Bowsite.com

Trump nominated William Perry Pendley who was a anti-science coo coo lawyer who advocated selling off federal lands.

I wish politicians would leave politics out of their nominations and just pick the right person for the job.

Same s#%t different day.

If you are a hunter then you are welcome at my camp regardless of your politics.

2- Member when obama/biden deported more illegals than any other president in history? "I member." Do i expect you to remember? No. Why? Because you and much of the right like to cherry pick the fragments of reality that you allow to ping pong around in your brain.

3... Did I ever say I voted for Biden? No. Now am I glad Biden is president over trump? Unequivocally yes. Did I vote for him? unequivocally no....

But alas that doesn't matter, you sheeple have been conditioned that anything the left does is bad anything the right does is good even if it's the same thing that the left did.

I mean how at this point do you still support trump(see above point.) And I mean out of principle.... he's lied so much. Virus not real... fake... not deadly... going away by Easter. Rofl, how many times can a person lie to your face before you stop following them and putting stock in their word?

Still waiting on that wall of avocados to keep these illegals out that trump promised(lied about).

But sure go trump... as the jesus and Allah said "if the ends justifies the means, then by all means raw dog a porn star while married and fund abortions throughout your personal life"

Really though if you still support trump, you're just anti American I'd gladly trade you out for a Haitian or guatamalan

There. Fixed it for ya.

So anyways...this was about an eco-terrorist being the nominee for the BLM. Not the border. However, since are down on your knees fluffing Obama/Biden admins, understand this. There is another ~80K "refugees" heading this way. The landed in Colombia. Which means they are crossing like what, 5 different countries. Which means they have help from those governments to invade our borders. Notice they didn't head for the socialist utopias of Cuba (which is much closer) or Venezuela, right across the border from Colombia. No, they head for the land of true free milk and honey.

"Rofl, how many times can a person lie to your face before you stop following them and putting stock in their word?"

I don't know, you tell me. I mean you're worshiping at the altar of $3.5T = 0. Get a box of kleenex and wipe your chin when you're done.

And if you'd like to try and deport me in favor of a Haitian refugee, "Say when.."

Is it because they haven't tried? Or because they were unsuccessful in their attempts?

Maybe that illustrates one difference between an East Coast liberal and a Western conservative. Western ranchers appreciate men standing on their own hind legs and acting like a man. Libs applaud a man pretending to be a woman and then demanding special rights for making that choice.

Jaq- I think it’s called freedom. Freedom to live how you want as long as it’s not hurting anyone else.

Do ranchers really appreciate people trespassing on their land while in the process of asking permission to be on said land??? "Must be a western thing"

Yep, freedom for a man to take a leak in a girls bathroom. That's some real freedom, exactly as the Founding Fathers envisioned!

Ranchers have principles too, and one of those is to be able to look a man in the eye and take his measure before giving him thousands of dollars of value and the freedom to roam said land at will, unsupervised.

Agree 100%. Until my son can be thrown out of college for not using someone's preferred pronoun. You replace a pole with a hole then demand everyone call you she/her that's a YOU problem. Not a me problem.

Guess what, the letter clearly indicated wanting to meet in person to discuss more/any and all opportunities. In no way would I expect anyone to give me permission without meeting in person. "Rancher, rancher, rancher". Idk why I'm even explaining my logic/"sales pitch" style to you. You do you, but you do realize most people with mountain properties aren't "ranchers" right? When the millionaires land is in xyz location and his billing address is on the west coast, along with god knows how many other homes. Driving past the private property sign to wait to ask to be on his land is just stupid. Again, you do you.

You presume I have no back bone or honor/etc simply because I don't blindly vote republican, I value internet privacy, and don't go trespassing on peoples land to ask them if I can be on it. But hey, i bet you got a damn firm hand shake and that must mean you're an honest person/decent person(rolls eyes). I've met a lot of people from a lot of different walks of life, thieves, sleazy, and shady people come in all shapes and sizes and backgrounds... even ranchers.

Get off your high and mighty horse, you're not fooling anyone. It's a front.

Ramble on dude. Maybe something will stick eventually LMAO !

Anyone who is afraid of an internet bully because of something they posted is, well, what my rancher friend thinks of people who are too spineless to knock on a door, and instead write form letters.

I do me. You do you. I'm not scared to drive past a No Trespassing sign to park a respectful distance from the house, walk up to the door, and introduce myself. Yes, I have a firm handshake and am not afraid to look billionaires in the eye and speak to them man to man. In the case of my latest score last week. I knocked on the door of a neighbor of the (almost) billionaire and asked for his cell number. Then I started calling him and built a relationship over the phone. I offered to drive three hours to meet but he said that wasn't necessary. He finally gave permission and offered to let me hunt another property in a different unit next year.

