BHA seems “all-in” with Biden

[Hoodie]

You're only supposed to vote single issue if its public lands, because well for many that is literally the only 1 singular issue they agree with.

Caring about public lands more than guns or abortion isn´t any different than caring more about guns and abortion than public lands.

Most people have some sort of prioritization for things.

I carried an M4 for a living for 5 years. Iḿ not in favor of draconian gun control measures.

If in some hypothetical scenario I had to decide whether or not my kids were going to grow up with access to millions of acres of public land or the right to own an AR, it would be a no-brainer for me.

 

[WCB]

Oh for sure. I'm not trying to knock RMEF at all, I know they do a ton of good work. I was bringing them up more as an example of how these organizations don't necessarily benefit every state the same. My views on this topic as a whole are that hunters should be active in whatever organization they see the most benefit out of. For now, in Arkansas, BHA is one of those I see a ton of benefit in. I don't see RMEF as very helpful in my area, but I totally understand why people support it. And on the flip side I think SOME of the criticisms of BHA (on certain aspects of predator and trapping issues, and not fighting to keep lands open during the pandemic) are completely valid.

Also I think BHA's decentralization is both a blessing and a curse- it allows state chapters with good boards and lots of activism to take the initiative and do a ton of good, but it can leave its weaker chapters (looking at you, Tejas) hanging in the wind

Agree. my post was more of any FYI as some people don't know.
Unfortunately I think there are a lot of state organizations that current BHA members could join and do the same work and not have to support BHA national and waste their money. Jut my opinion.

 

[Hoodie]

There are two “liberals”. Classic liberals are free thinking libertarian types, many modern (US) liberals are the progressives mentioned in the definition and are more leftist than liberal.

leftists being those who can’t seem to keep their minds on their own affairs and push agendas further and further left.

it looks like one will take office pretty soon. A report just came out saying Biden is considering immediate executive actions to address “gun violence.”

Iḿ going to link a video. I want you to listen to 5:00-6:00. If you really want to cut to the chase jump to 5:45 and listen till 6:00.

This is the man himself speaking about how he won´t attempt to use executive action to ban assault weapons because it isn´t constitutional.

And this is leaked audio from a private meeting with cabinet officials.

If you´re worried that Biden is going to radically change your country, don´t. The whole reason for the serious level of dissatisfaction with him on the left is his do-nothingness and his willingness to pay lip service to identity politics instead of pursuing a real agenda.

Which begs the question: If he isn´t planning on any radical gun control measures (and Iḿ not really sure that an AR-15 ban would radically impact hunter participation anyway), and his party is just objectively more amenable to public lands, why would an organization dedicated to advocating for public lands and hunting access not endorse him?

I get all the criticisms of BHA. I think plenty of them are valid. The Colorado spring bear thing seems ludicrous.

But this thread was started (seemingly) expressing surprise that BHA seems ¨all in¨ with Biden. I just think it would be surprising if they weren´t.

Also, please link this ¨report.¨ I´d like to take a look at it.

 

[seldomseensmith]

How can we have a serious discussion when there are people involved that don't like beer? Of all things.
If the reason you give for not liking an org is that they promote beer drinking, im just not listening. I know you said "craft beer" but beer is beer. What's craft beer anyway? Is it just beer that you don't like? In that case, is Miller's craft beer cuz I hate that swill.
There are a lot of weak arguments on both sides of this thread but let's find some common ground and agree that this one needs to be tossed out.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

 

[Gutshotem]

You are missing something: They're not a charity established to direct funds to landowners.

Those employees do the lobbying and other work that accomplishes the mission, probably cheaper than they could pay you to misinterpret their charter in the interests of bad faith.

How exactly does lobbying and advocating for wind farms on our public land jive with the mission: Backcountry Hunters & Anglers seeks to ensure North America's outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing in a natural setting, through education and work on behalf of wild public lands and waters?

 

[ODB]

Iḿ going to link a video. I want you to listen to 5:00-6:00. If you really want to cut to the chase jump to 5:45 and listen till 6:00.

This is the man himself speaking about how he won´t attempt to use executive action to ban assault weapons because it isn´t constitutional.

And this is leaked audio from a private meeting with cabinet officials.

If you´re worried that Biden is going to radically change your country, don´t. The whole reason for the serious level of dissatisfaction with him on the left is his do-nothingness and his willingness to pay lip service to identity politics instead of pursuing a real agenda.

Which begs the question: If he isn´t planning on any radical gun control measures (and Iḿ not really sure that an AR-15 ban would radically impact hunter participation anyway), and his party is just objectively more amenable to public lands, why would an organization dedicated to advocating for public lands and hunting access not endorse him?

