|
Post by huntnprayn on Sept 16, 2008 9:46:21 GMT -5
[/quote
To what bill do you refer? I'd like to know about it. The biggest hunting restriction I can think of that receives bi-partisan support is the dreaded OBR. (yes, people, it is a hunting restriction, no matter if you support it or not)
[/quote]
This is not a hunting "restriction". It is part of a management plan....plain and simple. If this is a restriction then having seasons is a restriction. Not allowing Sherman tanks is a restriction.......Pittman Robertson is a restriction. It's here to stay......it is a "management plan".
|
|
|
Post by firelt72 on Sept 16, 2008 9:50:09 GMT -5
I think you need to see the big picture and that is to many people don't do the fact searching themselves, they listen to someone else. Look at the unions (I am in a union and support my local) they lean left more times than not. Here in Indiana some of the unions are actually supporting Mitch, which is a change. The point is the unions have a history of telling the membership to vote D and they do. A lot of those guys are as was stated earlier very conservative, but they listen to someone else and don't think it through. Are all R's perfect, no way. They have all made bad mistakes. My concerns are 2nd admendment, Life, taxes and smaller gov (Now W has not shrunk the gov in 8 years...). The R stand with the majority of those issue I have D's are against those issues. That is why I vote the way I do and support those I support. Do I agree with hunting bans; not usually. I am not 100% up on the Geist case, but I know there is a huge population issue there...could safety be the cause. I don't know the answer and I am willing to listen.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Sept 16, 2008 10:52:05 GMT -5
Safety was not an issue, if it was they would ban the pleasure boaters, jet skis, and the rest that have a proven record of arrest, injuries, and death. It was all about anti gun anti hunting.
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Sept 16, 2008 11:38:09 GMT -5
I think it had more to do with people being woke up at the crack of dawn to the sound of gunfire and the associated "perceived" danger....a few bad eggs settin up practically in someones back yard, I'd get ticked too.
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Sept 16, 2008 13:43:20 GMT -5
IMO you are correct on the money Dave...... The ban on Marion Co. hunting on Geist was sponsored by Rep. Councilor Ginny Cain, and yes.....Brian Bosma (who lives @ Geist) supported it...however it was passed by the Democratic controlled Marion Co. City County Council. It never was about an attempt to take away our guns, or about safety, it was purely that people didn't like the gunfire @ 7am....... just like they don't like the gunfire from the Indiana Gun Club that sits just NE of Geist. They've tried to get that shut down, but they have been unsucessful to this point. Geist is still more than 50% open to hunting as the Council has no jurisdiction over the Hamilton Co. side of Geist. Enjoy it for now though....because if "Geist" is annexed by Fishers and/or a town of "Geist" is created you can bet they will have a no shooting ordinance that will encompass the remainder of the reservoir........and that has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Sept 16, 2008 14:11:11 GMT -5
[/quote To what bill do you refer? I'd like to know about it. The biggest hunting restriction I can think of that receives bi-partisan support is the dreaded OBR. (yes, people, it is a hunting restriction, no matter if you support it or not) This is not a hunting "restriction". It is part of a management plan....plain and simple. If this is a restriction then having seasons is a restriction. Not allowing Sherman tanks is a restriction.......Pittman Robertson is a restriction. It's here to stay......it is a "management plan". [/quote] I thought management plans were the result of careful study together with imput from the public. Not a five year "Trial" that magically becomes another five year "trial" and will no doubt quietly become permanent. It's not so much the idea as it the way it was done that irritates people. I call it a restriction because it is new AND unnecessary. We are going to do ourselves in with this "hunting Video" management quackery. Pretty soon we will only be able to shoot ten pointers with 25" spreads anyway. We won't need Democrats or Republicans to ban hunting for us. Back on topic, any hunter that votes for most Democrats out there is NUTS.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Sept 16, 2008 14:15:13 GMT -5
Marion County side Geist hunting ban. Like I said it was a local push led by a Republican and openly supported by Brian Bosma at the time Republican Speaker of the House. Not much different then what Democrat Fry is attempting to do, but the republicans succeeded!!! Look at money and votes, that is the only thing either party works for. That is unfortunate. Don't they know, pardon the pun, that they are "shooting themselves in the foot?"
