Biden vs Gun Owners

[3855WIN]

You should not need to be reminded that you are on a hunting and firearms related forum, where you are very likely to be subjected to strong opinions concerning the continuance of both issues ! Just what do you expect to hear here, that we who share these opinions should temper our remarks in order not to ruffle the feathers of those who are not strong 2A advocates ? If my position offends you, I am sorry I have stepped on your ‘slippers’ !

I see you are fairly new around here. Yes, this is a hunting and firearms related forum. But the main emphasis is Public Land and DIY. There are more than a few posters who’ve stated that Public Land is more important to them than gun rights. I’m not arguing that point, just informing you where they come from.
I appreciate your passion on the subject, but let’s keep it between the ditches so that the thread doesn’t get banned. Randy is very pro 2A, but he doesn’t like threads to stray too far from Public Land hunting, especially if we bicker too much.

 

[Bowhunter999]

I see you are fairly new around here. Yes, this is a hunting and firearms related forum. But the main emphasis is Public Land and DIY. There are more than a few posters who’ve stated that Public Land is more important to them than gun rights. I’m not arguing that point, just informing you where they come from.
I appreciate your passion on the subject, but let’s keep it between the ditches so that the thread doesn’t get banned. Randy is very pro 2A, but he doesn’t like threads to stray too far from Public Land hunting, especially if we bicker too much.

I do see your point, and in fact part of my post was deleted as can be seen on page seven, but still remains in the above repeated post which I can not explain. I feel my response was less objectionable than what I responded to, but as I said, you do have point ! However, there is quite a irony in the issue of public land hunting and the possible weakening, or worse, of the 2A. Public land, as far as hunting goes, will have very little purpose to the firearm hunter, both aspects are tightly woven together.

 

[Trial153]

You should not need to be reminded that you are on a hunting and firearms related forum, where you are very likely to be subjected to strong opinions concerning the continuance of both issues ! Just what do you expect to hear here, that we who share these opinions should temper our remarks in order not to ruffle the feathers of those who are not strong 2A advocates ? If my position offends you, I am sorry.........

Since when does strong options equate to false equivalency?
If you going to come on start spouting off drivel about what members votes equate to then expect some push back. We all can do without the overly simplistic bullshit labeling in your posts

 

[VikingsGuy]

I do see your point, and in fact part of my post was deleted as can be seen on page seven, but still remains in the above repeated post which I can not explain. I feel my response was less objectionable than what I responded to, but as I said, you do have point ! However, there is quite a irony in the issue of public land hunting and the possible weakening, or worse, of the 2A. Public land, as far as hunting goes, will have very little purpose to the firearm hunter, both aspects are tightly woven together.

Lots of bow hunters (irony alert) and more relevant, lots of hunters who have no interest in anything more modern or complex than a revolver, double barrel shot gun and old lever action rifle for their hunting and many others that see value in public lands even if they can’t shoot something on them. 2A and public lands may have some overlap, but are very much independent issues.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So you think firearms manufacturers are responsible if someone uses their products in an unlawful way? Just getting clarification

This is based on the same concept of holding tobacco companies liable for how they market their products, not that people use them. Manufacturers are often held to standards, especially if they make things that can have serious health issues, in how they market those items. This stems from the actions taken by big tobacco to deny the science behind lung cancer & other health risks & their attempts to aggressively market harmful products to children.

It's a similar situation that most other industries have to live with but the firearms manufacturers have been able to keep themselves out of this situation due to the influence of NRA lobbyists, etc.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This is based on the same concept of holding tobacco companies liable for how they market their products, not that people use them. Manufacturers are often held to standards, especially if they make things that can have serious health issues, in how they market those items. This stems from the actions taken by big tobacco to deny the science behind lung cancer & other health risks & their attempts to aggressively market harmful products to children.

It's a similar situation that most other industries have to live with but the firearms manufacturers have been able to keep themselves out of this situation due to the influence of NRA lobbyists, etc.

Let's be honest - there is a difference between industries that are held liable for the foreseeable damage caused by their products end use in the normal course, and industries that are targeted with the primary purpose of being run out of business as the protagonists would like to ban outright, but don't have the votes. There is economic litigation and there is political litigation - I object to the later.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Let's be honest - there is a difference between industries that are held liable for the foreseeable damage caused by their products end use in the normal course, and industries that are targeted with the primary purpose of being run out of business as the protagonists would like to ban outright, but don't have the votes. There is economic litigation and there is political litigation - I object to the later.

If we're being honest, then name one other industry that has the kind of special protections in place that the gun industry does. Protectionism isn't capitalism.

