have gun will travel
New member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2012
- Messages
- 343
Hmmm how about we all vote for Randy..
Once Again, the GOP Comes Out as Anti-Hunting
- Thread starter JoseCuervo
- Start date
- Status
putm2sleep
New member
JOSE is back
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,855
.....
Last edited:
Schaaf
Well-known member
Believe he means it would be nice if Leupold came forward as public land advocates...
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,855
got ya my apologies
, you can tell he's a natural....ya see they show up every morning right down there with their signs........
Trump is the only GOP candidate that has been vocal about supporting public lands. His son is an actual hunter and understands public lands unlike the out of touch, paid for politicians like Cruz. Trump is a good publicity maker. I could vote for Trump if it came down to him or Hillary. Bernie although not aligned with a lot of my views I believe is a candidate who is actually very truthful and passionate about what he says. Cruz is bought by industries that fund his campaign and nothing more than a paid for puppet. Trump isn't my first choice as our president, but no candidate running is either. I believe Trump needs to turn down his publicity meter and bring it to rational statements. From interviews and statements from Donald Trump Jr. I am actually impressed. I think his son is actually a better candidate than his dad and a bit more reasonable, but if Trump is good on guns and good on public lands I will vote for him in our current election situation.
Last edited:
fap1800
Member
I'm with you. My order is Trump, Sanders and (ack!)...Hillary. I'm firmly committed to this issue and it's for me become a one-issue election. If Hillary is the only option left, I will fall on the sword.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
Serious question:
How is "sky is falling" when someone says the second amendment is in danger but not when someone says public lands could be lost?
There is no doubt in my mind that the democrat party would confiscate every semi automatic weapon tomorrow, including duck guns, if they could. And no small number of them would like to go farther.
There is also no doubt in my mind that if Cruz says he wants to transfer lands, he would do it if given the chance.
So in my mind, what it really comes down to is what are the odds of either happening.
I do know that if the Supreme Court gets another liberal judge, we are very unlikely to get strict scrutiny for gun laws. That will have a very significant effect.
As far as a land transfer getting through Congress, I really don't know how that would pan out. I suspect that 1) it makes a good talking point but is actually very far down on the to-do list and 2) it would be met with a lot of opposition.
hunterconservationist
New member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 45
Re: Great Article that Ties it All Together
Called "The Land Grab Mafia". Spells it out pretty clearly.
http://hunterconservationist.com/2016/02/14/landgrabmafia/
Called "The Land Grab Mafia". Spells it out pretty clearly.
http://hunterconservationist.com/2016/02/14/landgrabmafia/
I know I'll be really glad when this election crap is over for while.
JoseCuervo
New member
Reasons why the sky is falling applies to guns but not public land
1)There is a constitutional amendment protecting guns, not so for public lands
2)numerous state republican parties, including mt, have an explicitly stated platform supported divesture of federal lands
3)At least two of the republican candidates are actively supporting divesture of public lands
4)No democratic at the national level in this election or any other has ever supported overturning the second amendment.
5)Neither the confiscation of guns nor overturning the 2nd amendment has ever been a party platform of either party.
- Again that is no support ever for overturning the 2nd amendment.
6)The only change to the original amendments was women's suffrage and that took decades of hard fighting, and there is not now nor has there ever been any real effort to overturn the second amendment,
7)I can purchase a weapon to hunt with in every western democracy (granted it is not necessarily easy) but few of them have public access to public animals on public land.
1)There is a constitutional amendment protecting guns, not so for public lands
2)numerous state republican parties, including mt, have an explicitly stated platform supported divesture of federal lands
3)At least two of the republican candidates are actively supporting divesture of public lands
4)No democratic at the national level in this election or any other has ever supported overturning the second amendment.
5)Neither the confiscation of guns nor overturning the 2nd amendment has ever been a party platform of either party.
- Again that is no support ever for overturning the 2nd amendment.
6)The only change to the original amendments was women's suffrage and that took decades of hard fighting, and there is not now nor has there ever been any real effort to overturn the second amendment,
7)I can purchase a weapon to hunt with in every western democracy (granted it is not necessarily easy) but few of them have public access to public animals on public land.
Here's something else for you die hard republicans who seem to have such short memories.
THURSDAY, MAR 12, 2015 01:15 AM PDT
The George W. Bush email scandal the media has conveniently forgotten
Back in 2007, the White House "lost" more than five million private emails. The story was barely covered
ERIC BOEHLERT, MEDIA MATTERS
Share 128K
Post
233
TOPICS: MEDIA MATTERS, GEORGE W. BUSH, HILLARY CLINTON, WASHINGTON POST, KARL ROVE, POLITICS NEWS
The George W. Bush email scandal the media has conveniently forgotten
(Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)
This article originally appeared on Media Matters.
Even for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush’s sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.
The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.
As the Washington Post reported, “Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations.” But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.
