BHA seems “all-in” with Biden

[Hoodie]

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.

This is the best post in this thread.

Everyone here likes guns. Everyone here likes public land.

Some guys have a serious and oddly specific problem with microbrews. And I can be okay with that too.

 

[Hoodie]

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

Nah man, I mentioned in the post right above this that itś a weird scenario to even worry about.

 

[204guy]

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.

I think you missed my point. I can't speak for others but I know many are in the same boat. The 1, only, single thing the Dems stand for that I can get behind is public lands. BHA is clearly a dem supporting organization. I dont think that's even debatable.

If someone feels the same about the 2nd, and if that's the only thing they agree with repubs on I wouldn't expect them to join the NRA. The one difference though is the NRA doesn't pretend to be something they're not.(Debatable currently I know but I think it makes the point)

 

[Gutshotem]

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.

I dont know what planet you live on but the gov is practically in the business of wasting money. We use tax dollars to fund the military because defense contractors use their $$ to influence politicians into funding the military. Kinda the same way the BHA uses their resources to influence politicians into developing windmill farms on public land.

As for the "really weird scenario", you were the one who brought that up in post #231. I guess since you don't have a logical response we'll just call it weird now.

 

[Hoodie]

I think you missed my point. I can't speak for others but I know many are in the same boat. The 1, only, single thing the Dems stand for that I can get behind is public lands. BHA is clearly a dem supporting organization. I dont think that's even debatable.

If someone feels the same about the 2nd, and if that's the only thing they agree with repubs on I wouldn't expect them to join the NRA. The one difference though is the NRA doesn't pretend to be something they're not.(Debatable currently I know but I think it makes the point)

That´s fair.

Politically speaking I´m pretty moderate. I´m not an NRA fan. You definitely acknowledged it, but I think it would be easy to make the argument that the national level leadership of the NRA is not what it purports to be to its members given their recent fiascos.

And a lot of people on here were completely willing to acknowledge that.

I´m not a BHA fanboy. I´m not even currently a member. I was last year, which is when the chapter in my state lobbied for access for hunters when several local wilderness areas went to a permit entry system.

I was pleased with that. So I mentioned it, because it is a fact, and because it provides a data point people can use in their evaluation of the organization.

If I was a bear hunter in CO, I´d be less than enthused with my local chapter.

I´m just not surprised they seemed to endorse a democrat. I get that for a lot of conservative hunters public lands are the sole issue they lean left on. It still shouldn´t be a shocker that a public lands advocacy group backs politicians who are friendlier to public lands.

Itś also worth looking at the membership demographics someone posted earlier. Republicans outnumber democrats in BHA. So do independents. I don´t really care if someone cares more about their AR than access to their local wilderness area, as long as they still care about the access.

 

[Hoodie]

I dont know what planet you live on but the gov is practically in the business of wasting money. We use tax dollars to fund the military because defense contractors use their $$ to influence politicians into funding the military. Kinda the same way the BHA uses their resources to influence politicians into developing windmill farms on public land.

As for the "really weird scenario", you were the one who brought that up in post #231. I guess since you don't have a logical response we'll just call it weird now.

I didn´t bring the scenario up because I thought it was reasonable. I brought it up to point out how unreasonable I think it is.

Occasionally, when a left leaning person asks a right leaning person who´s particularly concerned with their constitutional right to own an AR, why they need one, they get the ¨well-regulated militia¨ response.

In my limited experience and humble opinion, I don´t think that the militia argument is logical for two distinct reasons. I said that, then outlined why my personal experiences lead me to think that way.

Again, maybe I´m naive.

But my stance on the issue is that:
A) There won´t ever be a need for the citizenry of the US to defend itself against it´s own military, because that doesn´t make sense.
B) If in some bizarro world that happened, the right to own a semi-automatic rifle and some drum mags is not going to be the decisive factor.

That´s just speculation.

I don´t think people shouldn´t be allowed to own ARs. I think if people want to rationally articulate why they should be able to, that the argument that it´s to resist government oppression is just a silly one. You can defend the crap out of your home and family with an AR, no one can really argue against that.

If the point is to be able to resist an established professional military in the modern context, we need to expand the 2nd amendment to allow private citizens to own GPS guided bombs. Or like, mortars and heavy artillery at a minimum.

 

[bsnedeker]

I didn´t bring the scenario up because I thought it was reasonable. I brought it up to point out how unreasonable I think it is.

Occasionally, when a left leaning person asks a right leaning person who´s particularly concerned with their constitutional right to own an AR, why they need one, they get the ¨well-regulated militia¨ response.