I get all the criticisms of BHA. I think plenty of them are valid. The Colorado spring bear thing seems ludicrous.

But this thread was started (seemingly) expressing surprise that BHA seems ¨all in¨ with Biden. I just think it would be surprising if they weren´t.

I can read his website too... I’d suggest you do the same.



And I quote:


As president, Biden will:

• Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapon

You see leftism never sleeps. It grows and morphs any way it has to to get its way. 24/7/365. Conservatism by nature is going about your business, taking care of yourself and others and only stepping up when needed. Leftist have nothing better to do with their lives than try to control yours.

I don’t care what Biden says in his video. The website is the platform and is what he will be held to. When Kamala Harris takes over in two years, your faith that “old constitutional Joe” will do the right thing will seem like such an anachronism you’ll wonder how you could have ever believed it.

we are in a new world. Like it or not.

 

[sneaky]

Caring about public lands more than guns or abortion isn´t any different than caring more about guns and abortion than public lands.

Most people have some sort of prioritization for things.

I carried an M4 for a living for 5 years. Iḿ not in favor of draconian gun control measures.

If in some hypothetical scenario I had to decide whether or not my kids were going to grow up with access to millions of acres of public land or the right to own an AR, it would be a no-brainer for me.

So, you would give up a constitutional right for a privilege? Just wanna make sure.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Hoodie]

I can read his website too... I’d suggest you do the same.



And I quote:


As president, Biden will:

• Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapon

I trust what the guy says in private more than what he promises during a campaign. I think thatś pretty wise in general.

Also, aside from the whole ban on the ¨importation of assault weapons¨. That reads pretty much like he´s going to attempt to pass legislation banning assault weapons. Which is consistent with what he said about using executive action to institute a ban being unconstitutional. You know that´s going to be an uphill battle given that we have a republican senate right?

I mean yeah, you might have to go with a Daniel Defense AR instead of an HK-416, but again I just don´t see that infringing on hunting in any real way.

 

[bsnedeker]

So, you would give up a constitutional right for a privilege? Just wanna make sure.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I was honestly wondering the same thing....he picks the AR right? I mean....that's the no-brainer option right???

 

[ODB]

I trust what the guy says in private more than what he promises during a campaign. I think thatś pretty wise in general.

Also, aside from the whole ban on the ¨importation of assault weapons¨. That reads pretty much like he´s going to attempt to pass legislation banning assault weapons. Which is consistent with what he said about using executive action to institute a ban being unconstitutional. You know that´s going to be an uphill battle given that we have a republican senate right?

I mean yeah, you might have to go with a Daniel Defense AR instead of an HK-416, but again I just don´t see that infringing on hunting in any real way.

Guns aren’t just about hunting you know.

and you have too much faith in politicians. Especially ones who are showing signs of mental decline.

 

[Hoodie]

So, you would give up a constitutional right for a privilege? Just wanna make sure.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yeah, I feel like I was pretty clear.

If the constitutional right you´re referring to is my right to own an AR specifically, or my ability to have access to millions of acres of public land that I can hunt with a bolt action rifle, itś a no brainer.

I mean, let´s say I felt the other way. And in a hypothetical world I could make the choice.

I have a safe full of nice ARs, and nowhere to hunt.

Iḿ not saying that the 2nd Amendment isn´t important. Iḿ saying that itś not as important to me as public land.

Playing ¨militia¨ with my friends in a Don´t Tread On Me tee shirt, while fun, is just not going to replace elk hunting for me. Sorry man.

It seems to me the root logic of this whole AR thing comes to down to the ability to resist tyranny or something. Let me tell you man, if the U.S. Military ever decides to get tyrannical (And they definitely won´t), there isn´t a thing a bunch of civilians in Crye multicam they bought on eBay with some ARs are going to do about it. If you feel differently I´d suggest you YouTube some videos of a JDAM. Back when state art of the art military equipment was the flintlock, the militia thing made tons of sense. It also made tons of sense given the context of the American Revolution.

I´m shocked I have to say this, but thereś a significantly greater chance that large tracts of public lands will be sold to extraction industries than there is of a real life Red Dawn. You gotta realize that, right?

That was a long tangent. Not super related to the OP.

