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

[Whisky]

Both are important, but legislation against 2nd Amendment rights can be undone and I expect to see vacillation depending on what candidate we have in office.

Public lands, once privatized and sold off is MUCH more difficult to undo and return to the public.

Here are two extreme scenarios: California vs Texas

California, the state I live in has some of the most restrictive gun legislation with more on the way. However we have tons of public BLM, national forests, and wilderness areas to hunt. In fact 38.3 percent of the state is open to hunt.

Texas has some of the least restrictive gun laws, but most of the land is privatized. Unless you know someone who owns a ranch or are willing to pay fees to hunt private, you are hard pressed to find public access. One percent of the state is open to the public and averages a staggeringly low 0.1 acre available per person to hunt.

Given these two extreme examples, would take California over Texas any day.

Pic of the Trinity Alps where I took my very first deer earlier this past season

I would live in 49 states before I lived in CA

By the way snowflakes are burning Berkley to the ground as I type. And beating people in the streets. But yeah such a great place to live and raise a family. As long as you got your federal lands

 

[starsky]

Baffling to me how many of you would throw away your rights.

 

[Violent Hippie]

Both are VERY important to me although I do not feel much of a connection between firearms /2A and hunting. I just view them as completely different subjects which is why I am not an NRA member due to them lumping it all together. I primarily bow hunt. I first had a subscription to Guns and Ammo magazine when I was 12 years old ( not kidding). Just 2 different subjects for me. In my day to day life public land plays a MUCH bigger role in my happiness and quality of life than firearms . I have served in the military overseas as well and am aware of how much of an impact an armed citizenry can make. Its a tough choice for me. To the OP it isnt a straight single issue choice due to the basically 2 party system. If the democratic platform appears to be more favorable toward federal lands public lands I still cannot side with the Democrat agenda of distribution of wealth / socialism / erosion of the US constitution .Its unfortunately a more complex political issue were one has to weigh their personal belief system beyond the 2 issues. I am a BHA member and hope BHA being a single cause organization can make a difference in regards to public land access.

 

[dotman]

Looks like HR 621 dies tomorrow Instagram

 

[kingfisher]

If WW III occurred, do you think you would get to use your guns? It seems to me that an attack would be through manipulating our infrastructure through hacking, or nuclear strikes long before we were invaded. It not as though all us gun owners are studying up on our cyber-security. We act as though guns are the solution to all defense related issues, without much thought put into our statements.

Hunting, fishing, and beautiful sunsets over wilderness has filled my soul with much more lasting substance than any gun ever has. Thats why it seems crazy that we would give away our lands before our guns, not that we should do either.

 

[tipsntails7]

I would live in 49 states before I lived in CA

By the way snowflakes are burning Berkley to the ground as I type. And beating people in the streets. But yeah such a great place to live and raise a family. As long as you got your federal lands

That photo is a hell of a long way from Berkley. It's a different world for the most part once you cross into the redwood curtain.

There's a few states I would choose, but sure as shit not 49 others. California has some of the wildest places left, especially in the lower 48.

What's a snowflake? I've seen it used here, and I assume it's a derogatory term for a liberal minded person but I don't know exactly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

I would live in 49 states before I lived in CA

By the way snowflakes are burning Berkley to the ground as I type. And beating people in the streets. But yeah such a great place to live and raise a family. As long as you got your federal lands

Using your logic I must have been mistaken about ND being a good place to raise a family. Have you seen all the stuff going on in cannon ball, what a dreadful state it must be...

 

[wind gypsy]

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

The other Amendments only matter if they are currently supporting the 2nd. Merica

 

[tipsntails7]

The other Amendments only matter if they are currently supporting the 2nd. Merica

Nvm




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin Dill]

If you were to put this to an 'either-or' vote amongst all sportsmen and gun owners nationwide....it wouldn't even be close.

 

[Whisky]

Using your logic I must have been mistaken about ND being a good place to raise a family. Have you seen all the stuff going on in cannon ball, what a dreadful state it must be...

