Georgia voters will be voting on several constitutional amendments in two weeks. One that particularly interest me is Amendment II:
Fishing and hunting. The tradition of fishing and hunting and the taking of fish and wildlife shall be preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good
As I ready myself to head to Bass Pro Shops to pick up my license and a couple of boxes of shells, I look to the heavens and thank all that is natural that the good legislators have taken the time to preserve my right to hunt and fish.
What a load of crap.
Anyone with any sense can see this is a stalking horse. There is absolutely no danger of hunting being restricted in Georgia. This amendment was nothing more than a blantant ploy to “git more hunters” to the polling place because of how that demographic swings.
I hate rewarding such a blatant piece of political garbage but the fact is there is nothing wrong with the amendment. I guess this is a whole hate the sin, love the sinner thing. I’ll vote for it but there will be some vomit in the back of my mouth.
Crossposted at: Drifting Through The Grift
UPDATE: Okay, I’ve rethought my position on this. You can read the updated thinking here.
UPDATE II: And rethinking again. I hate being so wishy-washy but I hate being wrong even more.
I, conversely, will be voting against it because I am, almost catagorically, opposed to new laws. Anything that adds lines or pages of text to the body of legislative law anywhere in the country is a nogo for me unless I see something truly compelling to justify it. This is not the case here.
Thomas I honestly can’t make up my mind. There are few things I hate worse than unnecessary laws.
How can you say there’s nothign wrong with this amendment? It accomplishes absolutely nothing. And it’s worse than what THomas points out - it’s not a new *law*, it’s a new line in the constitution. It’s more garbage that will cause confusion for every single law that is passed from now on.
I have no doubt that this amendment will pass, but I regret that our state constitution will start looking like the European one.
I feel that the strength of our US constitution (and of the state constitutions based on it) is its simplicity.
Scott, after seeing your Thomas arguments combined with some jackass at another blog spewing nonsense talking points, I’m starting to change my mind.
… the taking of fish and wildlife shall be preserved for the people …
The wording is incredibly creepy. Taking. If there is one hobby that needs less innuendo, it’s hunting. And does this mean that only the “catch” component of “catch & release” will be sanctified for all time? “Sorry, sir … if you’re not taking that bigmouth bass home, I’m going to have to arrest you.”
Really, it isn’t necessary at all. This is just flat out pandering on false premise to a base that votes far more often than urbanites would like to remember.
I love how they use any tactic they can to swing the votes their way. Ugh, if only we could do that.
Okay, you guys and others have convinced me. I will be voting no on this amendment. See oribabl post for a link to an update.
Personally, I am hoping this ammendment will provide for more greenspace. Can’t hunt and fish if there is nowhere for wildlife to live.
Purdue just gave up a big opportunity to buy some 400,000 acres so a developer could build more condos.