Posted on 09/29/2005 4:16:31 PM PDT by minus_273
SB 357 is about serializing ammunition.
AB 352 requires the gun to imprint all cartriges.
Both are totally unworkable.
I agree. Thanks for filling in the details. I was being lazy. :-(
Congrats to the Govenator.
I hate to break with the ilk on this one but I don't have a problem with this. But then I used to be friends with the publisher of Mom Guess What... magazine.
This is a subsidy for a voluntary high-risk behavior, with the marginal cost paid for by those who choose not to take those risks. Nothing more.
The insurance companies love it because it raises the rate base and they get to play with a bigger cash flow.
Non-discriminatory pooling has to end, both because it subsidizes foolish choices and because it is unjust to those who refuse to take those risks.
You and I will just have to disagree on this one.
He KNOWS it's gonna be in the courts, he didn't say he liked that, he merely stated the obvious.
He VETOED the bill, Davis would have signed it, enuf said.
It makes no sense from any perspective to not act on a principle out of concern for alienating 'gay voters'. I mean, let them be alienated, the principle of the thing is what's the issue. A majority of voters determined for the State of CA not too long ago that marriage was to be defined as a legal relationship between one man and one woman and some people in the legislature turned around and tagged this "gay marriage" thing onto a Department of Fish and Game bill and tried to squeak it past that way into law.
No consideration of what the majority of voters just decided. No media, no press, just a sneaky attempt to manipulate our state laws by hook or by crook, just however they could.
The legislature can't write and pass laws that are unacceptable to the majority of voters. The voters decided this issue and that's that.
Alienate whomever, because fear of alienation is no reason to deny a principle, like this, as with others as clearly decided (already) by the voters as this.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Because each legislator is elected from within a restricted, distinct area.
Laws on state ballots are determined by voters statewide, not just or merely from localities alone, as are legislators, such as they are. So there's not much comparison in "equality" to my view between a statewide ballot process with a high majority voting for an issue (to define marriage as...man/woman) as did over sixty percent of Californians just recently about this issue.
On the other hand, the guy in the state legislature who is elected out of SAN FRANCISCO made this move to attach this "gay marriage" stuff that has just been vetoed by Schwarzenegger. AND the Republican legislators from statewide localities did not vote to support this thing, either. Only Democrats in the State legislature did and that's how it was allowed to get to Schwarzenegger's desk and later to be vetoed. I am very appreciative that he did veto this thing.
It's never enough, in my voting experience. They want special rights and will always want more.
Yes, I agree about that. One of the biggest reasons that the Dems are in majority in legislature and government in CA is BECAUSE the state's Republican Party is so, well, discourteous to it's own. There's something wrong in the state's GOP, no doubt about that. I'm a Republican, if that matters.
Well, I agree with him and I'm a Republican in CA who votes.
Groan...
and in the end (pardon the pun), he could have let the bill set,, the courts would have invalidated any "marriages" that would have occurred anyway... or they may just say, go for it, in which case, we have more initiatives in the works.
Let the little buggers have their moment of vistory , much as what I witness some now celebrating on this thread by those who say, what's the big deal if 2 guys or gals love each other.
aRnold plays the issues in case you haven't noticed as focus groups and polls dictate. Who does that remind you of?
THat was evident from the Recall and the GOP's behavior since then and well before.
They proved that conservatism does not sell in California when the very party that came to prominence for many years then turns its own back to its core principles which served this state so well for many years and seeks to go middle of the road.
Talk about driving under the influence.. and crossing the center line and having a horrible wreck.
In the end, the grassroots will be asked to bail them out. What would you do?
I think you are mistaken to call him 'pro homo'.
IIRC the very reason Dreier's been targeted by gays is because he does NOT believe the government should subsidize their lifestyle. They're furious at him for that.
Non-discriminatory pooling has to end, both because it subsidizes foolish choices and because it is unjust to those who refuse to take those risks.
Agreed.
A friend with a small business had to pay healthcare for an employee with AIDS who was rarely even at work. It was very unfair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.