SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Arizona's arrogant governor and legislature., Practicing BIG GOVERVMENT control< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
desert dweller Search for posts by this member.
Greetings
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9818
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 01 2013, 11:17 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How stupid is this?

Bill signed preventing Tucson from destroying 'buyback' guns
April 30, 2013 12:01 am  •  Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services


PHOENIX - Gov. Jan Brewer signed legislation aimed specifically at halting Tucson's practice of allowing police to destroy guns that people voluntarily surrender through buyback programs.

Source.

I'm also including a link to a political cartoon penned by a local artist.
Every Gun is Sacred.


--------------
Seek Higher Ground
Can you feel the silence


Photobucket
Flickr
YouTube
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 01 2013, 11:27 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yes, more inconsistency from the party that promotes "local control".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
ol-zeke Search for posts by this member.
Clear Creek
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 12895
Joined: Sep. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 01 2013, 11:53 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

So, can they offer to buy back any gun that the owner cuts into pieces?  They could provide a bandsaw at the buy back location, or some way to smash it flat to make it unusable.  Then the city could buy it back and sell it for scrap, as it was no longer useful as a gun.  

It would have to be the owner that did the destruction, so as to keep the city out of the legal situation.  


--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.

"I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth."  Steve McQueen
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
desert dweller Search for posts by this member.
Greetings
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9818
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 01 2013, 12:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(ol-zeke @ May 01 2013, 8:53 am)
QUOTE
So, can they offer to buy back any gun that the owner cuts into pieces?  They could provide a bandsaw at the buy back location, or some way to smash it flat to make it unusable.  Then the city could buy it back and sell it for scrap, as it was no longer useful as a gun.  

It would have to be the owner that did the destruction, so as to keep the city out of the legal situation.  

They wouldn't have to cut it into pieces. One blow with a big sledge hammer would make any firearm useless.

--------------
Seek Higher Ground
Can you feel the silence


Photobucket
Flickr
YouTube
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 01 2013, 12:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(desert dweller @ May 01 2013, 9:06 am)
QUOTE

(ol-zeke @ May 01 2013, 8:53 am)
QUOTE
So, can they offer to buy back any gun that the owner cuts into pieces?  They could provide a bandsaw at the buy back location, or some way to smash it flat to make it unusable.  Then the city could buy it back and sell it for scrap, as it was no longer useful as a gun.  

It would have to be the owner that did the destruction, so as to keep the city out of the legal situation.  

They wouldn't have to cut it into pieces. One blow with a big sledge hammer would make any firearm useless.

Great idea.
Make it a prerequisite to be performed by the owner prior to turning it over.  
Or will the gestapo governor attempt to outlaw that too?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 01 2013, 2:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Gun control proponents have no problems with "excessive gov't control" when it proposes/passes legislation outlawing guns and/or accessories citizens already own so why should it be excessive when the government sells legal firearms to legal dealers and at least recouping the money it paid out during a buyback?

--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 01 2013, 2:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 01 2013, 1:24 pm)
QUOTE
Gun control proponents have no problems with "excessive gov't control" when it proposes/passes legislation outlawing guns and/or accessories citizens already own so why should it be excessive when the government sells legal firearms to legal dealers and at least recouping the money it paid out during a buyback?

I think the answer to that is that the citizens of Tucson have elected officials who prefer to reduce the total number of guns in this way, and gun owners have voluntarily surrendered their guns knowing that this was how the program works.

So why should the state government intervene in this way?

No one here is being forced to give up a gun, so that's really not an issue at all.

I think what this mostly shows is that everyone tends to be a hypocrite when it comes to the question of "big government." We all tend to decry big government across the board when it acts in ways we dislike, and find ways to look the other way when it acts in ways we do favor.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
AndyPandy Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 296
Joined: May 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 01 2013, 4:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(cweston @ May 01 2013, 2:57 pm)
QUOTE
I think what this mostly shows is that everyone tends to be a hypocrite when it comes to the question of "big government." We all tend to decry big government across the board when it acts in ways we dislike, and find ways to look the other way when it acts in ways we do favor.

+1

I would add 'big business' as well.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 01 2013, 11:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
So why should the state government intervene in this way?

But isn't that what anti-gun people want Congress to do? Pass federal laws banning certain weapons and accessories and overriding what would still be  legal under local and state laws?


