theat
Well-known member
So I'm a fuggin turd now huh, I guess I dont get enough of my entertainment, I mean news from FOX.
Sportsmen get riled about anti-access vote
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
who'd a thunk it?
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.
Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.
Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.
Not everything is about you, I'm flatterted however that you thought I was specifically addressing you with that statement.
1. Reagan was the only conservative you mentioned.
2. Gun control has at its roots always been about keeping minorites from possessing firearms, anyone as old as you should know gun control was a different climate back then and people had a different mindset, (fortunately that is no longer the case), I wouldnt expect you to know that though, probably not much you remember from those days duuude.
I must say though, guys like you, theat, and shoots, really make me want to move to Montana and bring some more conservative votes with me. I can hunt for next to nothing or at least have my future children there so they can hunt for next to nothing, while still living in another state. Preach about how much I do for wildlife and complain about NR's, private land owners, business owners, economics, and everything else I can find sounds exciting. Now just to mail off my resume to MDU and MEAC
Last edited:
Reagan raised taxes, instituted gun control measures and increased the debt. How is that conservative?
At any rate, it has nothing to do with the fact that cutting LWCF funding this much kills jobs and hurts rural economies.
At any rate, it has nothing to do with the fact that cutting LWCF funding this much kills jobs and hurts rural economies.
Mighty,
I don't think any one believes that LWCF will be fully funded in this economic crisis. A haircut is fine, but this cuts the head off. Even with the House increasing LWCF to $90 million last night, it's still a job killer of a bill.
Your opportunity is predicated on habitat. Without the habitat you can't grow game. WIthout Game, access is a moot point.
Habitat = access.
Reagan was a conservative, what he did was called comprimise in democrat controlled congresses, just like Obama is going to have to do. I never said it had anything to do with this lloyd and rhomas went OT. Why doesnt MT just raise NR rates again? Is this not at heart a state issue? You've sold all the combo tags, lets find out what there really worth in the name of conservation of course, because Capitalism is evil, or so I'm told.
I find it ironic you call this a jobs killer, but then how do you feel about the job killing policies you support like so called clean energy? Windmills, etc? there cost to output ratio essentially makes them job killing taxes and fees. Its all politics and spin is it not?
Last edited:
sweetnectar
New member
For some reason I'm not riled up about this cut or any government cut for that matter. Put me down for less taxes and a lot smaller government regardless of what party or person did this or that. And yes, is sucks when your funding goes away for a cause that you work hard at. I get that.
Yes, the idea that clean energy is a jobs killing industry is all politics and spin. Your sentence of cost to output ratios doesn't make any sense, so I can't understand what your point is.
As for a a state issue, no, it's a federal issue and a state issue. Federal lands contain wildlife, federal minerals extraction and clean energy have costs associated with them. Areas like the Pinedale Anticline in WY have seen a 50-60% reduction in Mule deer that is directly attributable to the oil and gas industry's concerted effort to eliminate winter restrictions in drilling.
In Montana, about 30% of the state is public land. 70% of animals harvested come off of that public land. See how federal land management practices impact your hunting and fishing opportunities?
As far as Obama compromising, you should pay better attention. Senate D's and the admin have been overly compromising on several issues.
But then, maybe you're okay with less hunting opportunity so Paris can buy a new handbag.
$15 billion in Oil and Gas subsidies and tax breaks. Those tax breaks and susbsidies, btw, go to a lot of Non-american companies.
Like Royal Dutch Shell
British Petroleum
Encana
etc.
Yes, the idea that clean energy is a jobs killing industry is all politics and spin. Your sentence of cost to output ratios doesn't make any sense, so I can't understand what your point is.
As for a a state issue, no, it's a federal issue and a state issue. Federal lands contain wildlife, federal minerals extraction and clean energy have costs associated with them. Areas like the Pinedale Anticline in WY have seen a 50-60% reduction in Mule deer that is directly attributable to the oil and gas industry's concerted effort to eliminate winter restrictions in drilling.
In Montana, about 30% of the state is public land. 70% of animals harvested come off of that public land. See how federal land management practices impact your hunting and fishing opportunities?
As far as Obama compromising, you should pay better attention. Senate D's and the admin have been overly compromising on several issues.
But then, maybe you're okay with less hunting opportunity so Paris can buy a new handbag.
I'm all for more handouts to those that dont pay any taxes at all arent you??? Class warfare? Really? lol good luck with that tactic. Your all for less oppurtunity when it suits you or in the name of "conservation" funny how often that gets thrown out there. Frankly i dont care what Paris or Huey Lewis or anyone else who pays more in a year in taxes than I or you would in a lifetime. I've paying plenty O-ttention i dont see any real cuts in any of the entitlement program.
But if your suggesting that this is also a real federal issue maybe MT should give back control of there game to the feds as well?
As far as the windmill issue in short it means they're not nor with current technology will they ever be cost efficient, they cost more to get going than they'll ever be worth.
You forgot to call me a communist. Class warfare is when people storm the castle and burn the feudal lord at the stake. What we're talking about is tax policy. It's intellectually disingenuous to call a discussion like this class warfare. It's lazy too.
What the heck does this mean? If I support reduced tags because a resource is in need of management, that's hypocritical?
This makes no sense. The Feds own the land. They manage the land. Feds own offshore minerals, they lease those minerals and decide what to do with the revenue. Game management has been in state hands for a hell of a long time. The only time it reverts back to the feds is when there is an international treaty (waterfowl, migratory birds) or when the states cannot conserve a population and they become threatened and endangered. Other issues revolve around wildlife refuges, but for the most part, those are managed cooperatively with state game managers. As little education related to the history of wildlife management would help reduce your confusion as to who manages what, and why.
Prove it.
rhomas
Banned
Since every gun purchase, ammo purchase, etc. provides funding for wildlife and conservation, any organization that fights to protect those rights is also fighting for the support of conservation.
Also, don't forget that the Democrats controlled Congress for most of the terms of every GOP president that was mentioned above.
Which POTUS' Sect'y of State basically told the UN to stay the hell out of our Country's Constitutionally granted rights........ while Obama's Sect'y of State has agreed to discuss the UN Gun Ban Treaty, and today even 109 Democratic Senators have decided to stand with the GOP to tell Obama, Hillary, Bloomberg, Soros, Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer, Lieberman and the UN to fugetaboutit!!!!!!!!
Also, don't forget that the Democrats controlled Congress for most of the terms of every GOP president that was mentioned above.
Which POTUS' Sect'y of State basically told the UN to stay the hell out of our Country's Constitutionally granted rights........ while Obama's Sect'y of State has agreed to discuss the UN Gun Ban Treaty, and today even 109 Democratic Senators have decided to stand with the GOP to tell Obama, Hillary, Bloomberg, Soros, Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer, Lieberman and the UN to fugetaboutit!!!!!!!!
Its simple politics you tell us this cuts access and is a job killer, someone else will tell us another thing, you cant be 100% honest and neither can they, or you'd both be out on the street.
theat
Well-known member
Brundo, Believe it or not I realize everything is not about me, in fact 99.999999% of things are not about me, but when you quote me in your response to my post and end it by saying "despite what one fuggin turd will probably say." you can possibly understand how I might take that as directed at me. If I am wrong then I am glad I flattered you.
Also you dont know anything about me or my politics other than what I posted above but you sure have no problem lumping me and others on this site into some sort of "bad" group you have created in your head that you want to conteract. Whats up with that? I think that if you will READ my original post again I said I wasn't a fan of Obama, In fact I didn't even vote for him, good chance I won't in the next election either, but that depends on who ends up running against him.
You might want to do a little research on some of those "Rabid, anti-gun, activist supreme court justices" that Obama has appointed. There really is not much in their records to support that statement. They could end up being leftist judges, but they haven't made any decisive anti second amendment rulings yet so I will hold my judgement for the time being.
Here are a couple of FACTS I found quite easily about Sonia Sotomayer---
Sotomayor was thus nominated on November 27, 1991, by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated by John M. Walker, Jr
Over her ten years on the Second Circuit, Sotomayor heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases and wrote about 380 opinions where she was in the majority.[11] The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two[11]—not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years[16] and a typical percentage of reversals.[103]
Sotomayor's circuit court rulings led to her being considered a political centrist by the ABA Journal and other sources and organizations
Over her ten years on the Second Circuit, Sotomayor heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases and wrote about 380 opinions where she was in the majority. The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two —not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years and a typical percentage of reversals
Sotomayor tended to write narrow rulings that relied on close application of the law rather than import general philosophical viewpoints. A Congressional Research Service analysis found that Sotomayor's rulings defied easy ideological categorization, but did show an adherence to precedent, an emphasis on the facts of a case, and an avoidance of overstepping the circuit court's judicial role. Unusually, Sotomayor read through all the supporting documents of cases under review; her lengthy rulings explored every aspect of a case and tended to feature leaden, ungainly prose.
Some of her notable rulings----
In the 2002 decision Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy, which states that "the United States will no longer contribute to separate nongovernmental organizations which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."[127] Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as "the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."
First Amendment rights
In Pappas v. Giuliani (2002), Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ ruling that the New York Police Department could terminate an employee from his desk job who sent racist materials through the mail. Sotomayor argued that the First Amendment protected speech by the employee “away from the office, on [his] own time,” even if that speech was "offensive, hateful, and insulting," and that therefore the employee's First Amendment claim should have gone to trial rather than being dismissed on summary judgment.
