collapse

Author Topic: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban  (Read 1836 times)

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« on: November 12, 2017, 10:00:17 AM »
Behold, proposed legislation from the Democratic party...the party that the leadership of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers prefers and actively promotes. FirstLite makes great clothing but they wonít get a dime of my money until they stop giving a portion of their sale proceeds to BHA. #knowwhoandwhatyouarereallysupporting

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171109/dianne-feinstein-wants-to-ban-commonly-owned-semi-autos-again
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 3882
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2017, 10:12:38 AM »


Where does BHA "Actively Promote" either party Allen?  We fight either party that tries to take away public access or trash the landscape that we hunt and fish on.  Prove otherwise before you talk out of your ass.

If BHA supports this bill I will be right with you trashing it, but that's not going to happen. 

Does SCI support the GOP platform for transfer of public land, drilling in ANWR, and trashing the Sage Grouse plan? I suppose you support EVERYTHING the GOP does? I know you are all for transfer of public lands....your boy Cruz thought the 1% open land in TX was too much. 
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 07:30:07 AM by Woodchuck »

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2827
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2017, 10:31:07 AM »
BHA promotes protecting access to public land, they support an issue not a particular party.  Fortunately, they dig deeper than Republicans good, Democrats bad or Democrats good, Republicans bad.

If you have evidence of them supporting this gun legislation or even Diane Feinstein in general, put it up for all to see otherwise it just looks like you posted a link to an article and then drew a conclusion about an entirely different organization and completely different issue with zero evidence.

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2017, 10:47:18 AM »
  Same goes for your and BHAís nonsensical claim that the Republican Party platform calls for the raping and pillaging of our public land. It doesnít. Itís just a scare tactic BHA uses to drum up membership.

Itís well known (and easily googled) which side of the political spectrum the leadership of BHA actively supports.  Get on the national and Washington Chapter Facebook page and ask them some pointed questions about who their leadership supports. Ask them why they are constantly railing against Republicans, but NEVER ever bring up Democratic talking points and actual party platforms that would adversely affect gun-owning sportsmen.  Then look into the personal Facebook pages of their most fervent supporters. Progressive liberal democrat supporters  right down the line. Sooner or later youíll get the boot.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 07:30:37 AM by Woodchuck »
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 3882
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2017, 11:01:24 AM »
https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources

It's not a secret Allen, the platform is pretty clear. (see above link). My question was not at all vague- DO YOU SUPPORT EVERYTHING THE GOP SUPPORTS?  Do you support Cruz's position on public land ownership?

BHA has been railing against lots of GOP positions, that's not a secret.  If GOP changed their position on some public land issues that would stop...It's not a fight against the party, its a fight to protect public land from being trashed. 

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2017, 11:23:07 AM »
https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources

It's not a secret Allen, the platform is pretty clear. (see above link). My question was not at all vague- DO YOU SUPPORT EVERYTHING THE GOP SUPPORTS?  Do you support Cruz's position on public land ownership?

BHA has been railing against lots of GOP positions, that's not a secret.  If GOP changed their position on some public land issues that would stop...It's not a fight against the party, its a fight to protect public land from being trashed.

Wrong. No one is a proponent of trashing anything.  Give it a rest already. Perhaps take a class on remedial reading. Itís a fundamental aspect of critical thinking and arriving at valid conclusions.

On the other hand there IS a portion of the political spectrum who repeatedly pushes for more and more gun control. That spectrum is occupied by the Democratic Party. Theyíve been taken over by progressive liberalism lunacy and actively promote legislation like the one I referenced in my original post.

And BTW, thanks for sharing a link to the GOP platform. Itís a convenient opportunity for folks to read for themselves the stark differences between the two diametrically opposed parties and make the determination for themselves which party favors personal responsibility, private property, gun ownership...and the interests of sportsmen.

BTW, in cased you missed it, you might want to re-read this salient point of the GOP platform in the link you so generously provided:

ďThe federal government owns or controls over 640 million acres of land in the United States, most of which is in the West. These are public lands, and the public should have access to them for appropriate activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 04:34:36 PM by Bushcraft »
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 3882
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2017, 01:14:52 PM »
You still didn't answer.  Remedial reading course maybe?  Lol


Presumably you understand the double standard here.... You don't seem to agree with everything the GOP does, but since BHA has taken a position against some of the positions that the GOP has supported, they automatically agree with everything the Dems do???  Get real.

