Schwarzenegger promises to support Feinstein's effort to extend a federal AWB!


PDA






WonderNine
October 31, 2003, 12:10 AM
Found this on awbansunset.com:

http://www.awbansunset.com/forums/viewthread.php?tid=1137

Just wanted to give you all a heads up.

I hope nobody voted for Scharzy because he was the "lesser" of two evils. :rolleyes:

I've long since stopped voting that way.

If you enjoyed reading about "Schwarzenegger promises to support Feinstein's effort to extend a federal AWB!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Monkeyleg
October 31, 2003, 12:12 AM
In the words of Gomer Pyle: suprise, suprise, suprise!

Bill Hook
October 31, 2003, 12:17 AM
RECALL!

QuickDraw
October 31, 2003, 01:05 AM
Hey,this is pretty good!
Arnies not even in office yet and I can say
"Don't blame me,I voted for Mc Clintock!".:D

QuickDraw

tyme
October 31, 2003, 01:20 AM
Did anyone seriously think Schwarzenegger was even remotely pro-gun?

Jim March
October 31, 2003, 01:22 AM
Admittedly, this isn't good.

However, two points:

1) This is CNN reporting, and not with direct quotes. They're grabber enough to twist something, we don't REALLY know what was said.

2) Ignoring that, look at the context: Arnold heads to DC to try and get the California congressional/senate delegation to give him at least SOME backup. And the senate delegation is 100% gun-grabber, the house seats maybe 20% hardcore grabber, another 40%+ will go along with grabbing. So to get their help, he makes some grabber noises, which we get filtered via the Communist New Network (see point 1 above).

Now, politics is about horse-trading, at least some of the time. So here we see Arnold trading something he DOESN'T have for something they have.

We'll see. Wait till the next legislative session, and Perata fires up the bullet tax and Koretz goes for 50s...then we'll see.

Sven
October 31, 2003, 01:27 AM
This looks grim. No surprise.

jimpeel
October 31, 2003, 01:32 AM
To be fair, what he really said was Sound File (http://www.moviewavs.com/TV_Shows/3rd_Rock_From_The_Sun/befriend.wav)

tyme
October 31, 2003, 01:40 AM
Going to Washington, making gun-grabbing noises, and getting friendly with Feinswine lends credence to the message of the gun grabbers. Here's an ex-Austrian who in a few ways at least represents the american dream and who just won the California recall election by a large margin, and he's saying assault weapons are bad.

There's more to politics than who votes for what. Schwarzenegger's claim of support for the AWB, whether the support is real or not, has real consequences that are not good.

50 Shooter
October 31, 2003, 01:42 AM
I'll be the first one to say that if he does go for the AWB then fine, you should've voted for Tom. I'm not going to sit here and worry, let them say and do all they want. :banghead:

If you voted for one of the evils, your just getting what you deserve. Don't whine or cry about it or come up with an excuse, it's to late. If you didn't listen or read the writing on the walls then who's really at fault? Recall my A**, go ahead and try, it will never happen!

I voted for Tom and all I can say is I'm :cuss: stuck with Arnie! Oh well, I guess we're going to find out how deep the rabbit hole really goes.:barf:

Gary H
October 31, 2003, 01:50 AM
It sure made me nervous to see so many of the Kennedy clan on stage on his "victory" night.

NIGHTWATCH
October 31, 2003, 01:56 AM
Another actor I will not....OH SCREW AHNALD!!! :cuss:

God I hate spineless hypocrites. This guy made his fortune shoving gun barrels down the camera lens and now he wants to side with that %#@*! :fire:

Telperion
October 31, 2003, 01:58 AM
It may be a small move in the larger game, but not good. I'll be watching how he reacts to the next round of grabber legislation from our loony bin in Sacramento.

Skunkabilly
October 31, 2003, 03:31 AM
But...but he's a Republican! The pendulum will swing back to the right! We have to start SOMEWHERE! Looks he's the lesser of two evils! Do you want Bustamante to win? :rolleyes:

:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :cuss:

WonderNine
October 31, 2003, 03:52 AM
This whole left/right b.s. really drives me up the wall. It's not left vs. right, it's liberator vs. oppressor.

