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!

[Dead Corpse]

Devil's advocate my a$$. If that was the best you can do for a "counter argument", maybe we should take away your Right to Vote as well. You obviously are running shy in the mental horsepower department if that is the best you can do. The same logic you just used applies.

Yes, there are two sides to every argument. The one with enough facts to back it up like mine, and fantasy utopias spun from "feelings" like the crap you are spouting.

Now run along back to DU and tell Sarah to send someone smarter next time....

[TERMINATTOR]

Oooops... that's Article VI.

[Dead Corpse]

This right here is why your arguments are bankrupt of anything remotely resembling cogent thought or facts. No cops. No military. Just one man with a shot gun preventing a crime. Protecting his property. Knowing how many robberies turn violent, his being armed may well have saved his life as well.

Using logic like yours, he'd go to jail for threatening the poor thieves with deadly force. That we in fact HAVE no Right to protect our lives and our property with such tools. That we should rely on others for protection. If you can't see how stupid that idea is, then there is no hope for you. Period.

No one GIVES you a Right either. You either have it, or you have given up that Right, or it has been forcefully taken from you. What you advocate is that everyone FORCEFULLY have their Right to the tools of self preservation taken from them. If you knew anything at all on the subject, you wouldn't have made such an overtly idiotic statement.

[Antoninus]

I guess Ah-nold still has a bit of the old Austrian fervor in him after all:



Courtesy of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO)

[jmc813]

What? You aren't a delegate you say? Oh, then you obviously know that if you are not a delegate, then it is not "your" convention.

I'm a registered Republican. It is my convention.

[Dead Corpse]

Wrong. You and your gun grabbing buddy Arnold are in line with the Brady Bunch and the rest of the socialists out there.

Me, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the gun owning public past and present are firmly AGAINST violations of our Rights.

Big picture my ass. What good is it calling yourself a "conservative" if you abandone every core principle defining the ideology? Your "big picture" looks more like John Kerrys than anything else.

[LexBaird]

(insult snipped)Fact of the matter is the majority in California favor gun control laws and there is no viable reason to alienate them.

Fact of the matter is the majority in California favor abortion on demand. Fact of the matter is the majority in California favor draconian environmental laws. Fact of the matter is the majority in California favor high taxes on everyone but themselves. Fact of the matter is the majority in California favor ignoring hordes of illegal immigrants flooding their schools and hospitals.

So, lets just capitulate on all these issues. Wouldn't want to alienate DiFi, now would we. Heaven forbid that California should have an opposition party that actually opposes anything. Just so long as we can elect a person with a nominal (R) after his name, everything will be just great.

If Arnie listened to you dumba$$ed know nothings the state would be derailed, again, in no time.

Instead of papering over the problems with borrowed money, for example? Yeah, that's a real solution to prevent derailment.

[TERMINATTOR]

"those who stand for exceptionalism of the United States and the rule of democracy for the world."

Imperialism and the overthrow of our REPUBLIC! This is FreeREPUBLIC, you belong at DemocraticUnderground.

[68 grunt]

Find a mountaintop. Wait for your Savior, it won't be long now. You'll be just as effective from your mountaintop as you are now, and that is not at all. Arnie is now in a position to effect change, but it won't happen if he purposely, metaphorically, slits his political wrists. Cause and effect, action and reaction; stuff dummies don't understand.

[DMZFrank]

Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.

[timm22]

The "priviledges and immunities" clause can easily be intepreted as protecting the rights of the citizens of the individual states to pass whatever laws they feel are necessary to bring peace and order to their communities, including, but not limited to, establishing a city or state church, abridging the right of press or speech or engaging in othewise unreasonable searches and siezures,. or outlawing the private ownership of projectile emitting weapons.

That interpretation would make no sense. Prior to the 14th amendment, citizens of the individual states could and did pass such laws. There was no need for an amendment to protect their ability to pass state laws.

Furthermore, the ability to "pass whatever laws they feel are necessary to bring peace and order to their communities" is not a right. Otherwise, if the majority in a state felt it was necessary to enslave blacks to ensure domestic tranquility, it would be their right to do so. That would totally negate the purpose of the 14th amendment. The entire point of the 14th amendment was to PREVENT state laws from being passed that violated the rights of citizens.

The 14th amendment just isn't all that clear. So if you wish to protect your second amendment right to bear arms, I would suggest that you must be ready to use those arms to defend it. If you aren't willing to use your arms to defend your right to bear arms, then the right isn't worth the paper it is printed on, is it?

If it became necessary I would be prepared to use arms to defend my rights, but I would do everything in my power to find a non-violent solution first.

[hobbes1]

Actually, if you are a Purist, it means you are entitled to own all manner of state of the art military arms that you can afford.

The Second Amendment cannot be construed correctly outside the context of Sec 1. art. 8 cl 2.The Congress shall have Power To grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal

Which of course meant Privately owned Warships.....

[I_killed_kenny]

at least we expected that from Bustamante.

[Armed Civilian]

You mean I can't shoot with this?

[LexBaird]

Arnie is now in a position to effect change, but it won't happen if he purposely, metaphorically, slits his political wrists.

It also won't happen if he enacts the same policies that Bustamonte would have, had he been elected. But, I'm sure you'll feel better, knowing it's a Republican stabbing conservatism in the back, and not one of those evil people like DiFi.

If he didn't want to "alienate" California voters on this issue, Arnold could have just STFU, but instead he chose to come out in solidarity with the likes of Sarah Brady. I notice a strong tendency in Arnold to appeal to populist notions to accrue political power, but little tendency to spend that political capital on anything tough. Witness how he is trial-ballooning signing the "revised" driver's license bill.

You follow your celluloid savior, and I'll look to a better one. We'll see who ends up better off.

In the meantime, realize you don't gain ground in politics by parroting the other side's stance. Capitulation and surrender, go along to get along gets you to a place you didn't want to go; stuff even dummies should understand.

[Feiny]

I have heard from credible sources that Arnold owns many so-called assault weapons along with dozens of other handguns & high powered rifles. He is an elitist, an opportunist and a hypocrite.

[68 grunt]

Hyperbole! His politics isn't the same as the demonratz, he's not stabbing conservatism in the back, and a comparison of he with Swineass is a mis-compare and an indication of your shallowness.

When you find a better gubinator, lemme know.

In the meantime :^> maybe you should drink a big cuppa STFU with your shallow hyperbole.

[Ken H]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

P-Marlowe wrote: The "priviledges and immunities" clause can easily be intepreted as protecting the rights of the citizens of the individual states to pass whatever laws they feel are necessary to bring peace and order to their communities, including, but not limited to, establishing a city or state church, abridging the right of press or speech or engaging in othewise unreasonable searches and siezures,. or outlawing the private ownership of projectile emitting weapons.

How in the world could anyone interpret it to mean that States may violate the BOR?

What do you think the clause means?