Will Bullock Gun Comments Hurt Tester?

[SandyCreek]

(AKA single payer).

No thanks.

 

[MooseCaboose]

Will Trump being investigated for collusion & election finance felonies hurt Rosendale in the election?

The NRA has come after Bullock 3 times, and lost 3 times. I don't think he's too worried about that.

Ben, I was genuinely hoping you would engage in a responsive way.

 

[MooseCaboose]

With the extreme partisan flair, yes... I think Bullock's comments hurt Democrats in a Red State... Be it Tester, Williams, etc.

This is along the lines of what I meant. My impression is Montana outdoorspeople have to nervously balance their support for gun rights (republican strength) with their support for conserving wild places (democrat strength). Candidates from both parties do their best to increase their perceived strengh in the other party's area of strength.

Until these recent comments, Bullock had always positioned himself as an ardent defender of the 2nd amendment (for a Democrat). Tester positions himself similarly. Bullock's comments, so soon after his repeated statements to the contrary during the 2016 election, makes him appear disingenious in the eyes of voters.

My question is whether Bullock's rapid change of course will cause a generalized dimunition in trust in the things Tester on the 2nd Amendment, no matter what Tester actually claims he supports or not.

I think some are misinterpreting my post. Bullock clearly has no intentions of running for the US Senate beacause his latest comments are a total non-starter in Montana. He is obviously angling for the Presidency.

 

[tjones]

While I don’t agree a ban is the answer anyone with kids can/should emphasize. I certainly hope I never have to understand what he went through.

“In the opinion piece, Bullock described feeling ”paralyzed” in the spring of 1994 when he was told his 11-year-old nephew had been shot and killed outside a Butte elementary school.”

 

[okie_hotrod]

Absurd and offensive comment! You know not of what you write.
You have no idea. I gutted it out through cancer ... recovered, hiked 22 miles 10 hours last Sunday across Yellowstone Park. What kind of proud statement can you express about anything you've sacrificed for your country? ... or for any cause outside of yourself?
Semi-auto, military style, high capacity magazine, traditionally used by military and law enforcement, but more popular recently due to elevated levels of testosterone of the wannabe warrior types, those who think it's so cool to quickly deliver maximum firepower downrange or at wildlife prey, and conspiracy theorists.

I respect and appreciate your privilege to express your opinion, and doubt it will be questioned as hypocrisy. I expect the same from you, sbhooper!

The problem is that the AR-15 is not, nor was it ever, used by the military or by law enforcement, they used the M16 or M4 which is functionally different.
I respect your right to have an opinion, as disrespectful and judgemental as it may be, but I think you're WAY out of line making gross generalizations and inflammatory statements about your fellow outdoorsman's motives for owning a particular weapon platform. In my mind, as long as someone is operating that weapon in a safe and legal manner there is no issue. For instance, I built my AR because I wanted a soft recoiling rifle that my nephews and sons, when they get a little older, can shoot and since it's chambered in 300BO its perfect for hunting hogs in thick brush or killing a deer out of a treestand in the woodlot behind the house. None of my reasons for ARs have anything to do with elevated testosterone or conspiracy theories, it's because they fit the bill for what I want in a weapon system. But even if they were just for fun... so? Does one have to justify their reason for owning something that they enjoy and spent their hard earned money on? I think not.
Like I said, I respect that you have a right to your opinion and I don't have to agree with it, but coming across like that just makes you look like a judgemental asshole, something I hope you aren't actually trying to be.

 

[tjones]

No. My son is LEO and on his shift today he had an AR.

 

[Sytes]

Edited: I'll just enjoy this ever evolving thread. Hint 2a and boom...

 

[okie_hotrod]

You're right and I hate that it is that way but I think we as sportsmen should stand together on things that would negatively affect other sportsmen. I'm not a Democrat but I agree with their stance on public lands only because I don't trust states to keep them public. There's a lot I don't agree with Republicans on as well but they're the ones looking out for our God given human liberties, at least more so than mainstream Democrats anyways. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but expressing that opinion comes at a cost, whether it's losing an election or being criticized on a forum by some stranger. A little tact goes a long way with the more polarizing issues.

 

[Straight Arrow]

None of my reasons for ARs have anything to do with elevated testosterone or conspiracy theories, it's because they fit the bill for what I want in a weapon system

. In my humble, "judgemental asshole" opinion you are a refreshing anomaly as an AR owner and have a positive healthy rationale for such reasonable employment of such a firearm. I still contend that the preponderance of "assault rifle" (however you draw firearms functional distinctions) owners more closely fit my "disrespectful and judgemental" description to which you take issue. That is a personal opinion based on monitoring media accounts, reading about ownership and usage, and direct observation personal experiences ... all of which certainly result in a bias which you so rudely label as "disrespectful and judgemental". I do not intend to be disrespectful and I certainly have no authority to be judgemental ... but as you do acknowledge, I have a right to an opinion based on my perspective.

And, BTW, so do Bullock, Rosendale, Tester, and whoever else considers the issue and related ramifications, whether it be for political, personal, or other reasons.

 

[JLS]

The problem is that the AR-15 is not, nor was it ever, used by the military or by law enforcement, they used the M16 or M4 which is functionally different.

There is no functional difference between an M16, M4, and AR15 other than the select fire feature. All three are variants of the original Stoner design. All three operate off of the same gas operated direct impingement system. LE agencies typically carry semi automatic rifles, of which some may actually be an M16 or M4 that has been rendered incapable of burst, or fully automatic fire.