Sergeant Bob
October 31, 2003, 06:42 AM
Capitol Hill in frenzy over Schwarzenegger
Gov.-elect gets star treatment, seeks fire funds
New York Times

Schwarzenegger made few policy pronouncements, though he did vow to work with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to reauthorize a federal assault weapons ban. Asked if he would raise taxes to help defray the cost of the fires, he said "Now is the wrong time to make that decision."

Marin Independent Journal (http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~24410~1733083,00.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Star-struck in D.C.
Capitol's all aflutter for Schwarzenegger
By Michael Doyle and David Whitney -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Thursday, October 30, 2003

"What's past is past," Feinstein said while meeting with Schwarzenegger in her Senate hideaway office. "One of the ways that I think we have to go is to turn the page and move on, and now is the time to solve some of the problems. And I will help him in any way I possibly can."

Schwarzenegger pledged to "work together" with Feinstein to reauthorize an assault weapons ban. Boxer pressed the governor-elect for more education funding. He said, "Sure."

Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/7694216p-8633964c.html)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't Arnold the Stealth Pro Gun Candidate? Do you think Fineswine would "help him in any way I possibly can" unless there was something in it for her?
Also, didn't he say he would only raise taxes in case of emergency? Guess what, California is having an emergency.
He isn't even Governor yet and he's already throwing you under the bus.

Jim March
October 31, 2003, 07:13 AM
Ya, well, Tom decided not to be governor. His choice. We're living with it.

We ain't gonna know what's up with Arnold until next year's flood of crap.

2dogs
October 31, 2003, 07:22 AM
Did anyone seriously think Schwarzenegger was even remotely pro-gun?

Uh, was he the "stealth" candidate?:rolleyes: :neener:

KMKeller
October 31, 2003, 07:24 AM
Jim,

What about your whole "Arnold is a pro-gun candidate" schpeel? What about the substantial amounts of money he donated to gun rights groups?

So far, it looks like Angel and Nicki had this guy pegged dead on.

Brett Bellmore
October 31, 2003, 07:50 AM
"Ya, well, Tom decided not to be governor. His choice. We're living with it"

Um, this would be the same Tom who caught hell from the Republican establishment for NOT pulling out of the race? I thought it was more along the lines of the party establishment deciding that he wouldn't be governor, so they put their thumb on the scale by coming out en mass for Arnold.

Jim, you're the one who was talking about a stealth candidate, and you sure couldn't have been talking about McClintock. So it was either Arnold, or somebody WAY down the ballot...

Tamara
October 31, 2003, 09:02 AM
I think anybody with a room-temperature IQ saw this one coming.

Yeah, sure, he's donated to the NRA. Heck, he may even be a member. So was George Bush when he announced the banning of imported "assault weapons."

I think some folks really, really, really wanted to believe that he was secretly pro-gun, or at least neutral on the subject, but it looks like wishing don't make it so.


This also shows where the man's head's at. All the problems in CA right now, with businesses and citizens fleeing, illegals flooding in, the economy circling the bowl, and half the frickin' state on fire, and he's got time to go gallivanting off to DC and natter about assault weapons?!?

I think the state GOP faithful are about to get a full dose reminder of the "we get the government we deserve" type...

KMKeller
October 31, 2003, 10:27 AM
Now the only question that remains is, "Was Arnold playing the pro-gun crowd (NRA and CCRKBA) by leveraging his donation record? Or was pro-gun leadership deliberately undermining Tom McClintock?"... Inquiring minds want to know.

Brett Bellmore
October 31, 2003, 10:38 AM
We can only guess.

That said, it would not be out of character for the NRA to attempt to deceive gun owners about Arnold, in order to hurt McClintock, out of a conviction that McClintock doing well would result in Bustemante getting elected. They frequently work against the best candidate, in an effort to prevent the worst from getting elected. And if it takes a bit of deception to accomplish that, they lie.

I don't think they've ever taken into account how much it weakens us, knowing that we can't trust our own leadership.

Sean Smith
October 31, 2003, 11:13 AM
I don't think this is necessarily cause for too much alarm, insofar as Arnold has no role in the approval/disapproval of a federal AWB. Him saying that he'd support an extension of the AWB it in some fashon basically means nothing from a practical point of view.

Of course, it also means that he cares nothing about pro-gun voters now that he has gotten their votes. Um... duh?

