A Dem from Montana might very well be into guns and hunting.

You do realize many Republicans and the NRA support this bill as well?

That's why we need to stay vigilant.  Let him send out this peace offering (which from everything in it I've read is a very good bill).  We can let this through without opening a door for him to push some other bill.  If he tries to use it as justification for a new AWB, then we'll tell him to suck a big fat cock.

So what?  The Bradys are Republicans.

––
GOA doesn't like it:
http://www.cooscountywatchdog.com/1/post/2012/11/goa-alert-senate-to-vote-on-the-federal-land-seizure-act-on-thursday.html
(Quote should be COC 10-OK since GOA is sending it out as an alert.)



The link has contact info for opposing the bill:
http://www.cooscountywatchdog.com/1/post/2012/11/goa-alert-senate-to-vote-on-the-federal-land-seizure-act-on-thursday.html

You realize many Republicans are statists right??

Im sure the bill is 2000 plus pages and some of them are bound to be bad for America.

Hussein would not support one thing that is beneficial to anyone but govt.

Nope, don't trust.

TARP.

Really? Spending when we should be cutting is good? Wow, you were just bought like any other member of the FSA.

 

I got a pretty darn good pile of Brit used rifles that once belonged to members of British gun clubs that had to turn them in  when the clubs had to close their doors. They were simply thrown in crates and sold off in lots to overseas buyers.

The way it was explained to me by one such importer was first they confined their subjects strictly to the clubs (unless they were landed royals of some flavor) for target shooting and then in very large part took that away from them too.

I'm sure I'm deficient on the exact particulars of British gun clubs demise but one thing is for sure and that is the Feds don't need to get into the civilian range business. Bad mojo.

Busy sealing the microchip deal for Nobamacare.

A shit bag Obama supporting democrat from MOntana is the same as any other democrat, he just might not come right out about his goals like Fienstein will.  

He's a piece of shit trying to bring big govt to Montana just like every other liberal.  He wants to expand govt and create more handouts, which is the platform he was re-elected on in Montana.  Remember the 47% of Americans who voted for him are also comprised of rural trash as well.  

The lefties will soon only allow us to shoot in approved facilities on fed land...for now.
I would imagine there will be a total shooting ban on all federal land in the future.
The shoe just fits for the new amerika of the 21st century.

Obama supporting it is all I need to know to know that it is very bad news...

I bet the flip side to this coin is heavy restrictions on shooting on private land within 1000 miles of any buildings or roads.

Well, then, we need to reassess our support for it.

And remove the czar bullshit. Spell it out or throw it out.

All this "pass it to find out what's in it" is fucking lunacy.

ETA: If 0bama is supporting this, we need to remove all the potential gotchas and implant as many of our own "poison" pills to the point he doesn't support it. Then hammer him as an enemy of sportsmen and the 2nd amendment.

__________________________________________________________________
Cross-platform gun database/electronic bound book (v1.3.2) (and the original thread).
Libertardians: maximizing libertarian losses since 2008.
«nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus»

I am a big hunter but the 2nd amendment has very little to do with hunting and sport hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

Has anyone look at the bill with a 1000x power microscope yet, you know between the lines. It is only a matter of time before they pull that gag.

That's what I was thinking.

Could someone please provide a link that verifies Obama's support of this? I'm not denying it, just trying to round up evidence to support arguing points. I can't seem to locate this info...

BTT

I'll repeat....Does anyone have a link that will provide evidence that Obama openly supports S3525? Duh, it's in the OP's link.   Stated on Testor's website.

I think the bill is full of too many what-ifs after reading the info on GOA's website. If you own property, you should be concerned about this bill.

so would this mean that we can once again use lead shot for ducks?

Look lets be realistic, Obama is downright mild compared to the icons of the Republicrats, Reagan and Bush 1. Both did more to damage the second amendment then any other president in the last 200 years. Reagan had more anti-gun bills go through and get signed then any before him and Bush 1 was the architect of what would become the AWB that Clinton signed.

We need to quit acting like Obama is the devil and Republicrats are saints on this issue and realize we need to push hard on both sides and get them to recognize the 2nd for what it is and protect it with every fiber.

And before you statist pukes come in and preach on about your wooden messiahs and vilify my statement, this is not a endorsement of Obama but a reminder that no one from our elected bodies does anything to expand your freedom any longer unless it has something for them in the long game.

Just showing "compromise" before the ban hammer



 

It is SAD that what appears to be a good Bill isn't enough to sway us.

This is how distrustful we have gotten with politicians, ESPECIALLY Democrats.

I am so distrustful that I don't even know what to think.  I just don't trust them.

And that is sad. Because getting the fucking EPA out of the firearms area is OBVIOUSLY a good thing.

Damn. Everybody needs to read that info from GOA. After reading that, I wholeheartedly oppose it.

I agree 100% but

but that is the line you will be hearing from libs......"we support the right to hunt and also guns used in hunting, but these assault weapons serve no purpose"...It's designed to make you think they are on the same page with you when in reality its a tactic to attempt to get you to share common ground....

Have you read the bill?

Hows about we don't need any more laws. This is such an easy concept.

