Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

MT Senator Jon Tester Quietly Taking Money from Anti-gun [Brady] PAC

Status
Not open for further replies.
So he voted for a bi-partisan background check bill (which ~86% of Americans support), and then nothing else that's relevant to this "is he coming for your guns" discussion. Got it.
Bipartisan only means at least one of each party was for it. 86% is a talking point number.

Neither are anywhere close to the common man. One says he's a rancher and one says he's a farmer. You can vote based on that if you want.

As noted previously, Tester primarily votes with Ds and Biden. Sheehy will likely primarily vote with Rs. If you like the D agenda, vote for Tester. If you don't like the D agenda, vote for Sheehy.

It really is that simple. Voting for the man is a sucker's bet since no single Representative or Senator does anything by him/herself.
 
So he voted for a bi-partisan background check bill (which ~86% of Americans support), and then nothing else that's relevant to this "is he coming for your guns" discussion. Got it.
He voted for Supreme Court justices that are not 2nd amendment friendly and that will be relevant to some voters. The 2nd amendment will not be the big issue for Tester to overcome this election year, however.
 
He voted for Supreme Court justices that are not 2nd amendment friendly and that will be relevant to some voters. The 2nd amendment will not be the big issue for Tester to overcome this election year, however.
Not confirming justices is a newer idea in politics...
 
I have my whole long life and I can tell you it does not matter how much money Brady Pac or whoever provides to support Senator Tester's re-election ... Jon Tester is not going to try to take your guns away nor support any drastic gun controls. I am a gun owner and lifelong hunter, as well as a veteran who has fired every thing from a military 38 cal to the main gun on the M-1 Abrams. I have cautiously monitored each and every Congressional delegate from both parties for decades.

If you are opposed to Tester, fine. But don't throw the "take-your-guns-away" trite BS card into the political fray. There are plenty of good arguments to oppose both Tester and Sheehy, but gun control is a real stretch red herring.
They aren't giving him money for free. All political donations have strings attached.
 
They aren't giving him money for free. All political donations have strings attached.
I have donated money to Tester in the past, did again this year.

Only thing I'm expecting him to do is to keep his position on public lands unchanged. The money I sent doesn't ensure that, but I did mention that's why I'm supporting him.
 
Are we talking about the same Jon Tester that’s running against a guy who won’t definitively say where he stands on public land transfer? Yet, listed Land Trust hunts on his property including that they offered “private access to over 500,000 acres of National Forest?”

Did some digging around on the Open Secrets site that documents money in politics. Looks like Boone and Crockett have this Jon Tester guy in their pocket with the donations they’ve made to him.
 
Are we talking about the same Jon Tester that’s running against a guy who won’t definitively say where he stands on public land transfer?
There was a previous thread that contained a link to an interview with Sheehy where he said that he'd prefer status quo. As noted in that thread, the only proposal prevents public land transfer. In other words, it's a fake campaign issue.

Fwiw, they've started debates, so it might be worth reading those transcripts instead of paying attention to ads.
 
Last edited:
He voted for Supreme Court justices that are not 2nd amendment friendly and that will be relevant to some voters. The 2nd amendment will not be the big issue for Tester to overcome this election year, however.
He also helps Kelly in Arizona who is about as gun control as it gets.
 
running against a guy who won’t definitively say where he stands on public land transfer? Yet, listed Land Trust hunts on his property including that they offered “private access to over 500,000 acres of National Forest?”

I’m not sure that is necessarily a negative position to take. In many (most?) instances, the state is in a better position to decide what is best for its residents than the federal government is.

Why should land ownership, management and funding be viewed any differently?
 
Not a lot of enthusiasm for the Democrats in the primary. Going to take a lot of cash to turn things around.

View attachment 329345
Don’t worry the East/West coast mega PACs are pouring tens of millions into Tester’s campaign. And not because they care about the plight of MT residents or have some illusion that Tester will cast a deciding vote on gun control bills. DNC must retain control of the senate to confirm activist judges and enable the agenda of a Biden 2nd term.
 
Don’t worry the East/West coast mega PACs are pouring tens of millions into Tester’s campaign. And not because they care about the plight of MT residents or have some illusion that Tester will cast a deciding vote on gun control bills. DNC must retain control of the senate to confirm activist judges and enable the agenda of a Biden 2nd term.
The TV and internet ads are already nauseating. Can't wait till my mailbox tips over from all the mailers in October!
 
I’m not sure that is necessarily a negative position to take. In many (most?) instances, the state is in a better position to decide what is best for its residents than the federal government is.

Why should land ownership, management and funding be viewed any differently?
Because - it will be sold off? Largely as a product of it is too much for a state to manage - especially one like Mt/Wy with very limited state resources.

Not to mention - can you imagine the backdoor deals land owners and state govt would do? Its already approaching egregious - it would be beyond ridiculous.

Montana has sold off a half a million acres of state land. Many states much more. Nevada has sold a vast majority of it (their granted state lands).

Randy put a video series out about all this a long time ago that i wish more people would watch.

 
Because - it will be sold off? Largely as a product of it is too much for a state to manage - especially one like Mt/Wy with very limited state resources.

If that is what Montana residents desire (or must do financially), then so what?

It’s better to give power directly to states for important land/wildlife issues than to have them be dictated by the feds.
 
Political banter and speculation is such a worthless exercise.
Reality is this:

1. Zero chance that "they will take your guns away" during the lifetimes of anyone on this forum ... or during lifetimes of their kids or grandkids.

2. Regardless of the Hunter B. gun charge verdict, there will highly likely be more stringent background checks and vetting of those wanting to purchase firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top