In my limited experience and humble opinion, I don´t think that the militia argument is logical for two distinct reasons. I said that, then outlined why my personal experiences lead me to think that way.

Again, maybe I´m naive.

But my stance on the issue is that:
A) There won´t ever be a need for the citizenry of the US to defend itself against it´s own military, because that doesn´t make sense.
B) If in some bizarro world that happened, the right to own a semi-automatic rifle and some drum mags is not going to be the decisive factor.

That´s just speculation.

I don´t think people shouldn´t be allowed to own ARs. I think if people want to rationally articulate why they should be able to, that the argument that it´s to resist government oppression is just a silly one. You can defend the crap out of your home and family with an AR, no one can really argue against that.

If the point is to be able to resist an established professional military in the modern context, we need to expand the 2nd amendment to allow private citizens to own GPS guided bombs. Or like, mortars and heavy artillery at a minimum.

Why do you make the assumption that any tyrannical force that might take over this country is going to have extreme military capabilities? In the event that we need the 2nd amendment to defend our liberty the most likely scenario from my perspective is that the US government has ceased to exist and, therefore, the US military as it currently stands will also cease to exist. The most likely scenario in my opinion is that the US is broken apart due to some kind of civil war. At this point there would be a power vacuum and various groups might try to take power by force. This is why we have a second amendment. It is to ensure that we have the ability to defend our lives and liberty in the case that the government and military are not able to.

Anyone who thinks that the United States is going to continue existing as it does now forever simply doesn't understand history. The one thing every major global power throughout history has in common is that they have fallen apart. Why do you think this country is immune to that? It probably won't happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen. Our only hope is that when it does happen folks like you haven't willingly given away our right to defend our families and way of life.

And just a piece of advice, if you like guns, as you claim you do, you should stop regurgitating so many statements that anti-gun activists use to attack our gun rights.

 

[peterk123]

I didn´t bring the scenario up because I thought it was reasonable. I brought it up to point out how unreasonable I think it is.

Occasionally, when a left leaning person asks a right leaning person who´s particularly concerned with their constitutional right to own an AR, why they need one, they get the ¨well-regulated militia¨ response.

In my limited experience and humble opinion, I don´t think that the militia argument is logical for two distinct reasons. I said that, then outlined why my personal experiences lead me to think that way.

Again, maybe I´m naive.

But my stance on the issue is that:
A) There won´t ever be a need for the citizenry of the US to defend itself against it´s own military, because that doesn´t make sense.
B) If in some bizarro world that happened, the right to own a semi-automatic rifle and some drum mags is not going to be the decisive factor.

That´s just speculation.

I don´t think people shouldn´t be allowed to own ARs. I think if people want to rationally articulate why they should be able to, that the argument that it´s to resist government oppression is just a silly one. You can defend the crap out of your home and family with an AR, no one can really argue against that.

If the point is to be able to resist an established professional military in the modern context, we need to expand the 2nd amendment to allow private citizens to own GPS guided bombs. Or like, mortars and heavy artillery at a minimum.

I think technically speaking, 2A allows for GPS Guided Bombs. Man, it would be so cool to own a few too. I bet our politicians would be much more behaved if we had them

 

[Hoodie]

Why do you make the assumption that any tyrannical force that might take over this country is going to have extreme military capabilities? In the event that we need the 2nd amendment to defend our liberty the most likely scenario from my perspective is that the US government has ceased to exist and, therefore, the US military as it currently stands will also cease to exist. The most likely scenario in my opinion is that the US is broken apart due to some kind of civil war. At this point there would be a power vacuum and various groups might try to take power by force. This is why we have a second amendment. It is to ensure that we have the ability to defend our lives and liberty in the case that the government and military are not able to.

Anyone who thinks that the United States is going to continue existing as it does now forever simply doesn't understand history. The one thing every major global power throughout history has in common is that they have fallen apart. Why do you think this country is immune to that? It probably won't happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen. Our only hope is that when it does happen folks like you haven't willingly given away our right to defend our families and way of life.

And just a piece of advice, if you like guns, as you claim you do, you should stop regurgitating so many statements that anti-gun activists use to attack our gun rights.

Yeah, I guess thatś possible. But as far as the extreme capabilities go, all of that equipment and technology is not just going to vanish and level the playing field. If there´s some civil war, I don´t think both sides are going to agree to leave the HellFire Missiles and JDAMs out of it so that everyone can duke it out with their M4s like civilized folk. The capability will still be there. It will just be divided.

My two cents would be to advise folks to invest as heavily in night vision as they are in small arms. Itś going to be a real factor.

