Trump jr interview on hunting

[Chad E]

I think Jason Snyder hit the nail on the head in the post above. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Gobbler36]

I'm guessing a considerable portion. Blanket anti-federalism is ubiquitous in the West, and it's a major concern to sportsman. My largest concern is absolutely a public land transfer. A unified Republican house, senate and white house may be a lot of things, but staunch supporter of federal public lands is not one of them. Even if Trump personally supports federal public land (a stance which began to erode over the past month), it's brutally hard to stand up to your own party. It could easily be a bargaining chip to give to the legislative branch in return for support for the major spending bill he wants for infrastructure.

I don't care if you voted Trump or Clinton, I just hope you'll stand and fight for federal public land. It is going to have to be a bipartisan effort. Hunters, anglers, granola-backpackers, birdwatchers, day hikers...a coalition exists if we can set aside cultural differences. When the land becomes managed by the states, we can kiss it goodbye.



Right on the money.

----

Disclaimer: this post concerns a single issue - federal public land.

Yes I have noticed this since moving out here that a large population of folks want this to happen just to seemingly spite the federal government and have no idea on the major issues surrounding this topic... all they have to say is those damn Feds can't tell us what to do back in DC which isn't even close to the truth.

 

[airlocksniffer]

I have always believed in those that stand up for what they believe in, and some day I might join you but I see no clear and imminent danger at this point.

Perhaps that day is today. Even though this bill has been sitting in Congress for a year, now we have an emboldened Republican congress getting the ball rolling on federal land transfer bills. This bill gets a hearing today:

https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr1484/BILLS-114hr1484ih.xml

Anybody who thinks the 2A would have been more at risk under Clinton than public lands under Trump is smoking some stuff I do not want to partake in.

 

[rokslideguy]

Nailed it. Just joined, and am glad to hear an (intelligent) voice in the wilderness, so to speak. Quality access is everything now. We are headed toward a system of no DIY -- only money. If it goes long enough we may be like Europeans, sitting on the sidelines watching the fox hunts and the released bird hunts. In this emergency, we need to become one issue, and one issue only. If you are going to pay someone to guide you by the hand on a private ranch, then why care, huh.

 

[JWP58]

Anybody who thinks the 2A would have been more at risk under Clinton than public lands under Trump is smoking some stuff I do not want to partake in.

There was more than just the 2a on the line if Clinton would've been elected. The country might have been completely lost to the social justice warrior commies that are currently throwing temper tantrums as I type this over Trump winning the election.

And yes if hilldog had the chance to appoint extreme liberal justices the right to own firearms would be the first thing to go, don't kid yourself.

 

[blicero]

Obama was President for 8 years but somehow I still own all the same guns I started with. What gives?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shrek]

Obama was President for 8 years but somehow I still own all the same guns I started with. What gives?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's due to the Supreme Court makeup. If Obama had been able to replace Scalia with Garrick then the 2a would have been rendered meaningless. The lefts position is that the 2a only applies to state militia and since there are no longer any state militia the 2a is irrelevant. A democratic congress and president would quickly end private firearm ownership if the court was friendly to their argument.

 

[JWP58]

Obama was President for 8 years but somehow I still own all the same guns I started with. What gives?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get that you don't comprehend that the 45th president will nominate multiple Supreme Court Justices, but it's fact. Stacking the court with more Sotomayor's and Ginsburg's is how firearm ownership would become a memory.

 

[blicero]

I get that you don't comprehend that the 45th president will nominate multiple Supreme Court Justices, but it's fact. Stacking the court with more Sotomayor's and Ginsburg's is how firearm ownership would become a memory.

Insult all you want. I just pointed out how I've been hearing for decades now about how the Democrats are coming any minute to take all my guns, but here they are. Instead, Republicans are coming to steal my public lands, so I guess I'll have less use for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shrek]

Insult all you want. I just pointed out how I've been hearing for decades now about how the Democrats are coming any minute to take all my guns, but here they are. Instead, Republicans are coming to steal my public lands, so I guess I'll have less use for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok , you're either a disingenuous troll or stupid.