 

[bsnedeker]

It seems to me the root logic of this whole AR thing comes to down to the ability to resist tyranny or something. Let me tell you man, if the U.S. Military ever decides to get tyrannical (And they definitely won´t), there isn´t a thing a bunch of civilians in Crye multicam they bought on eBay with some ARs are going to do about it. If you feel differently I´d suggest you YouTube some videos of a JDAM. Back when state art of the art military equipment was the flintlock, the militia thing made tons of sense. It also made tons of sense given the context of the American

This is the argument from anti 2A people that just bowls me over. The pure cowardice on display in this mindset is mind boggling. You assume that whatever tyrannical government we might face will have superior strength so you are fine with surrendering your ability to fight before you even know who the enemy is!

The British military was the single strongest military force in the world at the time of the American revolution. With the help of some of their enemies we came together and beat them. Just a reminder since world history doesn't seem to be a strong point for most anti 2As.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Hoodie]

Guns aren’t just about hunting you know.

and you have too much faith in politicians. Especially ones who are showing signs of mental decline.

I totally get that people are about more than hunting. I´m not even remotely suggesting that public lands are somehow inherently more important than the right to own an AR.

I am, however, saying that they are more important to me than the right to own an AR.

I mean this is a backpack hunting forum. What do you expect out of me? I like hunting on public land. I like ARs. I spent five years of my life with them ostensibly defending peopleś God-given right to buy them, dress in Crye multicam, and take over wildlife refuges in Oregon.

I like them. Really. I just like public land more.

 

[sneaky]

Yeah, I feel like I was pretty clear.

If the constitutional right you´re referring to is my right to own an AR specifically, or my ability to have access to millions of acres of public land that I can hunt with a bolt action rifle, itś a no brainer.

I mean, let´s say I felt the other way. And in a hypothetical world I could make the choice.

I have a safe full of nice ARs, and nowhere to hunt.

Iḿ not saying that the 2nd Amendment isn´t important. Iḿ saying that itś not as important to me as public land.

Playing ¨militia¨ with my friends in a Don´t Tread On Me tee shirt, while fun, is just not going to replace elk hunting for me. Sorry man.

It seems to me the root logic of this whole AR thing comes to down to the ability to resist tyranny or something. Let me tell you man, if the U.S. Military ever decides to get tyrannical (And they definitely won´t), there isn´t a thing a bunch of civilians in Crye multicam they bought on eBay with some ARs are going to do about it. If you feel differently I´d suggest you YouTube some videos of a JDAM. Back when state art of the art military equipment was the flintlock, the militia thing made tons of sense. It also made tons of sense given the context of the American Revolution.

I´m shocked I have to say this, but thereś a significantly greater chance that large tracts of public lands will be sold to extraction industries than there is of a real life Red Dawn. You gotta realize that, right?

That was a long tangent. Not super related to the OP.

What I think is funny is that I spent 12 years in the Marine Corps with multiple combat deployments and you're trying to give me a lesson on military capabilities. Bless your heart. You willing to give up any part of the 2nd Amendment tells me you're a political sellout. You think they'll stop at ARs, that is pretty comical. You give them an inch, they'll take a mile. All gun laws are unconstitutional. Maybe they'll leave you access to a pellet gun for your public land elk excursions.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Hoodie]

This is the argument from anti 2A people that just bowls me over. The pure cowardice on display in this mindset is mind boggling. You assume that whatever tyrannical government we might face will have superior strength so you are fine with surrendering your ability to fight before you even know who the enemy is!

The British military was the single strongest military force in the world at the time of the American revolution. With the help of some of their enemies we came together and beat them. Just a reminder since world history doesn't seem to be a strong point for most anti 2As.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I´m a realist. If you want, Iĺl PM you copy of my DD-214 so you can further evaluate my cowardice.

At the time of the American Revolution the capabilities of a private militia were what we refer to as ¨near-peer" with the British.

If you want to evaluate how close a private militia would be to ¨near-peer¨ nowadays, see the aforementioned JDAM videos.

Also, what possible tyrannical government that a private militia in the US today could potentially face wouldn´t have superior strength?

 

[Gutshotem]

I mean yeah, you might have to go with a Daniel Defense AR instead of an HK-416, but again I just don´t see that infringing on hunting in any real way.

Yeah, I feel like I was pretty clear.

If the constitutional right you´re referring to is my right to own an AR specifically, or my ability to have access to millions of acres of public land that I can hunt with a bolt action rifle, itś a no brainer.

I mean, let´s say I felt the other way. And in a hypothetical world I could make the choice.

I have a safe full of nice ARs, and nowhere to hunt.

Iḿ not saying that the 2nd Amendment isn´t important. Iḿ saying that itś not as important to me as public land.

Playing ¨militia¨ with my friends in a Don´t Tread On Me tee shirt, while fun, is just not going to replace elk hunting for me. Sorry man.

