A thought about public land transfer

[kenton]

I haven't posted anything about the transfer of public lands because there are numerous people here who have much more knowledge on the subject than I do. Frankly, most hunters in my area haven't even heard that this is an issue as they are mainly "only hunt a few days during gun season" guys. This weekend, I was talking with a buddy and telling him about what this could/would mean for many hunters in the country. While talking to him, I was finally able to flesh out a thought I've had since I first learned of all this non-sense: This is the next step on the gun control agenda!

If I was trying to get rid of as many guns as possible, my first step would be to simply try and outlaw the firearms themselves. They've tried and failed. The next step would be to attack the ammunition. They know this won't work either, even though the rumor of ammo tax increase was more damaging (in the short term) than additional tax would have been. The next opportunity would be to go after the reasons to own firearms in the first place. I see three reasons to own firearms. 1) personal protection - they can't do much here, it is our right to be able to protect ourselves. 2) historical collection - doesn't make sense to go after a very small number of generally unused guns. 3) hunting - this is their best shot because hunting isn't a right, it is a privilege.

If we can connect those dots, we need one more. How to oppose hunting while not looking like we oppose hunting? Go after the land that is hunted. BigFin always says that access is the biggest reason why people stop hunting, I don't think its a big stretch to think that gun ownership follows the same trend. They can't go after private land because it brings in all landowners to the fight, so they are after the public land. This allows all the politicians in the east to tell their anti-gun constituents they are helping them without being on the record as anti-gun.

I'm not sure if this has been thought of but it was a thought that has been eating at me for a while. It really doesn't seem far-fetched to me but I wanted to ask everyone if this makes sense or am I missing something and way off base? Thanks.

 

[Big Sky Dreamin]

This is not an issue that is being driven by left leaning gun control advocates. It is an issue coming from politicians that the NRA already owns. Plus, the "tree huggers" would come unhinged if the left were attempting to sell off all this "pristine" public lands. I believe your theory is bunk, just an attempt on your behalf to not hold your politicians responsible for not defending public lands, and for you to continue supporting those that do not have your best interests in mind. This issue is being pushed by the far right hoping to put billions more American assets into the private hands of friends, family, and big business public be damned. You need to educate yourself as to where this issue is coming from. Please go listen to Randy's podcasts to help yourself find better information. Also, see where your reps were on LWCF funding. Please do this before your next encounter with someone you may influence.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I don't know that it's a thought out strategy per se, since its the gun - loving side of the aisle giving public lands the shaft, but it certainly lays some worrisome groundwork.

Years ago, I heard an insightful outburst over dinner from someone I admire and respect deeply. "They can't take your guns away, dummies! What they'll do first is take away the places you can use your guns! " This was years ago, and I know I didn't fully get it at the time. But it has stuck with me and I can't help but think the old fart was right, and we are watching it happen before our eyes. It isn't coming from where he expected, but end result would be the same.

 

[Gr8bawana]

This is not an issue that is being driven by left leaning gun control advocates. It is an issue coming from politicians that the NRA already owns. Plus, the "tree huggers" would come unhinged if the left were attempting to sell off all this "pristine" public lands. I believe your theory is bunk, just an attempt on your behalf to not hold your politicians responsible for not defending public lands, and for you to continue supporting those that do not have your best interests in mind. This issue is being pushed by the far right hoping to put billions more American assets into the private hands of friends, family, and big business public be damned. You need to educate yourself as to where this issue is coming from. Please go listen to Randy's podcasts to help yourself find better information. Also, see where your reps were on LWCF funding. Please do this before your next encounter with someone you may influence.

^^^This^^^

 

[RockyDog]

Kenton - i think you have pointed out the huge hypocrisy of the gun rights advocates. The people who are pushing for the privatization and the transfer of public lands are REPUBLICANS and TEA PARTIERS. These same politicians are getting the support of the NRA and 2nd amendment crowd. It baffles me!

 

[BuzzH]

It doesn't baffle me at all.

The Republicans and Tea Partiers only "care" about gun rights when there's something in it for them....mainly reelection and campaign contributions. Do they really "care" about your right to own a firearm? I doubt it.

The average politician doesn't give a chit about anything but money. The constitution, gun rights, abortion issue, etc. etc. all make great news snippets, talking points, and "outrage"...but the reality is, its all a rouse to pander to their big dollar donors.

Their ethics, morals, and opinions on any issue, are bought and sold like any other commodity. The facts surrounding the issue and/or ramifications to the Average US Citizen on their positions, they don't really seem to matter.

Before NHY busts my chops, its the same on both sides of the aisle, just happens to be the R's that are taking stupid to places its never been before regarding the public land transfer.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It doesn't baffle me at all.

The Republicans and Tea Partiers only "care" about gun rights when there's something in it for them....mainly reelection and campaign contributions. Do they really "care" about your right to own a firearm? I doubt it.