Second Amendment rights
Sotomayor was part of the three-judge Second Circuit panel that affirmed the district court's ruling in Maloney v. Cuomo (2009). Maloney was arrested for possession of nunchaku, which are illegal in New York; Maloney argued that this law violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Second Circuit's per curiam opinion noted that the Supreme Court has not, so far, ever held that the Second Amendment is binding against state governments. On the contrary, in Presser v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case from 1886, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." With respect to the Presser v. Illinois precedent, the panel stated that only the Supreme Court has "the prerogative of overruling its own decisions," and the recent Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller (which struck down the district's gun ban as unconstitutional) did "not invalidate this longstanding principle." The panel upheld the lower court's decision dismissing Maloney's challenge to New York's law against possession of nunchaku. On June 2, 2009, a Seventh Circuit panel, including the prominent and heavily cited judges Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, unanimously agreed with Maloney v. Cuomo, citing the case in their decision turning back a challenge to Chicago's gun laws and noting the Supreme Court precedents remain in force until altered by the Supreme Court itself.
Fourth Amendment rights
In N.G. & S.G. ex rel. S.C. v. Connecticut (2004), Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ decision to uphold a series of strip searches of “troubled adolescent girls” in juvenile detention centers. While Sotomayor agreed that some of the strip searches at issue in the case were lawful, she would have held that due to “the severely intrusive nature of strip searches,” they should not be allowed “in the absence of individualized suspicion, of adolescents who have never been charged with a crime.” She argued that an "individualized suspicion" rule was more consistent with Second Circuit precedent than the majority's rule.
In Leventhal v. Knapek (2001), Sotomayor rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge by a U.S. Department of Transportation employee whose employer searched his office computer. She held that, “Even though [the employee] had some expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer, the investigatory searches by the DOT did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights” because here “there were reasonable grounds to believe” that the search would reveal evidence of “work-related misconduct.”
Nothing to rabid or radical that I can find. Same for Kagan other than a paper she wrote during her tenure as Clinton's Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council that lumped the Klu Klux Klan and the NRA into a bad guys organization. During that same time period she co-authored a memo to the President urging him to support a ban on late-term abortions.
Fast and Furious was a big bad idea and a huge screw up but I don't see how an ATF sting operation against illegal gun smuggling is an example of Obama taking away our second amendment rights. He also may or may not have know all the details about the sting, none of us know one way or the other YET.
The point I was trying to make in my first post was that if people want to make educated smart decisions they need to do their own research on the issues and not accept as fact what they hear from a biased newsy or bar room banter. This applies to everyone no matter what their politics are.
Personally I feel that there is very little chance that during my lifetime the government will atempt to take away my guns, but people in the government are currently trying to take away my access, through various means, to the land and wildlife that I cherish.
As far as I am concerned please do move out here to Montana, and bring your opinions with you, we do live in a somewhat free country after all. We need more average guy sportsmen out here, but please don't try and tell us that have lived here longer that we cant have our own opinions on issues that affect us.
Also you dont know anything about me or my politics other than what I posted above but you sure have no problem lumping me and others on this site into some sort of "bad" group you have created in your head that you want to conteract. Whats up with that? I think that if you will READ my original post again I said I wasn't a fan of Obama, In fact I didn't even vote for him, good chance I won't in the next election either, but that depends on who ends up running against him.
You might want to do a little research on some of those "Rabid, anti-gun, activist supreme court justices" that Obama has appointed. There really is not much in their records to support that statement. They could end up being leftist judges, but they haven't made any decisive anti second amendment rulings yet so I will hold my judgement for the time being.
Here are a couple of FACTS I found quite easily about Sonia Sotomayer---
Sotomayor was thus nominated on November 27, 1991, by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated by John M. Walker, Jr
Over her ten years on the Second Circuit, Sotomayor heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases and wrote about 380 opinions where she was in the majority.[11] The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two[11]—not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years[16] and a typical percentage of reversals.[103]
Sotomayor's circuit court rulings led to her being considered a political centrist by the ABA Journal and other sources and organizations
Over her ten years on the Second Circuit, Sotomayor heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases and wrote about 380 opinions where she was in the majority. The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two —not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years and a typical percentage of reversals
Sotomayor tended to write narrow rulings that relied on close application of the law rather than import general philosophical viewpoints. A Congressional Research Service analysis found that Sotomayor's rulings defied easy ideological categorization, but did show an adherence to precedent, an emphasis on the facts of a case, and an avoidance of overstepping the circuit court's judicial role. Unusually, Sotomayor read through all the supporting documents of cases under review; her lengthy rulings explored every aspect of a case and tended to feature leaden, ungainly prose.
Some of her notable rulings----
In the 2002 decision Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy, which states that "the United States will no longer contribute to separate nongovernmental organizations which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."[127] Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as "the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."