This has gotten pretty damn far from discussing the merits and downsides of BHA, or figuring out whether or not it´s surprising or disappointing that they backed Biden´s USDA pick. I apologize for my part in the derailing.

 

[TheGDog]

Could it be that BHA is more supportive of Biden because under the Obama/Biden Administration there were protections placed on over 5 million acres of Public Land

I seem to recall... that they (Obama Admin) were going to be trying to turn all that land into State Parks though... which would disallow fair use, in terms of ATV/OffRoad and Hunters. Further shrinking where folks can ride. That's why they didn't accomplish all of those plans. And as I recall... Trump did a great job in protecting a bunch of land from being weaseled out of being able to be hunted on. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[WCB]

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.

I don't trust a word out of that guys mouth either way. He will stick a knife in the back of the American people in a second. Now considering the guy probably won't last through half his term his backup is 10x the scum he is.

 

[Hoodie]

Isn’t the fact that we can’t seem to pacify Afghanistan after 19 years a direct rebuttal to your argument?

Again, the fact that we can’t seem to pacify Afghanistan


This is getting kind of off topic and I agree your scenario of a citizen militia vs conventional military encounter is far fetched but I’m genuinely curious how square your views with the only reference points we have. As best I can tell, the US military has engaged in large scale, long term warfare against lightly armed “peasant” type armies 3 times in the past fifty years (Vietnam, Iraq after the invasion, and Afghanistan); I’m not talking about quick actions like Panama, or conventional actions like the two times versus the Iraqi Army. The recent US track record in your scenario isn’t that great. Best I can tell is we lost 1 outright, are in the process of finalizing a withdrawal from another after nearly 20 years, and kind of succeeded in one, Iraq, at a tremendous cost of blood and treasure. Hell, a bunch of lightly armed farmers in Afghanistan successfully stymied two different world powers with massive militaries. And somehow, you think the military would fare better fighting against family, friends, and neighbors? You think it would go more scorched earth here than there? Assuming it would basically bomb entire regions flat and indiscriminately reduce cities to rubble in order to get submission, all the more reason to maintain a means of resistance. Apologies for straying off topic and I genuinely am curious about your thoughts since you have the experience on the ground. I certainly mean no disrespect.

I´m not making a real effort to lean on experience here. The only experience I have is that I´ve had some exposure to modern military capabilities. Plenty of dudes on here have as well. I just think It´s hard to understate the significance of something like air superiority. Or the ability to operate effectively at night.

If you read the doctrine on counter-insurgency it is a well-acknowledged reality that it is a long game. Itś the nature of that type of warfare. I´d also argue that it´s rarely successful in any real sense.

The American Civil War was not an example of a counter-insurgency effort. It was a large scale conventional conflict. If the idea is that there will be another one, it´s reasonable to expect it will be similar. So it´s reasonable to expect that both sides will have professionals leveraging the full extent of their arsenals. Where militias fit into that in the modern context Iḿ not certain.

And as far as fighting friends and family and neighbors, I just don´t think it will happen.

Armed militias in the US are not what they were in 1775. Those guys were well trained, had a formal chain of command, and most importantly were using gear that was essentially equivalent to that of their opponents. It is a stretch to think that people like the Bundys are comparable. Watching ¨militias¨ on YouTube train for CQB is fairly telling.

My entire personal opinion on it is that training and technology are very relevant in warfare.

I don´t think the people in the US who put stock into the militia argument want to win the way insurgents in the middle east have ¨won.¨ A lot of insurgent leaders in the middle east have been blown up in drone strikes. Their AK-47s were not a decisive factor in the outcome.

 

[Carpet Capital Shyster]

I´m not making a real effort to lean on experience here. The only experience I have is that I´ve had some exposure to modern military capabilities. Plenty of dudes on here have as well. I just think It´s hard to understate the significance of something like air superiority. Or the ability to operate effectively at night.

If you read the doctrine on counter-insurgency it is a well-acknowledged reality that it is a long game. Itś the nature of that type of warfare. I´d also argue that it´s rarely successful in any real sense.

The American Civil War was not an example of a counter-insurgency effort. It was a large scale conventional conflict. If the idea is that there will be another one, it´s reasonable to expect it will be similar. So it´s reasonable to expect that both sides will have professionals leveraging the full extent of their arsenals. Where militias fit into that in the modern context Iḿ not certain.

And as far as fighting friends and family and neighbors, I just don´t think it will happen.

Armed militias in the US are not what they were in 1775. Those guys were well trained, had a formal chain of command, and most importantly were using gear that was essentially equivalent to that of their opponents. It is a stretch to think that people like the Bundys are comparable. Watching ¨militias¨ on YouTube train for CQB is fairly telling.

