NRA and Hunting

Founder

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
11,468
As you all know, the NRA is getting hammered by business partners this week. I'm guessing that it's in response to how they responded to the school shooting and possibly more gun legislation.
Question is, how could all this effect hunting? Will it lead to difficulty in buying hunting rifles? Anything? Where could it lead?

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
I don't think it will affect hunting unless you hunt with an AR-15 and probably not even for that if you're over 21. I think bump stocks might go away, but they aren't needed for hunting.

Sadly I don't think any laws they pass will stop the crazies from getting on school yards and killing the innocent.
 
Even if they outlawed any more firearms from being sold as of today there are so many of these and other semiautomatic rifles and handguns out there in this country that this will not stop a nut from getting a gun and creating this type of mess!
 
I live in California, so any new gun laws will not surprise me. My best guess is that hunting will be effected. The government will first ban people under 21 from buying firearms, and then to further enforce it, they'll make it mandatory that those under 21 can only possess a firearm if they are accompanied by an "adult" (someone over 21).
 
Kinda seems like if I was 18 and by law had register for selective service, I might consider legal action. Not sure how you send a kid to fight with an "assault" rifle then outlaw them from buying one.

In also a little irritated with how silent the NRA has remained on public land so they could toe the republican platform, but suddenly public land hunters are supposed to jump in with them?





"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-18 AT 11:19AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-18 AT 11:16?AM (MST)

Hunting is a privilege that can be taken quite easily once the majority of a population is swayed against it.
The 2A is an extension of an individual's God given Right to defend oneself and their property and was written into our Bill Of Rights to guarantee that God given Right.
Any infringement on the 2A is a direct threat to any individual that believes freedom takes precedence over "security ". There is no such thing as "common sense" gun control. Taking a populations ability to fight tyranny is the only reason for taking a populations firearms.
Do not allow the socialist to divide us by believing they are going after others. They are after all firearms. The socialist (liberals/progressives) have been successfully destroying our Bill Of Rights a generation at a time. Look at the hoops you have to go through in order to "legally" purchase a firearm. In the mid thirties a citizen of this country could mail order what is now considered a "class 3" weapon and have it delivered to their home.
Yep, we sure are safer now than we were back then!
Laws don't stop bad guys. Well armed Patriots do.



Norkal

"One can take my life but not my faith or my
confidence. I fear none and respect all."
 
Eight years of Obama and no gun control, even with Newtown and a dozen other mass shootings. A year into Trump and even Republicans are talking gun control. Maybe the Hillary fear-mongering was just that?

Gun control laws can come and go with political winds (see Clinton's Gun Ban), Legislation (see Stand-Your-Ground laws and right-to-carry states), and Judicial rulings (see Heller and McDonald). Once public land is gone, it'll never come back.

Guns always have the 2nd Amendment, as vague as it is, as a crutch... Public lands have nothing.

I'll take my chances on guns and support groups that preserve public lands... NRA is not one of them, they're too entrenched in money from oil donors.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
I don't worry so much from them taking my guns. I worry about the Republicans taking my Social Security.
 
I'm completely over the NRA and the gun fetish wackjobs who back them. They have totally lost touch with what is important to me and many other sensible gun owners.
 
>I don't worry so much from
>them taking my guns. I
>worry about the Republicans taking
>my Social Security.


My liberal grandma who passed in 2008 talked about republicans taking her social security since 1980. Grandma they never touched it...
 
Muley... Got off topic there, but I will educate you... the Demorats took the $$ from the SS trust fund and put it in the general fund so they could give it to people that did NOT contribute to SS and spend it on stupid ##### like the sex life of salamanders. As far as ban on black scary looking guns....I kill a lot of coyotes with mine and they will never take it.
CC
 
Yes, I know about the trust fund. That money is lost. However, I still worry about my check being touched.They're talking about taking it again since they gave so much to the rich in the latest tax cut. Now they have to find a way to replace it. SS is an easy target.

Sorry for the off topic. I'm done.
 
I've been back and forth on the NRA for some time now. However, the "gun fetish whackjobs" and the NRA, have reversed many unconstitutional laws through legal challenges. I think it's time for all gun owners to stick together or continue to slowly lose our rights!
I love my gun, does that mean I have a fetish?
 
When someone complains to me about some anti gun bill that is being considered for passing, my first question to them is:
Do you belong to the NRA. If they say no. I then ask them do you belong to a pro gun group in your state that fights for gun rights. If they say no.

I them tell them, take your complaint somewhere else as I do not have the time to listen to your b!tching about your firearm rights.

A lot of firearm owners that refuse to become a member of the NRA for one reason or another, also have not joined any group in their state that will help them to protect their gun rights. They are the ones that hang on to the coattails of responsible gun owners that take the time and money to join the NRA or join a gun rights group within their state.
I pay membership dues to both the NRA and the CA. Rifle and Pistol Assoc. as both are very active in fighting anti gun bills in my state. I also will send extra money to both groups.

I do not have time to listen to so called gun owners that fail to protect their firearm rights, but will turn around in a New York minute and pitch a b!tch about some anti gun law being considered in the Nation or their state.

RELH
 
So, would someone please explain to me just what a "sensible gun owner" is?
Some folks truly do not get it.

Norkal

"One can take my life but not my faith or my
confidence. I fear none and respect all."
 
To me it is a gun owner who will take the time and effort to protect his rights concerning firearm ownership by joining a group that has some clout to fight for those ownership rights. To protect those rights for our children and grandchildren to enjoy.
I recognize the fact that the NRA is not for every gun owner due to other priorities the gun owner has over some policy the owner feels the NRA has taken a different position.

I do feel that a gun owner should find a local or state group that will fight for those gun rights on the state level that the owner lives in and support them. If he/she does that I have no complaint about them not being a member of the NRA.

If he fails to do that, then to me his complaints is nothing but hot air and does not deserve any attention from me or gun owners who are willing to put their money to good use by becoming a member of a gun group that will fight to maintain those rights to gun ownership. In a nut shell, a gun owner that fails to support a group dedicated to protecting his 2nd. amendment is a hypocrite if he complains about anti gun laws. Put up or shut up.

I know some will consider that being a harsh stand, but that is the way I feel about gun owners hanging on to my coattails then turn around and complain about anti gun laws to me.
RELH
 
I don't believe it will have to much effect on a law abiding citizen to get adequate firearms for hunting but as I right this the local news is announcing bike shops in our area boycotting certain bike gear because it has a connection to the NRA. Are you kidding me "bicycle helmets". I think conservatives have been to quite for to long and we need to start boycotting companies with our $$$ that boycott organizations that stand for our rights as citizens.
 