I'm hunting deer this year on three contiguous ranches totaling around 18,000 acres because I asked for permission the way grown men do it here in the West. How's your strategy working out?

These people really have no shame. That would require honor and integrity. They are essentially phone scammers. And treated as such.

-- "I'm not scared to drive past a No Trespassing sign to park a respectful distance from the house..."

Do you literally not see the glaring hypocritical contradiction in that statement? Jesus christ. yup... "principles" Like I said, you lack them. That sums you and the repubs up pretty F@#$ well. "Do as I say not as I do" "Rules for thee, not for me". But allah knows if a dem did that you'd all cherry pick it and run with it all day b@#$ing and whining. Literally just as I described earlier. You're a walking talking tool bag spurting out shitty right wing bumper sticker slogans. Literally I don't care about how much land you get to hunt. You've told me your a millionaire already. Why the hell don't you have your own land to hunt lol? Also I don't believe you. You lose credibility when you try to justify violating someone's property, the law, in addition to loyally following someone who does just the same.

@TD... sure. I'm the russian bot here to stoke the flames and am not actually real. Whatever you got to tell yourself to sleep at night. The irony being all your alternative "news" sites are literally stoked by outside entities looking to inflame the easily manipulated right wing.

You can double that for percentage of Democrats.

But you could still own your hunting rifle. Because the 2A is about hunting, right? Right? BTW, there is no such thing as a semi-auto assault rifle.

Gotta go now, sweetheart. Opening day on the plains and I have to go glass about 30 square miles of land where I gained permission to hunt muleys and whitetails by not being a coward.

And I am not an @ anything. My name is Lou Phillippe. I am a real person with a history, accomplishments, and if you so choose you can do an internet search for my address, knock on my door, and kick me in the shins or whatever you soccer pussies do when your fragile sensibilities are offended.

Are there any limits to the 2A? Should Americans be allowed to own any weapon they want?

Let's start with the simple ones Ryan. I understand your desire to deflect and run to the "should citizens own nuclear weapons".

Should civilians be able to own the modern sporting rifle commonly known as the AR15 or AR10? Semi-auto, 20, 30 round mags. You know, the type of rifle that is lumped in with ALL long guns that account for ~400 murders each year. Which is a number far outpaced by cutting weapons and blunt objects, including fists.

It's a simple yes or no question.

Do you feel Americans should be allowed to own any weapon they want? Is there any limit at all to the 2A?

Notice these are yes or no questions but feel free to expand after answering yes or no.

There are a variety of weapons that can be owned now with appropriate licensing

Sure it does. See below.

"Is there any limit at all to the 2A?"

At one time, YOUR party banned the manufacture and ownership of AR's. So, the question remains. Should civilians be able to own modern sporting rifle? AR15's and AR10's. Start at the bottom and we can work up to the big things that go boom. I do understand your reluctance to answer.

I’ll bite.

“Should civilians be able to own modern sporting rifle?“

Yes, I think civilians should be able to own AR15s.

By the time this SOB so called president gets through we will be doing good to own a pellet gun. Think it wont happen? Look at us today..mandated vaccines by a damn tyrant that has no problem with illegals coming across the border..unvaccinated. These arrogant bastards think they are Gods. And they claim Trump was bad? Its so damn rediculous its almost funny. This SOB jas destroyed everything he has touched. Yes..it bothers me a lot because I have a 17 yr old daughter and grand kids that may have to live in a Marxist nation if people dont wake the hell up

Then why do you elect politicians that don't? Actively work to disarm people, from a local level to the national level. See the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban.

And it's not answering a question with a question. You started at the top, I prefer to start at the beginning and work up. The FF's intent was that the citizenry be armed the same as a standing infantry. They kinda had first hand experience with a a malevolent leader and enforced mandates by a standing army. You believe the natural progression of government is to cede more control and freedom to the citizens, when history shows the exact opposite.

We all know that there are many limits to the 2A even if you don’t want directly acknowledge it. The debate is where do we draw the line as a society and where are the limits. And people have different limits. So we debate it and decide as a democracy with 3 equal branches of government were the limits are in regards to the constitution. And the limits changes over time.

Acknowledge it or don’t…it doesn’t matter because that’s how it is. And I’m good with that.

Back to the OP. Crappy pick by Biden.

It gets spun from the mouths of hypocrites and egomaniacs alike. As if it’s a black and white subject. It isn’t. Nor is any staunch supporter standing in line to buy a nuclear weapon. Or, advocating it should be legal to do so.

It takes an ignorant person to devalue that discussion with such irrational thought. Yet, it happens every time a liberal mind enters a discussion concerning the 2A.

It’s why no common ground is ever reached. And, it’s why supporters refuse to budge from the” my cold dead hands”, analogy. It’s sad too. Because the aggression we see and feel towards our 2nd Amendment is spurred on by misconceptions and lies. And, with no support from 99% of current gun owners in this country, the 2A will continue to be chipped at by misinformed individuals and, politicians getting incentivized to continue to do so.

BTW, check out the cities n states that have the strictest gun control...they have a high crime rate. Common sense tells you it doesnt matter what laws you past because criminals dont care about the law. Like my daughter told her leftist grandma.." criminals by definition dont obey the law, they dony care what laws you pass ". Funny a 17 yr old gets it grown folks dont

No, that is part of the reason I got vaccinated. So we can get back to normal. Workers have choices: get the vaccine, go through testing, or quit and take a job that does not require vaccines.

Is it ok that common folks won't be able to get care due to firing the unvaxed workers?

No, I would like for all "common folks" to get health care. Even those who need immediate or emergency care who do not have covid. I agree that private companies can fire people for not being vaccinated. In regards to the federal mandate, I agree that health care workers should be made to get vaccinated or go through rigorous testing. I think if you have had COVID in the past an antibody test should be OK also. Without the mandate, unvaccinated health care workers could be asymptomatic and infect others seeking treatment for things other than covid. Patients are likely the most vulnerable and should expect hospitals to do everything they can to prevent infections while receiving treatment. Seems like common sense to me. It that constitutional, that is for the SCOTUS to decide.

If there is a shortage due to the mandate then those who would not get the vaccine or go through testing probably shouldn't be in health care in the first place. And we all will suffer the consequences.

Common folks would get health care if health care workers would get vaccinated or go through the testing procedures.

"I worked for her while she oversaw a state agency here in Montana. I can say with certainty that her actions as a child do not represent her today ( i bet many of us can say the same about ourselves). I worked on some very controversial mining projects with her and she was more than fair and never once represented some extreme left view point. Hands down she was the smartest director that department has had in a long time. She thought fast and make good decisions. I can't imagine another individual better qualified. Oh and before anyone makes assumptions about me I am a 3rd generation farmer from eastern MT....republican."

Gotta be some kind of obtuse or intentionally blind to NOT hear the quotes coming out of the House Plant you voted for, the party you support. In the last 9 months he's got a laundry list of bans I've very sure you are aware of. But you play the ignorance card quite often. Then out comes the deflection card.

Also well aware he would get those bans if not for folks like the ones here and across the country, the people who resist and fight those you support and fight against what they have planned. It's free country, mostly, support who you will. But you can't ignore the results of that support. Or deny your part in it.

"Nobody has lost their 2A rights yet..."

Not for lack of trying. It's like saying a drunk (with power) driver was harmless because somebody took away his keys. And House Plant is still shuffling, stumbling and mumbling around the house looking for them....

I also noticed you did not answer the questions either.

"Do you feel Americans should be allowed to own any weapon they want? Is there any limit at all to the 2A?"

I assume since you stated that you need a proper permit for some firearms that you recognize that in itself is a limit to the 2nd amendment. You also pointed out that felons can't own or posses firearms either. So the answer is no, Americans can't own any weapon they want. There are limits. And I agree with those limits.

Uninformed. LOL. You are either purposely obtuse or do not understand my direct question.

In addition, you did not specifically point out where I was wrong about anything on this thread. The premise is "can American's (notice this is all Americans and not just people with FFLs) own any weapon (e.g. garage built pipe bomb)" and the answer is no. You proved that point in your reply.

Clear it up for you?

“The USA will never be Australia, UK, or any EU land of Super Socialist entities where only the GVT has weapons. That YOUR sick fantasy. Not those or free people.”

Nice straw man argument. As if the exchange was about socialism or elimination of all guns. What a moronic idiot LMAO.

The 2nd amendment does have limits. No different than all other Amendments. Show me where the 2nd amendment says anything about FFLs or convicted felons. Those are limits we have put on the 2nd amendment.

Again and again you don’t refute any points I have made. Where in the 2nd A does it talk about FFLs?

Here comes the ad hominem attacks as usual. Some of us actually work during the week. Also, the front doesn’t get here until Saturday. My first sit in the stand will be tomorrow night. I’m not going to the stand until the bugs go away. Our first frost maybe Saturday morning. We have this buck hanging around with a somewhat decent pattern. My adopted son has never killed a whitetail buck so he gets first choice on stands locations. We will see if he can get an opportunity. I’m holding out for our annual Western KS mule deer hunt on family land. I’m taking a bowhunting rookie this year to see if we can get him his first deer. Giving back to keep the bowhunting tradition alive. Pass it on.