I think you're butthurt that you got called out for trolling the FB page and decided to move venues.  It doesn't matter where you go, you're going to need some actual facts to make a valid point.

Hey- do you remember that time you worked so hard to torpedo a committee that YOU were on to help fund non game wildlife in our state?  The one that would have freed up a pile of money to fund game species (since wolves cost a friggen fortune and that money would have came from someone other than sportsmen $)? We should start a thread about that- As a wealth manager I would be interested to hear how you explain that position.  :dunno: 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 01:36:04 PM by WAcoyotehunter »

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2017, 02:29:49 PM »
Sigh.  Some questions are so mundane that they are literally not worth addressing. But, for the sake of your all-caps, bold, italicized sanity Iíll answer it:

No. As an independent-minded Conservative, there are bound to be some small number of specifics of the GOP that I would disagree with.  However, there exists a small mountain of data points I vehemently disagree with when it comes to the progressive liberalism that is  solidly entrenched in the Democratic Party. Therefore, I absolutely refuse to do anything that would directly or indirectly support and perpetuate any company or organization that will use a portion of my membership or product dollars to pay the salaries of people that will just turn around and use some of it to help get more progressive liberals into office.

As for the rest of what you said, you might want to get a Q-Tip or two to clean out your ears. It sounds like someone has been whispering sweet nothings in them and filling them with BS.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 02:52:32 PM by Bushcraft »
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2017, 02:34:17 PM »
So, now itís your turn to answer a question: Which political party leadership actively promotes gun control and/or outright bans on gun ownership?
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 3882
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2017, 02:53:05 PM »
Clearly the Democratic party.  Contrary to what you are arguing,  I am not packing thier water. 

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2827
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2017, 03:24:08 PM »
9 Democratic senators are rated "A" by the NRA and 2 Republicans are rated "F" so it doesn't appear as cut and dry as some make it (that is nearly 20% of the Senate).  I grew up in Montana and the left union blue collar guys who would rather die than vote for a republican are some of the most fervent gun supporters out there - as are their elected officials.  If I happen to live in a state where giving money to Democrats results in one of the Democrats rated A being elected and another guy lives in a state where giving to the Republican party results in one being elected with an F, am I a sellout and he an ardent supporter of gun rights?

It is also very clear that the Republican party is leading the charge of handing over federal land to the states for the express purpose of it coming up on the auction block as will undoubtedly happen if we head down that path.

I refuse to say I will trade my public land for gun rights, I don't see it as a zero sum game where I have to choose what right I am willing to lose.

Everyone is free to assign higher or lower value on whatever issues are important, but at the end of the day you vote for a person and their stance on positions, not a party (hopefully).  At this point in history, it is pretty hard to argue that at the federal level both parties are bought and paid for largely by the same people and organizations.  My opinion is this is a direct result, at least in part, of people blindly voting for one party regardless of what they actually do.

Offline huntrights

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 1678
  • Location: West of the Cascades
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2017, 05:10:02 PM »
As we see in many discussions, there may be differences of opinions. If a discussion starts to get a bit heated, it would be a good idea to review the Forum Rules & Policies (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,163263.0.html).

Posts should not be invasive of a personís privacy which would include use of their name or profession.

ďThis forum is intended to be a family friendly and helpful venue for hunters, fishers, trappers, and other sportsmen.Ē We should all be working very hard together to support the common interests of hunters and other sportsmen and sportswomen.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 05:43:28 PM by huntrights »

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2017, 05:48:12 PM »
9 Democratic senators are rated "A" by the NRA and 2 Republicans are rated "F" so it doesn't appear as cut and dry as some make it (that is nearly 20% of the Senate).  I grew up in Montana and the left union blue collar guys who would rather die than vote for a republican are some of the most fervent gun supporters out there - as are their elected officials.  If I happen to live in a state where giving money to Democrats results in one of the Democrats rated A being elected and another guy lives in a state where giving to the Republican party results in one being elected with an F, am I a sellout and he an ardent supporter of gun rights?

It is also very clear that the Republican party is leading the charge of handing over federal land to the states for the express purpose of it coming up on the auction block as will undoubtedly happen if we head down that path.

I refuse to say I will trade my public land for gun rights, I don't see it as a zero sum game where I have to choose what right I am willing to lose.

Everyone is free to assign higher or lower value on whatever issues are important, but at the end of the day you vote for a person and their stance on positions, not a party (hopefully).  At this point in history, it is pretty hard to argue that at the federal level both parties are bought and paid for largely by the same people and organizations.  My opinion is this is a direct result, at least in part, of people blindly voting for one party regardless of what they actually do.


Instead of cherry picking 11 votes out of the 7,382 elected members that serve in the National and State legislatures, why don't we take a look at the bigger picture problem? The charts found in the link below help illustrate the shift in the American publicís political values over the past two decades. The share of Americans with ideologically consistent values has increased over this time and these political values also have become more strongly associated with partisanship...or said differently polarized.

http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/

Now, dial that back to our state. Washington is increasingly politically controlled by a relatively small area of the state that tends to vote 90+% rabidly progressively liberal. And by that I mean the Seattle Metro area.  Take a look at who they've chosen to represent them as Mayor and City Council members and tell me I'm wrong. Democrats or worse...All of them.  They don't like guns.  At all.  BTW, it's tough to hunt without guns unless you're into using pointy sticks.  They're big fans of the idea of public lands too.  But, when it comes right down to it they really wouldn't want you hunting on them.  So, you'll have all the glorious public land you want - especially if we get more of that flaming socialist idiot Kshama Sawant since she would have all land socialized if she had her druthers....but you won't be able to actually use it for your incorrigibly backward and bloodthirsty purpose of putting meat in your freezer. If you're into that sort of thing, that's your prerogative.

As for me, you can go ahead and chalk me up as being firmly on the right side of the political spectrum and I will support and vote for those that share my political beliefs in personal responsibility, private property rights, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., etc., regardless of party affiliation.  It's just that damn few Democrats in positions of leadership measure up.  Just doing my small part to align myself with, and support, that portion of the political spectrum that has history on its side when it comes to what ultimately benefits society.



Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2017, 05:48:54 PM »
As we see in many discussions, there may be differences of opinions. If a discussion starts to get a bit heated, it would be a good idea to review the Forum Rules & Policies (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,163263.0.html).

Posts should not be invasive of a personís privacy which would include use of their name or profession.

ďThis forum is intended to be a family friendly and helpful venue for hunters, fishers, trappers, and other sportsmen.Ē We should all be working very hard together to support the common interests of hunters and other sportsmen and sportswomen.

Thank you!
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2827
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2017, 06:09:29 PM »
9 Democratic senators are rated "A" by the NRA and 2 Republicans are rated "F" so it doesn't appear as cut and dry as some make it (that is nearly 20% of the Senate).  I grew up in Montana and the left union blue collar guys who would rather die than vote for a republican are some of the most fervent gun supporters out there - as are their elected officials.  If I happen to live in a state where giving money to Democrats results in one of the Democrats rated A being elected and another guy lives in a state where giving to the Republican party results in one being elected with an F, am I a sellout and he an ardent supporter of gun rights?

It is also very clear that the Republican party is leading the charge of handing over federal land to the states for the express purpose of it coming up on the auction block as will undoubtedly happen if we head down that path.

I refuse to say I will trade my public land for gun rights, I don't see it as a zero sum game where I have to choose what right I am willing to lose.

Everyone is free to assign higher or lower value on whatever issues are important, but at the end of the day you vote for a person and their stance on positions, not a party (hopefully).  At this point in history, it is pretty hard to argue that at the federal level both parties are bought and paid for largely by the same people and organizations.  My opinion is this is a direct result, at least in part, of people blindly voting for one party regardless of what they actually do.


Instead of cherry picking 11 votes out of the 7,382 elected members that serve in the National and State legislatures, why don't we take a look at the bigger picture problem? The charts found in the link below help illustrate the shift in the American publicís political values over the past two decades. The share of Americans with ideologically consistent values has increased over this time and these political values also have become more strongly associated with partisanship...or said differently polarized.

http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/

Now, dial that back to our state. Washington is increasingly politically controlled by a relatively small area of the state that tends to vote 90+% rabidly progressively liberal. And by that I mean the Seattle Metro area.  Take a look at who they've chosen to represent them as Mayor and City Council members and tell me I'm wrong. Democrats or worse...All of them.  They don't like guns.  At all.  BTW, it's tough to hunt without guns unless you're into using pointy sticks.  They're big fans of the idea of public lands too.  But, when it comes right down to it they really wouldn't want you hunting on them.  So, you'll have all the glorious public land you want - especially if we get more of that flaming socialist idiot Kshama Sawant since she would have all land socialized if she had her druthers....but you won't be able to actually use it for your incorrigibly backward and bloodthirsty purpose of putting meat in your freezer. If you're into that sort of thing, that's your prerogative.

