Land Sale bills introduced by Utah Legislators

[5MilesBack]

This. The thing that probably chills me the most about this country right now is the hatred for the "other" people.

Who said anything about "hating" anyone.....well, besides Ski? You sound like the gay propaganda folks. It's OK to hate what someone stands for or does, that doesn't mean that the person is hated.

Here's something I "hate". The idea that it's OK to "infringe" upon our 2nd Amendment rights, just as long as we get to keep some of our guns. The issue here is NOT whether we get to keep some of our guns. The issue is that they are infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Have any of you ever really thought about WHY they want to infringe on the 2nd Amendment? If you think it's to keep Americans safe......just go ahead and keep your heads in the sand. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety. If they REALLY wanted to keep America safe, they would make sure that everyone was armed.......not disarmed. And speaking of safety, boy the Department of Justice is really trying to sell America a bill of "safety" goods with this whole Apple case. Safety at the expense of liberty is never a good option. Yet it's amazing how many so-called Americans are actually upset at Apple for refusing to fold to their unconstitutional demands.

This whole attack on the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with guns.......whatsoever. It has everything to do with whittling away at our rights. But they throw up a good smoke screen, and even have most of you guys fooled. When they can get even conservatives saying that "they aren't coming after our guns", the smokescreen has worked and they're happy as clams. "Oh, you just want to ban a certain type of weapon that I don't use anyway, or restrict that weapon to magazines that only hold 10 rounds........OK.....that sounds reasonable". Utter hogwash, and they've already succeeded when you're willing to throw away your own rights, freedoms, and liberties. That Koolaide must be good. Probably the same stuff Jim Jones used.

 

[tipsntails7]

Who said anything about "hating" anyone.....well, besides Ski? You sound like the gay propaganda folks. It's OK to hate what someone stands for or does, that doesn't mean that the person is hated.

Here's something I "hate". The idea that it's OK to "infringe" upon our 2nd Amendment rights, just as long as we get to keep some of our guns. The issue here is NOT whether we get to keep some of our guns. The issue is that they are infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Have any of you ever really thought about WHY they want to infringe on the 2nd Amendment? If you think it's to keep Americans safe......just go ahead and keep your heads in the sand. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety. If they REALLY wanted to keep America safe, they would make sure that everyone was armed.......not disarmed. And speaking of safety, boy the Department of Justice is really trying to sell America a bill of "safety" goods with this whole Apple case. Safety at the expense of liberty is never a good option. Yet it's amazing how many so-called Americans are actually upset at Apple for refusing to fold to their unconstitutional demands.

This whole attack on the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with guns.......whatsoever. It has everything to do with whittling away at our rights. But they throw up a good smoke screen, and even have most of you guys fooled. When they can get even conservatives saying that "they aren't coming after our guns", the smokescreen has worked and they're happy as clams. "Oh, you just want to ban a certain type of weapon that I don't use anyway, or restrict that weapon to magazines that only hold 10 rounds........OK.....that sounds reasonable". Utter hogwash, and they've already succeeded when you're willing to throw away your own rights, freedoms, and liberties. That Koolaide must be good. Probably the same stuff Jim Jones used.

Bringing up the 2A again... Shocked. How exactly does that fit into issues of land sales?

 

[Trial153]

Bringing up the 2A again... Shocked. How exactly does that fit into issues of land sales?

It doesn't at all. It's a back handed way of saying because I don't care about potential land transfers you all shouldn't and your priorities are screwed up.

 

[tipsntails7]

It doesn't at all. It's a back handed way of saying because I don't KNOW ANYTHING about potential land transfers you all shouldn't and your priorities are screwed up.

Fixed it for you

 

[Trial153]

The push back from hunters that either don't care about this issue or are in agreement with the potential transfers has been my sorest point in this whole thing. I expect to get sold out by politicians, its a given. However I didnt expect hunters to sell out each other out of greed and ignorance unfortunately that is what I am seeing.

