Florida Shooters Network

Here's a link that I've used to help explain and break down the ADMENDMENTS on the ballot this year. If you already know fine. Just trying to help. I'd appreciate your input also if you have one.


https://www.jamesmadison.org/wp-content ... 08_web.pdf

Simple analysis of Amendment 3:

The Mouse and the Seminoles were the prime backers. Therefore any sane person must be against it. It is that simple.

On the dumbass end wagering on dog racing amendment 13, if the PETA/Humane Society weenies don't like the living conditions of the dogs then why not an amendment to regulate those? Or would that be too much like the pregnant pig amendment?
Banning greyhound racing means no more greyhounds when the financial support goes away. Any that can't be given away will be euthanized and nobody who isn't dedicated to the breed will raise them because the puppies are so active (unlike the adults) that they'll tear up a home.

As for the dogs dying during racing: A. The dogs love to run. My son fostered Greyhounds and the dogs would race each other around his yard. B. Greyhounds have a tendency to die from heart failure, racing or not, around age 7 or 8, and if they get past that they'll live a normal life for that size dog. So a few are going to die during a race each year.

BTW I've never been to greyhound race track and do not gamble on them or horses either. I have no interest in this except that its a counterproductive and unwarranted intrusion in our freedom.

tector wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:37 pm Simple analysis of Amendment 3:

The Mouse and the Seminoles were the prime backers. Therefore any sane person must be against it. It is that simple.

I agree with your assessment but, I can't see the logic behind their support. Based on my reading, it would seem that more broad based voting would be to the mouse's disadvantage. It's easier to buy just a few politicians. Or, is it because a number of mental children - much of the population - would be mesmerized by Michael the rodent's pronouncements?

CaptBarty wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:26 pm

tector wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:37 pm Simple analysis of Amendment 3:

The Mouse and the Seminoles were the prime backers. Therefore any sane person must be against it. It is that simple.

I agree with your assessment but, I can't see the logic behind their support. Based on my reading, it would seem that more broad based voting would be to the mouse's disadvantage. It's easier to buy just a few politicians. Or, is it because a number of mental children - much of the population - would be mesmerized by Michael the rodent's pronouncements?

Both the Mouse and the Seminoles do not want any more gambling facilities built in Florida. The Mouse because they are the Mouse--the same reason they oppose opening up our gun laws. The Seminoles because they have a massively unfair advantage right now. As things stand now, gambling could be expanded by simple majority legislative action (and the governor signing on). Amendment 3 would make citizen initiatives the sole way to expand gambling. This is a much harder path.

tector wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:39 pmAmendment 3 would make citizen initiatives the sole way to expand gambling. This is a much harder path.

That's it. A3 doesn't expand gambling, it puts it to the public to approve by referendum. Much harder to accomplish than paying off a few politicians.

The mouse, the Seminoles and the anti-gambling crowd want yes on 3. Casino interests want No on 3.

chester field wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:19 pm

tector wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:39 pmAmendment 3 would make citizen initiatives the sole way to expand gambling. This is a much harder path.

That's it. A3 doesn't expand gambling, it puts it to the public to approve by referendum. Much harder to accomplish than paying off a few politicians.

The mouse, the Seminoles and the anti-gambling crowd want yes on 3. Casino interests want No on 3.

Well it de facto restricts the voluntary tax of gambling. So when the pols want money, where do you think they will turn instead? Take a wild guess.

Bring on the gambling.

jjk308 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:14 am On the dumbass end wagering on dog racing amendment 13, if the PETA/Humane Society weenies don't like the living conditions of the dogs then why not an amendment to regulate those?

Peta is not involved in A13. That is a falsehood spread by the No crowd.

Every attempt to further regulate and legislate the living conditions has been fought by the racing industry and their lobbyists in the State house. A number of bills have passed the senate already only to die in the house. Most of these attempts to regulate by legislation have been sponsored by and supported by our Republican senators.

These failures in the house are the reason why all those Republicans on the CRC put the Amendment on the ballot. Most of them are A+ rated by the NRA who doubled back on them to make a buck off this. Hammer's statement to members was almost word for word the argument the racing industry used in the Supreme Court hearing, and all of it was dismissed by that same Supreme Court already.

I have been involved in Greyhound rehoming and adoption for almost a decade. I have adopted three and fostered another dozen. I have helped rehome at least 500 greyhounds during that time by fostering, transporting, adopting, or administrative functions. Every group that I worked with was told that if we speak out against racing, we will be cut off from getting any more dogs. Individually, we were told that if we speak out publicly about racing, we will get kicked out of the group because the racing people will not give us dogs. Out of the approximately 300 greyhound groups across the US and Canada, only 90 are against A13. There is big pressure being put on neutral (no opinion either way) groups to speak out against A13 under threat of getting cut off.

If you have a reason to vote no like not believing this to be a constitutional issue, then I won't argue that. But if it is based on the garbage being spewed by the racing people -the people who make money off these dogs, then dump them to people like me the minute that they quit producing- then I would urge you to vote yes on 13. Most of us love dogs and have dogs and have lost dogs. We have shared our experiences of loss here over the years. Follow your conscience.

No one is gonna come grab your dogs. Or your fishing pole, Or stop you from eating a burger. No one did that in any of the other states that voted out or legislated out racing dogs.

Read the actual amendment.

Jeff Brandes has supported legislation to decouple racing in the past (the coupling law makes racing necessary by law to have a card room and parimutuel betting), and so has Dana Young. Tom Lee sponsored the proposal that put the amendment on the ballot along with 26 other constitutional review commissioners (most of them Republicans). Pam Bondi supported it from the beginning. Rick Scott just came out in support of A13.

It costs the state more to regulate live dog racing than it brings in from live dog racing, which means you and I pick up the tab for it. They can't afford to regulate it now, let alone trying to regulate it more than they do now.

This phases out racing over two years if it passes. The only reason the dogs won't be rehomed is if the racing people kill them out of spite. The greyhound has been around for thousands of years. Ending racing won't make the breed go extinct no matter how many lies they tell. It won't stop you or me from hunting, but it will stop the flow of broken and damaged dogs that are lucky enough to get rehomed. When that flow of overbred dogs stops, then that will be that many more shelter dogs that can be rehomed, which is where many of us got ours from.

The NRA really jumped the shark on this issue. I hope they don't cost us any Republicans in office from it.

-Hunter, fisherman, NRA member and dog owner, married to a farm girl.

tector wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:35 pm

chester field wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:19 pm

tector wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:39 pmAmendment 3 would make citizen initiatives the sole way to expand gambling. This is a much harder path.

That's it. A3 doesn't expand gambling, it puts it to the public to approve by referendum. Much harder to accomplish than paying off a few politicians.

The mouse, the Seminoles and the anti-gambling crowd want yes on 3. Casino interests want No on 3.

Well it de facto restricts the voluntary tax of gambling. So when the pols want money, where do you think they will turn instead? Take a wild guess.

Bring on the gambling.

Voluntary tax is right.
I have no issue with gambling or people wanting to gamble. I am good with however 3 falls. Different states already do it either way.

If the greyhound racing is stopped what will be next? Agility competitions?
I have no idea if anyone bets on whose Sheepdog runs the course fastest but that is a race too.
I imagine there are other competitions involving dogs; I've seen long jump into a pool after a float,
running after hogs. Many dogs get hurt doing this. Though it is not out for an audience.