Funny thing was, when I was on a recent business trip to California the talk radio stations were talking about Arnold as if he was this ultra-right-wing radical that somehow got into office because of the rabbid conservative orthodoxy of... get this... Southern California. One Bay area pundit suggested that the "reasonable centrists" (tee hee!) of the San Francisco area seceed to escape the SoCal radical rightists.

My impression is that California was lucky to get Arnold, though I will admit that saying so is on par with saying, "You have Smallpox! Great! I mean, you could have gotten Ebola..."

But I'm probalby not being fair to Cali. Almost being run over by an unreconstructed old hippie on a bicycle while walking out of an In-N-Out burger joint with a double-double probalby soured my impression from the start. Though the burger did get California some points back. Please don't slide into the Pacific until there is a In-N-Out franchise in Dallas. :D

FPrice
October 31, 2003, 11:28 AM
Now that he is governor, how about trying to educate him and maybe get him over to our side? Maybe it's a long shot but it sure beats hanging around whining and pouting like a set of bad brakes.

KMKeller
October 31, 2003, 11:33 AM
how about trying to educate him and maybe get him over to our side

You seriously expect him to listen to us while he's got the Kennedy clan in his ear every second of every minute of every day? He knows where his bread is buttered, and anybody that didn't think he'd start towing the Kennedy line once in office is smoking something funky. His involvement in 2A groups was a "hobby" for him, something that was indulged. Now that he's in the spotlight, there's not going to be a lot of indulging in hobbys anymore. Especially not those hobbies that are politically incorrect or counter to the Kennedy family party line.

Tempest
October 31, 2003, 11:45 AM
Hey, he was SUPPOSED to have been on our side to begin with, according to some.

Pendragon
October 31, 2003, 12:22 PM
Whats really infuriating is - CA already bans all the fun guns - the federal AWB does not affect CA in the least - but they want to pass it to affect people in other states.

That should be considered an act of interstate agression. :cuss:

Gary H
October 31, 2003, 12:24 PM
You might have noticed that Arnold is trying to be favored by everyone. That may be his weakness. He wants to be everyone's governor; including the folks that are from another planet. Davis recently pointed out that California is a diverse population with her citizens originating from "many planets." I think that we could all agree on that one.

KMKeller
October 31, 2003, 12:26 PM
I left California in '92, shortly after the South Central riots. I've never looked back, and am glad I didn't.

Hey Skunk, I've got a spare bedroom out here in NC you can occupy while looking for work if you wanna bail...

Jim March
October 31, 2003, 01:30 PM
On Arnold:

Yes, he gave money to pro-gun groups. Not just NRA, either.

So far, he ain't even in office yet. It's all just talk. We do NOT know which way that big froggy is really gonna jump yet.

(Plus we're hearing his opinions seriously filtered through CNN, so we don't really know what he's up to NOW.)

The good news is, there's a serious movement afoot to repeal the US birth requirement for Prez. Both GOP and Dems have up-and-coming foreign-born stars, notably Gov. Granholm I think her name is in Michigan (Canadian import if I recall right?) and a couple others on the Dem side. So Arnold has a REAL shot at the brass ring if he can fix California's finances.

Any politician who thinks they have a shot at the title WILL avoid looking like a grabber, after what happened to Gore in the shall-issue states in 2000. Esp. since there's what, five more shall-issue states since then?

On Tom:

He knew that no "hardline pro-life" candidate can win the brass ring in California. OK? He *knew* that going in. His anti-gay stance is both almost as much a killer plus it's morally unsupportable except on religious grounds which in that form, organized discrimination against people, has no place in politics.

So knowing he couldn't win, he went in to advance his financial ideas which admittedly are very good (as are his RKBA ideas, which he did NOT push as concepts during the election like he did finances).

Now, he did what he wanted to do on the financial ideas, and that's good. Hats off. But he was no more a serious candidate to WIN than Larry Flint or Gary Coleman. He knew he wasn't going to win going in, or he was a complete idiot which I don't believe for a second.

So, with Tom having decided not to win, it's hardly fair to blame me, the NRA or anybody else for taking away a small fraction of 1% of the gunnie vote.

In fact, bashing me or anybody else continually about the head over it is flat silly.

