Elitist Hunters

[onpoint]

Gun rights are protected by the Constitution, public lands-not so much.

That's a tough concept for some to digest............

[Carnage2011]

I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why hunters should not support PLT politicians but it's ok to support anti second amendment politician? Please enlighten me. One matters and one doesn't? Neither one makes any sense as a hunter.

When it comes to PLT BHA rallies at the state capital but when it comes to the 2nd amend... Nevermind Sportsmen for Obama, nothing to see here.

To paraphrase JP, The Truth burns off dead wood and most folks don't want their deadwood burned off, that would destroy their ideology, never mind the facts, let's keep stacking this wood.

You haven’t heard a valid argument as to why hunters shouldn’t support PLT politicians? Is your head in the sand?

[VikingsGuy]

Gun rights are protected by the Constitution, public lands-not so much.

We are exactly 1 supreme court justice away from neither being protected by the Constitution.

[tjones]

We are exactly 1 supreme court justice away from neither being protected by the Constitution.

If you mean changing the 2nd. or any other amendments, the way I recall High School Civics, it will take a bit more then that.

[VikingsGuy]

If you mean changing the 2nd. or any other amendments, the way I recall High School Civics, it will take a bit more then that.

I think you need to update your civics class TJones. For at least 120+ years prior to the 2008 case, Heller, the 2nd amended did not afford individuals any constitutional rights to own guns, it only allowed the states to have National Guard units. The Heller case was a 5-4 ruling finding a personally protected constitutional right. All four traditionally liberal justices have stood against this reading, several in public. The 5th vote for Heller was 81 year old Kennedy. One aging conservative justice replaced by a liberal justice and there is simply no such right.

[onpoint]

We are exactly 1 supreme court justice away from neither being protected by the Constitution.

Hmm, sounds familiar.......

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...l-david-french

Sorry, too much fun to resist

[tjones]

Read on VG

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...rticle/485810/

Not looking to get in a throw down and having to read everything the NRA puts out to scare gun owners.

The fact of the matter is gun rights are protected by the 2nd. Public land is not. All that is relevant to Mike’s question.

[dukes_daddy]

For the record, how many gun rights did Obama take from you?

Buzz, Ask the folks in San Diego. Obama-Clinton appointments refused to rule. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/u...alifornia.html

Regarding Mike's question on voting for someone who supports PLT. PLT is a consideration along with several other issues. I'm shocked at people on this site who apply that as the litmus test for politicians and anyone associated with hunting.

Another thread Jim Shockey was tagged because he expressed support for Speaker Hughes here in Utah. Speaker Hughes is a get stuff done leader and I'll vote for him and tell my representative how I feel on PLT.

[VikingsGuy]

Hmm, sounds familiar.......

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...l-david-french

Sorry, too much fun to resist

I am not a right-winger, a NRA member or a single issue voter - simply stating the reality. Not sure why that is such "a tough concept for some to digest............"

[VikingsGuy]

Read on VG

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...rticle/485810/

Not looking to get in a throw down and having to read everything the NRA puts out to scare gun owners.

The fact of the matter is gun rights are protected by the 2nd. Public land is not. All that is relevant to Mike’s question.

First, this is pure conjecture on what the liberal justices would or would not do. Second, a new amendment is a pipe dream. Third, there is zero doubt that there is significant political support for legislating major gun restrictions in at least half the states, and a patchwork quilt of gun laws is certainly not a protected right. Fourth, The Atlantic is just as middle ground as the NRA.

The fact of the matter is that currently 1 conservative SCOTUS vote protects gun rights more than public lands - and that too is relevant to Mike's question.

[onpoint]

"I am not a ....single issue voter."
Hey, whaddya' know, me neither! And I bet a whole bunch of others aren't either, a tough concept for some to digest..................

[VikingsGuy]

And I bet a whole bunch of others aren't either

And many who gladly declare on this forum that they are.

[onpoint]

Good Morning VG, bold statement this early in the AM. One thing we have in common, both dumb enough to look at this stuff on the wake up
"And many who gladly declare on this forum that they are". You aren't singling out the 2A guys are you??
Show of hands for single issue voters??

[BuzzH]

Buzz, Ask the folks in San Diego. Obama-Clinton appointments refused to rule. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/u...alifornia.html

What gun rights did Obama take away?

That article is meaningless, that's on the Supreme court, that YOUR congressional leadership confirmed.

BTW, I thought the NYT was all fakenews?

[VikingsGuy]

Good Morning VG, bold statement this early in the AM. One thing we have in common, both dumb enough to look at this stuff on the wake up
"And many who gladly declare on this forum that they are". You aren't singling out the 2A guys are you??
Show of hands for single issue voters??

Not sure what 2A guys refer to.

Not worth the time to cut-n-paste various comments, but plenty of posts have folks claiming PLT issues are how they pick their politicians.

I am just a middle of the road guy who tries to correct legal misunderstandings along the way - and the long-term veracity of personal 2nd amendment rights are one of those oft misunderstood topics.