The average politician doesn't give a chit about anything but money. The constitution, gun rights, abortion issue, etc. etc. all make great news snippets, talking points, and "outrage"...but the reality is, its all a rouse to pander to their big dollar donors.

Their ethics, morals, and opinions on any issue, are bought and sold like any other commodity. The facts surrounding the issue and/or ramifications to the Average US Citizen on their positions, they don't really seem to matter.

Before NHY busts my chops, its the same on both sides of the aisle, just happens to be the R's that are taking stupid to places its never been before regarding the public land transfer.

This.

I can count on my hands and toes the politicians who actually give a rip about people.

 

[idi1796]

Kenton, as stated above, please listen to Randy's podcast on the topic and please educate yourself on the facts. This is an attack from the right not the left. You will be appalled by what you find out once you really start to dive into the research. Those who would sell our lands to the highest bidder have spun such a web of lies it can be easy to see why the casual hunter, like the person you spoke to, could get all turned around in this mess. But please make sure you are spreading correct info, you only help those nuts by spreading the wrong info.

 

[kenton]

I should not have used the word "agenda" as it certainly implies an intentionallity to the actions, sorry. I absolutely know that this is a money driven issue but it doesn't change what the potential and likely outcomes are: less public hunters, less hunters, less firearms. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, its a duck regardless of who is initiating the stupid idea.

I appreciate the responses but I have to take offense to this:

, just an attempt on your behalf to not hold your politicians responsible for not defending public lands, and for you to continue supporting those that do not have your best interests in mind.

How in the world am I trying to not hold politicians responsible? If you vote no on gun control just because the NRA is paying you, you don't have sportsman interest in mind. If the same politician votes to sell federal land they clearly only have money in mind. In what way is this letting anybody off the hook? If anything it makes it even easier to see who is with hunters and who isn't. In my original post, I never said anything about democrats vs republicans, left vs right, conservative vs liberal, or anything like that. Just because its coming from republicans doesn't mean it won't end in few firearms.

 

[James Riley]

Stepping back from the Rep/Dem of this, I would just like to comment on a Second Amendment/Public Lands nexus that I perceive. Aldo Leopold once asked, rhetorically, something like "Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map?" My interpretation is this: How free are you if you don't have a place to be free in?

Our eastern kin have, at least ostensibly, and legally, all the same freedoms that we have out west. But really, who can seriously argue that they are as free as we are? Especially when state and local laws are added into the mix. They may have some freedoms that we don't have, and there is the old distinction between *freedom to* and *freedom from*, but when it boils down to it, we are indeed freer out here than they are back there.

Now, when I look at the history of *successful* revolutions, insurgencies, defenses, guerrilla warfare, etc. I can't think of a single one that was not backed up by vast tracks of desert or forest or jungle or mountains or otherwise sparsely populated "natural" areas. Conversely, the examples of failure of such actions in urban environments are legion.

So, whenever some champion of gun control tells me that me and my M-Forgery won't stand a chance against Uncle Sam and his smart bombs, drones, tech, and Tier One Operators coming through my bathroom window, I have to remind them: 1. of the Founding Fathers, the Viet Cong, the Mujaheddin, ISIS and I don't know how many others who stood up to the then-most-powerful-nations on Earth; 2. I am not alone, and 3. As long as I have a place to go to and fight from, or to hide my loved ones, then I can at least make the enemy think.

When it comes to selling off public lands, *thinking* may be exactly what some enemies are doing. And they are using useful idiots on the right to accomplish their goals. Who cares what side is moving in the wrong direction? It's the direction that sucks.

I propose a New Amendment to the Constitution for inclusion in the Bill of Rights. Something to the effect that, to the extent possible, in order to provide a substantial credible threat to assholes, and in support of the First and Second Amendments, 50% of the land mass of each state shall be retained in an "untrammeled" condition.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see war brought to our wilderness. Hmmm. Sell it off, subdivide it for ranches for the 1% where they can be protected from the great unwashed on their rural estates when the shit goes down? Or bring war to it when they try to round us up? Decisions decisions.

 

[Big Sky Dreamin]

I was finally able to flesh out a thought I've had since I first learned of all this non-sense: This is the next step on the gun control agenda!

It is this statement and a few of the sentences that follow that conveys a message to me that you are accusing the left of crafting this idea because they have failed elsewhere to outlaw firearms and you believe the right are just sheep being led along.

Since Ohio generally sends republicans to office in Washington, 12 Republicans compared to 5 Democrats sent to DC, plus one vacant Representative seat. This is where I get the idea from your writing that you are struggling to hold your reps responsible and are trying to deflect blame to the left. I see Ohio as a right leaning state and this idea has been clearly pushed by the right.

