THIS is democracy in action!

[Fisher]

Gosh, I almost always agree with you. Not here. I think you are dead-assed wrong. We need MORE recall elections. It's our only hope. An issue to galvanize "the people" is a Godsend.

Red herrings are a tool used by those who want to manipulate the masses. I am of the opinion that if someone does something that is opposed, then kick them out the next election and undo whatever harm one perceives they did. Sometimes leadership involves making very unpopular decisions because that is the best thing to do. This discourages thoughtful policies and encourages feel good policies. There have been plenty of politicians that have done things I absolutely opposed, but I wouldn't have ever supported a recall election for a single one of them.

 

[Anagram]

Pfft. Walker won a recall election. So did several other Wisconsinites. Union money poured in by the millions in support of that recall election. And the special interests lost.

Recall elections: democracy in action.

Coloradans spoke loud and clear: Don't further restrict our gun rights. Good.On.Them.

Walker won, because at least unlike Colorado they had to wait a year before they could recall them. If he had been recalled in 2011 like he would if they had the same laws as Colorado he would've lost.

Recall elections aren't even really democracy in action as far as I'm concerned. They have such distorted turnout in most cases they probably aren't truly what voters want anyway. I'm glad Morse and Giron lost, but if this opens the door to constant recalls, I see that as a bad thing.

 

[Tigger]

With that statement you violate my values and I would go so far as to say you are morally in the wrong. Creates a conundrum doesn't it? How should we decide who gets the upper hand?

Nope. No conundrum at all. See, what you or I think morals and values should be is irrelevant. They were cast in stone back in the stone age, and have not changed, nor will they change, ever.

I think Colorado had demonstrated the best way to go about this. And it is the way of our nation . voting and the democratic process are central to freedom.

Absolute Freedom is among the worst ideas in human history. Freedom must come with broad, but immovable limits that keep society from flying into anarchy. Among those limits are the basic morals and values that should be inherent in every individual, family, community, and the nation at large. We've lost that ideal here in the US, and it's destroying this country.

It's good to know that you don't consider freedom to be a problem, but quite disturbing that you think that the gov't should establish morals and values. So long as your freedom does not infringe upon mine then I see no cause to get gov't involved.

The Government is not my first choice to instill or enforce morality and values, but since human society in general and American society especially, have abandoned that duty, there's really no other option out there.

The problem comes with the idea of infringement. What you consider to be a minor annoyance, or not even an issue, may be a major roadblock for someone like me; and vice versa.

 

[Dickieboy]

And then we have this:

”The recall elections in Colorado were defined by the vast array of obstacles that special interests threw in the way of voters for the purpose of reversing the will of the legislature and the people. This was voter suppression, pure and simple..."

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz

 

[Fiddytree]

Spin on this is pretty funny. I've read a dozen or so articles on the recall results and have seen the phrase "gun lobby" about 50 times. The other theme is "outside money poured in for both sides" with few highlighting that the recall opponents oustpent the proponents 6 to 1. Not much mentioned that the recall was initiated by a true grassroots movements and not something kicked of by the big bad eeeeevvviiiiilll NRA.

A grassroots movement is one thing, denying or decrying money pouring in the democratic process is just silly. Of course money gets poured in. That's what the democratic process is about. Spreading the message, getting folks to show up at the polls.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I oppose recall elections unless they are just a flat out crook who refuses to step down. democracy is not well-served by perpetual elections.

Making laws that go against the spirit of the 2nd amendment IS being a flat out crook imo. I'm glad they got recalled.

 

[Kal'Stang]

My next question to this...are they going to attempt to get those gun laws off the books now? If so how much of them?

 

[Fishstyx]

A grassroots movement is one thing, denying or decrying money pouring in the democratic process is just silly. Of course money gets poured in. That's what the democratic process is about. Spreading the message, getting folks to show up at the polls.

Don't disagree. In fact, I really don't care about money contributions to campaigns. Amongst many though, the connection of money contributions is viewed as a negative. Especially in an instance like this when its a local issue and outside money comes in. Again, I'm fine with it just pointing out how some of the media coverage states the "money pouring in" as it were equal. In this instance, they clearly weren't.

 

[tech30528]

Neither would as fun as an old school tar and feathering me thinks.

My point is that recall elections may very well save lives.

 

[Fisher]

Making laws that go against the spirit of the 2nd amendment IS being a flat out crook imo. I'm glad they got recalled.

All laws just about go against the "spirit" of the Constitution.

 

[Kal'Stang]

All laws just about go against the "spirit" of the Constitution.

Murder 1st degree sure don't.

 

[Fisher]

My point is that recall elections may very well save lives.

Or cost them, hard to to say. Let's suppose one is a hunter and really likes to hunt. Let's suppose that the same people who support gun control also are key votes on another issue--say like stopping a developer from being able to clear cut some public lands. Said developer just has to get the people recalled on the guns and replaced with people who are pro-gun and pro-timber industry or development, and then they have basically bought their right to clear cut a mountain by using a red-herring like gun rights to do it. If you start opening that door, it won't be long until political karma bits you in the ass. I prefer to keep the door shut. I think keeping the door shut is more important than any transient cause that can be rectified down the road after the next election or the election after that. People are easily manipulated, and this will become just another avenue for manipulation.

 

[tech30528]

Or cost them, hard to to say. Let's suppose one is a hunter and really likes to hunt. Let's suppose that the same people who support gun control also are key votes on another issue--say like stopping a developer from being able to clear cut some public lands. Said developer just has to get the people recalled on the guns and replaced with people who are pro-gun and pro-timber industry or development, and then they have basically bought their right to clear cut a mountain by using a red-herring like gun rights to do it. If you start opening that door, it won't be long until political karma bits you in the ass. I prefer to keep the door shut. I think keeping the door shut is more important than any transient cause that can be rectified down the road after the next election or the election after that. People are easily manipulated, and this will become just another avenue for manipulation.

I understand that, you make a good point. Thing is this is not some trivial issue. Gun control is an incremental process. Letting those laws stand until the next election and assuming that they can be overturned then (which is to assume that the next candidate is willing and able to do so) allows enough time to build on them, and make no mistake, that is the goal. What this recall does is tell present and future politicians that this is not going to stand. Wait for the next election and you may have a few running for office with their pet gun law ready to go, building on what is already there.

Let's take Obamacare for instance, because I have heard people say it is no big deal, all we have to do is delay it and the next President will dump it. Well first, it's not that easy to do, and secondly there are already affects from Obamacare without it being fully implemented yet such as soaring health insurance premiums, people losing full time jobs and being made to go part time in anticipation of it. The silly Colorado gun laws have affects too. The items that are illegal there now would have to be disposed of, and when (if) the law is repealed later gun owners will have to go out and buy them again if they want them. Maybe not a big deal to some, but to those of us involved in this hobby it is significant money. It would require me to get rid of hundreds of dollars of equipment. But there are many people in Colorado who have lost their jobs over this already when the firearm and accessory companies packed up and left. Do you think they will be coming back? I don't. The damage has been done.

So what this recall vote has done is pave the way to try to repair the damage and has sent a clear signal to other politicians that this direction of governing will not be tolerated.

 

[LaMidRighter]

All laws just about go against the "spirit" of the Constitution.

Not true at all. Laws are most possible on the local and state level, the two are constitutionally supposed to be the strongest, the federal is to be the weakest of the three according to enumerated powers. Laws that uphold individual rights such as prohibition of murder, and other violent acts most certainly exist within the spirit of the constitution, regulatory law not so much.