I think I'm dizzy from that exchange. The fact is the NRA supports politicians who support gun rights. Unfortunately, many times those same politicians have horrible environmental records, often favoring selling off some of our best hunting lands or opening them up to exploration for minerls or fossil fuels. It's a catch 22 for those of us who care about our gun rights, but also care about places to hunt and fish. Maybe it's time we start deciding who to vote for ourselves, instead of letting some group tells who we should vote for.

Dan

I'd rather have no land and guns than no guns and land which I cannot protect or hunt on.

I would give up every gun I own before I would want to see all of our forests and untouched wilderness gone. I am a hunter first. I stand for hunting gun rights first. I don't use semi-automatic weapons for hunting, so I really am not affected by alot of the gun legislation. And save the speech for someone else, they are not coming to take away your hunting guns in our lifetime. Put the kool-aid down. Something interesting to think about; When all of our pristine wilderness and forests are gone and have been developed into oil fields, mini-malls, or row housing are you going to be able to look at one of your firearms and have the same feeling you get after hiking to the top of a ridge of a mountain over looking gorgeous valleys and untouched wilderness flanked by a summer sunset. If you say yes you're a damn liar or you have never seen such beautiful vistas. At the end of the day its still a piece of metal that propels another piece of metal. What do you value more? God's beautiful creations or man's creations? For the record I absolutely love shooting guns. I do it anyway I can. I own pistols, rifles, shotguns, and muzzleloaders. I would give them all up right now to protect what wilderness we have left.

This is a phoney baloney debate. All gun owners should want there to be vast areas of land available for hunting, whether or not they hunt, because hunters and non-hunting gun owners are natural allies. All hunters should support 2nd Amendment rights because every time a non-hunting shootist buys a gun or ammo our land management coffers benefit.

Obama isn't fooling me. Nevertheless I DO think the NRA does a piss-poor job representing hunters, despite the fact that I am a member of the NRA. Obama's "F" on 2nd A rights is well merited. But likewise the NRA gets an "F" for not defending hunters' interests in sensible public lands management.

My local NRA rep's pals send me a postcard about twice a month asking for donation to help build a shooting range in USFS land near a fancy resort. Given the list of "boardmembers" I'm pretty sure that they'll set the membership dues waaaay above my income.

Meantime, the local NRA hasn't said sh*t by way of protest against a Canadian mining company's proposal to dig a 1 mile diameter by half mile deep open pit mine in a local mountain range, smack in the middle of good quail and Coues deer land, and fill up three USFS owned canyons with the tailings, so that they can sell American copper and moly to the Chinese.

First, lets learn exactly who the people are at ASHA to see if they're even worth mentioning;

Gun Ban = Obama & American Hunters & Shooters Assoc.
http://conservativesuperiority.com/2008/04/18/gun-ban-obama-american-hunters-shooters-assoc/

And now to the woefully uninformed clowns like "Chris" above;

Here's senior Judge Silberman's quote from the DC gun ban case just recently, "[T]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." -Parker V. DC

Breaking this down a different way to explain the relationship of our inalienable right in its association with hunting;
The Second Amendment or our inalienable right does not enforce a right to hunt specifically, however, hunting was paramount at the time the Second Amendment was written in order to survive in gathering food. Although we no longer need to hunt in order to feed ourselves, we will always need to protect ourselves from the evil and insane who live among us as well as those who travel here with that intention.

Therefore, our inalienable right is clearly about our survival as individuals and as a nation, certainly not hunting in and of itself. Yet, the possibility will always remain that if we ever again find ourselves in the moment of the position ( whether by natural disaster or man-made ) to hunt for food or perish, then it is this association with survival which provides that extension in the right to hunt.

To put this and all other ridiculous arguments to rest;

Suicidal whining from the spineless who would prefer to live in denial and be directly responsible for murder by providing the evil and insane an open invitation in leaving anyone defenseless by illegal law is just as guilty as the murderer and we prosecute other crimes in the exact same way. Just as ignorance is never an excuse for breaking our law, neither is intentionally ignoring the supreme law of our land.

