# Hunting and politics



## sevendogs

Actually, politics has a tremendous effect on our hunting in the long run. Hunting grounds are shrinking nationwide and worldwide. Population is growing because of immigration and birth rate. Think of the future. We need a president, which would be helpful to set aside more land protected from developers, industrial use and polluters. Unfortunately, in our country, there is a stupid controversy between nature conservationists and hunters and both loose, finally. Why not to set aside more lands to protect all those rare plants, butterflies or frogs and open them to hunters in the right season? We all would win and protect more land. I talked to Sierra Club members and found that many of them would go ahead with this kind of projects and the same is true about Nature Conservancy. Of course, Bush is not a choice for our hunting activities now or in the future.


----------



## Bobm

Kerrys side would have us hunting with stones if they got their way :lol:


----------



## Plainsman

I think it is damned if you do and damned if you don't. Get Kerry in and there is the possibility of more land set aside, but I'll bet you would never hunt it. Also, as Bob said there is no doubt we would loose some of our guns, and that would open the flood gate for even more gun control. We have given the gun control people an inch and they are going for the mile now. Vote for Bush and we will get some wetland protection. Maybe if enough conservatives put up a stink we can sway him. At least we know our guns are safe for another four years. Who knows after that, the anti gun crowd just keeps coming and coming in an attempt to wear us down. The dumbest thing I keep hearing from people is "well it's not my gun" "I don't care, I hunt with a bow". These people are the epitome of stupidity. It's like a bird one inch from a cat saying well he hasn't bit me yet. One certainty is that the habitat can survive if not improve much longer under Bush than my guns will survive with Kerry. People who say they don't agree are not being forthright with us. Everyone but the extreme partisan knows Kerry wants more gun control, and they know, they just will not admit it.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

Actually I believe there is doubt, the true anti-gun nuts like Feinstein do not reflect the majority of Democrats. I have especially studied this issue in depth as the last thing I would ever want is someone to show up at my door asking for my Model 12. All I gotta say to everyone is, there are other sources than LaPierre's monthly column in Guns and Ammo.

Don't believe the hype.


----------



## Bobm

Believe how they vote


----------



## sevendogs

Southwest Fisher said:


> Actually I believe there is doubt, the true anti-gun nuts like Feinstein do not reflect the majority of Democrats. I have especially studied this issue in depth as the last thing I would ever want is someone to show up at my door asking for my Model 12. All I gotta say to everyone is, there are other sources than LaPierre's monthly column in Guns and Ammo.
> 
> Don't believe the hype.


Majority of hunters believe in myths spread by NRA. Why do you need handguns or assault weapons? Will hunt with them? We have a bad president now and who wil be the next president will be decided by a handful of flip-flop voters. With republicans in power we loose hunting grounds, clean air and clean water.


----------



## Bobm

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, it is to protect us from an oppressive goverment. Thats our constitution the law af our country. Any politician that wants to take this or any other constitutional right away is suspect and should be voted out.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Bob, this administration has given us "free speech zones" and said that they would reinstate the assult weapons ban. How do you feel safer with this?


----------



## Plainsman

I agree many democrats do not want more restrictive firearms laws, however the leadership does and the rest follow like trained puppies. I am not happy that Bush said he was in favor of reinstating the assault weapons ban, but at least the republicans will not add firearms to the list of assault weapons. The whole thing is emotional anyway. The guns that they added last time were not real assault weapons, they were added because they looked like assault weapons. The whole thing is cosmetics, and emotions. So punish the innocent because of a short circuit in some liberals psyche.


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> Bob, this administration has given us "free speech zones" and said that they would reinstate the assult weapons ban. How do you feel safer with this?


i feel safer with mine.

pointer


----------



## Bobm

tiger, there is no such thing as a free speech zone, typical liberal bs.