I don't like political litigation either, as it's cynical and based on false pretenses, but to completely absolve one industry of liability if they are actually fomenting discord while promoting their products is a serious issue that must be resolved equitably.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If we're being honest, then name one other industry that has the kind of special protections in place that the gun industry does. Protectionism isn't capitalism.

I don't like political litigation either, as it's cynical and based on false pretenses, but to completely absolve one industry of liability if they are actually fomenting discord while promoting their products is a serious issue that must be resolved equitably.

You know I hate chrony capitalism. I would happily join you in co-sponsoring federal legistlation that fixed tort law so it could not be used in place of democratic policy making, and then we could drop the various protections that some industries have needed. Worker's comp, the 9/11 fund, ERISA safe harbor are just a few examples where legislatures have tried to step in a rationalize the abuse.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You know I hate chrony capitalism. I would happily join you in co-sponsoring federal legistlation that fixed tort law so it could not be used in place of democratic policy making, and then we could drop the various protections that some industries have needed. Worker's comp, the 9/11 fund, ERISA safe harbor are just a few examples where legislatures have tried to step in a rationalize the abuse.

I've yet to see tort reform put forward in any form or fashion that favors citizens over corporations. If we can get to a point where it's not just a code-word for avoiding liability by rich execs, I may be more likely to be supportive.

 

[Big Fin]

I didn't have the energy this weekend to go through all the moderation reports related to this thread. I took a second shot of Joe this morning and now feel up to the task.

I've cleared every moderation alert to this thread without a single moderation action.

These threads take the same course every single time. There seems to be nothing that causes folks to categorize or label other opinions as starkly as topics related to 2A. To the point that many folks come across as "snowflakes" in the petty complaints I get about some.

The reality is that 2A threads become political because the politicians have made this issue standard bait for/against the opposing parties. It is a just how our society has sliced and diced a lot of these issues. Given that Hunt Talk is a cross section of society, I accept some of those realities when deciding what moderation to exert, if any, on threads I know will have this same dynamic we see across our bigger society.

For this, and other 2A threads, I offer this. We currently have a 50/50 split in the Senate. For any 2A legislation to pass, we need 60 votes. The reality is that if any 2A bills get through Congress, it will require at least 10 Senate votes from the other party, and most likely more than that due to some who won't walk the party line on 2A. So, before everyone draws the political lines to determine who on Hunt Talk is their friend and who is their enemy, let that reality sink in - there will be no 2A legislation passing the US Senate without a good number of both parties voting in favor of such.

Carry on.... If I continue to get a ton of moderation requests on this thread, I will just close it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I've yet to see tort reform put forward in any form or fashion that favors citizens over corporations. If we can get to a point where it's not just a code-word for avoiding liability by rich execs, I may be more likely to be supportive.

And I have yet to see the Trial Lawyer's lobbyists agree to even the tiniest of compromises - they are more absolutist than the 2A and Roe folks - and they spend a hell of a lot more money making sure they get their way. So if you and I won't solve this pragmatically for the world, then I guess there is no hope

 

[Ben Lamb]

And I have yet to see the Trial Lawyer's lobbyists agree to even the tiniest of compromises - they are more absolutist that the 2A and Roe folks - and they spend a hell of a lot more money making sure they get their way. So if you and I won't solve this pragmatically for the world, then I guess there is no hope

"There's no money to be made in solving the problem." - Lobbyist credo.

 

[MTGomer]

I do wonder how Fudds (defined as anti-gun gun owners, people that use the word ‘but’ after the words ‘I support the 2nd Amendment’) square the circle of considering themselves to be conservationists, while also supporting bans on semi autos and 10+ round mags.

Proud Boy goons fund more conservation than your average upland hunter, let alone a guy like me that fires like 60 center fire rounds a year. Those PR funds aren’t coming from your hike with your ugly dog and your dead palm sized bird or your annual trip to kill a cow elk.
They’re coming from these people we see and kind of avoid that are out in the desert rattling through the mags.

Is there a real plan to replace this money, if gun control is ever enacted?

Reminds me of people that campaign to fully fund LWCF and ban off shore drilling.

 

[AlaskaHunter]

I do wonder how Fudds (defined as anti-gun gun owners, people that use the word ‘but’ after the words ‘I support the 2nd Amendment’) square the circle of considering themselves to be conservationists, while also supporting bans on semi autos and 10+ round mags.

Proud Boy goons fund more conservation than your average upland hunter, let alone a guy like me that fires like 60 center fire rounds a year. Those PR funds aren’t coming from your hike with your ugly dog and your dead palm sized bird or your annual trip to kill a cow elk.
They’re coming from these people we see and kind of avoid that are out in the desert rattling through the mags.

Is there a real plan to replace this money, if gun control is ever enacted?

Reminds me of people that campaign to fully fund LWCF and ban off shore drilling.

