Marc 147 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Found this on another forum http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/16/obama-pushing-shooters-off-public-lands Quote Link to post Share on other sites
longhorn 81 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THIS ASSHOLE STEPPING ON MY DICK! Officials say the administration is concerned about the potential clash between gun owners and encroaching urban populations who like to use same land for hiking and dog walking. "It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," Hunting has been around forever, way before recreational " hiking and dog walking ". FUCK YOU LIBTARDS!!! "social conflict issue", your spending is a social conflict issue and it's killing this country....hunting isn't!! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheDeacon 168 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Well, they said there were "under the radar" gun control works coming out of the fed. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RED333 1,025 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Let a few dog walkers get their dog took by a coyote or big cat, or them or their kids get took by one. Them they will want us back, till then, just hope they dont kick us out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
longhorn 81 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Let a few dog walkers get their dog took by a coyote or big cat, or them or their kids get took by one. Them they will want us back, till then, just hope they dont kick us out. Not necessarily, California, a classic example, is over run with cougars, black bears and coyotes. They don't give a fuck when one takes a dog, cat, woman or child. If they did it would be open season and the predators would be under control. They only take care of the animal after it has killed or attacked a human and the PETA pukes bitch and moan even then. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
physicsnerd 139 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 What pisses me off is the whiny hikers don't realize that they pay $0 dollars for land conservation while we pay an 11% excise tax on guns, ammo and fishing lures. I love to hike, just for the record. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Marc 147 Posted November 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Well, they said there were "under the radar" gun control works coming out of the fed. We need to stay vigilant, stay on top of this BULLSHIT and be a pain in your congressman's ass with phone calls with NO VOTE FOR YOU threats if they don't stop this FUCKING BULLSHIT!!! My representative lost my vote when she voted FOR the last debit limit increase and I made sure that I told her so, she might get a chance to earn my vote again if she does her part to STOP THIS SHIT AND OTHER SHIT LIKE IT!!!! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 What pisses me off is the whiny hikers don't realize that they pay $0 dollars for land conservation while we pay an 11% excise tax on guns, ammo and fishing lures. I love to hike, just for the record. Not just on materials and supplies, but what do you think our Hunting and Fishing licenses pay for? It's like the recreational cyclist who want equal traiffic rights and their own lanes, but pay no registration or taxes to support these projects. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
timy 1,185 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 It's like the recreational cyclist who want equal traiffic rights and their own lanes, but pay no registration or taxes to support these projects. They want equal rights but most don't feel the need to obey traffic laws. Funny how that works. As to Federal land ownership, I think the main problem is that the government owns almost 30% of the land in the country. There's no justifiable reason for this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
yakdung 2,926 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) It appears that Maobama has had a change of heart: http://www.usnews.co...target-practice Looks like a nerve was struck. Yakdung Edited November 17, 2011 by yakdung Quote Link to post Share on other sites
longhorn 81 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 This reminds me of Agenda 21. They keep probing and chipping away a little at a time to see how much they can get away with until their goals are met. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 They'd have to make the penalties very stiff to make it work since most people would completely disregard it anyway and there sure as fuck isn't enough LEO to enforce it here in Nevada. The problem with DC city-dwelling fucktards making rules about places like rural Nevada is that Nevada is a very, very large state and 80% of it is BLM (BTW, it takes 8+ hours to drive to Vegas from Reno if you obey posted speed limits of 65-70 MPH closer to 12 if you go from Vegas to the Oregon border). In Nevada, there isn't a goddamn town or development over every hill like around most big cities and once you get away from Vegas/Henderson and Reno/Carson it gets pretty fucking lonely and dangerous for any city-dwelling neon-spandex-clad libtard fitness-fad-of-the-week trophy-wives to walk their little Fluffy in the vast desert and mountains unarmed and without supplies (most rural NV women would have a weapon with them and the knowledge on how to use it). 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
longhorn 81 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 They'd have to make the penalties very stiff to make it work since most people would completely disregard it anyway and there sure as fuck isn't enough LEO to enforce it here in Nevada. The problem with DC city-dwelling fucktards making rules about places like rural Nevada is that Nevada is a very, very large state and 80% of it is BLM (BTW, it takes 8+ hours to drive to Vegas from Reno if you obey posted speed limits of 65-70 MPH closer to 12 if you go from Vegas to the Oregon border). In Nevada, there isn't a goddamn town or development over every hill like around most big cities and once you get away from Vegas/Henderson and Reno/Carson it gets pretty fucking lonely and dangerous for any city-dwelling neon-spandex-clad libtard fitness-fad-of-the-week trophy-wives to walk their little Fluffy in the vast desert and mountains unarmed and without supplies (most rural NV women would have a weapon with them and the knowledge on how to use it). LMFAO, it's true. I have a couple close to home hunting areas that would have been affected by this law. The spandex clad mountain bikers get very upset seeing me hunting around there and I have had words with them in the past. They don't see me as a hunter who is enjoying his God givin right to hunt, they see me as an armed and dangerous criminal. If gas prices would drop to reasonable levels, I would be inclined to go out beyond city limits, thou I shouldn't have too. Until then fuck em. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fallschirmjager667 729 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 What pisses me off is the whiny hikers don't realize that they pay $0 dollars for land conservation while we pay an 11% excise tax on guns, ammo and fishing lures. I love to hike, just for the record. Not just on materials and supplies, but what do you think our Hunting and Fishing licenses pay for? It's like the recreational cyclist who want equal traiffic rights and their own lanes, but pay no registration or taxes to support these projects. i wish i could just run over those dumb bastards. they can have there own lanes after i jam one of their fucking bikes up their ass 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
yakdung 2,926 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Reminds me of the Feds trying to enforce hunting laws in the backwood swamps of Louisiana. Folks depending on their existence living off of the land could give a shit about the folks in DC. Yakdung Quote Link to post Share on other sites
