Rei now

[Cant hit em]

Just got my REI Dividend today. DAMMMMMMMMMNNN!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I heard your donating it to the NRA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Jauwater]

I heard your donating it to the NRA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Lol, it’s like man, I’d like to stand for something right now. But I’d LOVE one of them $500 MTN Glow Tents too!!!! Haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

Lol, it’s like man, I’d like to stand for something right now. But I’d LOVE one of them $500 MTN Glow Tents too!!!! Haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Use the dividend and add nothing too it, then REI is paying you. Adding an additional expense to their bottom line is kind of standing for something as long as it’s your final transaction.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz,
We should all be in this together.Thanks for reading, Nick

That sword cuts both ways, friend.

I'm not the one running around patting myself on the back claiming I do so much for hunters then supporting crap that does just the opposite. I also didn't make the claim that the 2nd isn't about my deer rifle and hunting, the NRA said that, to me, as a hunter. Is that their version of "sticking together"???

The NRA is out of its depth when they try to meddle in things that I value as a hunter and public land owner...I don't need, or want, that kind of "help".

As I've stated several times, their specialty is the 2nd, I suggest they stick to that, as its an important issue too.

 

[Diesel]

That sword cuts both ways, friend.

I'm not the one running around patting myself on the back claiming I do so much for hunters then supporting crap that does just the opposite. I also didn't make the claim that the 2nd isn't about my deer rifle and hunting, the NRA said that, to me, as a hunter. Is that their version of "sticking together"???

The NRA is out of its depth when they try to meddle in things that I value as a hunter and public land owner...I don't need, or want, that kind of "help".

As I've stated several times, their specialty is the 2nd, I suggest they stick to that, as its an important issue too.

I'm gonna put you down as in the maybe some time in the future column.

 

[Trial153]

for those that think the 2nd cant or wont get repealed or amended...the constitution been amended 27 times ...that s roughly once every 9 years through out our history. Number 28 isnt going to be pretty when it happens but you better believe that there are alot of people that would galdly sign on to it being replealed.

 

[204guy]

Buzz attacking the NRA over public land is disingenuous at best you know it. They are 2nd ammendent oriented. If plt where to somehow occur far less than 50% of the hunters in the US would be affected. It's highly politicised, they stay out. Can't blame them.

Buzz since you're railing on the NRA over public lands what is you stance as the President of WY BHA on the banning of semi automatic weapons? Magazines over 10 rds? Not being able to purchase a semi auto until 21? Registration of all firearms?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Trial153]

I also think that the NRA lack of postion on PLT is discusting. And as life member i have expressed that several time via emails and phone call. Not to mention letters to the editors of the NAH magazine. I might as well piss in the wind as that would have been more productive in getting a response.
A common argument is the need based notition. Who needs an AR? Why does anyone need ...fill in the blanks. In any event you better believe that need carrys weight in with the simplistic masses we are dealing with. Take away our land to hunt and the need to firearms is greatly reduced and along come the "need" drum beaters.
And FYI this is coming from a guy that only bowhunts.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz attacking the NRA over public land is disingenuous at best you know it. They are 2nd ammendent oriented. If plt where to somehow occur far less than 50% of the hunters in the US would be affected. It's highly politicised, they stay out. Can't blame them.

Buzz since you're railing on the NRA over public lands what is you stance as the President of WY BHA on the banning of semi automatic weapons? Magazines over 10 rds? Not being able to purchase a semi auto until 21? Registration of all firearms?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Since when is stating facts attacking? Their silence on PLT is not because they care about hunters or public lands...follow the money, the dots aren't hard to connect. I can read sign with the best of them...

My stance, as a US citizen, is that the 2nd is constitutionally protected and a right that shouldn't be infringed upon, period. That's what the NRA should focus on, and if they did, then I would support them.

Instead though, they made the conscience decision to alienate a large block of the hunting public by telling them, over and over again, that the second isn't about hunting and deer rifles. I agree with them, so then stay out of issues that impact hunting and public lands if its not in your wheelhouse. They don't do that though, instead they "remain neutral" on the single most important issue involving hunting and public lands in my life-time. The only other supposed hunting organization that I can think of that has remained neutral on PLT is SFW...the rest are all vehemently opposed.

It makes absolutely zero sense to me that they can make a valid claim they support hunters then "remain neutral" on the most important issues that impact hunters...

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Since when is stating facts attacking? Their silence on PLT is not because they care about hunters or public lands...follow the money, the dots aren't hard to connect. I can read sign with the best of them...

My stance, as a US citizen, is that the 2nd is constitutionally protected and a right that shouldn't be infringed upon, period. That's what the NRA should focus on, and if they did, then I would support them.

Instead though, they made the conscience decision to alienate a large block of the hunting public by telling them, over and over again, that the second isn't about hunting and deer rifles. I agree with them, so then stay out of issues that impact hunting and public lands if its not in your wheelhouse. They don't do that though, instead they "remain neutral" on the single most important issue involving hunting and public lands in my life-time. The only other supposed hunting organization that I can think of that has remained neutral on PLT is SFW...the rest are all vehemently opposed.

It makes absolutely zero sense to me that they can make a valid claim they support hunters then "remain neutral" on the most important issues that impact hunters...

Good grief this whole paragraph contradicts yourself over and over.... you want them to stay out of hunting/public lands but then you're mad they take a neutral stance? You're disgruntled they told you the 2nd isn't about hunting rifles but then you're upset they're not dabbling one way on the PLT issue?

