Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Discussion Topic: AHSA Endorses Obama; NRA Blasts AHSA

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

April 25, 2008

Discussion Topic: AHSA Endorses Obama; NRA Blasts AHSA

By Dave Hurteau & Chad Love

From the American Hunters & Shooters Association:

Today, as President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), I [Ray Schoenke] announced our endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. . . .

We believe recent attacks on Senator Obama's stand on the 2nd Amendment and his commitment to our hunting and shooting heritage are unfair . . . .



Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by his vote in support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, [which] . . . prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency.

From the NRA:

In keeping with their “pro-gun” stance, this week, AHSA did the last thing one would expect of a pro-gun group—they endorsed Democratic hopeful Barack Obama for President! . . . .

Are you kidding?  Obama’s hostility toward the Second Amendment is so well known and well documented that in the 2004 elections, NRA’s Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) issued Obama a well-deserved “F” grade.  Obama is anti-gun.  Period. . . .

And from the AHSA again:

[T]he NRA sells out regularly to politicians who care nothing about the land or wildlife, but who will deliver votes against gun control. . . .

The problem is not that the NRA leadership acts aggressively to protect the Second Amendment. It is their mission. The problem is that they mislead hunters into thinking their actions will benefit hunting. . . .

The NRA feeds our money and our hunting heritage into the coffers of political snakes who will use their influence to ruin the land we hunt.

And from the NRA:

AHSA would be more correctly called the “American Association for the Protection of Anti-Gun Politicians.”  No gun owner or sportsman should take the group seriously or fall prey to its carefully crafted lies and deceptions, as clearly demonstrated by their endorsement of Barack Obama.

Care to chime in?

Comments (85)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Greg Ellison wrote 5 years 48 weeks ago

A post about me, a law abiding United States Citizen and NRA supporter, were Robert "Rocky" Marcario, the National Director of Membership for the National Rifle Association, NRA, defames my good name on Monday, April 14th, 2008:Rocky MarcarioBurke, VA Reply »|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#1293 Monday Apr 14Judged: 222Hey PSYCHO NUTJOB...I heard you were asking for me. Well, what do you want, you lying, thieving, psychotic, putrid pile of excrement? And by the way, how about telling the truth for ONCE in your pathetic life? YOU were told by my buddy Skipp Galythly (NRA Assistant General Counsel) to stop contacting the NRA as you said you have a lawyer and that only he could contact the organization from that point on. Well...we're still waiting to hear from this imaginary lawyer. And we're still waiting to read your imaginary press release. And I'm still waiting to be notified of your imaginary lawsuit. And I'd sure like to meet your imaginary daughter so I could tell her what a sniveling little twerp her father is. By the way, give my best to Michelle! I pity that poor woman having to be married to a PSYCHO NUTJOB like you.Glad you inquired about me. Now bite me.__________THE NRA SHOULD BE PROUD TO HAVE SUCH A FINE, UPSTANDING CITIZEN REPRESENTING THEM!!! SHOULD HE BE HANDLING A GUN?GREG ELLISON

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from END wrote 5 years 49 weeks ago

The NRA will be here when everyone in the AHSA is pushing up daisies!!Deception comes in all sorts of packages. Undoubtedly, the leadership of the AHSA are anti-gun themselves since no one could be as naive as they are!!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from c4 wrote 5 years 49 weeks ago

CTB,For the record, I do'nt vote religon, do not believe god even. I vote for keeping more money in my wallet,gun& hunting rights, private property rights,and less federal goverment.The democrats don't go with any of those beliefs.I'm 41 years old so I don't think I'm quite a geezer yet!C4

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 5 years 49 weeks ago

SHIT! a hunter endorsing the anti-christ obama. that idiot is against our right to bare arms WHAT THE HELL I'M PISSED! i'm from Pennslyvannia and i like my guns as much as church so i wont give them up

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 5 years 49 weeks ago

SHIT! a hunter endorsing the anti-christ obama. that idiot is against our right to bare arms WHAT THE HELL I'M PISSED! i'm from Pennslyvannia and i like my guns as much as church so i wont give them up

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bob wrote 5 years 49 weeks ago

where in the second amendment does it say anything about hunting.. IT DOESNT. the 2nd is about self defense and preventing a trannical government.i myself enjoy hunting but a portion of ammo and gun sales go for the preservation of wildlands and protecting americas conservation tradition.if you look at hitler and obama they are very alike both hate a group of people(white people and who ever isnt a minority), both support gun control and socalist polcies and both have a army of mindless followers that would polish his nazi jackboots at his command.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

The house isn't winner take all. Anyone can vote against any bill.. the Speaker doesn't get to stuff the ballot box so to speak.McCain is the only candidate who has been clear, consistent, and open about his support for the 2nd Amendment. Look in Sen. Clinton's or Sen. Obama's campaign web sites and you have to dig really deep in order to find a vaguely worded dissembling salutation to the 2nd that more or less contradicts these two senators' past voting records.In contrast, under "Issues," McCain has "2nd Amendment" which reads as follows:"John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.""John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.""John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.""John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing.""John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.""John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation."The only place where McCain fails the fanatic test is on criminal background checks at gunshows for all sales, even between private parties. Frankly, I think that's a good idea.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Even if you want to give Obama a free pass on his church, how can you explain his relationship with Bill Ayers and his wife. The man was a terrorist and he remains happy about what he did. The Weathered Underground murdered people and bombed our pentagon.Only an anti-Catholic bigot, a fool or someone completely uninformed would compare the Pope to Rev. Right. The Church has reached out to Jews and Muslims and every other religion short of scientology. The Vatican recognizes Israel and strongly condemns anti-Semitism.I wish the NRA only supported republicans. Unfortunately they back a number of rural democrats, who support gun rights. Which ends up costing gun owners because the House is basically winner take all once the rules are set.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

William:You might have made the dumbest statement of anyone so far this year! This Pope has made overtures to both Jews and Muslims. He has condemned bigotry at all levels. For you to compare him to Rev. Wright is ludicrous!There is one candidate who handwrote, and signed a position paper, calling for banning private ownership of handguns. After being elected to his state senate, he introduced a bill to ban gun dealers within five (as the crow flies) miles of schools. This candidate has a long track record of saying what is most politically expedient.I'm positive that, if he's elected, he will respond to any crisis as a deer in the headlights.YooperJackP.S. Before throwing Rev. Wright under the bus, he took a poll to determine its feasibility. He has absolutely no concept of "right and wrong".

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from William wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

The pope is often characterized as a bigot and a homophobe yet he is still millions of people's spritual mentor. Amongst those same millions of people many disagree with those fundamentals of Catholicism. You don't have to agree with everything a person says and if you do what character does that indicate? Also, whose to say that McCain isn't going to ban semi-autos and firearms? McCain is a huge military industrialist guy and the people who are worried the most about the citizenry being armed and able to operate as a militia are these types of guys. I'll have more respect for McCain if he would come forward like Obama and make a stand indicating that he too is against the government taking guns away in times of emergency.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FH wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

1. Texas Post TurtleWhile suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President. The old rancher said, ‘Well, ya know, Obama is a ‘post turtle’.’ Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post turtle’ was.The old rancher said, ‘When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.’The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain. ‘You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just want to help the dumb ass get down.’

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FH wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Right on DIrk. He also miscaracterizes the rev Rights background. rev Right was raised in the best schools in the area by fairly wealthy parents. rev Right is a racist and he was Obamma's spiritual mentor.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DIrk wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Anyone who would vote for a man (Obama) that can't even place his hand over his heart during the National Anthem is Un-American in my book.We always talk about racism. Why would a man go to a church and listen to a preacher for many years who consistently talks about rasicism if the man didn't agree with what that preacher was saying? Wake up America!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from calvin cole wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I am a 53 yr old male who has hunted and fished all my life. I have major issues with the nra. I think the facts concerning the nra is the reason why less than 30% of sportsmen are members. Mostly because the nra stands for the national republican association.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim Bean % Coor's wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Never heard of this AHSA till this blog came on. What-ever they for I;m against. Foronce I agree with NRA. However, all these groups really want is our Money.They could cae less about our guns or land. Stand up for your rights and protect Both. Get a CC Permit and be safe adn protected.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CS wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

AHSA...start looking for the pony, or in their case the Clydesdale, with this much horse excrement flying around, I would hope everyone can see thru the smoke and mirrors of the anti-2nd ammendment crowd, but then again, the liberal dem's (which includes both Obama & Clinton) believe in a "living Constitution" which means if we can't get something changed by legislation, we'll appoint a Judge to change it for us. Founding Fathers rolling in their graves, and I'm sure Theodore Roosevelt is pretty po'd as well.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"When did I say anything about Hollywood?"When did I say the Sierra Club was pro-2nd Amendment?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from BPC wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I want to correct something in my post above: I just checked McCain's web site and, to his credit, he does endorse an individual's right to keep & bear. Click on "Issues", then "Second Amendment" at the bottom of the list.A check of Obama's web site also shows that he endorses an individual's right to keep & bear. Click on "Issues", then "Additional Issues" at the bottom of the list, then "Sportsmen", then "Read the full plan".Out of fairness, I checked HRC's web site and found no comments one way or the other on the 2A. I sent a note thru her site asking her to outline her position on 2A issues...we'll see if her campaign answers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from BPC wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I'll start out by saying that I'm a pro-gun Democrat (notice the capital "D")--I know, but, yes we do exist. I'm also an NRA member, meat lover and 2A absolutist. I'm a proud veteran of 21 yrs of active US Army service. I also think some of the most pressing issues before us today have to do with conservation of our natural resources & wildlife habitat. I carry concealed handguns where legal (I wish it were everywhere) and own and regularly use shotguns and rifles as well.Obama has been quoted as saying he believes the 2A guarantees an individual right to keep and bear while McCain (unless I missed something somewhere along the line)hasn't said anything one way or the other on the issue of individual right vs. collective right to keep & bear. For those of you who will undoubtedly claim that you can't believe anything Obama says, I'll remind you that (for just one example) McCain spent several years trumpeting the cause of campaign finance reform then, several weeks ago, said if his own bill--his **own** bill, mind you--came up now, he'd vote against it. BTW, he's now using one of the loopholes he helped write into it to help financed his campaign...I hate to say it because I respect the man tremendously for his service to our country, but it seems he's living out what HRC is continually accused of: he'll say or do whatever he thinks he needs to in order to get elected.I support the NRA not for their political stance (I'm not sure you can get any further to the right) or their alarmist claims that the gov't (remember the "jack-booted thugs"?) is determined to confiscate our guns, which I consider to be wild-eyed BS in any case. I support them with my annual dues because of the shooting and hunter safety training they've been doing quite excellently for decades.For those of you who insist there's some nefarious plot afoot to disarm us, I'll say this: I don't seriously believe that any level or branch of gov't--or any party involved in running it for that matter--is competent enough to keep such a wide ranging plot behind the scenes for as long as they apparently have, if you're to be believed.It strikes me that, along with the right to keep & bear among other institutions (such as a free press), a basic factor in keeping a people free is the ability to move about freely. As US Citizens we are free to go wherever within our country we desire for any reason and for any length of time. We are free to change our place of domicile at any time for any reason. Yet, the gov't requires us to take training, be certified and be licensed to operate the vehicles we are required, again by gov't, to register that facilitate our freedom of movement. I don't hear much, if any, complaining that the gov't is plotting to confiscate our vehicles. So, what is supposed to make me believe that, if we were required to take safety and operational training and be licensed to use firearms or even to register our firearms, that the next natural step is for the gov't to send agents to my door to demand all my weapons? Maybe someone can clear that up for me.As important as I believe our unique right to keep & bear is to our freedom, I just don't see that our gov't is that big a threat to it's basic fundamentals. Despite what one might think of politicians, it is a lead pipe cinch that each of them--regardless of party--will do what they perceive to be in their own best interests. Most, if not all, of the time that involves keeping themselves and their party in power. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us who cherish our rights to make our positions known, loudly and frequently, to our elected officials. That's what they respond to, believe it or not. If they believe their position at the ballot box is threatened by some principled stand they've taken, just see how long it takes them to change their stand. Very few, if any, will stay on what they see as a sinking ship if they think it will cost them the next election.So, to paraphrase, be loud, be proud. Above all, be active. A quote from a (Democratic) former lawmaker here in MN pretty much says it all, I think: "The world belongs to those who show up". As long as we 2A absolutists continue showing up, the 2A isn't going to go anywhere.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from joe zabitski wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

i think field and stream might want to be careful of printing articals in that could be missleading to readers to believe obama is by any streach pro gun.the nra and hunters are very aware of wildlife conservation issues as well as who is pro gun and who is'nt. field & stream can't sit on the fence like they appear,and profit.the gun cultures converse daily on these issues.if field & stream wants our support they must go one way or the other, in years past field & stream has been accused of leaning to the anti's side.pay attention readers corperations are interested in profits not our indavidual rights. we as americans are the buying power...................