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Sept 16, 2008 15:42:32 GMT -5
I am 100% pro-life (as many around here can tell you) and disagree with McCain's voting record on the issue, but I am still voting for him in this election because he is a way better choice than Osama and I identify with Sarah Palin's views.
In response to my previous point--it may just be my view, but it seems nowadays that the typical liberal is way more liberal than the typical conservative is conservative. It seems to me that the liberal party has become way more liberal than the conservative party has become conservative.
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Sept 16, 2008 16:40:03 GMT -5
It seems to me that the liberal party has become way more liberal than the conservative party has become conservative. Nice to know that there are still a few of us Conservative Republicans around that long for the good ol' days of when a Conservative was REALLY conservative.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Sept 16, 2008 19:24:48 GMT -5
I guess the blinders work just fine. Republicans spearhead the ordinance and it gets blamed on the democrats. A democrat tries to fight the same fight due to the same reasons on the St. Joe and he is an evil gun grabber...I guess I need some of those glasses you wear BSU. I agree most things are not about dem or republican but money and votes.
TrapperDave, are you agreeing with the hunting ban on geist? What limitations would you place or agree to due to population density? I bet Democrat Fry would like your imput on that as well.
Folks I am just pointing out one case where a republican has led the fight to end hunting where it once was allowed. When I saw Bosma publicly support the rubbish I made a pledge to myself that I will never forget my enemies. I never hunted marion county, only hunted Hamilton Co once or twice. I lost nothing but some did, like it or not.
What was the last Democrat led ordinance or law that succeeded in taking away hunting in Indiana or Indiana town?
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Sept 16, 2008 20:22:35 GMT -5
In response to my previous point--it may just be my view, but it seems nowadays that the typical liberal is way more liberal than the typical conservative is conservative. It seems to me that the liberal party has become way more liberal than the conservative party has become conservative. Both parties have moved to the left. The conservative wing of the Republican party has been MIA since Ronald Reagan left us and it was gasping for air until Palin was nominated. Even at that, The entire conservative movement in this country has edged further and further to the left for many years now to the point where , if judged by the standards of the 60's, it would be considered liberal. JFK would have to be considered a conservative by todays standards.
|
|
|
Post by powderfinger on Sept 17, 2008 5:27:12 GMT -5
A republican is nothing but an uninformed, ignorant Democrat. You just don't know it........ YET
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Sept 17, 2008 6:46:16 GMT -5
Duff..... I didn't "blame" the dems on the Geist ban, but the fact of the matter is that the dems controlled the council and the council passed the ban. The Geist situation and the St. Joe situation are NOT the same. Rep. Fry is not trying to ban hunting along a portion of the St. Joe, he IS however trying to create a set of criteria that bans hunting on rivers and streams ALL OVER Indiana. The Geist situation chaps my arse, but that chapping goes back 50 years when the water co. built the reservoir for the single purpose of a water supply and to provide recreation opportunities for everyone. The shoreline was NEVER to be developed or occupied... but anyway, this isn't about that situation.
I can appreciate your pointing out this case where a republican led the fight to end hunting.....and I'd venture to guess it's the ONLY case you can find. Now, if you want to look at the other side of the aisle you don't have to look too far to see when Angie Mansfield (D) tried to push an outright ban on firearm discharge in Marion County. Luckily after several close calls the proposal was shot down by the full council (including Ginny Cain who was behind the Geist situation). The Marion Co ban was CLOSE, but you asked about Dems that succeeded. Like Marion Co, Merriville recently came CLOSE but the proposal was defeated. I know Cicero just passed a ban on shooting (firearms and arrows) but I admit not knowing the political make up of their council, nor who authored the proposal. Without researching bans that are in place throughout Indiana I can't answer your question duff......but I'd bet the farm that over the past....10,20,30 years more Dems have put through the legislation that ends hunting and/or shooting than do Repubs.