Public lands are not the issue. The erosion of our Rights is the issue.
Like most hunters I would hate for us to lose our public lands. If they are lost hunting will become "pay to play" and sport only for the elite class as it is in most of the world.
That said, please tell me where exactly is our Right to public land addressed in our Constitution? In which of the seven Articles is it? In which of the 27 Amendments?
Folks truly need to read our Constitution as most haven't a clue as to what it says.
Folks would also be wise to look into the life cycle of a democratic style government.
Get acquainted with both and one will clearly understand why the 2A is critical to our existence.

Norkal

"One can take my life but not my faith or my
confidence. I fear none and respect all."
 
For the record. I don't belong to the NRA because I don't use a rifle.

I'm a muzzleloader hunter/shooter and belong to the NMLRA.
 
The NRA has been a great protector for many many years for guns & self defense & 2nd Rights, but their latest stances on AR 15's & the shootings leaves much to be desired-- it's making a very bad situation worse because of the extreme right wing ultra conservative mentality funded by large corporate wealthy interests & rich right wingers, the same fools that helped put Humpty Trumpty in office. He is the Worst excuse for a leader one could imagine for the U S, not suited to herd cats much less people. One despicable disgusting act after another. So shameful but he has no shame.
Hillary had her weak points, but nothing like this looney bird.
Jerry Gold
 
I thinks its pretty easy for those that live in gun friendly states to become somewhat complacent about gun control. As for our way of life, public lands and gun rights rights are both very important. But I don't thinks it's wise to look past gun restrictions with this political climate. We are one supreme court judge away from changing our lives for a long time.
Those of us on the left coast get bombarded with gun control rhetoric on a constant basis, and our rights are getting eroded on a regular basis.
As hunters, outdoorsman, constitutionalists or just a red blooded American, we need to quit the division amongst ourselves and fight this together.
Heywouldya
 
^ really Jerry, Hillary instead of Trump? Well at least you know you'd be getting the corruption that we're used to. I have an AR and I really enjoy it! The wild pigs don't enjoy it though.
How is that rifle any different than any other rifle you own. The second amendment is in place so we can protect ourselves from an oppressive government. I guess if this opinion makes me a extreme right wing ultra conservative, large corporate, rich, blah blah blah, then so be it.

Heywouldya
 
"Ultra right" = The socialist definition for any U.S. citizen that believes in our Constitution as written.
Guns are not the problem, socialism is.
The socialist agenda of removing God from our country is. Believe in God or don't that is each individual's choice, all good, I get it. That said, if all men lived by God's law our country would not be in the state of moral decay that it is in. It is very easy for naysayers to dispute the Bible is nothing more than fiction, just as in another few years it would be easy to say nazi germany didn't commit mass killings as those who lived through it will all have passed. The difference being we have actual photos of the latter.

Norkal

"One can take my life but not my faith or my
confidence. I fear none and respect all."
 
Don?t worry jerry. Dianne Feinstein and Nancy pelosi, and Barbara boxer will protect your hunting heritage. They?ve prove time and time again that they're pro hunting. Pro recreation. Pro business. Pro American. Pro gun. I am sure they'll protect you and your freedoms.

I'd align with them too. They?re good gals.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-18 AT 12:49PM (MST)[p]^^ Are you ready to add Condoleezza Rice to that list?

?I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world,??Rice told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday. ?I don't understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons."

EDIT: NORKAL, look up Godwin's Law.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
I absolutely am ready to add her to that list.

I read the story too and you won't find me in any sort of gotcha!!

Ask Mia love if I've written her letters for the gestapo, SS style of police department in Saratoga springs.

You think I care what they list next to their names?

Joe manchin was a favorite until sandy hook.

I will not align with anyone who, regardless of the letter next to their name, If they're a power hungry tool.

Power hungry comes from
Both sides. I just happen to despise almost everything on a Democrats platform. I despise less on the republicans. But still despise none the less.
 
Don't need to as I am familiar with it. I believe it is BS but I am familiar with it.
Note the POS socialist was not mentioned, only the atrocities committed by the party he lead at the time.

Norkal

"One can take my life but not my faith or my
confidence. I fear none and respect all."
 
If the NRA had a brain they would one of those HS sappy commercials with wildlife dying slowly and painfully, then cue the announcer explaining how these animals are only possible due to Pittman Robertson funding. Less guns means dead animals.




"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
I've been making the argument that we must protect public lands and hunting rights because that is the 'legitimate use' of firearms that is likely to protect our gun rights; and without hunting the argument in favor of gun control becomes stronger.

Right on cue: Republican Utah Governor Herbert wants to raise the age to buy certain guns and limit high-capacity magazines. And the quote he used, ?I don't know that there's any reason to have anything more than a seven- or nine-shot magazine. Once you get past a typical size when you go out hunting, you're probably having excess baggage you don't need.?

If we lose hunting because of the loss of public lands, the argument in favor of total gun-control becomes stronger. I'll vote to protect hunting and the guns will follow suit.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
I think we can all agree that the major reason we all have guns, is to hunt. Heck that's why most of us are on this forum.
However, there hasn't been one gun right argument won at the supreme court because we hunt. They are fought and won because of our second amendment rights. The NRA and groups like them fight every day, on many different fronts, to protect those rights.
For better or for worse, they argument that we don't need certain weapons, clips and the like for hunting, is the case used most against gun owners.
I love hunting, I use my guns to hunt, and yes, mostly on public land. Without having a place to hunt it will reduce the passion we have for our firearms.
Maybe its the chicken and the egg argument. Which came first or which is more important, but I'd argue that without the second amendment of our constitution backing us, we'd lose our ability to own guns and hunt much quicker.
That's just my opinion of course.
Marc
 
I fear that the failure to respond to the sort of changes seen over 230 years will eventually force the elimination of SA rights altogether. Courts have already ruled that the SA does not afford citizens the right to carry whichever type of firearm we desire, wherever and whenever we wish. And the right of the Supreme Court to make such decisions is also protected by the Constitution. The protection of SA rights is a political question and is by no means guaranteed. And a degree of tact is required to maintain the peace between gun owners and those who fear them. The NRA does us no favors whatsoever in aiding in the display of loudmouths like Ted Nugent. Stirring up gun owners may help to bring in donations, but it does nothing to improve relations with those on the fence. I will contribute my dollars to pro-hunting conservation groups that support the case for gun ownership by example.
 
"I've been making the argument that we must protect public lands and hunting rights because that is the 'legitimate use' of firearms that is likely to protect our gun rights;"


The "legitimate use" of firearms and the second amendment is to protect the citizenry. The fact that people are de-legitimizing that FACT is the biggest thing threatening your rights. Public land preservation and your hunting privileges are two different issues and distractions. You and your weapon are the fourth branch of the US government. You and your weapon are the final check and balance to the system. The wall between liberty and tyranny is watched and guarded by you and millions of other regular armed citizens, not a military. It doesn't get any more "legitimate" than that.
 