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from joe zabitski wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

i think field and stream might want to be careful of printing articals in that could be missleading to readers to believe obama is by any streach pro gun.the nra and hunters are very aware of wildlife conservation issues as well as who is pro gun and who is'nt.field&stream can't sit on the fence like they appear,and profit.the gun cultures converse daily on these issues.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Frank B wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

As an Illinoisan, a gun owner, and a hunter, I am flabbergasted that any group that claims to be pro-gun or pro-hunting could seriously give Obama their endorsement. Obama is part of the corruption that oozes out of the Chicago political machine. His mentor, Senator Emil Jones is part of Chicago mayor Richard Daley's anti-gun movement. Daley wants the same restrictions on handguns as the District of Columbia has now. Obama's voting record is so left of center it is idiotic to think as President he wouldn't sign legislation for gun control.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FH wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

When did I say anything about Hollywood?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"You must be a lobbiest for the Sierra club. They are NOT pro Hunting."You must be a lobbyist for Hollywood. They're definitely not pro-hunting either.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FH wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

35 years ago I thought my Dad was crazy when he said that the NRA is the only group protecting my gun rights. I read their mags and thought they were way out there. But as time has gone on and I've witnessed the very things they have warned about comming to pass, I realized that My Dad was right.Mike Diehl,You must be a lobbiest for the Sierra club. They are NOT pro Hunting.Obomma and HRC have very little references about guns. All they ever here is in the Dc or Chicago papers talking about the latest shootings in their city. They are Both lawyers so they think if you pass a LAW that will fix the problem. Laws are for the Law Abiding not the criminals, by definition they are Lawless.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David Adams wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I keep hearing that the NRA does not do anything for hunters or that they support legislators that are pro-gun but that want to sell the environment down the sewer. I have a hard time believing either (I haven't met a legislator yet that wants to destroy the environment).Maybe where I live (Virginia) we don't have some of the same public land issues that many western states (where in some states the majority of the land is owned by the government) but the NRA is right there in the General Assembly with the Virginia Shooting Sports Association (VSSA) fighting for gun rights and hunters. If you don't think the NRA does enough for hunters all you have to do is join (I understand that some who commented said they already are members) and make your voice heard by voting in the Board elections. NRA has only 4 million members and only a few of them actually vote for the Board (you have to be a five consective year member or Life Member and very few of those qualified return their ballot).There are 80 million gun owners and I don't know how many millions of hunters but it has to be more than 4 million. Can you imagine what hunters could do if they joined, submitted pettions for Board candidates for people they know would represent their interests and then vote in the elections?If you don't want to be constantly bombarded by fundraising mail, join, then when you get your membership card call the toll-free member services number on the back of the card and request to be put on the "do not promote" list. By doing so you will only get your magazine and renewal notices. It works because VSSA did a membership mailing through NRA (since NRA will not sell or rent the member list to other groups - not even their state associations) and we started out with 25,000 five consecutive year members in Virginia as the base for the mailing and after they sorted the list for people that were already VSSA members and those on the "do not promote" list, we ended up mailing only 16,000 (and VSSA does not have 9000 members so a lot of those removed were on the do not promote list).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joe Woods wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Certainly it is hard to believe the most liberal senator (aside from Hillary) in America is not pro-gun, i.e. pro-hunting. We can't decide yet if he is just a socialists or a communist.As to the NRA their agenda is 100% pro-gun which does not always end up supporting hunters. Their main agenda though is fundraising and influence peddling for the big-wigs in the org. That's what all these groups are about in the final analysis, conservation or not, it's the money, huge salaries for huge staffs, and in some cases little productivity.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

CTB:I can't believe that card carrying democrats don't vote their pocketbooks. I can't believe anyone would do so!I watched NBC news tonight. According to them, most of America is really ticked at the price of fuel. Also, they're mad because the fuel prices are directly impacting the price of food. Hillary, Barack and John are all discussing this daily.To say that only Republicans care about the economy might be a bit rash.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Mike Diehl:We've got a similar situation up here with Kennecott. They want to mine for copper/nickel in a state forest. Its highly controversial!Biggest problems are that Michigan is almost broke and needs the royalties, and, we probably need the jobs. I can't speak to the western situation but up here, poor rock piles get used in road building. While this company is also foreign, the jobs created will be local. This will be some type of shaft mine, using a sulfide solution. That's highly touchy because the sulfide solution, if allowed to run off, will destroy water quality in any stream it contacts.I think what bugs me more than anything else is that I hear and read things that I know are false from the "green side". I'm not competent to know if the mining company is lying. How in hell am I supposed to make a decision?YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CTB wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"I vote on economic issues" and your republican? did i read that right?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MPN wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Mike,The N.R.A isn't doing a good job in my view.MPN

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

So tell me, if the NRA is doing such a damb fine job representing hunters, why aren't they ON this?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"I know that the Department of Interior runs the BLM lands and the Fish and Wildlife lands (wildlife refuges), and the Dept. of Agriculture runs the USFS. Some states have vast state forests."Then you also understand why it is a **national** issue. 1) It's every bit as Federal an issue as the 2nd Amendment. 2) It's very important for western hunters across multiple states. 3) People who don't live in Western states but who are reasonably young may well end up living in a western state in the future and it will be an issue to them if they do. 4) Alot of the political support for the 2nd Amendment is definitely tied to hunting access."Public land access is much more cloudy."It's a matter of priorities no doubt. Nevertheless, public land access in the west is as important for hunting as is the 2nd Amendment. While I agree that the 2nd Amendment has more, errrm, "sanctity," it being a "right" and all that, the political reality is that if you disenfranchise public hunters you undermine political support for the 2nd Amendment."Do we stop all mining and oil exploration on federal lands and replace those resources with imported resources?"Since most of the minerals extracted on US public lands are exported, it really does not make a difference either way. Moreover, most of the stuff taken from public land is taken at pennies on the dollar, often to promote the employment of people overseas (in manufacturing processes) and the cleanup bill is ALWAYS paid by the US Taxpayer.For the example I have in mind, a new copper moly mine in proposal by Augusta Resources (a Canadian firm), YOUR taxpayer money will be used to provide them access to groundwater and road improvements, and YOUR land (public land) will become a waste dump for a massive pile of tailings that will be used to FILL UP three canyons. How much crap are we talking about here? 1.23 million kilotons, according to Augusta's prospectus. Yes, that's 1.2 GIGATONS of toxic crapola, to be dumped on USFS land, so that **NINE** Canadians (according to their 2006 SEC filing) can take copper and moly and export it to southeast Asia.Their plan:"The proposed waste rock storage areas would be on National Forest system land located southeast, east, and northeast of the open pit, as depicted in Figure 3. These facilities are designed to store approximately 1,288 MT of waste rock material. Construction of the waste rock storage areas would begin with starter buttresses placed in Barrel Canyon, to the east of the pitarea. The waste rock would then be hauled to the storage areas using 260-ton trucks and placed behind the buttresses. Approximately 195,000 tpd, to a maximum of 287,000 tpd, of waste rock material would be deposited in the waste rock storage areas. The proposal indicates that it wouldtake approximately 5 years to construct the buttresses necessary to hold all of the waste rockmaterial. The final elevation of the buttresses is estimated to reach approximately 5,400 feetamsl, stepping down to 5,140 and 5,050 feet amsl toward the northeast."That was from:http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/rosemont/documents/rosemont-proposal-overview-20040408.pdfWhen the copper and moly has been processed, *it will be exported.* You / the Fed will not receive one dime of compensation for having your USFS land filled up with tailings, because they're not actually taking the minerals out of Federal land, they're just filling up the Federal land with "waste rock" (read, toxic waste) that they will have mined out of a small parcel of private land that is surrounded by public land. They claim to have the authority to do this under the General Mining Act of 1872, and the USFS under Pres. Bush has been told that the taxpayer's only choice is to bend over and take it.You can bet your last nickel that any future cleanup efforts resulting from the mining activity will also come at your expense.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I'm with Yooper on this one, don't know quite enough to debate much of it. I do know that if that 1872 mining act is as abominable as MD states then all who support it should be rode out of town on a rail tarred and feathered (or given a ticket one way to Sydney Australia in coach).SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Mie Diehl:Sorry to but in but something's missing here.One problem that national groups have with public hunting is that this is primarily a state and local government issue. I know that the Department of Interior runs the BLM lands and the Fish and Wildlife lands (wildlife refuges), and the Dept. of Agriculture runs the USFS. Some states have vast state forests. Many states have commercial forests, which provde for public hunting and fishing rights. Many states even relegate these issues down to the county and township level. When this occurs, generally public access will suffer for the benefit of greater tax revenue.2A is a national issue and in my mind, its pretty cut and dried. Public land access is much more cloudy. Do we stop all mining and oil exploration on federal lands and replace those resources with imported resources? Do we enact some type of federal land use law to oversee local govenments? Should we trash programs like CRP so that we can maximize bioenergy production? I've got a lot of questions. Not so many answers.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

That's great, and I applaud the NRA for all the fine things it's done. Just as soon as my sons are old enough they're going straight into any and all NRA-sponsored youth shooting programs I can get them into.I appreciate the NRA. I support (mostly) the NRA. The NRA's support for the shooting sports and hunting access laws is commendable.Really. I heart the NRA. But the issue on which I take exception to the NRA is its continued unwavering and unquestioning support of elected shills whose sole mission is to literally give away and squander every public natural resource we own.And they do it with impunity because they know the NRA won't call them on it.Remember Richard Pombo? Tom Delay? My own state embarrassment Senator James Inhofe?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

All I ever see of the NRA is the monthly requests for "emergency" donations and bi-monthly requests to support the creation of a gun range that I won't be able to afford.Where the NRA stands vis the General Mining Act of 1872 is unknown. If NRA steps up to the plate and says "Repeal the General Mining Act of 1872" I'll believe they're doing something to represent my interests as a hunter. They're doing a good job vis my 2nd Amendment rights, but not much for hunters.Consider for ex their web site survey on "Shooting on Federal Lands." Basically asks whether or not theres good infrastructure for target shooting on Fed lands. The questions are all slanted towards opening access for plinking. Hunting isn't even on the radar.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from John wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

NRA is the biggest pro-hunting organization in the world. We've run a youth hunting program (Youth Hunter Education Challenge)that's brought over 1.2 million kids into hunting in the last 21 years, and we lobby for state youth mentored hunting programs. We've got a women's hunting and shooting program that Field and Stream wrote up a couple of years ago--and has had over 30,000 women participate. We've helped pass No Net Loss laws in several states and are the driving force in advancing state constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right to hunt. The NRA Foundation has donated millions for youth programs, hunter education, conservation and range development. We campaign for Open Fields legislation to keep hunting land open. About 80 percent of NRA members hunt, and every issue of concern to them is of concern to us. If you want to know what NRA is doing for hunters, visit the new website at: www.nrahuntersrights.org.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

And I forgot to give my opinion of the NRA as an organization that represents the environmental concerns of America's sportsmen...I'm not very good with this whole Internet text messaging jargon, but am I doing this right when I say ROTFLMAO? If not then I need to convey in the King's English that I'm rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I will have to say in some small defense of the Sierra Club that they have, in the past, made token attempts to appeal to hunters and those oafish anglers who dare eat some of the fish they catch.It has, without exception, been an unmitigated disaster.There was an almost palpable, nose-holding distaste in the attempt and judging by the reaction from the membership it went over like the proverbial lead balloon.As high-minded as it sounded, I think a more pragmatic relationship between the Sierra Club and us hunters is to stay true to the old "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" credo when we have common environmental goals (and we do have quite a few, despite the cultural gulf) and then keep a wary distance the rest of the time.I don't want any bongo-drumming wankers ruining my woods and I'm sure they don't want any semi-literate rednecks like me using Half-Dome as the world's tallest deer stand. I can live with that compromise.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"I am a somewhat socially progressive, environmentally concerned, independent-minded, meat-loving Second Amendment absolutist."Chad Love for President.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"1) Ammo prices are up because of demand driving up metal prices.""The Iraq War, which is 6 years old and winding down is not the cause. If you knew anything about commodities you would realize that ammo is not a big enough end use to effect metal prices."If you knew anything about industrial processes you would realize that ammo manufacturers tend to have one or two process lines that they reset for ammo types. When Uncle Sam issues a big production request for .223, other ammo types take a backseat, limiting supply relative to demand. Market forces then do their usual thing."I said nothing about micro-engraving, black helicopters, or my personal interpretation of the 9th Amendment."True enough. I thought I was being clear in drawing attention to where I was responding specifically to your claims."but you are insane if you think Obama..."On that we agree. Obama is no friend of firearms ownership or a whole lot of other free market niches."I'll take the NRA over the Sierra Club or the AHSA any day."Different goals. NRA has for a long time claimed to be "for" (representing the interests of) sportsmen... which job it does most poorly. Sierra claims to be about conservation, rather than "for" sportsmen, and seems to do a good job sticking to their claimed mandate. Neither of 'em are all that great representing both the interests of conservation AND for the relationship between conservation and hunting and fishing. One can always hope that either will evolve to do a better job representing the hook n bullet crowd.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

1) Ammo prices are up because of demand driving up metal prices. The Iraq War, which is 6 years old and winding down is not the cause. If you knew anything about commodities you would realize that ammo is not a big enough end use to effect metal prices. High commodity prices cause high ammo prices- not vice versa. Blame industrialization in China and India and speculation, not Iraq. I said nothing about micro-engraving, black helicopters, or my personal interpretation of the 9th Amendment.2) I am a hunter- I don't even own a "black gun", but you are insane if you think Obama, who supported banning frois gras because it's mean to geese and hangs with the PETA and the Sarah Brady crowd, is our friend because he says he's for the environment.3) I'll take the NRA over the Sierra Club or the AHSA any day. If you Google the Sierra Club board members and see where they give money, it's oblivious they have more in common with George Soros and Michael Moore than any hunters I know.Everyone should research Obama's record on gun control and not fall for his rhetoric. Kenneth Vogel's article "Obama linked to gun control efforts" is a good start.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9722.html