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 8:23 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 01 2013, 10:16 pm)
QUOTE
But isn't that what anti-gun people want Congress to do? Pass federal laws banning certain weapons and accessories and overriding what would still be  legal under local and state laws?

Well, mostly, see the last paragraph of my post (#7 in this thread).

But there are some other differences. No one's rights are being infringed in any way by the Tucson program: people willingly surrendered guns knowing that they would be destroyed.

Federal gun control legislation is a different animal. It *is* a case of limiting citizens' individual rights in exchange for what is believed to be in the public good. (And, of course, we do this all the time, not only with guns.)

The state law in this case is not like that: there's no public good served by overriding the law that folks in Tucson were apparently happy with. It doesn't achieve any definable public policy goal that I can discern. It looks to me like a case of the state f*%@ing with Tucson's program because they can.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 9:25 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
No one's rights are being infringed in any way by the Tucson program

Maybe not rights but tax money is being spent in a way that a significant number of citizens apparently disagree with.

"The Governor's Office reported Brewer got more than 1,900 pleas for her to sign the measure, in the form of emails, letters and calls.
By contrast, she said, there were only 25 messages to Brewer urging her to veto the measure."

QUOTE
people willingly surrendered guns knowing that they would be destroyed.

True but there's greed on their part, not altruism. If they really wanted the gun destroyed or removed from "circulation" (so to speak), they'd destroy it themselves or just give to the cops for free. But no, they're keeping it until they get paid for it.

QUOTE
It *is* a case of limiting citizens' individual rights in exchange for what is believed to be in the public good.

Are you saying that a higher level government always knows what's best for everyone over local government?
But you're apparently supporting local over state in this case but federal over local in gun control. That's hypocrisy.

QUOTE
The state law in this case is not like that: there's no public good served by overriding the law that folks in Tucson were apparently happy with. It doesn't achieve any definable public policy goal that I can discern.

There's something wrong with returning more money to the budget than was spent?


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 9:28 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 02 2013, 8:25 am)
QUOTE
Are you saying that a higher level government always knows what's best for everyone over local government?

I'm obviously not arguing that. Please respond to my actual words if you want to have a conversation.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 9:37 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

OK. The feds know best sometimes, the locals know best other times.

Who gets to decide?


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 9:39 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

And therein lies the problem. (And why pretty-much everyone is a hypocrite about these things, at least some of the time.)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 10:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 02 2013, 8:25 am)
QUOTE
Maybe not rights but tax money is being spent in a way that a significant number of citizens apparently disagree with.


This wasn't explicitly state in the argument, but it is presumably the city of Tucson's tax money that is being spent on the program. (It says they bought back about 200 guns for $50 a pop, so about $1,000).

So, if citizens of Tucson don't like the program, they have the usual options: lobby their local government to change it, and/or vote different people into city office.

If people who aren't citizens of Tucson don't like it, who cares?

I just don't understand on what basis the state government has any stake in this matter. I don't even see what policy objective is met by it, other than to say to Tucson, "Nyah, nyah, we kept you from doing what you wanted to do with your municipal revenues because we don't like it." Which is definitely a dick move.

How is the cause of protecting gun owners' rights advanced in any way by this? I'm not being argumentative--I honestly don't see it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 11:13 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 02 2013, 6:37 am)
QUOTE
OK. The feds know best sometimes, the locals know best other times.

Who gets to decide?

I realize you like to play devil's advocate here - I get that.

But are you truly okay with the state telling a local community how they CAN'T spend their own local tax money?  If so, that would be appear to be very inconsistent with your views on other topics.

Personally, I'm not as much bothered by the fact the state enacted the law, I'm bothered by the fact that it's a stupid law that's pandering to a vocal minority.

And if greed, (as you've suggested) was the only motivation for these people to turn in the guns, why didn't they just sell them to a private party?  They probably could've done better than 50 bucks in most cases.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 12:51 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
It says they bought back about 200 guns for $50 a pop, so about $1,000.

$10,000

QUOTE
But are you truly okay with the state telling a local community how they CAN'T spend their own local tax money?

Was it really local tax money or money out of state funding or even a federal grant? If it was state funds, then yes, the state does have a right to say how it's used.
If it was local taxes, then no. But the caveat to that is did the citizens vote this as a valid expenditure or did the city council decide on its own?