>"I've been making the argument that
>we must protect public lands
>and hunting rights because that
>is the 'legitimate use' of
>firearms that is likely to
>protect our gun rights;"
>
>
>The "legitimate use" of firearms and
>the second amendment is to
>protect the citizenry. The
>fact that people are de-legitimizing
>that FACT is the biggest
>thing threatening your rights. Public
>land preservation and your hunting
>privileges are two different issues
>and distractions. You and
>your weapon are the fourth
>branch of the US government.
> You and your weapon
>are the final check and
>balance to the system.
>The wall between liberty and
>tyranny is watched and guarded
>by you and millions of
>other regular armed citizens, not
>a military. It doesn't get
>any more "legitimate" than that.
>


Bingo. The 2nd is not about hunting. It's about defending against a tyrannical government. The fact the we have public lands and hunting are a privilege that we get to use because of the right to keep and bear arms.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-18 AT 07:59AM (MST)[p]This morning the polls show 70% are in favor of stricter gun control. Are there any hunters in those polls?

edit...I just checked. 30-40% of US citizens own guns, so I guess the polls make sense.
 
>This morning the polls show 70%
>are in favor of stricter
>gun control. Are there any
>hunters in those polls?

A year ago November the polls showed Trump had no shot. I don't put much stock in polls anymore.


#livelikezac
 
>>This morning the polls show 70%
>>are in favor of stricter
>>gun control. Are there any
>>hunters in those polls?
>
>A year ago November the polls
>showed Trump had no shot.
>I don't put much stock
>in polls anymore.
>
>
>#livelikezac

He didn't have a chance until the end when more email crap came out on Clinton. She had a huge lead before that and that lead went away.
 
I will remain a member of the NRA, due to the fact that they fight so many issues we never even hear about. You catch a few of them in the magazines.
 
Every case that goes to the Supreme Court (which according to precedent is unlikely to even take a 2nd Amendment case so soon after Heller, et al) starts in the legislative branch.

As long as the court of public opinion believes firearms should be protected for sporting purposes such as hunting, the legislative branch is less likely to institute gun control laws that even need to go to the Supreme Court. Not to mention, nothing any of us are going to do will have any affect on the interpretation of a future Supreme Court. This needs to be won with the public first and foremost.

That's why I referenced Herbert... because his justification was based on usefulness for hunting, not self-defense or what is protected under purview of the Constitution.

Once hunting numbers dwindle to a very small number, there's nobody left to protect firearms for lawful sporting purposes.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-18 AT 09:21AM (MST)[p]The right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. There is nothing about "legitimate uses" in the Constitution, for any of the rights protected there. People keep trotting hunting out as an excuse to own guns, but it does more harm than good. I do sometimes hunt with my M1 and my AR-15, but if I didn't it would in no way impact my right to own them. The only thing that tying hunting or "sporting purposes" to the right to keep and bear arms does is fragment gun owners. There are many people who own guns but don't hunt. Their rights are in no way less important than ours.

The pure fact is that an armed person is a citizen; an unarmed one is a subject. The nation is responsible for national security; the person is responsible for personal security.

Hunting is a completely separate issue. Many European countries have hunting, but no protection for the right to keep and bear arms. (Of course, hunting there is only for the very wealthy, since there is almost no public land). Hunters have to check their own guns out of a state-approved armory to go hunting, and return them immediately upon return. After all, guns are for hunting, you really don't need them if you aren't hunting, right?
 
Personally I don't join the NRA because they are a multi level marketing scam used to line Ole Wayne's pockets.

I agree that the 2nd Amendment and hunting have nothing to do with each other but every other right in the bill of rights has a limitation when it begins to affect others rights.

The "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" idea. The USSC has found an individual right to own guns with the Heller Decisions. After that there has been little interest by the court to wade into the issue. It is telling that even Scalia had his doubts about what is and is not allowed to be owned.

Quoting from Heller:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, Scalia wrote:

?Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited?? It is ?? not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.?

?Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.?

?We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ?in common use at the time.? We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ?dangerous and unusual weapons.??


I also don't believe we can ban guns because of how many are out there already. I just don't believe that the NRA is the best mouth piece for my gun rights.

Nemont
 
You guys are missing the point. The gun control debate is won on the streets, not the Supreme Court. Nothing changed with the Courts in the last two weeks, yet gun control (with Republican support) is now a very real possibility. This is entirely due to public sentiment, not a reinterpretation of the Constitution.

The fight here is for "hearts and minds" of the public. In a July 2017 poll, 68% supported gun ownership for hunting and sporting purposes.

If you think the 2nd Amendment will be safe by having the public see no legitimate use of firearms, and you intend to fend off countless gun control laws by running to the Supreme Court... then the NRA is a frivolous organization because they've lost the fight and have effectively no influence in the Supreme Court.

The power of the NRA is it's Political Victory Find and Institute for Legislation Action, the purpose behind those factions is to prevent laws from gaining public support and even being enacted... not to try and successfully defeat them via Court challenges.

I totally agree with the original intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, but if you believe there's a risk of that being overturned then you need to stop the public from supporting it, not hope to win countless fights in years to come against the will of the public.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
>>>This morning the polls show 70%
>>>are in favor of stricter
>>>gun control. Are there any
>>>hunters in those polls?
>>
>>A year ago November the polls
>>showed Trump had no shot.
>>I don't put much stock
>>in polls anymore.
>>
>>
>>#livelikezac
>
>He didn't have a chance until
>the end when more email
>crap came out on Clinton.
>She had a huge lead
>before that and that lead
>went away.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-us-presidential-election-2016-a7396991.html

#livelikezac
 
"You guys are missing the point."

"The fight here is for "hearts and minds" of the public."


No sir. You are missing the point. You don't win a political debate with a dishonest premise. It is fundamentally dishonest to tell uneducated people that your second amendment right is a hunting and/or a public land issue. It is YOUR responsibility to quit babying them and educate them that OUR second amendment right is for the preservation of all's liberty, AND WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT THAT IS WORTH MORE THAN THE LIVES OF 17 KIDS. Millions have died to ensure that right before any of these dam massacres ever occurred. The more you think you will protect yourself with nothing more than a white lie the more you fool yourself.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-18 AT 11:33AM (MST)[p]https://www.nraila.org/legal-legislation/

See things they fight for that we never hear on the news.
 
Seriously. There are about 300 million gun owners in the US. Do you really think the politicians are stupid enough to try and take our guns?
 
