Please help me care about the stupid recall

Angry Butterfly · Post by **Angry Butterfly** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 3:35 pm

Ok, I have been politicly active for a long time, I wrote my senators and congresspeople before I was old enough to vote, I have voted in almost every election I have been eligile to, I have voluenteered on campaigns, and I have even helped out at the polls as an official, even before the whole florida fiasco thing. But I can not bring myself to care about this thing, I think it is a joke, I haven't even been following it, I skip right to the funnies. I just can't make myself care, and i feel so bad about that I didnt even want to get out of bed this morning, I didnt send in my poll worker card, and on top of it all, my polling place is in Sunnyvale (my old polling place) even though I transfered my votor registration to Alameda County where I live now. ( the sample ballot came to this address, and had it priinted on it, I have no Idea why the polling place was not changed) So I have to ride my bike to the light rail and then to the polling place, for an election I just don't care about. Frankly, even the thought of Shwarzeneger SP? being governor doesn't really bother me. I don't really like Davis, either. I do care about the other two inititives , but it isn't enough to get my ass to Sunnyvale. I feel bad about not caring, but damn... Have I lost it?

Blenderhead · Post by **Blenderhead** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 3:43 pm

Hey Butterfly:

I lifted this from the CA Secretary of State website. Ask for a provisional ballot if they give you any shit at the Alameda polling station.

And, fer chrissake, VOTE!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Election rosters may be printed prior to the 15 day close of registration. California has a provisional voting process to handle voters whose eligibility to vote cannot be verified by a precinct worker.

If a voter's name does not appear on the election roster at his or her polling place location, the person will be required to show proof of current residence in order to receive a provisional ballot.

Ballots for such voters are placed in provisional ballot envelopes. Each provisional ballot is researched by election officials. A provisional ballot is not counted unless the Elections Official establishes from the records in their office the claimants' right to vote prior to the completion of the official canvass, or by order of the Superior Court in the county of the voter's residence.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 3:47 pm

Actually, I think the whole recall thing is fucking hillarious. I shouldn't as I am a faithful voter (though in Oregon now), but I just can't stop giggling at the thought of Arnold as governor of California.

I mean think of it- just listening to him slaughter the English language in a political debate would be priceless!

"I tink my appooonant has zum valeed poynts- but I vill now crush heem."

If he gets elected, then write to him and ask him to give periodic "state of the state" speeches.
"No really Arnold. We vant (snicker) I mean want to hear you tok (snicker) I mean talk about how our economy is doooo-ink (giggle)."

Angry Butterfly · Post by **Angry Butterfly** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 4:00 pm

hey, thanks, blenderhead, it should not be difficult to prove my residence, since I have my SAMPLE BALLOT with my current address printed on it. I actully knew about the provisional thing (from Working the polls) but wanted to avoid it because of the already long lines. Still working at getting my ass down there, though.

rodent · Post by **rodent** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 4:02 pm

(Just heard last night)

Why did Shriver marry Arnold?

Because they're trying to breed a bulletproof Kennedy.

rodent (putting the eek in geek)
please donate to the KRA Fund (Keep Rodent Alive)
http://www.circus.com/~rodent

Angry Butterfly · Post by **Angry Butterfly** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 4:40 pm

Is it so wrong that I'm voting for the porn star? I like her ideas on gun control.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:02 pm

It's simple enough for me. I'm voting no on the recall initiative because I strongly believe that it's provided an undemocratic and basically unconstitutional means for one political party to use mob politics to seize power from another. I don't give a damn who they've put up as a stalking horse -- Davis probably is at least as distasteful as Arnold, having already demonstrated poor character in the political arena, but that's not the motivator for me.

AFAIK, most states with recall laws require that specific allegations of malfeasance accompany the recall petition -- here, it can be done with no cause, at whim, and only requires a small segment of the voting population among a few counties to push a recall initiative through. The burden this puts on the voter, to be prepared and educated on candidates and issues, for such extraordinary special elections is not consistent with the kind of democracy to which we're accustomed, however flawed the normal electoral means might be.

That, and voting no on the race measure Ward Connerly managed to tack onto the ballot -- again, radical factions among the Republicans taking advantage of the chaos surrounding this election to sneak a back-to-the-stone-age measure past a baffled public. Seems when the right wing gets disgruntled, they often get what they want, while the disgruntled left wing either sits at home and wrings their hands, or wastes their ballot on kooks.

PJ · Post by PJ » Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:12 pm

Angry Butterfly wrote:Is it so wrong that I'm voting for the porn star? I like her ideas on gun control.