OTOH, any controversial expenditures, such as this one, regardless of revenue source should be placed on a public ballot for those it affects.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 12:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 02 2013, 11:51 am)
QUOTE
If it was local taxes, then no. But the caveat to that is did the citizens vote this as a valid expenditure or did the city council decide on its own?

OTOH, any controversial expenditures, such as this one, regardless of revenue source should be placed on a public ballot for those it affects.

Well, that may be a nice idea, but that's not how representative democracy works. We elect people to make these kinds of decisions. If we don't like their decisions, then we can tell them that, including by removing them from office next time they come for reelection. "Did the city council decide on its own" is not really a valid question. Of course they did. That's what they've been elected to do--to represent the voters of their city.

I really don't know where the money came from, but I would assume that it was not state money, or that would presumably have been mentioned in the article (since it would have made the motivations of the state officials much clearer and made the whole thing make more sense.)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 1:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

@MLW,

The local budgets are managed and prioritized by the local elected officials.  That is why we elect them.  That includes the management of any state and federal money that is not encumbered for specific purposes.  If there were sufficient local opposition to these expenditures it would be expressed during the election of local officials.

And similar buy-back programs are very common throughout the nation.  Can you name of one that has gone through the local ballot process for a $10,000 expenditure?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 1:14 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
We elect people to make these kinds of decisions.

True but they're supposed to at least listen to what we ask and want and not what THEY want.
Without going into detail, it's why I left Seattle. There was a ballot on a very expensive measure where about 51% said no, 49% yes and all it required was a simple majority. The city government said the "no's" were wrong and passed a several hundred million bond expenditure anyway.

QUOTE
I really don't know where the money came from, but I would assume that it was not state money, or that would presumably have been mentioned in the article (since it would have made the motivations of the state officials much clearer and made the whole thing make more sense.)

Not really. Higher level governments seem to think they can dictate how lower levels spend money. The feds do it all the time.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 1:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
Can you name of one that has gone through the local ballot process for a $10,000 expenditure?

Note I did say controversial expenditures, and gun buyback certainly is, and not all expenditures.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 1:20 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 02 2013, 12:14 pm)
QUOTE
True but they're supposed to at least listen to what we ask and want and not what THEY want.

Agree. Is there some information about this particular matter that leads you to believe that the city council's action was egregiously out of sync with what their constituents wanted?

Going against the express wishes of your constituents is always a very risky more, politically. Generally speaking, politicians tend not to enact policies that they think will get them voted out of office.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 1:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 02 2013, 10:16 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Can you name of one that has gone through the local ballot process for a $10,000 expenditure?

Note I did say controversial expenditures, and gun buyback certainly is, and not all expenditures.

Sorry, but 1900 form letters from a state of 6.5 million doesn't strike me as overwhelmingly controversial.  And it doesn't justify a local referendum which would undoubtedly cost far more than $10,000.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 1:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Here's an example of how this representative democracy is supposed to work on a local level.

I live in Manhattan, KS. Being a college town, we tend to have a local government that's a little to the left of most in Kansas. (Not genuinely leftist or anything: centrist...which is to the left of most other towns in Kansas.)

A few years back, after several public meetings, etc, the city commission voted to include "sexual orientation" in the local non-discrimination ordinance.

A certain element within the city was angered by this. They rallied their forces, and got two conservative commissioners elected in the next election. The new, more conservative commission repealed that change.

In the next election, which was this spring, the more typical centrist voters in the community were unhappy with the more conservative commission and elected a more centrist one. Perhaps they will yet again change that ordinance, I don't know.

The point is that, especially at the local level, the people who actually vote typically pay attention to what their city officials are doing, and will make a "correction" if they think one is needed.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 7:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ May 02 2013, 11:24 am)
QUOTE
Sorry, but 1900 form letters from a state of 6.5 million doesn't strike me as overwhelmingly controversial.  And it doesn't justify a local referendum which would undoubtedly cost far more than $10,000.

Form letters are quite often used by both sides by citizens in politics.
Numbers of 1900 to 25 is significant in a population of 6.5 million, particularly since pollsters often use around 3000 when "rating" the entire US of 330 million. If 3000 is considered valid for the entire US, then an equivalent rate of 96,400 +/- should be considered overwhelming support.