----------



## Bushwacker

What "myths" does the NRA tell? Some years ago the congress voted the NRA, in some survey of congress, as one of two organizations that gave them the most truthful and factual info. Not that the congressmen agreed with their stand but that they felt that they were the most straight with them with the info that they provided. Can you imagine what the mostly antigun media would do if they were anything but as factual as possible? I also agree with another previous post. The so called assault weapons are SEMI-AUTO "look-a-likes" not true assault weapons. They are not capable of full auto (IE: machine guns) Congressman Pomeroy commented on the radio that they were capable of shooting 600 rounds a minute. You would have to pull the trigger 10 times per second for a minute straight and that doesn't include reloads! We should have such accute dexterity. Also the current "ban" doesn't ban possession it bans manufacture. You can still buy them. Of course our Congressman Pomeroy made the statement on radio some time back that the ban would "keep them off the streets". There are thousands of them around still owned and available so how did it do that? The man clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. There are many other models/brands that are just as capable that arn't on the list too. A Ruger mini 14 shoots the same calibre cartridge as a "banned" AR15 and can hold mags that are just as big. The venerable cheap Russian SKS that had its import along with the cheap ammo, banned was being bought up by many farmers to chase blackbirds out of their sunflowers. I bet the blackbirds feel a lot safer now! Lastly it is legal to use an AR15 to hunt deer in ND. Rarely done, :sniper: but legal.


----------



## Brad Anderson

Don't touch my guns.


----------



## Ryan_Todd

i second that brad.


----------



## indsport

What gets me the most out of the political silly season came from the respective party platforms from their own respective press releases:

Republican Platform

"We believe the Second Amendment and all of the rights guaranteed by it should enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for self-defense."

Democratic Platform

"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms,"

I cannot get anyone from either party to tell me why republicans voted to limit the second amendment at their own convention and say nothing about hunting, or having a firearm outside your home, while at the same time, the Democrats appear to be more protective of second amendment rights but continue the idiotic drumbeat about assault weapons.


----------



## MSG Rude

Brad, Ryan;

That is why non of my guns are registard and only a very few have been bought from a store. The rest are not recorded anywhere with my name. I am not a conspiracy story sort of fellow but if its one thing I have learned with 17 years plus in the Active Military, put nothing on paper if you don't want anyone to knnow about it.

Dave


----------



## Southwest Fisher

My father owns a Mini-14. I've fired thousands of rounds with an M16 (you know, pretty close to an AR15). I can honestly say I could do a helluva lot more damage with the 16 than the 14, but either way, I wouldn't hunt with either one. If some out there want to, fine, but I've seen guys open up on a deer w/ a semi, didn't seem very sporting to me. Kinda chickens**t.
Just 2 random cents I thought I 'd throw out.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

http://www.drudgereport.com/dncg.htm

SWF check out this link and tell me if the gun Kerry is holding should be banned? Then follow the links provided in the story and explain how he can vote to ban this shotgun?

This is not about AR-15's or Mini 16's but about Mod 870's and 1100's and just about any other fowling piece we use today. Then tell me if you would be comfortable if he was the last line of defense to retain your shotgun and all that stood between it being illegal was his signature.

Guys like you that seem to think this issue is only about military looking guns are what scares me more than anything facing hunting and gun ownership in the US.[/url]


----------



## Southwest Fisher

Thanks, Ron, for informing me that I only care about military-looking weapons. I didn't know that that's my position, I just thought I had a personal view about what's "sporting" and what differentiates btween being a hunter or a sportsman. Again, to reiterate, I don't feel that semi-auto shotguns or rifles should all be banned because of their appearance, I just personally choose not to hunt with them.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

So you do not want shotguns banned, but you seem to support someone that co-sponsored legislation that would have done so. You seem to have avoided my question on whether on not you want him being the last line of defense for your shotgun and rifle ( remember this has nothing to do with if it is a semi, single, or pump, it is about the use of the term pistol grip) given his past.

Be honest with your response and not any spin about the House being in Rep control. See that can change this fall or in two years then what are we left with.


----------



## zogman

Thanks Ron, Keep up the good work.
The great state of ND allows us to cross over party lines when we vote. Which I plan to do this year as I do most years. The big Satrom pusheres on this site (ie Ken W., Dick Monson, Eric Hustad ) are so very silent about Kerry, Dorgan and Pomeroy. That worries me a little. No one wants to talk about Dogan's record on gun control. I am not going to enjoy hunting birds with a sling shot. If we are expected to rally around Mr Satrom. I'd like to see the same effort on sending Mr. D packing. Come on Ken, Dick, and Eric what do you say????????? :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

Zogman

I'll second that motion. I'm right in the same ballpark as you, Satrom for governor and boot the other boys out. Whenever I contact them about firearms issues they send me a letter that I see as arrogant. Something to the effect that I don't have the whole picture. Rats behind I don't have the whole picture!!!! The picture to me is they vote however the top brass in their party tells them to vote. I think they have forgot they are servants and think they are masters. I once called and got in an argument with the lady that answered the phone. She started telling me how wrong I was, and I told her I called to give her my opinion and couldn't care less about hers. I guess she might have become perturbed when I told her that I guess with her dictatorial attitude perhaps we didn't need a democracy. It bugged me that someone who is supposedly in Washington to represent the people of North Dakota gets mouthy when we call with an opinion.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

Wanna keep your guns? Keep buying products from gun manufacturers and see the lobbying that can be done with the extra money! Any idiot (especially from ND) that supports a bill that in anyway trys to take my 3- 12gauges, 1- 20 gauge, 1- .410, 1- 30-06, or 1- 22-250 will never get my vote again!!!!! Ever !!!!!


