collapse

Author Topic: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban  (Read 2601 times)

Offline Bushcraft

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 481
  • 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: 3967
  • 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: 3496
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

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 481
  • 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: 3967
  • 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

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 481
  • 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: 3967
  • 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

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 481
  • 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

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 481
  • 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: 3967
  • 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: 3496
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: 1687
  • 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

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 481
  • 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

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 481
  • 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: 3496
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.