Can we vote?

[CLYDE3011]

Can we get it on the ballot?


I know it has been done in the past on other issues, casino's for example, but how can we put these items on the ballot for the public to vote?

I'm suggesting both CCW and changing or repealing this new gun ban... or both for that matter.

Granted this might be a double edged sword, if the vote is no, then we're pretty much toast. Not to mention I don't even know what has to happen to get it on a ballot, but I'm sure the NRA, MSI and such would get a chubby over that one.

Has this already been suggested in here? What are people's thoughts on it?

 

[hvymax]

They get to word the questions so we have little to no chance that way. They turn thing 180deg and put it on the ballot. Look what they did with marriage. I bet 90+% had no idea they were supporting Gay Marriage.

 

[CLYDE3011]

I don't follow...

They get to word the questions so we have little to no chance that way. They turn thing 180deg and put it on the ballot. Look what they did with marriage. I bet 90+% had no idea they were supporting Gay Marriage.

I'm sorry but I'm not following what you're saying....

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

The referendum option (putting it on the ballot) died on the vine at the end of May when there were not enough signatures gathered to make the first milestone requirement. Plenty of discussion was had on MDS during the months of April and May regarding this topic,

*** Am so tired of these "self important people" standing behind armed guards telling the "little people" they shouldn't have the ability to protect themselves. ***

 

[CLYDE3011]

I know i'll catch heat for this...

The referendum option (putting it on the ballot) died on the vine at the end of May when there were not enough signatures gathered to make the first milestone requirement. Plenty of discussion was had on MDS during the months of April and May regarding this topic,

*** Am so tired of these "self important people" standing behind armed guards telling the "little people" they shouldn't have the ability to protect themselves. ***

I'm fairly sure that my views on 2A are VASTLY different than most of the people on this board. While I do support the constitution, I believe that no right in the constitution is absolute, quite simply, it can't be.

if a police officer shoots a man who was about to kill his wife, it could be argued that the man shot was denied due process.

you can't shout fire in a movie theater...
Crazy people shouldn't have guns, I'm not really in a position to define 'crazy' but I really hope I'm not alone when I say "If you think your microwave is telling you to kill people" or "you think an acceptable response to an argument about parking is to shoot out their tires" you should not be allowed to have a gun.

you've heard them all, I don't have to continue.


What I do believe is that the government is subject to the will of the people. When the government starts imposing laws based on their own ideals and not the people they represent then we have an issue.

Look at Michigan's 'emergency manager law', the trap laws for abortion clinics, and now this law in Maryland that was a knee jerk reaction that happened in another state.

I guess my point is that nothing should be absolute, no matter which direction. There always has to be a caveat, without compromise what is the difference between Tyranny and Anarchy?

 

[dblas]

Can we get it on the ballot?


I know it has been done in the past on other issues, casino's for example, but how can we put these items on the ballot for the public to vote?

I'm suggesting both CCW and changing or repealing this new gun ban... or both for that matter.

Granted this might be a double edged sword, if the vote is no, then we're pretty much toast. Not to mention I don't even know what has to happen to get it on a ballot, but I'm sure the NRA, MSI and such would get a chubby over that one.

Has this already been suggested in here? What are people's thoughts on it?

1. Find a handful of friendly politicians in Annapolis to sponsor a bill or bills to do the above.

2. The bills go to committee, bust your ass and get as many folks into Annapolis to support the bills. Call, E-mail, Snail-mail them.

3. If the committee chair doesn't "desk drawer" (read Kill) the bill, then the committee votes on it.

4. If it gets voted out of committee, then get as many people as you can into Annapolis to support the bulls again, this time for the whole House or Senate.

5. House or Senate side votes on the bill, if it passes, it goes to the other side (i.e. Senate approves, now it goes to the House) for consideration.

6. Repeat steps 2 - 5 for the other chamber.

7. If passed by both sides, then it becomes a referendum.

8. The state gets to word the questions on the ballot (i.e. do you believe it is Maryland's best interest to repeal the AWB?). We, the citizens, have no input on the questions.

9. Bust you ass again, to get people educated on the issue. Not just the 2A community, but the everyday Maryland citizen. Now come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars for advertising to compete with and anti gun crowd.

10. Go vote and hope you have done a good enough job to win the referendum.

 

[Robert]

I'm fairly sure that my views on 2A are VASTLY different than most of the people on this board. While I do support the constitution, I believe that no right in the constitution is absolute, quite simply, it can't be.

if a police officer shoots a man who was about to kill his wife, it could be argued that the man shot was denied due process.