 

[woods89]

Not singling you out, 5mb. I live in the Ozarks and I'm talking about my experience with the people I come in contact with on a day to day basis.
Obviously we have our differences on some subjects. But does that mean that someone who tries to live by his Bible becomes a " gay propagandist"? I'm not offended, but it does seem that the internet gives us some false perceptions at times.
On a different note I slept on a tall Ozarks hardwood ridge under a full moon last night and then did a long scouting loop this morning in a designated wilderness area. My takeaway is that I'm tremendously thankful that solitude is accessible to ordinary people.

 

[-bowfreak-]

Who said anything about "hating" anyone.....well, besides Ski? You sound like the gay propaganda folks. It's OK to hate what someone stands for or does, that doesn't mean that the person is hated.

Here's something I "hate". The idea that it's OK to "infringe" upon our 2nd Amendment rights, just as long as we get to keep some of our guns. The issue here is NOT whether we get to keep some of our guns. The issue is that they are infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Have any of you ever really thought about WHY they want to infringe on the 2nd Amendment? If you think it's to keep Americans safe......just go ahead and keep your heads in the sand. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety. If they REALLY wanted to keep America safe, they would make sure that everyone was armed.......not disarmed. And speaking of safety, boy the Department of Justice is really trying to sell America a bill of "safety" goods with this whole Apple case. Safety at the expense of liberty is never a good option. Yet it's amazing how many so-called Americans are actually upset at Apple for refusing to fold to their unconstitutional demands.

This whole attack on the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with guns.......whatsoever. It has everything to do with whittling away at our rights. But they throw up a good smoke screen, and even have most of you guys fooled. When they can get even conservatives saying that "they aren't coming after our guns", the smokescreen has worked and they're happy as clams. "Oh, you just want to ban a certain type of weapon that I don't use anyway, or restrict that weapon to magazines that only hold 10 rounds........OK.....that sounds reasonable". Utter hogwash, and they've already succeeded when you're willing to throw away your own rights, freedoms, and liberties. That Koolaide must be good. Probably the same stuff Jim Jones used.

You are fighting a losing battle. You have guys that are drawing a line in the sand when it comes to public land. It is obvious they would support Michael Bloomberg as long as he won't transfer public land.

 

[Matt Cashell]

It is obvious they would support Michael Bloomberg as long as he won't transfer public land.

This doesn't seem like a fair assessment, bf.

I would say instead that many hunters have decided public lands are an important issue to consider when deciding who to vote for, and an issue that they will speak up about to any candidate they do support.

 

[2ski]

Who said anything about "hating" anyone.....well, besides Ski? You sound like the gay propaganda folks. It's OK to hate what someone stands for or does, that doesn't mean that the person is hated.

Here's something I "hate". The idea that it's OK to "infringe" upon our 2nd Amendment rights, just as long as we get to keep some of our guns. The issue here is NOT whether we get to keep some of our guns. The issue is that they are infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Have any of you ever really thought about WHY they want to infringe on the 2nd Amendment? If you think it's to keep Americans safe......just go ahead and keep your heads in the sand. It has absolutely nothing to do with safety. If they REALLY wanted to keep America safe, they would make sure that everyone was armed.......not disarmed. And speaking of safety, boy the Department of Justice is really trying to sell America a bill of "safety" goods with this whole Apple case. Safety at the expense of liberty is never a good option. Yet it's amazing how many so-called Americans are actually upset at Apple for refusing to fold to their unconstitutional demands.

This whole attack on the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with guns.......whatsoever. It has everything to do with whittling away at our rights. But they throw up a good smoke screen, and even have most of you guys fooled. When they can get even conservatives saying that "they aren't coming after our guns", the smokescreen has worked and they're happy as clams. "Oh, you just want to ban a certain type of weapon that I don't use anyway, or restrict that weapon to magazines that only hold 10 rounds........OK.....that sounds reasonable". Utter hogwash, and they've already succeeded when you're willing to throw away your own rights, freedoms, and liberties. That Koolaide must be good. Probably the same stuff Jim Jones used.

I could ask you the same question about the kool-aid and your conspiracy theory you have.