First Amendment rights
In Pappas v. Giuliani (2002), Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ ruling that the New York Police Department could terminate an employee from his desk job who sent racist materials through the mail. Sotomayor argued that the First Amendment protected speech by the employee “away from the office, on [his] own time,” even if that speech was "offensive, hateful, and insulting," and that therefore the employee's First Amendment claim should have gone to trial rather than being dismissed on summary judgment.
Second Amendment rights
Sotomayor was part of the three-judge Second Circuit panel that affirmed the district court's ruling in Maloney v. Cuomo (2009). Maloney was arrested for possession of nunchaku, which are illegal in New York; Maloney argued that this law violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Second Circuit's per curiam opinion noted that the Supreme Court has not, so far, ever held that the Second Amendment is binding against state governments. On the contrary, in Presser v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case from 1886, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." With respect to the Presser v. Illinois precedent, the panel stated that only the Supreme Court has "the prerogative of overruling its own decisions," and the recent Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller (which struck down the district's gun ban as unconstitutional) did "not invalidate this longstanding principle." The panel upheld the lower court's decision dismissing Maloney's challenge to New York's law against possession of nunchaku. On June 2, 2009, a Seventh Circuit panel, including the prominent and heavily cited judges Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, unanimously agreed with Maloney v. Cuomo, citing the case in their decision turning back a challenge to Chicago's gun laws and noting the Supreme Court precedents remain in force until altered by the Supreme Court itself.
Fourth Amendment rights
In N.G. & S.G. ex rel. S.C. v. Connecticut (2004), Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ decision to uphold a series of strip searches of “troubled adolescent girls” in juvenile detention centers. While Sotomayor agreed that some of the strip searches at issue in the case were lawful, she would have held that due to “the severely intrusive nature of strip searches,” they should not be allowed “in the absence of individualized suspicion, of adolescents who have never been charged with a crime.” She argued that an "individualized suspicion" rule was more consistent with Second Circuit precedent than the majority's rule.
In Leventhal v. Knapek (2001), Sotomayor rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge by a U.S. Department of Transportation employee whose employer searched his office computer. She held that, “Even though [the employee] had some expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer, the investigatory searches by the DOT did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights” because here “there were reasonable grounds to believe” that the search would reveal evidence of “work-related misconduct.”
Nothing to rabid or radical that I can find. Same for Kagan other than a paper she wrote during her tenure as Clinton's Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council that lumped the Klu Klux Klan and the NRA into a bad guys organization. During that same time period she co-authored a memo to the President urging him to support a ban on late-term abortions.
Fast and Furious was a big bad idea and a huge screw up but I don't see how an ATF sting operation against illegal gun smuggling is an example of Obama taking away our second amendment rights. He also may or may not have know all the details about the sting, none of us know one way or the other YET.
The point I was trying to make in my first post was that if people want to make educated smart decisions they need to do their own research on the issues and not accept as fact what they hear from a biased newsy or bar room banter. This applies to everyone no matter what their politics are.
Personally I feel that there is very little chance that during my lifetime the government will atempt to take away my guns, but people in the government are currently trying to take away my access, through various means, to the land and wildlife that I cherish.
As far as I am concerned please do move out here to Montana, and bring your opinions with you, we do live in a somewhat free country after all. We need more average guy sportsmen out here, but please don't try and tell us that have lived here longer that we cant have our own opinions on issues that affect us.
I dont you know, I can see where'd of thought I was referring to you now, but most certainly I was referring to Lloyd and I apologize for giving you that impression. Nor did I mean to lump you into any group I have an opinion of here, any more than you meant by some how insinuating I have Fox news do my thinking, I try to stay out of politics as much as I can for the mere reason it is so polarizing, I love my country, my freedom and my outdoors time, I also know I have to work for a living to live my passions to the fullest, thats what drives my political views, I dont want people in my pocketbook. All the access in the world doesnt mean anything to me, if I dont have any money after paying the tax man.
As far as Sotomayor, we suspected as much and had every reason to beleive she was an Idealogue, but her stance on Mcdonald v Chicago not long after her appointment gave us more knowledge on her stance than anything you cited prior to her appointment.
Theres a disconnect, I think we can agree upon between on a Wisconsin conservative, republican, democrat or independent and Montana Conservate conservative, republican, democrat or independent. Theres probably circumstances I'd take a Montana democrat over a Wisconsin republican or vice versa.
Last edited:
Maybe when I dont have to pass federal drug inspections and can self medicate like you and llyod I'll take you up on that bud. Cool? Maybe we can get started on those windmill farms and sell there energy then too ehh?
Last edited:
Of course theres money in manufactoring them since different government agencies mandated utilities to have a certain percentage of there power be generated by "renewable" resources, that was never the argument. I'm waiting to hear back from you when you want to start building our wind mill farms.
Similar threads
