it would be just like the dead elephant party to nominate this man for national office.

We’ve landed on a revelation concerning Chris Christie.

“What role does the media play in terms of the violence we see on television and the movies? And the violent video games that I think desensitize our children to the real effects of violence. So I think we have to have a national discussion,” said Christie on New Jersey 101.5fm’s “Ask the Governor,” a monthly call in show.

When asked if gun control was an issue as well, Christie said “gun control absolutely has to be part of that discussion too.”

Christie said New Jersey has the second toughest gun laws in the nation, behind New York. “I’ve been a supporter of that as governor and will continue to be,” he said.

Jumping on the bandwagon, is he?  Or not.

In his first campaign for elective office in 1995, Christie based his bid for the state Assembly on supporting New Jersey’s assault-weapons ban.

Christie is a gun-grabber from way back.  He has Presidential aspirations.  But he will never be President because he doesn’t believe in the second amendment.  Well, in addition to the fact that he is a loud mouth blowhard.