Repeal. Not create. Politicians still keep their job, and the sheep are happier for it.

And fuck Obama.

We need to kill this "sporting purpose" bullshit with regards to gun ownership.
 

Gee, too bad somebody didn't copy and paste the GOA's alert...

MORE .GOV CONTROL

Obama IS evil.



Dont read any more into what I have just typed.





 

this.


the next thing they will only allow guns that are used for "sporting purpose".

What I see, is that if there are official fed ranges, no more shoooting on BLM lands except at a designated range.  After that's complete, oops, no more funding for those ranges, so they close.  Now you have nowhere to shoot on fed land.

Exactly. This is a bill set to increase the power of the federal authority to grab land in the name of protecting aquatic life. Seems upon going through the bill that the hunting stuff is the "Look! Shiny!" distraction.

Plus I highly suspect that the advertisements Dan Cox(L) was running were actually funded by the Democrats. Save for those votesm Denny would have won.

So it's more along the lines of teh "you have wetlands/"navigable waterway" on your property, you can't mess with it"  rather than eminent domain "seizure", yes?

Ask and ye shall receive. Copied from the above GOA link:


Senate to vote on the Federal Land Seizure Act on Thursday

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) –– who is “F” rated by Gun Owners of America –– is pushing a “hunting” bill that authorizes the Obama administration almost unlimited power to seize private lands for “environmental” purposes.
Anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled Tester’s bill for a vote, and it will probably take place on Thursday.

ACTION:  It is imperative that gun owners contact their Senators and ask them to OPPOSE S. 3525.  Click here to tell them that the modest conservation gains allowed in the bill are totally offset by giving unelected bureaucrats the authority to steal land from hunters and private property owners.

BACKGROUND

(1) When the “wetlands” provisions of the Clean Water Act were originally enacted, no one could have foreseen that a landowner would go to prison for applying clean dirt to a junkyard adjacent to a sewer, which was determined to be “wetlands.”  But environmentalists have been brilliant in taking seemingly innocuous programs and massively expanding them through fraudulent interpretations or tiny loopholes.
(2) S. 3525 has “sweeteners.” It allows archery bows to be transported through national parks under very limited circumstances, although Obama could do this by administrative fiat.  It also allows, but does not mandate, Pittman-Robertson funds to be used for target ranges. But none of these small discretionary provisions offset the potential damage this does to the rights of individual landowners.
(3) THE ISSUE OF LOST OPPORTUNITY:  If this is the Democrats’ sop to gun owners, it may make it a lot more difficult to secure national concealed carry reciprocity or to stop anti-gun measures and treaties.

THE CENTRAL PROBLEM WITH S. 3525

The central problem with the bill is that it allows seizure of private lands for “aquatic habitats” [Sections 201(8) and 204 (d) (2)]. The definition of this term is limitless and includes seizure of lands in order to “protec[t] the quality and quantity of water sources” and to “serv[e] as a buffer protecting the aquatic environment.” [Section 201 (2)]
Thus, a factory that “pollutes” can be seized to protect an “aquatic habitat.” The only real limit on seizure in Section 204 is the requirement that the government manage the seized property “in accordance with the purposes of this subtitle.”

WHO ARE THE DECISION MAKERS?

The National Fish Habitat Board consists of 27 members. The initial members (Obama appointees) select the remaining members. Thus while the “commercial fishing industry” supposedly has a representative, you can bet that that fisherman is an Obama-supporter and will support his agenda.
The board then enters into “partnerships” with, inter alia, outside groups. And you can bet that every liberal environmental organization in the country will now be feeding at this pig sty. The outside groups recommend fish habitat programs and plans for seizing private lands.
Bottom line:  This will give immense powers to unelected bureaucrats –– a clear violation of the Separation of Powers which our Founders implemented as a way of protecting our rights.

WHAT ABOUT SECTION 211 (e) (2)?

This supposedly requires the consent of landowners prior to having their lands seized. But, note the sneaky loophole: Section 211 (e) (2) applies only to property that is being seized with federal funds and, under Section 204 (e), half the funds need to come from non-federal sources.
So while this section is put forward as a “protection,” it actually doesn’t provide total immunity because the government can take a land owner’s property using non-federal funds –– and there is no protection in the bill against that.

Well much to the dismay of all the conspiracy theorists and panic buyers, OHB hasn't done anything anti-gun yet to my knowledge.





Obama is gonna take our guns....panic!!!!





4 years later





Obama never took our guns and is now supporting pro-gun legislation ......panic!!!!!!









 

You must not be able to read between the lines...........or even

read the bullshit about more government bureaucracy





 

Yes, and GOA's response. You're willing to be bought off?

 

I'd say it's Obama's way of saying later when the anti-gun stuff starts going around that he is pro-second amendment. He supports guns...just not those pesky, child killing assault rifles.

I am slightly less worried about the gun issues with bill as much as the potential private property seizure. Especially since part of my property is bordered by a river.

Every private property owner in the nation should be concerned about this bill's implications.

I do not trust the man.  He has no credibility with me.  Oh, and FBHO.  

This has Agenda 21 written all over it.

one for aimless







 

Sucking up to the Fudds. Fudds are not to be trusted.