collapse

Author Topic: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban  (Read 1865 times)

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 17540
  • 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

  • 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 #26 on: November 13, 2017, 11:14:28 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.

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 you’re in favor of speeding up that so-called “progress”.

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 levels…whereas 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: Hunter’s 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 “Department of Conservation”.  The organization that happily and openly partners with some of the most vehemently anti-hunting organizations on the planet.  My, my…You’ve got a bizarre choice in political bedfellows there Bart!

So don’t bother trying to convince me or anyone else that BHA is a hunting group.  They’re not.  Change your name to something more accurate or merge with the Sierra Club or Conservation Northwest already.  I’m sure they’d love the new members.  At least, the members that won’t realize that they’ve 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

  • 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 #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

  • Off-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

  • 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 #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

Offline Tinmaniac

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2017
  • Posts: 129
  • Location: Wetside
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2017, 01:49:43 PM »
But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?

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 #31 on: November 13, 2017, 01:53:42 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
It's one thing after another with you.  "deeply avowed progressive liberal supports"  lol.  You sound more like Alex Jones with every post.

Are you sure you're not representing SCI here?  Should the BOD have a look and decide if you're representing them or not?

But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?
He cannot see the irony in that. And he cannot see how it's possible to be critical of a party, and support pieces of their legislation, but not all of it.  That is clear from the repetitive posts on this thread.


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 #32 on: November 13, 2017, 02:10:58 PM »
But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?

I imagine some support it on a case-by-case basis, but they are an extremely small minority. The party platform as a whole doesn't subscribe to the notion so it will never happen.  Unlike the constant threat to, and erosion of, our gun-rights coming from the Democrat party, public land sales aren't even remotely a threat to hunting.  But...BHA uses it for some snappy scare-tactic marketing fluff to siphon up some membership sign-up dollars though!

What the party platform does say (see the link) is that transferring oversight responsibilities to the states of some federal lands might improve oversight and management in some instances.  I agree with them in some instances.  Let me explain.

Having been extremely frustrated by the utterly nonsensical faceless/nameless federal bureaucrats that won't agree to a perfectly fair and sensible land exchange (it actually nets out in the feds favor) that relates to my family's land holdings in Oregon, I can sympathize with those that are open to the prospect of more directly responsible local oversight.
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 Eric M

  • WA State Trappers Association
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2015
  • Posts: 1155
  • Location: somewhere in time
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2017, 02:43:57 PM »
But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?

I imagine some support it on a case-by-case basis, but they are an extremely small minority. The party platform as a whole doesn't subscribe to the notion so it will never happen.  Unlike the constant threat to, and erosion of, our gun-rights coming from the Democrat party, public land sales aren't even remotely a threat to hunting.  But...BHA uses it for some snappy scare-tactic marketing fluff to siphon up some membership sign-up dollars though!

What the party platform does say (see the link) is that transferring oversight responsibilities to the states of some federal lands might improve oversight and management in some instances.  I agree with them in some instances.  Let me explain.

Having been extremely frustrated by the utterly nonsensical faceless/nameless federal bureaucrats that won't agree to a perfectly fair and sensible land exchange (it actually nets out in the feds favor) that relates to my family's land holdings in Oregon, I can sympathize with those that are open to the prospect of more directly responsible local oversight.
I swore I would stay out of this but I have to disagree. Republican congressman Jason chaffetz withdrew a bill in February that would have sold off 3.3 million acres of public land across 10 western states only because of public backlash. The house had already passed a rules package with a measure that would facilitate public land sell off. If you think either political party gives a hoot about keeping public land public you are kidding yourself. They only care when it affects their pocket book or their job security.  :twocents:

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 #34 on: November 13, 2017, 02:46:04 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
It's one thing after another with you.  "deeply avowed progressive liberal supports"  lol.  You sound more like Alex Jones with every post.

Are you sure you're not representing SCI here?  Should the BOD have a look and decide if you're representing them or not?

But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?
He cannot see the irony in that. And he cannot see how it's possible to be critical of a party, and support pieces of their legislation, but not all of it.  That is clear from the repetitive posts on this thread.



Bart,

Sigh.  Anyone with an internet connection can find out for themselves in a few milliseconds that your President and CEO, Land Tawney, actively supported and campaigned for Obama in 2008, and continues to campaign for other Democrats.  It really doesn't get any more deeply progressively liberal than Obama now does it?  I'm sure you'd argue otherwise though.  Actually, come to think of it...I would too since your party is the chalk full of the likes of Sanders, Pelosi, Waters, Shumer, Kshama Sawant, etc.   :chuckle: :chuckle:

Furthermore, if someone were to get on BHA's Facebook pages and do a cursory review of the posts and active posters, they'd readily observe that BHA's posts are riddled with baseless anti-Republican sentiment and NEVER, EVER, EVER point out anything from any Democrat that voices anti-hunting sentiment.  Their also quite fond of deleting entire posts when the truth is exposed.  Evidently it gets a little too close to home and inconvenient for their membership drives to let it stand in the public light.  The writing is on the wall dude.  You're evidently in too deep that you're just blind to it.

