In an earlier post, I had questioned whether gun owners have gained, lost or stayed the same re dumping Governor Davis, and replacing him with Arnold Schawatzenegger. I suppose that a great deal of the answer to that question will revolve around the new governor's actions re gun control measures currently on his desk, awaiting action. If he veto's them, the picture might well turn out to be quite bright. If he signs them or allows them to become law without acting, the answer will be quite different. By the way, though I haven't lived in California in a great many years, I never-the-lesss sent an e-mail and a fax to the governor's office, soliciting his veto of the above mentioned legislation. We shall see what happens.
Otherwise, it strikes me that the following might be instructive or worth thinking about.
I [support the second amendment, but I] also believe that there are responsibilities that gun owners must follow in owning a firearm. I support the Brady bill, I support the current assault weapons ban and I believe that guns must have safety devices or be stored as to prevent accidental discharge. Source: Campaign website, JoinArnold.com Aug 29, 2003
Let's take a look at what is there.
"Gun owners have responsibilities". Most certainly, and the vast majority thereof pay very close attention to their responsibilities, respecting firearms. Automobile owners have responsibilities too, and a great many of them do not seem to pay much attention to their responsibilities, as evidenced by the large numbers of year in, year out deaths and injuries that arise from auto accidents and poor driving. Nobody, so far as I can recall, has ever proposed doing away with the ownership of automobiles, nor have there ever been proposals to seriously limit the ownership thereof. The situation with firearms is markedly different, isn't it?
"I support The Brady Bill". Does that expressed support include support for the abuse thereof, such as The FBI is famous or infamous for? Then what of the basic premise therein, in Brady that is. That being, from where I sit, that it's perfectly acceptable to reduce a basic civil right, to something akin to a privilege, that can be administratively granted or denied, one where the citizen has to "prove their innocense", to the satisfaction of a faceless bureaucracy, one that all to often, has failed to properly perform what are significant parts of the job it is paid to perform.
"I support the current assault weapons ban". Might this be the assault weapons ban that, so far as anyone can tell, has yet even slightly effected, let alone "banned" assault weapon #1?
"I believe that guns must have safety devices or be stored as to prevent accidental discharge". In-so-far as I can remember, with the exception of revolvers, I never saw any example of modern small arms that did not have some sort of "safety device" incorporated as an integral part of the firearm. I can not recall ever seeing any modern firearm whose condition, loaded or unloaded, could not be readily determined by the simplest viaual examination.
Having noted the above, what is the source of the remarks in quotations. The source appears to be as follows. Campaign website, JoinArnold.com Aug 29, 2003. Assuming sourcing to be correct, let me know if it isn't, the following questions come to my mind, and remember that it's been years since I lived in California. Who wrote the comments quoted in the above. Did they actually reflect Arnold's thinking. Do they reflect his current thinking, people have been known to undergo changes of mind, or to obtain "better" understandings of issues, the result of time passing.
Interesting though these questions might be, of immediate importance is or will be what he does with the legislation now on his desk. Depending on how that goes, people might then find it worth while to look closely at questions pertaining to comment appearing in his 2003 campaign web site.
Otherwise, it strikes me that the following might be instructive or worth thinking about.
I [support the second amendment, but I] also believe that there are responsibilities that gun owners must follow in owning a firearm. I support the Brady bill, I support the current assault weapons ban and I believe that guns must have safety devices or be stored as to prevent accidental discharge. Source: Campaign website, JoinArnold.com Aug 29, 2003
Let's take a look at what is there.
"Gun owners have responsibilities". Most certainly, and the vast majority thereof pay very close attention to their responsibilities, respecting firearms. Automobile owners have responsibilities too, and a great many of them do not seem to pay much attention to their responsibilities, as evidenced by the large numbers of year in, year out deaths and injuries that arise from auto accidents and poor driving. Nobody, so far as I can recall, has ever proposed doing away with the ownership of automobiles, nor have there ever been proposals to seriously limit the ownership thereof. The situation with firearms is markedly different, isn't it?
"I support The Brady Bill". Does that expressed support include support for the abuse thereof, such as The FBI is famous or infamous for? Then what of the basic premise therein, in Brady that is. That being, from where I sit, that it's perfectly acceptable to reduce a basic civil right, to something akin to a privilege, that can be administratively granted or denied, one where the citizen has to "prove their innocense", to the satisfaction of a faceless bureaucracy, one that all to often, has failed to properly perform what are significant parts of the job it is paid to perform.
"I support the current assault weapons ban". Might this be the assault weapons ban that, so far as anyone can tell, has yet even slightly effected, let alone "banned" assault weapon #1?
"I believe that guns must have safety devices or be stored as to prevent accidental discharge". In-so-far as I can remember, with the exception of revolvers, I never saw any example of modern small arms that did not have some sort of "safety device" incorporated as an integral part of the firearm. I can not recall ever seeing any modern firearm whose condition, loaded or unloaded, could not be readily determined by the simplest viaual examination.
Having noted the above, what is the source of the remarks in quotations. The source appears to be as follows. Campaign website, JoinArnold.com Aug 29, 2003. Assuming sourcing to be correct, let me know if it isn't, the following questions come to my mind, and remember that it's been years since I lived in California. Who wrote the comments quoted in the above. Did they actually reflect Arnold's thinking. Do they reflect his current thinking, people have been known to undergo changes of mind, or to obtain "better" understandings of issues, the result of time passing.
Interesting though these questions might be, of immediate importance is or will be what he does with the legislation now on his desk. Depending on how that goes, people might then find it worth while to look closely at questions pertaining to comment appearing in his 2003 campaign web site.