Fudd = casual gun owner, primarily owns firearms for hunting.
Owns 2-3 shot shotguns and 3-4 shot bolt-action hunting rifles, 44 magnum revolver...no high capacity magazines.
Has no interest in other types of firearms, especially high capacity magazines, machine guns, etc.
Derived from the cartoon character Elmer Fudd.

PR funds = Pittman Roberson funds derived from 11% excise tax on firearms, ammo, etc. so they do come from ammo sales to kill that bird or cow elk.

I am a "Fudd". All my hunting partners are "Fudds".

 

[Cogreeny]

generally when I think of a fudd^^^^

 

[Ben Lamb]

I do wonder how Fudds (defined as anti-gun gun owners, people that use the word ‘but’ after the words ‘I support the 2nd Amendment’) square the circle of considering themselves to be conservationists, while also supporting bans on semi autos and 10+ round mags.

Proud Boy goons fund more conservation than your average upland hunter, let alone a guy like me that fires like 60 center fire rounds a year. Those PR funds aren’t coming from your hike with your ugly dog and your dead palm sized bird or your annual trip to kill a cow elk.
They’re coming from these people we see and kind of avoid that are out in the desert rattling through the mags.

Is there a real plan to replace this money, if gun control is ever enacted?

Reminds me of people that campaign to fully fund LWCF and ban off shore drilling.

Pretty critical point on PR funding. Those tacti-cool dorks are putting millions into PR. But I also think it's silly to compare the two, because the upland hunter spends money on ammo, gear, licenses, etc as well that funnels into conservation work, as well as their general tax burden. In fact, I would wager that as a group, hunters fund far more conservation work that your basic Chad in 5.11 pants.

People tend to forget the racist roots in modern gun control as well (Reagan's gun ban in CA was directly in response to Black Panthers arming up and patroling the streets of Oakland, for example).

I do believe that the second amendment, like all of our constitutional rights, is subject to reasonable regulation. I follow former Justice Antonin Scalia's take on this. I also believe that we do ourselves a massive disservice to think that we can't add more funding to conservation, or that gun owners are some benighted group because of a law that was passed 80 some odd years ago, and would never pass in today's political climate.

But remember as well that funding sources can change, and with LWCF, I think it's inherently short-sighted to tie it to the original funding source as you simply set up a battle in the coming years to find a new source for funding once the oil isn't profitable enough to develop.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Proud Boy goons fund more conservation than your average upland hunter, let alone a guy like me that fires like 60 center fire rounds a year. Those PR funds aren’t coming from your hike with your ugly dog and your dead palm sized bird or your annual trip to kill a cow elk.
They’re coming from these people we see and kind of avoid that are out in the desert rattling through the mags.

Is there a real plan to replace this money, if gun control is ever enacted?

Reminds me of people that campaign to fully fund LWCF and ban off shore drilling.

Total Conservation Spending = approx. $21B
Total PR Funds = approx. $0.8B
Total PR Funds by "hunting" related purchases = $0.12B
Total PR Funds by "non-hunting" = $0.68B

The Nature Conservancy alone spends more per year than the entire PR funding. So the real answer is that firearms of any type are a drop in the conservation bucket. Hence, maybe we should listen more to those bird watchers, family campers and e-bikers than to the Proud Boys.

 

[TheJason]

Pretty critical point on PR funding. Those tacti-cool dorks are putting millions into PR. But I also think it's silly to compare the two, because the upland hunter spends money on ammo, gear, licenses, etc as well that funnels into conservation work, as well as their general tax burden. In fact, I would wager that as a group, hunters fund far more conservation work that your basic Chad in 5.11 pants.

Tactical Chad will still be shooting up dryers, he’ll just have to load his magazines more often if it ever comes to that.

 

[MTGomer]

I am a "Fudd". All my hunting partners are "Fudds".

Before you edited your post you asked me what a ‘Fudd’ was. I think the post of mine that you quoted had what I meant, in parenthesis, immediately after the word ‘Fudd’.

I own and shoot about as many guns as you say you and your friends do. We don’t contribute much to PR.

There are hundreds of people in the Arizona, Nevada and Utah desert right now that have blown through more ammo since my last comment than you or I will in the next year.

 

[TheJason]

Total Conservation Spending = approx. $21B
Total PR Funds = approx. $0.8B
Total PR Funds by "hunting" related purchases = $0.12B
Total PR Funds by "non-hunting" = $0.68B

The Nature Conservancy alone spends more per year than the entire PR funding. So the real answer is that firearms of any type are a drop in the conservation bucket. Hence, maybe we should listen more to those bird watchers, family campers and e-bikers than to the Proud Boys.

Any sort of REI tax would quickly make tactical Chad irrelevant in terms of conservation funding.