Yup you're right , I've had my fill of protests for awhile. Unfortunately they arw hitting too close to home and has reflected negatively on my attitude towards rioters.

.Here is a fun fact for you though , approx 700 people have been arrested down there so far, and 94% of them have been from states such as CA, CO, NM etc. Paid protesters and snowflakes from all over the country. Not locals. Once the pipe gets finished up it will all be a distant crappy memory.

 

[Whisky]

That photo is a hell of a long way from Berkley. It's a different world for the most part once you cross into the redwood curtain.

There's a few states I would choose, but sure as shit not 49 others. California has some of the wildest places left, especially in the lower 48.

What's a snowflake? I've seen it used here, and I assume it's a derogatory term for a liberal minded person but I don't know exactly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hear ya, there are some nice places in CA I know. And a lot of good people too.

 

[Whisky]

Looks like HR 621 dies tomorrow Instagram

Win!!!

 

[MuleyFever]

Baffling to me how many of you would throw away your rights.

No one is throwing their right away. They are just saying they are more concerned with loosing public lands than they are with loosing their guns. The threat of losing public lands is much more realistic than loosing a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[5MilesBack]

The threat of losing public lands is much more realistic than loosing a Constitutional Amendment.

Not so.......the 2nd Amendment has been chipped away for years. We've already lost a lot of it, counter to the "shall not be infringed" statement that people can't seem to understand. THAT's what people don't seem to understand, that it's already been chipped away. If it doesn't affect them, then it's AOK in their mind.

 

[realunlucky]

It still takes 2/3 of both House and Senate to make a constitutional amendment change. That fact does make it much easier to sell off public lands than make a 2nd amendment change. Of course the interpretation of said amendment could also change

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

It still takes 2/3 of both House and Senate to make a constitutional amendment change. That fact does make it much easier to sell off public lands than make a 2nd amendment change. Of course the interpretation of said amendment could also change

That's the problem though.......they're making changes to the 2nd Amendment already with unConstitutional laws without actually making any changes to the Amendment. This is how the government operates......they overstep their bounds and then just hope that the SCOTUS doesn't overturn them. That's why the liberals absolutely hate Constitutionalists on the Court, because they will absolutely strike those laws down, whereas the activist liberal judges with an agenda will most likely agree with the government and allow these unConstitutional infringements. And this isn't just a 2nd Amendment issue........it's a Constitutional and BOR issue.......for all of it. Yet people never notice the little infringements and the taking away of rights directly under their noses.......until it affects them directly. THEN they get all up in arms.

 

[MuleyFever]

Not so.......the 2nd Amendment has been chipped away for years. We've already lost a lot of it, counter to the "shall not be infringed" statement that people can't seem to understand. THAT's what people don't seem to understand, that it's already been chipped away. If it doesn't affect them, then it's AOK in their mind.

Yes so. Abolishing the 2nd is no where near as real of a threat as the simple sale of public lands and that's a fact. Added restrictions on certain guns is not taking guns away. My statement stands, losing public lands is a very real possibility. It is already happening at the state level with states selling lands. Loosing the right to own guns is not nearly as real of a threat. I have been hearing about losing guns since Clinton.

 

[Hall256]

The attack on the 2A is a long game that they are playing. For most of the reasons already listed, it is correct to say that they will not "take our guns". What they will do is outlaw ownership of parts, they will restrict who is allowed to own a gun, they will drive up cost of manufacturing and selling so purchase price is unattainable, and so on and so on. Muley Fever, you have been hearing about gun bans since Clinton, because Clinton banned a large swath of guns. The ban accomplished nothing, but move the needle a little more in the long game of stripping the rights protected in the 2A.

Again, this needs to not be an either/or argument. We need to make conservative lawmakers that listen to the large voting block of gun owners, listen to public land suppoters. If the groups are united in voice, enough politicians will listen.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[MuleyFever]

I agree that there is an attack on the 2nd and we need to be aware and fight it. I also agree we don't need to choose one or the other. But to say the threat of losing the 2nd is as great as losing public lands is foolish. That's all I'm saying.