DrMartinVonNostrand said: "Arnold isn't going to BAN guns either. There is something about a 2nd Ammendment. Maybe you've heard of it. Now if you're talking about the ASSAULT rifle ban, then your not going to get much traction in a largely urban state. Go hang out with Howard Dean in Vermont if assault rifles are your thing. "
Yeah...I've heard about the Second Amendment. One of the recent things I heard from the Kalifornia Supreme Court is that it does not apply to individuals.
Your comments about "assault weapons" ( You did mean "assault weapons" and not "assault rifles", didn't you?) tells me a lot about why you are able to support Arnold and gun control. You have been convinced that it is a legitimate role of government to decide which arms I may have.
First, it was the federally defined "assault weapons" that I may not own. Then it was the Roberti-Roos "assault weapons" that I may not own. Then it was the SB-23 "assault weapons" that I may not own. Soon it will be the Schwarzenegger "assault weapons" that I may not own.
Please tell me why you think that firearms that are legal to keep and bear in Vermont should be illegal in Kalifornia. Is the Second Amendment really so meaningless to you?
Legally there is nothing that stops the Government from regulating which arms are and aren't legal. The right to bear arms is quite narrow. That's just the way it is. The Government has to have the ability to regulate it. Otherwise the 2nd Amendment would also guarantee your right to NUCLEAR arms.
The bottom line is you aren't going to get much support in urban areas for assault riffle free for alls. What legitimate reason does anyone in a densely populated city have for assault riffles?
I'm a strong supporter of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment. But the true support of the Constitution entails staying true to the intent and strictly construing it. To read into it a free pass on any weapon is a grevious misinterpritation.