>Didn't they just do it in
>Australia?
>
>
>
>#livelikezac

I don't know how that country works, but I don't think our politicians want 3 million voters pissed off at them. Their biggest worry always seems to be getting re-elected.
 
You're making my point. If you are so certain that the 2nd Amendment is as iron-clad as you say, then the NRA is a worthless, impotent organization and you may as well just wait for gun control to be passed so you can argue self-defense and original-intent in the courts.

If you're so certain your have the Constitution on your side, no reason to worry about which officials get elected and their views on gun control as it would be a moot point. Heck, you should be clamoring for the court case to prove you're right.

Nobody is worried about how elected officials stand on Freedom of Religion because they know no law could be passed to take it away.

My point is that it is wiser, and clearly the NRA agrees, to keep public opinion pro-gun and keep legislators from having public support for enacting gun control from the onset. The NRA doesn't want to have to defend an "assault weapon ban" because they're not sure how it will end.

If your argument for AR15s and high-capacity magazines is to fight the National Guard in the streets during some Orwellian Insurrection... well, there's not much I can do except lend you some tinfoil.

The argument that will be used in a future battle over the banning of AR15s will be based on lawful use and the fact that it's the most popular gun in America and has been for years. The argument will not be over a paramilitary battle against a rogue US Government.

If you keep public support up and lawful use common place, the laws are much less likely to ever be enacted. That's my point, not that the 2nd Amendment was meant for hunting.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
> Seriously. There are
>about 300 million gun owners
>in the US. Do you
>really think the politicians are
>stupid enough to try and
>take our guns?



That's not what im saying, my point is passing these stupid little laws, like telling me how big my clip should be, liberals wanting a different buying age, it goes on to keep getting rid/ban the small stuff then just leads into taking something bigger away( for example cant say the pledge in school, taking God out of things, muslims say our flag offends them, cant say merry Christmas and so on and on} . No one else out there is willing to step up to these lefty liberals and left media. I don't even watch the news at all, that way I don't have to stress about the lies they tell on the media. What other club can I support that stands up for my rights. sure all clubs can do things that we don't agree with such as the SFW and their scams.
 
>> Seriously. There are
>>about 300 million gun owners
>>in the US. Do you
>>really think the politicians are
>>stupid enough to try and
>>take our guns?
>
>
>
>That's not what im saying, my
>point is passing these stupid
>little laws, like telling me
>how big my clip should
>be, liberals wanting a different
>buying age, it goes on
>to keep getting rid/ban the
>small stuff then just leads
>into taking something bigger away(
>for example cant say the
>pledge in school, taking God
>out of things, muslims say
>our flag offends them, cant
>say merry Christmas and so
>on and on} .
>No one else out there
>is willing to step up
>to these lefty liberals and
>left media. I don't
>even watch the news at
>all, that way I don't
>have to stress about the
>lies they tell on the
>media. What other club can
>I support that stands up
>for my rights. sure all
>clubs can do things that
>we don't agree with such
>as the SFW and their
>scams.
>
>


I know my post followed yours, but my post wasn't pointed at you. I would have quoted you. It was just said as a general statement.
 
>I also don't believe we can
>ban guns because of how
>many are out there already.
> I just don't believe
>that the NRA is the
>best mouth piece for my
>gun rights.
>
>Nemont

No, there will never be a law that says "all gun ownership is now illegal. Hand em in." Of course, that would fail. It's too blatantly unconstitutional. What we are seeing all the time is little chips.

Nobody needs large capacity magazines. They have no hunting purpose.

Nobody needs a bump stock. There is no sporting purpose for them.

Nobody needs a rifle that looks like an assault rifle. They're only for the military.

Nobody needs to buy more than one gun a year. It just lets crazy people stock up.

Nobody needs suppressors. They are only for assassins.

Nobody needs to carry concealed weapons. That's why we have police.

Nobody needs to buy more than 20 rounds of ammunition at a time. How many shots do you need to hunt?

Every time one of these tiny chips becomes law, a few gun owners become either non-gun owners or criminals. The majority of the gun owning public just says, "I don't use those. I don't know why anyone would. We're better off without them."

Of course, crime is not reduced when, say, high capacity magazines are outlawed. These little transgressions are not meant to reduce crime. They are intended to fragment gun owners and establish precedents.

The NRA fights them, and there are always a few who look at that and say, "The NRA is supporting nutcases and guns that I don't use. They don't represent me. I don't shoot an AR-15."

So people drop their memberships and say something like "I just don't believe that the NRA is the best mouth piece for my gun rights." Never mind that the Lower Fudpucket Rod and Gun Club has no political clout whatsoever. At least they never say anything their members don't all agree with. They keep their mouths shut as long as no laws are passed against bolt action deer rifles or pump shotguns. When the time finally comes and a law is proposed to outlaw synthetic stocks, or illuminated reticles, or bipods, the legal precedents are all in place and there is nobody left to help them out. Good luck fighting it by yourself.

No, I don't always agree with the NRA. I wouldn't be a part of an organization I always agreed with. There would be no need, because I'd have to be the only member. Every politician knows the NRA. How many other groups have as much clout? None. Certainly, every individual has the right to not join the NRA. That's freedom. The NRA will still fight for your rights, as well as those of people you may not agree with. They are far from perfect, but they are the best option we have. Find a better one and I'll be there.

Life Member, National Rifle Association.
Life Member, North Dakota State Shooting Sports Association.
 
I use real black powder in my muzzleloader. Not too far back the bottles now have serial numbers.

One little chip.
 
If you think the government doesn't test the limits of the people and second amendment every year you are being blind. If you think the federal government won't murder Americans in the street, and that idea is tin foil hat stuff, you don't know history. You can post picture after picture after picture of American Citizens who were MURDERED by government entities. They will shred the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments the second the public is disarmed. They are trying to now with the second amendment in place.
 
RE: itNRA and Hunting

>Unfortunately those of us who "love"
>guns in America are quickly
>becoming the minority in this
>world of snowflakes. You're kidding
>yourself if you think otherwise.

DW, exactly. This is the point I've been trying to get people to understand. The best protection for firearms is keeping them relevant in people's lives... via activities such as hunting.