Her proposed "porn for pistols" trade-in program? Count me out. I like both. Besides, not even I can ever hope to consume all the porn that's available for free on the Internet--so who needs to hand over their pistol to get more porn? (I will grant, however, it might be best to at least set the pistol aside while making use of the porn.)

Angry Butterfly · Post by **Angry Butterfly** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:12 pm

PJ wrote:
Angry Butterfly wrote:Is it so wrong that I'm voting for the porn star? I like her ideas on gun control.
Her proposed "porn for pistols" trade-in program? Count me out. I like both. Besides, not even I can ever hope to consume all the porn that's available for free on the Internet--so who needs to hand over their pistol to get more porn? (I will grant, however, it might be best to at least set the pistol aside while making use of the porn.)

Yeah, but with her program you get to MEET the porn star! ( although, I don't know if she is going to have any of the california cheeze cows doing it, so I can see why *you* aren't interested *wink*LOL) Actually the reason I like it is that guns for toys programs have gotten a lot of illegal and dangerous guns off the streets (and presumably out of households with children, since it was guns for toys) like guns with broken safety's and sawed off shotguns and such, so I'm all for it, The nice thing about gun exchange programs like that is that they aren't really aimed at legal, registered guns, I see them as the best of both worlds. Like I defend my uncles' right to shoot deer (in season) on their own land that are eating their crops, and my friend keeps a sniper rifle locked up at a shooting range, and I am down with that. It is the pistol somebody bought out of the back of a truck sitting in a shoebox somewhere that I worry about, and now that you mention it, I'm kind of worried about people who use guns and porn at the same time!

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:21 pm

I'm kind of worried about people who use guns and porn at the same time!

You should be more worried about people who use guns and alcohol at the same time. I've never heard tell a story of some half-wit crack head capping a cop while wanking.

If you have cites I'd love to see 'em.

Angry Butterfly · Post by **Angry Butterfly** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:26 pm

The programs I'm talking about were in RI (with Hasbro as a sponsor), I read about them in the Providence Journal Bullitin, somewhere between December and January of sometime between 95 and 97, do I don't have anything specific, but I will see if I can find better info.
Oh yeah, and I DO worry about people who use guns and alcohol at the same time, I grew up in northern Michigan, and it *seemed* like every year some hunter would get killed and there would be alcohol involved.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:33 pm

I grew up in northern Michigan, and it *seemed* like every year some hunter would get killed and there would be alcohol involved.

Yeah, I've heard that drunken deer with firearms has always been a problem in Michigan.

Angry Butterfly · Post by **Angry Butterfly** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:57 pm

LOL! Yeah, somebody should get those deer into AA. did you see that thing on animal planet or real tv about the beagle that shot a couple people? Actualy the drunken deer in upstate NY were a lot meaner, there was this one that used to eat my tomatoes, and I used to try to shoo him away and he would just stick his tounge out at me, and his kids were always getting drunk and making fun of my dog, and setting off firecrackers and shit. Stupid Deer.

I went to ProJo.com but the archive search keeps freezing up on me, could be my firewall. I would like to show you the article and review it myself. I t made a strong impresson on me because so many of the guns they collected had something wrong with them. I will also ask my Father in Law because he is trying to get confiscated illegal guns to melt down for an art piece.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:00 pm

> I t made a strong impresson on me because so many of the guns they
> collected had something wrong with them.

Did it occur to you that maybe they only got turned in because they were
faulty? I may be a cynic, but I don't see gun exchange programs doing
much for the criminally stupid.

Angry Butterfly · Post by **Angry Butterfly** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:08 pm

I kind of thought of that, and you are right, But the thing about it is is that ( I don't know a lot about guns firsthand, so correct me if I'm wrong ) Isn't a gun that has something wrong with it more dangerous as far as it going off when it's not supposed to and such? A lot of them were illegal models and illegal modifications too, and very few were registered, it seemed like a good thing to get them off the streets to me. I wish ProJo Archives would work so I could show you, I have it open in another window right now.

III · Post by **III** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:11 pm

i may be biased on this, since all of my gins work properly, but it seems to me that the only reason for turning one in is if you can't use it for anything else, i.e. it's not working.

i suspect the guns for toys programs do little to get guns that could actually hurt other people off of the streets.

PJ · Post by PJ » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:16 pm

Angry Butterfly wrote:Isn't a gun that has something wrong with it more dangerous as far as it going off when it's not supposed to and such?

Almost never. Typically a faulty firearm's failure modes make them likely to mis-fire due to jamming, and not accidentally fire.

Angry Butterfly wrote:A lot of them were illegal models and illegal modifications too, and very few were registered, it seemed like a good thing to get them off the streets to me. I wish ProJo Archives would work so I could show you, I have it open in another window right now.

