Guns vs. Public Land - Which means more to you?

[tipsntails7]

Do you believe your 2A rights are still intact? I don't.

If our rights were still intact as our founders intended we wouldn't have magazine restrictions, suppressor restrictions, full auto restrictions.......

The 2A was supposed to guarantee our right to bear arms so we could appose a rogue government. I don't see how anyone could honestly think we could resist the government if they decided to totally take over? If the military backed the government we would be absolutely powerless to resist.

You could apply that to a lot of those rights on that piece of paper. Very few of them are "intact"

Would you prefer it if people could purchase anything the military can?

The constitution has been amended 12 times in the last 100 years basically, it's not this perfect living rulebook that people make it out to be. We are lucky to have it and for them to have the foresight they did, but that foresight can only be taken so far.

The constitution was made buy guys who could never fathom what our future would look like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Humphr47]

Public lands, not even close. (Archery hunt primarily).

 

[1signguy]

From a hunting standpoint- If we have no guns what is the point of public land? If you loose public land you still have a gun for protection.

Importantly, public land is for the benefit of all citizens and not just hunters or other forms of recreation. All of the interested parties deserve to have a seat at the table. With that in mind, I don't see any conflict of interest. The Republicans make no bones about lowering taxes, growing the economy, smaller federal government, stronger states rights... This falls in line with that mantra.

All of those concerned about loosing their favorite hunting ground have every right to be concerned. Sportsman have a voice and can and should be vocal in their opposition if they are against the bills. That is how the system works. Will their voice be heard? I doubt it. There are too many bigger things at work. But that doesn't mean these bills are a forgone conclusion. There are lots of other things the government should address before these two bills. These may just fall by the wayside...

Regardless, I also doubt that we are going to turn over and sell every last bit of federal land if these move forward... Will some of the land be better put to use creating jobs and opportunity? I hope so. I think we all have an interest in seeing others reach their dreams and improve their families lives...

All things in moderation...

 

[tipsntails7]

From a hunting standpoint- If we have no guns what is the point of public land? If you loose public land you still have a gun for protection.

Importantly, public land is for the benefit of all citizens and not just hunters or other forms of recreation. All of the interested parties deserve to have a seat at the table. With that in mind, I don't see any conflict of interest. The Republicans make no bones about lowering taxes, growing the economy, smaller federal government, stronger states rights... This falls in line with that mantra.

All of those concerned about loosing their favorite hunting ground have every right to be concerned. Sportsman have a voice and can and should be vocal in their opposition if they are against the bills. That is how the system works. Will their voice be heard? I doubt it. There are too many bigger things at work. But that doesn't mean these bills are a forgone conclusion. There are lots of other things the government should address before these two bills. These may just fall by the wayside...

Regardless, I also doubt that we are going to turn over and sell every last bit of federal land if these move forward... Will some of the land be better put to use creating jobs and opportunity? I hope so. I think we all have an interest in seeing others reach their dreams and improve their families lives...

All things in moderation...

I spend a lot more time on public lands without a weapon then with one.

I don't like that this has to be an either or scenario, both are important to me, but my love of nature and the Wild will never be equaled by my joy of guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KJH]

This is hard- I had to put some real thought into this.

Coming from a state, wher for all practical purposes, no real public land to hunt... I say gun ownership is much more important. The only place I hunt public lands is in another state- usually Alaska. Essentially all my hunting, except moose and caribou, is private land- so for me public land is already a mythical thing. Even if all public land would go away, I would still be able to hunt birds, waterfowl, turkeys, deer, antelope, and elk the same as I do now on private land (I do not pay to hunt private land). I need guns to do much of this hunting (bow hunt too), not public land.

That said, my annual Alaska trip is higher on my priority list than just about anything else I can think of... hunting there is always on federal land. If this land went away I would be devastated but could still do my other hunting.

This is a very tough one, but firearm ownership rises to the top.

 

[rayporter]

it is a tough one. but like said above;

without a firearm i would have very little use for the public land.

i would bet a ton all hunting would be stopped if they could.

i can see the headlines now ' did you know it takes that deer all night to die after it is shot with an arrow?'

 

[cuerro viejo]

I will go with the Constitution and Bill of Rights every time. There was no other option in this election.

X2.

 

[JWP58]

Both. Pretty simple actually. I don't need guns to hunt, however I do need them to protect myself and family. I need public land to hunt, which helps feed my family.

So ya, both are equally important. Its pretty simple. The whole Rep V. Dem thing around here is becoming nauseating. We get it. In the eyes of the limp wristed Dems all Republicans want to steal land for their wealthy oil tycoon friend (don't we all have one?). And the in the eyes of the red blooded 'merican Republican the Democrats are trying to take away their guns so the Chinese can invade with the Cubans.

Its a played out generalization.....we get it.

 

[Ryanjay11]

This type of rationalization results in you losing everything, one piece at a time.

Look no farther than elitist bowhunters if you want to see how this plays out.

 

[Frito]

I didn't vote based on either, and I definitely don't vote for parties. This time around I voted against a party and things did work out in my favor. I hunt with guns on public land and I cherish both and have a sneaking suspicion they will both be there for generations to come.

