Land Sale bills introduced by Utah Legislators

[Jason Snyder]

This is false. In actuality true right wing folks will NEVER take the view of "safety at the expense of liberty". We'd rather keep the government completely out of our lives. Also, the true right wing are willing to lay down their own lives to defend and protect the Constitution at all costs. We're principled, we don't flop around on the issues depending on whether they benefit us, or are a detriment to us individually. That's why there are so few of us left. Don't ever make the mistake of mistaking a Republican as a conservative.

I guess whatever fits your own definition....


Carry on.

 

[2ski]

This is false. In actuality true right wing folks will NEVER take the view of "safety at the expense of liberty". We'd rather keep the government completely out of our lives. Also, the true right wing are willing to lay down their own lives to defend and protect the Constitution at all costs. We're principled, we don't flop around on the issues depending on whether they benefit us, or are a detriment to us individually. That's why there are so few of us left. Don't ever make the mistake of mistaking a Republican as a conservative.

Where do you stand on gay marriage? Is that not intruding on people's lives? Telling them they can't get married.

 

[gelton]

Where do you stand on gay marriage? Is that not intruding on people's lives? Telling them they can't get married.

I absolutely love this topic as it shows the idiocracy of both the left and the right. The left wants to institutionalize gay marriage through government edicts and the right wants to ban it through government edicts and no one ever thinks enough to ask what in the world does government have to do with marriage.

Article 1 section 8 describes in detail governments limited functions, and marriage, abortion and most everything else the government takes a stand on is no where to be found. Both should be left up to the states. Which is why, I imagine Texas is full of Californians fleeing their socialist Utopia. Government has no place in defining marriage. The root of this problem is the social programs (the "gifts" that keep on giving) which also are nowhere to be found in Article 1 Section 8. No social programs and no need for gay marriage to be recognized by the guvmint.

 

[2ski]

I absolutely love this topic as it shows the idiocracy of both the left and the right. The left wants to institutionalize gay marriage through government edicts and the right wants to ban it through government edicts and no one ever thinks enough to ask what in the world does government have to do with marriage.

Article 1 section 8 describes in detail governments limited functions, and marriage, abortion and most everything else the government takes a stand on is no where to be found. Both should be left up to the states. Which is why, I imagine Texas is full of Californians fleeing their socialist Utopia. Government has no place in defining marriage. The root of this problem is the social programs (the "gifts" that keep on giving) which also are nowhere to be found in Article 1 Section 8. No social programs and no need for gay marriage to be recognized by the guvmint.

One state has to honor a contract made in another state, i.e., marriage, so it does become an issue.

And my point was that he was saying a conservative does not want to be in people's lives, but take it at a state level basis. Most "conservatives" at a state level don't want to recognize gay marriage, and I would argue that is an intrusion into their life. Its business that most conservatives don't want the government in. Personal lives is a different story on many issues.

 

[Matt Cashell]

It seems the thread has totally veered off track from public land sales and transfers. Then we have confusion over finding common ground somehow equating to compromising one's personal beliefs.

We DO have common ground:

I don't own any land other than the land my home sets on in KY. I hate the fact that Republicans want to sell off or transfer public land

Actually........the first I ever heard of this land transfer idea was a few years ago, and the idea then was to just "sell off" the public land for the Federal coffers, supposedly to pay down the national debt. But to me that's kind of like a drug addict selling his house to pay off his $200k debt.

Can't we join together over this agreement and let ALL the candidates know that we do not support putting our public lands in jeopardy? Please, reach out to candidates you support and don't support, and let them know you care about our public lands, and they are NOT on the table.

 

[Matt W.]

The sad thing about modern elections is that I never seem to find anyone I am voting FOR. I am typically always voting against a candidate who is outright scary and never for a candidate I am totally aligned with. The good ones seem to never rise to the top... But that is a whole other debate...

As for Public Lands, below is a link where you can take action and have it go directly to your leader.
https://secure3.convio.net/trcp/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=415

Another site here:
http://sportsmensaccess.org/

 

[-bowfreak-]

Why is there the assumption that the founders were perfect people and the original draft of the Constitution is a perfect document? If that were the case we wouldn't have the needs for amendments 13,14,15,17,19 or 24. I'd bet the founders would be rolling in their graves knowing that our country is way down the path to an oligarchy. Money<>Freedom.

