S. 2509 - 2017 Assault Weapons Ban

[Tinmaniac]

But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?

[WAcoyotehunter]

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.

[Bushcraft]

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.

[Eric M]

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. 

[Bushcraft]

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.   

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

[Bushcraft]

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. 

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

[WAcoyotehunter]

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.

[Bushcraft]

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

[Mark Brenckle]

You two sound like an old married couple, why don't you move your conversation to PMs so the topic can be discussed?

[jackelope]

You two sound like an old married couple, why don't you move your conversation to PMs so the topic can be discussed?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bushcraft]

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!   

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.

[JimmyHoffa]

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!   

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.

[WAcoyotehunter]

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.

[Special T]

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

[WAcoyotehunter]

Maybe he's ready for a promotion?!?  )