If someone actually needs more to prove to themselves this is reality and wants to hear from someone who knows;
When certified law enforcement firearms instructors who taught law enforcement officers to survive on the street tells you that the most important thing you can do in your entire life is protect the Second Amendment you'ld better damn well listen if you value your freedom and your children's lives.

What else could you possibly need to understand this insanity must stop!?

Winghunter,
My apologies for contributing to this "ridiculour argument", but
you are saying that all of our other concerns should be trumped by the concern we might need to wage war against our own military someday or survive in a post-apocolyptic future? While I don't disagree with you in principle, I've got to be honest; on a daily basis I think about hunting probably a dozen times and I think about creating a militia to attack the local military post exactly zero times. For the 60% of us or so that lie somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, everytime we vote is a balancing act. We need to identify what we feel are the most important or pressing concerns at any one time, and vote for the candidate with the best solutions to those concerns. Forgive me for being naive, but I have a much easier time seeing a United States in my or my childrens liftetime without hunting due to a lack of available public hunting land than I do a country involved in a Terminator-style war against its own people.

McCain has an excellent environmental record and is a friend to gun owners. There is no catch-22 here only a liberal fool who should not be leading anything. Obama wants to ban handguns, register all firearms and tax ammo. The biggest threat to the land right now is ethonal, which McCain has opposed for years because it does nothing for the environment and costs billions.

Folks
It much pains me to agree with Mike Diehl yet again, he is right that the NRA has done an awful job defending hunting or the land we hunt on.
I don't know much about this other bunch but with Obama's well proven track record opposing gun rights and no clear track record on environmental issues (he has voted party line on the issue every time) we can't even begin to think he is worthy of the endorsement of a real sportspersons organization.
Like so many others have said we do need the land but gang we also need our guns! We really need a real choice come November and we aren't going to get one because this two party system sucks.
SA

It never pains me to agree with Mike Diehl. Although I have disagreed with him before on a few points, he always presents an interesting perspective that causes me to think deeper.
I agree with Mike Diehl; we shouldn't be smacking each other below the belt since we are all relatively on the same page.
As a definition and point of law, Winghunter was correct in defining the 2nd Amendment and Mike was also correct in stating that we can keep and bear arms for any d*** reason we want with the exception of unlawful purposes e.g. robbery, assault, & etc.
The ASHA is no friend of the gun owner whatever the reason said gun owner has firearms. Mike you hit on a point about the NRA being a bit "eliteist" which is also a stickler for me too. You can bet your bottom dollar if there ever is a firearm confiscation I'll bet my paycheck that somehow the rich and powerful will be "overlooked"!
Not a rant against wealthy people; to be sure there have been some wealthy people who have given money and time to support the 2nd Amendment. There will always however be those of means who will be untouchable.

I don't know where in the U.S. Constitution, you find any right of the government to own land. I'm glad that they do. Our National Forests do provide for the public welfare.

I still think we've got some hard choices ahead of us with respect to these forests. There will be tremendous pressure put on by both parties to maximize the biofuel potential in these forests. In Michigan, this tends to be compatible with wildlife management and hunting, but I really don't know much about the west.
YooperJack
P.S. I can't believe that anyone who hunts or shoots guns could ever support BHO.

land or guns,, it is a terrible choice to have to make

The second ammendment has nothing to do with hunting, it is a statement of self defense of family, home, and country. Huntng is secondary to it but that said any hunter who would endorse either Clinton or Obama, is out of their mind, and will be huntng with a pea shooter, that is regisitered of course and taxed and can not be possessed in NYC under any circumstances. Wake up Amercia, world forces are after your freedom and will stop at nothing to achieve it. Remeber the difference between citizens and subjects, citizen can protect themselves, subjects can not.

Hey Bubba, regardless of what I said above about the Fed having a consttutional right to own land, there is a myriad of laws rgarding the management of both USFS and BLM lands. In the case of the orest Service, theyhave a mandate to address all of th special interests, and not to favor one over the other. These inteests include, but are not limited to, timber, mining, grazing, recreation and widerness. If hunting was prohibited, this would eventally cause severe problems for some of the other interests. In short, I think that wildlife management will always be a prime goal of USFS lands, and probably BLM lands. Thi is assuming that e still have the guns to perform this management.
YooperJack