Grizzly
 
>>I also don't believe we can
>>ban guns because of how
>>many are out there already.
>> I just don't believe
>>that the NRA is the
>>best mouth piece for my
>>gun rights.
>>
>>Nemont
>
>No, there will never be a
>law that says "all gun
>ownership is now illegal. Hand
>em in." Of course, that
>would fail. It's too blatantly
>unconstitutional. What we are seeing
>all the time is little
>chips.
>
>Nobody needs large capacity magazines. They
>have no hunting purpose.
>
>Nobody needs a bump stock. There
>is no sporting purpose for
>them.
>
>Nobody needs a rifle that looks
>like an assault rifle. They're
>only for the military.
>
>Nobody needs to buy more than
>one gun a year. It
>just lets crazy people stock
>up.
>
>Nobody needs suppressors. They are only
>for assassins.
>
>Nobody needs to carry concealed weapons.
>That's why we have police.
>
>
>Nobody needs to buy more than
>20 rounds of ammunition at
>a time. How many shots
>do you need to hunt?
>
>
>Every time one of these tiny
>chips becomes law, a few
>gun owners become either non-gun
>owners or criminals. The majority
>of the gun owning public
>just says, "I don't use
>those. I don't know why
>anyone would. We're better off
>without them."
>
>Of course, crime is not reduced
>when, say, high capacity magazines
>are outlawed. These little transgressions
>are not meant to reduce
>crime. They are intended to
>fragment gun owners and establish
>precedents.
>
>The NRA fights them, and there
>are always a few who
>look at that and say,
>"The NRA is supporting nutcases
>and guns that I don't
>use. They don't represent me.
>I don't shoot an AR-15."
>
>
>So people drop their memberships and
>say something like "I just
>don't believe that the NRA
>is the best mouth piece
>for my gun rights." Never
>mind that the Lower Fudpucket
>Rod and Gun Club has
>no political clout whatsoever. At
>least they never say anything
>their members don't all agree
>with. They keep their mouths
>shut as long as no
>laws are passed against bolt
>action deer rifles or pump
>shotguns. When the time finally
>comes and a law is
>proposed to outlaw synthetic stocks,
>or illuminated reticles, or bipods,
>the legal precedents are all
>in place and there is
>nobody left to help them
>out. Good luck fighting it
>by yourself.
>
>No, I don't always agree with
>the NRA. I wouldn't be
>a part of an organization
>I always agreed with. There
>would be no need, because
>I'd have to be the
>only member. Every politician knows
>the NRA. How many other
>groups have as much clout?
>None. Certainly, every individual has
>the right to not join
>the NRA. That's freedom. The
>NRA will still fight for
>your rights, as well as
>those of people you may
>not agree with. They are
>far from perfect, but they
>are the best option we
>have. Find a better one
>and I'll be there.
>
>Life Member, National Rifle Association.
>Life Member, North Dakota State Shooting
>Sports Association.

I have heard every rant that sounds just like yours. Do some simple math, There are about 85 million gun owners in the United States, 5 million are NRA members. The VAST majority of guns owners don't buy what the NRA is selling.

I never said I don't believe in the 2nd Amendment, I never said I don't give to other pro gun organization. I said the NRA is little more than a multi level marketing organization primarily designed to line Ole Wayne's pockets. Like you said it is freedom, you want anther Trucker hat and good bag then keep giving to the NRA. I choose not and I sleep fine at night.

Nemont
 
The word AR does not stand for assault rifle. Stands for Armalite rifle.

My point before was that I don't think the 2nd amnd. will be taken away. Its the small stuff wanting to get taken away as I stated before. I will keep being a life member of the NRA. I go to all the local friends of the NRA events. All the money raised gets spent local for youth/women/gun clubs/4-h and I like supporting that.


Scubohntr said it very well.
 
>Nobody home but deer hunters.
>
>


So let me get this right, over on the Political forum the Trumpteers, who I am sure all heavy duty NRA supporters, are going nuts that the FBI didn't break down the door of the Florida Shooter and detain him after they received a tip that he was dangerous. No other information needed or required.

Now we see after the Boston Marathon bombing you want the authorities to stop and get a warrant even though there was a terrorist attack and a nut job on the loose.

So which is it? And how exactly has the NRA protected us from such a scenario? Are you saying in the midst of a terrorist attack you would open fire on the police because they didn't have a warrant? Come on.

Nemont
 
Nemont,

I'm not over on the political forum. Don't assume I speak for them and don't assume their views are mine.

Yes I expect the authorities to get warrants and OBEY THE F----G LAW, even when a criminal is on the loose. That's the entire point of the constitution.

I have no problem with a person who would gun down any government entity forcing his way into their home without due process or reasonable cause.

By the way Nemont in case you didn't know all those illegal tactics the police used in New England searching for the terrorist didn't catch the terrorist. Just a good old tip from a concerned citizen was all it took.
 
> Seriously. There are
>about 300 million gun owners
>in the US. Do you
>really think the politicians are
>stupid enough to try and
>take our guns?

There aren't 300 million "gun owners" in the US. There are "300 million guns" owned by a lot fewer than that.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-18 AT 02:41PM (MST)[p]"Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive." Theodore Roosevelt
 
Tri,

I wasn't trying to say you spoke for anybody.

here the issue I have with the Rambo mentality that your AR will make you more free. If most of the guys claiming this to be true ever faced a modern infantry platoon with all the fire power they bring, their AR would be a pea shooter.

As for what is claimed to be illegal tactics by the police, I have no knowledge of the incident and will take your word for it. If one was going to open fire on them, it would have been a perfect time to and I don't think a single one of the people fired back. Just saying, the NRA didn't matter a whit at that point.

Nemont
 
You obviously don't understand how a civil war would be fought.

As for what went on in Boston and why no one fought back I'm not sure. It's kind of a different culture there. I guarantee those same scumbags in that video wouldn't pull that stunt in Naples Idaho.
 
>As you all know, the NRA
>is getting hammered by business
>partners this week. I'm guessing
>that it's in response to
>how they responded to the
>school shooting and possibly more
>gun legislation.
>Question is, how could all this
>effect hunting? Will it lead
>to difficulty in buying hunting
>rifles? Anything? Where could it
>lead?
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com
>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>on Facebook!

I just want to say that my family are all avid hunters. When my sons wanted to start hunting they had to take a hunters safety course. I think this nation should require a similar course for to even purchase an AR-15 style weapon. I bet some of these mass shooters are so anti social and messed up, that they could not get though the course. There is something so repulsive about these shootings that something needs done, but don't think it will effect the average hunter...unless you need a 30 round clip to kill a deer.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-18
>AT 12:49?PM (MST)
>
>^^ Are you ready to add
>Condoleezza Rice to that list?
>
>
>?I think it is time to
>have a conversation about what
>the right to bear arms
>means in the modern world,??Rice
>told radio host Hugh Hewitt
>on Friday. ?I don't understand
>why civilians need to have
>access to military weapons."
>

Last time I checked, civilians didn't have access to military rifles. Civilians have access to weapons that LOOK like military rifles. Mrs. Rice has obviously fallen victim to the media-hyped misconceptions of AR rifles.
 
