Schwarzenegger's Smart Move

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-RELEASE_ca_schw_veto.html

http://www.triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/5756  (Describes some of the vetoed legislation.)

While Schwarzenegger deserves reprimand for *not* vetoing a bit of anti-gun legislation involving .50 caliber rifles, he recently vetoed some rather ridiculous anti-gun legislation that the democrats were trying to road test in California. 

Anyhow, I guess we gotta remember that Schwarzenegger *IS* governor of one of the most vehemently anti-gun states in the Union, and definitely better than his predecessor.  By the standards of the rest of the country, he seems anti-gun, but in Californistan his stand on this issue is almost as refreshing as ice water on a swelteringly hot day.

what the fuck is everyones deal with gun laws. i mean jesus christ, there are a lot more important issues out there than "omg librals want to restrict our gunz"

>>2
I'm torn on this. I think gun rights are important, but not to the point where I would vote in someone that would make resisting tyranny nessacary in the first place. Yes: The ability to protect yourself is important, but by voting in tyrannts to protect ourselves from tyrants seems a bit self-defeating.

>>2
What the fuck is the feminists deal with abortion laws? There are a lot more important issues out there than "omg conservatives won't let me kill fetusez".

>>3
Right.

>>4
ya rite, More liek, What the fuck is conservatives deal with abortion? there are more important issues than "omg people i don't know can make the very difficult decision to have abortionz while i still have the right not to"

>>3 Bush isn't a tyrant, he is better on the Bill of Rights than the democrats.  The Bill of Rights is our safeguard from tyranny - it is precisely this fact which makes it such an offense to violate it (any of the amendments, but most especially 1 & 2, which are arguably the most important of them), and of such great importance that it supercedes other issues for so many americans.  Violating the Bill of Rights regularly will almost inevitably lead to tyranny somewhere down the road.  When the founders wrote the constitution initially, they were frightened that THAT was too tyranny-approaching, so they wrote the 10 amendments (also known as the Bill of Rights) as a safeguard against tyranny (http://your10rights.com/).  Clearly, with the constitution in place, voting for the candidate who will best uphold it ranks very high in voting priority for one who wishes to avoid a tyrannical government, especially in this modern day and age, where the danger would seem ever greater due to the various infringements and encroachments on this we have had.

>>5
"ya rite, More liek, What the fuck is conservatives deal with abortion?"

Go read one of the many abortion debates somewhere.  If that doesn't tell you, certainly nothing I could tell you here and now would.

"there are more important issues than "omg people i don't know can make the very difficult decision to have abortionz while i still have the right not to"

Doesn't change the fact that feminists tend to go ape shit whenever someone suggests even the most minor restriction being placed on abortion... even if they are confident they will never need or want to have an abortion in their lifetime themselves.

>>2
Some people just like guns.  Some families or groups of people have gun related traditions.  Do you think any gamers would support the republican party if they decided they wanted to start restricting video games? What if the republican party decided they wanted to ban any games rated 'worse' than T (teen), or maybe something even more harsh? Could you expect them to then support the republicans? Some might, but there would definitely be a lot of pissed off people out there.  There are millions upon millions of recreational shooters in this country, and many other millions of gun owners.  The backlash we've seen against the anti-gunners is more than predictable in my opinion.

Of course, aside from this, there is the whole slippery slope angle, as well as the fact that a lot of people don't have access to adequate police protection due to living in rural areas, and simply cannot rely on the police.  Fuck, some of them don't even have phone service.  In many cases, and for many people, their gun is the only thing standing between them and the armed crook who just broke in through the window downstairs.

>>6 Bush isn't a tyrant, he is better on the Bill of Rights than the democrats

I'd like to see some proof for this. Everything I've seen, for example, wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay, and especially the Patriot act, have shown that this is not the case.

>>9
Ok, speaking very, VERY generally here, the republicans tend to encroach upon the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 7th amendments.  Any 1st amendment infringement on the part of the republicans is generally very mild, and does not really apply to political speech.  The democrats tend to infringe upon the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments, and in big ways.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

>>10 Why tolerate any compromise on your freedom? Vote libertarian!
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.self-gov.org/

>>9
>>10

Irrelevant. They're all encroaching on all the ammendments and we keep voting them in.

Any politician who even lightly brushes against the constitution should be executed for treason.

>>10
This still isn't proof. All of that is assertion with no examples. Obviously there is the 2nd amendment for Democrats, but beyond that I'd like some specifics.

