California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Friday that citizen patrols of his state's border with Mexico must be unarmed to avoid violence... Schwarzenegger had expressed support in April for the vigilantes, who began patrolling the U.S.-Mexican border in Arizona to draw attention to illegal immigration...
Arnhole's move doesn't surprise me--I would expect no less from a foreign national (he never gave up his Austrian citizenship--even though he swore an oath to renounce it when he "became" an American) who was the first governor to ban, among other things, politically incorrect caliber bolt action and semiauto rifles. I also expect California gun owners will roll over in fear and vote for him again because of the Democrats--again giving the Republicans carte blanche to continue their betrayals under the can't-prove it-by-me "lesser of two evils" doctrine. And I expect the major gun groups to continue giving the Hessian a pass--just like they did last time--and to withhold the truth from their members about their involvement with Arnold, as evidenced by this deleted page.
Also deleted for some (CYA) reason is Reuters' explanation for why they no longer use the word "terrorist" when describing head-sawing, civilian-bombing savages. I bring this up because "reporter" Jim Christie isn't shy about branding peaceable Americans who simply observe and report crimes to the authorities as "vigilantes." So much for Reuters' vaunted editorial pledge:
We do not take sides and attempt to reflect in our stories, pictures and video the views of all sides. We are not in the business of glorifying one side or another or of disseminating propaganda. Reuters journalists do not offer their own opinions or views.
Right.
[Liberty Belles]
7 comments:
"I never believed in armed Minutemen," attributed to Schwarzenegger at a meeting with the governor of Baja California.
Well, that can only mean he doesn't believe in America,since armed Minutemen started it all. Isn't time he took his useless carcass back to Austria where they don't believe in freedom and citizen rights either?
I hate to be exactly the person you're describing, but let's remember that we now have to worry about Warren Beatty as Arnie's opponent. Beatty's wife, Annette Bening, is on the board of HCI. Beatty, as an actor with precious little connection to reality, would DEFINITELY sign bills like SB 357, whereas I think Arnie would find that just too crazy.
If we're single-issue voters, we have to support the musclehead. The danger to our rights in this state is very real.
Scott, first of all, there is no indication Beatty would run--the left has attacked him recently for making noise and then retreating to his mansion.
Second--what is your basis for saying Arnold wouldn't sign any bill? Wishful thinking, or do you have some factual basis to conclude that?
I'm curious as to where your line in the sand is--how far does a politico have to go before you realize the only one who will lose will be you? Pirro vs Hillary? Giuliani?
Where does your method give the GOP any incentive to change?
If they realize they can't win without gun owner support, you will see them put forth the effort to give us what we want.
I'm tired of this crap. I've about had it with politics anyway--both parties are interested in the same thing--their being in power, and the hell with everything else. No one gives up power unless they HAVE to.
If that means the Dems must win an election cycle or more, so be it--maybe they'll squeeze hard enough and enough people will get motivated to do something besides bitch among themselves.
Maybe if we stop trying to delay the coming tyranny, they will heat things up enough to get the frog to jump.
In any case, if it's coming, it's our job to face it now, rather than avoid it so it gets dumped on our children.
So go ahead and vote for Arnold. I hope there are enough like me to block him--and to let the Repubs know exactly why THEY blew it.
Whoa, whoa, easy David. We're on the same side and I'm a big fan of the site.
A lot of this debate is hypothetical, but here's what we know.
Aside from AB50, which was the mother of all wedge issues in California, Schwarzenegger has vetoed every single other anti-gun bill that's hit his desk. I'm not happy about the .50 ban either, but I think his actions are founded in a desire to seem moderate, not a yearning to ban firearms. Am I sure he would veto ammo serialization? No. But from what I've seen, and from what I know of his hate-hate relationship with those legislators, I'm relatively optimistic.
And yes, Beatty is a little far-fetched. Still, can we expect much better from someone like Phil Angelides? What if Lockyer runs?
It's just that I don't see losing and then getting angrier about it as a practical policy. This state has already absorbed an AWB, handgun licensing, safety inspection, and that insane mag-disconnect law without doing anything about it. And while the state may in fact be trending red, I'm loathe to give up ground, since it's VERY hard to regain lost freedoms. I almost became a criminal this year for owning 100 rounds of American Eagle.
Also, for the record, I'm not a Republican. I WAS a Democrat, but their anti-gun mania in this state has driven me most of the way out of their ranks.
I don't want to vote for someone who bans a kind of rifle. But I REALLY don't want to abandon him and turn us over to a California Democrat.
Of course, if the GOP can get an electable guy to the big dance, I'll happily vote for him, too. Despite my Democratic leanings, I'm a big McClintock fan.
Scott, no need for the "whoa." One of the problems with Internet ocmmunications is lack of nonverbal cues, so we tend to infer emotion based on our POV.
As for the bills Arnie vetoed, they were political losers anyway, and nowhere near in import or risk to him. I know the gun lobby groups portrayed it as a significant off-setting of his .50 ban, but they weren't even in the same league, he could safely nix them, and look at all the good publicity the lobby groups gave him, while the other side kept quiet about their loss.
That said, you didn't answer my questions about just when you'd draw your political line in the sand. You didn't tell me how your method will induce the GOP to change.
And as for an electable candidate, one of the great myths perpetuating the last election is that McClintock was unelectable. Next time someone makes that "authoritative" statement, ask him for his source--because the truth is, no less than a CNN/Gallup poll showed McClintock beating the opposition by a solid 19% had the party convinced Arnold to drop out. But the "moderates"--folks who think gun owners are to be used but not acknowledged --now have the power, and will continue to derail conservative candidates and exploit gun owners. They're counting on the fact that they can, and depserate gun owners have no place else to turn. Your support in spite of betrayal confirms this, so they will continue to do what they see works.
Well, I didn't answer the question about GOP strategy because I'm not in the GOP. I for one would like to see same-sex marriage, I detest the drug war, and I maintain that government can play an important role in helping society.
However, I am willing to completely toss aside these other concerns because our gun rights are endangered in this state.
As for a line in the sand, I prefer to see things more as a holding action. I have good reason to believe that this state will turn reddish within the decade, and while I'd like to see the .50 ban repealed, I believe it is a lot harder to repeal bans than it is to simply fight them wherever they pop up. And, if redistricting passes, and it's performed along our changing demographics, we could actually be okay.
But, again, I see repealing vicious anti-gun laws as a LOT harder than simply stopping them. With a Democratic governor, I don't see how they'll be stopped. With Schwarzenegger, from what I've heard about him, he was basically forced to ban the .50, but otherwise he doesn't like signing those bills.
Again, it's all hypothetical.
And, as my last 'graph said, I DO think McClintock is electable. If he's as ethically spotless as they say he is, then he's an easy sell.
Would you rather have Arnie and his cronies ban guns gun by gun or the Democrats try to ban them all at once?
I choose neither. Screw Arnie. Yet another reason not to trust Europeans to defend American freedom. If I were running things, I'd put him on a one-way ticket back to Austria.
Post a Comment