Hasta La Vista, 2nd Amendment

Liberty Belles ^ | Jennifer Freeman

[TERMINATTOR]

 

California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has recently reaffirmed his support for a federal ban on the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, commonly known as the "Assault Weapons" ban. There was much debate and speculation about Schwarzenegger's position on firearms ownership prior to his being elected. This was primarily due to the fact that there was very little public information about his position on firearms. Californians were left to speculate about whether The Terminator -- the alpha male who made millions of dollars making movies in which characters used semi-automatic rifles to defend themselves -- was actually Mr. Shriver, a gun-banning politican towing the line for the Kennedy clan. Perhaps the Governor is neither an alpha male, nor a Kennedy wanna-be. Perhaps he is more like Bill Clinton in that he makes his decision based on what the polls say. And we know all how inaccurate polls can be. Whatever the reason, a person cannot support a ban on the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles and claim to uphold the Constitution. A politician cannot take away the rights of the citizens to protect themselves and claim to be for the people. A man cannot be judged as having good character, if his decisions are based on personal gain. And Californians cannot complain about gun rights while voting for a candidate who is questionable, at best, on the issue of firearm rights.

Say, "Hasta la vista" to the Second Amendment, baby!

[horatio]

Congrats. You've just been compared to a leftist (post 21) for having the temerity to suggest that not all the Republicans we elect are terribly conservative.

Only Nixon can go to China, and only Republicans like Arnold can suggest gun bans.

[ZULU]

Fortunately the Gubernator can't run for President - unless the hair-brained Republicans in Congress like Orrin Hatch succeed in changing the Constitution - an unlikely event.

The Gubernator is a stealth liberal. Sleep with a Kennedy and the contamination will infect you.

[.38sw]

Why would anyone be surprised? During his campaign, when asked about his position on the 2nd amemendment (Sean Hannity's radio show) he stated that he supported closing the gun show loophole. WHAT gun show loophole? I emailed Hannity and informed him that California didn't have such a "loophole", but it shows that Arnold is ignorant about existing California law. Never heard back.

[LexBaird]

The second amendment is therefore satisfied as long as, after all reasonable restrictions have been placed upon me, I am reasonably left with a weapon sufficient to protect my life, my family and my property.

Your argument begs the question: Protect your life, family and property from what?

From thieves and thugs? Maybe a shotgun will do. From a corrupt and predatory government, such as exists 200 miles south of where I am sitting? Not even close.

[tacticalogic]

If you, and the majority of citizens of you state think that is what is necessary to secure your security. As I understand the situation in Ca., the State Constitution has no protection for the right to keep and bear arms. Given the phrasing of the Second Amendment, I have to wonder what posessed Congress to vote to allow into the Union a state that would willingly compromise it's own freedom and security by failing to protect that right.

[MileHi]

...and the right to bear arms contemplated only that every free man was entitled to own a single shot musket.

Nonsense! Where do you see the term "musket" in the Constitution? I see "arms" there. It so happens that the state-of-the-arm "arm" that the military carried was a musket. Today it is a select fire carbine. A purist reading of 2A would find that carbine protected.

[Stew Padasso]

"What do you think Governor Bustamante would have done?"

He probably would have done the same thing. What is your point?

[LexBaird]

Then I should have a right to carry a very large car bomb. I should have the right to drive a tank. I should have the right to own a backyard anti-aircraft battery.

Why should I NOT have the right to these things? Rights are not limited, save through the due process of law on a case by case basis. What basis does the government have to say that I cannot be as responsible with a tank or cannon as a 19 year old Marine?

Because I have the potential to misuse and abuse my rights does not give the government the authority to preemptively deny them. If I were to have a need for such things, the government should not be able to arbitrarily limit my ability to gain them, no more than they should be able to limit the size of printing press or television network I can own.