Schwarzenegger for president. He is the closest to an elected "libertarian" as far as I can see, and his state is doing quite well for it.

>>6 Human rights are equally importnat, none can be valued more than the other. Think of them as a ring, a stable, diamond circle. Remove a part, and the circle grows smaller and smaller, and it may not be a circle for long.
>>7 Restrictions on abortions are for social conservatives, who are the lowest form of life there is. Feminists going apeshit are justified. but they don't care about the 2nd mostly and I disapprove of that. A society in which one right is removed isn't worth more than one where seven are removed. All or nothing.

>>16
What if the fetus is sentient?

>>17 Then the woman will face charges of murder, although science will dictate the limit with sound argumentation and proof, not the people. I will not have policemen spending time chasing down women who commit abortions after this limit, they have better things to do.

>>18
Your mind is clear.

>>15
Schwarzenegger does not seem to be a libertarian enough on some really key issues (or at least key to me), like drug legalization.    Ron Paul is the most libertarian representative we have in our government right now.  He is the only one who is really consistent in his beliefs and in defense of liberty and the constitution.. and he is one of the very very few people who support both drug legalization and gun rights who actually made it into office.  There are some others, but they are few in number.  The drug war is an atrocity, and ranks high on my list of priorities.  Anyways, if Schwarzenegger can get elected in California... wow, he should have an easy time getting elected I would think.

>>20 Yeah, seconded. Schwarz is one of few republicans I can stomach.

>>14
A lot of the gun control legislation the democrats have passed (or tried to) would have or did violate the constitution in more ways than just the 2nd amendment.  A good deal of it infringes upon the other amendments in addition to the 2nd. 

For example, BOTH the Mcarthy Gun Grab AKA HR.1415 AS WELL AS the Brady Bill violate BOTH the 2nd and 10th amendments. 
http://www.gunowners.org/a090606.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

This legislation was largely supported by the democrats, and opposed by the republicans.  Many democrats and gun control advocates still do support it.. in fact, I can't think of one at the moment who doesn't.

Further, many of the examples you pointed out, such as the Patriot act, etc, were all supported by the democrats as well as the republicans.  Don't believe me? Take a look at the ACTUAL SENATE VOTE for yourself: 
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

The Encumbent Protection Plan (HR.2183) passed in 1998 (again, largely by the democrats) infringes upon political speech, violating the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

The Mcarthy Amendment, which thankfully failed in 1999, would have violated the 4th amendment, giving the BATFE unlimmited searching power at gun shows and other private events.

The Mcollumn Amendment to HR.2122 would violate the 2nd and 10th amendments.

The Conyers Amendment to HR.2122 would violate the 2nd 4th, and 10th amendments, expanding the already obviously unconstitutional Brady Bill, giving the BATFE near unlimmited searching power, and banning certain ammunition clips.

HR.417, another bit of legislation largely supported by the democrats, would have restricted the freedom of speech of political groups - hindering their rights to talk about candidates voting records.

The dems then did not support the Pickering Amendment of 2002 which would have exempted certain political groups from the draconian provisions in the Incumbent Protection Act that violated the 1st amendment.  Further, in voting against it, they turned the 2nd amendment on its head, declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is a right reserved for government forces (i.e. police, military, national guard, etc) and NOT for private citizens.

Then we have HR.2356.. another bit of encumbent protection legislation that would further restrict the free speech rights of various political organizations 60 days prior to elections.  For political groups, speaking in ways that would be deemed 'electioneering', or simply critisizing a given politician's record would result in harmful action to their current tax related status.

As for 5th amendment rights, the gun owners of Louisiana being deprived of their firearms without compensation could be seen as a violation of numerous parts of the constitution and Bill of Rights including amendments 2, 4, 5, and 14.  A solid core of the most extreme democrats in our government essentially worked to keep these confiscations happening by opposing legislation aimed at stopping them.
http://www.guncontrolkills.com/?p=44

This is just what I could come up with after only a small amount of poking around.

>>21
NORML is an organization that works politically for the legalization of drugs (marijuana to be specific) and donates to pro-legalization candidates.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6959


I sifted through the list of their pro-legalization candidates, and removed all the anti-gun people from it.  Here are the list of pro-legalization candidates endorsed by NORML that also support gun rights:

Ron Paul (R-TX)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Robert Ehlrich (R-MD)
David Obey (D-WI)

Ron Paul FTW!