Really?

you can't shout fire in a movie theater...

Actually You Can, especially if there is indeed a fire.

Crazy people shouldn't have guns, I'm not really in a position to define 'crazy' but I really hope I'm not alone when I say "If you think your microwave is telling you to kill people" or "you think an acceptable response to an argument about parking is to shoot out their tires" you should not be allowed to have a gun.

you've heard them all, I don't have to continue.

I think you should, because who gets to define crazy? That is VERY important.

What I do believe is that the government is subject to the will of the people. When the government starts imposing laws based on their own ideals and not the people they represent then we have an issue.

Look at Michigan's 'emergency manager law', the trap laws for abortion clinics, and now this law in Maryland that was a knee jerk reaction that happened in another state.

I guess my point is that nothing should be absolute, no matter which direction. There always has to be a caveat, without compromise what is the difference between Tyranny and Anarchy?

There are many things that are absolute, or at least should be. I presume you are referring to the constitution. Whether you realize it or not, you are making a liberal argument.

...

 

[CLYDE3011]

yes, i am making a liberal arguement...

I am doing it for 2 reasons....

1. the majority of my idealogoly is liberal. Now, having said that please don't lump all people with liberal leanings as Nancy Pelosi.

2. I like to play devils advocate to create debate. Without a constructive conversation then the 20% of the nuts on the right and the 20% of the whackos on the left win.

was the man denied due process? he didn't get a trial of his peers so, how did he? (no, I don't believe this argument, but like I said, i'm playing devils advocate 'absolutist argument')

who gets to define crazy? not me. if it were up to half of the people I know would be 'crazy'. but you have to accept that there has to be an effective method of determining someone's medical capacity. Should it be done as a step before you buy a gun? No, I don't think so, but if there is a history of mental issues, shouldn't that be part of the equation?

similar to the exception to the 'unlawful search and seizure' as long as you have probably cause.

don't get me wrong, I think there should fewer exceptions than there are, but there has to be a happy medium between "Everyone gets a gun" and "no one gets a gun"

and of course you can shout fire if there in fact is one.... but that's really just arguing Symantec's, isn't it?

ok, now that I have identified myself as a liberal, go ahead and shun me and I'll go play with my 5 ARs, and SKS and 3 Sigs. I may be 'liberal' but I am one seriously armed liberal.

 

[abean4187]

They get to word the questions so we have little to no chance that way. They turn thing 180deg and put it on the ballot. Look what they did with marriage. I bet 90+% had no idea they were supporting Gay Marriage.

So right yet so wrong at the same time. Yes, getting a pro 2A initiative on the ballot is a bad idea. MD citizens (Urban people = where all the votes are) are vastly anti gun, even if the wording was pro gun we would still lose.

Your vastly wrong part is gay marriage. People knew what they were voting for and rightly allowed ALL individuals the right of marriage contract.

Frankly, we should be voting for ALL civil rights. The right to keep and bear arms, the right to contract (marriage), the right to do what we want with our bodies (Drug legalization). Anytime you support the government restricting someone you are supporting a tyrannical government.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I'm sorry but I'm not following what you're saying....

What he is saying is this:

QUESTION: "Knowing that Gun Owners and NRA Members may accidently slaughter 1,000's of helpless baby bunnies, gaggles of new born geese, and most school children under the age of 5 if allowed to carry a firearm for their paranoia induced need for protection, do you support the right for these bible clutching, right leaning, middle aged cavemen to carry a concealed firearm"?

Do you really want to put that on the ballot?

 

[CLYDE3011]

ummm...

What he is saying is this:

QUESTION: "Knowing that Gun Owners and NRA Members may accidently slaughter 1,000's of helpless baby bunnies, gaggles of new born geese, and most school children under the age of 5 if allowed to carry a firearm for their paranoia induced need for protection, do you support the right for these bible clutching, right leaning, middle aged cavemen to carry a concealed firearm"?

Do you really want to put that on the ballot?

well, not if you put it THAT way....

