Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

It funds state conservation departments. Pays for habitat. Some see no value in  anything they cant abuse for a quick buck. Jason Smith would probably make his granny walk the street to give handy's if the Farm Bureau said so. 

 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Gavin said:

Keep up your pinhead train of thought.

Who?  Me?  I'm just trying to form an honest, somewhat educated opinion.    

just because you paint something red doesn't convince me that it's an apple. 🤷‍♂️  I mean we're talking about something created though Congress for crying out loud.  

 

Posted
30 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

Who?  Me?  I'm just trying to form an honest, somewhat educated opinion.    

just because you paint something red doesn't convince me that it's an apple. 🤷‍♂️  I mean we're talking about something created though Congress for crying out loud.  

 

Let's assume, for a moment, that a percentage of the Pittman-Robertson money is being wasted.  These legislators want to repeal the act.  They want to cut off ALL the money.  Which means that they are cutting off the well-spent money with the wasted money.  Without replacing it with anything at all.  So why in the heck anybody who gives a crap about hunting, fishing, and conservation can be for this is simply beyond me.  It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

Posted

Hey, guys. The House did not move for this. 50 some odd Republicans filed a bill. They want to be able to tell their voters they tried to stop the evil taxes on their guns.

Phil, I respectfully suggest you cut this one off now.

Posted
26 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

Let's assume, for a moment, that a percentage of the Pittman-Robertson money is being wasted.  These legislators want to repeal the act.  They want to cut off ALL the money.  Which means that they are cutting off the well-spent money with the wasted money.  Without replacing it with anything at all.  So why in the heck anybody who gives a crap about hunting, fishing, and conservation can be for this is simply beyond me.  It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

So tons of wasteful spending should be allowed to continue......as long as a few pounds go towards the alleged intended purpose?  

Who confirmed that they have no intention to replace the PRA with anything that benefits wildlife conservation?     Who said, "to hell with the wildlife"?     

I bet nobody has that agenda.  

Making honest efforts to curtail wasteful spending is what y'all elected these people to do !!!!

Posted
2 minutes ago, rps said:

Phil, I respectfully suggest you cut this one off now.

If you don't mind, I'm trying to learn something here.  

Nobody is slinging mud.......yet. 

 

Well, I mean Gavin slung a little AT ME.....but I'm not offended by it.

Posted
Just now, fishinwrench said:

If you don't mind, I'm trying to learn something here.  

Fair enough.

Posted

Before I jumped to what this seems to be,…..I did a little research…….found this is….interesting 

In the background section of his press release detailing the bill, Clyde indicates that “Currently, an excise tax is applied at the manufacturer level for every firearm and all ammunition sold in the United States that is purchased by anyone other than the Department of Defense and state/local law enforcement. This tax infringes on Americans' ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights and creates a dangerous opportunity for the government to weaponize taxation to price this unalienable right out of reach for most Americans—a threat that is materializing by the day. Recently, Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) introduced the Assault Weapons Excise Act, which would impose a 1,000% tax on semi-automatic weapons.”

this is a move to stop a US style 1996 National Firearms Agreement in Australia

 

the NFA

 

  • Ban on importation, ownership, sale, resale, transfer, possession, manufacture, or use of all self-loading center rifles, all self-loading and pump action shotguns, and all self-loading rimfire rifles (some exemptions allowable to primary producers and clay target shooters)
  • Compensatory buyback scheme through which firearm owners would be paid the market value for prohibited firearms handed in during a 12-month amnesty
  • Registration of all firearms as part of integrated shooter licensing scheme
  • Shooter licensing based on requirement to prove “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, including occupational use, demonstrated membership of an authorized target shooting club, or hunting (with proof of permission from a rural landowner)
  • Licensing scheme based on five categories of firearms, minimum age of 18 years, and criteria for a “fit and proper person”
  • New license applicant required to undertake accredited training course in firearm safety
  • As well as license to own a firearm, separate permit required for each purchase of a firearm subject to a 28-day waiting period
  • Uniform and strict firearm storage requirements
  • Firearms sales to be conducted only through licensed firearm dealers and all records of sale to be provided to the police
  • Sale of ammunition only for firearms for which purchaser is licensed and limitations on quantities purchased within time period.

“we Reducing overall firearm ownership was not an explicit goal of the NFA, but that result appears to have followed. According to the International Crime Victim Survey (van Dijk, van Kesteren, and Smit, 2007, p. 279), the household firearm ownership rate around the time of the legislation (1995–1998) was 15.3 percent, which decreased to 8.7 percent in 1999–2003 and 6.2 percent in 2004–2005. The decrease in handgun ownership specifically over this period was more dramatic. The rate was 8.1 percent in 1995–1998 but then fell to 1.1 percent in 1999–2003 and 0.3 percent in 2004–2005. Alpers and Picard (2020) provide additional data compiled from multiple sources and show that the percentage of Australian residents who were licensed firearm owners decreased from 6.52 percent in 1997 to 3.55 percent in 2016 and that the percentage of registered firearms per population decreased from 17.59 percent in 1996 to 12.57 percent in 2016. The number of registered firearms decreased from 3.2 million in 1996 to 2.2 million in 2001 before rising again in 2017 when it was estimated to again be 3.2 million.”