As for me, you can go ahead and chalk me up as being firmly on the right side of the political spectrum and I will support and vote for those that share my political beliefs in personal responsibility, private property rights, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., etc., regardless of party affiliation.  It's just that damn few Democrats in positions of leadership measure up.  Just doing my small part to align myself with, and support, that portion of the political spectrum that has history on its side when it comes to what ultimately benefits society.

I agree, in this state there is not much diversity in the democratic party.  My point is that is not the case in many other parts of the country.  I can absolutely tell you a MT democrat looks much more conservative than just about any republican from this state - just because they have to be that way in both cases.

It sounds like we agree that the issues are important, not necessarily the party.  Both parties have platforms, but those aren't always followed and what they do is more important than what they say - I wish it was the same thing.

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2017, 07:42:31 PM »
Indeed. Issues over party.  Absolutely.  If only it were that easy.

Unfortunately, when it comes to candidates we generally don't get to vote on the issues. We get precisely one vote for a candidate that is an aggregate of views on the issues.  No candidate is perfect, but one is inevitably "better" than another when the aggregate of their views are compared and contrasted with another...and the voter casts the one vote accordingly and hopes for the best. 

If enough legislators hold views contrary to my own, I lose.  If enough legislators hold a dim view of hunting, sportsmen lose.  My side loses. I can't abide by that. I hate losing.  Which is why I'm politically active and support legitimate sportsmen organizations that are fighting for the benefit of ALL hunters, period.  I do not and will not support any organization whose leadership are avowed supporters of a political aggregate that does not share my political and philosophical beliefs.

I totally get where you are coming from with regard to variances in geographical politics.  And, what people do is more important that what they say. Tester wouldn't stand an ice-cube's chance hell in King County.  :chuckle:  That said, as a somewhat moderate Democrat, he's compelled to vote along party lines with the likes of Pelosi, Shumer, Waters, Boxer, Feinstein, Franken, etc.  I might agree with him on several issues (what he says), but not at all in aggregate (what he does).

Unfortunately, when observed from the big picture perspective it's clear to me that the Democratic Party's aggregate progressive liberalism is doing us dirty...and pushing us down an ugly path of ruin.
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 3882
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2017, 08:11:07 PM »
As we see in many discussions, there may be differences of opinions. If a discussion starts to get a bit heated, it would be a good idea to review the Forum Rules & Policies (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,163263.0.html).

Posts should not be invasive of a personís privacy which would include use of their name or profession.

ďThis forum is intended to be a family friendly and helpful venue for hunters, fishers, trappers, and other sportsmen.Ē We should all be working very hard together to support the common interests of hunters and other sportsmen and sportswomen.

Thank you!
Ha! Sorry to risk your anonomity.  It's easy to type away and pull ideas from a dark place when no one knows who you are.

Sincerely,
Bart George
Professional Wildlife Biologist

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2017, 09:43:02 PM »
Bart,

Iím not sure why that was worthy of a droll (or should I say troll?) chuckle or insinuation that Iím worried about my anonymity. Iím not. After all, Iíve posted my name and contact information on this forum and elsewhere. Iím easy to get a hold of.

And you neednít have signed your post on my accord. It was plainly obvious to me who you were. You bio for the Kalispel tribe, right?  BTW, since youíre cool with the whole profession-cat-is-out-of-the-bag thing, youíve somehow managed to leave out Professional Hound Hunting Guide out of your signature.  Not that I find fault with that at all - Iím a big fan and proponent of hound hunting, I just question the hypocrisy.

On that note...would you mind reminding us as to which political party was largely responsible for banning hound hunting in Washington State (and would dearly love to do so everywhere else)? Hint 1: Itís the same party that the President & CEO of Backcountry Hunter and Anglers (among other leadership) aligns himself with and actively campaigns for. Hint 2: It starts with a D.

I suspect that BHAís leadershipís political affinities are an inconvenient truth they really do not want exposed to the light of day.  Itís bad for membership #ís and puts a crimp in their campaign contribution style.