csspecs 1,987 Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 If their worried about the noise scarring people.. Maybe they should legalize silencers? Just a thought. Firearms are the only thing that are regulated to be loud. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sunnybean 939 Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) As to Federal land ownership, I think the main problem is that the government owns almost 30% of the land in the country. There's no justifiable reason for this. I don't think that the federal government (you/me) owning the land that we do is a bad thing. Can you imagine if it was all private? How many of your favorite shooting, hunting, recreation, etc. areas do you think you would be shut out of? The problem isn't .gov owning all that land. You may have a problem with their management practices, or lack there of, of these lands/resources. But, I don't see how privatizing them would be good for anyone but a developer. The issue is increasingly complex user conflict. Having some jackass buy his trophy home surrounded on three sides by Forest Service or BLM land that has traditionally been a popular shooting, off-roading, paint balling, etc. area and then getting those activites banned is the issue. People need to understand that these buying land next to federally owned land doesn't mean they get to decide how the adjoining land will or will not be used. Kinda like buying a home next to the football stadium and then bitching that every weekend they can't find a place to park and the noise is intrusive. Edited November 18, 2011 by sunnybean 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Donkeyshins 87 Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 The issue is increasingly complex user conflict. Having some jackass buy his trophy home surrounded on three sides by Forest Service or BLM land that has traditionally been a popular shooting, off-roading, paint balling, etc. area and then getting those activites banned is the issue. People need to understand that these buying land next to federally owned land doesn't mean they get to decide how the adjoining land will or will not be used. Kinda like buying a home next to the football stadium and then bitching that every weekend they can't find a place to park and the noise is intrusive. Or, more salient where I live - buying a trophy home in ag country and complaining about the smell of manure. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
storm6490 2,768 Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 I spent over 200 dollars on hunting tags and permits this year. The hippies paid jack shit to use the land. As a hunter and fisher, I have been conserving and protecting the land and the animals for over 20 years. If you want to see your deer and elk over populate and die or be killed off by wolves, keep stepping on our dicks! The hunters, fishermen, loggers and marksmen are the true conservationists who protect our land. Without generations of guys like us, there would be no funding for education, safety, development and protection of our game. This bullshit wont get far. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sunnybean 939 Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Well, I guess Rehberg is good for more then running boats onto rocks while drunk... http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/23/8981021-feds-bag-idea-of-curbing-target-practice-on-public-lands 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
timy 1,185 Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) As to Federal land ownership, I think the main problem is that the government owns almost 30% of the land in the country. There's no justifiable reason for this. I don't think that the federal government (you/me) owning the land that we do is a bad thing. Can you imagine if it was all private? How many of your favorite shooting, hunting, recreation, etc. areas do you think you would be shut out of? The problem isn't .gov owning all that land. You may have a problem with their management practices, or lack there of, of these lands/resources. But, I don't see how privatizing them would be good for anyone but a developer. The issue is increasingly complex user conflict. Having some jackass buy his trophy home surrounded on three sides by Forest Service or BLM land that has traditionally been a popular shooting, off-roading, paint balling, etc. area and then getting those activites banned is the issue. People need to understand that these buying land next to federally owned land doesn't mean they get to decide how the adjoining land will or will not be used. Kinda like buying a home next to the football stadium and then bitching that every weekend they can't find a place to park and the noise is intrusive. I see what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. As far as I know, the Federal government is not comprised of you/me and like minded individuals. Rather it seems to be occupied mainly by those who lust for power and control over the citizenry at whatever cost. These "people" are more than happy to slowly erode our rights and/or privileges seemingly just because they can. That being the case, I don't trust the government to look after my interests at all. I could also mention the ongoing government trend to ban energy development on all "public" land that oddly enough seems to negatively affect the public interest far more than it helps it but that is a separate, if related argument. Admittedly, I'm in the minority, but none of my recreational activities require access to public land. Rather, I deal with landowners I know or have access to their land to through mutual acquaintances. A bit of a pain getting started, but all it takes is perseverance and respect for the property being used and it isn't an insurmountable problem at all. I've seen how the "public" treat the land they supposedly own and want no part of it, or them, unfortunately. There are far too many fellow citizens that I would refuse to be around if they were in "control" of a firearm, a boat, an off road bike or ATV. The way I see it, if you have to wear Hunter Orange in order to avoid being shot by an alleged hunter who will pull the trigger (repeatedly) because they hear a noise that might actually be a game animal rather than actually confirming a target and what is behind it first then it's time to go elsewhere, in my opinion. I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph but also believe it reinforces my argument. It seems the government is much more willing to restrict the rights of the majority in order to appease the minority no matter how extreme that minority may be. I firmly believe the reason for this is that by pretending to respect the rights of the minority, the government can inexorably restrict the rights of the majority. Bummer. Tim Edited November 26, 2011 by timy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sunnybean 939 Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Timy, I think you might have our congressional representatives and the other civil servants mixed into the same boat. This is probably not a conversation that either of us will sway each other's opinions. I'm happy you have acquired access to private land. Unfortunately, many folks do not have this privilege. In which case, federal land is the only option for recreational opportunities. Our federally held lands hold some of the largest reserves of natural reserves in the world (petroleum, precious metals, water, lumber, grazing, etc.). Although some liberal extremists are doing a damn fine job of locking those up there will come a time when push comes to shove and we will tap them. I can almost guarantee you that I have seen more public land than anyone on this site. These are THE most beautiful and sacred lands in America. I cannot imagine the lose "we the people" would suffer if, for some reason, we lost possession of them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.