GOP has star-power dilemma: How will party use Schwarzenegger? [Kerry vs. Arnold?]

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 19, 2004 | Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

[Eaker]

You have some studying to do.

If the 2nd is about hunting then the 1st is about playing Scrabble.

[Mulder]

The Right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting Bambi. The 2nd amendment merely enumerates that particular Right of the people (without the 2nd, we would still have the Right to keep and bear arms).

There are many quotes from the Founders to support this.

[counterpunch]

I'm advocating Second Amendment rights as a very last resort against a government gone bad.

Then where were you during the Clinton era?
The first question you need to ask is, who is deciding when the government has "gone bad", and who is it that will be rectifying the situation.

This was tried during the Great Depression by the Bonus Army, who were primarily incited by communists. The military was called in and put them down.

The fact is, you need to worry about violations of the Posse Comitatus Act first. It happened in both 1933 and 1993.

Should the government "go bad", if the military and police are not on "the people's" side, then you're just going to wind up with a lot of dead "revolutionaries".
If they are on the "people's side", then they're the ones with all the guns anyways.

This situation is never going to actually happen, and if it does, we're all screwed anyways should the world's most powerful military be turned on the people. You're talking about keeping assault weapons available in case we want to use them on cops. That is who would be on the recieving end. And they already are. In the meantime as you make your fantasy fueled arguments for a people's revolt against corrupt government, real cops are getting gunned down by these assault weapons. That is why cops and law enforcement organisations and unions all support the AWB.

Your whole wacko survivalist fantasy just doesn't stand up under scrutiny. The Supreme Court has routinely ruled that there are limits on the 2nd Amendment, that it is does not constitute cart blanche permission to keep and bear any and all types of arms.

While I'm aware of the philosophy behind the adoption of the 2nd Amendment in 1789, the primary argument used by gun rights advocates is one of hunting. That is why I mention it. Suggesting that government should not limit assault weapons because we might want to use such guns on them is not a very fashionable argument to make these days.

[jmc813]

In the meantime as you make your fantasy fueled arguments for a people's revolt against corrupt government, real cops are getting gunned down by these assault weapons. That is why cops and law enforcement organisations and unions all support the AWB.

Do you support the Assault Weapons Ban?

Suggesting that government should not limit assault weapons because we might want to use such guns on them is not a very fashionable argument to make these days.

I've always been known for telling it like it is, rather than being PC.

[counterpunch]

Watch your language, cop-killer.

[counterpunch]

Do you support the Assault Weapons Ban?

I recognize that the AWB passes constitutional muster.
That is the only matter germane to this discussion.

I can't imagine any legitimate reason for a person being in possession of such a weapon, unless they are in the military or special law enforcement.

At some point your ideology has to meet reality.

[jmc813]

I recognize that the AWB passes constitutional muster.

This should be good. How?

I can't imagine any legitimate reason for a person being in possession of such a weapon, unless they are in the military or special law enforcement.

I have a feeling you are not educated on the specifics of the AWB. Besides, the definition of arms, according to the founding fathers was "any weapon that is used by a typical infantry soldier at the given time". Why in the world would you want the citizens to be outgunned by the government?

[counterpunch]

I have a feeling you are not educated on established case law regarding the 2nd Amendment.

So are you going to stand behind using assault weapons on cops?

If you aren't using these guns for hunting, then you are using them on people. You say you need assault weapons so you can revolt against the government. That means you'll be murdering our cops and our troops. The people serving America in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You are supporting gang violence, narco-trafficking, and above all, terrorism.

[Mulder]

I can't imagine any legitimate reason for a person being in possession of such a weapon, unless they are in the military or special law enforcement

Because it is our Right.

As for only "cops and military" having guns, that was tried a few times in the 20th century.

It didn't work out too well for most folks.

[counterpunch]

Because it is our Right

The SCOTUS says there are limits to that Right.

While you demand your "Right" to assault weapons based on a naive, unsupported, and quite frankly liberal interpritation of the 2nd Amendment (are you in a well regulated militia, or are you being selective in your reading?), cops are being killed by assault weapons. The AWB gives them the tools to prosecute these thugs before they use them.