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I'm fairly sure that my views on 2A are VASTLY different than most of the people on this board. While I do support the constitution, I believe that no right in the constitution is absolute, quite simply, it can't be.

if a police officer shoots a man who was about to kill his wife, it could be argued that the man shot was denied due process.

you can't shout fire in a movie theater...
Crazy people shouldn't have guns, I'm not really in a position to define 'crazy' but I really hope I'm not alone when I say "If you think your microwave is telling you to kill people" or "you think an acceptable response to an argument about parking is to shoot out their tires" you should not be allowed to have a gun.

you've heard them all, I don't have to continue.


What I do believe is that the government is subject to the will of the people. When the government starts imposing laws based on their own ideals and not the people they represent then we have an issue.

Look at Michigan's 'emergency manager law', the trap laws for abortion clinics, and now this law in Maryland that was a knee jerk reaction that happened in another state.

I guess my point is that nothing should be absolute, no matter which direction. There always has to be a caveat, without compromise what is the difference between Tyranny and Anarchy?

No offense, but your post is one, huge contradiction.

 

[hvymax]

well, not if you put it THAT way....

That is how it would be put.

 

[CLYDE3011]

none taken....

No offense, but your post is one huge contradiction.

as long as you accept my premise that conversation and debate is a good thing and will out counter arguments, we'll get no where.

 

[Sportstud4891]

Clyde, I think dblas explained the whole process to you the best but just to summarize about getting SB281 on ballot.

It was tried and it failed to get enough signatures.

Even if enough signatures had been granted, the state words the question however they like.

The Maryland population as a whole shuffles along with the media and the liberal agenda therefore we did not stand a chance of getting the law overturned even if every single gun owner in the state showed up and voted.

Welcome to Maryland.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

as long as you accept my premise that conversation and debate is a good thing and will out counter arguments, we'll get no where.

OK! I will say it this way then.

The United States Constitution is NOT a living, breathing document.

I was dead as a door nail and set in stone at the precise moment of its signing.

In other words: Not open to interpretation.

Your move.

 

[CLYDE3011]

Thank You

Clyde, I think dblas explained the whole process to you the best but just to summarize about getting SB281 on ballot.

It was tried and it failed to get enough signatures.

Even if enough signatures had been granted, the state words the question however they like.

The Maryland population as a whole shuffles along with the media and the liberal agenda therefore we did not stand a chance of getting the law overturned even if every single gun owner in the state showed up and voted.

Welcome to Maryland.

I've been on this board for a a year or so lurking and reading and most of the conversation seem circular, it usually comes back to 'Damn O'Malley and Damn Obama'

I just think the conversation needs to be larger than that....


point taken on the Ballot idea.

 

[DC-W]

Civil and constitutionally protected rights should never be up for a vote. Never.

2A rights have been restored on a national basis for many years now. Legal carry was rare 30 years ago and now it's nearly in every state (May issue to me is still an infringement). MD, CA, NY, CT, and NJ are outliers as far as 2A rights go.

You can yell fire in a theater. If there is a fire, you're doing what's normal. If there isn't and get caught, expect to pay a fine or maybe go to jail. YOU WON'T HAVE YOUR VOCAL CHORDS REMOVED THOUGH.

As for what constitutes as crazy, I'd say that repeated mental-health related occurrences requiring medical care and treatment would be applicable. Having said that, the background checks that get touted for saving lives allowed numerous murderers to buy guns lawfully (VA Tech, Tuscon, Navy Yard, Aurora, just to name a few). These people either weren't being treated for their ailments or skipped treatment altogether.

I do not think that limiting access to firearms in any regard is making anyone safer. Guns are here and they aren't going anywhere. Instead, people should be able to defend themselves when the unthinkable happens.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I've been on this board for a a year or so lurking and reading and most of the conversation seem circular, it usually comes back to 'Damn O'Malley and Damn Obama'

I just think the conversation needs to be larger than that....


point taken on the Ballot idea.

I don't see the Damn O'Malley and Damn Obama ideas being circular.

Even on MDS, we all agree on that.

 

[CLYDE3011]

If the constitution is not a living, breathing document, why are there so many amendments?

i'm not trying to be antagonistic here.... slavery is now illegal, women can vote, you can drink alcohol, then you couldn't, then you could....

if it wasn't a living doc, then we'd make no progress. I know I'll catch a BUNCH of crap to this next comparison.

the Islamic nut call extremist believe the Koran is absolute and not a living document. and those crazies want to kill anyone who doesn't believe, refuse to educate women and many may other ugly things. A society MUST mature, the legal framework for that society may not necessarily have to mature, but the interpretation must.

ok.... let'r rip. I expect about 4-7 flaming posts on that one....