----------



## BigDaddy

Are you guys really serious? You want to vote out Dorgan, Conrad, and Pomeroy because of their stances are guns? Wake up! These guys are the best thing that ND has going for it.

Dorgan and Conrad submitted a request today for $1.6 billion (that's with a "B") in distaster relief for ND farmers because of the poor growing conditions. In addition, these three guys are extremely active in getting defense money into state. Doesn't anybody remember the repeated attempts in recent years to close down or at lease dramatically cut funding for the Air Force bases in ND? Guess who rose to the challenge and made sure that didn't happen? We should also not forget the federal funding that these guys bring in for education, highways, and other needs.

If my memory serves me, ND gets $1.84 of federal money for every $1 spent in federal taxes. Compared to other states, we are right near the top in this. Much of this is due to our current delegation in Washington. Some would say that this is exactly what's wrong with liberal theory. In other words, why should we get more than our fair share? I ask, are you willing to give up this extra $.84 to compete fairly and pay our own way? I got news for you: We don't have the people and resources to survive without federal assistance.

The question is this: Are you willing to ignore all of their good work solely on ONE political issue?


----------



## buckseye

We get so much because we are dryland farmers meaning we can get a crop without irrigation, with the water shortages this becomes more and more important.

The base closings are not a real possibility now, for one thing there is not a cheaper safer place to keep them. It's scare tactics to get votes.

The Constitution is not a political statement or document, it is a listing of minium rights we as citizens are to expect, protect and respect.

We are a major energy supplier too, I wonder where all that money and related taxes goes???? We should all get a check for holding the prarie down out here, just like the Alaskans. 8)


----------



## BigDaddy

buckseye:

Are you saying that you think that the federal assistance that ND receives is not due to the work of Conrad, Dorgan, and Pomeroy? Let's be honest here. Do you think that Sand or Liffrig would serve us better?

The base closings are not a scare tactic. Conrad had to go to bat for ND just a year or so ago when the Bush administration proposed cutting the budget for Grand Forks and Minot. Please note that this proposal came AFTER the beginning of the War on Terror[ism].

Also, success with federal disaster requests is directly proportional to the skills, passion, and clout of the delegation from a given state. Regardless of whether or not ND is dryland farming state, you need folks with the ability to get these dollars.

Also, for the record, this most recent request for $1.6 billion is not due solely to the drought, but also because of excessive rain in some parts of the state, hail, and abnormally cool weather. Therefore, being a dryland farming state is irrelevant.


----------



## buckseye

BigDaddy....I think no matter who we send we will be represented as good as anybody else is.

Election years , can't write what I think of these. Ya know when I read this kind of stuff you wrote I wonder what happened to the Democracy we are supposed to be, there is no such thing as seniority in a democracy.

Being a dryland farming state is our saving grace my friend, the feds can't turn off the rain as easy as they can drain a lake can they. As time goes by you will see this for yourself. The payments are to help keep us out here manning the prarie instead of running into a city and working 9-5 jobs. It is a way of staying prepared for unforseen major catastrophys involving food to eat.


----------



## BigDaddy

buckseye:

Your wrote:



> I think no matter who we send we will be represented as good as anybody else is.


Wrong!

Conrad is ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee (he was chair and will be chair if the Dems take control of the Senate), Dorgan is ranking member of Senate Appropriations, and Pomeroy is on the House Ways & Means Committee (the most powerful committee in the House).

Unlike the ND legislature where every bill is guaranteed a hearing and a vote, a bill at the federal level can exist for years and never receive a hearing (let alone a vote). Have you ever tried to get a hearing on a federal bill or get a federal bill passed? I have, and I can tell you that even getting a hearing depends on a member's rank on a committee and clout with their colleagues. These guys, especially Dorgan and Conrad, have clout with their colleagues. They are also willing to fight for North Dakotans.



> Ya know when I read this kind of stuff you wrote I wonder what happened to the Democracy we are supposed to be, there is no such thing as seniority in a democracy.