>Tri,
>
>I wasn't trying to say you
>spoke for anybody.
>
>here the issue I have with
>the Rambo mentality that your
>AR will make you more
>free. If most of
>the guys claiming this to
>be true ever faced a
>modern infantry platoon with all
>the fire power they bring,
>their AR would be a
>pea shooter.
>
>As for what is claimed to
>be illegal tactics by the
>police, I have no knowledge
>of the incident and will
>take your word for it.
> If one was going
>to open fire on them,
>it would have been a
>perfect time to and I
>don't think a single one
>of the people fired back.
> Just saying, the NRA
>didn't matter a whit at
>that point.
>
>Nemont



And Once again NeMont Baffles Himself with His Own F'N BS!
 
I couldn't have said it better scubo. I don't always agree with the NRA, but they fight against the slow erosion of gun rights. Just as erosion of one grain of sand at a time created the Grand Canyon, slow erosion of gun rights could lead to an Australian style buy-back.

Staying on topic, I don't think the proposed changes will affect my hunting. However, the slow erosion will eventually impact hunting as we know it. Maybe not in my lifetime, but one grain of a sand at a time, change will happen.

For the record, I am an NRA Endowed Member, a member of the NWTF, and a member of the East TN Retriever Club.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-18 AT 04:46AM (MST)[p]>>As you all know, the NRA
>>is getting hammered by business
>>partners this week. I'm guessing
>>that it's in response to
>>how they responded to the
>>school shooting and possibly more
>>gun legislation.
>>Question is, how could all this
>>effect hunting? Will it lead
>>to difficulty in buying hunting
>>rifles? Anything? Where could it
>>lead?
>>
>>Brian Latturner
>>MonsterMuleys.com
>>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>>on Facebook!
>
>I just want to say that
>my family are all avid
>hunters. When my sons
>wanted to start hunting they
>had to take a hunters
>safety course. I think
>this nation should require a
>similar course for to even
>purchase an AR-15 style weapon.
>I bet some of these
>mass shooters are so anti
>social and messed up, that
>they could not get though
>the course. There is
>something so repulsive about these
>shootings that something needs done,
>but don't think it will
>effect the average hunter...unless you
>need a 30 round clip
>to kill a deer.

Where in the 2nd, or any state Constitution does it say training is needed or required? What makes an AR any different? Why does it matter.

Here's my take any more.

For or against our rights. That it's. No ifs, and, or but.

It doesn't matter that I done need a 30 round magazine for hunting. But guess what, it's what I have my varmint loads sitting in at the house ready to go when I head out the door. I grab my AR and my bag that has two 30's in it. I also have some 10's and 20's. The 10's are used in my Blackout for hunting lions.

I would use them all to defend my rights, my life and the rights and lives of my family and friends. I have taken an oath to do so. One does not have to look far to go back 80 years and find the pictures of the Germans executing Jews, who were forbidden from defending themselves.

Also, what about a semi automatic shotgun? It's no different than an ar, other than it looks different. It operates the same way. Why is the AR any different?
For or against?

Which is it?

Friend or Foe?
 
>>As you all know, the NRA
>>is getting hammered by business
>>partners this week. I'm guessing
>>that it's in response to
>>how they responded to the
>>school shooting and possibly more
>>gun legislation.
>>Question is, how could all this
>>effect hunting? Will it lead
>>to difficulty in buying hunting
>>rifles? Anything? Where could it
>>lead?
>>
>>Brian Latturner
>>MonsterMuleys.com
>>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>>on Facebook!
>
>I just want to say that
>my family are all avid
>hunters. When my sons
>wanted to start hunting they
>had to take a hunters
>safety course. I think
>this nation should require a
>similar course for to even
>purchase an AR-15 style weapon.
>I bet some of these
>mass shooters are so anti
>social and messed up, that
>they could not get though
>the course. There is
>something so repulsive about these
>shootings that something needs done,
>but don't think it will
>effect the average hunter...unless you
>need a 30 round clip
>to kill a deer.

I also wanted to add that Hunters safety has nothing to do with gun rights. You are mixing the two up. Only recently has hunting been getting added to states constitutions as a right. The 2nd amendment has been there since 1791.
 
Now it is civil war, with fellow Americans, that the NRA is protecting us from.

I can't keep track of what the NRA protects us from. How come there are always ample weapons in any shythole country around the world when civil wars are fought? None of them have a second amendment.

I am not for banning guns, also don't live with the paranoia some here have about a rogue government and that you will guarantee your freedom with an AR.

I have bought and sold them, enjoy shooting them and currently own one because it is fun to shoot.

If the NRA is the only thing between your guns and the government jack booted thugs then you already list and just don't know it.

Nemont
 
You don't get it Nemont. The NRA is protecting liberty. Liberty means YOU and I get to decide when our weapons come out and against who.

I don't think you can comprehend that it is better to die a free man BY YOUR OWN DECISION than it is to live as a subject.

I'm not saying the NRA is protecting us from a civil war or even a revolution. I am saying the NRA is giving us the right to make that decision if we feel we have to. When your elections aren't real anymore, when rule of law doesn't exist anymore, when property rights don't exist anymore, when government stands in the way of business and progress, YOU HAVE A FINAL CHOICE.
 
Yeah I have heard it all before, every month since and twice a week after a mass shooting. The NRA is the only reason I can still buy a gun.

It's BS. Why can't I own a sawed off street sweeper legally? Also if I want to defend my castle I would like an M60 up stairs for my kid to man and on M2 50 cal. For my crew served weapon downstairs. Yet I can't buy either without my governments permission and filling out a shyt ton of paperwork and getting a deep background check.

Liberty is protected by the NRA? Come on even you can't actually believe that. Ole Wayne's pension and retirement Villa in the Bahamas is what they are mostly protecting.

Nemont
 
I skipped thru all the response B.S......maybe somebody already point out.......nothing is going to change ownership of weapons until the 2nd amendment is ratified and changed...if that happens a revolution will occur...
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-18 AT 08:56AM (MST)[p]>I skipped thru all the response
>B.S......maybe somebody already point out.......nothing
>is going to change ownership
>of weapons until the 2nd
>amendment is ratified and changed...if
>that happens a revolution will
>occur...

That's a little na?ve... The second amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, means exactly what the courts decide it means. Look at California. Or New York City. The Constitution doesn't have to change a bit, as long as the courts decide that it really doesn't apply to black scary rifles, or high capacity magazines, or handguns, or whatever the latest bandwagon is. Then they can decide that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't really mean more than one gun per person, or that it doesn't say anything about ammunition, or that it doesn't prevent registration, annual competency tests, biometric locks, and legally mandated secure storage.