You'll never catch me making the liberal argument for putting assault weapons in the hands of criminals.

[Eaker]

What the hell are you talking about??

You are an idiot.

It is the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.

Your uninformed opinion is not welcome or needed.

People like Mulder and me will keep you out of an oven.

Trust me, it is NOT for you, it is for my fellow Americans that are not communists. You will survive because of our actions.

[Reagan Man]

Pay no attention to the "punchdrunkone". His opinions, values and beliefs are all over the political spectrum. They're not rooted in any core principles that coincide with Constitutional rights.

He doesn't understand or appreciate the 2nd amendment and never will. This must be based out of pure ignorance. No one can be that dumb. Unless of course, you're viewpoint comes from years of being fed leftist propaganda. The 2nd amendment is quite clear.

Charlton Heston said it best:

"I say the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows "rights" to exist at all."

[Mulder]

The SCOTUS says there are limits to that Right.

The SCOTUS could declare the earth is flat, for all I care. That doesn't make it so. Any ruling not based on the Constitution is null and void.

While you demand your "Right" to assault weapons based on a naive, unsupported, and quite frankly liberal interpritation of the 2nd Amendment

First, the amendments merely enumerate some of our Rights. If the Bill of Rights were abolished tomorrow, we would still have the Right to Free speech, the Right to travel, the Right to bear arms, etc.... There was even considerable debate over whether or not to include them in the Constitution since they feared that some folks in the future would wrongly conclude that simply because something wasn't listed, the gov't had free reign to infringe upon it.

are you in a well regulated militia, or are you being selective in your reading

"Well regulated militia" is a dependent clause. The independent clause (i.e., stands on its own) cleary enumerates our Right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, at the time of the Consitutional Convention, all able-bodied men were considered to be in the "militia". "Well-regulated" simply means well-trained.

cops are being killed by assault weapons

Oh really? Can these assualt weapons do yardwork and do they talk also?

The AWB gives them the tools to prosecute these thugs before they use them.

So you think anyone with an AR-15 or AK-47 is a "thug"?

You'll never catch me making the liberal argument for putting assault weapons in the hands of criminals.

So you don't think your typical anti-gun cop or federal JBT should have assault weapons? Well, we finally agree on something.

[counterpunch]

You're a nut who lives in a fantasy world. If there should be a "people's revolt" against the government, it would be by the communists and anarchosyndicalists, you dolt. It wouldn't be by some god-fearin' freedom-lovin' 'Mericans. It would be the cops and possibly military that would defend the union. Not the other way around.

The people whom you are so eager to hand assault weapons to are the last ones who should be trusted to get their hands on one.

[jmc813]

You're a nut who lives in a fantasy world.

Eaker is one of the most respected pro-2nd Amendment posters on FR. The fact that you call AWB opponents "cop killers" speaks volumes. Does it bother you that there are a whole bunch of idiots on DU who are more pro-2nd Amendment than you?

[counterpunch]

Eaker is one of the most respected pro-2nd Amendment posters on FR. The fact that you call AWB opponents "cop killers" speaks volumes. Does it bother you that there are a whole bunch of idiots on DU who are more pro-2nd Amendment than you?

I have no respect for anyone who hides behind the 2nd Amendment to kill cops and American military. That is what he said, that is what you've said.

And of course the so-called "pro-2nd Amendment" DUers bother me, because they all want assault weapons for the same reasons that you and Eaker do: to kill cops and US military, and overthrow the "corrupt" US government. They talk about the coming "revolution" on DU a lot, too.

[counterpunch]

And you know, I haven't seen either of you or your other little friend mention "self defense" even once on this thread. Not once. It's all been nothing but this Ruby Ridge/Waco/Oklahoma City bullsh*t.

That makes you a nutjob.

[Eaker]

Ever hear of libel?

Before long you may know considerably more about it.

[Eaker]

And you know, I haven't seen either of you or your other little friend mention "self defense" even once on this thread.

How are the two related???

I conceal carry a handgun for "self defense" not an AR15.

You have proven once again that you know nothing and are just a newbie troublemaker.

I am out of time for you.