Sincerely,

Allen Ernst
Wealth Manager, Wildlife Conservationist, Hunting Advocate, Philanthropist, Independent Conservative, Adventure Photographer, Hunter & Husband
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 07:33:04 AM by Bushcraft »
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 17447
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2017, 03:30:05 AM »
9 Democratic senators are rated "A" by the NRA and 2 Republicans are rated "F" so it doesn't appear as cut and dry as some make it (that is nearly 20% of the Senate).  I grew up in Montana and the left union blue collar guys who would rather die than vote for a republican are some of the most fervent gun supporters out there - as are their elected officials.  If I happen to live in a state where giving money to Democrats results in one of the Democrats rated A being elected and another guy lives in a state where giving to the Republican party results in one being elected with an F, am I a sellout and he an ardent supporter of gun rights?

It is also very clear that the Republican party is leading the charge of handing over federal land to the states for the express purpose of it coming up on the auction block as will undoubtedly happen if we head down that path.

I refuse to say I will trade my public land for gun rights, I don't see it as a zero sum game where I have to choose what right I am willing to lose.

Everyone is free to assign higher or lower value on whatever issues are important, but at the end of the day you vote for a person and their stance on positions, not a party (hopefully).  At this point in history, it is pretty hard to argue that at the federal level both parties are bought and paid for largely by the same people and organizations.  My opinion is this is a direct result, at least in part, of people blindly voting for one party regardless of what they actually do.


Instead of cherry picking 11 votes out of the 7,382 elected members that serve in the National and State legislatures, why don't we take a look at the bigger picture problem? The charts found in the link below help illustrate the shift in the American publicís political values over the past two decades. The share of Americans with ideologically consistent values has increased over this time and these political values also have become more strongly associated with partisanship...or said differently polarized.

http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/

Now, dial that back to our state. Washington is increasingly politically controlled by a relatively small area of the state that tends to vote 90+% rabidly progressively liberal. And by that I mean the Seattle Metro area.  Take a look at who they've chosen to represent them as Mayor and City Council members and tell me I'm wrong. Democrats or worse...All of them.  They don't like guns.  At all.  BTW, it's tough to hunt without guns unless you're into using pointy sticks.  They're big fans of the idea of public lands too.  But, when it comes right down to it they really wouldn't want you hunting on them.  So, you'll have all the glorious public land you want - especially if we get more of that flaming socialist idiot Kshama Sawant since she would have all land socialized if she had her druthers....but you won't be able to actually use it for your incorrigibly backward and bloodthirsty purpose of putting meat in your freezer. If you're into that sort of thing, that's your prerogative.

As for me, you can go ahead and chalk me up as being firmly on the right side of the political spectrum and I will support and vote for those that share my political beliefs in personal responsibility, private property rights, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., etc., regardless of party affiliation.  It's just that damn few Democrats in positions of leadership measure up.  Just doing my small part to align myself with, and support, that portion of the political spectrum that has history on its side when it comes to what ultimately benefits society.

I agree, in this state there is not much diversity in the democratic party.  My point is that is not the case in many other parts of the country.  I can absolutely tell you a MT democrat looks much more conservative than just about any republican from this state - just because they have to be that way in both cases.

It sounds like we agree that the issues are important, not necessarily the party.  Both parties have platforms, but those aren't always followed and what they do is more important than what they say - I wish it was the same thing.
Many of Washington's Democrats were similar in that way 30++ years ago. And from the people I've talked to the western part of montana isn't that conservative. Reminds me of the Californication of this state in the late 80s early 90s.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

Offline Woodchuck

  • GO TEAM!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 10127
  • Location: Walla Walla
  • HuntWA Woodblock
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2017, 07:32:37 AM »
Keep it civil.
Antlered rabbit tastes like chicken


Inuendo, wasn't he an Italian proctoligist?

Disclaimer: This my SWAG. Not even an opinion. This is not my version of a 14th hand version of a fairy tale. It is also not the opinion of the Hunt Wa. site, it's owner, or any of the moderators or admins, not even me. Scouts honor. :salute:

Offline JimmyHoffa

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 9819
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2017, 08:09:27 AM »
9 Democratic senators are rated "A" by the NRA and 2 Republicans are rated "F" so it doesn't appear as cut and dry as some make it (that is nearly 20% of the Senate).  I grew up in Montana and the left union blue collar guys who would rather die than vote for a republican are some of the most fervent gun supporters out there - as are their elected officials.  If I happen to live in a state where giving money to Democrats results in one of the Democrats rated A being elected and another guy lives in a state where giving to the Republican party results in one being elected with an F, am I a sellout and he an ardent supporter of gun rights?

