• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
What a load of crap.

First, they want to ban.

Then they want to change their verbage to 'instead of driving 2 minutes, now they will only have to drive 15 mins'.

Come on, either way they are trying to limit shooting in those areas. Instead of taking a mile at first, they are will try for a yard; then next year another yard, then the next maybe the rest of the mile.

Incrementalism! :banghead:
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
America
What a load of crap.

First, they want to ban.

Then they want to change their verbage to 'instead of driving 2 minutes, now they will only have to drive 15 mins'.

Come on, either way they are trying to limit shooting in those areas. Instead of taking a mile at first, they are will try for a yard; then next year another yard, then the next maybe the rest of the mile.

Incrementalism! :banghead:

the correct term is progressivism.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,265
Location
In My Coffee
the correct term is progressivism.


You should research the term "Progressivism." You will find "Prigressivism" is not affiliated with a specific party (although it is attributed a Liberal connotation, but only by implication), but rather, it is an act which 'progresses' an agenda.

Liberals, as well as Conservatives are Progressives. Seriously, individuals need to not throw terms around unless they understand, at the least on a elementary level, what the meaning of the term is, and how the term is applied.

Regarding utilizing land for shooting. It does not appear, as the OP subject suggests, that "Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Land." The 'subject' is a blatant lie.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
America
You should research the term "Progressivism." You will find "Prigressivism" is not affiliated with a specific party (although it is attributed a Liberal connotation, but only by implication), but rather, it is an act which 'progresses' an agenda.

Liberals, as well as Conservatives are Progressives. Seriously, individuals need to not throw terms around unless they understand, at the least on a elementary level, what the meaning of the term is, and how the term is applied.

Regarding utilizing land for shooting. It does not appear, as the OP subject suggests, that "Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Land." The 'subject' is a blatant lie.

I understand the term very well and know full well it is not just one party or even just liberals. McCain and the Bush family are good examples of progressives in the Republican party. Why do you think libertarians hate them so much? I was, clearly, referring to those in government who incrementally change things in an attempt to push society in a direction instead of leaving society alone. One person said incrementalism, such a word lacks a reference to the wide array of government types that work in this way and the historical prospective.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
It does not appear, as the OP subject suggests, that "Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Land." The 'subject' is a blatant lie.

The article referenced in the OP directly, clearly, and most emphatically refutes your assertion:

"Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms." This is the key paragraph foes say could lead to shooters being kicked off public lands: "When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting."

Since these measures are undeniably supported by Obama, this most certainly appears that Obama is pushing shooters off public land, and is not, as you falsely allegate, a "blatant lie." If anything, it's the blatant truth, which relegates your comments into the bin of untruthfulness.

Your support of Obama is well-known here. When you have to resort to untruthful tactics in support of him, what kind of impression do you think that leaves any of us with respect to the integrity of Obama and anyone supporting him in this manner? Quite frankly, my impression of the integrity of this approach is rock bottom. It's not unrecoverable, but any attempt to justify the deceit only serves to further bury what little integrity may be left.

There are two ways to approach life:

1. Wade in with an ideal and use any and all means necessary to garner support for your ideal.

2. Gather as many facts as humanly possible and all the facts themselves to dictate the stance one should take and defend.

The former leads to lunacy. The latter leads to reality.
 
Top