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

should be:Perhaps we could ask for a third one -- "American Bullethead" that could appeal to people dimwitted enough to think that undermining hunting would NOT, in the long run, undermine shooting and political support for the 2nd Amendment.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

in one of the most intellectually shallow posts on this blog, Andrew wrote:"The NRA protects your 2nd Amendment rights not game lands- that's why they are called the National Riffle Association, not the Sierra Club."Apparently you missed the memo. NRA claims now to represent sportsmens interests and has made that clam for almost twenty years. That is why one of their trade zines is entitled "American Hunter" rather than "American Rifleman." Perhaps we could ask for a third one -- "American Bullethead" that could appeal to people dimwitted enough to think that undermining hunting would, in the long run, undermine shooting and political support for the 2nd Amendment."Free hunting land isn't free at all."Depends what you mean by "free." Federally owned and state owned land costs its users nothing up front -- admittedly there's a management cost that all pay. But it's pretty much SOP that the public pays for the maintenance of infrastructure such as highways, military bases, and the like, and publically huntable lands are every bit as important as interstate highways and the DoD."First the housing boom and now high grain prices are affecting hunting grounds it has very little to do with who is in office."Federal land management policy is heavily tilted by the General Mining Act of 1872 -- a bad piece of legislation that allows foreigners to purchase US mineral rights without much regard to the value of the surface rights, at pennies on the dollar, extract the wealth, sell it to China, and saddle the US Taxpayer with the cleanup bill. If you think that Pres. Bush doesn't rub his greasey covetous hands together at the thought of strip mining the taxpayer, you've been asleep for the last 8 years."The government taking away some guns or banning bear hunting (as they have in some states) has EVERYTHING to do with who is in office."That at least is true. The person in the office not only has a strong influence on public lands treatment, but also on the degree to which the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th Amendments are taken seriously. The current man strikes out on every Constitutional test.Fortunately, McCain seems a lot brighter than Pres. Bush. If McCain would vow to hold taxes where they are now, end all overseas deployments, and eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, I'd nominate him for sainthood.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I think the business about the Constitutionality of the Fed owning land is silly. Certainly the 9th Amendment has no obvious bearing on it. I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut this has been tested in the past. I'd equally bet that the plaintiff in "Dingbat v. US" was laughed out of the courtroom. As a matter of pragmatism, the Fed owning land for any reason it wants was made Constitutional when the Fed decided to use citizens dollars to buy land (vis the La. Purchase). Let any man say that the Louisiana Purchase or the Gadsden Purchase or the Alaska Purchase were "bad ideas" and the self-evident silliness becomes apparent without the need for further discussion.Meanwhile:"Bush in the White House has absolutely nothing to do with ammo prices and everything to do with ammo bans, micro-engraving, etc, etc, etc."That is not correct. Micro engraving has not become actual law anywhere in the United States. Nor have new ammunition bans occurred (IIRC AP rounds are banned).Ammo inflation is being driven by two things. 1. Iraq war. If you think that the demand for all that .223 hasn't affected the price of lead, copper and nickel for your .308, think again. 2. Commodities speculation has been driving these things especially when stocks started to look less than rosey last summer.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

CTB- I'm not very religious, but I don't think that people of faith or gun owners are backwards single issue voters as you imply and I prefer them to liberals any day. FACT Obama said he would ban handguns at least twice.(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9722.html). HRC lobbied hard for the "assault weapons" ban in 1992 and (until 6 weeks ago) supported gun control and opposed the individual right to arms.Like most people I vote on economic issues. Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress balanced the (operating) budget for exactly 1 year- at the high point of the dot-com bubble. Mostly because they cut defense spending after Ronald Reagan won the cold war. Who will cut pork- Barack Obama for voted FOR the "bridge to no where" or John McCain who has fought lobbyists and earmarks for decades? By any statistical measure, our economy was doing well before the housing crisis- although I know that people who are out of work probably don't care about our GDP. Both parties deficit spend during good and bad times at alarming rates, but higher taxes and socialized medicine will be a disaster and I think McCain has much better experience than either democrat .

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I hate to sound flippant about this, but who the hell really cares? As a voting block hunters are perhaps the most lied to, taken advantage of and generally screwed over demographic in American politics.With such a massive identity crisis why engage in this internecine hand-wringing every election cycle? We should be used to it. This time of year we're pandered to from the left, pandered to from the right. It's only AFTER the election that we're spit upon by the left and bent over by the right.All this really does is further demonstrate that it's damn hard to be a reasoned, pragmatic voter these days.I am a somewhat socially progressive, environmentally concerned, independent-minded, meat-loving Second Amendment absolutist.That used to describe lots of American voters, but the politics of polarity has made me an endangered species.And call me a fruitloop if you will, but I firmly believe that's by design. Despite all the ridiculous yapping about change and straight talk both parties prefer it this way. In today's political climate honesty and consensus-building are political liabilities.This is the future of American politics, because Americans have quite simply lost the ability to think for themselves.They much prefer someone else to do it for them so they can concentrate on more important things, like being able to score a copy of Grand Theft Auto IV for their kids.If YOU were running either of the two major political parties in this country what would you rather have, lemmings or freethinkers?So we end up in an endless feedback loop of countless doctrinaire bile-spewing partisan echo chambers on the 'Net, on the tube and on the radio.And once again the great American election automaton totters forward on permanent autopilot. The red states stay red, the blue states stay blue and we all suffer the consequences, none more so than hunters.I don't have a damn clue how I'm going to vote because I don't have a damn clue if anything about this election even matters anyway.I put about as much faith in what I read from the NRA as I do in what I read from the Clinton or Obama or McCain campsI mean really, in the end does it really matter if Barack Obama is pro-gun, anti-gun or if Hillary Clinton did or did not go hunting or if John McCain is really a conservative? It's all light and heat, anyway, on both sides of the political aisle.You want the evolution of the American political process in three simple stages?At one time politicians who aspired to office told the American people what they believed in, why they believed in it and why they believed that vision would be good for the country.Then politicians stopped telling people what they believed in and started telling the American people what they (the politicians) thought the American people wanted to hear and explained why it would be a good thing for them personally, and oh yeah, the country too.Then the politicians and their respective conservative and liberal media machines dispensed altogether with trying to figure out what the American people were thinking (that might have been barren territory anyway...) and decided to just start manufacturing the thought process itself and spoon feed it until we actually started believing we thought of it ourselves.And that, in a nutshell, is the average American voter.And if you think I'm a gloomy pessimist, just chew on this: the aforementioned Grand Theft Auto IV, as socially and intellectually defunct a product as has ever been produced in this country (and that's a mighty big hill to climb) is set to break sales records at a time when the crumbling Dystopian society depicted in the game may already be here.It's a lot easier to manipulate someone when they prefer a fantasy world to the real thing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CTB wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

C4 please dont talk about democrats hurting the economy...if I remember correctly the last time our economy was good and even our national debt was even back to even a democrat was in office. And yea democrats raise taxes, but do you know what that money will go towards? Im thinking health care, public schools, research towards debilitating deceases, land concervation. I cant believe how informed some of you are on only two topics Andrew. Let me guess, you vote based on religous beliefs and your wanting to have guns? what other benefit besides letting you keep your guns (even though niether clinton nor obama said they were going to ban guns. do some research dont just read some post some old geezer convervative wrote on the internet)do republicans have to offer?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Right now there are bills in the US House and Senate that propose everything for excessively taxing ammo and registering handguns to banning various types of firearms and some kinds of hunting. They CAN and WILL pass if the Democrats pick up a few Senate seats and Obama gets into the Whitehouse. It amazes me how uniformed many sportsman are and by the remarks of some hunters. "Ammo prices are up with Bush in office"- duh.. copper and brass prices have tripled and raw chemical prices are up. "The NRA has done a horrible job of protecting hunting land"- the NRA protects your 2nd Amendment rights not game lands- that's why they are called the National Riffle Association, not the Sierra Club. Land, just like the price of ammo, is a function of supply and demand. "Free" hunting land isn't free at all. First the housing boom and now high grain prices are affecting hunting grounds it has very little to do with who is in office. The government taking away some guns or banning bear hunting (as they have in some states) has EVERYTHING to do with who is in office. Blaming Bush, Satan, the NRA or anyone else for lack of land access is ALMOST as stupid as voting for Obama.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from c4 wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Clinton and obama are bad for hunters, gun owners, and the USA.They will, with the democrat controled legisture, vote in more gun control, raise taxes hurting the economy, and close more public land to hunting and atv use. They are on the same side as peta, humane society, and groups like hand gun control inc. Hunters and gun owners who vote democrat need to wake up, these poeple are after your hunting and gun rights.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scott wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Yopper,Great point on the Louisiana Purchase! When I saw your question on the Constitutionality of Govt land purchasing, well it got me thinking about how good a question like that was, so I decided to research it a little so thank you for giving me something to do on my rainy sunday yeasterday! As for strict adherence to the Constitution, it is a must, its written in plain English and if somebody isn't sure about what the Framers meant, they can look up Madisons notes from the Convention, where he detailed the arguments that unfolded and they could read the Federalists Papers written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay (first Supreme court Justice) and James Madison. It is a must because without we will loose our Natural/God givin Rights and Libertys. If we must change the Constitution to GIVE new powers to the Feds then we must use the Amendment process givin to us in Article 5. And CTB whats most important to me during election years is my LIBERTY and yours and it is OUR right as the PEOPLE to be armed, so we can protect OUR LIBERTYS. Hillary, Barrack, or McCain doesn't cut it, two tax and spenders and one goin to cut out earmarks (that isn't eliminating any taxes but he keeps saying it does) and "pork barrel spending" but is going to borrow money from the Chinese and spend it on wars for the next "100 years" as he said. And lets all be truthful with ourselves McCain other than the war issues he really isn't that Right wing, who's his best buddy? what's his name? OH thats it its Joe Lieberman! another pro war socialist.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CTB wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Im as pro gun as the next guy...do I think we all need to carry semi auto rifles? probably not. If you like to hunt with them thats fine, but going to the store and being able to just buy an assault rifle is a little ridiculous and I know Bubba that you dont agree with that because lord knows we all need our AR15s right? I was basically saying that there is more important things to worry about than guns in the upcoming election.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from William wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

How many times can I hear the same old tired arguments from both sides? If we would spend an ounce of energy that we spend lobbying for gun control towards preserving hunting lands our gun control policy wouldn't change yet our access to hunting lands would increase. Why can't we do both equally as fervent? Why are they mutually exclusive with one being considered leftwing and the other rightwing? I think that we need to de-politicize these issues or we'll never be satisfied with guns laws or land management. Every single one of us is responsible for this being a partisan issue as we would rather argue with ourselves over which is more important rather than demand from our politicians, law makers and activist groups that we protect 2A and our land and hunting heritage.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

FolksThere have been and will be again, what must be called 'back door' efforts at bans which hit us gun owners one way or t'uther; ammo sales restrictions etcetera. The upshot is that we can't let some fake organization like the AHSA 'speak' for us. Call, write, email, passenger pigeon your elected representatives and tell them this bunch of clowns is not speaking for you and that your vote will not be for them if they oppose our Rights!SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

CTBOne of the problems with Nat'l Gun Registration is, they (the anti-gun faction) want to make it possible to file felony charges against a gun owner if their gun is stolen and used in a crime!Registering firearms, of any type, will NOT deter crime! Period!Bush in the White House has absolutely nothing to do with ammo prices and everything to do with ammo bans, micro-engraving, etc, etc, etc. The anti's are discovering bucking the NRA and the Second Amendment are very, very difficult. They have made some inroads, causing us gun owners lots of headaches. Back as early as the early '80's, they decided that since gun bans weren't working very well, very quickly, that banning ammo was the next best thing! Make it difficult or impossible for "Everyday John" to get ammo and he'll more easily give up his firearms. He doesn't hunt. Could care less about the value of a pristine Mod. 12 Win compared to a Western Auto single shot White Powder Wonder! And wouldn't go out in the cold to go hunting on a bet! Also, why spend all that money hunting when he gets everything he needs from the grocery store!A mindset like yours only solidify's the statement, "Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns!"Everytime we (pro-gunners) allow the slightest concession to them (anti-gunners), they have taken another step towards stripping the American public of it's firearms. For instance, look at the recent ban on lead ammo in some areas of California. Full scale ammo restrictions have come forth in full force!Ammo bans are aimed at a "gun free" America!Bush and the GOP had nothing to do with ammo prices!Clinton, Obama and the Dems will do everything in there power to strip us (pro-gunners) of our firearms! THAT, amigo, is why your ammo cost is going out of sight!Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

CTB:With all of the topics we've discussed here, where did you get that idea?The beauty of this country is that most firearms are now untracable. They were purchased by someone before the current laws were enacted. If the gov't knows who has the guns, they can easily enforce new gun ban laws. Besides, even if I had had to register my firearms, do you honestly believe that the criminals would register theirs?Also, if this Heller Case should go against us, you will see a lot of legislation to ban handguns and semi-auto rifles and shotguns.I'll stick with the candidates I'm comfortable with. Certainly not BHO or HRC.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CTB wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Is the 2nd amendment your guys only concern when voting? Never vote for liberals because they are against guns? If you havent noticed ammo prices are already going up and look who's in office. Handguns will never be banned so you mine as well not even make that argument...and I dont see what would be so wrong with registering every firearm bought? I kinda figured that would be a good idea wouldnt it? The truth is if a canidate wants to ban guns or tax ammo it would have to be voted on and it would never ever pass, so why dont you vote for better reasons than just guns.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Scott:Thanks! It muddies the water a bit because the states have no control over BLM and USFS lands. The FS lands were covered by the Organic Act, and more recently, I think its the National Forest Policy Act. At any rate, hunting and fishing are part of the recreational portion of the policies portion of these laws. Forest Management is also a policy. If these needs aren't met, they're supposed to put forth plans to remedy the shortfalls. I know up here, if deer hunting stopped, we would be overrun with deer. We also would have no little trees in our forests. Hence, forestry would have to cease.Actually, I don't know if that question was retorical. I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about this until I started thinking about gun control as an issue. That probably happened within the past ten years. A lot of commentators started asking about judges and their adherence to strict interpretation of the Constitution. That's when I started to wonder. Also, when Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, one of his greatest concerns was the legality of this purchase.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scott wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Hey Yooper Jack,Your comment earlier about the Constitutionality of the Fed's owning land my copy says in Aritcle 1, Section 8......(congress)and to excercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, forthe Erection of Forts, Magazines, Aresenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;I do not see where National Forests, USFS or any other Fed program is Constitutional. It is a matter left to the Idividual States, as the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights......the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The setting aside of Public hunting land and Conservation land is a State issue. It is up to the people of the localities to decide what land better suits what purposes. Washington is out of touch with everywhere but Washington. But if we feel the need to change this all we have to do is follow Aritcle 5 and the Amendment process it lays out to ratifie and amend the Constitution, then theres no question on the authority of the Federal programs. I think its a just cause and I would be all for this amendment. thanks and sorry if your question was a retorical one Yooper.scott