I'm sure there are some idiots out there that actually believe they can get the Bill of Rights repealed. The rest of them are just quietly chipping away, using terms like "common sense", and passing little restrictions that seem pretty harmless. They identify gun owners that are a little "outside" and don't have the support of the crowd that thinks the Constitution will protect them. Then they wait for some nutcase to shoot up a school or something, and scream about "assault rifles" or "sniper rifles" or "plastic handguns". Because decent people always try to be reasonable, some folks will always say, "Well, okay, I don't need an AR-15. Just leave my deer rifle and shotgun alone." The next time around, that deer rifle becomes a "sniper rifle", or there is a "sawed-off shotgun" involved, and another class of firearms becomes illegal. As the number of hunters declines, the anti-gunners are rubbing their greasy little hands together, and getting ready to trot out another "sporting purposes" bill.


Life Member, National Rifle Association.
Life Member, North Dakota State Shooting Sports Association.
 
Lots of opinions, not many facts. opinions should consider facts.

Fact. assault weapons have never been declared constitutional. the only thing that's happened since this Scalia interview is the court has refused to strike down bans. this is where it still stands. Scalia addresses what the court made legal and what they have not. yes, it does matter.




Fact. in 1938 shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches became illegal. that law has remained unchanged for 80 years. this is how they " chip away " ? then they chip mighty slow.


Fact. the majority of Americans support an assault rifle ban. NRA membership is about 1.5 % of the US population. how deep are your pockets ?


Fact. both Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford supported the 1994 ban we had for 10 years. so this is not an unprecedented debate and it's not a liberal vs conservative debate. get over that right now.


Back to opinions. I agree with those who say the loss of public lands is the most important topic on the sportsman's agenda. let Rambo fight his own battles they're not ours.



Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
I didn't say they are the only reason and I don't have a problem if you and your kid get rocket launchers and street sweepers and machine guns.

Liberty is protected by the members of the NRA and millions of others.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-18 AT 10:15AM (MST)[p]Continue to ignore history, the left is counting on it!


60303screenshot20180227100830.jpg




#livelikezac
 
Like probably 90% of you I bought an AR. Fact is my son "bought" one first(his money my paperwork).
So, I grabbed one too. Fact is even as I grabbed one I was thinking, why? What am I gonna do with it.

Its no as good a home defense gun as my 12ga.

Not as accurate as my 22-250

Loud as hellllll.

Fun to shoot, no doubt.

I get the "slippery slope" argument.

I have watched as in the name of "police brutality", black folks got behind criminals and thugs. Makes them look stupid and clownish.

We should be careful what we are all going to throw down on.

I support gun groups when they support us. The NRA spent a ton on Trump, now he's burning them so here they come running for cover.

I'm not willing to risk the publics acceptance of hunting, by jumping on board AR mania.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Lots of opinions, not many
>facts. opinions should consider facts.
>
>
>Fact. assault weapons have
>never been declared constitutional.
> the only thing that's
>happened since this Scalia interview
>is the court has refused
>to strike down bans.
>this is where it still
>stands. Scalia addresses what
>the court made legal and
>what they have not.
>yes, it does matter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Fact. in 1938 shotguns with
>barrels less than 18 inches
>became illegal. that law
>has remained unchanged for 80
>years. this is
>how they " chip away
>" ?
>then they chip mighty slow.
>
>
>
> Fact. the majority of
>Americans support an assault rifle
>ban. NRA membership
>is about 1.5 % of
>the US population. how
>deep are your pockets ?
>
>
>
>Fact. both Ronald Reagan and
>Gerald Ford supported the 1994
>ban we had for 10
>years. so this is
>not an unprecedented debate and
>it's not a liberal vs
>conservative debate. get over
>that right now.
>
>
>Back to opinions. I agree
>with those who say the
>loss of public lands is
>the most important topic
>on the sportsman's agenda.
>let Rambo fight his own
>battles they're not
>ours.
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends

Short barreled shotguns are not illegal.

What is an assault weapon? It's a made up term to fit the agenda of the discussion at the time.

Rambo is hardly a reasonable definition.

My AR is as accurate as my single shots and bolt actions. It makes a nice gun in the woods. I also have others that fit different needs.

These are our battles.

Collectively.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-18 AT 06:59PM (MST)[p]^^^^ Ya'll know where I stand, but that's pretty good, DW. A lot of truth in it too.

I've yet to hear a gun control proposal that would actually prevent these shootings... but that doesn't mean I'm going to give money so the NRA can support people trying to take my land. First and foremost, I'm a hunter and public land advocate. Preparing for a shootout with the United States Marines seems the less likely threat to me.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
Grizzly I can understand you not supporting the NRA. Do you support a state group in your state that will fight for your firearm rights?

RELH
 
>You think 90% of us have
>an AR? Hardly.


No I think a vast majority of dudes bought them as a toy, then adapted them to fit their interest. Thus the"Barbie gun" talk.

Point being, I didn't have one during the Clinton ban. I survived.

I have one now, its fine.

My issue is with the NRA.
THEY drank the coolaid of "republican good, democrat bad" Now those "good republicans" are turning on them.

When we were begging for their help(sway) in stopping the Chaffetz of the world, not only were they silent, they financially supported him and his ilk. They are no friend of the public land hunter meaning they are no friend of 72% of the west.

For 8 years we heard Obama was coming. Now look who is the pres who will ACTUALLY take your guns.

Guess all those "good republicans" were full of crap huh?



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Grizzly I can understand you not
>supporting the NRA. Do you
>support a state group in
>your state that will fight
>for your firearm rights?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RELH


Do you support a group that supports keeping public lands public? Your guns ain't going anywhere RELH. I'm not a member of the NRA anymore either. I was for a long, long time. Things change. Don't ride my coattails into public land. mtmuley
 
Nemont,
If you actually wanted to defend your property with an M60, an MA2 or, oh lets just say a tank, in a truly free society you could, and it wasn't all that many years ago that you could in These United States! The beginning of the end of that freedom was the gun control act of 1934. Since then the 2A has had numerous bites taken from it. With each bite a little more of our freedom is lost.

I just wonder what has changed that has made our weapons so much more violent these days. When I was a kid our guns were in our trucks so we could go hunting. Funny those guns never hurt anyone, they just sat patiently in our vehicles waiting for us to take them hunting. Same with that knife that was always on my belt at school. It never attacked anyone either.
We continue to have laws passed that erode our Rights in the name of safety, security and/or "it's for the children". I call BS! Just look at how much safer our country is as a result of all these wonderful laws.
Bad guys do not care about laws. This in not JMHO, I know from personal experience as I dealt with the dirtballs for 28 years.