It is also very clear that the Republican party is leading the charge of handing over federal land to the states for the express purpose of it coming up on the auction block as will undoubtedly happen if we head down that path.

I refuse to say I will trade my public land for gun rights, I don't see it as a zero sum game where I have to choose what right I am willing to lose.

Everyone is free to assign higher or lower value on whatever issues are important, but at the end of the day you vote for a person and their stance on positions, not a party (hopefully).  At this point in history, it is pretty hard to argue that at the federal level both parties are bought and paid for largely by the same people and organizations.  My opinion is this is a direct result, at least in part, of people blindly voting for one party regardless of what they actually do.


Instead of cherry picking 11 votes out of the 7,382 elected members that serve in the National and State legislatures, why don't we take a look at the bigger picture problem? The charts found in the link below help illustrate the shift in the American publicís political values over the past two decades. The share of Americans with ideologically consistent values has increased over this time and these political values also have become more strongly associated with partisanship...or said differently polarized.

http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/

Now, dial that back to our state. Washington is increasingly politically controlled by a relatively small area of the state that tends to vote 90+% rabidly progressively liberal. And by that I mean the Seattle Metro area.  Take a look at who they've chosen to represent them as Mayor and City Council members and tell me I'm wrong. Democrats or worse...All of them.  They don't like guns.  At all.  BTW, it's tough to hunt without guns unless you're into using pointy sticks.  They're big fans of the idea of public lands too.  But, when it comes right down to it they really wouldn't want you hunting on them.  So, you'll have all the glorious public land you want - especially if we get more of that flaming socialist idiot Kshama Sawant since she would have all land socialized if she had her druthers....but you won't be able to actually use it for your incorrigibly backward and bloodthirsty purpose of putting meat in your freezer. If you're into that sort of thing, that's your prerogative.

As for me, you can go ahead and chalk me up as being firmly on the right side of the political spectrum and I will support and vote for those that share my political beliefs in personal responsibility, private property rights, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., etc., regardless of party affiliation.  It's just that damn few Democrats in positions of leadership measure up.  Just doing my small part to align myself with, and support, that portion of the political spectrum that has history on its side when it comes to what ultimately benefits society.

I agree, in this state there is not much diversity in the democratic party.  My point is that is not the case in many other parts of the country.  I can absolutely tell you a MT democrat looks much more conservative than just about any republican from this state - just because they have to be that way in both cases.

It sounds like we agree that the issues are important, not necessarily the party.  Both parties have platforms, but those aren't always followed and what they do is more important than what they say - I wish it was the same thing.
Many of Washington's Democrats were similar in that way 30++ years ago. And from the people I've talked to the western part of montana isn't that conservative. Reminds me of the Californication of this state in the late 80s early 90s.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
yeah, I know quite a few people saying similar things T.  They said that the crowd moving into the Yellowstone/Big Sky/Boze areas tend to be more liberal and have a lot more money than even the Aspen/Vail crowd.  Reason is in Montana they can buy a ranch to do other things in summer and still be close to skiing in winter, whereas in most of the other big ski destinations the options tend to be either a condo or a small cabin that only have winter amenities. 

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 17447
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2017, 08:39:19 AM »
I know this to be a fact in the whitefish area where I have skied and have a customer. He loves the growth in business but hates how everyone is trying to change that area into what they came from..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

Offline Bushcraft

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 419
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2017, 09:01:14 AM »
I know this to be a fact in the whitefish area where I have skied and have a customer. He loves the growth in business but hates how everyone is trying to change that area into what they came from..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

That's how the cancer of progressive liberalism spreads.  ;)
Liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

*Proud supporter of NRA, NRA-ILA SCI, SCIF, SCI-PAC, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, HHC, WWC

Offline Skyvalhunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 11147
  • Location: The valley
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2017, 09:06:02 AM »
 :chuckle:

Offline WAcoyotehunter

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 3882
  • Location: Pend Oreille County
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2017, 09:34:55 AM »
Bart,

I’m not sure why that was worthy of a droll (or should I say troll?) chuckle or insinuation that I’m worried about my anonymity. I’m not. After all, I’ve posted my name and contact information on this forum and elsewhere. I’m easy to get a hold of.

