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

[dotman]

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 bet your thought process would change if you had to pay an access fee in the thousands annually for that private and were given only a week a year access so they could sell access for the other remaining weeks.

 

[FLAK]

Both are critical, but the 2A secures the guns. I could not imagine not having federal public
lands to hunt. I almos never hunt state lands they are so restrictive and over regulated.
Giving up Fed. lands would effectively end hunting for me and I suspect most others.
I feel this may be the ultimate goal.

 

[dotman]

Both are critical, but the 2A secures the guns. I could not imagine not having federal public
lands to hunt. I almos never hunt state lands they are so restrictive and over regulated.
Giving up Fed. lands would effectively end hunting for me and I suspect most others.
I feel this may be the ultimate goal.

I'm not sure that's the end goal because it would end access for everyone not just hunters and open up the lands for resource development. I don't think this is an anti-hunting initiative but purely a land grab for resource exploitation.

 

[topher89]

I'm not sure that's the end goal because it would end access for everyone not just hunters and open up the lands for resource development. I don't think this is an anti-hunting initiative but purely a land grab for resource exploitation.

Same thing. If public land is gone, hunting is over. Doesn't matter what the 'purpose' is, its the same result

 

[dotman]

Same thing. If public land is gone, hunting is over. Doesn't matter what the 'purpose' is, its the same result

I wouldn't say it's over, just much much more expensive.

 

[Whip]

Public lands, hands down. I'd take my chances with the dems over the gun issue. Just keep your hands of our public lands!

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Guns for me.....

I hunt 95% public land. That's a privledge.....

Owning black guns is a constitutional right.

I'm sorry, I won't give up federal lands without a fight, but it's also not the Feds responsibility to see to it that I have a place to hunt

 

[topher89]

Public lands, hands down. I'd take my chances with the dems over the gun issue. Just keep your hands of our public lands!

Yup.

 

[Str8shooter]

Public lands! Our right to keep and bear arms is a right, public lands are a legacy privilege that must be fought for. No judge is going to step in and prevent public land seizure.

 

[MuleyFever]

Public lands hands down for me.

 

[LaHunter]

The second amendment is more important to me. Our country is founded on these guaranteed rights that are laid out in the constitution and they are not up for debate or negotiation. The socialists within our government have been trying to restrict and eventually eliminate the 2A for years. Also, remember the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, it has everything to do with protecting our freedoms/country from threats that may be foreign or domestic.
I strongly agree with the public land issue (keeping public lands public) and hunt National Forest land each year, but this is not a right specified in our constitution, but it is still very important.

 

[nwbow87]

Public land, easy. I feel it is more important at this juncture in time to the future of our Country (future generations not 4 years into the future) and gun rights to some extent are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

This

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[AdamW]

A year ago I'd have said guns hands down. I'm not a one issue voter per se, but that's a non-negotiable part of my life. After hunting on public lands and spending time on them out west (specifically Colorado) I'm as on fire for public lands as I am my gun rights and am willing to get off my ass and do what needs to be done to protect and preserve them both.

 

[mtcarter]

In my opinion, I think we are confusing the issue. As of now, we are not choosing between having guns or having public land. We are choosing between having public lands, or having more gun laws. While I do not care for almost all of the proposed gun laws that I have seen the dems bring forward, they are not going to strip us of our guns. I do understand the risk of the slippery slope. I, like many, quote the "shall not be infringed" part quite a bit. I feel like we all forget the "well regulated militia" part. Whatever else may happen, anyone attempting to take away our guns has, by virtue of the Second, a stiff battle ahead. Public lands, if left unattended, can be gone in an instant. I understand the other perspective, but public lands are more important to me. Having said that, I am not a single issue voter.

 

[Gehri1tm]

Public lands, not even close. Republicans had this public lands sale as part of their party's platform so there really is no surprise. Corruption knows no one political party.

 

[hobbes]

Im strictly opposed to the sale or transfer of public lands and continue to make that known to our senators and representatives. I just finished up a post ranting about this subject on a forum dominated by easterners that don't really have a good understanding of what Bills like this could mean in western states. But......If you're under the impression that gun rights are only about hunters, you are missing the big picture. Any thought along the lines of why do I need a gun without public land is very short sighted. Any view that our 2nd amendment right isn't constantly under attack is plain foolish.

All is lost without the defense of our constitution and Bill of rights. If you don't believe those are critical to everything as Americans.....(Im really at a loss)you stand to leave an America behind with bigger problems than a lack of public land.


Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk

 

[204guy]

Amazing to me how many guys think the 2A has anything at all to do with hunting. Let me see I'll give up my right to fight tyranny for a place to hunt, Umm no. I love having the privilege to hunt public lands. And I'll fight to keep them, but lets be realistic hunting won't suddenly end if they were sold. There are plenty of places in the US with no public land and plenty of hunting.

 

[bogeyboy555]

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.

How many times do you think this guy has watched Braveheart?

 

[KMBH]

How is this an either/or argument.

 

[CorbLand]

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.

And 30 round magazines, suppressors and full autos are going to exactly what against Apaches, Cobras, Laser Guided Missiles/Bombs, etc. If the Military backs the Government you are screwed regardless of having weapons or not.