My entire personal opinion on it is that training and technology are very relevant in warfare.

I don´t think the people in the US who put stock into the militia argument want to win the way insurgents in the middle east have ¨won.¨ A lot of insurgent leaders in the middle east have been blown up in drone strikes. Their AK-47s were not a decisive factor in the outcome.

Thanks for the response and appreciate your thoughts. I realize this is veering wildly off topic, so it’s my intention to not post any further.

 

[Rokbar]

Before this thread gets locked, I will not re-up to BHA. I first heard about them and thought here is a like minded group I can agree with. BS!!!!!! I even mentioned a USFS meeting about a new (long time coming) timber management meeting to my local chapter of the BHA. Never heard a word or FB post from them. I believe even some of their top brass and minions are on this forum. But you have to remember, "It's for the KIDS."

 

[Nickofthewoods]

I seem to recall... that they (Obama Admin) were going to be trying to turn all that land into State Parks though... which would disallow fair use, in terms of ATV/OffRoad and Hunters. Further shrinking where folks can ride. That's why they didn't accomplish all of those plans. And as I recall... Trump did a great job in protecting a bunch of land from being weaseled out of being able to be hunted on. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Well for one thing Presidential Administrations don't designate State Parks...States do. Your probably thinking of National Monuments which are designated by Presidents. Most National Monuments still allow hunting so long as it was allowed before the designation. What plans weren't accomplished? Obama designated almost 30 new National Monuments during his two terms. . .

Overall I don't really understand your statement here Gdogl. You quoted my post so I responded. Maybe someone else can help you with the rest of your question because I don't know much about Trump's dealings in Land preservation.

 

[robby denning]

Hey all

I haven't read through all the thread, but didn't see any of the blatant hateful name calling, so hoping to head that off at the pass.

Please stay civil so these discussions can continue.

From a mod's perspective, when I see a BHA thread pop up, I wanna delete it before it gets started.

Please, change my mind so I don't think this way.

Continue for now.

Thanks!

 

[HoneyDew]

Hey all

I haven't read through all the thread, but didn't see any of the blatant hateful name calling, so hoping to head that off at the pass.

Please stay civil so these discussions can continue.

From a mod's perspective, when I see a BHA thread pop up, I wanna delete it before it gets started.

Please, change my mind so I don't think this way.

Continue for now.

Thanks!

Total get it and can see that some haters will always hate (both sides of an argument). But I have learned new info on multiple organizations in this thread that I probably wouldn’t have through my own organic reading. So I personally will say there’s an educational value to this type of discussion. Just boils down to the tone of the conversation on whether it’s beneficial. I don’t envy the mods. But you certainly have my respect.

 

[robby denning]

Total get it and can see that some haters will always hate (both sides of an argument). But I have learned new info on multiple organizations in this thread that I probably wouldn’t have through my own organic reading. So I personally will say there’s an educational value to this type of discussion. Just boils down to the tone of the conversation on whether it’s beneficial. I don’t envy the mods. But you certainly have my respect.

I 100% agree there's education in these threads! And I invite them, heck we're a forum!

But as mods, if people can't argue their point on facts and civil discussions but just hate and call names like little bullys on the playground (is that name calling?), it just ruins our forum. That's what FB is for!

Thanks

 

[Rokbar]

If you dont believe the 2A helps with public access you are crazy. Look no further than the Blue Ridge Parkway! Before George Jr. ( not Obama) EO'd firearms on National parks hunters had to obtain a Hunters Access Permit to park at designated parking areas along the BRP. So if you wanted to hunt in between 2 parking areas that were 2 miles apart you had to hump it. The NPS even charged hunters $15 one year for the permits. After the EO you can park anywhere you want, even in the grass. Now, when weather closes the BRP I can strap my Abolt to my Mystery Ranch Beartooth 80, park at the locked gate, ride my 1998 Mt. Bike to my favorite hunting spot, all because of the 2A!!!!!! But, NO I will still not re-up to BHA!

 

[Nickofthewoods]

I 100% agree there's education in these threads! And I invite them, heck we're a forum!

But as mods, if people can't argue their point on facts and civil discussions but just hate and call names like little bullys on the playground (is that name calling?), it just ruins our forum. That's what FB is for!

Thanks

It seems like even when you try to make a civil or factual argument, people just want to take your words and make them Left vs. Right, Trump vs. Obama, or BHA vs the Velociraptors in Jurassic Park. When people respond to what you say with controversial, barely intelligible, possibly (probably) drunken responses, it's hard not to name call.