Skip to main content

View Diary: Poll shows gun-control advocates need to educate Americans on what the NRA actually supports (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Damn. You're right (4+ / 0-)

    You made me curious, so I did some looking. This was perhaps the last attempt to eliminate wilderness areas that the NRA supported, a bill from 2011 that apparently died in committee. I read a scathing review of it here.

    Imagine what will happen to these roadless or less-accessible lands, now relatively pristine, with great hunting and fishing, as US population climbs to 450 million, an urbanized nation with no time, fitness or patience for horsepacking or hiking in. Say goodbye to the public lands trophy muley or bull elk or antelope, the fool hens, the gullible native cutthroats, the quiet camp in the coulee. Say hello to an America where the middle class hunter disappears because it’s too expensive to get access, and the public lands where access has been “guaranteed” by bills like H.R. 1581, are no more worth hunting than the old Soft Rock Creek section of state land behind my house in the Bitterroot Valley, which went from a piece of good grazing land, with long hikes through sagebrush and bitterroots, a few muleys, and enough Huns to keep a dog running, to an ATV playground, complete with beer cans, shot up computers and cars and washing machines. Eventually, one sad day in the late 90’s, some folks on the tail end of a long binge drove up there and dumped out the body of a worn-out meth head. The state gave up not long after that, and sold the section off. We lost our place to shoot, our place to walk, our place to hunt, our place to take our children. It only took a very few years, and a moderate uptick in the valley’s population.

    “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

    by tytalus on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:10:50 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  4.7% of U.S. land is designated wilderness... (6+ / 0-)

      ...which is 4.7% too much for some people.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:20:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The NRA were huge supporters of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus, annieli, anana

      Larry "Wide Stance" Craig back in the day. In fact Craig was caught in a mini-scandal where he had a photo taken for his campaign literature which featured him posing with a bunch of birds (quail as I recall) he had bagged even though he had never had an Idaho hunting license. Anyway, he needed some kind of photo like that to legitimize his support from the NRA. Because mostly the NRA supported him for his rabid anti-wilderness stance, like the time he stated "We need to run a 4-lane highway through the Frank Church wilderness." Craig was instrumental in acquiring the funding for hundreds of miles of logging roads in yet-to-be-designated wilderness areas, which effectively took those areas off the table for future wilderness consideration. And, of course, he had the NRA blessing in doing this.

      There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

      by frankzappatista on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:16:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site