KMKeller
October 31, 2003, 02:00 PM
The good news is, there's a serious movement afoot to repeal the US birth requirement for Prez. Both GOP and Dems have up-and-coming foreign-born stars, notably Gov. Granholm I think her name is in Michigan (Canadian import if I recall right?) and a couple others on the Dem side. So Arnold has a REAL shot at the brass ring if he can fix California's finances.


Forgive me Jim, but this is neither good news, nor is Arnold a valid candidate for Governor, much less President. This qualifies as the most ludicrous thing I've heard this year.

"Any politician who thinks they have a shot at the title WILL avoid looking like a grabber"

Telling Feinstein he will help renew the Clinton/Feinstein gun ban doesn't make him look like a grabber?

Gary H
October 31, 2003, 02:00 PM
We have one thing going for us. Restrictive laws dictate new state structures and demand enforcement. Enforcement cost money. Money is in rather short supply. The laws that could hurt us are those that require gun owners, manufacturers and vendors to supply the dollars. A good example would be liability laws requiring new forms of insurance. I've got to believe that over the next year the focus will be elsewhere, regardless of where Arnold puts his hat.

KMKeller
October 31, 2003, 02:04 PM
He knew that no "hardline pro-life" candidate can win the brass ring in California. OK? He *knew* that going in. His anti-gay stance is both almost as much a killer plus it's morally unsupportable except on religious grounds which in that form, organized discrimination against people, has no place in politics.

So knowing he couldn't win, he went in to advance his financial ideas which admittedly are very good (as are his RKBA ideas, which he did NOT push as concepts during the election like he did finances).

Now, he did what he wanted to do on the financial ideas, and that's good. Hats off. But he was no more a serious candidate to WIN than Larry Flint or Gary Coleman. He knew he wasn't going to win going in, or he was a complete idiot which I don't believe for a second.


God forbid that he shouldn't talk out of both sides of his face like the rest of them. I expected better from you Jim. Everything you just said is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You claimed Arnold was a stealth candidate. It's quite obvious he's not. So quit spinning already bud, you're making me dizzy.

tyme
October 31, 2003, 02:12 PM
[Tamara] I think anybody with a room-temperature IQ saw this one coming.
The sad effect of the boiling of American Frogs is that all the 212 degree steam (average frogs use Farenheit) has increased room temperature substantially from its original 65-70 degrees.

GSB
October 31, 2003, 02:48 PM
I don't think this is necessarily cause for too much alarm, insofar as Arnold has no role in the approval/disapproval of an AWB. Him saying that he'd support an extension of the AWB it in some fashon basically means nothing from a practical point of view.

I respectfully disagree. He is a very high profile celebrity politician of nominally "Republican" designation. His endorsement of this monstrosity, this affront to the Constitution, does nothing but raise it in the public consciousness and provide fodder for those who will now say that "reasonable Republicans" like Arnold and Bush are for AWB renewal.

This is bad. Just because he can't vote on it doesn't make it less so.

Sven
October 31, 2003, 03:33 PM
We have one thing going for us. Restrictive laws dictate new state structures and demand enforcement. Enforcement cost money. Money is in rather short supply.

Perhaps the understatement of the month!

But that never stopped them from spending, did it?

Mark Tyson
October 31, 2003, 03:58 PM
With all the problems in California, why on Earth is he concentrating on this ? I don't understand it in the least. He's fiddling while California burns, I guess . . . literally.

Besides, CA already has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country(maybe the worst), why does he want to inflict this mess on the rest of us?

Ugh.

Sean Smith
October 31, 2003, 05:17 PM
This is bad. Just because he can't vote on it doesn't make it less so.

That's a silly statement. OF COURSE it does. It is the difference between actually eating kittens, and just wondering out loud if they might be tasty with lemon pepper sauce.

GSB
October 31, 2003, 06:01 PM
That's a silly statement. OF COURSE it does. It is the difference between actually eating kittens, and just wondering out loud if they might be tasty with lemon pepper sauce.

Did you even bother to read my whole comment? If you had, you would understand the point I was trying to make. I'll reiterate so you don't have to go back and re-read it: he is a HIGH-PROFILE celebrity politician who is a "Republican". His public support of Feinstein's position brings this issue public attention it does not need and gives the opposition the talking point that "reasonable Republicans support the ban". This redounds to the negative for spineless Repubs who might be swayed one way or the other. Ergo, my contention that just because he can't vote on the fool thing doesn't render his support of it less onerous is justified. Get it now?

