Chris Christie --- The Republican Jackass

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by FatJayz, Jun 8, 2013.

  1. Today i was watching an interview with Chris Christie talking about his views on medical cannabis. I'll give you guys a direct quote......"Thats not something i'm in support of. I don't think state laws should supersede Federal law". Now lets jump to a different topic, gun control! Aren't republicans supposed to think that the Gov should stay out of the citizens business and not interfere so much? They're certiantly fighting gun control, and from what i've heard they want the Gov to stay out of they're business. I'm not sure if it's all Republicans or just Chris Christie, but he sure seems like a hypocrite to me. How much do you wanna bet that if the Gov did pass gun control laws Chris Christie would be the main force behind states creating they're own gun control laws (by this i mean NO gun control laws) or he'd be fighting for succession. 
    Am i right or am i wrong?

  2. Yea I agree...he is afraid of ruining his presidential run prolly. I fucking hate this sure he doesnt even believe marijuana can benefit ppl which is stupid.

    But in NJ I know republicans who would be considered liberal if other parts of the fact the only reason they vote R is because of gun laws...but they support healthcare and shit and love smoking.

    Fuck that fat ass...I would hope that the fauxnews voters in NJ would not vote for him because he was getting cozy with Obama.
  3. The fact he is in denial about drugs already on the streets is sad. Which is why he is sandbagging the MMJ in this state..he doesnt want 'drugs' on the street..

    He wants more kids to dive up to these shithole cities and cop their weed in fear, aand he wants the cops to keep wasting money sending out cars for kids smoking weed in the woods and shit.
  4. Republicans suck, Democrats suck less. They all suck though.
  5. I'm independent, or as i like to call it "American" 
  6. The sad fact is hypocricy rules in American politics. Agreed on the premise  Republicans are so passionate about gun control to a fault of being hypoctitical on citizens' other rights. Look at the most recent stir in the meainstream media buzzz... The NSA. This organization has built a zillion dollar complex to capture/record EVERY telephone call, email, text and has the ability to look at ANY webpage you or I have looked at, searched, jerked off to ect. I have not heard a peep about this flagrant abuse of our right to... "privacy"  Remember that one? Oh yeah...privacy... That was once one of our rights. Odd how groups such as the NRA spent millions defending the right for ANY resident of the US to obtain, posess, buy, trade, borrow ANY firearm including military style weapons, in the name of the 2nd ammemdment, yet have been mum on our already demolished right to privacy. To me this is selective hypocrisy. The NRA fought for the rights of any nutjob to aquire a military style weapon, with unlimited clips for ammo to do whatever he/she pleases with this weapon. Meanwhile not a peep was said about the government massively invading our right to NOT have the government tap our phones, internet or use a drone to peep into our backyards and bedroom windows. For all you gun lovers...I am NOT opposed to the 2nd ammendment, I have NO problem with your right to own, posess and defend yourself with your weapons. I do feel however some basic controls should be in order such as performing a background check on EVERY person that wants to buy a dangerous weapon. After all I should have the right to NOT be gunned down by a madman that went off his meds and decided to go Hari-Cari on my ass because I felt like taking in a batman movie that night.
  7. brotherrob
    i am not sure if you have ever purchased a firearm before, but if you purchase one from a retailer 19/20 times they will call in a federal backround check on in they call the FBI to do a check before selling you a firearm. the only time a backround check does not get called in is during a private sale from one person to another (example: your grandfather sold you his first shotgun he bought when he was a boy)
    secondly, the NRA does exactly (and ONLY because they make asses of themselves) what they stand for - defend 2nd amendment rights. they dont defend privacy freedoms and whatnot because it isnt on their agenda.
    anyways, fuck chris christie. that will look good to the rest of the world. a morbidly obese president that continues on with obama drone policies..........great :rolleyes:
  8. I agree Sam. The NRA does what it is paid to do, defend the rights of firearms manufacturers' to make and distribute firearms. That said, I do not oppose any of those activities. A slight correction as far as gun purchases, gun shows typically sell firearms without background checks because the sellers are considered "private" sellers, not registered dealers. regardless... Christy is a typical ex prosecutor, he has doubtlessly locked up/punished, thousands upon of thousands of non violent pot smokers in the name of protecting his fellow citizens from the scurge of the dreaded marijuana. He has ZERO chance of becoming president because Foxnews hates him.
  9. Completely uniformed on both issues. NRA mission is not to defend gun manufacturers, it's to defend the individuals right to own firearms. Do gun manufacturers support the NRA? Yes they do. Because without an individual being able to own a firearm, they don't exist. It's cause and effect.