Do you think libel and slander are protected by your freedom of speech? Or are there limits? See where I'm going there.

And as far as talking hate, people may not say they hate someone but they spew hateful speech. One can only infer their hate. And if they don't hate they need to rethink how they say what they say. It's a good lesson for all of us and how we conduct ourselves. I get caught up on the MT college sports forums. Some really come off as hating the fans of the other team because of how they talk. It's football and I really don't hate grizzly fans.

 

[5MilesBack]

Bringing up the 2A again... Shocked. How exactly does that fit into issues of land sales?

Are you even reading all the posts or just picking and choosing the ones to attack? Pay attention man. Go back a re-read if you have to.

 

[5MilesBack]

But does that mean that someone who tries to live by his Bible becomes a " gay propagandist"?

Uhhhhh.......no, that would be the opposite of the "gay propagandist".

 

[5MilesBack]

This doesn't seem like a fair assessment, bf.

Actually, I believe it would be a fair assessment. Just as you could replace MB with Donald Trump in that statement and be just as fair on the assessment. I find it funny though that Bloomberg used to call himself a Republican, then Democrat, and now an Independent. And Donald was absolutely a liberal but now somehow calls himself a conservative. I don't think either of them know what the heck they are. So........the only thing you should be gauging them by is their actions leading up to this cluster.

But there is one thing I do believe.......we aren't going to change anyone from who they are. But I am surprised at the number of liberals on here.

 

[airlocksniffer]

But I am surprised at the number of liberals on here.

Crazy there are actually people who don't fit the narrow narrative we are fed in this country. Color me shocked.

 

[5MilesBack]

Crazy there are actually people who don't fit the narrow narrative we are fed in this country. Color me shocked.

That's the problem........people being "fed" a narrative. Ignore everything else in this world and think for yourself.......with logic and reason. Apply it to everything in life, and the big picture will become clearer and clearer as you go. If you're using logic and reason and study history, you'll find that every liberal ideology eventually fails the logic test. I "value" logic and reason, and sometimes you have to dig deep or go further to let it show you the failures.

 

[Trial153]

Actually, I believe it would be a fair assessment. Just as you could replace MB with Donald Trump in that statement and be just as fair on the assessment. I find it funny though that Bloomberg used to call himself a Republican, then Democrat, and now an Independent. And Donald was absolutely a liberal but now somehow calls himself a conservative. I don't think either of them know what the heck they are. So........the only thing you should be gauging them by is their actions leading up to this cluster.

But there is one thing I do believe.......we aren't going to change anyone from who they are. But I am surprised at the number of liberals on here.

This maybe a shock to you but out in the real real world were we produce, achieve, live and struggle to thrive. We tend to value pragmatists over ideologues.

 

[5MilesBack]

This maybe a shock to you but out in the real real world were we produce, achieve, live and struggle to thrive. We tend to value pragmatists over ideologues.

Then you should be FULLY on board with conservative values, not liberal ones.

 

[Trial153]

Then you should be FULLY on board with conservative values, not liberal ones.

Your delusional.

 

[Mike7]

I am tempted to say that a candidate should use this Cruzs deplorable stance on this to line up the sportmans vote. However from the push back and ignorance that I have seen displayed by some hunters on this issue I think it might be counter productive. Honestly I have better responses from my lay friends and colleagues when talking about the issue then some hunters.

Trial 153, clearly not all of us can be as considerate and enlightened as you (as evidenced by your responses), but some of us feel that it is somewhat myopic to make little attempt to see the bigger picture, and actually prefer to be a pragmatist instead of talking about it. I know your perception is that everyone is ignorant if they do not agree with you, but some of us would like to see solutions instead of rhetoric...and some of us believe that all of this is tied together. None of this can be explained by little sound bites. If you listen, many of us actually have life experience with some these issues as opposed to believing everything we are told by the media and political parties. As a free American who has paid his way through work every step of the way in this life, it is important to me that my tax money is used wisely and that my freedoms don't continually get eroded. Certain things are up for debate/compromise, like this land issue for instance, and some things are not up for debate for me, like Constitutional rights. When I hear the word compromise from progressives when it comes to rights, it just means that what they feel is reasonable (however illogical and non-pragmatic) is how things should be. And the bar of what is reasonable just continuously gets moved.