Wildalaska
October 31, 2003, 07:06 PM
Id be interested in knowing whetehr he has an registered weapons or a CHL....

WildilovehypocritesAlaska

Gordon Fink
October 31, 2003, 07:10 PM
Don’t worry. The gun-control folks won’t need Gov. Schwarzenegger’s help to get public attention focused on the renewal of the “assault”-weapons ban.

~G. Fink

Jim March
October 31, 2003, 07:12 PM
Discussing Tom isn't spin. In the last election, we had three choices: Arnold, Cruz or Gray. We got the best of THAT lot. Tom wasn't in the running, never was. If Arnold wasn't in there, it would have been Riorden and he's WAY worse than Arnold, worse than Cruz, only reason he'd have been a better pick than Davis is that Davis was driven more or less insane by the recall itself. When Davis beat Republican Lungren six years ago, we got the best of THOSE two...Davis isn't as big a grabber as Lungren OR Riorden.

So where's Arnold's head at? Again: look at why he was in DC: to play nice with the California senate/house delegation and get them to lobby on behalf of the state...including lobby for Federal help with the fire situation. So no, this was not "fiddling while the state burns", far from it. DiFi's BIG pet thing is the AW ban. If it tanks, her career goes with it. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the AW thing to her...and yes, she knows she'll never get the Presidency, so she can be as grabber as she wants.

So Arnold did some kissy-face with DiFi. Eewwww. Not a pretty sight.

But does it really mean anything?

Too soon to tell. Wait'll the bills start flying next year...then we find out.

Tempest
October 31, 2003, 07:31 PM
So Arnold did some kissy-face with DiFi. Eewwww. Not a pretty sight.

But does it really mean anything?

Too soon to tell. Wait'll the bills start flying next year...then we find out. Hardly the point. There was discussion earlier this year about Arnold being the "stealth" pro-gun candidate. The vomitous visual of the Terminator's osculatory activities with Feinschwein aside, I'm not seeing any indication that he's even leaning in the pro-gun direction. Are you saying he'll start proving his "pro-gunness" next year?

bountyhunter
October 31, 2003, 07:43 PM
In the words of Gomer Pyle: suprise, suprise, suprise!

Turns out he's just another Republican who was talking like a moderate to get elected. Gee, sure never saw that before here in ********** (REAGAN)

Standing Wolf
October 31, 2003, 09:38 PM
Never trust a R.I.N.O.

KMKeller
October 31, 2003, 10:47 PM
Sorry Jim, but I'm sure the California folks are a bit tired of "just you wait and see". Looks more and more like you were duped.

Mark Tyson
October 31, 2003, 11:06 PM
In the last election, we had three choices: Arnold, Cruz or Gray. We got the best of THAT lot.

I would say that Arnold is worse because he commands more attention.

CGofMP
October 31, 2003, 11:13 PM
Jim,
Straight up, now that the election is over, was A.S. the gentleman that you are quoted as refering to who was supposedly PRO gun but sang a somewhat anti-tune?

IE: Is A.S. your so-called stealth candidate?

If so, now that the election is over we'd all love to hear exactly what it was that you were told and by whom...

respectfully,
Charles

madmike
November 1, 2003, 12:44 AM
The good news is, there's a serious movement afoot to repeal the US birth requirement for Prez. Both GOP and Dems have up-and-coming foreign-born stars, notably Gov. Granholm I think her name is in Michigan (Canadian import if I recall right?) and a couple others on the Dem side. So Arnold has a REAL shot at the brass ring if he can fix California's finances.

The good news is, that means _I_ could run for president, being a former Brit who sought political asylum here.

Vote for me! You know where _I_ stand on this issue.

Stealth is for wussies.

Mark Tyson
November 1, 2003, 09:36 AM
President Arnold? That would be a disaster for us. As a prominent poiltician, when he talks people listen, and he's as anti as anti gets.

Arnold for President . . . of Andorra.

Jim March
November 1, 2003, 11:41 AM
Like I keep saying: yes, my info is that Arnold has been giving money to pro-gun groups for a LONG time. NRA and CCRKBA among them, no idea which others. JPFO is a possibility, as he was careful to give money to...well, Jews. For reasons that should be obvious.

