Question: Bigger issue for sportsman

Which do you see as the bigger issue for sportsman?

Issues such as from Kevin's thread about "U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (D- CA) toppled Representative John Dingell (D- MI) as Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee." which raises concerns about 2nd amendment / increased gun control.


Or do you see it from standpoint of loss / damage to our wild places? Such as this article: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/georg...gislation.html

I apologize, I first saw it in Newsweek but couldn't find the article back when I had time to post here.

The threat to my right to keep and bear arms is much more important. I love to hunt, but I have firearms for other reasons as well, mainly personal security. Sad part is that most of the tree huggers are also anti gun.

There are very few things more important to me than the 2nd amendment.

I live in a small metropolitan area; around 100,000 in 3 adjoining cities. Our crime rate is about average for a town our size.

I have never personally felt the need to carry for personal protection. That's not to pretend that threats don't exist and I do not think more or less of someone in another area who feels otherwise. I feel it is our right.

That said, I have no problem being required to jump through a few hoops to buy or own a gun. I acknowledge that no gun regulation will keep a gun out of the hands of all criminals nor prevent all violence. I do, however believe that some "crimes of passion" occur that may not have occurred if it were a little more difficult to get your hands on a gun. The red tape required is a little like standing in line to be frisked in an airport ... it won't eliminate all danger but if it helps a little, it's what I need to do.

I don't believe our right to hunt is in jeopardy. Having been active in politics (serving on platform committees of the Democrat party at the district and state levels) during the later 60's and early 70's ..... the most liberal of times for the party in my memory ..... I know that, even during those times there has NEVER been a critical mass interested in banning hunting. Those few extremists who were, were never taken seriously.

I think the loss of habitat and available hunting grounds poses a far greater threat to hunting than any possible loss of guns simply because the incentives, financial and otherwise, for business interests to invade the wilderness are far greater than the incentives to take away our guns. And, as we all know, money talks.

JMO

JS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brian breuer

Which do you see as the bigger issue for sportsman?

Issues such as from Kevin's thread about "U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (D- CA) toppled Representative John Dingell (D- MI) as Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee." which raises concerns about 2nd amendment / increased gun control.


Or do you see it from standpoint of loss / damage to our wild places? Such as this article: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/georg...gislation.html

I apologize, I first saw it in Newsweek but couldn't find the article back when I had time to post here.

---

I'm confused, what part of that article talks about us losing our "wild places"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JS

I don't believe our right to hunt is in jeopardy. Having been active in politics (serving on platform committees of the Democrat party at the district and state levels) during the later 60's and early 70's ..... the most liberal of times for the party in my memory ..... I know that, even during those times there has NEVER been a critical mass interested in banning hunting. Those few extremists who were, were never taken seriously.

---

Groups like the HSUS are MUCH more mainstream now than they have ever been before. If you seriously think that the 70's liberalism is even remotely comparable to todays then you are really ignoring what is going on behind the scenes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JS

I think the loss of habitat and available hunting grounds poses a far greater threat to hunting than any possible loss of guns simply because the incentives, financial and otherwise, for business interests to invade the wilderness are far greater than the incentives to take away our guns. And, as we all know, money talks.
JS

---

I do agree with this to some extent but at least realize/acknowledge that the anti groups are trying to eliminate hunting opportunities by closing public lands.
The thing that many folks think is that a single bill will suddenly try to take away guns or hunting all together. Thats not at all how it works they increase prices on ammo and/or guns to the point that they aren't affordable for most people. They close this hunting area then that hunting area. People can't find places to go or afford guns to hunt with and the in 20 years the hunting population is at such low numbers that they don't have the power to prevent the legislation and the rest of the world just doens't really care enough to learn about it and bam, it's all gone.

No one aspect of the shooting sports has enough support to stand on it's own. If handgun competitors are taken out of the game, we are playing with a smaller base. Same goes for those who like to shoot military style weapons, or trappers. The more players they can take out on our side the more disproportional their advantage is. Thats how we will be beaten. First will be the assault style, then 50 caliber, then handguns, then different styles of hunting weapons. Finally we wont have enough support to keep our shotguns and hunting rifles.

Exactly. We will be incrementally disarmed. Divide and conquer still works to this day.

Hunters don't care about "assault weapons". Rifle shooters don't care about handguns. etc etc, etc,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achiro

Groups like the HSUS are MUCH more mainstream now than they have ever been before. If you seriously think that the 70's liberalism is even remotely comparable to todays then you are really ignoring what is going on behind the scenes.

---

So tell me what you were doing in the 70's that leads you to this conclusion? And what "behind the scenes" intel are you privy to today that the rest of us are not?

I understand the HSUS and others have an agenda and are well funded, but they are FAR from mainstream.

Quote:

---

I do agree with this to some extent but at least realize/acknowledge that the anti groups are trying to eliminate hunting opportunities by closing public lands.

---

Yes, closing public lands is to the liking of the "anti" groups for obvious reasons. But it does not follow that these "anti" groups alone are or can be successful in closing public lands. Or that all closings of public lands is due to their efforts. There are many more reasons public land might be closed. Just like game management may impose lower limits on hunters. Doesn't mean they are against us hunting. Might be good game management.

And don't forget land development, mining, drilling, land development, farming methods that leave no natural habitat, land develpoment, and on and on. ALL OF THESE ARE IMPORTANT but nevertheless have an impact on hunting.

Quote:

---

The thing that many folks think is that a single bill will suddenly try to take away guns or hunting all together. Thats not at all how it works they increase prices on ammo and/or guns to the point that they aren't affordable for most people. They close this hunting area then that hunting area. People can't find places to go or afford guns to hunt with and the in 20 years the hunting population is at such low numbers that they don't have the power to prevent the legislation and the rest of the world just doens't really care enough to learn about it and bam, it's all gone.

---

I understand the slippery slope thinking and it should not be not dismissed out of hand.

I also understand that HSUS, PETA, et al should not be taken lightly.

But the question posed was which is the larger issue for us? It doesn't take much to debunk the real motives of these groups and when push comes to shove, in the minds of most rational citizens (even the liberals) they will lose the debate.

JMO

JS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by achiro

I'm confused, what part of that article talks about us losing our "wild places"?

---

What part of damage didn't you understand in my original statement?

Never mind Russ. You also stated a while back that oil production has no noticeable impact on wildlife. I can't have a discussion with that mentality.

Brian