 

[blicero]

Ok , you're either a disingenuous troll or stupid.

I'm a troll because I still own guns?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shrek]

I'm a troll because I still own guns?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Troll it is then.

 

[tipsntails7]

This thread is about land... not the 2a, and it's exhausting every single time that it's brought up, without fail in a discussion that has nothing to do with it.
Also Supreme Court can't just go around overruling and re ruling itself whenever it wants. And an amendment to the constitution is again, a large undertaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blicero]

Well, Shrek thinks we should roll over and embrace the States attempt to placate us hunters when they takeover Federal land. I guess he thinks if we're nice to them, we'll get some scraps. Check the Wyoming thread. At least there he gave some actual opinions instead of insults.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

Insult all you want. I just pointed out how I've been hearing for decades now about how the Democrats are coming any minute to take all my guns, but here they are. Instead, Republicans are coming to steal my public lands, so I guess I'll have less use for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't insult you, I pointed out your ignorance. Never before has the left been so radical, and never before has there been an opportunity to change the make up of the supreme court. But keep up the "well I still have them" routine, if that's your prerogative.

 

[JWP58]

This thread is about land... not the 2a, and it's exhausting every single time that it's brought up, without fail in a discussion that has nothing to do with it.
Also Supreme Court can't just go around overruling and re ruling itself whenever it wants. And an amendment to the constitution is again, a large undertaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it is, and the people who usually bring it up assume that only vote republican based off the 2nd amendment, because MSNBC told them it was so. Yes believe it or not, some of us are trendy liberals that demand free shit, so we don't vote democrat. Sometimes people don't vote based on one issue, but based on the big picture.

I don't want to see Federal public land change hands, but I also don't want to see my country turn into even more of a liberal social justice warrior cesspool shithole. Apparently some people are tired of being told they are racist, sexist, bigots, and xenophobes. That's why people voted for Trump, not based off of his public land stance. Well that and because Hillary Clinton is a lying p.o.s.

Contact your representatives and tell them land transfer is a no-go and you'll be triggered by it....#publiclandsaremysafespace


p.s. Supreme Court case law sets precedence, a few cases and interpretations of the 2a and they'll have their way (with a stacked psyco lib court)

 

[Shrek]

This thread is about land... not the 2a, and it's exhausting every single time that it's brought up, without fail in a discussion that has nothing to do with it.
Also Supreme Court can't just go around overruling and re ruling itself whenever it wants. And an amendment to the constitution is again, a large undertaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually the court can go around reversing itself at any time the majority wants to. It's tradition that they don't generally do that but there's nothing stopping them.

 

[tipsntails7]

Yes it is, and the people who usually bring it up assume that only vote republican based off the 2nd amendment, because MSNBC told them it was so. Yes believe it or not, some of us are trendy liberals that demand free shit, so we don't vote democrat. Sometimes people don't vote based on one issue, but based on the big picture.

I don't want to see Federal public land change hands, but I also don't want to see my country turn into even more of a liberal social justice warrior cesspool shithole. Apparently some people are tired of being told they are racist, sexist, bigots, and xenophobes. That's why people voted for Trump, not based off of his public land stance. Well that and because Hillary Clinton is a lying p.o.s.

Contact your representatives and tell them land transfer is a no-go and you'll be triggered by it....#publiclandsaremysafespace

Right.... except this thread is about land transfer... that's it... non of the other stuff you've said applies.

At this point I'm not sure why you are even on this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

Right.... except this thread is about land transfer... that's it... non of the other stuff you've said applies.

At this point I'm not sure why you are even on this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because of: "Obama was President for 8 years but somehow I still own all the same guns I started with. What gives?"

Oh and : "Anybody who thinks the 2A would have been more at risk under Clinton than public lands under Trump is smoking some stuff I do not want to partake in."

Any other questions?

 

[blicero]

Because of: "Obama was President for 8 years but somehow I still own all the same guns I started with. What gives?"

You came onto this thread to talk about 2A because I replied to you talking about 2A on this thread? That's magic.

I see your signature says Native Texan. Do you share Ted Cruz's view that "In Texas, only 2% of land is public and we think that's 2% too much"?