It's pretty easy for an organization like the nra to support hunters while not waving a public lands flag, especially considering not all hunters use public lands.

 

[dotman]

Since when is stating facts attacking? Their silence on PLT is not because they care about hunters or public lands...follow the money, the dots aren't hard to connect. I can read sign with the best of them...

My stance, as a US citizen, is that the 2nd is constitutionally protected and a right that shouldn't be infringed upon, period. That's what the NRA should focus on, and if they did, then I would support them.

Instead though, they made the conscience decision to alienate a large block of the hunting public by telling them, over and over again, that the second isn't about hunting and deer rifles. I agree with them, so then stay out of issues that impact hunting and public lands if its not in your wheelhouse. They don't do that though, instead they "remain neutral" on the single most important issue involving hunting and public lands in my life-time. The only other supposed hunting organization that I can think of that has remained neutral on PLT is SFW...the rest are all vehemently opposed.

It makes absolutely zero sense to me that they can make a valid claim they support hunters then "remain neutral" on the most important issues that impact hunters...

You lost me here, you want them out of everything hunting related but are mad they stay out of everything hunting related, as you would like?

 

[204guy]

Alright Buzz since you dodged my questions. Can you provide me with a link showing BHA stance on the 2nd. As a member I'm curious I'd never considered what it might be before.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

Good grief this whole paragraph contradicts yourself over and over.... you want them to stay out of hunting/public lands but then you're mad they take a neutral stance? You're disgruntled they told you the 2nd isn't about hunting rifles but then you're upset they're not dabbling one way on the PLT issue?

It's pretty easy for an organization like the nra to support hunters while not waving a plt flag, especially considering not all hunters use public lands.

Totally disagree with you...its not contradictory at all.

The NRA should stick to defending the 2nd and also quite pretending they care about hunters and public lands, they don't and they've said it.

If they did, they wouldn't have remained neutral on PLT...that simple.

You don't find it odd at all, that out of the dozens and dozens of hunting organizations out there, there are a total of 2 that say they support hunters/hunting that remained "neutral", the NRA and SFW?

I find that very odd of any group that says they support hunting and public lands and remain neutral on PLT...that's contradictory.

 

[BuzzH]

Alright Buzz since you dodged my questions. Can you provide me with a link showing BHA stance on the 2nd. As a member I'm curious I'd never considered what it might be before.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

How is this "dodging the questions?"

My stance, as a US citizen, is that the 2nd is constitutionally protected and a right that shouldn't be infringed upon, period.

 

[dotman]

Totally disagree with you...its not contradictory at all.

The NRA should stick to defending the 2nd and also quite pretending they care about hunters and public lands, they don't and they've said it.

If they did, they wouldn't have remained neutral on PLT...that simple.

You don't find it odd at all, that out of the dozens and dozens of hunting organizations out there, there are a total of 2 that say they support hunters/hunting that remained "neutral", the NRA and SFW?

I find that very odd of any group that say they support hunting and public lands and remain neutral on PLT...that's contradictory.

Hmm so the NRA can’t support hunters rights to use firearms without supporting all hunting initiatives, so I’m a member of BHA, why don’t you answer 204’s questions on BHA’s stance towards AR-15’s? I’m interested in this as well.

What is BHA’s stance on REI’s decision? Since this thread is about REI.

 

[BuzzH]

Hmm so the NRA can’t support hunters rights to use firearms without supporting all hunting initiatives, so I’m a member of BHA, why don’t you answer 204’s questions on BHA’s stance towards AR-15’s? I’m interested in this as well.

Because I'm not representing BHA on this issue or this site, I'm representing myself, which last time I checked is also a constitutionally protected right.

Pretty disingenuous to assume otherwise...

 

[dotman]

Because I'm not representing BHA on this issue or this site, I'm representing myself, which last time I checked is also a constitutionally protected right.

Pretty disingenuous to assume otherwise...

Ok but wouldn’t you know? Why not share it or post a link? I think it would be a great article in the next journal to ask members to shop at pro hunting, fishing and firearms retailers and not organizations like REI.

 

[Diesel]

Buzz, as Co-Chair of BHA Wyoming, do you know the official reason the NRA takes a neutral position? Do you think it is nefarious? You must have some reason you are so angry with the NRA. I am seriously and sincerely interested in why.

 

[Billinsd]

Try to get on thier affiliate program then as a hunting guide Etc

Thier donations are to special interest groups fighting logging and hunting.

Show us that thier dollars are going to scientific backed ecology conservation...

LOL, anti hunters don't care if you carry a gun or a stick or throw stones, hunting is bad. Besides us humans can't be trusted to wander unregulated off trail on wild public land. Some of you guys need to put down the bong!!

 

[204guy]

How is this "dodging the questions?"

My stance, as a US citizen, is that the 2nd is constitutionally protected and a right that shouldn't be infringed upon, period.

I'm glad to hear that. Truly.
I'm still not sure what BHA stance is, neutralish I'm guessing.
So let's get down to what this is really about. SOME politicians that the nra supports are pro plt. SOME of the politicians that are opposed to plt would absolutely love to abolish the 2nd. Where does that leave us? I truly hate politicians.

Btw. I'm no huge fan if the NRA. I've got some issues with things they do and don't do. But right now when politicians are grandstanding on tv calling the NRA a terrorist organization (aka me) I'm going to go stand with them.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk