collapse

Author Topic: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban  (Read 2459 times)

Offline Bushcraft

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 450
  • 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: 3939
  • 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

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 450
  • 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: (+12)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 18656
  • 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: 10425
  • 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

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 10236
  • 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: (+12)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 18656
  • 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

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 450
  • 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: 11669
  • 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: 3939
  • 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.

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 18656
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2017, 09:52:25 AM »
I'm fairly disapointed in most groups that portray them selves as pro hunting and 2A. Mostly they are self serving and choose to sit on the sidelines until they have a clear way to rattle the tin can to fundraise some more.

I've hoped for a long time that a group would spear head the organization of hunters, orgs and related clubs to present a large voter block in front of the legislators. Much like the Coastal Conservation Alliance has done for fishing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

Offline Bushcraft

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 450
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2017, 11:14:28 AM »
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
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.

Bart,

Per my other posts, I'm not at all glued to a party line.  I'm an independent minded Conservative. I compare and contrast where opposing candidates come down on ALL the issues.  I am not a single issue voter.  All things considered, the Republican choice inevitably tends to win out over his or her Democrat opponent...or is the least worst choice of the two.  Just doing my small part to try and keep the greatest nation this world has ever known from sliding further down the slippery slope of progressive liberalism and socialized ruin.  Conversely, given what you just stated, it appears youíre in favor of speeding up that so-called ďprogressĒ.

Having the word "hunting" in an organization's name doesn't necessarily make it so. BHA might very well be mostly comprised of hunters and anglers, but it isn't a hunting group per se.  More accurately, it's a public lands protection group with a snappy marketing name...that might want to reconsider it 501(c)3 status.

I noted in BHA's 2016 annual report that it billed itself as "the most effective sportsmen's organization in North America". 

Good grief!  That's 100% pure BS and an absolutely laughable lie.  BHA doesn't hold a candle- based on virtually ANY metric, to any number of other legitimate sportsmen's groups in North America.  SCI, RMEF, DU, and the NRA are a few that come readily to mind.

It's no secret that I'm a big fan of SCI...so let's compare and contrast the two for the sake of an example set.  SCI has far more members than BHA.  SCI annually raises and spends far more money on wildlife conservation and hunter advocacy than BHA.  SCI attacks and defends against anti-hunting legislation all the time at the local, state, national and international levelsÖwhereas BHA does not.  We aggressively lobby for pro-hunting legislation at the local, state, national and international levels...whereas BHA does not.

SCI lobbied on a non-partisan basis for protecting Washington's hunters and anglers and very effectively shut down WDFW's proposed hunting and fishing fee increases.  Not a peep from BHA!

SCI pushed both sides of the political aisle hard for the outside financial and operating audit of WDFW in the hopes that we sportsmen will finally have a factual foundation of information from which to make future choices concerning how WDFW should operate.  Strip out rumors and innuendos. Discover both efficiency and inefficiency.  Get down to the brass tacks of what's really going on with that agency. Again...not a peep from BHA.

BHA has not joined forces with countless of other legitimate pro-sportsmen groups that are part of the most powerful and influential pro-hunting organization-of-organizations in Washington State: Hunterís Heritage Council and Washingtonians for Wildlife.

In fact...about the only thing I've heard BHA being a proponent of in Washington is working closely with Conservation Northwest to help further its agenda (and its Looney Tune Ultra-Liberal Seattleite leader you seem to be connected at the hip with).  You know, Conservation Northwest, the organization absolutely devoted to re-wilding vast tracts of public and private lands and shutting down access...thereby restricting and/or making hunter and angler access more difficult - or even impossible, for sportsmen with physical limitations by tank-trapping or otherwise "rehabilitated" roads. The organization devoted to the reintroduction and dispersion of wolves and other apex predators. The organization that is against effective predator control.  The organization that would love nothing more than to radically change WDFW into the ďDepartment of ConservationĒ.  The organization that happily and openly partners with some of the most vehemently anti-hunting organizations on the planet.  My, myÖYouíve got a bizarre choice in political bedfellows there Bart!

So donít bother trying to convince me or anyone else that BHA is a hunting group.  Theyíre not.  Change your name to something more accurate or merge with the Sierra Club or Conservation Northwest already.  Iím sure theyíd love the new members.  At least, the members that wonít realize that theyíve been bamboozled by a clever marketing ploy.