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Hey Bubba, regardless of what I said above about the Fed having a consttutional right to own land, there is a myriad of laws rgarding the management of both USFS and BLM lands. In the case of the orest Service, theyhave a mandate to address all of th special interests, and not to favor one over the other. These inteests include, but are not limited to, timber, mining, grazing, recreation and widerness. If hunting was prohibited, this would eventally cause severe problems for some of the other interests. In short, I think that wildlife management will always be a prime goal of USFS lands, and probably BLM lands. Thi is assuming that e still have the guns to perform this management.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Wow!This is a very sticky situation.Elect Obama or Clinton and the "...right to keep and bear arms." is pretty much toast. There may be miles and acres of "public", unmolested lands to roam freely, maybe. Not maybe there'll be land, maybe we can roam them freely. Thank you but NO, I don't think I would care anything about roaming the Bob Marshall Wilderness unarmed. I would hate to find out the "hard" way that bear spray only works on "some" bears!Elect McCain.There may not be numerous acres to roam unhindered, but what acres are still available, you can roam armed to the teeth. Over the last 20 years, I have hunted no, I repeat, NO, public lands.Knock on enough doors, respectfully, and you can find a hidey hole to hunt. You DO NOT have to have thousands of acres to hunt. I seldom cover more that 2/3 acres sitting in my pop-up! One of the most productive hunting locales I ever had was a mere 20 acres. Only once did I hunt it and not see deer! I have hunted the San Juan Nat'l Forest near Pagosa Springs, Colorado and NEVER seen a deer, elk OR bear!I'll vote McCain so that when I wander into my small hunting area, I can go armed with something besides and "African slingshot!". Armed burglars aren't noted for being frightened by pea shooters!Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from r napolitano wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

The second ammendment has nothing to do with hunting, it is a statement of self defense of family, home, and country. Huntng is secondary to it but that said any hunter who would endorse either Clinton or Obama, is out of their mind, and will be huntng with a pea shooter, that is regisitered of course and taxed and can not be possessed in NYC under any circumstances. Wake up Amercia, world forces are after your freedom and will stop at nothing to achieve it. Remeber the difference between citizens and subjects, citizen can protect themselves, subjects can not.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jstreet wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

The SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of gun owners. The result of that means that states can't outright ban guns, BUT, they can ban "certain" guns.If either Hillary or Obama wins, the assault weapons ban goes back into effect. Guns show sales are toast. Ammo for semi-auto handguns and AR-type rifles will have to have serial numbers. Gun ranges will be shut down for lead contamination and noise ordinance violations. Rifles are going to continue to be banned for hunting in more states as sprawl continues. Lead ammo will be banned for any and all purposes.If you can't take the guns, make them so damn expensive to shoot and take away the places to hunt and shoot and many people will just quit.Think about it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from brian wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

land or guns,, it is a terrible choice to have to make

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from White Pine wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Never vote for the democratic liberals period.SA,you know whats up. The N.R.A needs to get true hunters/outdoorsman in their groupsoon.WP

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I don't know where in the U.S. Constitution, you find any right of the government to own land. I'm glad that they do. Our National Forests do provide for the public welfare.I still think we've got some hard choices ahead of us with respect to these forests. There will be tremendous pressure put on by both parties to maximize the biofuel potential in these forests. In Michigan, this tends to be compatible with wildlife management and hunting, but I really don't know much about the west.YooperJackP.S. I can't believe that anyone who hunts or shoots guns could ever support BHO.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from paul Wilke wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

We need to remove anyone who opposes the 2nd amendment. Opposition is simply an attack on America, whether the attack comes from a well meaning but ignorant politician or an outright attack from a foreign government.And we need to demand protection and proliferation of our open spaces. We can get minerals and oil from some other source, but there is very little value in spoil banks and parking lots. I don't want to hunt or fish or camp in either one.MaCain seems to be the best choice, but he is not the best we need for either issue. I can only hope that he is a candidate who will respond to an overwhelming barrage of E-mail letters and phone calls.We need to keep looking for a pro outdoors-man, but we must make our self heard at a level never heard of before.Make it a habit, ever time you have a moment to post on the internet, take a moment to send an e-mail to a politician, Overwhelm the bastards.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

It never pains me to agree with Mike Diehl. Although I have disagreed with him before on a few points, he always presents an interesting perspective that causes me to think deeper.I agree with Mike Diehl; we shouldn't be smacking each other below the belt since we are all relatively on the same page.As a definition and point of law, Winghunter was correct in defining the 2nd Amendment and Mike was also correct in stating that we can keep and bear arms for any d*** reason we want with the exception of unlawful purposes e.g. robbery, assault, & etc.The ASHA is no friend of the gun owner whatever the reason said gun owner has firearms. Mike you hit on a point about the NRA being a bit "eliteist" which is also a stickler for me too. You can bet your bottom dollar if there ever is a firearm confiscation I'll bet my paycheck that somehow the rich and powerful will be "overlooked"!Not a rant against wealthy people; to be sure there have been some wealthy people who have given money and time to support the 2nd Amendment. There will always however be those of means who will be untouchable.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scott wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I must say that if we could return to the strict limits of a constitutional reublic, where OUR elected representives would just do thier damned job(not officials, they WORK for US, we are the officials) WE wouldn't be having this discussion, the COnstitution is very clear on ristricting Govt. It is a contract from us to the Govt. telling the latter what it CANNOT DO!! The Second Amendment was strictly written for"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.here is another[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.and one from the Virginia Convention[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...---George Masonno offence to anybody but the Second Amendment was not to protect our Natural Right of hunting, but our Natural Right of defending ourselves, no matter who the enemy (domestic or govt.) Hunting was common sense then and there was no need to make comments in favor of hunting, EVERYONE pretty much did it, it was an essential. To say that the Second Amendment is to protect hunting rights is Orwellian. Just like in "Animal Farm" where "no animal shall kill any other animal" turns into "no animal shall kill any other animal, without just cause" and the famous "all animals are equal" turned into "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others"Sorry for the length, but the Second Amendment is an inalienable right, you can't have Liberty without it, and you can't have Liberty if you fall for the Orwellian lies of a "living/breathing" constitution! Thats a whole other topic there so I"ll leave on that note. thanksscott

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

FolksIt much pains me to agree with Mike Diehl yet again, he is right that the NRA has done an awful job defending hunting or the land we hunt on.I don't know much about this other bunch but with Obama's well proven track record opposing gun rights and no clear track record on environmental issues (he has voted party line on the issue every time) we can't even begin to think he is worthy of the endorsement of a real sportspersons organization.Like so many others have said we do need the land but gang we also need our guns! We really need a real choice come November and we aren't going to get one because this two party system sucks.SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FH wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

Thank You Andrew, Mike Diehl, and especially Winghunter. Well Said. Anybody who thinks Total chaos can't happen was not paying attention when Katrina Hit New Orleans and the FIRST thing the local Gov't tried to do wsa Confiscate ALL firearms. WAKE UP and SMELL The Coffee.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

McCain has an excellent environmental record and is a friend to gun owners. There is no catch-22 here only a liberal fool who should not be leading anything. Obama wants to ban handguns, register all firearms and tax ammo. The biggest threat to the land right now is ethonal, which McCain has opposed for years because it does nothing for the environment and costs billions.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

Mostly a good post but making it personal against Chris is below the belt IMO.Clearly the 2nd Amendment exists to allow Americans the right to keep and bear firearms for any damb reason they want. There's no merit to the claim the right exists specifically to protect hunting, nor to protect self defense against lawless individuals or tyrranical gov'ts.Otherwise I agree. We should encourage MORE of our law abiding citizens to learn how to use firearms, and own same.Hunting will never be unnecessary. The fact that supermarkets and the like make obtaining food convenient, the plain fact is that our food distribution system requires social stability. There's plenty of unlikely but truly nasty things that could knock that distribution system out of kilter.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

Winghunter,My apologies for contributing to this "ridiculour argument", butyou are saying that all of our other concerns should be trumped by the concern we might need to wage war against our own military someday or survive in a post-apocolyptic future? While I don't disagree with you in principle, I've got to be honest; on a daily basis I think about hunting probably a dozen times and I think about creating a militia to attack the local military post exactly zero times. For the 60% of us or so that lie somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, everytime we vote is a balancing act. We need to identify what we feel are the most important or pressing concerns at any one time, and vote for the candidate with the best solutions to those concerns. Forgive me for being naive, but I have a much easier time seeing a United States in my or my childrens liftetime without hunting due to a lack of available public hunting land than I do a country involved in a Terminator-style war against its own people.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from johnl wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

Thank you winghunter.Well said!!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Winghunter wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

First, lets learn exactly who the people are at ASHA to see if they're even worth mentioning;Gun Ban = Obama & American Hunters & Shooters Assoc.http://conservativesuperiority.com/2008/04/18/gun-ban-obama-american-hunters-shooters-assoc/And now to the woefully uninformed clowns like "Chris" above;Here's senior Judge Silberman's quote from the DC gun ban case just recently, "[T]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." -Parker V. DCBreaking this down a different way to explain the relationship of our inalienable right in its association with hunting;The Second Amendment or our inalienable right does not enforce a right to hunt specifically, however, hunting was paramount at the time the Second Amendment was written in order to survive in gathering food. Although we no longer need to hunt in order to feed ourselves, we will always need to protect ourselves from the evil and insane who live among us as well as those who travel here with that intention.Therefore, our inalienable right is clearly about our survival as individuals and as a nation, certainly not hunting in and of itself. Yet, the possibility will always remain that if we ever again find ourselves in the moment of the position ( whether by natural disaster or man-made ) to hunt for food or perish, then it is this association with survival which provides that extension in the right to hunt.To put this and all other ridiculous arguments to rest;Suicidal whining from the spineless who would prefer to live in denial and be directly responsible for murder by providing the evil and insane an open invitation in leaving anyone defenseless by illegal law is just as guilty as the murderer and we prosecute other crimes in the exact same way. Just as ignorance is never an excuse for breaking our law, neither is intentionally ignoring the supreme law of our land.If someone actually needs more to prove to themselves this is reality and wants to hear from someone who knows;When certified law enforcement firearms instructors who taught law enforcement officers to survive on the street tells you that the most important thing you can do in your entire life is protect the Second Amendment you'ld better damn well listen if you value your freedom and your children's lives.What else could you possibly need to understand this insanity must stop!?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tom wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

take a look at the AHSA website. they specifically endorse Obama for the DEMOCRATIC nomination. it seems they may have left themselves some wiggle room for the November election. the real issue of the 2nd Amendment was heard recently by the Supreme Court. their upcoming ruling will be 100 fold more important than anything any candidate has to say at this point.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

This is a phoney baloney debate. All gun owners should want there to be vast areas of land available for hunting, whether or not they hunt, because hunters and non-hunting gun owners are natural allies. All hunters should support 2nd Amendment rights because every time a non-hunting shootist buys a gun or ammo our land management coffers benefit.Obama isn't fooling me. Nevertheless I DO think the NRA does a piss-poor job representing hunters, despite the fact that I am a member of the NRA. Obama's "F" on 2nd A rights is well merited. But likewise the NRA gets an "F" for not defending hunters' interests in sensible public lands management.My local NRA rep's pals send me a postcard about twice a month asking for donation to help build a shooting range in USFS land near a fancy resort. Given the list of "boardmembers" I'm pretty sure that they'll set the membership dues waaaay above my income.Meantime, the local NRA hasn't said sh*t by way of protest against a Canadian mining company's proposal to dig a 1 mile diameter by half mile deep open pit mine in a local mountain range, smack in the middle of good quail and Coues deer land, and fill up three USFS owned canyons with the tailings, so that they can sell American copper and moly to the Chinese.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jon wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

This may be the most important discussion of our times. We must find a way to support land conservation as strongly as we support guns. We shouldn't have to choose between the two.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

I would give up every gun I own before I would want to see all of our forests and untouched wilderness gone. I am a hunter first. I stand for hunting gun rights first. I don't use semi-automatic weapons for hunting, so I really am not affected by alot of the gun legislation. And save the speech for someone else, they are not coming to take away your hunting guns in our lifetime. Put the kool-aid down. Something interesting to think about; When all of our pristine wilderness and forests are gone and have been developed into oil fields, mini-malls, or row housing are you going to be able to look at one of your firearms and have the same feeling you get after hiking to the top of a ridge of a mountain over looking gorgeous valleys and untouched wilderness flanked by a summer sunset. If you say yes you're a damn liar or you have never seen such beautiful vistas. At the end of the day its still a piece of metal that propels another piece of metal. What do you value more? God's beautiful creations or man's creations? For the record I absolutely love shooting guns. I do it anyway I can. I own pistols, rifles, shotguns, and muzzleloaders. I would give them all up right now to protect what wilderness we have left.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

LoL! Im completely opposite of "anonymous" above. If I had to choose one or the other (which I don't believe we are necessarily doing by voting for any of the candidates), I would choose the land over the guns. I can still enjoy my land without a gun, but I can't really enjoy my guns without the land.This whole thing just goes to show a void created by the two current political parties (and lobbying groups). The NRA cares all about the guns and not about the land, and the AHSA cares about the land, but much less about the guns. The fact of the matter is that hunting requires both.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Visitor wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