Norkal

"One can take my life but not my faith or my
confidence. I fear none and respect all."
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-18 AT 09:45PM (MST)[p]Gentlemen, we've talked in circles on this one. I still believe our rights have to be fought on both fronts. Some states have had and have weapon bans, and groups like the NRA or the SAF file lawsuits and fight for our constitutional right. I don't care which one you favor, but it's na?ve to think that there aren't people out there going after our firearms. They wont stop until they can overturn the second amendment. Call that conspiracy theory, but those are facts if you listen to enough of our democratic elected official.
Our public lands also need to be protected! Without them, our lives would be turned upside down as well. Groups that have the mission to protect public lands need to be supported, whichever you chose to support.
Do I think the ripple effect from this later shooting is going to effect hunting and making it harder to purchase rifles? Yes! The push is for;
- 30 day waiting period
- 21 years old before you can purchase a firearm
- magazine restrictions
just to name a few. These attempted proposals eat away our rights and will expand into regulations that we don't want.
Some of you have been correct, we've had handgun bans overturned, so that makes us comfortable that our rights are protected.
Obama took away millions of acres by making them national monuments via the Antiquities Act, Trump got those back soon after he took office. They will keep coming after us and our rights, and we need to be diligent in how we save them.

heywouldya
 
"I've yet to hear a gun control proposal that would actually prevent these shootings... but that doesn't mean I'm going to give money so the NRA can support people trying to take my land. First and foremost, I'm a hunter and public land advocate. Preparing for a shootout with the United States Marines seems the less likely threat to me."


Hey I like your honesty Grizzly. But I think your stance on this issue is a little short sighted. Just because you don't think YOU may ever need to exercise your second amendment rights doesn't mean millions of other Americans won't have to. Maybe even people you do care about. One of the great things about society is we can do great things for everyone and not just care about the things in our own little bubble.

Right now it almost sounds like if you had a choice between a free deer hunt or Vicki Weaver getting a bullet through her skull you would pick the deer hunt.
 
I am sorry if I missed something. I admit I only got half way through this "discussion"....
The 2nd amendment IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING!
It is your last stand against tyranny, foreign and domestic! The opposition dividing us up is part of their incrementelism.

I am never disappointed by Americans lack of understanding of 2A....
 
60 million gun owners. That we know about. Those are the ones that registered their guns. 60 million.
Who is going to 60 million peoples homes? Who is taking 60 million people to prison?

WHO??

I was a member for a decade. In that decade I can't tell you the a mount of forest used(paper) to warn against the upcoming seizure. The call to action. The screaming, yelling, vitriol.

It never changed. Not with Bush, not with Clinton. Not with Gingrich. Regardless of who, had the oval, who had the congress.

Funny part, the guns are a right, to protect against a hostile government. To stop it. To provide a counter balance to unchecked power.

YET, as a political party, combined with government power holders are efforting to TAKE 28% (640,000,000 acres) OF YOUR LAND, what happens? The NRA not only does NOTHING to stop this out of control government(the very reason for the 2A), THEY SUPPORT IT. They fund it. They use all their might to elect more of it.

If Nancy Pelosi, or Elizabeth Warren set about taking 28% of America and putting it up for sale, the NRA would scream bloody murder. But, Paul Ryan and the RNC do it, NOTHING from the NRA.

Guess all that "check to power", and "balance against a hostile government", talk was bull?

I'm as pro gun as you get. I have safes full to prove it. But as I stand looking at the modern landscape looking at threats coming to my way of life, those black rattle guns in the safe ain't EVEN CLOSE to as important as the mountains I see out my windshield everyday.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
(hoss) the NRA is not in place to fight land issues and as for getting politician's elected they help elect gun friendly politician's not bleeding heart Libs who want to destroy the 2nd Amendment and if the NRA has gave money to help take public lands away from you, me or any other American please present the info you got. I might be uneducated on the land issue please enlighten me. As for if someday the government takes guns from red taken blooded Americans they don't need to go house to house to gather and take away your gun they will use programs to gather most and then make anoyone a criminal that does not turn there guns in. Just study history on the Germans of the 1930 the pepole of Germany probably had a higher percentage of citizens owning guns than Amercans.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-18 AT 07:44AM (MST)[p]>I am sorry if I missed
>something. I admit I only
>got half way through this
>"discussion"....
>The 2nd amendment IS NOT ABOUT
>HUNTING!
>It is your last stand against
>tyranny, foreign and domestic! The
>opposition dividing us up is
>part of their incrementelism.
>
>I am never disappointed bys Americans
>lack of understanding of 2A....
>

You don't consider government taking 640,000,000 acres FROM YOU, tyranny?


Here's a quick list. Notice there is a gun rights group, and notice its NOT the NRA.




Hundreds of organizations and businesses across the nation ? including many that are long-time antagonists ? have joined forces to lobbying against transfer proposals under the #KeepItPublic and #PublicLandsProud banners.
They include: The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP), Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), the Sportsmen?s Alliance, Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), Outdoor Alliance, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA), Simms, Trout Unlimited, Quail Forever, Sitka, Old Milwaukee, the National Wildlife Federation, Kimber, Pheasants Forever, National Wild Turkey Federation, Remington, Powderhook, the Wilderness Society, Center for Western Priorities (CWP), National Bowhunters Association, and the Sierra Club, the nation's largest grassroots conservation organization with more than 2 million members.

Outdoor Life 2017



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
The country was founded on private property rights not on the basis of the federal government owning as much land as possible. So I don't consider selling public land as "tyranny".
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-18 AT 07:58AM (MST)[p]As I first stated, I didn't read all of this. What I read was posters worried about rifles to deer hunt with, when 2A has nothing to do with deer hunting.

The Feds have been stealing private and public land. WE, WE let that happen. Here where I live, they stole a small piece of a friend's farm. There was no public outcry, because it did not affect them. In new London, the gvt used eminent domain to steal private property, to sell to a large pharmaceutical. Again, no public outcry because it did not affect them.
Houndsman Bear hunters in NY pleaded for help, and received none from other hunters because it did not affect them.

We let it happen.

We are going to loose gun rights , because as this post show, we are divided. In the end we get the gvt we deserve because we let it happen.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

61C667D4-C8D0-4870-9E93-11BEA76E7DD8.jpeg
IMG_6652.jpeg
Big Buck in the Back of the Truck
2022 Paunsaugant Archery Buck
IMG_8740.jpeg
Screenshot_20221226_195950_Messages.jpg
Couple Bucks Shared in the Scouting Photo Contest
20211118_094256.jpg
Wide Dude!
545245B7-6B4F-483B-A19C-C2B94AE77E00.jpeg
Colorado Pronghorn
1000006615.jpg
Back
Top Bottom