It seems to me the root logic of this whole AR thing comes to down to the ability to resist tyranny or something. Let me tell you man, if the U.S. Military ever decides to get tyrannical (And they definitely won´t), there isn´t a thing a bunch of civilians in Crye multicam they bought on eBay with some ARs are going to do about it. If you feel differently I´d suggest you YouTube some videos of a JDAM. Back when state art of the art military equipment was the flintlock, the militia thing made tons of sense. It also made tons of sense given the context of the American Revolution.

I´m shocked I have to say this, but thereś a significantly greater chance that large tracts of public lands will be sold to extraction industries than there is of a real life Red Dawn. You gotta realize that, right?

That was a long tangent. Not super related to the OP.

So the most highly armed and educated citizenry in the world would have no chance against the same military who has struggled to defeat a bunch of illiterate troglodytes for the past 30 years? Even with the support of how many other world superpowers and the ability to drop bombs carte blanche anywhere in the sandbox they wanted. Give me a break.

 

[Hoodie]

What I think is funny is that I spent 12 years in the Marine Corps with multiple combat deployments and you're trying to give me a lesson on military capabilities. Bless your heart. You willing to give up any part of the 2nd Amendment tells me you're a political sellout. You think they'll stop at ARs, that is pretty comical. You give them an inch, they'll take a mile. All gun laws are unconstitutional. Maybe they'll leave you access to a pellet gun for your public land elk excursions.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Maybe we had radically different experiences in the Marine Corps. But I did not come away from mine under the impression that me and my high school drinking buddies back home could seriously compete with any of the platoons I was in, even in the absence of any sort of artillery or air support.

Of course, maybe I´m just naive. We probably don´t even need professional gunfighters given the level of proficiency I´ve apparently failed to notice among civilians.

Look man, all I´m saying is that there are things that are more important to me than others. Public lands are important to me. Guns are important to me. Public lands are more important to me than my ability to own an AR.

It doesn´t bother me one bit if anyone else feels differently. I´d just be bored with a closet full of ARs and nowhere to hunt is all.

 

[Ozarkansas]

Not So Fun Fact: Military service does not make you a constitutional law expert, nor does it make you an expert on insurgencies (yes even if you fought insurgents). Let's stop using our service to make ourselves seem like more of an expert than others on this forum who for all we know might have Constitutional law degrees and minors in middle eastern history.

That being said my totally un-expert opinion is that having the 2A is still an effective deterrent to tyranny.

So far it seems like almost everyone is arguing past each other. One camp considers maintaining access to public land a higher priority than maintaining our 2A rights. The other camp holds the 2A as a higher priority than public land access. That being said I doubt anyone here is actually anti-gun or anti-public land. If you want a more vocally pro-2A organization to donate to, I'm all for it, but I'm going to donate my money to groups that prioritize land acquisition, protection, and habitat improvement. I'll take care of public lands for you if you take care of the 2A for me.

 

[Hoodie]

So the most highly armed and educated citizenry in the world would have no chance against the same military who has struggled to defeat a bunch of illiterate troglodytes for the past 30 years? Even with the support of how many other world superpowers and the ability to drop bombs carte blanche anywhere in the sandbox they wanted. Give me a break.

A counter-insurgency/Foreign Internal Defense campaign is a very different thing than all-out conventional conflict.

Following that line of reasoning to itś logical conclusion: Why even use tax dollars to fund a professional military? Seems like a waste given that they´ve struggled so much to defeat illiterate troglodytes.

A more obvious question here is why would the US military ever mount an offensive effort against its citizens? It´s made up of citizens. It´s a really weird scenario in the first place.

 

[sneaky]

Maybe we had radically different experiences in the Marine Corps. But I did not come away from mine under the impression that me and my high school drinking buddies back home could seriously compete with any of the platoons I was in, even in the absence of any sort of artillery or air support.

Of course, maybe I´m just naive. We probably don´t even need professional gunfighters given the level of proficiency I´ve apparently failed to notice among civilians.

Look man, all I´m saying is that there are things that are more important to me than others. Public lands are important to me. Guns are important to me. Public lands are more important to me than my ability to own an AR.

It doesn´t bother me one bit if anyone else feels differently. I´d just be bored with a closet full of ARs and nowhere to hunt is all.

Your'e making an assumption that the members of our own military would turn on our own citizenry. If your buddies said they would have no problem doing that, they are a complete 180 from mine. The US military is abysmal fighting against unconventional fighters. Vietnam opened the door, and Iraq and Afghanistan put it on full display. I'm not giving up any of my constitutional rights to a political party that wants to try socialism because they think their version is different than all the failed types around the world. Nah, I'm good.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk