PING! 
Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!
Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin.
Posted on 08/27/2003 1:17:48 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
Bill Clinton, in 1993.
Imagine that Arnold wins. He then signs the new, improved Kalifornia "assault weapons" ban which adds the Springfield Armory M1A and the Ruger Mini-14 to the list of proscribed firearms.
Please tell me why he would not do this.
Please tell me how it would ever be possible for me to vote for Arnold. Any gunowner who does so is supporting his own disarmament.
That loophole is the Second Amendment!
Molon Labe!
Great, but McClintock doesn't have a snowball's chance of ever being elected. Between Arnold and Cruz, I'll take Arnold, even though I would rather he were more pro-gun rights. At least he will listen to both sides, and believes that people generally have the right to own guns and defend themselves. I know Cruz will support any gun control bill, period.
I'm assuming you're referring to the waiting period. Actually, if you have a state-issued CCW, no, there is no waiting period on handguns, and there is none at all on long guns.
This is a ridiculous assertion, not based on any serious reasoning. It's just an impression, and a false one at that. Go ahead argue on behalf of Liberal Arnold and how you want to put the Kennedy family in charge of the Republican Party in California, but quit using that argument based on media polls.
Reagan was long out of office. Clinton signed the bill. Reagan did issue a statement of support for the bill, but one suspects that might have actually been Nancy, since by that time his Alzheimers was fairly well along.
There is no federal waiting period on either. Provided your instant background check really is instant. Could be up to 3 working days otherwise. There was a 5 day waiting period on handguns, and no check on longguns at all, in the interum period while the instant check system was being developed. It was something of a trick that longguns came under the instant check at all.
Now that is a ridiculous assertion. One need only look at the fact that no Republicans hold statewide office as a starting point. Then consider that the Democrats outnumber Republicans, and are going to be united behind their candidate, while the Republicans will be divided (unless McClintock drops out). The unions and Mexican political organiziations will be working overtime to get their constituents out to vote for Cruz, and they are very effective. Tom McClintock has virtually no appeal to moderate independents and Hispanics, Arnold does. Finally some polls are garbage, but they can't all be that far off. You can dismiss the polls if you want; supporters of losing candidates who don't have a snowball's chance of winning always do.
Go ahead argue on behalf of Liberal Arnold and how you want to put the Kennedy family in charge of the Republican Party in California, but quit using that argument based on media polls.
Arnold is clearly a moderate, not a liberal. The fact that he is married to a Shriver (not a Kennedy BTW) doesn't mean electing him is "putting the Kennedy familiy in charge" of CA. You can't judge people by their family, and particularly by their in laws. Nearly all of my family are liberals (family reunions get pretty hot) but I've been a conservative since the 70's. It might surprize you to know that Maria Shriver's mom is a long-time anti-abortion activist, who received several awards from pro-life groups for her work. Not exactly your typical Kennedy.
He might, but he very well might not. At least he would listen to the arguments against before deciding.
Cruz Bustamental would not only sign it in a heartbeat, he would actively campaign to get it passed.
What McClintock would do is academic since he has no chance of being elected.
The great myth in politics today is that a moderae Republican brings on the whole Republican base, plus some of the Democrats. The fact is that do-called moderate Republicans turn off more people than they appeal to. That's why the moderates we have nominated to statewide office have done so miserably.
Tom Campbell got 34% against Feinstein in 2000. Even Lungren in 98 got a greater percentage of women voters. There are a whole lot of prolife, profamily gun owners out there -- of both parties -- who won't vote for a liberal Republican.
Then consider that the Democrats outnumber Republicans
Consider that people who are registered as Democrats very frequently vote Republican, and also that Democrats have very poor voter turnout. In legislative races in California, a seat with 44% Republican registration is considered a SAFE Republican seat, but for a Democrat seat to be safe they need 48% Democrat registration.
Most importantly this recall like all special elections is going to favor Republican turnout. Becasue it is all about recalling Davis the people who can't stand him (i.e. Republicans) will tunr out in droves. There will be plenty of Republican votes to go around in this.
There are no rational arguments in favor of the present "assault weapons" laws. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that there is a crime problem associated with pistol grips or flash suppressors.
Arnold already stated his support for an irrational law and you want me to give him another chance to consider it? Do you anticipate that he will suddenly realize that no "assault weapons" should be outlawed? Will he come up with his own definition of an "assault weapon" to add to the many already on the books in several states and at the federal level?
The truth about "assault weapons" is already available. Arnold values my opinion on this issue so lowly that he parrots the liberal anti-gun nonsense.
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.