Forget about those innocent ideas that any member of Congress can simply introduce a bill, testify on its merits, and get it passed because all members are honorable folks looking out for their constituents. Those days are long gone. These days, it's ALL seniority and clout.

People need to stop voting for candidates based on one or two issues, and think about the total package. Regardless of their stances on guns, these guys do far too much good for ND to ignore. You do not throw away their positions on key committees to send a freshman like Sand or Liffrig.


----------



## buckseye

And the only way to get rid of corruption such as seniority is to get rid of the corrupted... 8)

I'm not sure if giving up and giving in is the way to go either. In your way of thinking the day they die or something our whole state will fall to pieces...that's funny :lol:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

BD the current farm bill has provisions that will and can deal with the crop loss. What you are failing to see is the attempt to politicize the issue. The savings to the Farm Bill because of higher prices and better yields means that money was not spent.

They want to keep that money in the program and ask the tax payers to anti up some additional dollars. Not very fiscally responsible when these same people are lambasting the defect we currently have. If the bill would be to reallocate current funds then good for them , but it is not what is happening.

One needs to cut through all the BS and really see what is going on. I listened to Conrad and Dorgan and Reid talk about this bill. They will hold up emergency funds for FL to try and gain a few more votes in ND.

That is the corruption that Buckeye is talking about.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

If you really want to encourage a vote for Mr. Liffrig, can you give me an honest, original statement or stance he has taken that doesn't involve gay marriage? God am I tired of hearing that drum being beat. Maybe with all the things going on in the world around us he could try and have a more in-depth platform. He's so one-track, he has no idea about being a Senator, but that's okay, let's throw away everything the state has built up.

Like I previously stated, I have enough faith in the American people that we'll get gun control right. Nobody is going to come into your homes and steal your side-by-side .410, okay! Besides, do you really expect that there is any one candidate that I agree with on everything? If you agree with Bush on everything, Ron, then you're different than anyone I know. No party, candidate, religion, or government is going to tell me exactly what to believe, so your argument is pretty effin' redundant. Now I agree with my friends who like Bush for being a straight-shooter, I just don't agree with his caliber, alright? Seems to me like he's the kind of guy who'd use an M203 for deer hunting when a .270 would suffice, and that's not the way I am. Is that too hard to understand?


----------



## Plainsman

If I remember right back in 1988 North Dakota got $4.56 for every dollar they paid in. The states that beat us were Alaska and Nevada which have more public land than any other states. Now we are down to what $1.84 for each dollar we pay in. Who has been screwing up? I guess I am not to proud as a North Dakotan if we are that big of a burden on our fellow Americans.

Seriously, I think like buckseye said, if we send someone else they will be in those same positions in Washington. When the republicans were in they talked about clout and what committees they were on. Guess what, Dorgan and Conrad both walked into those positions. Whoever we send next will do the same thing. Also, I don't worship at the alter of clout, it's only good if used correctly, and can be disastrous if used incorrectly. I'll trust someone not affiliated with Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Fienstein, Hillary, etc etc.

There are things more important than the money that our elected representatives bring to North Dakota. No matter how much they bring there are two things not for sale, my freedom, and my integrity.


----------



## BigDaddy

Plainsman:

You said:



> Seriously, I think like buckseye said, if we send someone else they will be in those same positions in Washington. When the republicans were in they talked about clout and what committees they were on. Guess what, Dorgan and Conrad both walked into those positions. Whoever we send next will do the same thing.


People need to understand that obtaining positions like ranking member or chair of a committee is not automatically given to a member of a particular party. Is Norm Coleman a committee chair? No. Why? Because he has no seniority.

New members of Congress have almost no chance of obtaining a position of power. Those only come after years of experience and gaining the respect of fellow members of Congress. Dorgan and Conrad were not given those positions, they earned them after proving themselves to the leadership if their particular party. Therefore, you cannot expect a freshman Senator to obtain those positions.

Last, you discussed freedom and integrity. How have Conrad and Dorgan threatened your freedom and integrity? I really want a sincere answer. In my opinion, they are two of the most straight-up guys on the Hill.


----------



## Plainsman

Whenever I call about second amendment rights I have spoke with aids that are very condescending. At least that's how I interpret their attitude. I had one lady argue with me. That is disgusting to have someone who is our representative (or their aid) argue when they are there to listen to our opinions. I get letters back that say, glad to hear from you, then they go on and you know they are not glad to hear from you at all.