[AlBondigas]

I find it fascinating how this thread has morphed from:
We shoulda voted for McClintock to
I ain't gonna vote for GW if he renews the AWB

Take a step back. AWB renewal won't reach GW's desk
Arnold hasn't done anything (yet) to affect Calif gun owners.

[Dead Corpse]

Yes, you moron. You would be able to park an anti-aircraft battery in your backyard. Are you aware that you can, right now, buy a TANK?

Own what you want, but respect your neighbors property as well. If you are shooting your AA over my property, you'd better hope I don't return fire.

Not many could, or would, own such things so your attempt at argumentum absurdum is noted and properly ignored from here forward...

[P-Marlowe]

A purist reading of 2A would find that carbine protected.

Logically it would appear so. however a purist reading would also recognize the right of the state, under the 10th amendment, to regulate and restrict your right to own just about any type of firearm.

The key to the second amendment is not whether you have a right to bear arms, but whether you are going to exercise that right in order to protect it. In other words at what point are you going to draw the line and draw your weapon in an effort to protect that right? So far I haven't seen any armed uprisings in those states or those communities that have outlawed nearly all firearms. I guess that your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is just not all that important to those people, is it?

[P-Marlowe]

Yes, you moron.

Did I insult you?

[Dead Corpse]

Actually, yes. You did insult me. Your attempt at a wholly absurd argument, to help bolster your Pro-Bady logic, is offensive in the extreme. Go away gun grabber...

[LexBaird]

I find it fascinating how this thread has morphed from: We shoulda voted for McClintock to I ain't gonna vote for GW if he renews the AWB

Not from me. I've just been responding to P. Marlowe.

Anyway, it should be "You guys should have voted for McClintock." I did.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Californians were left to speculate about whether The Terminator -- the alpha male who made millions of dollars making movies in which characters used semi-automatic rifles to defend themselves -- was actually Mr. Shriver, a gun-banning politican towing the line for the Kennedy clan.

He used a lot of machine guns too.

[LexBaird]

Logically it would appear so. however a purist reading would also recognize the right of the state, under the 10th amendment, to regulate and restrict your right to own just about any type of firearm.

You really must have a different copy of the Constitution than I do.

Article IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Clearly, the 10th A. deals with powers, not rights. States do not have rights; individuals have rights. States have those powers given them by the people.

The RKBA is an expressly retained right, therefore the States have no powers to exercise over them, unless due process has been fulfilled against a particular individual.

[68 grunt]

I gotta give credit to the anti-Arnies on this thread. Dumbest group of know nothings I've ever read! Fact of the matter is the majority in California favor gun control laws and there is no viable reason to alienate them. Let the fed do the fed thing, as if Arnie could affect Swineass or Barbie in this, and don't alienate voters unless you have to do it.

If Arnie listened to you dumba$$ed know nothings the state would be derailed, again, in no time. Now, we have a Reaganesque character threatening demonratz with 'judgement'. And they're responding to his agenda, and republicans and conservatives are making headway, regardless of the embarrassment we suffer from the whacked out, jackbooted and intolerant right-wing element.

[jmc813]

Do we really have to let this schmuck speak at the GOP convention?

[TERMINATTOR]

The 14th is really redundant. It was a second attempt at getting tyrants to understand plain english. The Supremacy Clause makes incorporation under the 14th unnecessary.

---

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution" --Article IV

[P-Marlowe]

Actually, yes. You did insult me....Go away gun grabber...

You know you really should chill out. If you can't handle a counter argument without getting ticked off, then I really wonder whether you have the temperment to handle a firearm. I am merely playing devil's advocate here.

Obviously some overly sensitive people can't stand it when they discover that there is nearly always another side to each argument. If you can't discuss this issue without resorting to calling me names and insulting my intelligence, then to be quite honest, I would be very concerned about giving you the right to own any firearm more powerful than a paint-ball gun.

Your attitude does little to ensure me that the founders giving you the right to bear arms was a wise idea.