I'd rather have no land and guns than no guns and land which I cannot protect or hunt on.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan D. wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

By the way, I didn't even address the Obama thing, because I think that speaks for itself, he definately is not a friend of gun owners.Dan

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan D. wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

I think I'm dizzy from that exchange. The fact is the NRA supports politicians who support gun rights. Unfortunately, many times those same politicians have horrible environmental records, often favoring selling off some of our best hunting lands or opening them up to exploration for minerls or fossil fuels. It's a catch 22 for those of us who care about our gun rights, but also care about places to hunt and fish. Maybe it's time we start deciding who to vote for ourselves, instead of letting some group tells who we should vote for.Dan

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Greg Ellison wrote 5 years 48 weeks ago

A post about me, a law abiding United States Citizen and NRA supporter, were Robert "Rocky" Marcario, the National Director of Membership for the National Rifle Association, NRA, defames my good name on Monday, April 14th, 2008:Rocky MarcarioBurke, VA Reply »|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#1293 Monday Apr 14Judged: 222Hey PSYCHO NUTJOB...I heard you were asking for me. Well, what do you want, you lying, thieving, psychotic, putrid pile of excrement? And by the way, how about telling the truth for ONCE in your pathetic life? YOU were told by my buddy Skipp Galythly (NRA Assistant General Counsel) to stop contacting the NRA as you said you have a lawyer and that only he could contact the organization from that point on. Well...we're still waiting to hear from this imaginary lawyer. And we're still waiting to read your imaginary press release. And I'm still waiting to be notified of your imaginary lawsuit. And I'd sure like to meet your imaginary daughter so I could tell her what a sniveling little twerp her father is. By the way, give my best to Michelle! I pity that poor woman having to be married to a PSYCHO NUTJOB like you.Glad you inquired about me. Now bite me.__________THE NRA SHOULD BE PROUD TO HAVE SUCH A FINE, UPSTANDING CITIZEN REPRESENTING THEM!!! SHOULD HE BE HANDLING A GUN?GREG ELLISON

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from END wrote 5 years 49 weeks ago

The NRA will be here when everyone in the AHSA is pushing up daisies!!Deception comes in all sorts of packages. Undoubtedly, the leadership of the AHSA are anti-gun themselves since no one could be as naive as they are!!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from c4 wrote 5 years 49 weeks ago

CTB,For the record, I do'nt vote religon, do not believe god even. I vote for keeping more money in my wallet,gun& hunting rights, private property rights,and less federal goverment.The democrats don't go with any of those beliefs.I'm 41 years old so I don't think I'm quite a geezer yet!C4

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 5 years 49 weeks ago

SHIT! a hunter endorsing the anti-christ obama. that idiot is against our right to bare arms WHAT THE HELL I'M PISSED! i'm from Pennslyvannia and i like my guns as much as church so i wont give them up

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 5 years 49 weeks ago

SHIT! a hunter endorsing the anti-christ obama. that idiot is against our right to bare arms WHAT THE HELL I'M PISSED! i'm from Pennslyvannia and i like my guns as much as church so i wont give them up

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bob wrote 5 years 49 weeks ago

where in the second amendment does it say anything about hunting.. IT DOESNT. the 2nd is about self defense and preventing a trannical government.i myself enjoy hunting but a portion of ammo and gun sales go for the preservation of wildlands and protecting americas conservation tradition.if you look at hitler and obama they are very alike both hate a group of people(white people and who ever isnt a minority), both support gun control and socalist polcies and both have a army of mindless followers that would polish his nazi jackboots at his command.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

The house isn't winner take all. Anyone can vote against any bill.. the Speaker doesn't get to stuff the ballot box so to speak.McCain is the only candidate who has been clear, consistent, and open about his support for the 2nd Amendment. Look in Sen. Clinton's or Sen. Obama's campaign web sites and you have to dig really deep in order to find a vaguely worded dissembling salutation to the 2nd that more or less contradicts these two senators' past voting records.In contrast, under "Issues," McCain has "2nd Amendment" which reads as follows:"John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.""John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.""John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.""John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing.""John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.""John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation."The only place where McCain fails the fanatic test is on criminal background checks at gunshows for all sales, even between private parties. Frankly, I think that's a good idea.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Even if you want to give Obama a free pass on his church, how can you explain his relationship with Bill Ayers and his wife. The man was a terrorist and he remains happy about what he did. The Weathered Underground murdered people and bombed our pentagon.Only an anti-Catholic bigot, a fool or someone completely uninformed would compare the Pope to Rev. Right. The Church has reached out to Jews and Muslims and every other religion short of scientology. The Vatican recognizes Israel and strongly condemns anti-Semitism.I wish the NRA only supported republicans. Unfortunately they back a number of rural democrats, who support gun rights. Which ends up costing gun owners because the House is basically winner take all once the rules are set.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

William:You might have made the dumbest statement of anyone so far this year! This Pope has made overtures to both Jews and Muslims. He has condemned bigotry at all levels. For you to compare him to Rev. Wright is ludicrous!There is one candidate who handwrote, and signed a position paper, calling for banning private ownership of handguns. After being elected to his state senate, he introduced a bill to ban gun dealers within five (as the crow flies) miles of schools. This candidate has a long track record of saying what is most politically expedient.I'm positive that, if he's elected, he will respond to any crisis as a deer in the headlights.YooperJackP.S. Before throwing Rev. Wright under the bus, he took a poll to determine its feasibility. He has absolutely no concept of "right and wrong".

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from William wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

The pope is often characterized as a bigot and a homophobe yet he is still millions of people's spritual mentor. Amongst those same millions of people many disagree with those fundamentals of Catholicism. You don't have to agree with everything a person says and if you do what character does that indicate? Also, whose to say that McCain isn't going to ban semi-autos and firearms? McCain is a huge military industrialist guy and the people who are worried the most about the citizenry being armed and able to operate as a militia are these types of guys. I'll have more respect for McCain if he would come forward like Obama and make a stand indicating that he too is against the government taking guns away in times of emergency.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FH wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

1. Texas Post TurtleWhile suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President. The old rancher said, ‘Well, ya know, Obama is a ‘post turtle’.’ Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post turtle’ was.The old rancher said, ‘When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.’The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain. ‘You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just want to help the dumb ass get down.’

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FH wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Right on DIrk. He also miscaracterizes the rev Rights background. rev Right was raised in the best schools in the area by fairly wealthy parents. rev Right is a racist and he was Obamma's spiritual mentor.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DIrk wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Anyone who would vote for a man (Obama) that can't even place his hand over his heart during the National Anthem is Un-American in my book.We always talk about racism. Why would a man go to a church and listen to a preacher for many years who consistently talks about rasicism if the man didn't agree with what that preacher was saying? Wake up America!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from calvin cole wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I am a 53 yr old male who has hunted and fished all my life. I have major issues with the nra. I think the facts concerning the nra is the reason why less than 30% of sportsmen are members. Mostly because the nra stands for the national republican association.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim Bean % Coor's wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Never heard of this AHSA till this blog came on. What-ever they for I;m against. Foronce I agree with NRA. However, all these groups really want is our Money.They could cae less about our guns or land. Stand up for your rights and protect Both. Get a CC Permit and be safe adn protected.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CS wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

AHSA...start looking for the pony, or in their case the Clydesdale, with this much horse excrement flying around, I would hope everyone can see thru the smoke and mirrors of the anti-2nd ammendment crowd, but then again, the liberal dem's (which includes both Obama & Clinton) believe in a "living Constitution" which means if we can't get something changed by legislation, we'll appoint a Judge to change it for us. Founding Fathers rolling in their graves, and I'm sure Theodore Roosevelt is pretty po'd as well.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"When did I say anything about Hollywood?"When did I say the Sierra Club was pro-2nd Amendment?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from BPC wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I want to correct something in my post above: I just checked McCain's web site and, to his credit, he does endorse an individual's right to keep & bear. Click on "Issues", then "Second Amendment" at the bottom of the list.A check of Obama's web site also shows that he endorses an individual's right to keep & bear. Click on "Issues", then "Additional Issues" at the bottom of the list, then "Sportsmen", then "Read the full plan".Out of fairness, I checked HRC's web site and found no comments one way or the other on the 2A. I sent a note thru her site asking her to outline her position on 2A issues...we'll see if her campaign answers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from BPC wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I'll start out by saying that I'm a pro-gun Democrat (notice the capital "D")--I know, but, yes we do exist. I'm also an NRA member, meat lover and 2A absolutist. I'm a proud veteran of 21 yrs of active US Army service. I also think some of the most pressing issues before us today have to do with conservation of our natural resources & wildlife habitat. I carry concealed handguns where legal (I wish it were everywhere) and own and regularly use shotguns and rifles as well.Obama has been quoted as saying he believes the 2A guarantees an individual right to keep and bear while McCain (unless I missed something somewhere along the line)hasn't said anything one way or the other on the issue of individual right vs. collective right to keep & bear. For those of you who will undoubtedly claim that you can't believe anything Obama says, I'll remind you that (for just one example) McCain spent several years trumpeting the cause of campaign finance reform then, several weeks ago, said if his own bill--his **own** bill, mind you--came up now, he'd vote against it. BTW, he's now using one of the loopholes he helped write into it to help financed his campaign...I hate to say it because I respect the man tremendously for his service to our country, but it seems he's living out what HRC is continually accused of: he'll say or do whatever he thinks he needs to in order to get elected.I support the NRA not for their political stance (I'm not sure you can get any further to the right) or their alarmist claims that the gov't (remember the "jack-booted thugs"?) is determined to confiscate our guns, which I consider to be wild-eyed BS in any case. I support them with my annual dues because of the shooting and hunter safety training they've been doing quite excellently for decades.For those of you who insist there's some nefarious plot afoot to disarm us, I'll say this: I don't seriously believe that any level or branch of gov't--or any party involved in running it for that matter--is competent enough to keep such a wide ranging plot behind the scenes for as long as they apparently have, if you're to be believed.It strikes me that, along with the right to keep & bear among other institutions (such as a free press), a basic factor in keeping a people free is the ability to move about freely. As US Citizens we are free to go wherever within our country we desire for any reason and for any length of time. We are free to change our place of domicile at any time for any reason. Yet, the gov't requires us to take training, be certified and be licensed to operate the vehicles we are required, again by gov't, to register that facilitate our freedom of movement. I don't hear much, if any, complaining that the gov't is plotting to confiscate our vehicles. So, what is supposed to make me believe that, if we were required to take safety and operational training and be licensed to use firearms or even to register our firearms, that the next natural step is for the gov't to send agents to my door to demand all my weapons? Maybe someone can clear that up for me.As important as I believe our unique right to keep & bear is to our freedom, I just don't see that our gov't is that big a threat to it's basic fundamentals. Despite what one might think of politicians, it is a lead pipe cinch that each of them--regardless of party--will do what they perceive to be in their own best interests. Most, if not all, of the time that involves keeping themselves and their party in power. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us who cherish our rights to make our positions known, loudly and frequently, to our elected officials. That's what they respond to, believe it or not. If they believe their position at the ballot box is threatened by some principled stand they've taken, just see how long it takes them to change their stand. Very few, if any, will stay on what they see as a sinking ship if they think it will cost them the next election.So, to paraphrase, be loud, be proud. Above all, be active. A quote from a (Democratic) former lawmaker here in MN pretty much says it all, I think: "The world belongs to those who show up". As long as we 2A absolutists continue showing up, the 2A isn't going to go anywhere.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from joe zabitski wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

i think field and stream might want to be careful of printing articals in that could be missleading to readers to believe obama is by any streach pro gun.the nra and hunters are very aware of wildlife conservation issues as well as who is pro gun and who is'nt. field & stream can't sit on the fence like they appear,and profit.the gun cultures converse daily on these issues.if field & stream wants our support they must go one way or the other, in years past field & stream has been accused of leaning to the anti's side.pay attention readers corperations are interested in profits not our indavidual rights. we as americans are the buying power...................

