Posted on 04/16/2015 11:10:26 AM PDT by rktman
Chris Christie took a centrist tone on guns Wednesday, calling for the “right balance” between gun control and the Second Amendment.
“We’ve got to make sure we have public safety, but on the other hand we have to protect people’s rights both as sportsmen and hunters and for self protection too, find the right balance,” Christie told a group of New Hampshire voters at Chez Vachon in Manchester, according to New Jersey newspaper The Record.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
The right balance sir is to follow the law. You know that pesky thing caled the US Constitution..............
So you are willing to support fedgov's illicit use of the Commerce Clause when you agree with the policy. That is trashing the 10th Amendment.
Thus, I do not believe that space is blank.
It is as blank for the 10th as Christie's version is for the 2nd.
I think Christie just shot himself in the mouth — AGAIN!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4
The ratio is now 60% for legalization, 40% against. Colorado is proving there is no downside, and the cartel crime went elsewhere. It is a states rights issue. The feds need to legalize it and let the States decide.
Keeping it illegal is a losing proposition for politicians. More so every day. Cartel growers in national forests kill trespassers. Coloradans grow it in legal businesses. I know which I prefer.
It’s been a long time since New Jersey passed the point of balance.
Christie is a one issue pony. He is good on the fiscal issue. That is not sufficient qualification to make him ever acceptable or electable as a President of the United States.
Nothin about hunting in the constitution. Go stuff yourself, lardass.
Balance? Sure, let’s compromise, “public safety” vs “shall not be infringed”: we’ll concede to a 5-minute NICS check window for retail sales (ensure not adjudicated felon or incompetent), in return for elimination of GCA/NFA/922(o) and all hindrances to “constitutional carry”. Those whom courts have individually decided are a danger to the community if armed are denied arms in accordance to that adjudication, and everyone else retains their rights uninfringed (there being no reason to deny the individual right of RKBA to those for whom there is no adjudicated, much less articulable, reason to deny).
...oh, they won’t accept that? TS.
Thanks for your thoughts Ken. I don’t believe you’re right, but you’re welcome to your opinion.
If you were right, no drugs could be deemed able to be denied to the public reasonably by the federal government. I don’t buy into that premise.
Guys, I was honest with you, but I’m not going to have this conversation for literally the hundredth plus time.
I appreciate your willingness to set me straight, but I’m too busy today to play along.
Take care.
The right balance starts and ends with “...shall not be infringed”.
Right balance is SHALL NOT INFRINGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is your stinking balance!
So you support the Wickard Commerce Clause.
Christie is a POS.....and a Fat one at that.
I really hope this egotistical tub of lard gets in the race; hopefully he can suck some of the air, money, votes, food, drink, desserts, etc. away from Jeb!
South Park was right about Joysey.
Eff you Crispy. Have a donut and STFU!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.