Allen
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 11:40:07 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 Bushcraft

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 450
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2017, 11:23:32 AM »
I'm fairly disapointed in most groups that portray them selves as pro hunting and 2A. Mostly they are self serving and choose to sit on the sidelines until they have a clear way to rattle the tin can to fundraise some more.

I've hoped for a long time that a group would spear head the organization of hunters, orgs and related clubs to present a large voter block in front of the legislators. Much like the Coastal Conservation Alliance has done for fishing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Special T,

Groups like that already exist and have been tremendously successful over the years.  They've just flown well under the radar and weren't prone to public chest thumping.  SCI and the Hunter's Heritage Council immediately come to mind as organizations that just quietly get the job done for the benefit of sportsmen and women.  (see my immediate prior post for a few near-term examples)

It's our fault for not making those successes more clear to sportsmen like you and letting you know who we are and what we do.  We're working on addressing those shortcomings, public messaging and would love your help!  Join us and help make a tangible difference for sportsmen!

All the best,

Allen
www.sci-washington.com
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 Tinmaniac

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2017
  • Posts: 129
  • Location: Wetside
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2017, 12:35:19 PM »
This whole thread reads like a bash coming from SCI against BHA and First Lite.What does any of it have to do with an assault weapons ban proposal?

Offline Bushcraft

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 450
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, HHC, WWC, WDAC
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2017, 01:40:06 PM »
This whole thread reads like a bash coming from SCI against BHA and First Lite.What does any of it have to do with an assault weapons ban proposal?

Actually, it's a bash coming from me.  I posted an example of which part of the political spectrum is rabidly pushing gun bans (progressive liberal Democrats).  Nothing new there.  What's different is that I mentioned some organizations whose leadership are supporting the party that is pushing that agenda. 

Sportsmen and women only have so many dollars in their pockets to give to various pro-gun and pro-hunting sportsmen's groups.  Accordingly, people ought to be aware of where spending and/or donating those hard-earned dollars will do the most good...or most harm.  Supporting the gun-grabbing leftist agenda is extremely dangerous in my book.  And to be clear: I'm all for keeping public lands public AND accessible for sportsmen and women.  But, I won't give one red cent to BHA since I'm quite certain that some part of my membership dues and/or donations would be used to financially support the progressive liberal agenda....which I'm adamantly against.

People voluntarily boycott all manner of organizations when the leadership of those entities support things that people are adamantly against.  The blatantly anti-American kneeling crap during the National Anthem that happened in the NFL is a prime example. A so-called hunting organization like BHA whose leadership are deeply avowed progressive liberal Democrat supporters is another example.

Said differently, I just wanted people to think about who they are really supporting with their hard earned money.

Regards,

Allen
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

 

* Recent Topics

Anyone know what this is? by AWS
[Today at 11:40:15 PM]


WTB Quality 15x56 or bigger Knockers by redi
[Today at 11:22:19 PM]


Wolves tree DNR worker in Okanogan county by O. hemionus
[Today at 11:19:05 PM]


new to the forum:) by bearpaw
[Today at 11:18:14 PM]


Your classic ride (car or bike) by runamuk
[Today at 10:31:15 PM]


Huntwa bear id test by Oh Mah
[Today at 10:17:54 PM]


Elk Hunt Focus/Resolve? by bfranklin81
[Today at 10:02:07 PM]


WTB: AR500 STEEL TARGETS -WTB by TRD1911
[Today at 09:54:22 PM]


new 257 caliber bullet by Jonathan_S
[Today at 09:49:11 PM]


Mudflow cow tag by Brandobando
[Today at 09:12:41 PM]


eyes in the woods by NOCK NOCK
[Today at 09:00:10 PM]


WTS 2007 Baja 90 quad $450 by JWEBB
[Today at 08:59:53 PM]


Dog Food by NOCK NOCK
[Today at 08:58:37 PM]


WTB reloading equipment by HighlandLofts
[Today at 08:46:41 PM]


Fall Road Trip Plans; Both Short & Long? by Backstrap
[Today at 08:45:34 PM]


Candidates by Lucky1
[Today at 08:26:48 PM]


Big bows by Ricon650
[Today at 08:18:42 PM]


Dog box by JakeLand
[Today at 08:04:52 PM]


Reloading for accuracy/consistency help by HawkCreek
[Today at 08:04:08 PM]


New Custom rifle by yorketransport
[Today at 08:02:29 PM]