There is evidence that it reduces crime.

Paul Harvey On Gun Control

September 2000

“Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don’t matter?

CONSIDER THIS:

· In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

· Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.”

Dear Sir or Madam:

I read Assemblywoman Quigley’s August 8th letter to the editor and am aghast at her logic. She pats herself on the back for exempting from “gun rationing” the very authorities who are in the most likely position to abuse their powers (the state and military), the prevention of which was the very reason the founders included the enumerated right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution in the first place.

This is the same woman, who in her speech in the Assembly chambers last year concerning the same bill, said “I have heard from many people who claim to reserve their right to buy as many guns per year as they want, but not many who actually buy many guns …” So in her mind, an enumerated Constitutional right, if not exercised, becomes forfeit? What if she said “I hear from a lot of people who wish to preserve their right to free speech, but not many who actually give speeches …” Is she suggesting that if I don’t regularly give speeches I lose my right to do so?

She wonders what Mr. Braico will do with 33 “deadly weapons”? Is she suggesting he is a straw purchaser? She has impugned his integrity and soiled his reputation by implying his desire to purchase more than one gun per month involves illicit activity. She rightfully should be sued her slander! Further, the state will not obtain the statistics they want, as she claims. I fact, it will actually further mask multiple guns sales since these kinds of purchases already must be reported to BATFE. So under her scheme, rather than having one straw purchaser buy three guns and “losing them,” we now will have three straw purchasers buying one gun each and “losing them.” Brilliant.

How do people like this get elected to a legislative body?

Matthew Carmel
Maplewood, NJ

Interesting view. Not sure how it will be enforced, cause according to the bill, I’ll still be able to apply for up to 3 permits. Each permit is good for 90 days. So what does stop me from going to shop A one Saturday, then go to shop B the following Saturday? I think the dates on the permits, regarding date of purchase, will be crossed examined (maybe) when all the paperwork gets sent around.

I’ve got 2 permits coming next week, I’ll have to review where all the extra copies go.

There, even though you can still have long guns, I’ve read that say, if you already have a gun chambered for .308, there’s a hella lot of red tape to “justify” buying another firearm in that same caliber.

The justification? You don’t need another .308, you already have one.

Everything is incremental.

P.S. I find it difficult enough to keep up on just a few states’ laws(those I’m likely to travel to), my store X and store Y example is geared more for a federal “one gun a month” thingie.

If NJ is going to set the example for this going forward, God help us. I just learned today that hollow points are illegal in NJ.

Kaveman is right – It’s an incremental thing. Eventually, you won’t need more than 1 a quarter. Then, nobody will need more than a rifle a month. Eventually, the state will say “You already HAVE a firearm, why do you need another?”

If I go into store X and buy a pistol, the NICS check is destroyed within 24 hours. I can then go into store Y and buy another gun and noone’s the wiser.

This is just an incremental step. Once it passes, they’ll demand registration to close this obvious “loophole.”