And you needn’t have signed your post on my accord. It was plainly obvious to me who you were. You bio for the Kalispel tribe, right?  BTW, since you’re cool with the whole profession-cat-is-out-of-the-bag thing, you’ve somehow managed to leave out Professional Hound Hunting Guide out of your signature.  Not that I find fault with that at all - I’m a big fan and proponent of hound hunting, I just question the hypocrisy.

On that note...would you mind reminding us as to which political party was largely responsible for banning hound hunting in Washington State (and would dearly love to do so everywhere else)? Hint 1: It’s the same party that the President & CEO of Backcountry Hunter and Anglers (among other leadership) aligns himself with and actively campaigns for. Hint 2: It starts with a D.

I suspect that BHA’s leadership’s political affinities are an inconvenient truth they really do not want exposed to the light of day.  It’s bad for membership #’s and puts a crimp in their campaign contribution style.

Sincerely,

Allen Ernst
Wealth Manager, Wildlife Conservationist, Hunting Advocate, Philanthropist, Independent Conservative, Adventure Photographer, Hunter & Husband
Allen we can go on and on about which party does more of this and that.  I understand that the liberal party tends to be more anti hunting, which I hate.  I vote D because of their position on land conservation and social issues.  It does bother me when they support anti hunting bills and I make a point of fighting those issues every time, like I am currently doing in Arizona with the hound ban. 

I'm surprised to see you so glued to a party line and with such a bone to pick with a Hunting group just because some of us vote differently than you do.  If we were in the business of "lumping" I could say that the WA hound ban was because of the Westsiders...ergo "YOU", but I know better than to lump people like that and know that both sides have people that share my interests.  Why can't you make the same connection? 

If you want to attack anti hunters, let's do it.  But your attacks on another hunting and fishing group are a perfect example of the 'divide and conquer' that is happening in our sport.  BHA is working to protect access for hunters and anglers, which should resonate with public land users.  No one in our leadership (or membership) is an anti hunter.  If you can't look past people voting differently than you do, you're in the wrong state.

 

* Recent Topics

New F 150 Diesels by Miles
[Today at 03:04:26 AM]


Roasted Soybeans by cryder
[Today at 02:16:55 AM]


WTS: Vortex Diamondback HP 4-16x42 BDC scope by biggfish
[Today at 01:27:41 AM]


WTS: Tikka T3 lite in 260 Rem. by JeffRaines
[Yesterday at 11:48:04 PM]


Poachers - Man, this one takes the cake! by KFhunter
[Yesterday at 11:10:46 PM]


Anybody breeding meat rabbit? by KFhunter
[Yesterday at 10:39:17 PM]


School Me on Duck/Goose Hunting by lokidog
[Yesterday at 10:36:37 PM]


Pig Feeder... Ideas? by Boss .300 winmag
[Yesterday at 10:23:24 PM]


The Bundy Trial: When Justice Fails by KFhunter
[Yesterday at 10:19:30 PM]


Input on Browning x-bolt hells canyon by Hot Lunch
[Yesterday at 10:19:03 PM]


Blacktail food plot by lokidog
[Yesterday at 10:12:29 PM]


WTB RUGER 678G KMKII GOVERNMENT by wadu1
[Yesterday at 10:08:17 PM]


Quality barrel question by Eric M
[Yesterday at 10:03:52 PM]


Marine mammals now taking more salmon than sport and commercial fishing combined by timberfaller
[Yesterday at 09:46:19 PM]


WTS outdoorsman micro pan head by WAcoueshunter
[Yesterday at 09:26:03 PM]


Shot out my 243 by carpsniperg2
[Yesterday at 09:03:58 PM]


6.5 Creedmoor or 7mm-08 by mountainman
[Yesterday at 08:59:17 PM]


Hoyt bow raffle for fallen officer Daniel McCartneyís family by Fastass350
[Yesterday at 08:48:38 PM]


Asotin County Coyotes by Jerry malbeck
[Yesterday at 08:30:04 PM]


One awesome breakfast sausage recipe by Jason
[Yesterday at 07:52:55 PM]