 | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) This does not make 100% sense to me - getting rid of a lot of laws only to referendum them back. Why not just Constitutional-ise referenda, and use them to remove/add laws? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) should (...) order (...) The reason that I think it makes sense is that if it took 75% of the people to agree, most of them wouldn't be voted back in place. We would have the obvious victimizations illegal and some meta-organizational issues (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Actually, the reason it *doesn't* make sense is that you require a 75% consensus. In a group of just 12 people it's hard to get 75% agreement on what kind of pizza to get; do you honestly expect that *any* issue, when put before a vote by the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) to (...) Sure. I don't want to invest a lot in defense of this system that I created in four seconds while reading the note before, but I do actually think that part of it has merit. I'm sure that 75% of us would agree that stealing and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
