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

[bogeyboy555]

Fellas,

I can't help but to notice the conflict between the current republican agenda around bill H.R. 621 to sell off public land, and the commonly held position that republicans are their to protect interest of hunters and gun owners...I am just curious becuase this is pretty conflicting for rifle hunters who hunt public land here in Colorado.

So I'll ask - which means more to you.... Feeling like you have your gun ownership interest protected? Or having security around knowing that you can hunt public land in the west? Had you known what was going to happen with this current bill, would you have voted differently?

Just curious what others have to say here...

 

[elkyinzer]

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.

 

[jtl]

I agree with you, this is a tough one.. It's too bad there isn't one party that covers all of our interests.

For me, I prioritize the public lands issue for a couple of reasons. 1) There is no constitutional protection for public lands like there is for guns. At least on the guns front, we have the 2A, and that is a huge, huge, guard against losing firearms. They can regulate, and make policies that I disagree with, but as long as the 2A exists, our core fundamental rights are in good hands. Public lands could be sold off with 50% of the House, 60% of the Senate, and a Presidential signature. So that is a much weaker position. 2) Public lands effect every single thing that I like to do. Take those away, and summer backpacking trips, fishing in mountain lakes, and so much more is lost, in addition to hunting. I don't think they will ever fully take away our hunting guns, but if they did, I could at least still fish, hike, and archery hunt.

Both options are scary, and both are unacceptable, but to me the public lands one is by far the most vulnerable. That's my two cents.

 

[justinspicher]

Loss of public lands, hands down.

 

[5MilesBack]

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

 

[dotman]

Both go hand in hand and are equal imo.

 

[R_burg]

Public lands by a wide margin. My AR's and other toys are great, but I can live a lot better with all bolt action rifles than I could without public land.


I think this issue goes to show the GOP isn't interest in hunters and sportsman, or even gun owners. Their interest in 2A is because of the money the gun lobby tosses around. There is big money in firearm production.

 

[Trial153]

Public lands for me.

 

[kingfisher]

Public lands for sure! I have killed most of my game with a bow anyway. Guns are just a fun bonus for me. Hell one of the main reasons guns are listed in the constitution as I see it, is to protect our rights as Americans. But, it seems that our rights are being taken away from us as we cling on to our guns. There is no point in guns though, if we don't have a place to shoot them, or if we don't use them to protect our rights.

 

[JPHuntingAUS]

If it were keep my guns and no hunting vs hunting public only with a bow I know what I'd be doing!

Mind you, a few states in Australia have no public land hunting and people still manage it just becomes more of a pay for access deal. Fortunately in my state the government see the value in it and we're getting more access all the time to public. Most of it 12 months of the year and no weapon specific seasons or tag limits for most species!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Backpack Hunter]

Which is more important? My and everyone else's constitutional rights are more important. Regardless of my personal belief on many issues I would vote to preserve a right long before any other matter.
As to H.R. 621, let's be real it is not going anywhere. It is passed around every so often, and shot down every time. No reason to believe that this time will be any different.

 

[Opah]

How many of us could afford to hunt private land? exspecially when there is no public land to hunt? My Rifle, Bow, fishing gear, would all be useless without public lands!

 

[Justin Crossley]

Gun rights are more important imo.

 

[Takem]

Public lands by a wide margin.

 

[Whisky]

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

This !!

 

[tipsntails7]

Public lands for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elkduds]

Public lands by a vast margin. I never bought into the NRA's fearmongering.

 

[airlocksniffer]

I have no use for guns if I have no public lands to hunt on.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Public lands by a vast margin. I never bought into the NRA's fearmongering.

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.

 

[bigeasygator]

Public lands by far, but I've been primarily a bowhunter. In my opinion, the threat to our public lands seems much more real and imminent than sweeping gun control changes (particularly as it relates to the kinds of guns most hunters use). I own a pile of ARs and AKs, but I'm just not as worried about losing them as I am the public land to hunt on.