Light Reading

[Vince]

With the Supreme Court we currently have we might be able to get the western lands back in the hands of it’s rightful owners.

Understanding the Constitution: Why most federal land holdings are unconstitutional and why you should care - Independence Institute

Here’s the most important underlying cause of the fires: federal land ownership.

i2i.org

 

[clearwater]

Much of the worst wildfires are not traditional woodlands anymore. They are now in cities and towns and ag land, private property where damages are much more expensive.

Writer dismisses lands not National Parks as scrub and woodlands of little use.

States don't have resources to manage large amounts of land.

Private owners won't guarantee good wildlife habitat, fire reduction, weed control, pollution control, recreation opportunities for the general populace.

The idea that Federal Lands are not in the constitution is pretty obtuse, not real obvious.

Perhaps we should go back to the ignored agreements of the last two centuries and return land to the original inhabitants. The local tribes seem to be doing a great job with habitat and rebuilding species that were once extirpated.

 

[Vince]

“States don't have resources to manage large amounts of land.”

That’s a fallacy dreamed up by the libtards that want a big federal government. If they had the land they would have the resources from that land.

Vince

 

[Vince]

If anyone here can’t guess I want a much smaller federal government.
If you read how they wrote their missives between each other you would see that our founders never intended for the federal government to own land. It was intended to belong to the states.

Vince

 

[username J]

Limited government is the reason we never had an income tax until WW2…..

And that was supposed to be eliminated after the war was paid for , see how govt works.

 

[salmonchaser]

First income tax was 1862, President Lincoln. 16th Amendment to the constitution, 1909 to 1913, somewhere in there authorization for income tax.
Oregon, only 7 of 36 counties are blue, has long maintained it can't hardly manage the lands it has, much less absorb about half the land mass of the state that is either USFS or BLM.
Only reason some in state government want the land is to sell it to private entities.

 

[Guy Miner]

I am worried about what happens to our "public lands" if they're returned to the states...

I suspect that much of it will be sold off to the highest bidder, becoming condos, resorts, etc... With no hunting or fishing allowed.

Our public lands are the closest thing we've got left to the old days when the entire west was untamed.

Guy

 

[username J]

Post ww2 was realistically the first income tax on average Americans. Until then, an income tax wasn’t on most people’s vocabulary. Previous, Only the wealthiest of Americans paid any tax. And those taxes were repealed.

History of taxation in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Wolfshead]

I am worried about what happens to our "public lands" if they're returned to the states...

I suspect that much of it will be sold off to the highest bidder, becoming condos, resorts, etc... With no hunting or fishing allowed.

Our public lands are the closest thing we've got left to the old days when the entire west was untamed.

Guy

This is my greatest worry as well.
I can see my state weaponizing this to further its gun control agenda.
If you can’t hunt then why do you need a firearm….
But as Guy has said, “Our public lands are the closest thing we got left to the old days….”
To me that is a lot of the allure of hunting, being out in the woods/forest/nature and away from the “S#17 show” of the modern world.

 

[username J]

This is my greatest worry as well.
I can see my state weaponizing this to further its gun control agenda.
If you can’t hunt then why do you need a firearm….
But as Guy has said, “Our public lands are the closest thing we got left to the old days….”
To me that is a lot of the allure of hunting, being out in the woods/forest/nature and away from the “S#17 show” of the modern world.

2A has NOTHING to do with hunting. It’s your last stand against tyranny, foreign and domestic….

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

 

[Wolfshead]

You are absolutely correct it isn’t!
But that doesn’t stop the left from using hunting (or banning hunting) to get rid of firearms.
What is there biggest comment in regards to firearms
“Why do you need (insert firearm or caliber or number of here) for hunting”

 

[salmonchaser]

One of my nieces worked for Senator Patty Murray (wa) for 10 or more years. We’ve had plenty of conversations regarding hunting, gun control and the second amendment. Overlooking the connection between the two would be foolish on our part. There is significant political energy at work in both Oregon and Washington to attack hunting and limit access to firearms. The two are inextricably linked.

 

[username J]

You are absolutely correct it isn’t!
But that doesn’t stop the left from using hunting (or banning hunting) to get rid of firearms.
What is there biggest comment in regards to firearms
“Why do you need (insert firearm or caliber or number of here) for hunting”

That was my point. You don’t justify their false narrative by answering their question . You set the narrative of truth. Hunting is a privilege. Don’t pin your RIGHTS to a privilege…

 

[Wolfshead]

That was my point. You don’t justify their false narrative by answering their question . You set the narrative of truth. Hunting is a privilege. Don’t pin your RIGHTS to a privilege

I don’t believe I am pinning my rights to a privilege.
The point I’m trying to make is that the state I live in, may very well be using my “privilege” to justify taking away my rights.

 

[username J]

And the counter is my point. You don’t let them stear the narrative that your rights are pinned to a privilege . In other words, 2A and hunting should never be in the same conversation. When they say “ why do you need an xyz weapon to hunt?…”
The response should always be “my need to own xyz has nothing to do with hunting. Owning xyz is my right that shall not be infringed “

They already have “the power “ to regulate what you use for hunting.

 

[Wolfshead]

OK thanks

 

[Vince]

Most of us are selfish and thinking only of OUR use of the land.

While I wouldn’t like it I would give up hunting to have a government like our forefathers intended. Lots of things are more important than our own narrow self interest.

Vince

 

[Wolfshead]

I believe that federal lands are intended for the people.
To give it back to the states is potentially taking it away from the people.
Keep public lands in public hands and not give it to some politicians who want to sell it off to the highest bidder.
“to have a government like our forefathers intended” most States nowadays, it seems, are trying to move as far away as they can from that model.

 

[Vince]

I believe that federal lands are intended for the people.
To give it back to the states is potentially taking it away from the people.
Keep public lands in public hands and not give it to some politicians who want to sell it off to the highest bidder.
“to have a government like our forefathers intended” most States nowadays, it seems, are trying to move as far away as they can from that model.

It was only after the War Of Northern Aggression that the government started really acquiring land.

They did this for monetary reasons. Don’t believe me? How much federal land is there east of the Mississippi River? Answer: Not much.

This was done to reap the financial rewards of timber leases, mining and oil leases, and grazing fees. The only way the western states would be admitted to the Union was to surrender their rightful property to the federal government. Thus treating the western states as subjects and not full citizens.

Vince