Rei now

[mtwarden]

wouldn't it just be easier to bash Buzz than to listen to what BHA actually has to say?

 

[JWP58]

wouldn't it just be easier to bash Buzz than to listen to what BHA actually has to say?

If one thinks like buzz ( one side of his double sided argument) where is the PUBLIC stance from bha the organization? When will they declare laws restricting magazine size, rate of fire, and semiautos infringe/restrict on a constitutional right? Where is the press release from the headquarters at the national bha?

Just like the nra on public lands (in buzz's tiny mind), if bha remains silent as an orginization on guns rights, they are in fact against it.

I couldn't give two craps what tawney or newberg have to say about anything, so i wont give them ad revenue and listen to the sales pitch they call a podcast.

 

[Schism]

If one thinks like buzz ( one side of his double sided argument) where is the PUBLIC stance from bha the organization? When will they declare laws restricting magazine size, rate of fire, and semiautos infringe/restrict on a constitutional right? Where is the press release from the headquarters at the national bha?

Just like the nra on public lands (in buzz's tiny mind), if bha remains silent as an orginization on guns rights, they are in fact against it.

I couldn't give two craps what tawney or newberg have to say about anything, so i wont give them ad revenue and listen to the sales pitch they call a podcast.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[mtwarden]

I hear they've been pretty silent on the phosphate issue in Nauru- they must be against it

 

[204guy]

You guys defending Buzz seem to forget he, himself on his very own accord started the NRA bashing and double speak. And by default because of his position with BHA dragged them into the thread. If you've been around him on other forums he seems to like to get the last word in. I'm no psychologist but I can read some sign. I would say his sudden silence actually speaks very positively for BHA's position. I would guess Rokslide has one of the highest % rate of members that are also BHA members of any forum. I've little doubt the upper echelons of BHA are aware of this thread.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[mtwarden]

I'm certainly not defending Buzz, I don't know him from Adam. I am defending BHA, as a plain jane member (so please don't quote me or take anything I say as official BHA position or any other bullshit as I don't have a title and I don't speak for them)- but to say they are anti-gun is, well..... simply asinine

 

[204guy]

I'd agree with that. I don't recall anyone claiming BHA is anti gun. Attacking the NRA doesn't even make you anti gun. Not selling camelbacks and bike helmets because their sister companies make guns and ammo make's you anti gun.

 

[sneaky]

If one thinks like buzz ( one side of his double sided argument) where is the PUBLIC stance from bha the organization? When will they declare laws restricting magazine size, rate of fire, and semiautos infringe/restrict on a constitutional right? Where is the press release from the headquarters at the national bha?

Just like the nra on public lands (in buzz's tiny mind), if bha remains silent as an orginization on guns rights, they are in fact against it.

I couldn't give two craps what tawney or newberg have to say about anything, so i wont give them ad revenue and listen to the sales pitch they call a podcast.

Still mad at Newberg I see. I'll take his word over yours any day of the week. They have support groups for hurt feelings ya know.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[541hunter]

I don't understand why BHA, yes I'm a member, has to take any stance on guns. I pay my membership due damn well knowing they are going to support public land. I also don't understand why people think the NRA, yes I'm a member, has to take a stance on Public lands. I pay those dues damn well knowing that they are to support my gun rights only. While it would be great if they both took each other stances, we should recognize they have completely different purposes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dihardhunter]

I don't understand why BHA, yes I'm a member, has to take any stance on guns. I pay my membership due damn well knowing they are going to support public land. I also don't understand why people think the NRA, yes I'm a member, has to take a stance on Public lands. I pay those dues damn well knowing that they are to support my gun rights only. While it would be great if they both took each other stances, we should recognize they have completely different purposes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the exact reasons you write (NRA = guns, BHA = public lands) that's exactly why they should NOT take each others' stances, and why it would be not be great if they did. It allows the prospective pool of members (all of us) to select into which issues we wish to fully back and support and those which we do not.

 

[krohboy]

I don't understand why BHA, yes I'm a member, has to take any stance on guns. I pay my membership due damn well knowing they are going to support public land. I also don't understand why people think the NRA, yes I'm a member, has to take a stance on Public lands. I pay those dues damn well knowing that they are to support my gun rights only. While it would be great if they both took each other stances, we should recognize they have completely different purposes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I couldn’t have said it better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk