Amendment 6 (court fees) gets its day in the Columbia Missourian:
Fee to fund retirement plan is focus of Amendment 6


And a look at sports betting (Amendment 2) from the The Beacon:
Would sports betting boost Missouri school funding? There’s no guarantee, experts say

Sports betting because "the school children" is the best example of BS messaging in Politics. Just vote for it if you want it, stop using the schools as an excuse for everything.

Right up there with legal weed for Veterans.

Can't blame them for their approach. We are not a society that thinks. Got to dumb it down if you want people to do your bidding.

(Not a dig on sports betting. Every issue is the same.)

Some of the commercials don't even mention the word "betting" or "gambling", it's just "vote yes to give the schools [free] money!!"

What's BS is that people are paying the government for something they should have the right to do.  Same goes for the weed thing.  I have zero interest in doing drugs or gambling, but these "sin taxes" are ridiculous.  The Prohibition was only around until the government saw how much money they stood to make by taxation and how much they could grow their reach.  Same goes with FET on guns, ammo, and even arrowheads, now gambling, legal drugs, so what's next?  What else are we going to pay the government for permission to do/use because they don't think we should have it until they can make enough money from it?

I'll be voting no on sports betting and the LOZ casino, even though they'll most likely pass.  All those TV and radio commercials are expensive.  All major league sports teams, the newspapers, BOTH candidates for governor, and even Ozzie Smith now are saying Vote YES.......where you think that money is coming from?  It's not the guy wanting to bet on the Chiefs, it's big out-of-state money that stand to make a hell of a lot more than the Missouri schools.

If you'd like to start a thread opposing the Pittman-Robertson Act I would gladly accept that challenge.

I think I'm voting no on everything unless someone here can convince me otherwise

Yes on 7.  No on everything else.

I always vote my conscience irrespective of the direction of the outcome.  I commend you for doing the same.  

I'm voting 'no' on all but #7.  

We need less gov't, less special interests, less regulation and if someone wants to open a gambling establishment [on line or on water] let them do so.  The primary function of gov't [at all levels] is to protect us from international threats, protect citizens from other citizens who are harming others and protect our civil liberties.  

That is why I am leading classes designed by Patriot Academy.  

I'm retiring to give myself more time to lead discussions.

I"m voting no on everything except #7.  We have a voting system that works.... no need to fix what ain't broke.

Do you really believe that? Are you happy with the choices we end up with?

I"m voting no on everything except #7

The problem isn't the election system, the problems are the candidates that run.  

The proposed changes will give us worse elected officials, not better.  

I don't agree. I think the primaries are a big part of the problem. In fact, I'll argue that the primaries are the root of the problem. I'm not convinced that ranked choice voting is the solution but it could help. My bigger concern is that this amendment prevents us from trying other/similar approaches, such as approval voting (which I think is worth a try).

Doesn't matter what I think, though. This amendment will pass. Between the non-citizen ballot candy and voters' unfamiliarity with RCV, passage is a slam dunk. It's kinda nuts when you consider that this measure passed out of the legislature as a last-minute attempt at saving face. It's not like RCV was a problem in Missouri. Most people had barely heard of it. But hey, let's ban it.

Yep

I'm a staunch small government guy and even I have a hard time arguing against Pittman-Robertson. One of the very few examples of money actually going towards the intent.

We've already had that discussion/debate.  You can say it's going to a good cause, yet do we really see where it goes?  We already have a massive conservation dept in this state, complete with a DEI dept with over six figures in salaries.  How much of that money is actually going to pro-firearm activities?  All it is, is LESS money that the federal and state governments have to kick in to buy more land us common folks can't use.

My argument stays the same, why does 11% need to go to wildlife conservation when I'm buying a G19 and 9mm ammo TO DEFEND myself (as afforded by the second amendment)?  And if I'm buying a permit or stamp to shoot a deer, duck, whatever, to feed my family, I'm being double taxed on food, not a trophy.  

So, we went round and round over all that and you said you still enjoyed paying that tax.  Don't think we need to do it again.

I'm curious to learn what you think of Pittman-Robertson and why?  

I don't want to derail the thread, but . . .

P-R was conceived by sportsman to benefit sportsmen. It has been doing that for 80-some years. When I go to the local gun clubs to shoot skeet or sporting clays, the birds are thrown from machines donated to the clubs by the Conservation Department and paid for with P-R money. If I decide to go to the local MDC shooting range, I know that land and those facilities were funded at least in part by P-R. Sunday I went for a walk on the fabulous trail at Painted Rock Conservation Area. The trail map brochure clearly stated the facility was paid for with funds from P-R. I know that every hunter under a certain age in Missouri received hunter safety and gun safety training that was funded in large part by P-R. While I don't know this for a fact, I suspect that the availability of public lands for hunting and recreational shooting for almost the past century went a long way toward creating a critical mass of firearms ownership and use that made the continued preservation of the 2A possible. We love to talk about how the 2A isn't about hunting, and it's not, but without hunters and other outdoorsmen there simply isn't enough support for guns to keep our rights secure. Public lands, public shooting facilities and publicly funded training are critical to making firearms ownership accessible and enjoyable for all Americans. P-R is a big part of making that possible. P-R is an important cog in a many part mechanism that protects the 2A.

Delorean asked why he should pay for wildlife conservation efforts when buying his self defense gun. My answer would be that he probably won't be able to buy guns like that in the future if we splinter the wide and diverse community of people who exercise their 2A rights. What would he say to the proverbial Fudd trap shooter who sees no reason to defend black rifles? I imagine he'd say we're all supposed to be on the same team. If so, I would agree. A tax of 11% that supports the outdoors/firearms community is a small price to pay for the cause. United we stand. Divided we fall.

If you live in a rural county, you may see a county specific question on your ballot when you go to vote. The question asks if you want the property tax on the primary home of age >62 individuals to be frozen. In other words, seniors will never see their property taxes go up on their residence. Most of the big counties have already voted on something like this, but many of the smaller counties are just now putting it on the ballot. (A 2023 law authorizing the tax freeze passed was confusing. The legislature clarified the law in 2024.)



I'm of two minds on this issue. I'm over 62 so this affects me. It's in my self interest to freeze my property taxes. Duh? Who wouldn't want that? On the other hand, if my taxes don't go up along with everybody else's where is the county going to get the money? From my younger neighbor, of course. Why should my neighbor, who is struggling to make ends meet more than I am, have to subsidize my taxes? And if taxes are frozen am I more likely to stay in a house I've outgrown, taking a home out of the market for young families who are struggling to find suitable housing for their growing family?

Fuck 'em. I want mine! . . . well, maybe. But that's the question. What are your thoughts?

Here's a letter to the editor that lays it out.
Letter to the Editor: Senior citizen property tax freezes are not sound policy  

But, that's not good job security for the government.

Be that as it may, will young people vote to allow their older neighbors to pay lower taxes knowing they will be picking up the slack?