    Second, point on gun shows. When sellers so choose to sell at gun shows they become by default commercial gun dealers and must abide by all federal firearms laws which include background checks. They may or may not hold a FFL license. But because they have chosen to enter into a commercial environment (gun show) to sell weapons all laws that apply to licensed FFL dealers. Now if they wish to sell it in the parking lot. They can do so without a background check. But not if they are inside.
  10. I knew this thread was going to turn into a gun debate, thats such a hot topic these days. I don't really give a damn about 2nd amendment rights. when they drafted the constitution it was 1787 and times were different. All they had back then was muskets and small pistols, they did NOT have weapons capable of firing thousands of rounds in a few min. and killing 7 people in a matter of seconds. It's outdated and is irrelevant in today's society.The problem is republicans can't accept that because they're selfish and one sided. I don't disagree with citizens owning guns, i own 3 (1 pistol, 2 shotguns). the pistol is used for personal protection only, i've actually never used it anywhere other than a range. The shotguns are actually rifles my great grandfather used in WW2 but they still work fine. I disagree with people owning high powered assault rifles, you don't need a gun for any reason other than personal protection and hunting therefore you don't need anything other than a pistol or hunting rifle 
    fucking stoned guys  :smoke:
  11. It's examples like Christie which clearly show the same people easily control both sides of the political aisle and their associated agendas.
    The founding fathers warned about poliical parties for this very reason.
    Also: notice how they swing people back at forth at the polls? The people will vote in disgust to get rid of many liberal polticians, conservatives will flood the legislature, and then they put up an offensive asshat of a candidate for the offfice of governor up against the liberal candidate. People vote lesser of two evils on the governor, end up with a liberal governor and a conservative legislature and gridlock. Or perceived gridlock. The true agendas continue. The governors are the vetoing goalkeepers. Same thing that has happened in our state the last few election cycles.
  12. Hahahaha! Obviously you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. NONE!!! Very few people own guns that fire "thousands of rounds a min". What exactly is a high powered assault rifle? You think its only republicans who own such weapons? Hahahaha!
  13. I have said my piece regarding guns. This is not a gun debate. My origional position was simply comparing how one very organized group of people defend thier apparant constitutionally protected "rights"  all the while ignoring other "rights" equally protected under the constitution. IMHO, a "right" is a "right" regardless of which ammendment you wish to involk. Why did the "gun people"/legislators flip out over an attempt to restrict certian methods of stopping certian individuals from aquiring a gun, yet could care less as the same evil government stripped them of their right to "privacy"?
  14. he like most politicians still think the vast majority of Americans are in the Reagan era when it comes to marijuana. 
  15. Ive never understood how Republicans could say things like since criminals don't follow laws, gun restrictions only help criminals. Since they wont follow the law anyway, the restrictions wont apply to them. While I agree with this statement anyone who believes it should support legalizing drugs because making it illegal wont stop people from using it. Democrats are equally irrational. They understand that legalizing marijuana will take it out of the hand of the criminals, yet they seem to think criminals will follow the laws of gun restrictions.
  16. #17 brotherrob, Jun 19, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 19, 2013
    Legalizing MJ will simply stop making more criminals out of honest citizens.
  17. rand paul is the only politician in the united states that's seriously trying to get marijuana decriminalized on the federal level and wants states  to do what they want with legalization. 
    RAND PAUL 2016
  18. Rand Paul is a phoney. When I listen to him talk I hear another bought off politician working hard for his billionaire backers, using his dad's popularity on the drug war as a stepping stone to a presidential run. He is just another republican, voting in step with republicans with the exception of his half assed decriminalization stance to attract pot smokers that vote.
  19. Getting added to the Foreign Relations Committee tells me he isn't much of a political "outsider." I agree.
    For the 113th Congress, Paul was added to the Foreign Relations committee and retained his spot on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and Small Business committees.<sup>[114]</sup>
    Those are all very powerful committees with huge lobbies behind them.

Share This Page