 

its not the mean old Republicans just want a free hand to combat greens in the name of corporate abusers ( sometimes that seems to happen) but progressives have long sought to duplicate Australian success in getting guns out of the public hands….PR has been great for outdoorsmen, but if you haven’t noticed the weaponization of all things federal….they seem to think people in fly overstates can be fed disinformation as fact…and it seems PR might be a casualty…..don’t have an answer it’s lose lose….

MONKEYS? what monkeys?

Posted
3 hours ago, MoCarp said:

Before I jumped to what this seems to be,…..I did a little research…….found this is….interesting 

In the background section of his press release detailing the bill, Clyde indicates that “Currently, an excise tax is applied at the manufacturer level for every firearm and all ammunition sold in the United States that is purchased by anyone other than the Department of Defense and state/local law enforcement. This tax infringes on Americans' ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights and creates a dangerous opportunity for the government to weaponize taxation to price this unalienable right out of reach for most Americans—a threat that is materializing by the day. Recently, Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) introduced the Assault Weapons Excise Act, which would impose a 1,000% tax on semi-automatic weapons.”

this is a move to stop a US style 1996 National Firearms Agreement in Australia

 

the NFA

 

  • Ban on importation, ownership, sale, resale, transfer, possession, manufacture, or use of all self-loading center rifles, all self-loading and pump action shotguns, and all self-loading rimfire rifles (some exemptions allowable to primary producers and clay target shooters)
  • Compensatory buyback scheme through which firearm owners would be paid the market value for prohibited firearms handed in during a 12-month amnesty
  • Registration of all firearms as part of integrated shooter licensing scheme
  • Shooter licensing based on requirement to prove “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, including occupational use, demonstrated membership of an authorized target shooting club, or hunting (with proof of permission from a rural landowner)
  • Licensing scheme based on five categories of firearms, minimum age of 18 years, and criteria for a “fit and proper person”
  • New license applicant required to undertake accredited training course in firearm safety
  • As well as license to own a firearm, separate permit required for each purchase of a firearm subject to a 28-day waiting period
  • Uniform and strict firearm storage requirements
  • Firearms sales to be conducted only through licensed firearm dealers and all records of sale to be provided to the police
  • Sale of ammunition only for firearms for which purchaser is licensed and limitations on quantities purchased within time period.

“we Reducing overall firearm ownership was not an explicit goal of the NFA, but that result appears to have followed. According to the International Crime Victim Survey (van Dijk, van Kesteren, and Smit, 2007, p. 279), the household firearm ownership rate around the time of the legislation (1995–1998) was 15.3 percent, which decreased to 8.7 percent in 1999–2003 and 6.2 percent in 2004–2005. The decrease in handgun ownership specifically over this period was more dramatic. The rate was 8.1 percent in 1995–1998 but then fell to 1.1 percent in 1999–2003 and 0.3 percent in 2004–2005. Alpers and Picard (2020) provide additional data compiled from multiple sources and show that the percentage of Australian residents who were licensed firearm owners decreased from 6.52 percent in 1997 to 3.55 percent in 2016 and that the percentage of registered firearms per population decreased from 17.59 percent in 1996 to 12.57 percent in 2016. The number of registered firearms decreased from 3.2 million in 1996 to 2.2 million in 2001 before rising again in 2017 when it was estimated to again be 3.2 million.”

 

its not the mean old Republicans just want a free hand to combat greens in the name of corporate abusers ( sometimes that seems to happen) but progressives have long sought to duplicate Australian success in getting guns out of the public hands….PR has been great for outdoorsmen, but if you haven’t noticed the weaponization of all things federal….they seem to think people in fly overstates can be fed disinformation as fact…and it seems PR might be a casualty…..don’t have an answer it’s lose lose….

Well there you go wrench.  Happy now that you know the move has zero to do with agencies wasting their money?  You should know by now that these sorts of efforts are nearly always craven in their origins.

Posted

Is there waste involved in the PR money distribution? Absolutely as there is waste in every Govt spending right on down to local levels, hell I have waste in my personal spending.  However the goal should be not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", but to remove waste and clean it up.  PR is a criticalfunding source for many states.  And yes it is only a proposal that has zero chance of going anywhere just like dozens of proposals or bills that are filed every session and die a well deserved death.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.