Sportsmen for Trump & the selling out of the American Sportsman

Nameless Range

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
2,729
Location
Western Montana
The public land stand of some republicans is an issue that can be remediated. The anti hunting, anti gun stand of the Democrats really cant.
I am neither a democrat nor a republican, but it isn't the democrats that have have a plank in the their platform that is anti-gun ( they do have one for increased background checks) or anti hunting. In fact, I went wolf hunting a few times this winter because our Senator, a democrat, along with another senator, a republican, codified in a bill their delisting in the west. So anti hunting of him.:rolleyes:

The republicans have established themselves as anti public lands through a proclamation in their own platform.

Yet, even the codified priorities of the club they themselves have chosen to join don't tell the tale. There are Republicans who support public lands, and there are democrats who support hunting and the 2nd. Some of the most anti-huntinest/anti-fishinest bills I've ever seen have spawned from GOP peabrains in the Montana legislature.

Party priorities can change, and maybe they are. Good people come from both sides of the isle, as do chitheads, and I believe that is the best attitude to have. Largely because of insight shared on this forum over the course of a decade.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
3,326
Location
Aurora, CO

Tradewind

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
1,721
You are a very well informed and intelligent person. I enjoy reading your point of view and they give me some better insight to the situation. I have to read some of it a couple of times to understand it all, but none the less I enjoy it. I/we can learn alot from you. I too have no idea what side you are on from time to time. Like you I don't really care about the letter associated with the name as long as they do good things.

My point is everything seems to be blamed on President Trump and his administration. Do we really know what is going through his mind? We are not involved, nor entitled to everything his advisors are telling him, we don't know what influencing facts he is dealing with, we just don't know everything. How would any of us hold up to the pressures that he is facing? Right or wrong, if any of us were to be elected and in his shoes, would we still see things the way we do right now? Would we get the support to do the things we feel is correct? How much could he accomplish if he had the support he deserves? The man deals with continual attacks driven from fear and hatred every day. He has been disrespected and attacked by the vary people we put in office to work for us, who should understand the pressures associated with the office, and respect the office if not the man. He got elected, it's his (and the people that elected him) turn, and no President can satisfy everyone, me included. I'm not trying to make excusses for him, just trying to see things from his perspective. There are a lot of issues that need to be fixed in our country.

My thoughts are not as elegant or as well written as yours are, but I do believe that, although he has inherited responsibility, it's not always President Trumps downfall.
Oh man, I think I'm going get sick. Lamb paid you at least a 'C' note for all of that drivel
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
3,326
Location
Aurora, CO
Good people come from both sides of the isle, as do chitheads, and I believe that is the best attitude to have.
Therefore if you care about hunting rights, public lands, 2A, etc. you should participate in our democracy. A number of states have open presidential primaries, this means that even if you intend on voting for Trump you can also have some say in who the democratic opponent and hedge your bets.

I really don't care who you vote for, but I hope that you review the platforms of the various candidates in the democratic field and cast your vote.

Yes I'm looking at you registered republicans, CO is now a super Tuesday state get out there and vote and I hope in the coming months this forum can have some productive discussions about the best (sportsman) democratic candidate.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
3,326
Location
Aurora, CO
They've been this way since Reagan. When will the remediation begin?
Reagan... a republican that would be absolutely trounced today for his 2A stance

Regan in 1989 saying he didn't believe civilians should own "assault" weapons and that those weapons didn't have a legitimate purpose.

Also... as Gov of CA... "There is absolutely no reason why, out of the street, today civilians should be carrying a loaded weapon.

I'm not making an anti-gun point, just that politics and history are nuanced.
 

Quackillr

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
666
Location
MT
I think most sportsman are at least somewhat informed of history, and probably even more informed as voters. There are a few things Clinton did that I agree with and plenty that Reagan did that I think he was way off on. From a guy who has to go thru a background check to buy a box of dove loads in California because a bunch of Democrats to a guy in Montana who is worried about republicans selling/leasing public lands, the parties and priorities are obviously different.
Let’s be real, everyday Americans probably have more in common with AOC than Hillary or Donald or Don jr.

As far as the OP, I don’t see it likely or plausible that any president could permanently destroy a significant amount of public land in 8 years any more so than one could seize 393 million guns from the American people.

I don’t like either party. I didn’t vote for trump, I voted for the Supreme Court justices he would appoint. Honestly I like trump more so now than I did when he was elected. For an abundant number of reasons, none of which happen to be that Jr is a hunter and most of which are more significant to me than public lands. Passing on our heritage is more than just the land, the land is useless without the ideas of freedom, independence and economic prosperity.
 
Last edited:

Losing_Sanity

Active member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
166
I think most sportsman are at least somewhat informed of history, and probably even more informed as voters. There are a few things Clinton did that I agree with and plenty that Reagan did that I think he was way off on. From a guy who has to go thru a background check to buy a box of dove loads in California because a bunch of Democrats to a guy in Montana who is worried about republicans selling/leasing public lands, the parties and priorities are obviously different.
Let’s be real, everyday Americans probably have more in common with AOC than Hillary or Donald or Don jr.

As far as the OP, I don’t see it likely or plausible that any president could permanently destroy a significant amount of public land in 8 years any more so than one could seize 393 million guns from the American people.

