Jump to content

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Bob

Question 1 Passed In Nevada

Recommended Posts

Seems the citizens of Nevada have voted in question 1, so it looks like we have to get ready for some serious changes in our firearms rights in the state, and it's clear this is only a start. Once they get a change like this, it opens the door for even more radical change in the future. I think it's the first sign that it's time for me to prepare to leave the state. I recognize the state is turning into the one I had fled. Taking a serious look at Idaho right about now. Anyone else paying attention to Question 1? Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We treat the government like an imbecile commanding an army of thugs, keep our distance and stay off that morons radar.  It's pretty easy with all the other morons around begging for scraps/handouts/etc..  We stay prepared at a level that makes sense to us, and have plans in place.

There are pockets of relative freedom even in California, hard to find but they exist.  IMO moving to another state would not be worth it, it would just be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevada may yet be saved - this is the point at which the tide actually CAN be turned.  In California, it's an impossibility, and comparing NV and CA is not helpful in that regard.  Also, at last count it seems Q1 won by only a few points - compare that with Prop 63 in CA which won by well over 60-40.  It just shows we have more idiots in California, and until it becomes legal to deport or kill them, there's no fixing it. 

There are pockets of freedom in CA - that is something I can personally attest to.  An example is the Lake City-Cedarville area.  It is sparsely populated, mostly by ranchers, some Indians, and a few wage-earners on the government payroll (USFS, plus some county jobs).  Everyone carries something in their car, truck, purse or belt.  The local Sheriff really *is* a local, and beyond dealing with actual crimes, doesn't go looking for "problems" to police.  People keep to their own business, but they are very hospitable and gracious.  And if they find out you're related to one of the original founding families of the area, they pretty much take a high shine to you.  They may not be discussing the finer points of Plato's Republic over a fine cognac - but that's only because these folks have real problems, real concerns, and try to find real solutions so they can get on with things.  That's about as free as California gets anymore.  Other mountain towns are similar, though not all mountain towns are like this. 

Beyond that, resist.  I do.  I refuse to comply with any number of laws and their mandates.  I encourage others to do the same, and gladly explain the stakes of doing so.  As a member of the State Bar and the Federal Bar, I openly encourage jury nullification, and routinely explain the true role of a jury to anyone who cares to know.  The recent Federal trial and acquittal of the Malheur occupiers is a prime example of jury nullification, yet I have not seen a single story in the mainstream media discuss the topic.  They are afraid to.  Why?  It necessitates a discussion about your 'peers' exercising their ability to think and reason independent of government guidance.  The government hates it when you think freely, because then you screw up their plans and thwart their aims. 

My level of planning and preparation is now set to increase.  As soon as things calm down on the home front (got stuck in port today - bad weather), I have plans to make the first of several additional preparatory moves, along with someone else here.  They are small steps, but they are positive ones, and ones that open up other possibilities. 

 

Hey Bob, do you have a link to the actual text and NRS references of Q1?  All my Googling brings me to crappy, incomplete news stories and I'm a tad short on time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://nvsos.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3440

They should have named this the 'firearms dealer subsidy'.  There's a lot of exceptions carved out, including transfers between family members (by marriage, adoption, darned near everything)... I've heard the phrase Bob's your uncle, so I guess that means I can buy/sell with Bob no problem ;-)

Just took a look at who was behind this.  Trail ends at a non-profit "Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc."  Their 2014 tax return shows $40million income, over 7 million of that for salaries (about a million goes to a handful of top level folks, one guy gets $76k for 1 hour a week of work as the 'outgoing chairmen'.  'Other Expenses" about $27million.  Actual grants dispersed for their stated purpose, $3 million.  If my math is right, that's about 8 cents on the dollar actually going to the stated purpose of the non-profit.  As is typical, most if the income is hidden and no luck finding a list of sources.

They do disclose various organizations they are affiliated with, mostly democratic this and that.. The irony of these is probably lost: "Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women", "National Network to End Domestic Violence" and a pile of other 'domestic violence' pigs feeding at this trough with zero interest in actually preventing domestic violence of any sort (they've be out of a job if they did).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there are any legal grounds for this new law to be challenged in court? I respect the will of the people, but all too often, when the roles are reversed, they always take it to the courts. I think it's time to fight fire with fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a really old post but I'm still gonna comment on it the only reason question 1 passed was because of all the nut job city people. Unfortunately it seems the only countys that have any say when it comes to any type of voting on any thing is clark and Washoe county every other county has no say. It seems unfortunately all the dumbass city people get to choose everything that happens in the state of Nevada. An example of this is the 2017 election every county but  Clark and washoe voted for Trump but since clark and washoe are more populated they are the only ones who had any type of say. I already understand that city ppl are basically living pieces of trash but I mean does living in the city make people lose brain cells or something ?? because it seems that with judging by all the uninformed and very confused liberals living in citys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2018 at 4:51 AM, braindead0 said:

It's what you get with democracy, mod rule writ large.

The surest way to depose liberty is to elevate democracy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, proper explorations said:

It should be more of a electoral vote situation going on with each county just like they do with states

Off the top of my head (I haven't done the math), but I think even better would be to use the Maine/Nebraska system in place for presidential electoral college votes.

They go by congressional district.  That could easily work out into NV state senate and assembly districts.  So a red district in a blue county (or most of a blue county, depending on how districts are drawn) has a voice. 

Just by comparison, Trump took almost 33% of the vote in California for 2016.  But Clinton took all 55 EC votes because we're "winner take all".  That would have reduced her electoral college take AND reduced her popular vote take (which is a stupid argument anyway, for the same reasons we're having this discussion to start with).  Even if the election had gone a different way, it would truly be more representative.  The 'winner take all' method represents the mob, nothing more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, desertdog said:

Off the top of my head (I haven't done the math), but I think even better would be to use the Maine/Nebraska system in place for presidential electoral college votes.

They go by congressional district.  That could easily work out into NV state senate and assembly districts.  So a red district in a blue county (or most of a blue county, depending on how districts are drawn) has a voice. 

Just by comparison, Trump took almost 33% of the vote in California for 2016.  But Clinton took all 55 EC votes because we're "winner take all".  That would have reduced her electoral college take AND reduced her popular vote take (which is a stupid argument anyway, for the same reasons we're having this discussion to start with).  Even if the election had gone a different way, it would truly be more representative.  The 'winner take all' method represents the mob, nothing more. 

this is an explore forum so I don't  want to start a bunch of arguing but that's my opinion on the electoral vote situation.  And If your saying they should make it where population votes for presidents etc in the US. California would basically decide everything for this country because they have the most population. that doesn't sound very fair to you does it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, proper explorations said:

this is an explore forum so I don't  want to start a bunch of arguing but that's my opinion on the electoral vote situation.  And If your saying they should make it where population votes for presidents etc in the US. California would basically decide everything for this country because they have the most population. that doesn't sound very fair to you does it ?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying get rid of winner-take-all EC situations.  Winner-take-all specifically disregards a large chunk of the population that doesn't agree with some other large chunk of the population.  Right now CA gives its EC votes by winner-take-all.  Which means if Trump took 40% of the vote and Hillary to 60% in CA, Hillary would get 100% of EC votes.  That's effectively popular vote.  If Trump won 40% of CA's EC votes and Hillary only won 60% of CA's EC votes, then you split them accordingly.  Since any one EC vote is equal to any other EC vote you actually better represent a state's choice(s) that way. 

Winner-take-all is actually closer to decision by popular vote than the method I'm suggesting, and it would tend to decrease populous state influence, not increase it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 5 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×