WWYD

[rambone]

Isn't it a foregone conclusion that the legislature will override a veto? Do we have a crystal ball?

Secondly, if this gun ban makes people too "comfortable" with whatever concessions you garner, it makes the law that much more permanent.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

If it was me personally... I'd rubber stamp that thing. I'd tell everyone that my views and the views of the NRA don't line up.

I'd then wait a handful of years and claim that I made things better for everyone. I'd probably tell folks I've been a life time hunter. If anyone called me on it, I'd back that down to something about shooting varmints on the property. If they said "really" then I might admit that I've never owned a gun but I'm related to someone who is and they let me touch it once.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If it was me personally... I'd rubber stamp that thing. I'd tell everyone that my views and the views of the NRA don't line up.

I'd then wait a handful of years and claim that I made things better for everyone. I'd probably tell folks I've been a life time hunter. If anyone called me on it, I'd back that down to something about shooting varmints on the property. If they said "really" then I might admit that I've never owned a gun but I'm related to someone who is and they let me touch it once.

Are you making fun of Mittens?

 

[88GT]

You bring this up a lot. Their will would mean more if we lived in a pure democracy. Right now the "rights of the minority" are supposed to remain protected from the masses. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about. 51% of the population should not have the power to deny the rights and property of the 49%. There is a certain process that is necessary to change it.

Doesn't matter whether it's a pure democracy or the will of the people is revealed through their elected reps. Majority rules is still the "law" of the land in every state.

You have an argument on a federal level. One with which I agree. But not on anything smaller. And since this example was clearly about STATE government, not federal government.......you got nothing.

Exactly how do you let people be free to determine their own course without letting them be free to determine their own course? If a town wants to go all Nazi on grass height, who is to say they can't?

 

[rambone]

Doesn't matter whether it's a pure democracy or the will of the people is revealed through their elected reps. Majority rules is still the "law" of the land in every state.

You have an argument on a federal level. One with which I agree. But not on anything smaller. And since this example was clearly about STATE government, not federal government.......you got nothing.

States have constitutions too, and a process for amending them. So the majority has a certain procedure it needs to go through if it wants to oppress the minority with new state powers.

Exactly how do you let people be free to determine their own course without letting them be free to determine their own course?

A collective group of people could have "self-governance" without any semblance of "individual liberty." The two concepts are important, but don't necessarily follow each other.

The majority could demand an emperor... that doesn't mean they are a free people, but they got what the majority demanded. And the minority, who didn't agree with the masses, are oppressed and did not consent.

If a town wants to go all Nazi on grass height, who is to say they can't?

Only the people who believe in individual liberty.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Isn't it a foregone conclusion that the legislature will override a veto? Do we have a crystal ball?

Secondly, if this gun ban makes people too "comfortable" with whatever concessions you garner, it makes the law that much more permanent.

If Nancy Pelosi had enough to override a veto on Obamacare, would she have? Of course... Don't need a crystal ball - just need our head out of the sand in order to see that.

My first reaction would still be to veto - even though the "logical" thing would be to do as patience above suggested. Either way, it's a crappy no win situation, and I think all of us would agree with that - since either way it's gonna end up with something we really don't want, nor agree with.

That's what you get when you have a state that elects 85% (don't recall the exact number but it was way North of Veto-land) of the legislature from one party. And then they try use the Governor from the other part as a check and balance. At that high of numbers, a veto has NO teeth. So the Gary Johnson veto-and-challenge tactic is of no use. In New Mexico - different story - more balance in the Legislature, hence it worked great. In Mass.. I think it's fair to say that the Legislature would have told him to go pound sand when he whipped out the veto. And his only choice would be to try the Reagan tactic of going back to the people and pointing out that "they're not doing what I want". Reagan had a public on his side. Not so in Mass...

 

[cobber]

Presumably the public knew you were pro-gun when you ran for office, so you have a mandate. It would be a betrayal of that mandate not to veto, and then let the voters deal with the legislature as they will.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Presumably the public knew you were pro-gun when you ran for office, so you have a mandate. It would be a betrayal of that mandate not to veto, and then let the voters deal with the legislature as they will.