 

[npaden]

I guess my 11 year old son is one of those "maximum firepower, mow-down-trees AR shooters whose testosterone drives them to purchase, build or otherwise acquire the most bizarre military looking firearms and take them afield to deliver shots as quickly and in maximized quantity for the sake of being "cool", masculine, or standing up for their "gun rights"" kind of folks.

He was actually 10 when he shot his first deer with one. I thought he was using it because of the low recoil and the nice adjustable stock that we were able to match up to his length of pull. I've been looking into upgrading to something with a bit more "firepower" like a .243 because the .223 has to have such precise shot placement but I guess I must have been wrong about how much firepower it has. I guess the black color adds some fps to the 60 grain bullet.

 

[okie_hotrod]

I agree that there are SOME people that would fit your description to the "T" but for working class people, such as myself and the vast majority of gun owners, buying a gun requires there be some kind of purpose in mind for that gun because the disposable income is just not always there. For example, in Oklahoma we don't have to worry about grizzlies and black bear are mainly concentrated in just a few counties so taking bear spray to the woods doesn't even register with most people but everyone knows you don't check cows without a rifle because of hogs or coyotes. That's what people I know buy an AR for and I would venture to guess that is the case for a lot of people especially in the South. I'm gonna go one step further and say that odds are that I am not an anomaly but more likely a member of the majority.

I'm not gonna argue your reasons for your opinion because, like you said, that's based your observations but I would encourage you to broaden your information sources. I'm not quite as anti media as a lot of Republicans but I'd be naive to think that all news and media sources are unbiased and truthful all the time.

I should also mention that I did state that your evaluation of all AR owners makes you sound like a judgemental asshole, not that you actually are one. That being said, I think painting everyone with the broad stroke of being a few years removed from cave man status because your experience has been less than ideal quite literally the definition of prejudice. Food for thought my friend

 

[Dan O]

Law Enforcement has been using the AR-15 for years. I bought my own to carry in my patrol car in the 90's. My agency did not start buying them until a few years later. We also had 3 Ruger mini 14 govt model's. These were semi auto or 3 shot burst with the full auto option. For all intents and purposes the 3 shot burst and full auto are of no use for law enforcement.

The AR-15 is a good firearm, accurate and dependable. I've shot high power with it, gophers and praire dogs. Many guys use them for coyotes. You can get them chambered in a lot of different calibers to cover different game. The AR-10 platform handles the 308 class of cartridges. They can be used for big game if a person choses. 5 round magazines are available to meet the F&G reg's some states have.


Lot's of options to enjoy and if it bothers the Guv then that's just a bonus.


Dan

 

[okie_hotrod]

Law Enforcement has been using the AR-15 for years. I bought my own to carry in my patrol car in the 90's. My agency did not start buying them until a few years later. We also had 3 Ruger mini 14 govt model's. These were semi auto or 3 shot burst with the full auto option. For all intents and purposes the 3 shot burst and full auto are of no use for law enforcement.

The AR-15 is a good firearm, accurate and dependable. I've shot high power with it, gophers and praire dogs. Many guys use them for coyotes. You can get them chambered in a lot of different calibers to cover different game. The AR-10 platform handles the 308 class of cartridges. They can be used for big game if a person choses. 5 round magazines are available to meet the F&G reg's some states have.


Lot's of options to enjoy and if it bothers the Guv then that's just a bonus.


Dan

Most LEOs that I've interacted with carry 14" piston M4s which would require a tax stamp and registered as a SBR if it was possessed by a civilian. I'll admit that I try not to interact with too many LEOs because it never faired well for me in the past so I haven't asked whether it had a fun switch.

 

[JLS]

That piston gun is still almost guaranteed to be semi automatic, so technically is an AR and not an M4. SBRs in a semi automatic only are becoming very common among law enforcement agencies.

 

[Sytes]

Fed leo= M4. What this has to do with the topic, I've not a clue though preference by those who determine what local, state or federal agency determines what the agent/officer has for tools of the trade.
There is not a set, "LEO's only carry..." We carry what the lobbyist... Oops, we carry what has been best determined by the powers that be.

Gotta love 2a hint triggered for rapid fire OFF topic content...

 

[MooseCaboose]

Seriously disappointing. Can we please try and keep it on topic and avoid re-litigating all the BS

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, I was genuinely hoping you would engage in a responsive way.

You didn't red the other posts of mine then. I would suggest doing so before being disappointed in a partial answer that was meant to stir a broader discussion of the issue you posted about so as to look at the comments Bullock offered in the broader context of the election, rather than the narrow field of vision you had offered.

Seriously disappointing. Can we please try and keep it on topic and avoid re-litigating all the BS

You posted about guns on the internet, what did you expect to happen?

 

[MooseCaboose]

Bullock's statement's aren't that far off mainstream for many. And the crippling hold that the NRA has held on the gun issue is waning, especially when you look at attitudes towards firearms that the largest voting block (millenials) has.

Are you saying is Bullock's stance is a winning one for a Montana politician?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Are you saying is Bullock's stance is a winning one for a Montana politician?

No. I'm saying that at the national level, which is where he's looking, it's not a detriment, especially with the frequency of mass shootings.

I'm also saying that Tester's A- rating from the NRA insulates him from the comparison, as does his award from NSSF.