Election 2016!

the jigger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
63
I really don't care who you are supporting in the election primaries, in the general election every gun owner in America MUST cast a vote for whomever opposes the Democratic nominee; especially if it is Hillary Clinton. This missive is from a longtime hunter and shooter who wants to continue to protect my loved ones under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States specifically the Second Amendment.
GOOD LUCK and GOOD SHOOTING!!!
 
Amen, Hillary is a professional politician (AKA a snake). She'll gladly protect everyone else's rights while giving up the most important one. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. I'll take my chances protecting myself. I've seen how efficient and effective the government is. No thanks.
 
I really don't care who you are supporting in the election primaries, in the general election every gun owner in America MUST cast a vote for whomever opposes the Democratic nominee; especially if it is Hillary Clinton. This missive is from a longtime hunter and shooter who wants to continue to protect my loved ones under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States specifically the Second Amendment.
GOOD LUCK and GOOD SHOOTING!!!

Do not disagree with your thoughts. However - if it were Cruz on the R side it would be a cold day in hell before I would support his position on doing away with Federal land. I think Cruz's middle name is Bundy. His adds in the Nevada primary were enough to make Teddy Roosevelt roll over in his grave. Same with Rubio but he's out now.

I would just like to be able to vote one time for someone that I support rather than trying to keep someone else out of office - doesn't look good for me to be able to do that this year.
 
Do not disagree with your thoughts. However - if it were Cruz on the R side it would be a cold day in hell before I would support his position on doing away with Federal land. I think Cruz's middle name is Bundy. His adds in the Nevada primary were enough to make Teddy Roosevelt roll over in his grave. Same with Rubio but he's out now.

I would just like to be able to vote one time for someone that I support rather than trying to keep someone else out of office - doesn't look good for me to be able to do that this year.

I hear ya. Hopefully he is blowing (whatever) to get votes in Nevada. Sad thing is if the states got the land, they could not afford to maintain it and would have to sell to private interest (Huge Ranching and mining businesses). Or in the case of Utah, the Mormon church Then all of those small time ranchers who are always bitching about the a right for free grazing rights would have nothing and regular Americans will lose access to one of the things that makes America truly great, its public lands

The feds tried to give the land to the states in the 20s, but the states didn't want it because they knew they couldn't afford it.

Does it need to be managed better? Definitely. Should it be given to the states? NO.

Sorry you got me going on that one...
 
Right now we are stuck voting for the lesser of two evils....
 
I really don't care who you are supporting in the election primaries, in the general election every gun owner in America MUST cast a vote for whomever opposes the Democratic nominee; especially if it is Hillary Clinton. This missive is from a longtime hunter and shooter who wants to continue to protect my loved ones under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States specifically the Second Amendment.
GOOD LUCK and GOOD SHOOTING!!!

Agree with you 100%.

The Democrats have made the confiscation of firearms a part of their party line now.
 
I hear ya. Hopefully he is blowing (whatever) to get votes in Nevada. Sad thing is if the states got the land, they could not afford to maintain it and would have to sell to private interest (Huge Ranching and mining businesses). Or in the case of Utah, the Mormon church Then all of those small time ranchers who are always bitching about the a right for free grazing rights would have nothing and regular Americans will lose access to one of the things that makes America truly great, its public lands

The feds tried to give the land to the states in the 20s, but the states didn't want it because they knew they couldn't afford it.

Does it need to be managed better? Definitely. Should it be given to the states? NO.

Sorry you got me going on that one...

You raise valid points, but could it (state ownership) be any worse then the way it is now with the BLM and other agencies now flooded with green, tree hugging commie wackos executing their own personal enviro-jihad? If the environmental nut jobs in the federal govt get their way we will also lose our public lands.
 
You raise valid points, but could it (state ownership) be any worse then the way it is now with the BLM and other agencies now flooded with green, tree hugging commie wackos executing their own personal enviro-jihad? If the environmental nut jobs in the federal govt get their way we will also lose our public lands.

Good food for thought too.

At least the private interest would probably create some jobs out of it all. The environmentalist would just lock it up and throw away the key. Probably a toss up on which greedy group gets their hands on it first. The public lands have become a prize to be had these days.
 
To learn whats really going on google Judge Jeanine on the Republican Establishment and Judge Jeanine on Mitt Romney.

She is great!!! She absolutely hits the nail on the head.

As far as I am concerned we currently have a one party system that pretends to be a two party system. How else can you explain that the Republicans can never make any conservative moves even when they are in full control. How else can you explain how both sides are working together to stop Trump. He is a threat to the current good ol' boy club. The system as it is now will no doubt head to socialism with the current power structure holding all the marbles and the people working for them, with the Republicrats telling us that they are working hard for our freedoms while they eat from the same pig trough as the rest of the elite power structure. The same group that holds Regan up as our shining star apposed him with the same intensity when he ran for President. Took him two tries to beat them. They only tolerated him because they got their guy Bush in as the VP and then as Pres. in order to tear down all that he did.

Cruz, who is disliked by the ruling class, appears to be willing to sell himself to them in order to win. He is another professional politician willing to say or do anything for power.

Steve
 
I will vote for whomever supports states rights and is in favor of transferring ownership of federal lands to the states. saying the states cannot afford to maintain those lands doesn't really make sense when we look at all of the money the feds are making off those lands. I am not a in favor of bigger and more intrusive government. We need a smaller and less potent federal government.

If it came down to Kasich and Hillary and my vote was going to be the one determining the winner, I would vote third party. Back in '94, Kasich, got a nice little 'Thank You' note from President Clinton thanking him for his support, along with thirty something other Republicans, in passing the assault weapons ban. In my opinion, Kasich, is the type of politician that has made the people mad enough to throw their support behind someone like Trump.

I am alot more worried about the different scenarios that could lead to a switch in the House and Senate majorities. The choices we have for the Whitehouse are dismal at best and I am scared of what is coming, regardless of who gets in there, but we have to stop the cycle of voting for the least evil and vote for the most constitutional instead. Voting for the lesser of two evils is what the R's have learned to count on, which is the reason we seem to never have a choice we like.

Just my two cents.

Tex
 
I will vote for whomever supports states rights and is in favor of transferring ownership of federal lands to the states. saying the states cannot afford to maintain those lands doesn't really make sense when we look at all of the money the feds are making off those lands.

Tex

If where you live (Wyo) and where I live (Mt) took over all federal land in our State there would be no way either State could handle 100% of the costs of ONE fire season out of the States budgets alone. Our taxes would be 10 fold.

I work with our State government on a weekly basis and quite frankly they can't handle what they have now.
 
Cowboy, we will have to agree to disagree. I am basing my opinions on the minerals and other natural resources that are already being exploited with the monies going into the federal coffers. The states do get some of that money back, eventually, but alot of the time they have to sue the feds in order to get all that is owed. I would invite anyone to look at how many of the states have streamlined the management programs for state lands compared to federal lands.

The western US is sitting on an immense amount of money in natural resources and we are letting an out of control federal government with a spending problem mortgage our future away by mis-managing these resources. We folks out west get pretty ticked when people from back east want to shove wolves down our throats and we will talk about how the land is in our backyard, therefore we should be listened to, yet we are perfectly content to let a bunch of people from back east, whom we don't trust, manage and exploit our lands in an inefficient manner that is often times harmful to local economies, natural habitat and wildlife.

We were once known as, "These United States".
Now, we are known as, "The United States".
The difference being, the loss of states rights and local control as outlined in the Constitution.



Tex
 
Just think if we could manage our own timber sales. Oil. Minerals. Hmmm....

We have strayed from politics and guns. So I digress.

Steve
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top