Yes they want it in the constitution in case any thing would ever happen where someone would try to take away hunters rights. it would have to go before a vote of the people.

 

Again, that was never going to happen, even under the most liberal of circumstances. It was a solution without a problem, kind of like the whole voter fraud issue that the GOP is so hyped up about.

It's a gag to get NRA-types out to the polls. Nothing more. Nobody's right to hunt and fish is being trampled upon, unless you count nagging wives/girlfriends.

Wrong but typical.

Wrong but typical.

 

Please, help me understand the need to vote yes to this. I am dead serious. If this is needed, help me understand why.

We havent even had an insert or anything in the free local paper that is delivered to everyone.

Please, help me understand the need to vote yes to this. I am dead serious. If this is needed, help me understand why.

Because it protects our rights. Isn't that always a good thing? Is anyone trying to outlaw hunting/fishing today, no. Will they tomorrow? Could be. Groups like PETA would love nothing more then to make all hunting and fishing illegal. What says in 10 years they don't have a big enough lobby to get it done? This amendment ensures for that to happen in KY it will be decided by the people.

 

My comment to Jim was 1. the "nra-types" he talks about already come out to the polls in huge numbers. This isn't needed to achieve that, and 2. Obama isn't winning KY if he was the only candidate on the ballot. Just his typical shot at the right/GOP. It grows old.

My comment to Jim was 1. the "nra-types" he talks about already come out to the polls in huge numbers. This isn't needed to achieve that, and 2. Obama isn't winning KY if he was the only candidate on the ballot. Just his typical shot at the right/GOP. It grows old.

 

Those NRA-types could help Andy Barr defeat Ben Chandler in the House race, though.

Those NRA-types could help Andy Barr defeat Ben Chandler in the House race, though.

Again, those "NRA-types" already vote.

Because it protects our rights. Isn't that always a good thing? Is anyone trying to outlaw hunting/fishing today, no. Will they tomorrow? Could be. Groups like PETA would love nothing more then to make all hunting and fishing illegal. What says in 10 years they don't have a big enough lobby to get it done? This amendment ensures for that to happen in KY it will be decided by the people.

 

My comment to Jim was 1. the "nra-types" he talks about already come out to the polls in huge numbers. This isn't needed to achieve that, and 2. Obama isn't winning KY if he was the only candidate on the ballot. Just his typical shot at the right/GOP. It grows old.

 

I feel safe to say that at no point in Kentucky's future will the right to hunt and fish be in danger. Again, it's a solution without a problem. Completely unnecessary. Which begs the question: If the right to hunt and fish is not in danger, why does there need to be a ballot initiative reaffirming it? Answer: It's a cheap ploy to get gun-owners -- i.e., likely GOP votes -- out to the polls.

No Virgil Goode on the KY ballot? What a travesty.

I feel safe to say that at no point in Kentucky's future will the right to hunt and fish be in danger. Again, it's a solution without a problem. Completely unnecessary. Which begs the question: If the right to hunt and fish is not in danger, why does there need to be a ballot initiative reaffirming it? Answer: It's a cheap ploy to get gun-owners -- i.e., likely GOP votes -- out to the polls.

 

So it's best to wait until it's needed? Like I said the "types" you are talking about already vote for the most part. But never waste a chance to take a shot at the right.

So it's best to wait until it's needed? Like I said the "types" you are talking about already vote for the most part. But never waste a chance to take a shot at the right.

 

I'm provided with a lot of good ammo. It'd be a shame not to use it. Again, a solution in search of a problem. Totally unnecessary. Nobody's right to hunt or fish is ever going to be endangered in a rural state such as Kentucky.

I feel safe to say that at no point in Kentucky's future will the right to hunt and fish be in danger. Again, it's a solution without a problem. Completely unnecessary. Which begs the question: If the right to hunt and fish is not in danger, why does there need to be a ballot initiative reaffirming it? Answer: It's a cheap ploy to get gun-owners -- i.e., likely GOP votes -- out to the polls.

 

With this reasoning do you vote yes or no? If it a right that should be kept, why not solidfy it with a yes vote? Since is is a GOP issue it sounds like you will vote no just because you think it came from them?

With this reasoning do you vote yes or no? If it a right that should be kept, why not solidfy it with a yes vote? Since is is a GOP issue it sounds like you will vote no just because you think it came from them?

 

I'll probably vote yes, but that's not the point. It's unnecessary -- we live in a rural state where hunting/fishing is a way of life that will never be endangered. It's like voting to affirm that the POTUS is the Commander-in-Chief of the military.