Printable View
I hate to be the one to start a political discussion. I am having some problems with someone thinking we need to have our rights to hunt and fish in the state constitution. In my business, when something already in practice is then documented in writing, it can start all kinds of doo doo.
But, I really have not studied any of the amendments to see what they really say. What I have read on the ballot about #1 just seems to have a hidden message to me.
Any body else have a problem with it?
DP
I talked to our State Senator and he said he thought that amendment 1 was started by an animal right group. He said about the same thing you stated we already have the right to hunt.
hunting is a privalage, not a right. If you screw up, you can have your privalages revoked, but a right? Even killers on death row have rights nowadays.
Peta is trying to sneek in all sorts of stuff in every state, disguised as a good thing. Be careful, if you don't know what an amendment is or what it means, vote NO. Tell them to explain it better or ditch it.
Excellant advise!!Quote:
Originally Posted by flyflinger
DP
Voted no today.
Maybe I'm wrong but, How many times did this state vote NO!!! on the lottery, Only to see it put up agian and agian until it passed. Point is if they want it (Bad Enough) they will keep putting it up until they get what they want (Bad Enough). JMO.
Exactly why we need to be on our toes.
DP