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from joe zabitski wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

i think field and stream might want to be careful of printing articals in that could be missleading to readers to believe obama is by any streach pro gun.the nra and hunters are very aware of wildlife conservation issues as well as who is pro gun and who is'nt.field&stream can't sit on the fence like they appear,and profit.the gun cultures converse daily on these issues.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Frank B wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

As an Illinoisan, a gun owner, and a hunter, I am flabbergasted that any group that claims to be pro-gun or pro-hunting could seriously give Obama their endorsement. Obama is part of the corruption that oozes out of the Chicago political machine. His mentor, Senator Emil Jones is part of Chicago mayor Richard Daley's anti-gun movement. Daley wants the same restrictions on handguns as the District of Columbia has now. Obama's voting record is so left of center it is idiotic to think as President he wouldn't sign legislation for gun control.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FH wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

When did I say anything about Hollywood?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"You must be a lobbiest for the Sierra club. They are NOT pro Hunting."You must be a lobbyist for Hollywood. They're definitely not pro-hunting either.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FH wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

35 years ago I thought my Dad was crazy when he said that the NRA is the only group protecting my gun rights. I read their mags and thought they were way out there. But as time has gone on and I've witnessed the very things they have warned about comming to pass, I realized that My Dad was right.Mike Diehl,You must be a lobbiest for the Sierra club. They are NOT pro Hunting.Obomma and HRC have very little references about guns. All they ever here is in the Dc or Chicago papers talking about the latest shootings in their city. They are Both lawyers so they think if you pass a LAW that will fix the problem. Laws are for the Law Abiding not the criminals, by definition they are Lawless.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from David Adams wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I keep hearing that the NRA does not do anything for hunters or that they support legislators that are pro-gun but that want to sell the environment down the sewer. I have a hard time believing either (I haven't met a legislator yet that wants to destroy the environment).Maybe where I live (Virginia) we don't have some of the same public land issues that many western states (where in some states the majority of the land is owned by the government) but the NRA is right there in the General Assembly with the Virginia Shooting Sports Association (VSSA) fighting for gun rights and hunters. If you don't think the NRA does enough for hunters all you have to do is join (I understand that some who commented said they already are members) and make your voice heard by voting in the Board elections. NRA has only 4 million members and only a few of them actually vote for the Board (you have to be a five consective year member or Life Member and very few of those qualified return their ballot).There are 80 million gun owners and I don't know how many millions of hunters but it has to be more than 4 million. Can you imagine what hunters could do if they joined, submitted pettions for Board candidates for people they know would represent their interests and then vote in the elections?If you don't want to be constantly bombarded by fundraising mail, join, then when you get your membership card call the toll-free member services number on the back of the card and request to be put on the "do not promote" list. By doing so you will only get your magazine and renewal notices. It works because VSSA did a membership mailing through NRA (since NRA will not sell or rent the member list to other groups - not even their state associations) and we started out with 25,000 five consecutive year members in Virginia as the base for the mailing and after they sorted the list for people that were already VSSA members and those on the "do not promote" list, we ended up mailing only 16,000 (and VSSA does not have 9000 members so a lot of those removed were on the do not promote list).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joe Woods wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Certainly it is hard to believe the most liberal senator (aside from Hillary) in America is not pro-gun, i.e. pro-hunting. We can't decide yet if he is just a socialists or a communist.As to the NRA their agenda is 100% pro-gun which does not always end up supporting hunters. Their main agenda though is fundraising and influence peddling for the big-wigs in the org. That's what all these groups are about in the final analysis, conservation or not, it's the money, huge salaries for huge staffs, and in some cases little productivity.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

CTB:I can't believe that card carrying democrats don't vote their pocketbooks. I can't believe anyone would do so!I watched NBC news tonight. According to them, most of America is really ticked at the price of fuel. Also, they're mad because the fuel prices are directly impacting the price of food. Hillary, Barack and John are all discussing this daily.To say that only Republicans care about the economy might be a bit rash.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Mike Diehl:We've got a similar situation up here with Kennecott. They want to mine for copper/nickel in a state forest. Its highly controversial!Biggest problems are that Michigan is almost broke and needs the royalties, and, we probably need the jobs. I can't speak to the western situation but up here, poor rock piles get used in road building. While this company is also foreign, the jobs created will be local. This will be some type of shaft mine, using a sulfide solution. That's highly touchy because the sulfide solution, if allowed to run off, will destroy water quality in any stream it contacts.I think what bugs me more than anything else is that I hear and read things that I know are false from the "green side". I'm not competent to know if the mining company is lying. How in hell am I supposed to make a decision?YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CTB wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"I vote on economic issues" and your republican? did i read that right?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MPN wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Mike,The N.R.A isn't doing a good job in my view.MPN

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

So tell me, if the NRA is doing such a damb fine job representing hunters, why aren't they ON this?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"I know that the Department of Interior runs the BLM lands and the Fish and Wildlife lands (wildlife refuges), and the Dept. of Agriculture runs the USFS. Some states have vast state forests."Then you also understand why it is a **national** issue. 1) It's every bit as Federal an issue as the 2nd Amendment. 2) It's very important for western hunters across multiple states. 3) People who don't live in Western states but who are reasonably young may well end up living in a western state in the future and it will be an issue to them if they do. 4) Alot of the political support for the 2nd Amendment is definitely tied to hunting access."Public land access is much more cloudy."It's a matter of priorities no doubt. Nevertheless, public land access in the west is as important for hunting as is the 2nd Amendment. While I agree that the 2nd Amendment has more, errrm, "sanctity," it being a "right" and all that, the political reality is that if you disenfranchise public hunters you undermine political support for the 2nd Amendment."Do we stop all mining and oil exploration on federal lands and replace those resources with imported resources?"Since most of the minerals extracted on US public lands are exported, it really does not make a difference either way. Moreover, most of the stuff taken from public land is taken at pennies on the dollar, often to promote the employment of people overseas (in manufacturing processes) and the cleanup bill is ALWAYS paid by the US Taxpayer.For the example I have in mind, a new copper moly mine in proposal by Augusta Resources (a Canadian firm), YOUR taxpayer money will be used to provide them access to groundwater and road improvements, and YOUR land (public land) will become a waste dump for a massive pile of tailings that will be used to FILL UP three canyons. How much crap are we talking about here? 1.23 million kilotons, according to Augusta's prospectus. Yes, that's 1.2 GIGATONS of toxic crapola, to be dumped on USFS land, so that **NINE** Canadians (according to their 2006 SEC filing) can take copper and moly and export it to southeast Asia.Their plan:"The proposed waste rock storage areas would be on National Forest system land located southeast, east, and northeast of the open pit, as depicted in Figure 3. These facilities are designed to store approximately 1,288 MT of waste rock material. Construction of the waste rock storage areas would begin with starter buttresses placed in Barrel Canyon, to the east of the pitarea. The waste rock would then be hauled to the storage areas using 260-ton trucks and placed behind the buttresses. Approximately 195,000 tpd, to a maximum of 287,000 tpd, of waste rock material would be deposited in the waste rock storage areas. The proposal indicates that it wouldtake approximately 5 years to construct the buttresses necessary to hold all of the waste rockmaterial. The final elevation of the buttresses is estimated to reach approximately 5,400 feetamsl, stepping down to 5,140 and 5,050 feet amsl toward the northeast."That was from:http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/rosemont/documents/rosemont-proposal-overview-20040408.pdfWhen the copper and moly has been processed, *it will be exported.* You / the Fed will not receive one dime of compensation for having your USFS land filled up with tailings, because they're not actually taking the minerals out of Federal land, they're just filling up the Federal land with "waste rock" (read, toxic waste) that they will have mined out of a small parcel of private land that is surrounded by public land. They claim to have the authority to do this under the General Mining Act of 1872, and the USFS under Pres. Bush has been told that the taxpayer's only choice is to bend over and take it.You can bet your last nickel that any future cleanup efforts resulting from the mining activity will also come at your expense.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I'm with Yooper on this one, don't know quite enough to debate much of it. I do know that if that 1872 mining act is as abominable as MD states then all who support it should be rode out of town on a rail tarred and feathered (or given a ticket one way to Sydney Australia in coach).SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Mie Diehl:Sorry to but in but something's missing here.One problem that national groups have with public hunting is that this is primarily a state and local government issue. I know that the Department of Interior runs the BLM lands and the Fish and Wildlife lands (wildlife refuges), and the Dept. of Agriculture runs the USFS. Some states have vast state forests. Many states have commercial forests, which provde for public hunting and fishing rights. Many states even relegate these issues down to the county and township level. When this occurs, generally public access will suffer for the benefit of greater tax revenue.2A is a national issue and in my mind, its pretty cut and dried. Public land access is much more cloudy. Do we stop all mining and oil exploration on federal lands and replace those resources with imported resources? Do we enact some type of federal land use law to oversee local govenments? Should we trash programs like CRP so that we can maximize bioenergy production? I've got a lot of questions. Not so many answers.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

That's great, and I applaud the NRA for all the fine things it's done. Just as soon as my sons are old enough they're going straight into any and all NRA-sponsored youth shooting programs I can get them into.I appreciate the NRA. I support (mostly) the NRA. The NRA's support for the shooting sports and hunting access laws is commendable.Really. I heart the NRA. But the issue on which I take exception to the NRA is its continued unwavering and unquestioning support of elected shills whose sole mission is to literally give away and squander every public natural resource we own.And they do it with impunity because they know the NRA won't call them on it.Remember Richard Pombo? Tom Delay? My own state embarrassment Senator James Inhofe?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

All I ever see of the NRA is the monthly requests for "emergency" donations and bi-monthly requests to support the creation of a gun range that I won't be able to afford.Where the NRA stands vis the General Mining Act of 1872 is unknown. If NRA steps up to the plate and says "Repeal the General Mining Act of 1872" I'll believe they're doing something to represent my interests as a hunter. They're doing a good job vis my 2nd Amendment rights, but not much for hunters.Consider for ex their web site survey on "Shooting on Federal Lands." Basically asks whether or not theres good infrastructure for target shooting on Fed lands. The questions are all slanted towards opening access for plinking. Hunting isn't even on the radar.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from John wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

NRA is the biggest pro-hunting organization in the world. We've run a youth hunting program (Youth Hunter Education Challenge)that's brought over 1.2 million kids into hunting in the last 21 years, and we lobby for state youth mentored hunting programs. We've got a women's hunting and shooting program that Field and Stream wrote up a couple of years ago--and has had over 30,000 women participate. We've helped pass No Net Loss laws in several states and are the driving force in advancing state constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right to hunt. The NRA Foundation has donated millions for youth programs, hunter education, conservation and range development. We campaign for Open Fields legislation to keep hunting land open. About 80 percent of NRA members hunt, and every issue of concern to them is of concern to us. If you want to know what NRA is doing for hunters, visit the new website at: www.nrahuntersrights.org.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

And I forgot to give my opinion of the NRA as an organization that represents the environmental concerns of America's sportsmen...I'm not very good with this whole Internet text messaging jargon, but am I doing this right when I say ROTFLMAO? If not then I need to convey in the King's English that I'm rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I will have to say in some small defense of the Sierra Club that they have, in the past, made token attempts to appeal to hunters and those oafish anglers who dare eat some of the fish they catch.It has, without exception, been an unmitigated disaster.There was an almost palpable, nose-holding distaste in the attempt and judging by the reaction from the membership it went over like the proverbial lead balloon.As high-minded as it sounded, I think a more pragmatic relationship between the Sierra Club and us hunters is to stay true to the old "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" credo when we have common environmental goals (and we do have quite a few, despite the cultural gulf) and then keep a wary distance the rest of the time.I don't want any bongo-drumming wankers ruining my woods and I'm sure they don't want any semi-literate rednecks like me using Half-Dome as the world's tallest deer stand. I can live with that compromise.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"I am a somewhat socially progressive, environmentally concerned, independent-minded, meat-loving Second Amendment absolutist."Chad Love for President.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

"1) Ammo prices are up because of demand driving up metal prices.""The Iraq War, which is 6 years old and winding down is not the cause. If you knew anything about commodities you would realize that ammo is not a big enough end use to effect metal prices."If you knew anything about industrial processes you would realize that ammo manufacturers tend to have one or two process lines that they reset for ammo types. When Uncle Sam issues a big production request for .223, other ammo types take a backseat, limiting supply relative to demand. Market forces then do their usual thing."I said nothing about micro-engraving, black helicopters, or my personal interpretation of the 9th Amendment."True enough. I thought I was being clear in drawing attention to where I was responding specifically to your claims."but you are insane if you think Obama..."On that we agree. Obama is no friend of firearms ownership or a whole lot of other free market niches."I'll take the NRA over the Sierra Club or the AHSA any day."Different goals. NRA has for a long time claimed to be "for" (representing the interests of) sportsmen... which job it does most poorly. Sierra claims to be about conservation, rather than "for" sportsmen, and seems to do a good job sticking to their claimed mandate. Neither of 'em are all that great representing both the interests of conservation AND for the relationship between conservation and hunting and fishing. One can always hope that either will evolve to do a better job representing the hook n bullet crowd.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

1) Ammo prices are up because of demand driving up metal prices. The Iraq War, which is 6 years old and winding down is not the cause. If you knew anything about commodities you would realize that ammo is not a big enough end use to effect metal prices. High commodity prices cause high ammo prices- not vice versa. Blame industrialization in China and India and speculation, not Iraq. I said nothing about micro-engraving, black helicopters, or my personal interpretation of the 9th Amendment.2) I am a hunter- I don't even own a "black gun", but you are insane if you think Obama, who supported banning frois gras because it's mean to geese and hangs with the PETA and the Sarah Brady crowd, is our friend because he says he's for the environment.3) I'll take the NRA over the Sierra Club or the AHSA any day. If you Google the Sierra Club board members and see where they give money, it's oblivious they have more in common with George Soros and Michael Moore than any hunters I know.Everyone should research Obama's record on gun control and not fall for his rhetoric. Kenneth Vogel's article "Obama linked to gun control efforts" is a good start.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9722.html