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

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 #35 on: November 13, 2017, 03:04:58 PM »
But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?

I imagine some support it on a case-by-case basis, but they are an extremely small minority. The party platform as a whole doesn't subscribe to the notion so it will never happen.  Unlike the constant threat to, and erosion of, our gun-rights coming from the Democrat party, public land sales aren't even remotely a threat to hunting.  But...BHA uses it for some snappy scare-tactic marketing fluff to siphon up some membership sign-up dollars though!

What the party platform does say (see the link) is that transferring oversight responsibilities to the states of some federal lands might improve oversight and management in some instances.  I agree with them in some instances.  Let me explain.

Having been extremely frustrated by the utterly nonsensical faceless/nameless federal bureaucrats that won't agree to a perfectly fair and sensible land exchange (it actually nets out in the feds favor) that relates to my family's land holdings in Oregon, I can sympathize with those that are open to the prospect of more directly responsible local oversight.
I swore I would stay out of this but I have to disagree. Republican congressman Jason chaffetz withdrew a bill in February that would have sold off 3.3 million acres of public land across 10 western states only because of public backlash. The house had already passed a rules package with a measure that would facilitate public land sell off. If you think either political party gives a hoot about keeping public land public you are kidding yourself. They only care when it affects their pocket book or their job security.  :twocents:

Eric,

Thank you for pointing that out.  Having personally witnessed some political theater firsthand, I agree with a lot of what you've said.

Chaffetz would be one of those few R's I was alluding to. The public backlash you speak of actually came from both sides of the aisle, arguably the most influential of which came from a fellow conservative hunter while seated in his office. I can neither confirm nor deny that SCI had a rather pointed conversation with Chaffetz's office on the issue.  ;)  And...what do you know...he bailed on his term and didn't run for office again.  There are literally hundreds of bills that individual legislators put their name on for one reason or another.  Most of the truly nutty ones, never actually see the light of day but we do our best to kill them when it benefits sportsmen.

For example, right here in Washington legislators invariably come up with a laundry list of anti-hunting bills session after session after session (I don't want to sound like a broken record...but guess which party???).  Due to our bi-partisan lobbying efforts, most of them are never even heard or get out of Committee.  And those that get out of Committee are otherwise crushed.  The Hunter's Heritage Council has a 100% record of success on bills they oppose.

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

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 #36 on: November 13, 2017, 04:07:22 PM »
Sigh, Ted Cruz also wanted to divest public land, in fact he said that the 1% public land in TX was too much, and campaigned on that same idea in Idaho.  You were a Ted Cruz supporter.... So exactly which GOP platforms are you for and against?? 

I think you have a bone to pick with BHA because you and your ilk could care less if the "normal public land hunter" has access. And BHA stands for that exact 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 #37 on: November 13, 2017, 06:20:35 PM »
Sigh, Ted Cruz also wanted to divest public land, in fact he said that the 1% public land in TX was too much, and campaigned on that same idea in Idaho.  You were a Ted Cruz supporter.... So exactly which GOP platforms are you for and against?? 

I think you have a bone to pick with BHA because you and your ilk could care less if the "normal public land hunter" has access. And BHA stands for that exact thing.

Bart,

You might want to register at your local community college and get a grip on your remedial reading skills.  I've already stated...very plainly...on numerous occasions...that I am 100% for public lands and access to them by sportsmen.  Clearly, Senator Cruz and I differed on this particular topic.  Knowing him as I do, he was likely engaging in a bit of political grandstanding to appeal to his base (as politicians do during primaries) and made an off-the-cuff comment or two on the matter.  Regardless...BHA's seemingly only talking point that Republicans are public-land-selling boogeymen is patently absurd.  It ain't gonna happen for reasons I've already mentioned.  Again...I encourage you to check that remedial reading thing.

As to your last comment, such commentary prompts me to quibble a bit over whether or not you actually think at all.

"Me and my ilk."  Really, Bart George?

Hmmm...I wonder what you could possibly mean by that daft assertion?  Do you mean people like me that believe in an individual's right to keep and bear arms and work very hard to protect those rights from the onslaught of progressive liberal Democrats (that you support) that constantly tries to take them away?  Or, do you mean people like me and others that love to hunt and fish and work extremely hard to try and protect those rights, privileges and opportunities from being taken away by progressive liberal anti-hunting Democrats?   Do you mean hunters like me that save up enough money over time to eventually be able to hire a hound hunting guide like you to take them out on a cougar hunt? Gasp!