I don’t like either party. I didn’t vote for trump, I voted for the Supreme Court justices he would appoint. Honestly I like trump more so now than I did when he was elected. For an abundant number of reasons, none of which happen to be that Jr is a hunter and most of which are more significant to me than public lands. Passing on our heritage is more than just the land, the land is useless without the ideas of freedom, independence and economic prosperity.
Well said...
 

elkduds

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
1,263
Location
CO Springs.
"It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness."
When it fits, from time to time I post this challenge on HT:

Those who support public lands, hunting, wildlife, habitat; contact your legislators to share your opinion. Do this @ least once for every 5 forum posts you make on these topics.

You others, disregard this. Just stay here and bloviate to your heart's delight.
 

MTGomer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
2,134
Location
MT —> AZ
Reagan... a republican that would be absolutely trounced today for his 2A stance

Regan in 1989 saying he didn't believe civilians should own "assault" weapons and that those weapons didn't have a legitimate purpose.

Also... as Gov of CA... "There is absolutely no reason why, out of the street, today civilians should be carrying a loaded weapon.

I'm not making an anti-gun point, just that politics and history are nuanced.

As much as we dislike politicians it is worth noting the positive evolutions in both parties, such as some republicans supporting gun rights, unlike Reagan.

Or democrats opposing segregation.

Or in more recent times, evolving to support equal protection under the law for gay couples.
Soon, even republicans that wish to be elected will embrace that position.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
10,012
Location
Helena
As much as we dislike politicians it is worth noting the positive evolutions in both parties, such as some republicans supporting gun rights, unlike Reagan.

Or democrats opposing segregation.

Or in more recent times, evolving to support equal protection under the law for gay couples.
Soon, even republicans that wish to be elected will embrace that position.
It's an important aspect to American politics (and politics in general) that many forget - party's evolve and change their position or they die (Tories, Whigs, etc). Reagan's approach to gun laws was about keeping Black Panthers from exercising their rights as citizens during the 60's. That certainly influenced his decisions relative to the importation ban of the 80's, just as much as it was the gun violence in Miami during the cocaine wars.

But the antagonism towards public lands and conservation within the GOP is now part of the platform, part of the DNA. It's going to take a massive awakening from the electorate to change that. We saw the first inclining after the 18 elections, but the pandering and sleight of hand still remains. The "google ad controversy" is a great example of this. The two electeds who made the most hay out that bump in the road for an advertisement were the ones that introduced the largest rollback of habitat protections in the history of Montana.

At the same time, the IUCN issues a report on 1 million species on the brink, and we've lost 50% of our wild animals world-wide since the 1960's. That doesn't make a blip on our radar, but Corey Booker's gun-grabbing plan has us quaking in our boots even though it wouldn't be implemented.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
10,012
Location
Helena
I think most sportsman are at least somewhat informed of history, and probably even more informed as voters. There are a few things Clinton did that I agree with and plenty that Reagan did that I think he was way off on. From a guy who has to go thru a background check to buy a box of dove loads in California because a bunch of Democrats to a guy in Montana who is worried about republicans selling/leasing public lands, the parties and priorities are obviously different.
Let’s be real, everyday Americans probably have more in common with AOC than Hillary or Donald or Don jr.

As far as the OP, I don’t see it likely or plausible that any president could permanently destroy a significant amount of public land in 8 years any more so than one could seize 393 million guns from the American people.

I don’t like either party. I didn’t vote for trump, I voted for the Supreme Court justices he would appoint. Honestly I like trump more so now than I did when he was elected. For an abundant number of reasons, none of which happen to be that Jr is a hunter and most of which are more significant to me than public lands. Passing on our heritage is more than just the land, the land is useless without the ideas of freedom, independence and economic prosperity.

I've worked in the conservation & political field for 17 years. I can, without a doubt, say this isn't the case. Sportsmen are just as apathetic to issues as anyone else, perhaps more-so in many instances. I do agree that most Americans have more in common with AOC than the elites who seek to rule us. That's why her message resonates, we can identify with her. Same with Crenshaw out of Texas (although he seems to be getting co-opted by the party pretty quickly rather than standing for himself).

As far as one president impacting public lands or the wildlife that live there, I point to the Wyoming Range Mule Deer herd. The decisions made by one president resulted in the crash of the largest mule deer herd in the United States. That collapse continues. One could argue that Clinton's reintroduction of wolves to the west has had similar outcomes on the scale of changing land use and management, especially at the local level where state agencies are now working on ways to mitigate the impacts of wolves to livestock, etc.

Presidents control the agencies that manage our lands. If their priority is not the wise use thereof, the impacts can last for generations. This administration's policies do increase the likelihood of denuded public lands, less wildlife and less opportunity for hunters. Clinton's record on Natural Gas development was marginally better than Bush II. Both parties do bad things, absolutely, but nobody has done the damage on the scale that this crew is currently enacting.
 

ImBillT

Active member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
581
Reagan... a republican that would be absolutely trounced today for his 2A stance

Regan in 1989 saying he didn't believe civilians should own "assault" weapons and that those weapons didn't have a legitimate purpose.

Also... as Gov of CA... "There is absolutely no reason why, out of the street, today civilians should be carrying a loaded weapon.

I'm not making an anti-gun point, just that politics and history are nuanced.
Reagan fails to use the term “assault weapon” in the video you posted. The issue at the time revolved around fully automatic weapons and Reagan said “machine gun”.
 
Top