1. Jane Fonda was a cute little kid at one time also…….. 🙁

2. I have long been of the opinion that the Republican party needs to embrace gamer culture.

   Which, by the way, the ESRB, which is a private-sector company, is better run than the national movie ratings board, and the gaming industry does a better job at self-policing to keep “adult” games out of the hands of minors than pretty much any other branch of the entertainment industry in the US. And it’s all voluntary. The people putting violent video games in the hands of minors are those minors’ parents.

3. I see he plans to reduce crime by banning Barret .50 cal semiautomatics. Wow. They must have been involved in a lot… no… they’ve been involved in just about zero crime. I seriously doubt if one has ever been used in a crime.

   Personally, I’d love one of Ronnie’s toys, but at $10k for the gun and about $5/round (maybe you can get that down to $2.50 if you reload) it is honestly a rich man’s toy. I don’t even think my club range allows them to be used at all.

   So we’re going to ban guns only owned by rich guys, probably farmers or in the suburbs, and that’s going to help inner city crime?

   Christie, I don’t know if anyone ever told you this before, but if you think that, you’re an idiot.

   1. I just had a chat with my Democrat roommate about this.

      He understands that nobody uses this kind of gun for crime sprees. It’s stupid and exorbitant. I compared it to going on a shooting spree with a solid gold Desert Eagle.(He said “well not exactly,” and I said “Technically true. The Desert Eagle would be better.”)

      He still agrees with Chris Christie’s decision on the premise that “it would make it harder for the people who would go on killing sprees with them.”

      They’re so obsessed with reducing “gun crime” that anything that even might reduce the number of guns in the system is considered fair game, regardless of how expensive the actual cost is life-wise. If firearms are used to kill about 30,000 Americans and save 1,000,000 Americans annually, they will sacrifice all of the 1,000,000 for a slim chance at saving one of the 30,000.

      1. They’re not interested in reducing “gun crime” at all. Their goal is to reduce the number of firearms, starting with the “scariest” ones they think people will be willing to ban first.

         .50-caliber semi-automatic rifles are scary to some people (as “bad” as ARs or AKs), and since there’s very few owners and fewer manufacturers, it’s politically “safe” to ban it. It doesn’t matter that it’s not used in crime, and banning it will not improve public safety; that’s not their goal. It’s a foot in the door. It lets the camel a bit farther into the tent. It’s a new beachfront from which to launch another attack. And in terms of “political capital”, it was practically free.

         BTW, you’re right about embracing gamer culture. I’ve been trying to get the VGVN (Video Game Voters’ Network) to get involved – infringements on the 1st Amendment are every bit as reprehensible as those on the 2nd; plus, gunnies plus gamers equals a S#!TLOAD of involved voters – but so far they ain’t biting. More the pity….

         1. Archer is correct. I bet that if you made a rubber band (!) launcher that looked like a bad-ass battle rifle to be used against space aliens, they would fall all over themselves to ban it. They don’t ever bother to understand technical aspects of firearms and why should they? They are all pure evil, except in the hands of the police and military.

            They hate us because we have guns and will tell them to go pound sand before they can implement their “perfect” socialist/communist society. When push comes to shove…

            So, I hope the fat boy gets his clock cleaned at the next election.

Comments are closed.