2/3 majority in either Congress or by state legislatures in a constitutional convention is a far cry from executive or judicial fiat. Please tell me you see the difference.

 

[Trial153]

it seems the thread has totally veered off track from public land sales and transfers. Then we have confusion over finding common ground somehow equating to compromising one's personal beliefs.

We do have common ground:






Can't we join together over this agreement and let all the candidates know that we do not support putting our public lands in jeopardy? Please, reach out to candidates you support and don't support, and let them know you care about our public lands, and they are not on the table.

x2 ....

 

[realunlucky]

Utah's legislation is just full of ass clowns. Makes me sad to call this place home for that reason

Me too. What is wrong with people voting these morons in to office

 

[BroodBuster]

And this my friends is how we end up with a Congress with an 11% approval rating and 95% re-election rate.

Congress tells partisans exactly what they want to hear while lobbyists write the laws. And we fall for it every single time!!!

"How fortunate for Governments that those they administer don't think." Adolf Hitler

 

[airlocksniffer]

2/3 majority in either Congress or by state legislatures in a constitutional convention is a far cry from executive or judicial fiat. Please tell me you see the difference.

My last diversion from the OT as these threads always devolve into who really follows the Constitution, etc. Here is the way I see this going down, especially with regards to the 2A. The hard right continues the 'cold dead hands' position. The hard right is not most of Americans and eventually a majority of Americans become disgusted with that position. Because there is never any room for compromise on this issue, an amendment to the Constitution is passed by 2/3 majority re-writing or completed striking the 2A. This is then the law of the land. I do not want to see this come to fruition but as long as this is two sides yelling at each other with the moderate people looking on in horror, I'm afraid this could happen.

Back on the OT, public lands FTW.

 

[-bowfreak-]

My last diversion from the OT as these threads always devolve into who really follows the Constitution, etc. Here is the way I see this going down, especially with regards to the 2A. The hard right continues the 'cold dead hands' position. The hard right is not most of Americans and eventually a majority of Americans become disgusted with that position. Because there is never any room for compromise on this issue, an amendment to the Constitution is passed by 2/3 majority re-writing or completed striking the 2A. This is then the law of the land. I do not want to see this come to fruition but as long as this is two sides yelling at each other with the moderate people looking on in horror, I'm afraid this could happen.

Back on the OT, public lands FTW.

NO way will you find a 2/3 majority EVER to change the 2A. It will only happen by judicial overreach. If the Republicans allow Obama to nominate Scalia's replacement, it very well could happen sooner than later.

The percentage of people that believe in gun rights is climbing and the percentage who support some sort of gun control is decreasing.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Wow, how did we get from land transfers to a 2/3 vote striking the 2A. I gotta find my tinfoil hat.

 

[Trial153]

I think the 2a gets brought up to infer that you have to chose between a politics that will either protect the 2a or our federal lands and that they somehow can't support both. Sorry but I think it's a load of crap

 

[Matt W.]

I think most conservatives support some sort of 2A Protection, most liberals do not.
Most conservatives support limiting the Federal Gov, most liberals do not.

Public Land gets caught in the middle. I am all for smaller Federal oversight, but not at the expense of selling public lands.

I think that a conservative candidate that is Pro Gun can be talked to and led to understand the impacts of the issues around public lands. With education I think we can win them over. Especially if done respectfully through the lobbying power of organizations like BHA, TRCP, B&C, SCI, etc. They know those organizations and understand their role in conservative politics.

The liberal who supports public lands, yet is vehemently anti gun is a different story. Unless they have a life changing event, I doubt that I/You, or the NRA, is going to get them to agree with supporting the 2A.

Both of the above are complete stereotypes, but its the framework we are all rattle around in, some farther to one end than the other, some more in the middle, and so on........

Most people have run into an issue where they are frustrated with Federal Management of Public Lands. In Alaska, for example, large tracts of land are owned by the Feds. Locals are frustrated, on a variety of issues, and see the solution as selling/giving the land to the state so "we" can manage it. The problem comes when we all view public land as property of the state vs. property of the Country.