Speaking of hounds...it sounds like you're barking up the wrong tree ol' boy.  ;)

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

Offline Mark Brenckle

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2010
  • Posts: 1013
  • Location: Lake Stevens
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2017, 06:33:34 PM »
You two sound like an old married couple, why don't you move your conversation to PMs so the topic can be discussed?

Offline jackelope

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+21)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 36026
  • Location: Duvall, WA
  • Groups: WSB RMGA NRA RMEF BHA
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2017, 09:55:49 PM »
You two sound like an old married couple, why don't you move your conversation to PMs so the topic can be discussed?

:chuckle:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:fire.:

" In today's instant gratification society, more and more pressure revolves around success and the measurement of one's prowess as a hunter by inches on a score chart or field photos produced on social media. Don't fall into the trap. Hunting is-and always will be- about the hunt, the adventure, the views, and time spent with close friends and family. " Ryan Hatfield

My posts, opinions and statements do not represent those of this forum

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 #40 on: November 13, 2017, 10:50:20 PM »
You two sound like an old married couple, why don't you move your conversation to PMs so the topic can be discussed?

That, or a couple that needs some serious counseling!   :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:

Alrighty then...what can we do to stop this sort of legislation? It’s only a matter of time before some liberal nitwit in Olympia decides to push something similar in Washington.



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

Online JimmyHoffa

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 9839
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2017, 11:26:31 PM »
You two sound like an old married couple, why don't you move your conversation to PMs so the topic can be discussed?

That, or a couple that needs some serious counseling!   :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:

Alrighty then...what can we do to stop this sort of legislation? It’s only a matter of time before some liberal nitwit in Olympia decides to push something similar in Washington.
Just accept that this state will vote for someone with a D next to their name without even looking at anything else, then get people that are actually somewhat conservative to run but with a D by their name.  Basically do a reverse John McCain.

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 #42 on: November 14, 2017, 06:22:44 AM »
That's probably the right idea.  It would be easier to get folks like Tester or other moderate D's on the ballot than it would to get people to break party lines. 

Getting more moderate R's on the ballot would be a good idea too.  Give people the opportunity to vote for a candidate rather and a party.

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 17540
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #43 on: November 14, 2017, 08:19:21 AM »
In Skagit County we have a democrat county councilman who is what you describe. His family are all republicans and  he would be considered a very conservative Democrat... moderate republican

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

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 #44 on: November 14, 2017, 08:32:43 AM »
Maybe he's ready for a promotion?!?  )

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 17540
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #45 on: November 14, 2017, 08:40:13 AM »
Harder to protect family business interests from really stupid Democrats if Promoted.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

Offline bobcat

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 34181
  • Location: Rochester
    • robert68
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #46 on: November 14, 2017, 08:54:24 AM »
Not to get the thread more off track, but just have to say the public land issue is minor compared to other issues, such as illegal immigration, which Democrats don't even acknowledge as a problem and would prefer to have open borders so anyone can come live in our country. Let the Democrats have their way and we won't have a country left. So I'm sure as heck not going to support any Democrats just because I'm being told they're proponents of keeping public land public. Ironically, they're also, in general, anti hunting. So let's keep public land public, but ban hunting. That's what they would do. So no, never would I vote Democrat based on one issue.

Offline wooltie

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Posts: 326
  • Location: Whatcom
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2017, 11:50:52 AM »
What defines the 'progressive liberalism' that is being tossed back and forth between posts? 

Just curious what everyone thinks 'progressive liberalism' is and why they think support for that political ideology results in banning AR-15s.

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 #48 on: November 22, 2017, 04:12:09 PM »
What defines the 'progressive liberalism' that is being tossed back and forth between posts? 

Just curious what everyone thinks 'progressive liberalism' is and why they think support for that political ideology results in banning AR-15s.

What defines it? Its definition.

Here's a pretty good run-down:
https://classroom.synonym.com/definition-of-progressive-liberalism-12080919.html
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 05:09:51 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 wooltie

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Posts: 326
  • Location: Whatcom
Re: S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban
« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2017, 05:05:57 PM »
What defines the 'progressive liberalism' that is being tossed back and forth between posts? 

Just curious what everyone thinks 'progressive liberalism' is and why they think support for that political ideology results in banning AR-15s.

What define's it? Its definition.

Here's a pretty good run-down:
https://classroom.synonym.com/definition-of-progressive-liberalism-12080919.html


The definition cited centered around advocating the regulation of private markets.  Are you suggesting that regulating private markets would result in advocating banning AR-15s? 

 

* Recent Topics