So-called "illegal models" are typically only illegal in California; there are only cosmetic differences between them and the legal-in-California version of the same make and model. Ditto registration: it isn't required in most other places. And the "illegal modifications" are most likely harmless. For example, it's legal in California to have a semi-automatic rifle with, say, a bayonet mount, or a folding stock, or a muzzle flash supressor, or with any two of those three items but not all three. Why? And if for many years you've owned a rifle with all three would you move to Oregon just to stay legal? No--you'd continue to live and work in California as "an outlaw."

III · Post by **III** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:20 pm

fyi - it is only illegal to purchase one of those weapons. you are allowed to continue to posess them if you owned them before the law went into effect. at least, i hope to hell so...

PJ · Post by PJ » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:22 pm

III wrote:fyi - it is only illegal to purchase one of those weapons. you are allowed to continue to posess them if you owned them before the law went into effect. at least, i hope to hell so...

My understanding is, yes, Californians can continue to own pre-ban makes and models, but are required to register them with the state. (Why register them though? They can't know who has them, and the information's only possible use is future confiscation.)

III · Post by **III** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:28 pm

>Why register them though?

cause i wanna be able to use em in public. if they ever run around confiscating em, i think mine will have just recently moved to nevada.

Angry Butterfly · Post by **Angry Butterfly** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:32 pm

Im giving up on ProJo.com, it doesnt look like I'm going to make it out to vote, I know I am an idiot for not voting, but I just couldn't get my ass out the door for this one, I'm worried that I'm loosing my faith in democracy. I might pull my own account or set up a block so I will stop spending so much time here, but to be honest i think i would have found some other distraction, not caring about voting is really not my nature, it is funny that so many of my friends are getting active for the first time and I just can't even get exited enough to get out the door. I will make up for it somehow. Mabe it is just this recall, it just seems so pointless and stupid. Sad that it would keep me away from the other two issues but it is 7:30 and too late for me to get to a polling place.

PJ · Post by PJ » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:38 pm

III wrote:>Why register them though?

cause i wanna be able to use em in public. if they ever run around confiscating em, i think mine will have just recently moved to nevada.

Are you required to show proof of registration, either at a range or if shooting on public land?

Angry Butterfly · Post by **Angry Butterfly** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:45 pm

Hey! I said that the gun exchange program was in RHODE ISLAND! So California guns don't count untill Mary Carey wins! But she won't because I stayed home. Sorry California, I love you but this recall turned me off, I am learning some interesting things about gun control though. Kind of glad I spoke up. See, my Dad was the kind of person who wouldn't even let us play with toy guns, but all my uncles on my mom's side were hunters. I am kind of in the middle. I really liked "Bowling for Columbine' because It was a similar point of view to mine, I am somewhere in between "Why do so many Americans die from gun violence?" and supporting a person's right to bear arms, it is very complicated and confusing to me. It seems like an issue that keeps beig portrayed as black and white when ther is nothing but grey...

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:07 pm

> you are allowed to continue to posess them if you owned them before
> the law went into effect.

For the assault rifles, you must have registered them before Jan 2001. If
you didn't, and you get caught, it's bye bye to your gun and hello to a
felony.

> Are you required to show proof of registration, either at a range or if
> shooting on public land?

Dunno. But if you are shooting a banned weapon, it'd be dumb not to carry
proof. All handguns in California must be registered, so I assume you
have to carry proof of registration if you're transporting a handgun. But
I don't think ranges generally ask about registration.

III · Post by **III** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:39 pm

you're not required to carry proof of registration. but if a leo sees you with a banned weapon, they have the right to call in the serial number to check who the registered owner is.

i'm not sure about the handgun registration thing. handguns sales require a dros, but supposedly those aren't allowed to be used to track ownership.but i'd assume that if there is a registration check it'd work the same way as for assault rifles.

alice · Post by **alice** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:40 pm

arnold just won by ten points.

fuck.

PJ · Post by PJ » Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:55 pm

Per these numbers: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s&u=/el ... lts/static it was more than 10%. A landslide, really, especially considering the pre-election poll statistics. Ditto the "recall or not" question.

PJ · Post by PJ » Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:57 pm

I really thought Larry Flint was going to get a few more votes than that.

alice · Post by **alice** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 9:02 pm

PJ wrote:Per these numbers: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s&u=/el ... lts/static it was more than 10%. A landslide, really, especially considering the pre-election poll statistics. Ditto the "recall or not" question.

fucking south cali republicans.

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 9:38 pm

I'm moving to Montana.

Please help me care about the stupid recall

Please help me care about the stupid recall

too late now.