So the expense of a referendum couldn't be justified for the paltry sum of $10,000 but a respondent ratio of 76:1 in favor of the measure does justify passage.

But something occurred to me while I was outside earlier. I may be thinking of the wrong forums but I think it was here. Not long ago a locality voted not to fund Planned Parenthood and there was outrage that a local city council would do such a thing and the state or feds should step in.

It comes back to what was brought up earlier... any government that does what you agree with is good and one that does anything you disagree with is bad.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
bbobb169 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: May 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 7:20 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 02 2013, 5:05 pm)
QUOTE
It comes back to what was brought up earlier... any government that does what you agree with is good and one that does anything you disagree with is bad.


So true.......... You could also replace the word 'government' and put in anybody's posts,a person's view on issues, political, religion, etc.............
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 7:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

MLW,

You're either being very naive or very partisan.

First of all, letter-writing campaigns are very different, in terms of the usefulness of the statistics, from polling. In polling, randomly selected people are called and asked about something. If you choose 1000 or 10,000 people, call them and ask them about this issue, and you get a strong majority one way or the other, you probably have a decent indication of how people feel about the issue.

That's very different than people who take the initiative to voice their opinion through a letter-writing campaign. These are almost always the result of organizations mobilizing and encouraging their members to write letters. If you get letters which support one side of an issue 76:1 over the other, then what you can conclude from that is that one side made the organized letter-writing campaign a much higher priority than the other side. That's really it. For all we know, no one who supports the Tucson law even new about the letter campaign (to even think to send letter of their own.) It's not a very reliable indicator of voter opinion.

And finally, if those letter writers weren't citizens of Tucson, then their opinions are really not relevant, anyway (as discussed previously in this thread.)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 02 2013, 7:40 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ May 02 2013, 4:05 pm)
QUOTE

(hbfa @ May 02 2013, 11:24 am)
QUOTE
Sorry, but 1900 form letters from a state of 6.5 million doesn't strike me as overwhelmingly controversial.  And it doesn't justify a local referendum which would undoubtedly cost far more than $10,000.

Form letters are quite often used by both sides by citizens in politics.
Numbers of 1900 to 25 is significant in a population of 6.5 million, particularly since pollsters often use around 3000 when "rating" the entire US of 330 million. If 3000 is considered valid for the entire US, then an equivalent rate of 96,400 +/- should be considered overwhelming support.

So the expense of a referendum couldn't be justified for the paltry sum of $10,000 but a respondent ratio of 76:1 in favor of the measure does justify passage.

But something occurred to me while I was outside earlier. I may be thinking of the wrong forums but I think it was here. Not long ago a locality voted not to fund Planned Parenthood and there was outrage that a local city council would do such a thing and the state or feds should step in.

It comes back to what was brought up earlier... any government that does what you agree with is good and one that does anything you disagree with is bad.

Comparing random polls to form letters has no relevance whatsoever.  Clearly, there in nothing random about a form letter.    

I have no problem with a city making an economic decision not to fund planned parenthood or gun buy-backs or anything else they feel they can't afford.  The decision makers however will eventually have to face the voters for their spending priorities.  Just like the decision makers in Tucson would've had to face the voters - had the Governor not stuck her nose in their business.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: May 03 2013, 12:05 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
If you get letters which support one side of an issue 76:1 over the other, then what you can conclude from that is that one side made the organized letter-writing campaign a much higher priority than the other side.

True. Which indicates that those opposed didn't really care enough to muster a protest. In which case, a lack of opposition is a tacit form of support.

You're correct that random polls are different than this kind of organized campaign. Form letters would be better compared to signing a petition. One letter with 1900 signatures is the same as 1900 identical letters each with one.

But I have no problem with either side of this issue. Buy guns and destroy them or buy guns and resell the legal ones to legal dealers. Both are good and both deal with the issue of unwanted guns. The previous possessor no longer has an unwanted weapon.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
double cabin Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16647
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: May 03 2013, 5:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Given that this program is obviously something designed to improve public safety does this blatant hypocrisy have a chance of surviving in court?

--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.

http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
34 replies since May 01 2013, 11:17 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Arizona's arrogant governor and legislature.
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions