Forrester now anti-gun

[Brett Bellmore]

Although I'll grant you, probably slightly less than Lautenberg.

Just heard it from his lips, on Crossfire: He get's elected, he promises to vote for renewal of the '94 ban. I no longer have a dog in that fight.

 

[PeteyPete]

I saw it too, the sad thing is he was once an ardent supporter of gun rights before this election began.

Honestly, at this point, he'll probably still get my vote, and if by some act of god he wins, i'll start a letter writing campaign to make sure he mollifies his stance o assault weapons.

Here in the Gulag of NJ, we have two choices...Frankie "Gun-banner" Lautenberg, or Doug "the appeaser" Forrester. It's the old "lesser of two evils" situation.

 

[genefromjersey]

:barf: New Jersey pols have a long history of dumping gun owners when election time rolls around-or when the water gets too hot.
Before we " Dump on Doug " , it should be made clear to folks from other states NJ is NOT FOND of gun owners, and has shown this at the ballot box ( or touch screen , if you will ) time and time again.
I believe it has a lot to do with crowding: We are the most densely populated state in the union, and a stray shot, which would whiz harmlessly into the boonies elsewhere, is almost guaranteed to either hit somebody, or come close to it.
Much as I hate to say it, you who live in the "free" states may someday have to face the burden of increasing resistance to your very existence - as "city folks" move into your areas.
It has more to do with "perceived property rights" - ( the newcomers invariably try to transform rural areas into the cities they spent so much money to flee ) - than 2nd Amendment rights.
It's sad. It's infuriating . It's also coming to YOUR area...a LOT SOONER than you would dream possible !

 

[Frohickey]

How about voting Libertarian?

Libertarians are always pro-gun.

If I'm faced with a known gun-banner, and a two-faced gutless first-time politicians without core beliefs, I think I will vote for the Libertarian.

Then again, I live in Kalifornia, so I either have bouncing-check Boxer, or CCW-permittee Feinswine.

 

[Gusgus]

Darn, you folks have to go and ruin my day. I guess Forrester's "no new gun laws" doesn't apply to existing laws. So, once again, I get to pick the lesser of two evils. There's just not enough of us left to make any difference.

Even a PA under Rendell looks far better then staying here. The housing market in my area is going nuts. Comparable homes are selling for 2 to 3 times what I paid for this place 8 years ago. For the life of me, I can't understand why folks are willing to pay top dollar to move INTO Jersey. Maybe it's time to cash in, buy a couple acres in central PA, and build my future retirement home.

Sure would be a real thrill, to walk into a gun store, pick out a firearm, pay the man, and walk out the door without worrying about securing all these stinking permits.

 

[Poodleshooter]

Libertarians are always pro-gun.

Nope, not always. Here in Virginia, our last Libertarian gubernatorial candidate (Redpath) expressed to a member of one our watchdog groups, the idea that certain guns were "not necessary", and generally expressed a sense of reasonable restrictions.
Even Libertarians bear watching.
That said, our DEMOCRAT governor has slashed state spending and social programs, and has not signed any new gun bills.
I love this state!

 

[Jim March]

BUT: give the GOP control of the Senate, and they'll set up a key committee where gun control bills need to pass as a "killing zone", stacking it with pro-gunners of BOTH parties.

Party leadership matters, and the Fed GOP folks are pretty damn good right now. Set up the right committee the right way, and Forrester will never get a *chance* to vote on a renewal.

Vote friggin' GOP this year, and hold your nose if you have to.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Jim, I understand that notion, that it's worth voting for an anti-gun Republican, just to give the Republicans control of the Senate. BUT, recall when a REPUBLICAN controlled committee brought the Juvenile justice bill up for no holds barred debate right at the peak of the Columbine hysteria? That was done by one of the Republican leaders, IMO specifically to make sure that they'd be "forced" to permit some gun control to pass.

If the GOP wins the Senate by a narrow margin, those anti-gunners will have huge leverage to demand anti-gun leaders, because they'll need every last vote to win the leadership election. It happened before, it will happen again. We'd actually be better off with a Republican minority big enough to block things, but lead by pro-gunners who'd actually WANT to block gun control.

It would be different if the Republicans had the prospect of winning the Senate by enough of a margin to tell the RINOs to go blow it out their ears. But that's not in the cards.

More later, gotta run.

 

[Gusgus]

Well folks, it's started. Just saw a commercial featuring former Governor Kean, babbling how Doug Forrester is a "Moderate". It's horrifying how good conservatives have to transform into moderates, just to have a shot in this state. Bret Schundler ran as a pro gun, pro CCW conservative last fall, and was slaughtered at the polls.

Down here in the Philly TV market, the Dems have been running big anti gun commercials against Forrester. Harping on how he would vote against the assault weapon ban, and gun show back ground checks. The final statement in the ad is enough to make you vomit.

Forrester actually said that it is none of his business if his neighbor shoots semi autos. Oh really? Doug Forrester is dangerous for NJ."

I think I'm going to be sick.