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

should be:Perhaps we could ask for a third one -- "American Bullethead" that could appeal to people dimwitted enough to think that undermining hunting would NOT, in the long run, undermine shooting and political support for the 2nd Amendment.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

in one of the most intellectually shallow posts on this blog, Andrew wrote:"The NRA protects your 2nd Amendment rights not game lands- that's why they are called the National Riffle Association, not the Sierra Club."Apparently you missed the memo. NRA claims now to represent sportsmens interests and has made that clam for almost twenty years. That is why one of their trade zines is entitled "American Hunter" rather than "American Rifleman." Perhaps we could ask for a third one -- "American Bullethead" that could appeal to people dimwitted enough to think that undermining hunting would, in the long run, undermine shooting and political support for the 2nd Amendment."Free hunting land isn't free at all."Depends what you mean by "free." Federally owned and state owned land costs its users nothing up front -- admittedly there's a management cost that all pay. But it's pretty much SOP that the public pays for the maintenance of infrastructure such as highways, military bases, and the like, and publically huntable lands are every bit as important as interstate highways and the DoD."First the housing boom and now high grain prices are affecting hunting grounds it has very little to do with who is in office."Federal land management policy is heavily tilted by the General Mining Act of 1872 -- a bad piece of legislation that allows foreigners to purchase US mineral rights without much regard to the value of the surface rights, at pennies on the dollar, extract the wealth, sell it to China, and saddle the US Taxpayer with the cleanup bill. If you think that Pres. Bush doesn't rub his greasey covetous hands together at the thought of strip mining the taxpayer, you've been asleep for the last 8 years."The government taking away some guns or banning bear hunting (as they have in some states) has EVERYTHING to do with who is in office."That at least is true. The person in the office not only has a strong influence on public lands treatment, but also on the degree to which the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th Amendments are taken seriously. The current man strikes out on every Constitutional test.Fortunately, McCain seems a lot brighter than Pres. Bush. If McCain would vow to hold taxes where they are now, end all overseas deployments, and eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, I'd nominate him for sainthood.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I think the business about the Constitutionality of the Fed owning land is silly. Certainly the 9th Amendment has no obvious bearing on it. I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut this has been tested in the past. I'd equally bet that the plaintiff in "Dingbat v. US" was laughed out of the courtroom. As a matter of pragmatism, the Fed owning land for any reason it wants was made Constitutional when the Fed decided to use citizens dollars to buy land (vis the La. Purchase). Let any man say that the Louisiana Purchase or the Gadsden Purchase or the Alaska Purchase were "bad ideas" and the self-evident silliness becomes apparent without the need for further discussion.Meanwhile:"Bush in the White House has absolutely nothing to do with ammo prices and everything to do with ammo bans, micro-engraving, etc, etc, etc."That is not correct. Micro engraving has not become actual law anywhere in the United States. Nor have new ammunition bans occurred (IIRC AP rounds are banned).Ammo inflation is being driven by two things. 1. Iraq war. If you think that the demand for all that .223 hasn't affected the price of lead, copper and nickel for your .308, think again. 2. Commodities speculation has been driving these things especially when stocks started to look less than rosey last summer.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

CTB- I'm not very religious, but I don't think that people of faith or gun owners are backwards single issue voters as you imply and I prefer them to liberals any day. FACT Obama said he would ban handguns at least twice.(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9722.html). HRC lobbied hard for the "assault weapons" ban in 1992 and (until 6 weeks ago) supported gun control and opposed the individual right to arms.Like most people I vote on economic issues. Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress balanced the (operating) budget for exactly 1 year- at the high point of the dot-com bubble. Mostly because they cut defense spending after Ronald Reagan won the cold war. Who will cut pork- Barack Obama for voted FOR the "bridge to no where" or John McCain who has fought lobbyists and earmarks for decades? By any statistical measure, our economy was doing well before the housing crisis- although I know that people who are out of work probably don't care about our GDP. Both parties deficit spend during good and bad times at alarming rates, but higher taxes and socialized medicine will be a disaster and I think McCain has much better experience than either democrat .

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I hate to sound flippant about this, but who the hell really cares? As a voting block hunters are perhaps the most lied to, taken advantage of and generally screwed over demographic in American politics.With such a massive identity crisis why engage in this internecine hand-wringing every election cycle? We should be used to it. This time of year we're pandered to from the left, pandered to from the right. It's only AFTER the election that we're spit upon by the left and bent over by the right.All this really does is further demonstrate that it's damn hard to be a reasoned, pragmatic voter these days.I am a somewhat socially progressive, environmentally concerned, independent-minded, meat-loving Second Amendment absolutist.That used to describe lots of American voters, but the politics of polarity has made me an endangered species.And call me a fruitloop if you will, but I firmly believe that's by design. Despite all the ridiculous yapping about change and straight talk both parties prefer it this way. In today's political climate honesty and consensus-building are political liabilities.This is the future of American politics, because Americans have quite simply lost the ability to think for themselves.They much prefer someone else to do it for them so they can concentrate on more important things, like being able to score a copy of Grand Theft Auto IV for their kids.If YOU were running either of the two major political parties in this country what would you rather have, lemmings or freethinkers?So we end up in an endless feedback loop of countless doctrinaire bile-spewing partisan echo chambers on the 'Net, on the tube and on the radio.And once again the great American election automaton totters forward on permanent autopilot. The red states stay red, the blue states stay blue and we all suffer the consequences, none more so than hunters.I don't have a damn clue how I'm going to vote because I don't have a damn clue if anything about this election even matters anyway.I put about as much faith in what I read from the NRA as I do in what I read from the Clinton or Obama or McCain campsI mean really, in the end does it really matter if Barack Obama is pro-gun, anti-gun or if Hillary Clinton did or did not go hunting or if John McCain is really a conservative? It's all light and heat, anyway, on both sides of the political aisle.You want the evolution of the American political process in three simple stages?At one time politicians who aspired to office told the American people what they believed in, why they believed in it and why they believed that vision would be good for the country.Then politicians stopped telling people what they believed in and started telling the American people what they (the politicians) thought the American people wanted to hear and explained why it would be a good thing for them personally, and oh yeah, the country too.Then the politicians and their respective conservative and liberal media machines dispensed altogether with trying to figure out what the American people were thinking (that might have been barren territory anyway...) and decided to just start manufacturing the thought process itself and spoon feed it until we actually started believing we thought of it ourselves.And that, in a nutshell, is the average American voter.And if you think I'm a gloomy pessimist, just chew on this: the aforementioned Grand Theft Auto IV, as socially and intellectually defunct a product as has ever been produced in this country (and that's a mighty big hill to climb) is set to break sales records at a time when the crumbling Dystopian society depicted in the game may already be here.It's a lot easier to manipulate someone when they prefer a fantasy world to the real thing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CTB wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

C4 please dont talk about democrats hurting the economy...if I remember correctly the last time our economy was good and even our national debt was even back to even a democrat was in office. And yea democrats raise taxes, but do you know what that money will go towards? Im thinking health care, public schools, research towards debilitating deceases, land concervation. I cant believe how informed some of you are on only two topics Andrew. Let me guess, you vote based on religous beliefs and your wanting to have guns? what other benefit besides letting you keep your guns (even though niether clinton nor obama said they were going to ban guns. do some research dont just read some post some old geezer convervative wrote on the internet)do republicans have to offer?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Right now there are bills in the US House and Senate that propose everything for excessively taxing ammo and registering handguns to banning various types of firearms and some kinds of hunting. They CAN and WILL pass if the Democrats pick up a few Senate seats and Obama gets into the Whitehouse. It amazes me how uniformed many sportsman are and by the remarks of some hunters. "Ammo prices are up with Bush in office"- duh.. copper and brass prices have tripled and raw chemical prices are up. "The NRA has done a horrible job of protecting hunting land"- the NRA protects your 2nd Amendment rights not game lands- that's why they are called the National Riffle Association, not the Sierra Club. Land, just like the price of ammo, is a function of supply and demand. "Free" hunting land isn't free at all. First the housing boom and now high grain prices are affecting hunting grounds it has very little to do with who is in office. The government taking away some guns or banning bear hunting (as they have in some states) has EVERYTHING to do with who is in office. Blaming Bush, Satan, the NRA or anyone else for lack of land access is ALMOST as stupid as voting for Obama.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from c4 wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Clinton and obama are bad for hunters, gun owners, and the USA.They will, with the democrat controled legisture, vote in more gun control, raise taxes hurting the economy, and close more public land to hunting and atv use. They are on the same side as peta, humane society, and groups like hand gun control inc. Hunters and gun owners who vote democrat need to wake up, these poeple are after your hunting and gun rights.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scott wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Yopper,Great point on the Louisiana Purchase! When I saw your question on the Constitutionality of Govt land purchasing, well it got me thinking about how good a question like that was, so I decided to research it a little so thank you for giving me something to do on my rainy sunday yeasterday! As for strict adherence to the Constitution, it is a must, its written in plain English and if somebody isn't sure about what the Framers meant, they can look up Madisons notes from the Convention, where he detailed the arguments that unfolded and they could read the Federalists Papers written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay (first Supreme court Justice) and James Madison. It is a must because without we will loose our Natural/God givin Rights and Libertys. If we must change the Constitution to GIVE new powers to the Feds then we must use the Amendment process givin to us in Article 5. And CTB whats most important to me during election years is my LIBERTY and yours and it is OUR right as the PEOPLE to be armed, so we can protect OUR LIBERTYS. Hillary, Barrack, or McCain doesn't cut it, two tax and spenders and one goin to cut out earmarks (that isn't eliminating any taxes but he keeps saying it does) and "pork barrel spending" but is going to borrow money from the Chinese and spend it on wars for the next "100 years" as he said. And lets all be truthful with ourselves McCain other than the war issues he really isn't that Right wing, who's his best buddy? what's his name? OH thats it its Joe Lieberman! another pro war socialist.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CTB wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Im as pro gun as the next guy...do I think we all need to carry semi auto rifles? probably not. If you like to hunt with them thats fine, but going to the store and being able to just buy an assault rifle is a little ridiculous and I know Bubba that you dont agree with that because lord knows we all need our AR15s right? I was basically saying that there is more important things to worry about than guns in the upcoming election.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from William wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

How many times can I hear the same old tired arguments from both sides? If we would spend an ounce of energy that we spend lobbying for gun control towards preserving hunting lands our gun control policy wouldn't change yet our access to hunting lands would increase. Why can't we do both equally as fervent? Why are they mutually exclusive with one being considered leftwing and the other rightwing? I think that we need to de-politicize these issues or we'll never be satisfied with guns laws or land management. Every single one of us is responsible for this being a partisan issue as we would rather argue with ourselves over which is more important rather than demand from our politicians, law makers and activist groups that we protect 2A and our land and hunting heritage.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

FolksThere have been and will be again, what must be called 'back door' efforts at bans which hit us gun owners one way or t'uther; ammo sales restrictions etcetera. The upshot is that we can't let some fake organization like the AHSA 'speak' for us. Call, write, email, passenger pigeon your elected representatives and tell them this bunch of clowns is not speaking for you and that your vote will not be for them if they oppose our Rights!SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

CTBOne of the problems with Nat'l Gun Registration is, they (the anti-gun faction) want to make it possible to file felony charges against a gun owner if their gun is stolen and used in a crime!Registering firearms, of any type, will NOT deter crime! Period!Bush in the White House has absolutely nothing to do with ammo prices and everything to do with ammo bans, micro-engraving, etc, etc, etc. The anti's are discovering bucking the NRA and the Second Amendment are very, very difficult. They have made some inroads, causing us gun owners lots of headaches. Back as early as the early '80's, they decided that since gun bans weren't working very well, very quickly, that banning ammo was the next best thing! Make it difficult or impossible for "Everyday John" to get ammo and he'll more easily give up his firearms. He doesn't hunt. Could care less about the value of a pristine Mod. 12 Win compared to a Western Auto single shot White Powder Wonder! And wouldn't go out in the cold to go hunting on a bet! Also, why spend all that money hunting when he gets everything he needs from the grocery store!A mindset like yours only solidify's the statement, "Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns!"Everytime we (pro-gunners) allow the slightest concession to them (anti-gunners), they have taken another step towards stripping the American public of it's firearms. For instance, look at the recent ban on lead ammo in some areas of California. Full scale ammo restrictions have come forth in full force!Ammo bans are aimed at a "gun free" America!Bush and the GOP had nothing to do with ammo prices!Clinton, Obama and the Dems will do everything in there power to strip us (pro-gunners) of our firearms! THAT, amigo, is why your ammo cost is going out of sight!Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

CTB:With all of the topics we've discussed here, where did you get that idea?The beauty of this country is that most firearms are now untracable. They were purchased by someone before the current laws were enacted. If the gov't knows who has the guns, they can easily enforce new gun ban laws. Besides, even if I had had to register my firearms, do you honestly believe that the criminals would register theirs?Also, if this Heller Case should go against us, you will see a lot of legislation to ban handguns and semi-auto rifles and shotguns.I'll stick with the candidates I'm comfortable with. Certainly not BHO or HRC.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CTB wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Is the 2nd amendment your guys only concern when voting? Never vote for liberals because they are against guns? If you havent noticed ammo prices are already going up and look who's in office. Handguns will never be banned so you mine as well not even make that argument...and I dont see what would be so wrong with registering every firearm bought? I kinda figured that would be a good idea wouldnt it? The truth is if a canidate wants to ban guns or tax ammo it would have to be voted on and it would never ever pass, so why dont you vote for better reasons than just guns.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Scott:Thanks! It muddies the water a bit because the states have no control over BLM and USFS lands. The FS lands were covered by the Organic Act, and more recently, I think its the National Forest Policy Act. At any rate, hunting and fishing are part of the recreational portion of the policies portion of these laws. Forest Management is also a policy. If these needs aren't met, they're supposed to put forth plans to remedy the shortfalls. I know up here, if deer hunting stopped, we would be overrun with deer. We also would have no little trees in our forests. Hence, forestry would have to cease.Actually, I don't know if that question was retorical. I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about this until I started thinking about gun control as an issue. That probably happened within the past ten years. A lot of commentators started asking about judges and their adherence to strict interpretation of the Constitution. That's when I started to wonder. Also, when Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, one of his greatest concerns was the legality of this purchase.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scott wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Hey Yooper Jack,Your comment earlier about the Constitutionality of the Fed's owning land my copy says in Aritcle 1, Section 8......(congress)and to excercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, forthe Erection of Forts, Magazines, Aresenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;I do not see where National Forests, USFS or any other Fed program is Constitutional. It is a matter left to the Idividual States, as the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights......the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The setting aside of Public hunting land and Conservation land is a State issue. It is up to the people of the localities to decide what land better suits what purposes. Washington is out of touch with everywhere but Washington. But if we feel the need to change this all we have to do is follow Aritcle 5 and the Amendment process it lays out to ratifie and amend the Constitution, then theres no question on the authority of the Federal programs. I think its a just cause and I would be all for this amendment. thanks and sorry if your question was a retorical one Yooper.scott

