Heads up! New BLM regs proposed

[Jamie.270]

http://www.usnews.com/ne...ooters-off-public-lands

http://www.fws.gov/whhcc...hootingsportspolicy.pdf

So, if an "anti" is on the staff of your local BLM office,  it appears they will be given the authority to close area(s) on a  "temporary" or even permanent basis.

Because someone called them over the sound of "gunfire".

Don't hesitate to write your congress critter, or the white house.

[gitano]

I don't think this legislation is going to pass, BUT... It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to call or write your various elected legislative officials and let them know how you feel about this.

This is already the 'nature of things' outside this country and it is already here in small, but growing pockets. This week in Anchorage, a bunch of Equus assinus's initiated a political drive to outlaw ALL fireworks in the Anchorage municipality. The reason: It scares their horses. First, one of them had the gall to point out that "I moved here from Connecticut..." Then GO BACK THERE where your horses aren't scared. Second, if fireworks aren't going to be allowed in the municipality, then I want livestock out of the municipality.

The point is; "I'm freaked out by the sound of gunfire" - the reason the BLM is using to close public land, and "It scares my horses" or "It's for the children", or "It's a matter of safety", have become the easy way to get something you don't like outlawed. If you want to see how this turns out, just look at the UK or Canada or Australia or New Zealand, or HERE in too many places.

While I loathe all the "law-making", that's not what galls me the most. I'm sick of jerks moving away from their "homes" because they can't stand it there any more and coming into my "yard" and telling me I have to change because their tender sensibilities - THAT THEY BROUGHT WITH THEM - are offended!

Paul

[Jamie.270]

Unfortunately Paul, this isn't legislation, from what I gather, it will be done either by executive order or administrative rule.
The reason I am writing my congress critters is to inform them that the BLM needs to be DE-funded if they proceed with this fiasco.

But I do agree that the "mincing ninnies" and the "hand wringers" need to get together on a pilgrimage back to where they came from!

[gitano]

It is true that it is "regulations" being drafted by the Department of the Interior. When I read about it the first time, there was mention of a couple of bills before the Congress on the matter. At the moment, I can't find the pathway I used to get to those comments.

Regardless, it is important to contact one's elected parasites and let them know how you feel on the subject - law or not. This regulation may lead to elevated civil disobedience including harm to the government agents that first try to implement such regulations (the bureaucrats in their offices), and then to those that attempt to enforce it in the field.

The fundamental gulf between urban socialists and rural regular folks is widening every day. My guess on where it is going, is serious and widespread violence. The world is fractured, and when it finally 'breaks', it is going to be very ugly. I have no particular confidence that truth, justice or Right, will win out. I do have confidence though that the "winners" will CLAIM that Truth, Justice, and Right did prevail. Just as the traitorous sons of bachelors that gutted the Viet Nam war effort have rewritten the history of the time to paint themselves as "righteous" and "justified". I was "there". One out of maybe every 10,000 of them were 'genuine'. The rest were spoiled brats looking for a way to avoid having to leave college. They were NOT "right", and they harmed this country more than even the Soviets could have hoped for.

The fact that the government agents are even contemplating this illustrates the fundamentally HUGE philosophical differences between the politically elite (socialist urbanites) and the politically disenfranchised, non-urban, individuals.

I could be wrong, but think "it" is going to get ugly. Very, very ugly.

Paul

[LvrLover]

Paul, I know this is off thread but the bit about Vietnam is interesting. I am way to young to have been around at that time, but from what I have read and watched the Vietnamese trusted us to help them against the communists and when we couldn't handle it politically anymore we bailed on them and left them to die. Literally. When I was a kid we lived next to some Laotians. The father was a colonel if I remember right and they would have killed his whole family if he had stayed. We remember with disgust(and rightly so) the Holocaust in Germany, but very few mention the millions killed in Southeast Asia by the communists. This brings up a question I have been mulling over. When should a country "help" another county? Our own country wouldn't exist if it wasn't for France. Of course they were acting in their interest ,too. Maybe that is part of it.  Involvement in "helping" another county should hinge on its furthering our own affairs?  And is there a time for individuals who believe they can help to do so(aka volunteers or mercs), even if it is inadvisable for a whole country to do so? Every question brings another. I am reminder of several Bible verses. Jn15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." James 2:16 "And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?" Of course this comes from a man who has never had to take up arms to defend anyone. Input anyone?

[gitano]

I have given your question: "When should a country "help" another county?" a lot of thought. The last "good" war we were involved in was WWII and we were BEGGED for years to join the fray. It wasn't until we were directly attacked that we 'engaged'.

I think that is a good foreign policy.

It can be proven that "Viet Nam" "asked" for our help against the communists. However, who EXACTLY was this "Viet Nam" that asked for help. Was it some petty little dictator that conveniently FOR US "asked" for assistance against "the communists"? Too often that is the case. I actually could go on for quite bit expressing my opinions on this relatively complex matter, however, I think I can sum my perspective up fairly easily:

If you "hit" me, I am going to "hit back", and I am going to hit back AS HARD AS I CAN. That means complete annihilation of you if I can pull it off.

If you "hit" my ally, AND my ally ASKS for my help NOT TO KEEP SOME PUPPET IN POWER, but to rebuff an invasion, then and only then will I offer my children's lives in defense of YOUR country.

Otherwise, I'm staying in my own 'yard' and letting "the people" defend themselves.

Paul

[Jamie.270]

Apparently Salazar and the Dep. of Interior backed off under pressure from sportsman's groups!

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/23/interior-reverses-course-no-shooting-restrictions

[klallen]

got the news from sci.
 
it was a doomed idea, anyway.
 
but we gotta stay on our toes.  that's for sure.
 
 
 
 
k

[buffalo bob]

the viet nam that asked for help was the corrupt government of the south.  the everyday cuitizens could have cared less who was in charge as long as they had food and shelter for their families.  most of the VC were local farmers who donned their "capes and masks" at sun down to become anti american fighters.  we lost a lot of troops because of a political group in washington wanting to assure the success of a very corrupt south viet namese governing group.  much like afghanistan.  

[gitano]

Yup, AND because we didn't 'fight to win', AND... well, I'll let it go at that.

Paul

[noel]

I don't think it was winnable anyway.with soviets and the chinese a war of attrition was not possible and nobody was going to push the button.we probably wouldn't be here today if it had escalated!