Reminder, Ballot Initiative for repealing Magazine Ban deadline nearing.

[Zundfolge]

We did talk about this on multiple occasions here on the forum months ago. We even had a discussion if it was a good idea and i am still very much against it. Sure we get rid of the ban for now but do you really want it to go to a vote of the people? Do you really want the people to vote on a mag ban when there is another pot initiative next to it on the ballot? I think an initiative like this would be a great way to loose our rights and we can not even hold someone accountable when we do. I ask all of you to really think about the consequences an initiative like this could have before you sign the petition.

SECTION 32. GUN MAGAZINES — NO LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION

NO LAW, EXCEPT A LAW ENACTED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, SHALL RESTRICT OR LIMIT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS AMMUNITION STORAGE AND FEEDING DEVICES OF ANY CAPACITY.

Several people have opposed this because of the part in red bold. The foolishness of opposing this on those grounds is that regardless of whether this line was included or not, the people could always put another constitutional amendment on the ballot to undo this one. The inclusion of that verbiage doesn't change a damn thing.

[Rabid]

Several people have opposed this because of the part in red bold. The foolishness of opposing this on those grounds is that regardless of whether this line was included or not, the people could always put another constitutional amendment on the ballot to undo this one. The inclusion of that verbiage doesn't change a damn thing.

What foolishness? Shall we have our rights taken away every time the dems are in office and only getting them back either going through a state wide petition process or waiting until the repubs control the state again? That sounds like insanity to me.

[Zundfolge]

What foolishness? Shall we have our rights taken away every time the dems are in office and only getting them back either going through a state wide petition process or waiting until the repubs control the state again? That sounds like insanity to me.

What is foolishness is refusing to support this amendment because of the inclusion of the "EXCEPT A LAW ENACTED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE" language because even if its not included it still applies. If you remove that verbiage Democrats can STILL put together a state wide petition to get yet another constitutional amendment into the Colorado Constitution that reverses our mag ban reversal (this is why I think it's just too damn easy to amend the CO Constitution ... but that's another long and contentious argument).

[Jer]

What is foolishness is refusing to support this amendment because of the inclusion of the "EXCEPT A LAW ENACTED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE" language because even if its not included it still applies. If you remove that verbiage Democrats can STILL put together a state wide petition to get yet another constitutional amendment into the Colorado Constitution that reverses our mag ban reversal (this is why I think it's just too damn easy to amend the CO Constitution ... but that's another long and contentious argument).

And the end result would be what... what he currently have? What's the risk?

[Zundfolge]

And the end result would be what... what he currently have? What's the risk?

I'm not sure I follow your question.

The reason given for including the language in red is that it will help get it passed I guess by seeming more moderate? ... if it were up to me the language wouldn't be there as its superfluous, but the fact remains that whether its there or not "except a law enacted by a vote of the people" is a real possibility and because they chose to include it I don't see that as a reason not to support the amendment.

[Jer]

I'm not sure I follow your question.

The reason given for including the language in red is that it will help get it passed I guess by seeming more moderate? ... if it were up to me the language wouldn't be there as its superfluous, but the fact remains that whether its there or not "except a law enacted by a vote of the people" is a real possibility and because they chose to include it I don't see that as a reason not to support the amendment.

So you'd rather we just don't get our magazines or any of our other freedoms that were stripped away back? What is it that you personally are doing right now that is helping to get our freedoms back?

[Zundfolge]

So you'd rather we just don't get our magazines or any of our other freedoms that were stripped away back? What is it that you personally are doing right now that is helping to get our freedoms back?

I think you have this backward.

I'm arguing AGAINST people like Rabid that REFUSE TO SUPPORT the amendment because that language is in it ... I'm saying it doesn't matter and we should support the amendment anyway because even without that language the antis could put together a ballot initiate to reverse our reversal of the ban. That language included in the amendment DOES NOT CAUSE there to be an ability to reverse it by a vote of the people, it merely acknowledges the reality that it could happen. I believe it may have even been required by the state to be in there so as to not violate the rights of the people to amend the state constitution (dunno about that though).

Conservatives do the EXACT same thing.

Not against ME they don't but you are making the case why a liberal that works in a conservative dominated field might want to eschew Facebook as well.

[Rabid]

So you'd rather we just don't get our magazines or any of our other freedoms that were stripped away back? What is it that you personally are doing right now that is helping to get our freedoms back?

Not sure why you are attacking someone you agree with.

I see a pandoras box and do not want to open it. I never told anyone to not sign it but rather to think about it before they did. You already stated that the dems are hurting us by not thinking of ramifications so why should we follow the same logic. Not every option is the right option.