[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

At the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the use of firearms in hunting was far more than a sport. In the West, it was the main source of meat. A rifle was as much a part of the frontiersman’s kit as an axe. State militias, not a standing army, served the nascent nation’s security (West Point was established later, in 1802). But states provided training, not firearms.

As such, it is ridiculous to read the Second Amendment as saying only militia’s have the ‘right to keep and bear arms.

The only reason to question this view is an obscure and confusing 1939 US Supreme Court seemed to suggest something different, that perhaps only when serving in a militia did Americans have the right to “keep and bear arms”.

This silly argument has been used as the bugaboo of groups like the N.R.A. for years – as follows: If the right to own a gun is only collective, limited to militias, then gun control laws could be passed that grab your gun. In fact, every gun control law passed is just a step in the direction of confiscation. So (to twist logic) every gun control law must be resisted to avoid confiscation. Oh, and send us a lot of money for that fight.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

Dan Walters wrote in yesterday's Bee that any “dirty trick” the Republicans attempt to impose on voters is OK as long as Democrats continue to control the redistricting process.

The US Constitution has awarded the Presidency to the man selected by the electoral votes of states since the founding. 47 states award all of the state’s electoral votes to the party garnering a majority of the popular vote in the State.

The Republicans, as is typical, seek to change this allocation because they can’t win a majority in California. Rather than play the game better – as Governor Schwarzenegger pleaded with them to do – they choose to try and change the rules so they won’t need a majority to win. The effort will fail. Voters shown the title and summary of this measure reject it 25-48.

But why would Walters call this movement away from majority rule “fairer than the present winner take all system”? Doesn’t it simply reflect what Governor Schwarzenegger railed against at the latest GOP conclave? That Republicans have failed to earn votes by fielding candidates worthy of them?

by atdleft [courtesy of Calitics: Soapblox California - Front Page]