|
|
|
Post by huntnprayn on Sept 17, 2008 8:19:40 GMT -5
[/quote To what bill do you refer? I'd like to know about it. The biggest hunting restriction I can think of that receives bi-partisan support is the dreaded OBR. (yes, people, it is a hunting restriction, no matter if you support it or not) This is not a hunting "restriction". It is part of a management plan....plain and simple. If this is a restriction then having seasons is a restriction. Not allowing Sherman tanks is a restriction.......Pittman Robertson is a restriction. It's here to stay......it is a "management plan". I thought management plans were the result of careful study together with imput from the public. Not a five year "Trial" that magically becomes another five year "trial" and will no doubt quietly become permanent. It's not so much the idea as it the way it was done that irritates people. I call it a restriction because it is new AND unnecessary. We are going to do ourselves in with this "hunting Video" management quackery. Pretty soon we will only be able to shoot ten pointers with 25" spreads anyway. We won't need Democrats or Republicans to ban hunting for us. Back on topic, any hunter that votes for most Democrats out there is NUTS.[/quote] I am not the one that turned this into OBR thread......I almost didn't post it for that reason alone............but, your reasoning would allow nothing short of management anarchy to be allowed since all laws, rules, and legislature are "restrictive". Agreed back to the discussion. I guess that we can agree that anyone that votes for most Democrats are nuts.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Sept 17, 2008 9:01:10 GMT -5
... Rep. Fry is not trying to ban hunting along a portion of the St. Joe, he IS however trying to create a set of criteria that bans hunting on rivers and streams ALL OVER Indiana. ... It most certainly is. He just moved it to a bigger scale. His proposal was to end waterfowl hunting on rivers that ran through an area of a certain population or population density. I just would like to hear of a successful ban on hunting that was led by democrats. I don't care about the ones that were close. I agree with you, most of the crap legislation pushed to end hunting or shooting is from democrats but the only one that is still fresh in my mind is from your friends of the GOP. I guess my point is: know who is against you, and don't believe that just because they claim to be a republican means they will fight for your hunting rights.
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Sept 17, 2008 10:31:53 GMT -5
a little common sense would go a LONG way here. Dont be shooting in heavily populated areas. Youre just asking for trouble when you do....like it or not, thats the way it is, and will always be.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Sept 17, 2008 11:18:48 GMT -5
I agree. Do you support making laws to restrict it? I don't.
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Sept 17, 2008 12:01:11 GMT -5
if thats what it takes then yeah I guess I do. Put yourself in the shoes of the homeowners. Do you have children? Do you want someone shooting guns around them? Or towards your house?
The idiocy of others can be thanked for 99 percent of the laws we have now. Sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by indybassin on Sept 17, 2008 13:30:05 GMT -5
A republican is nothing but an uninformed, ignorant Democrat. You just don't know it........ YET Just visit moveon.org and dailykos.com your daily dose of the Dem part. Sorry powder, your party isn't what it was in the 60's. I'm informed enough to know that Socialism and Marxism isn't for America.
|
|
|
Post by nodog on Sept 17, 2008 17:01:58 GMT -5
I'd be willing to bet that 95% of all members of anti-gun groups are Dems...... We in Indiana are represented by your 5% then. Sad but true, republicans led and won one of the most recent hunting bans. Started in the local level and was openly supported by Speaker of the House Bosma. I won't soon forget this. [/quote To what bill do you refer? I'd like to know about it. The biggest hunting restriction I can think of that receives bi-partisan support is the dreaded OBR. (yes, people, it is a hunting restriction, no matter if you support it or not) The vast majority of anti-gun & anti-hunting schemes that gain any support are supported by Democrats. If you don't know that, you must not read the news. I do not wave the flag of any party, but this destinction between the two on this issue could not be more obvious. True enough. The rub though is not in who's worse, but who really supports the hunter. From my stand none of them do. The Dem wants to take away rites the Rep. lets it become so expensive people can't afford it. The last time hunters supported Repubs. the state of Ill. thanked them by increasing a buck tag from the 200's to the 500's. Look at the state of things there today, it's worse. Neither party really cares about the hunter, just what they can get out of them.
|
|