Although there are a few on the left that are weak on public lands, I'm talking about you Rep Colin Petersen from MN, if you look at the recent votes most on the left were in support of continued funding of LWCF. It wasn't until the reps on the right got pressure from constituents that they began to change their tunes and providing their support.

If you are offended by my interpretation of your writing, so be it. Once you put your words to paper you lose control of how those thoughts are understood by others. If you're so offended figure out how to convey your thoughts more succinctly so the rest of us won't misunderstand your meaning, this is your responsibility as the writer.

I re-read your post and it still conveyed to me that you are trying to find a way to pin this on the left since the left is generally associated with the "gun control agenda" crowd. I think you're main idea is wrong, it could be a by product at best. It is possible that a few on the left would support this idea in the hopes that it would reduce gun ownership. But, I think that number is minuscule and not likely anything one of the left would waste time and energy pushing. Therefore I still suggest that, if you haven't already, contact your reps to hold them accountable for their record and find a way to better convey your idea so it is not easily interpreted as a left vs. right thing if that is what you are truly suggesting.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Who cares what side is moving in the wrong direction? It's the direction that sucks.

Arguing about who is pushing which agenda is missing the point I think kenton was trying to make. However it comes about, the scenario of concern looks like:

Less public land --> fewer hunters --> fewer supporters/reduced "justification" for Second Amendment --> loss of Second Amendment.

Any actual thoughts on this?

 

[James Riley]

Arguing about who is pushing which agenda is missing the point I think kenton was trying to make. However it comes about, the scenario of concern looks like:

Less public land --> fewer hunters --> fewer supporters/reduced "justification" for Second Amendment --> loss of Second Amendment.

Any actual thoughts on this?

I hate to see the Second Amendment tied to hunting in any fashion. I can, however, see how it's effectiveness is enhanced by, if not tied to public land (as we understand it out west). I wonder how worried I should be about a bunch of folks who's only interest in the Second Amendment is in ensuring their hunting privileges. But yeah, I guess their is an ancillary benefit and I can see his point.

 

[Big Sky Dreamin]

Arguing about who is pushing which agenda is missing the point I think kenton was trying to make. However it comes about, the scenario of concern looks like:

Less public land --> fewer hunters --> fewer supporters/reduced "justification" for Second Amendment --> loss of Second Amendment.

Any actual thoughts on this?

To your question. Yes, whether one believes the second amendment is about hunting muskets or defensive weapons, they are intertwined and dependent on one another. If we lose either one support for the other will be reduced.

 

[hank4elk]

That's my take on it too.
But then again I'm not an NRA or a big gun guy.
I don't want to be in any extra easy to find data bases.
Call me an old nam wacko,......but seriously dude,if you think you need that assault rifle or it will save you more power to ya and away from me.
If you need it,it will be too late,IMHO

Now what that has to do with sale of our public lands is still beyond me.
That is just bottom line stupid.
Or you expect a pay off and eff everyone else.

 

[sweetnectar]

Less public land --> fewer hunters --> fewer supporters/reduced "justification" for Second Amendment --> loss of Second Amendment.

I wonder if More federal-->less State controlled land-->anti hunter California Con. NY. NJ. Senetors etc.-->putting a stop to hunting on federal land-->bosses states around and equals less hunting and land use overall-->division of powers in government compromised-->less individual liberties

 

[idi1796]

Personally I just have a hard time making any connection to the "transfer" of public land and second amendment rights being taken away. I love my guns but sometimes feel like the fear mongering about the government taking your guns is a bit excessive. But back to the main and most important point......we as hunters really need to be educating our friends, family and co-workers who may not hunt but still recreate on our public lands about this battle. I feel like, and may be completely off base, hunters and fishermen are the only group starting to organize and voice our opinion on what a wack nut idea a transfer would be. We need to make bikers, campers, hikers etc, left wing right wing sideways wing people, all aware of this battle and come together for this one cause that I feel we can all agree on.

 

[Big Sky Dreamin]

Personally I just have a hard time making any connection to the "transfer" of public land and second amendment rights being taken away. I love my guns but sometimes feel like the fear mongering about the government taking your guns is a bit excessive. But back to the main and most important point......we as hunters really need to be educating our friends, family and co-workers who may not hunt but still recreate on our public lands about this battle. I feel like, and may be completely off base, hunters and fishermen are the only group starting to organize and voice out opinion on what a whack nut idea a transfer would be. We need to make bikers, campers, hikers etc, left wing right wing sideways wing people, all aware of this battle and come together for this one cause that I feel we can all agree on.

^^^^^^
This

 

[hank4elk]

Ditto!
I always also feel these other groups need to pay into a Pittman Robertson fee assessment type deal instead of riding hunter/fishermens backs and then taking over.
You know bird watching lic. ,what good for the goose and all....

 

[Whiptail]

We'll run out of places to hunt long before we run out of guns.