The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday’s Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up. At all. (The story did get covered on ABC’s This Week.)
By comparison, not only did every network Sunday news show this week cover the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails, but they were drowning in commentary. Between Meet the Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Fox News Sunday, Clinton’s “email” or “emails” were referenced more than 100 times on the programs, according to Nexis transcripts. Talk about saturation coverage.
Indeed, the commentary for the last week truly has been relentless, with the Beltway press barely pausing to catch its breath before unloading yet another round of “analysis,” most of which provides little insight but does allow journalists to vent about the Clintons.
What has become clear over the last eight days however is that the Clinton email story isn’t about lawbreaking. “Experts have said it doesn’t appear Clinton violated federal laws,” CNN conceded. “But that hasn’t stemmed the issue that has become more about bad optics and politics than any actual wrongdoing.” The National Law Journal agreed, noting that while the story has created a political furor, “any legal consequences are likely to prove negligible.”
Still, the scandal machine churns on determined to the treat the story as a political blockbuster, even though early polling indicates the kerfuffle will not damage Clinton’s standing.
Looking back, it’s curious how the D.C. scandal machine could barely get out of first gear when the Bush email story broke in 2007. I’m not suggesting the press ignored the Rove email debacle, because the story was clearly covered at the time. But triggering a firestorm (a guttural roar) that raged for days and consumed the Beltway chattering class the way the D.C. media has become obsessed with the Clinton email story? Absolutely not. Not even close.
THURSDAY, MAR 12, 2015 01:15 AM PDT
The George W. Bush email scandal the media has conveniently forgotten
Back in 2007, the White House "lost" more than five million private emails. The story was barely covered
ERIC BOEHLERT, MEDIA MATTERS
Share 128K
Post
233
TOPICS: MEDIA MATTERS, GEORGE W. BUSH, HILLARY CLINTON, WASHINGTON POST, KARL ROVE, POLITICS NEWS
The George W. Bush email scandal the media has conveniently forgotten
(Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)
This article originally appeared on Media Matters.
Even for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush’s sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.
The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.
As the Washington Post reported, “Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations.” But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.
The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday’s Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up. At all. (The story did get covered on ABC’s This Week.)
By comparison, not only did every network Sunday news show this week cover the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails, but they were drowning in commentary. Between Meet the Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Fox News Sunday, Clinton’s “email” or “emails” were referenced more than 100 times on the programs, according to Nexis transcripts. Talk about saturation coverage.
Indeed, the commentary for the last week truly has been relentless, with the Beltway press barely pausing to catch its breath before unloading yet another round of “analysis,” most of which provides little insight but does allow journalists to vent about the Clintons.
What has become clear over the last eight days however is that the Clinton email story isn’t about lawbreaking. “Experts have said it doesn’t appear Clinton violated federal laws,” CNN conceded. “But that hasn’t stemmed the issue that has become more about bad optics and politics than any actual wrongdoing.” The National Law Journal agreed, noting that while the story has created a political furor, “any legal consequences are likely to prove negligible.”
Still, the scandal machine churns on determined to the treat the story as a political blockbuster, even though early polling indicates the kerfuffle will not damage Clinton’s standing.
Looking back, it’s curious how the D.C. scandal machine could barely get out of first gear when the Bush email story broke in 2007. I’m not suggesting the press ignored the Rove email debacle, because the story was clearly covered at the time. But triggering a firestorm (a guttural roar) that raged for days and consumed the Beltway chattering class the way the D.C. media has become obsessed with the Clinton email story? Absolutely not. Not even close.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
I can't tell if you are over confident in the 2nd Amendment's strength or if you don't really see the need for it. Your #7 makes me question the latter.
First off, the scrutiny level is going to be a huge deal, and will probably be decided in the near future. If the 2nd gets anything other than strict scrutiny, there will be a flood of new gun control legislation on the state and local level, and if will be virtually impossible to overturn.
Second, several states do support very restrictive gun control.
Third, for the past 8 years, democrats decided gun control was a losing issue and didn't attempt much in the way of legislation. They've decided it's a winning issue again and are talking about. Hillary recently said she thinks we should do something like Australia. So bye bye pump/semi auto shotguns and rifles.
But most importantly, if you think that repealing the 2nd or gun confiscation is not desired by most democrat party leaders, you are kidding yourself.
The 2nd Amendment will probably never be repealed. In that, you are correct. Instead it will be gutted to the point where it is impotent.
I also won't argue that you can purchase firearms in other countries. But ask Richard how much fun it is to own a gun in England. Or ask a Canadian how much fun it is to bow hunt or backpack in grizzly country (no handguns allowed).
I'm on board with NOT transferring public lands. I just don't agree as to which is the more vulnerable issue this election. I'd be much more at ease with a Democrat president if the 2nd was given strict scrutiny and we had a more stable Supreme Court.
The bad part of both issues is, once they are gone, we'll never get them back.
- Status