 

[5MilesBack]

The constitution was made buy guys who could never fathom what our future would look like.

What they could fathom was tyranny, and that's why they wrote it the way they did.......(shall not be infringed upon). They never said or implied that citizens should be restricted at some lower level of ownership than the government. In fact, they said the opposite. Yes, I would prefer it if all could purchase whatever the military can. I mean we're already buying it in a way through taxes, yet we can't legally own it? That's the definition of infringement.

 

[SWOHTR]

Public land over firearms, for a few reasons - most of them already stated. The "I never bought into the NRA's fearmongering" applies to me as well.

My issue with the public land grab is that TR, Pinchot, Muir, etc. went through a lot of trouble to get them established - they knew and understood the significance of having "forest reserves" available, not only for their generation, but for current generations. Had TR not been in office, the likelihood of timber, mining, and railroad companies claiming and exploiting vast tracts of (western) lands would have been virtually guaranteed, a nightmare for many reasons, resource abuse being first and foremost.

Now the threat exists to undo this? Ridiculous, considering that just over 100 years ago the above scenario was happening...

 

[Whisky]

This is hard- I had to put some real thought into this.

Coming from a state, wher for all practical purposes, no real public land to hunt... I say gun ownership is much more important. The only place I hunt public lands is in another state- usually Alaska. Essentially all my hunting, except moose and caribou, is private land- so for me public land is already a mythical thing. Even if all public land would go away, I would still be able to hunt birds, waterfowl, turkeys, deer, antelope, and elk the same as I do now on private land (I do not pay to hunt private land). I need guns to do much of this hunting (bow hunt too), not public land.

That said, my annual Alaska trip is higher on my priority list than just about anything else I can think of... hunting there is always on federal land. If this land went away I would be devastated but could still do my other hunting.

This is a very tough one, but firearm ownership rises to the top.

I hear ya...

Basically draw a line down the center of the midwest and the majority of those to the West will favor public lands, those to the east will favor gun ownership.

 

[tipsntails7]

What they could fathom was tyranny, and that's why they wrote it the way they did.......(shall not be infringed upon). They never said or implied that citizens should be restricted at some lower level of ownership than the government. In fact, they said the opposite. Yes, I would prefer it if all could purchase whatever the military can. I mean we're already buying it in a way through taxes, yet we can't legally own it? That's the definition of infringement.

Ya I got that, you can say what you want. I don't want dipshits running around with RPG's all over the place, I've actually seen what they can do and I don't need Joe Schmo running around their back forty using them much less all the other type of ordinance available to the military.

They couldn't fathom slavery was a bad idea? Or people of color should vote? Or that woman should probably vote? Or booze was bad then good again?

The sole reason they envisioned "tyranny" is because they literally just got done dealing with it.
Lucky for us because if it had been a smooth peaceful transition that amendment may not have made it in there.

I wish people cared as much about all the other amendments as they do the 2nd, as those are the ones taking a beating in recent memory.


This is also why I HATE whenever this gets brought up, if the second amendment is not the biggest deal ever to you your a pansy liberal who hates America, when the reality is far from that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Desk Jockey]

Tough choice and neither party seems to have a platform that fits hunters.

I am a 2a guy but not on the far extreme of that debate.

I have traveled elsewhere and firmly believe that our public lands are an amazing and unusual thing. Hunting options in places without public land are pretty dismal. You find models like Europe where hunting becomes the province of a wealthy elite, hereditary land owners and a few people who work for them.

 

[veganhunter]

I use public lands roughly 300 days a year...5 of which require use of a firearm. For me, its no question public lands. As others have stated the 2A is in place to help protect firearms whereas there is little to no legislative protection for public lands.

As also stated, the 2A was originally drafted as a means of resistance to government oppression. Its delusional to think that any amount of civilian firepower would amount to any real resistance to our government (military), should it decide to turn against us. Theoretically it makes no difference whether or not my AR has a 10 or 30 round mag if I'm being fired upon from a Blackhawk.

 

[KurtR]

I think both are important and I also think if we keep having petty squabbles almost our selves we will end up loosing both.

 

[HOT ROD]

I will take guns. And our Constitution.....

 

[mtnwrunner(Trandy)]

I will go with the Constitution and Bill of Rights every time. There was no other option in this election.

This^^^^^^^^^.
One of my analogies with the 2nd amendment is that it is a "brick" of the constitution which we'll say is a house. If you start taking bricks from the foundation, well, guess what? Sooner or later, the house is gonna fall down and when that happens, you/we will lose everything and that would include public lands.
So, I actually hate this question and one should NEVER have to choose between the two and you don't have to choose with the 2nd amendment----it is your RIGHT! That leaves the public land issue to fight and we should do all what we can to combat the proposed losses.

Randy

 

[airlocksniffer]

I wish people cared as much about all the other amendments as they do the 2nd, as those are the ones taking a beating in resent memory.

For sure. With talk from the current administration about "holding the press accountable", bills proposing removing liability for drivers that run over protestors and other bills making protestors pay for police presence when protesting, it seems the 1A is under a more imminent threat than the 2A.