Put all that aside. Democrat or republican, most have not got the nerve to be their own man/women. They all get in line when the top brass of their party say vote this way. The big problem is that the people calling the shots for the democratic party are Kerry, Hillary, Kennedy. I don't want my representative voting the way these people tell them to vote. Another problem, if they are democrat or republican, is they have become more loyal to their party than their state or their country. Both parties are partisan. The democrats call the republicans partisan, but I see them as being just as partisan or more so.

I'm will not be voting for a democrat governor this fall I will be voting against Hoeven. It scares me, but I hope it turns out ok. I can not vote for democratic representatives, because they will go to Washington and fall in line with the leadership.

I mention freedom because the second amendment rights are threatened by the liberal side. I mentioned integrity because I will not fall in line and give up my standards to democrats or republicans no matter how much money they bring to North Dakota. I was not simply knocking these guys, to me they threaten a way of life I value. I voted straight democrat when Regan run the first time, but since then the democratic party has moved away from me not me from them.

There are many people who could have run for president in the democratic party and whoever won or lost this fall America would have won. You wanted a serious answer , but I judge many things you and Southwest Fisher say as rhetoric. I was serious about judging these people by who votes for them. Military will vote for Bush, people in prison and on welfare will vote for Kerry. I guarantee it, and this doesn't speak well of where the democratic party has drifted to.

On the news right now (10:04 pm), channel 11, the liberals are talking about the need to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We all know that because a gun looks like an assault weapon that does not make it an assault weapon.

I wish the republicans were more environmental, but it is clear that the environment will survive Bush much longer than my second amendment rights will survive Kerry.

Both parties have good points and bad points, but currently the democrats have some very bad ideas.


----------



## BigDaddy

Good answer Plainsman! I'm serious and sincere.

My sway to the democrat side is not due to my following of Kennedy, Kerry or Clinton. These three may be to most vocal, but I disagree that they lead the party. How about Daschle, Dayton, Harkin, Biden, and Lieberman? I honestly think that TRUE Democrats, not the wacky extreme left, best defend the interests of the working class. That's not rhetoric.

My point several posts ago is that we can't vote for a candidated based solely on their stance on one or two issues. My sister-in-law is passionately pro-life casts her vote solely on the abortion issue. Then she turns around and complains when a pro-life office holder ignores education, the economy, medical care, or some other pertinent issue. You get what you vote for, just make that vote count.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

I agree Plainsman with your last comment. Both parties have many good and bad qualities. The thing is to vote with your mind and not your heart. We have too many bleeding heart liberals and just as many extreme conservatives that get so emotionally wrapped up in an issue they don't take the time to breath and think. This country will be fine if we all start voting and understanding issues.


----------



## mr.trooper

when did we start "Insterpreting" (read: twisting) the constitution? it was writen to say what it says. why cant peole accept that? they wnat to make some parts litteral, and then turn around and say "o, whell this part that says "the people" doesnt mean the people, its talking about the national guard..."

my point is, that when we just shut the hey up and followd the consitution, we were a far more glorious, prosperous nation. we didnt have as much internal strife, and people were more unified. thats the purose and spirit of the constitution. to unify the people. so why are they trying to piece-meal it? they say they want "unity" but do eveorything agains unity. if we would shut up and just follow the letter of the consttution like it says, thn we woudnt have these problems!

wy do we need gun laws? in the 30's you could walk down to the local hardware store and buy a Browning Automatic Rifle, fully aotomatic 30-06 with NO background check, NO registrations, and NO more waiting period than it took the manufacturor to ship the gun to the store....yet the crime, even in the erra of the mob was still SO much smaller, and so much more inciental than it is today, even with our restrictive laws, the crimes dont stop. its quite obvious the guns dont cause the crimes. its the people. if you want to make us a safer place, then start teaching our children to be responsible, productive members of society instead of telling them they are worthless, insignificant products of a random process. people with no hope do hpless things. give them a little hope for the future and this trend might subside a bit.

They look at the brken homes, the turmultuous political scene, and the Hopless "party today, die tonight" popular culture and see chaos. they dont hold out anything better for themselves when they grow up, and they have no hope. Will john kerry give it to them? will George bush give it to them? will you give it to them? NO.

"whos out there? whos guna save us, before we all fall through the cracks in the pavement?" "and if you dont know what im talking about, then its probly beter cuz im working it out. and if you know what im talking about, then together were bolth working it out. dont wana spend my lifetime figuring out, i missed the point now its over."


----------