Is that true? The "betrayal" part - EVEN if the result of the certain override is significantly worse than the "compromise"? And if you consulted with the constituency that would be harmed directly - or at least as best you could? As I said above, it's a crappy choice. But if it was a hypothetical, and the governor in question went the NRA or GOA, and said " look - here's my choice. You are the one who care the most about this - how do we deal with this situation? I can try to deal or veto - but we all know that they are gonna override". If that was the case and you were the NRA or GOA what would you suggest? Take the fact it was Romney and a lot of people have a bug up their arse about him out of it.

I don't know and I wasn't there - I don't know that I could fault anyone for going either direction. IF they went that direction in good faith. If they were just rolling over? Different kettle of fish.

 

[88GT]

States have constitutions too, and a process for amending them. So the majority has a certain procedure it needs to go through if it wants to oppress the minority with new state powers.

And what of those pieces of legislation that don't violate the constitution?

A collective group of people could have "self-governance" without any semblance of "individual liberty." The two concepts are important, but don't necessarily follow each other.

The majority could demand an emperor... that doesn't mean they are a free people, but they got what the majority demanded. And the minority, who didn't agree with the masses, are oppressed and did not consent.

But you can't prevent people from exercising that liberty without first taking it from them.

Oh gawd, they're not oppressed.

Only the people who believe in individual liberty.

Sure, they can attempt to avoid the passage of the bill/ordinance. But they can't control the process that produces it without being guilty of the same infringement.

You argue this point all the time when you say it should be left to the states. Are you now saying that the states don't even have that authority/jurisdiction? Abortion, illegal drugs, marriage. Tell me that the states don't have the authority to control those things within their own borders or admit that you're just arguing with me for the sake of arguing. You can't have it both ways.

 

[rambone]

And what of those pieces of legislation that don't violate the constitution?

What about them? People need to fight to repeal them.

But you can't prevent people from exercising that liberty without first taking it from them.

I don't advocate taking away people's self-governance. Why do you keep saying this?

Sure, they can attempt to avoid the passage of the bill/ordinance. But they can't control the process that produces it without being guilty of the same infringement.

Agreed. As I said, self-governance must be protected, and so must individual liberty. Lose either one and you've lost freedom.

You argue this point all the time when you say it should be left to the states. Are you now saying that the states don't even have that authority/jurisdiction? Abortion, illegal drugs, marriage. Tell me that the states don't have the authority to control those things within their own borders or admit that you're just arguing with me for the sake of arguing. You can't have it both ways.

Abortion, illegal drugs, marriage... None are constitutionally protected. The right to bear arms is enumerated in nearly every state constitution. That's why the "will of the people" to trample the minority, actually does mean nothing unless they are working on a constitutional amendment, a process which is intentionally difficult.

 

[cobber]

Is that true? The "betrayal" part - EVEN if the result of the certain override is significantly worse than the "compromise"? And if you consulted with the constituency that would be harmed directly - or at least as best you could? As I said above, it's a crappy choice. But if it was a hypothetical, and the governor in question went the NRA or GOA, and said " look - here's my choice. You are the one who care the most about this - how do we deal with this situation? I can try to deal or veto - but we all know that they are gonna override". If that was the case and you were the NRA or GOA what would you suggest? Take the fact it was Romney and a lot of people have a bug up their arse about him out of it.

I don't know and I wasn't there - I don't know that I could fault anyone for going either direction. IF they went that direction in good faith. If they were just rolling over? Different kettle of fish.

It's a hypothetical with no facts. If you want to supply certain facts, then compromise looks reasonable.

I thought people here were opposed to "reasonable regulation"?

 

[jbombelli]

I would veto it. Then if the legislature followed through I would order the militia to assemble and give them orders that, in retrospect, probably shouldn't be mentioned here. And I would pardon anyone immediately if they were arrested.



How far that would go I don't know. But that's what I would do. If nothing else, you could count on a REAL cluster**** if that happened while *I* was governor.