[onpoint]

The original post was about an Op-Ed from Tom Healy. I am acquainted with Tom. He is truly a regular guy. A small businessman who works with his hands and tools. Raises cool bird dogs. Hunts. Every time I have been in his presence, he's wearing a beater t-shirt and well worn carharts. I won't presume to speak for him directly - but I bet he is not at all a one issue voter.

[VikingsGuy]

but I bet he is not at all a one issue voter.

Never suggested he was, and I wasn't even responding to the particular article, but rather to a response that said we had to care more about PL than gun rights as the 2nd amendment fixes the guns question - which is largely true today, but unlikely true over the coming years.

I also don't care if someone is a single issue voter - to each their own. My comment about single issue was to provide context that I was not a NRA promoting single issue guy - not to call out others who might be - to each there own.

And I still don't know what a 2A guy is.

[onpoint]

#66 was a broad stroke, not directed at anything you said.
2A - 2'nd Amendment..................
carry on and on and on

[COEngineer]

dukes_daddy, can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong about BHA? I saw some pretty solid first-hand information from at least 3 different hunt talkers that refuted your presumptions. Your opinion was worthwhile to share because others may have had the same bad impression about BHA, but it would be nice to see acknowledgement that at least some of your accusations were off basis.

I am not a BHA member myself, yet, so I have no emotional attachment to the group (in case you are thinking that I'm just butt hurt).

[Schaaf]

Dukes, your inbox is full.

[dukes_daddy]

dukes_daddy, can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong about BHA? I saw some pretty solid first-hand information from at least 3 different hunt talkers that refuted your presumptions. Your opinion was worthwhile to share because others may have had the same bad impression about BHA, but it would be nice to see acknowledgement that at least some of your accusations were off basis.

I am not a BHA member myself, yet, so I have no emotional attachment to the group (in case you are thinking that I'm just butt hurt).

Former member myself and these are my opinions on BHA and differences.

- BHA priority of preservation over conservation. Public land management needs to spread a big tent among users and interested parties. I don't see BHA encouragement of this philosophy like other groups; RMEF, Nature Conservancy, DU, etc. Absolute position on national monuments without question on how does the designation affect land management including propagation of wildlife.

- BHA emphasis on protest over politics. BHA members rally to protest and express contempt for politicians they have difference of opinion with. Civil dialogue is based on showing up to vote, express opinion during public meetings and in communication with duly elected leadership.

- BHA lack of focus to fund or volunteer towards conservation and hands on programs. There are people who pontificate and those who act. SFW, RMEF, NRA, DU, etc, etc rally to fund, volunteer, and educate the public and our youth. Also Pint Nights don't allow engagement of people who don't drink or don't want to meet in a bar and what is the message to the public.

- BHA alignment with organizations and individuals who have not clearly demonstrated support for hunting in the past. Organizations and individuals contribute and collaborate to affect change and BHA should evaluate who and why they align with more closely.

- BHA hysteria of PLT. Utah gets the blame for the PLT discussion and I accept that. What gets lost in those discussions is any willingness to hear why people feel federal land management does not involve or recognize their interests.

Troy Rushton

[COEngineer]

Former member myself and these are my opinions on BHA and differences.

- BHA priority of preservation over conservation. Public land management needs to spread a big tent among users and interested parties. I don't see BHA encouragement of this philosophy like other groups; RMEF, Nature Conservancy, DU, etc. Absolute position on national monuments without question on how does the designation affect land management including propagation of wildlife.

- BHA emphasis on protest over politics. BHA members rally to protest and express contempt for politicians they have difference of opinion with. Civil dialogue is based on showing up to vote, express opinion during public meetings and in communication with duly elected leadership.

- BHA lack of focus to fund or volunteer towards conservation and hands on programs. There are people who pontificate and those who act. SFW, RMEF, NRA, DU, etc, etc rally to fund, volunteer, and educate the public and our youth. Also Pint Nights don't allow engagement of people who don't drink or don't want to meet in a bar and what is the message to the public.

- BHA alignment with organizations and individuals who have not clearly demonstrated support for hunting in the past. Organizations and individuals contribute and collaborate to affect change and BHA should evaluate who and why they align with more closely.

- BHA hysteria of PLT. Utah gets the blame for the PLT discussion and I accept that. What gets lost in those discussions is any willingness to hear why people feel federal land management does not involve or recognize their interests.

Troy Rushton

I'll take that as a no. BigFin, can we add an ignore function? Someone like this spouting their opinion over and over with no regard to other's opinion and facts presented...no use to anyone.

[npaden]

There has been an ignore function for a long time. Just click on the persons name and click on view profile. When their profile page comes up it is about the 4th option on the left side.

I feel that everyone is entitled to their opinion and I personally don't use that function.

[noharleyyet]

BigFin, can we add an ignore function? Someone like this spouting their opinion over and over with no regard to other's opinion and facts presented...no use to anyone.

Are you seriously mad enough to summon Fin because you can't disabuse dukes?

[Oak]

Ignoring the fact that there are opinions other than one's own is not very productive. Little gets accomplished in an echo chamber.