But nice try Shawn Magyar.

The fear tactics and hand wringing get so old.

Newsflash for you genius! ...Trump is no longer the president. At least act like you can keep up!!

So please, instead of over-expressing your TDS with us, share your list of wins and accomplishments from the current administration.

"So the answer is no, Americans can't own any weapon they want. There are limits. And I agree with those limits."

These limits you agree with, are they the federal limits or the myriad of anti-gun laws on a state level, such as Illinois, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland,... And exactly which limits do you agree OR disagree with.

Bowbender- I’m not going to go through all the gun laws. But a few things I agree with included convicted felons can’t own or possess, FFLs and permits for certain weapons, background checks for all gun sales/transfers. As far as the states, if it is constitutional then the states can do what they want. Aren’t you a conservative and want smaller federal government? Aren’t you for states rights? Overall I’m ok with discussion about the limits of the 2nd amendment as long as it is within the bounds of our constitution as determined by SCOTUS. The power and availability of weapons in the future will change. So will the limits and interpretation of the 2nd amendment by SCOTUS. That is our system and the genius of the constitution.

If new laws have the possibility of preventing another school or mass shooting then I’m willing to discuss it via our Democratic system. And preventing school shootings does not mean taking all guns from law-abiding citizens. The constitution says that’s not an option. But we must look for any and all solutions.

Agree on the felons. Still have a bit of an issue with background checks. Even though the records are to be purged they found in PA a few years back they were keeping the records for years.

My biggest disagreement comes from your position that if a law is passed to ban, restrict or what ever and it passes muster with the SCOTUS, that it's OK. No, it's not. The rights enumerated in the USC are just that. Enumerated. Listed. The right of self defense is an inherent right. So, since blacks were once considered 3/5's of a person you were cool with that decision until it was democratically changed?

As for your gotcha on states rights, I'm a firm believer in states rights. Go back over my previous posts on other threads when a national reciprocity law for CCW comes up I'm opposed. As much as I would love to see a nationwide CCW law, I'm a bigger believer in states rights. Feds giveth, feds taketh away. And if folks want to live in regressive states with restrictive laws and high crime rate, they shit in their bed, they can sleep in it.

"If new laws have the possibility of preventing another school or mass shooting then I’m willing to discuss it via our Democratic system."

Therein lies the issue. We already have what, 22K+ gun laws, fed, state, and local. Howzabout the next time police are called over thirty times to someones house it gets taken seriously. Or when a kid makes a threat to shoot up a school, a threat so serious it was forwarded to the FBI and they did nothing, a kid ****ed ten ways from Sunday, broke every existing law, so lets add another one to not enforce.

"The constitution says that’s not an option. But we must look for any and all solutions."

So which is it?

None of our laws have that ability now...so, what new laws do you recommend outside of adding armed security? Let's beat that dead horse again?!

Matt

No it was never ok but we did finally get it right. That is why the constitution is able to endure. Our 3 branches of government are made up of people and people are not perfect. But that doesn't mean we don't strive to be better and do better. Under the constitution, the framers gave us systems/tools to right the wrongs.

"So which is it?"

The 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms for the purpose of protection of person, property, and against our own government (as defined by hundreds of years of court decisions). The constitution clearly states we have an inherent right to do that. But I do not believe that means absolutely all weapons should be legal or possessed without a permit considering today's technologies. Should citizens be allowed to possess dirty bombs, ect? I don't believe so. And what about tomorrows technology? Should citizens be allowed to possess a fusion powered laser gun capable of killing 1000s in a second. No IMO. There is a balance between personal protection/safety vs public safety.

You do have some good points. Good post. Your opinion, my opinion, and other U.S. citizen opinions on the 2nd amendment are worth the discussion. Some things are clearly out of bounds...like disarming all citizens. Unless we completely throw out our constitution/2nd amendment and I will never be okay with that in any form. But there will always be a discussion regarding the 2nd amendment because the U.S. and weapon technology is ever changing. It's not static.

That is why I don't fall for the chicken little fear tactics pushed by some. Reps and senators can propose any bill they want. But until the 2nd amendment is abolished, American citizens will be allowed to possess weapons for personal safety. Which weapons...that is up for debate. Which is obviously true because the SCOTUS takes gun cases every year...that is debating/discussion.

KS and I do not see eye to eye on a lot. But we were having a decent discussion. Don’t get this thread locked, too.

Shawn please STFU. You are ruining my sunrise.

I remember in high school, many times we pulled up at the school quns in our trucks..never had a problem. Maybe its not the guns after all..

...Let's go Flatlander!!