Oprah 2020??

[Ben Lamb]

That could be a bad thing if the GOP controls the house and the senate still.

Trump is an idiot, but at least his sons have a little bug in his ear about public lands.

If Ted "There is too much federal land in Texas" Cruz won the presidency, then we be in real trouble.

The bug is a worm, and it's eating away at our conservation legacy. Those boys haven't done squat for sportsmen or public lands.

We are in real trouble. The UT delegation is now in charge of our public lands. It's why Zinke & Bishop tweet inane stuff out like photos w/ the caption "squad goals."

 

[Hunting Wife]

Picked up her magazine in the doctor’s office waiting room once and was pleasantly surprised to read a really good hunting article in it:
http://www.oprah.com/food/women-and-hunting-kimberly-hisss-humbling-harvest/all

Also saw this article in Field and Stream about her:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/fishing/2010/11/deeter-gets-scoop-oprah-winfrey-trying-her-hand-fly-fishing

I don’t think she’s anti-sportsmen or anti-public lands, though I assume her stance on guns would make her unpalatable to most people on this forum. I still have trouble grasping why people get more worked up about losing a constitutionally protected right than they do about their ability to have and access public lands, which has absolutely zero guaranteed protection of any kind.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That could be a bad thing if the GOP controls the house and the senate still.

We are in a tough spot. It is hugely disappointing to see some in the GOP turn away from the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt. But the Dems are hardly a viable long term solution either. Dem control would largely mean New York City/Chicago/Boston/California governance which will certainly erode hunting and gun rights over time.

There are many reasons to vote Dem or GOP outside of public lands hunting, and I respect we each have our own, but I think some public lands hunters fascination with the Dems will likely be misplaced. Are there any socialist countries that have robust and protected public land hunting? Is it guaranteed that hunting and/or private gun ownership will survive the socialization of America? I think it is not so simple as to assume the answer is yes. Public land hunting is the outcome of a personal liberty, private gun rights, strong economy, a reasonable delineation between the "rights" of animals and humans, respect for the american west tradition, and yes, of access to public lands. I don't see a Pelosi/Sanders led America doing great on a lot of these. My preference would be to find a way to re-connect with the GOP, as this recent UT drive would be easier to turn than to expect the actual Dem power brokers on the coasts to change their stripes on these other issues.

 

[Ben Lamb]

We are in a tough spot. It is hugely disappointing to see some in the GOP turn away from the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt. But the Dems are hardly a viable long term solution either. Dem control would largely mean New York City/Chicago/Boston/California governance which will certainly erode hunting and gun rights over time.

There are many reasons to vote Dem or GOP outside of public lands hunting, and I respect we each have our own, but I think some public lands hunters fascination with the Dems will likely be misplaced. Are there any socialist countries that have robust and protected public land hunting? Is it guaranteed that hunting and/or private gun ownership will survive the socialization of America? I think it is not so simple as to assume the answer is yes. Public land hunting is the outcome of a personal liberty, private gun rights, strong economy, a reasonable delineation between the "rights" of animals and humans, respect for the american west tradition, and yes, of access to public lands. I don't see a Pelosi/Sanders led America doing great on a lot of these. My preference would be to find a way to re-connect with the GOP, as this recent UT drive would be easier to turn than to expect the actual Dem power brokers on the coasts to change their stripes on these other issues.

The Scandinavian countries has protected hunting rights. Canada is one of the premier destinations for hunting and is socialized to a degree. New Zealand, Australia offer up fantastic hunting opportunities on public land.crown land while still offering socialized healthcare. The hunting culture of Russia is still robust and is largely egalitarian, etc. You are more likely to have hunting rights curtailed in countries where there is little public land such as England, Germany, Japan (although there is a robust huntng culture in Japan as well, but for the more affluent).

Our right to own firearms can only be removed by removing the second amendment. What we've been sold by the NRA is that unrestricted gun rights are the only interpretation of the second that can stand. That's malarkey, and counter to what even Justice Scalia stood for.

I think it's also important to remember that Colorado is a purple state, as is Nevada, Montana, New Mexico, etc. It's not coastal elites who drive policy, it's generally the centrists who won't go along with the crazy from either side.

 

[Zach]

I just threw up....

Heinrick/Hickenlooper 2020

Now I just threw up a little....

Such an amazing track record of celebrities in office. Reagan, Ventura, Franken, Bono....I'd rather have someone with at least a toe maybe flirting with reality.

And Harpo is wearing flip flops?

 

[schmalts]

Would Gayle be first lady?

 

[jlmatthew]

 

[VikingsGuy]

The Scandinavian countries has protected hunting rights. Canada is one of the premier destinations for hunting and is socialized to a degree. New Zealand, Australia offer up fantastic hunting opportunities on public land.crown land while still offering socialized healthcare. The hunting culture of Russia is still robust and is largely egalitarian, etc. You are more likely to have hunting rights curtailed in countries where there is little public land such as England, Germany, Japan (although there is a robust huntng culture in Japan as well, but for the more affluent).

Our right to own firearms can only be removed by removing the second amendment. What we've been sold by the NRA is that unrestricted gun rights are the only interpretation of the second that can stand. That's malarkey, and counter to what even Justice Scalia stood for.

I think it's also important to remember that Colorado is a purple state, as is Nevada, Montana, New Mexico, etc. It's not coastal elites who drive policy, it's generally the centrists who won't go along with the crazy from either side.

Fair points around Canada and NZ, but while Australia my be a good tourist hunting local its is far from good resident gun rights. As you noted, I was thinking more western Europe.