IMO, we need to view Public Land as a National Treasure. It should be an easy common ground where both liberals and conservatives agree. The rub comes when Federal overreach limits access and hunting rights. The "common ground" once held is now disintegrated and the cry for the move to state ownership goes full circle again..

Combine this with ranching rights, timber rights, mineral rights (oil & gas exploration / mining), clean water acts, wetlands acts, farming interests and many I am not listing; and Federal Management gets extremely complex...... That and high dollars are at play.. With high dollars come corruption....

The more I research and look into this the more complex it seems to get. In the end I think most of us here want access to Public Lands protected. The cost of managing public lands is huge, our government at all levels is broke. So voting for someone who has a solid plan to financial health is vital at all levels of government. Each City, County / Borough / Muni, State and Federal office needs to cut spending and become efficient in their use of public funds. I just worry that we are so broke it will all have to implode to reign it all in...

In the end it all comes down to what services are we willing to give up for the greater good, or how high of taxes are we willing to take on? How we vote will determine this outcome...

 

[TJ]

Wow, how did we get from land transfers to a 2/3 vote striking the 2A. I gotta find my tinfoil hat.

please!!

View attachment 33806

 

[tipsntails7]

Wow, how did we get from land transfers to a 2/3 vote striking the 2A. I gotta find my tinfoil hat.

because somehow everything gets back to the government wanting to take guns away. its a giant flow chart with all roads leading to gun grabs.

Selling public lands= gun grab
introducing predators=gun grab
Gay marriage=gun grab
any republican talking point=Gun Grab

its exhausting, the 2A has nothing to do with hunting, and sure as hell has nothing to do with public land "transfers". yet most yelling dont even realize that.

 

[tipsntails7]

This may or may not interest people. now to be clear this does not mean that we as hunters have access to these lands. that would take a hell of alot more time then i have for the day.

it goes State, amount of state land at adoption, amount of land left, percentage of land left




AZ. 8,093,000 9,083,900 112%
CO. 3,686,000 2,917,700 79%
CA. 5,534,000 2,243,600 41%
ID. 2,964,000 2,748,400 93%
MT. 5,198,000. 5,196,400 100%
ND. 2,495,000 812,100 33%
NM. 8,711,000 8,700,000 100%
NV. 2,062,000 126,200 6%
OR. 3,399,000 2,995,900 88%
SD. 2,733,000 89,900 3%
UT 5,844,000 3,824,800 65%
WA. 2,376,000 3,865,100 163%
WY. 3,473,000 3,864,800 111%

Total. 56,568,000. 46,468,800 82%

 

[Mike7]

tipsntails, can you explain the numbers a little further?

Also, the individual rights/2nd Ammendment stuff came up when some of the more progressive folks on the thread made comments about how horrible the conservative politicians were because of their views on land transfers. When talking about removing individual politicians because of one issue, an issue which it sounds like many people here (including myself) poorly understand, then it is natural that the thread would become sidetracked. And it also becomes a little insulting to some of us who know better when people try to justify their points by saying that we are overreacting by trying to protect our Constitutional rights which are under assault every day.

I think the two Matt's said it best

 

[tipsntails7]

tipsntails, can you explain the numbers a little further?

Also, the individual rights/2nd Ammendment stuff came up when some of the more progressive folks on the thread made comments about how horrible the conservative politicians were because of their views on land transfers. When talking about removing individual politicians because of one issue, an issue which it sounds like many people here (including myself) poorly understand, then it is natural that the thread would become sidetracked. And it also becomes a little insulting to some of us who know better when people try to justify their points by saying that we are overreacting by trying to protect our Constitutional rights which are under assault every day.

I think the two Matt's said it best

the numbers are acres of land owned by the state when it was first formed, acres of land that the state currently possesses, and the percentage of left from original amount.


the issue for me is not so much the transfer of fed land to state. both parties to me are meaningless, its that most states have done a terrible job of managing their lands for single use objectives, where the fed land is managed with multi use in mind. if

http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcente...-lands/publications/trustlands-management.pdf