22 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: Northeast Texas
Joined: 06/02/2004
Posts: 17
Kerry or Bush

Which one of these men are going to help the hunters and sportmans the most in the next 4 years?

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Kerry or Bush

I'd say neither. Hunting rights are won/lost at the municpal, county, and state level. Presidents need not apply, although admittedly how a president perceives hunting could impact non-hunter perception of hunting.

I have grave concerns that tort reform or limits on gun manufacturer liability would see the light of day under Kerry though. Bush can't even seem to overcome the lawyer lobbies on tort reform as it is.... but that is getting OT.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Kerry or Bush

This is a no-brainer. Kerry has voted for every piece of gun control legislation known to man. He's also opposed every effort at tort reform. And if that isn't enough, he's loved by the animal rightists for his record. In terms of voting record, he's the most liberal senator in Congress, which places him somewhere to the left of Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and Dianne "Turn Em All In" Feinstein.

And yet he thinks he can wipe all that off the books by shooting a pheasant or busting some pigeons for the press. As the saying goes, you can throw a cat in the oven, but that don't make it a biscuit. Mark my words -- if Kerry's elected it'll be disastrous for sportsmen.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Kerry or Bush

This has been making the rounds, but I'll post it here for those that haven't seen "This Land" yet.

http://www.jibjab.com/

It takes quite awhile to download on a dialup connection... worth the wait though.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Kerry or Bush

I agree with both bitmasher and expatriate.

Hunting rights battles are fought at the local/state level while anti gun laws are mostly on the national level and you can bet your last bullet that Kerry will do everything in his power to severely limit or control who, what and where firearms can be purchased or used.
Kerry is a man who believes that the Government knows whats best for us silly citizens and we are incapable of thinking and acting for ourselves. He'll find out differently in november.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Kerry or Bush
JTapia wrote:
Kerry is a man who believes that the Government knows whats best for us silly citizens and we are incapable of thinking and acting for ourselves.

You could make the same statement against bush with his continued support of the patriot act. Big government comes in many forms.

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
Kerry or Bush

Yes, they are both Big Government guys. They just have different ideas about what Big Government should be doing.

Nonetheless, if you want take a single-issue perspective and ask only which candidate is best for the shooting sportsman, I think it is very clearly Bush.

(This is not, however, a recommendation that you take a single-issue perspective.)

Offline
Joined: 06/18/2004
Posts: 66
Kerry or Bush

Kerry is definitely anti-gun. To me he is FRIGHTENINGLY anti-gun. I have read speculation that the next president -- be he Kerry or be he Bush -- will be nominating up to three Supreme Court justices as aging justices retire. Kerry is on record as viewing the 2nd amendment as addressing NOT an individual's right to keep and bear arms but rather the right of state militias to keep and bear arms. The idea of him nominating three US Supreme Court justices scares the hell out of me. Recall he was Lieutenant Governer under Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts.

Leaving gun ownership politics out of it, it is not so clear who is better for hunting. I know some feel strongly that Bush's policy of letting roads be established in National Forest areas where formerly (due to Clinton administration enactment of some sort) new roads were prohibited will be bad for western hunting. This may let in too many hunters. It may reduce habitat for elk. I'm not knowledgeable enough this matter to advocate strongly one way or the other, but I keep it in mind and wonder about it.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Kerry or Bush

The thing to take note of with Kerry is what he's campaigning on. From what you see in the media, he spent 4 months in Vietnam and won the war by himself in 1968, then ran for President in 2004.

What has he done in between? THAT'S what people should be looking at, but his campaign is running a cunning game of 3-card monte to keep voter attention away from that. So people miss things like his time as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant governor. He poses with a shotgun, and people forget all about his years of support for gun control in the Senate, or his close ties to Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, or Dianne Feinstein. He says he's been a hunter since he was twelve -- yet nobody in the press has the guts to ask him when he last went hunting prior to his presidential campaign.

Kerry's stance claiming to be pro-sportsman is a sham to suck votes out of hunters that don't bother to check his record. He has reversed his position on pretty much every issue, depending on who is in the room at the time. He's a political palm reader who senses what people want to hear and gives it to them. The Vietnam issue is a glaring example -- in 1971 he was throwing medals over the fence, protesting and proclaiming the shame of the Vietnam war. But now that the country's at war and it's a big issue, he embraces his service and parades himself as some kind of hero. He voted to send our troops into battle, then stabbed them in the back by voting against the funding they needed. He voted to slash intelligence budgets and handcuff the CIA under Clinton, then has the nerve to blame Bush for intelligence failures. He's running on the hope that the American People are too shallow to figure this stuff out. There's an old saying not to pee down my back and tell me it's raining...

Here's another issue -- tort reform and efforts to sue gun manufacturers out of business. Edwards is a lawyer who gained notoriety through the tobacco lawsuit business, and the Kerry/Edwards campaign has received enormous support from law firms in the tort industry. Is this who we want putting federal judges on the stand? Tough to be a hunter when nobody's making guns or ammunition anymore.

You've got to look beyond the rhetoric and study what Kerry doesn't want you to see -- his voting record as a politician. You'll see years of gun control, environmentalism, and animal rightism all over his record. To me, that's far more important than a couple photo ops and cleverly crafted rhetoric that sounds good but dodges the issue.

Regardless of everything else, you've got to give Bush credit for leading from his gut, saying what's on his mind, and then doing it. A Kerry presidency would see a lot of waffling, shifting policies, fuzzy rhetoric, and an all-out assault on the lifestyle we enjoy.

Offline
Location: St. Paul, MN
Joined: 02/07/2004
Posts: 90
Kerry or Bush

I'm surprised we haven't seen more of the gun control debate. I think Bush could hammer away at Kerry on this one and since Bush really can't run on anything he's done, it may be a good tactic to explain what Kerry could do if elected. Bush will have a hard time winning since people now realize he was wrong on Iraq, wrong on the economy, and wrong on the way he cut taxes. It's hard to give a guy credit for going with his gut when his gut has been wrong a lot. I'd like to see some "flip-flopping" on the part of Bush on some issues. It ok to admit a mistake, we are all human, but as Expatriate said, "don't pee down my back and tell me its raining". I guess W said it best, "Fool me once, shame on.......". Well, he tried to say it anyway.

Offline
Joined: 06/18/2004
Posts: 66
Kerry or Bush
MNHunter wrote:
Bush will have a hard time winning since people now realize he was wrong on Iraq, wrong on the economy, and wrong on the way he cut taxes.

I know from one angle it can be argued that you are right on these three points. However, I think it can be also argued that Bush is right on Iraq, right on the economy (some strong signs of economic recovery in some areas), and if the economy is recovering it would seem to argue that the tax cuts may be "right." However, this is not the forum in which I would debate these. And I'm a little uncomfortable with Bush on these matter too. I just want to state my opinion that it isn't so "black and white" as you suggest and that there is room for difference of judgment. Maybe your point is that undecided voters probably won't be likely to view these issues in a favorable light.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Assault weapons ban down for the countbitmasher409/17/2004 21:40 pm
Bush Talk - Bailout PollCVC009/24/2008 19:14 pm
My early morning buckrambo511/16/2005 20:41 pm
If George W. Bush was an idiot...cowgal2410/26/2009 18:11 pm
Cheney, Bush numbers risingexpatriate605/22/2009 09:43 am