As for NRA posturing, I am not a fan, but you are kidding yourself if you think the alternative to the current reading of the 2nd amendment is just a slight shift that respects hunting arms but not "scary black rifles". In my experience, 90% of law school professors (and many of the thousands of lawyer and judges trained by those professors) insist that the 2nd amendment affords absolutely no private right, it is entirely an irrelevant right of the states. Legally the question is a first a black and white question - is private gun ownership a protected right. If the answer is Yes, then we have the weighing and balancing as we do for all rights include speech, the process I think you suggest is OK (and to which I agree, balance is usually better than absolutes). But if the answer is No, then there is no constitutional protection and no weighing, it is simply up to legislative whim. We are 1 or two un-elected judges from having ZERO private 2nd amendment rights. Now that doesn't mean guns are taken away at that point, it will just then be left to congress and legislatures - a situation I for one do not trust -- it's analogous to Roe v Wade for the left. (not debating merits of either issue, just pointing out the legal reality)

As for who drives policy the centrist or the wings, I would have agreed with you 20 years ago, but the last decade or so I think (sadly) the opposite is true. We just don't see the Teddy Kennedy or Bob Dole types crossing over to find common ground, and if they do, they are voted out by their own party next primary season.

 

[Zach]

Would Gayle be first lady?

I think that is Steadmans job...

 

[beginnerhunter]

Picked up her magazine in the doctor’s office waiting room once and was pleasantly surprised to read a really good hunting article in it:
http://www.oprah.com/food/women-and-hunting-kimberly-hisss-humbling-harvest/all

Also saw this article in Field and Stream about her:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/fishing/2010/11/deeter-gets-scoop-oprah-winfrey-trying-her-hand-fly-fishing

I don’t think she’s anti-sportsmen or anti-public lands, though I assume her stance on guns would make her unpalatable to most people on this forum. I still have trouble grasping why people get more worked up about losing a constitutionally protected right than they do about their ability to have and access public lands, which has absolutely zero guaranteed protection of any kind.

Thank you for looking that up. It doesn't appear that she is some sort of vegan zealot. I doubt she cares much about gun rights but having a GOP controlled legislative branch and a conservative SC would prevent any serious 2nd amendment threat (until she nominates a new SC justice...).

I'm sold. Oprah it is!!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Fair points around Canada and NZ, but while Australia my be a good tourist hunting local its is far from good resident gun rights. As you noted, I was thinking more western Europe.

Totally agree on the AU gun rights issue. They went over the top, yet they still have a fairly robust hunting culture, even with double-barreled shotguns and bolt/single shot rifles. My point there was only that they have socialized healthcare, etc, yet retain the right to hunt.

As for NRA posturing, I am not a fan, but you are kidding yourself if you think the alternative to the current reading of the 2nd amendment is just a slight shift that respects hunting arms but not "scary black rifles". In my experience, 90% of law school professors (and many of the thousands of lawyer and judges trained by those professors) insist that the 2nd amendment affords absolutely no private right, it is entirely an irrelevant right of the states. Legally the question is a first a black and white question - is private gun ownership a protected right. If the answer is Yes, then we have the weighing and balancing as we do for all rights include speech, the process I think you suggest is OK (and to which I agree, balance is usually better than absolutes). But if the answer is No, then there is no constitutional protection and no weighing, it is simply up to legislative whim. We are 1 or two un-elected judges from having ZERO private 2nd amendment rights. Now that doesn't mean guns are taken away at that point, it will just then be left to congress and legislatures - a situation I for one do not trust -- it's analogous to Roe v Wade for the left. (not debating merits of either issue, just pointing out the legal reality)

It is important to note that the 2nd amendment has been evolving in terms of interpretation for a long time and the new interpretation that the second amendment was for individual rights rather than a "militia." Since the 1960's, that has been changing and now is pretty firmly entrenched as an individual right, to be regulated as other constitutional rights are. I do not share the same concern that we're a couple of justices away from losing the individual right, as I simply don't see justices wanting to re-tread that ground.

As for who drives policy the centrist or the wings, I would have agreed with you 20 years ago, but the last decade or so I think (sadly) the opposite is true. We just don't see the Teddy Kennedy or Bob Dole types crossing over to find common ground, and if they do, they are voted out by their own party next primary season.

Very true. However, I do believe that the kind of compromise that it takes to do good things still exists, as evidenced by the Veterans committee in the senate - passing 10 bills to better treatment of vets and improve the VA.

 

[jlmatthew]

Very true. However, I do believe that the kind of compromise that it takes to do good things still exists, as evidenced by the Veterans committee in the senate - passing 10 bills to better treatment of vets and improve the VA.

When does the treatment of vets at the VA improve cause I'm still waiting?

 

[Ben Lamb]

When does the treatment of vets at the VA improve cause I'm still waiting?

New bill - new fiscal year. Sucks, but that's how the wheels of gov't squeak. It does seem that the VA Secretary and the whole committee are doing the right things though. Trump does deserve credit for appointing Shuklin for that post.

 

[Zach]

I can't believe this is even being contemplated here...

 

[Ben Lamb]

I can't believe this is even being contemplated here...

Zach's always been more of an Ellen fan.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

We could always just toss the whole thing out the window and let The View take over as an oligarchy

 

[Zach]

Zach's always been more of an Ellen fan.

That dude is hilarious.... and can dance...

 

[Addicting]

Zach's always been more of an Ellen fan.

She is going to be the VP! I have to admit, I get quite a few laughs out of her new game show.

 

[Zach]

Ben, this thread has great comedic potential, don't derail that with serious talk about amendments.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, this thread has great comedic potential, don't derail that with serious talk about amendments.

I want to know what the Oprah cabinet looks like.

Sec. of Education: YOUR THIRD GRADE TEACHER FROM 1978!!

Sec. of Transportation: EVERYBODY GETS A NEW CAAAAARRRR!