Schwarzenegger finally disappoints me :(

I have been an outspoken supporter of Arnold since he threw in his hat for the governorship of California. When everyone else turned on him, I supported him. He has been a champion for Californians against the stranglehold of special interest groups and this bumbling idiotic assembly.

So it was a great disappointment for me that while Arnold nears the end of his heroic governorship, he is caving. Arnold recently passed a slew of bills in a midnight tussle with the assembly.

I could agree with much of what he past, but one thing in particular is really depressing me.

Now he has signed into law a requirement that any person who buys handgun bullets in this state must provide all their personal information for a document, signed by them, certified through identification, and fingerprints, so it can be put on file with the state government.

If you don't live in California, and/or you don't own a gun, you probably don't know California is one of the strictest gun law states in the U.S. Whether you agree or not with the laws is somewhat irrelevant to my current gripe.

Whether you like it or not, the Second Amendment gives the people the right to bear arms. I understand that this new law is not eliminating that right, but it is putting a great hindrance on it.

If they can so thoroughly trash one right, what legal ground does anyone have to defend any others? If they make it mandatory for anyone who wants to speak in public to provide their ID, fingerprints, and submit their information to the government, would that make sense to you?

You may argue that words can't hurt people. And you'd be a moron do so. One of the easiest ways of controlling free speech would be right here on the internet. Imagine having to submit all your personal information to the government every time you wanted to make a blog post; just in case terrorists get the idea they can exchange their information and ideas freely, they put a lock down on internet communication. Would that make sense? It's perfectly winable, if rights aren't really rights as soon as someone might hurt someone else.

Criminals don't even obtain their guns legally. Do you really think this law has a damn thing to do with stopping criminals? You could ID the bullet all you want, you'll find the guy who bought the bullets legally and was robbed. Or you'll find homemade shells, or shell decoys, or "clean" shells.

But even if this did solve a crime, or at least point to another crime (as a criminal would probably at the least pay someone else who legally obtains bullets) it is at such a cost, that I can not see an overall benefit.

Certainly, if we were all forced to live in cages, the murder rate would disappear. This is not how humanity is supposed to work.

This is the disarming of law abiding citizens. It is the same back door technique employed by Mexico. Make the bullets unatainably expensive through regulations.

Some people think that's a good idea. The new adage "If a bullet cost (insert a lot of money here) people would think twice before they shot someone." True. And if bullets were that expensive, no one would have any practice, except the criminals who would just make their own, or smuggle them in, so that would be one more point against any law abiding citizen ever able to defend themselves.


The California prison population has increased over 73% since 1990. That is 3 times faster than the population of adults has grown.

Are Californians becoming worse people, in dire need of authoritarian rule?
Or is the system broken, and in a perpetual cycle of imprisonment and punishment?

Is the solution to crime, disarming noncriminals?

Is the solution to social issues, imprisoning minorities disproportionately, and coming up with new ways of doing it?

Even if you are for strong gun control, don't you see the terrifying issue at hand, California is throwing people away! And there's no sign it's getting better. More ways to put people away is going to further this prison system that the state can not even afford now.