As far as land goes, let's take Nevada for instance. The state has sold a good portion of its original small land allotment since statehood apparently for the railroad, for/to local governments, to other private entities, etc., and in some of these instances it was to generate revenue. Selling/transfering 100% of a relatively tiny amount, is still just a tiny amount. The federal gov't still owns over 85% of the land between Indian Reservations, BLM, USFS, etc. The federal government who manages this land, spends millions of all of our money each year fighting forest fires, managing wild horses, etc. The federal government is huge (and has continually gotten "huger" as my kids might say), bloated, overbearing at times (with little recourse to change this available to the individual), incredibly inefficient, very often misguided, and...beyond broke. But do I want a bunch of federal land transferred? No. Am I willing to look at small transfers where appropriate, selective transfers, exchanges which benefit wildlife as well as hunting access, partial transfers where the feds maintain title but states manage it, etc. Yes. Is this issue important to me? Yes. Is it the most important thing? Not even close right now.

 

[tipsntails7]

Are you even reading all the posts or just picking and choosing the ones to attack? Pay attention man. Go back a re-read if you have to.

If you actually had anything to add to the discussion of land sales then maybe I might feel different, but all I see is you deflecting the topic and spring boarding it into other talking points.

We get it, land sale is not a big issue for you, clearly there are other things that you care far more about then the ability to use public lands. So I ask I again, why are you even still on this thread if you have nothing to add to the topic at hand?

Just because it is not a big issue to you does not make other people who feel differently sheep, or idiots.

Yesterday I went on a quick 5 mile roundabout on BLM land. It was great, just me, not another sole to be seen. That means a hell of a lot to me.

 

[tipsntails7]

Trial 153, clearly not all of us can be as considerate and enlightened as you (as evidenced by your responses), but some of us feel that it is somewhat myopic to make little attempt to see the bigger picture, and actually prefer to be a pragmatist instead of talking about it. I know your perception is that everyone is ignorant if they do not agree with you, but some of us would like to see solutions instead of rhetoric...and some of us believe that all of this is tied together. None of this can be explained by little sound bites. If you listen, many of us actually have life experience with some these issues as opposed to believing everything we are told by the media and political parties. As a free American who has paid his way through work every step of the way in this life, it is important to me that my tax money is used wisely and that my freedoms don't continually get eroded. Certain things are up for debate/compromise, like this land issue for instance, and some things are not up for debate for me, like Constitutional rights. When I hear the word compromise from progressives when it comes to rights, it just means that what they feel is reasonable (however illogical and non-pragmatic) is how things should be. And the bar of what is reasonable just continuously gets moved.

As far as land goes, let's take Nevada for instance. The state has sold a good portion of its original small land allotment since statehood apparently for the railroad, for/to local governments, to other private entities, etc., and in some of these instances it was to generate revenue. Selling/transfering 100% of a relatively tiny amount, is still just a tiny amount. The federal gov't still owns over 85% of the land between Indian Reservations, BLM, USFS, etc. The federal government who manages this land, spends millions of all of our money each year fighting forest fires, managing wild horses, etc. The federal government is huge (and has continually gotten "huger" as my kids might say), bloated, overbearing at times (with little recourse to change this available to the individual), incredibly inefficient, very often misguided, and...beyond broke. But do I want a bunch of federal land transferred? No. Am I willing to look at small transfers where appropriate, selective transfers, exchanges which benefit wildlife as well as hunting access, partial transfers where the feds maintain title but states manage it, etc. Yes. Is this issue important to me? Yes. Is it the most important thing? Not even close right now.

NV. 2,062,000 126,200 6%

I would hardly call 2 million acres a small amount of PUBLIC LAND.

Thank god the Feds own the rest or Nevada would look like an eastern state.

There is not a single example I can think of that land transfer to the state would benefit wildlife much less hunters.
States have much smaller budgets and have much less experience managing for multiple use.