He didn't give money to any PACs though, where his name would be public.

So again, straight up: we do NOT know yet where his head is at. Not for certain. Yes, he had all the appearance of a "closet gunnie" pre-election; now, he's made kissy somewhat with DiFi and said some stupid things.

BUT: for one second, put yourself in his shoes. He's got the world's ugliest budget mess on his hands. And unless he fixes it, he'll be a laughingstock in three years. To fix it, he's got to have the support of the state legislature, AND he's going to need the Calif legislative contingent running interference for him in DC.

Right? So what does it mean?

It means he CANNOT get into a "gun fight". Not this year for certain, probably not the next. Not until he's got the finances under control and is hailed as a hero for it. It doesn't MATTER what he believes, he could be literally as hardcore gunnie as Tamara and it wouldn't affect what he's got to do next: make as much peace as possible, keep the squabbles on all OTHER issues (besides budget/finance) to a minimum so he can hoard what political capital he has for that epic struggle.

Look, if you magically put ME in that job, it's what I'd do: concentrate on the budget, prevent WW3 from breaking out in any other issue, and then once I've turned the state's economy around an I'm hailed as a hero, THEN I can tell DiFi, Perata, Koretz and the rest to go piss up a rope while I deal with rolling back gun laws.

OK, that's the bad news.

The good news: the legislature is in exactly the same shape!!!

Their credibility has been pounded to scrap too. If Perata, Koretz and the rest of the anti-gun loonies pick long, drawn-out "gun fights" over the 50cals, ammo taxes and similar crap, the electorate is going to revolt yet again, this time in the voting booth for state legicritters. The voters want to see action on the BUDGET, on jobs, on unemployment insurance, the car tax, all that crap. For somebody like Perata to waste a bunch of time and energy on his pet political project would be political suicide.

Granted, he might not care...Perata is just nuts. BUT the rest of the Democrats in Sacramento understand all this and will stomp on the rabid grabbers faster than anyone because "team rabid" will end up getting them ALL in hot water with the voters.

So my prediction: we're looking at a MINIMUM of two years of gun-rights stalemate in the legislature.

carp killer
November 1, 2003, 09:50 PM
So my prediction: we're looking at a MINIMUM of two years of gun-rights stalemate in the legislature.

Good! Then let's see the NRA start spending my dues money on rolling back these gun laws. I want to see some gains for my money and support. Or has the NRA wrote off this state?:what:

Mark Tyson
November 1, 2003, 11:08 PM
Will it really be political suicide with Arnold, a prominent politician with much political capital, behind them? For that matter, Arnold's importance as Republican governor of the most poiltically important state will give him access to the president and Congress that no other politician will have. If he makes gun control a big issue, people will listen.

Jim March
November 1, 2003, 11:26 PM
Now let's toss a wildcard into the mix:

Don Kilmer's state constitutional RKBA initiative effort is probably going to start in the spring of '04, from what I hear, to try and get on the November '04 ballot.

It's a crapshoot from hell, but I hope he goes for it (speaking PERSONALLY, not while wearing my CCRKBA hat because I don't know where Alan and company stand yet).

What he's thinking is, he's hoping Bush's popularity in November will be on the rise from a rising economy and Iraq settling down, plus Arnold still having high positives at that point. There would then be a "Conservative rush to the polls" that he's hoping to capitalize on.

It's probably the best shot that initiative will have.

The downside: the media. They're going to go flat-out NUTS. We'll see BaBa Walthers interviewing Sarah Brady and asking questions like "isn't it true this initiative in California, if it passes, will kill hundreds of thousands of children!?"

I wish I was kidding. The reality is, the other side will have all the free PR they need.

BUT...trust in the mainstream media is at an all-time low. The right combination of circumstances and yes, it could still pass. Hey, it ain't like it's gonna make things worse.

The OTHER wildcard is the USSC. IF they grant cert to Silveira, we'll have a decision prior to Nov.04 that might have an impact either way: if it's good, it's support for us, if it's bad it'll seriously piss off our kind and energize gunnies as happened in Ohio recently. (Y'all should see the massive boost in traffic on Ohio gunnie mailing lists after that decision and it has NOT flagged at all.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Schwarzenegger promises to support Feinstein's effort to extend a federal AWB!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!