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Hey Bubba, regardless of what I said above about the Fed having a consttutional right to own land, there is a myriad of laws rgarding the management of both USFS and BLM lands. In the case of the orest Service, theyhave a mandate to address all of th special interests, and not to favor one over the other. These inteests include, but are not limited to, timber, mining, grazing, recreation and widerness. If hunting was prohibited, this would eventally cause severe problems for some of the other interests. In short, I think that wildlife management will always be a prime goal of USFS lands, and probably BLM lands. Thi is assuming that e still have the guns to perform this management.YooperJack

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bubba wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Wow!This is a very sticky situation.Elect Obama or Clinton and the "...right to keep and bear arms." is pretty much toast. There may be miles and acres of "public", unmolested lands to roam freely, maybe. Not maybe there'll be land, maybe we can roam them freely. Thank you but NO, I don't think I would care anything about roaming the Bob Marshall Wilderness unarmed. I would hate to find out the "hard" way that bear spray only works on "some" bears!Elect McCain.There may not be numerous acres to roam unhindered, but what acres are still available, you can roam armed to the teeth. Over the last 20 years, I have hunted no, I repeat, NO, public lands.Knock on enough doors, respectfully, and you can find a hidey hole to hunt. You DO NOT have to have thousands of acres to hunt. I seldom cover more that 2/3 acres sitting in my pop-up! One of the most productive hunting locales I ever had was a mere 20 acres. Only once did I hunt it and not see deer! I have hunted the San Juan Nat'l Forest near Pagosa Springs, Colorado and NEVER seen a deer, elk OR bear!I'll vote McCain so that when I wander into my small hunting area, I can go armed with something besides and "African slingshot!". Armed burglars aren't noted for being frightened by pea shooters!Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from r napolitano wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

The second ammendment has nothing to do with hunting, it is a statement of self defense of family, home, and country. Huntng is secondary to it but that said any hunter who would endorse either Clinton or Obama, is out of their mind, and will be huntng with a pea shooter, that is regisitered of course and taxed and can not be possessed in NYC under any circumstances. Wake up Amercia, world forces are after your freedom and will stop at nothing to achieve it. Remeber the difference between citizens and subjects, citizen can protect themselves, subjects can not.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jstreet wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

The SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of gun owners. The result of that means that states can't outright ban guns, BUT, they can ban "certain" guns.If either Hillary or Obama wins, the assault weapons ban goes back into effect. Guns show sales are toast. Ammo for semi-auto handguns and AR-type rifles will have to have serial numbers. Gun ranges will be shut down for lead contamination and noise ordinance violations. Rifles are going to continue to be banned for hunting in more states as sprawl continues. Lead ammo will be banned for any and all purposes.If you can't take the guns, make them so damn expensive to shoot and take away the places to hunt and shoot and many people will just quit.Think about it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from brian wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

land or guns,, it is a terrible choice to have to make

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from White Pine wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

Never vote for the democratic liberals period.SA,you know whats up. The N.R.A needs to get true hunters/outdoorsman in their groupsoon.WP

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I don't know where in the U.S. Constitution, you find any right of the government to own land. I'm glad that they do. Our National Forests do provide for the public welfare.I still think we've got some hard choices ahead of us with respect to these forests. There will be tremendous pressure put on by both parties to maximize the biofuel potential in these forests. In Michigan, this tends to be compatible with wildlife management and hunting, but I really don't know much about the west.YooperJackP.S. I can't believe that anyone who hunts or shoots guns could ever support BHO.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from paul Wilke wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

We need to remove anyone who opposes the 2nd amendment. Opposition is simply an attack on America, whether the attack comes from a well meaning but ignorant politician or an outright attack from a foreign government.And we need to demand protection and proliferation of our open spaces. We can get minerals and oil from some other source, but there is very little value in spoil banks and parking lots. I don't want to hunt or fish or camp in either one.MaCain seems to be the best choice, but he is not the best we need for either issue. I can only hope that he is a candidate who will respond to an overwhelming barrage of E-mail letters and phone calls.We need to keep looking for a pro outdoors-man, but we must make our self heard at a level never heard of before.Make it a habit, ever time you have a moment to post on the internet, take a moment to send an e-mail to a politician, Overwhelm the bastards.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

It never pains me to agree with Mike Diehl. Although I have disagreed with him before on a few points, he always presents an interesting perspective that causes me to think deeper.I agree with Mike Diehl; we shouldn't be smacking each other below the belt since we are all relatively on the same page.As a definition and point of law, Winghunter was correct in defining the 2nd Amendment and Mike was also correct in stating that we can keep and bear arms for any d*** reason we want with the exception of unlawful purposes e.g. robbery, assault, & etc.The ASHA is no friend of the gun owner whatever the reason said gun owner has firearms. Mike you hit on a point about the NRA being a bit "eliteist" which is also a stickler for me too. You can bet your bottom dollar if there ever is a firearm confiscation I'll bet my paycheck that somehow the rich and powerful will be "overlooked"!Not a rant against wealthy people; to be sure there have been some wealthy people who have given money and time to support the 2nd Amendment. There will always however be those of means who will be untouchable.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scott wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

I must say that if we could return to the strict limits of a constitutional reublic, where OUR elected representives would just do thier damned job(not officials, they WORK for US, we are the officials) WE wouldn't be having this discussion, the COnstitution is very clear on ristricting Govt. It is a contract from us to the Govt. telling the latter what it CANNOT DO!! The Second Amendment was strictly written for"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.here is another[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.and one from the Virginia Convention[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...---George Masonno offence to anybody but the Second Amendment was not to protect our Natural Right of hunting, but our Natural Right of defending ourselves, no matter who the enemy (domestic or govt.) Hunting was common sense then and there was no need to make comments in favor of hunting, EVERYONE pretty much did it, it was an essential. To say that the Second Amendment is to protect hunting rights is Orwellian. Just like in "Animal Farm" where "no animal shall kill any other animal" turns into "no animal shall kill any other animal, without just cause" and the famous "all animals are equal" turned into "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others"Sorry for the length, but the Second Amendment is an inalienable right, you can't have Liberty without it, and you can't have Liberty if you fall for the Orwellian lies of a "living/breathing" constitution! Thats a whole other topic there so I"ll leave on that note. thanksscott

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SilverArrow wrote 5 years 50 weeks ago

FolksIt much pains me to agree with Mike Diehl yet again, he is right that the NRA has done an awful job defending hunting or the land we hunt on.I don't know much about this other bunch but with Obama's well proven track record opposing gun rights and no clear track record on environmental issues (he has voted party line on the issue every time) we can't even begin to think he is worthy of the endorsement of a real sportspersons organization.Like so many others have said we do need the land but gang we also need our guns! We really need a real choice come November and we aren't going to get one because this two party system sucks.SA

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FH wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

Thank You Andrew, Mike Diehl, and especially Winghunter. Well Said. Anybody who thinks Total chaos can't happen was not paying attention when Katrina Hit New Orleans and the FIRST thing the local Gov't tried to do wsa Confiscate ALL firearms. WAKE UP and SMELL The Coffee.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

McCain has an excellent environmental record and is a friend to gun owners. There is no catch-22 here only a liberal fool who should not be leading anything. Obama wants to ban handguns, register all firearms and tax ammo. The biggest threat to the land right now is ethonal, which McCain has opposed for years because it does nothing for the environment and costs billions.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

Mostly a good post but making it personal against Chris is below the belt IMO.Clearly the 2nd Amendment exists to allow Americans the right to keep and bear firearms for any damb reason they want. There's no merit to the claim the right exists specifically to protect hunting, nor to protect self defense against lawless individuals or tyrranical gov'ts.Otherwise I agree. We should encourage MORE of our law abiding citizens to learn how to use firearms, and own same.Hunting will never be unnecessary. The fact that supermarkets and the like make obtaining food convenient, the plain fact is that our food distribution system requires social stability. There's plenty of unlikely but truly nasty things that could knock that distribution system out of kilter.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

Winghunter,My apologies for contributing to this "ridiculour argument", butyou are saying that all of our other concerns should be trumped by the concern we might need to wage war against our own military someday or survive in a post-apocolyptic future? While I don't disagree with you in principle, I've got to be honest; on a daily basis I think about hunting probably a dozen times and I think about creating a militia to attack the local military post exactly zero times. For the 60% of us or so that lie somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, everytime we vote is a balancing act. We need to identify what we feel are the most important or pressing concerns at any one time, and vote for the candidate with the best solutions to those concerns. Forgive me for being naive, but I have a much easier time seeing a United States in my or my childrens liftetime without hunting due to a lack of available public hunting land than I do a country involved in a Terminator-style war against its own people.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from johnl wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

Thank you winghunter.Well said!!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Winghunter wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

First, lets learn exactly who the people are at ASHA to see if they're even worth mentioning;Gun Ban = Obama & American Hunters & Shooters Assoc.http://conservativesuperiority.com/2008/04/18/gun-ban-obama-american-hunters-shooters-assoc/And now to the woefully uninformed clowns like "Chris" above;Here's senior Judge Silberman's quote from the DC gun ban case just recently, "[T]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." -Parker V. DCBreaking this down a different way to explain the relationship of our inalienable right in its association with hunting;The Second Amendment or our inalienable right does not enforce a right to hunt specifically, however, hunting was paramount at the time the Second Amendment was written in order to survive in gathering food. Although we no longer need to hunt in order to feed ourselves, we will always need to protect ourselves from the evil and insane who live among us as well as those who travel here with that intention.Therefore, our inalienable right is clearly about our survival as individuals and as a nation, certainly not hunting in and of itself. Yet, the possibility will always remain that if we ever again find ourselves in the moment of the position ( whether by natural disaster or man-made ) to hunt for food or perish, then it is this association with survival which provides that extension in the right to hunt.To put this and all other ridiculous arguments to rest;Suicidal whining from the spineless who would prefer to live in denial and be directly responsible for murder by providing the evil and insane an open invitation in leaving anyone defenseless by illegal law is just as guilty as the murderer and we prosecute other crimes in the exact same way. Just as ignorance is never an excuse for breaking our law, neither is intentionally ignoring the supreme law of our land.If someone actually needs more to prove to themselves this is reality and wants to hear from someone who knows;When certified law enforcement firearms instructors who taught law enforcement officers to survive on the street tells you that the most important thing you can do in your entire life is protect the Second Amendment you'ld better damn well listen if you value your freedom and your children's lives.What else could you possibly need to understand this insanity must stop!?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tom wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

take a look at the AHSA website. they specifically endorse Obama for the DEMOCRATIC nomination. it seems they may have left themselves some wiggle room for the November election. the real issue of the 2nd Amendment was heard recently by the Supreme Court. their upcoming ruling will be 100 fold more important than anything any candidate has to say at this point.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

This is a phoney baloney debate. All gun owners should want there to be vast areas of land available for hunting, whether or not they hunt, because hunters and non-hunting gun owners are natural allies. All hunters should support 2nd Amendment rights because every time a non-hunting shootist buys a gun or ammo our land management coffers benefit.Obama isn't fooling me. Nevertheless I DO think the NRA does a piss-poor job representing hunters, despite the fact that I am a member of the NRA. Obama's "F" on 2nd A rights is well merited. But likewise the NRA gets an "F" for not defending hunters' interests in sensible public lands management.My local NRA rep's pals send me a postcard about twice a month asking for donation to help build a shooting range in USFS land near a fancy resort. Given the list of "boardmembers" I'm pretty sure that they'll set the membership dues waaaay above my income.Meantime, the local NRA hasn't said sh*t by way of protest against a Canadian mining company's proposal to dig a 1 mile diameter by half mile deep open pit mine in a local mountain range, smack in the middle of good quail and Coues deer land, and fill up three USFS owned canyons with the tailings, so that they can sell American copper and moly to the Chinese.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jon wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

This may be the most important discussion of our times. We must find a way to support land conservation as strongly as we support guns. We shouldn't have to choose between the two.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

I would give up every gun I own before I would want to see all of our forests and untouched wilderness gone. I am a hunter first. I stand for hunting gun rights first. I don't use semi-automatic weapons for hunting, so I really am not affected by alot of the gun legislation. And save the speech for someone else, they are not coming to take away your hunting guns in our lifetime. Put the kool-aid down. Something interesting to think about; When all of our pristine wilderness and forests are gone and have been developed into oil fields, mini-malls, or row housing are you going to be able to look at one of your firearms and have the same feeling you get after hiking to the top of a ridge of a mountain over looking gorgeous valleys and untouched wilderness flanked by a summer sunset. If you say yes you're a damn liar or you have never seen such beautiful vistas. At the end of the day its still a piece of metal that propels another piece of metal. What do you value more? God's beautiful creations or man's creations? For the record I absolutely love shooting guns. I do it anyway I can. I own pistols, rifles, shotguns, and muzzleloaders. I would give them all up right now to protect what wilderness we have left.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

LoL! Im completely opposite of "anonymous" above. If I had to choose one or the other (which I don't believe we are necessarily doing by voting for any of the candidates), I would choose the land over the guns. I can still enjoy my land without a gun, but I can't really enjoy my guns without the land.This whole thing just goes to show a void created by the two current political parties (and lobbying groups). The NRA cares all about the guns and not about the land, and the AHSA cares about the land, but much less about the guns. The fact of the matter is that hunting requires both.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Visitor wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

I'd rather have no land and guns than no guns and land which I cannot protect or hunt on.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan D. wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

By the way, I didn't even address the Obama thing, because I think that speaks for itself, he definately is not a friend of gun owners.Dan

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan D. wrote 5 years 51 weeks ago

I think I'm dizzy from that exchange. The fact is the NRA supports politicians who support gun rights. Unfortunately, many times those same politicians have horrible environmental records, often favoring selling off some of our best hunting lands or opening them up to exploration for minerls or fossil fuels. It's a catch 22 for those of us who care about our gun rights, but also care about places to hunt and fish. Maybe it's time we start deciding who to vote for ourselves, instead of letting some group tells who we should vote for.Dan

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment