Greens and Gun Owners Unite!

[Malone LaVeigh]

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights/patriot_oped_hcn.html

Greens and Gun Owners Unite!

By Jeff Milchen
First published in the High Country News


A quick opinion poll: The mass murders of Sept.11, 2001, were able to occur because:

A. Letting airline passengers carry potentially deadly weapons such as box-cutters was a bad idea.

B. Locked doors between pilots and passengers might have been a good idea

C. Americans enjoy too much freedom and law enforcement officials lacked the power to prevent the attacks.

John Ashcroft and George Bush may have opted for "C," but they didn’t convince folks in my home of Bozeman, MT. Our City Commissioners’ meeting hall couldn’t hold the crowd that turned out to back a resolution that supported civil liberties and symbolically expressed opposition to so egregious provisions in the “USA Patriot Act.â€

Almost 90 percent of attendees favored the resolution and burst into applause when the city joined (now more than 190) communities nationwide in passing ordinances or resolutions opposing the Patriot Act.

The opposition ranges from liberal college cities like Boulder, CO, to conservative rural towns like Peterborough, NH, to entire states--Alaska, Hawaii and Vermont. Support also spans the political spectrum within communities. In Boise, ID, members of the Green Party and Gun Owners of America worked side by side to pass a local resolution.

These organizing efforts demonstrate an extraordinary level of grassroots opposition to federal policy, and they’ve become more than symbolic. The resistance is credited with sparking bills like one from Idaho Rep. Butch Otter (R). His measure to halt secret searches of personal property --as authorized by the Patriot Act--was approved 309-118. Last week a bi-partisan collection of Senators announced their sponsorship of the new Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE) written by Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Dick Durbin (D- IL). SAFE would expand on Otter's House bill by curtailing overly broad wiretapping powers and other Patriot Actr provisions.

Attorney General Ashcroft’s recent public relations tour defending the Patriot Act also appeared to be a reaction to the local uprisings. Not surprisingly, Ashcroft failed to quell public concerns by speaking only to hand-picked audiences and refusing press questions. Even the most basic fact-checking revealed his claims of the Patriot Act's success to be dubious and the rate of successful local resolutions accelerated around the country once his PR tour commenced.

Bush administration officials claim the Patriot Act strikes the "right balance" between freedom and safety, arguing that terrorism can be defeated by increasing police power and reducing judicial oversight over detentions and investigations. But the implicit argument that our freedom endangers us lacks compelling evidence.*

Legalizing more invasive technology and granting law enforcement agencies the sweeping power to arrest, detain and spy on citizens will not enhance our safety. To the contrary, history indicates that allowing politically-based investigations or searches of personal property without evidence that can pass judicial scrutiny simply wastes resources.

Our freedom to engage in vigorous political dissent is a safety valve that enhances our stability. With opportunity to create peaceful change, people are less likely to turn to violence. Yet the Patriot Act grants Mr. Ashcroft broad power to label organizations as “terrorist†without meeting objective criteria to justify the label. It invites a return to past abuses of law enforcement powers against political opponents.

This is not to say that the Patriot Act contains no sensible measures that could increase our safety without infringing on liberty. It does, but they are surrounded by many serious threats to our freedom.

On tour, Ashcroft defended the Patriot Act by arguing that nine of 10 people polled said the Act had not infringed on their personal liberty. Um, John, we’re talking about the core freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, not shooting basketball free throws. And how meaningful is this number when the greatest concern of Patriot Act opponents is the unprecedented secrecy in which it is used? Groups filing Freedom of Information Act requests to learn about the Act's use have been shut out or receive documents censored to the point of uselessness.

Many of our Congressional representatives approved the 342-page Patriot Act without adequate time to comprehend or even read it because some of the more drastic measures were due to expire in 2005. Yet the Bush Administration already seeks to make the Act permanent and further expand police powers while blocking evaluation of its impacts.

Thankfully, citizens across the political spectrum are awakening to this assault on constitutional freedoms and fighting back. Watch out George--defenders of our Bill of Rights, from gun advocates to Greens, might just cut the Patriot Act down to its proper size.

The writer directs ReclaimDemocracy.org. This is adapted from his essay published in the High Country News in October, 2003.

 

[BigG]

Politics makes strange bedfellows, they say.

 

[Art Eatman]

BigG, I've said for years that if the "modern" Sierra Club weren't anti-hunting (John Muir was a hunter), it and the NRA together could be the strongest lobbying group for wildlife ever known.

Art

 

[Mark Tyson]

Hunters are some of the most pro-environement out there, yet many environmental groups want to portray hunters are irresponsible bufoons callously laying waste to species after species.

 

[Cosmoline]

The Alaska State Legislature, probably one of the most deeply conservative in the nation, also voted against the Patriot Act. Most major municipalities in the state have passed similar measures.

 

[Dave R]

Its true that hunters and Greens ought to be on the same side of most issues. Both want healthy herds and lots of habitat for the critters.

What's the old saying? "There's room for all God's creatures--next to the mashes potatos."

 

[commygun]

And yet I've never met a Green (and I've met a ton of them) who wasn't
in favor of "reasonable" gun control measures even though they'd be
hard pressed to define "reasonable". In my experience Greens often
espouse libertarian positions without any real commitment or under-
standing of them.

 

[Blackhawk]

Sure, then gun owners would be just as politically irrelevant as the Greens.

The Sierra Club has a manifesto instead of a set of rational objectives, and when they got a beetle put on the endangered species list, that really finished them with me. The upshot is to deny the use of land to the owners without immense government involvement.

The Greens are infested with the same kind of radicals, and they're anathema to any reasonable political solutions to environmental or any other problems we face in a changing world.

To paraphrase an algabraic fact: "A product of the Greens is a product of the extremes."

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I quit the Sierra Club when they endorsed Clinton in the 96 election. It showed me their hypocrisy when they were so tied to the 'rats that they couldn't support the real environmentalist in the race, Ralph Nader.

For the same reason, I won't join the NRA. They are too locked to the repugs and always support a lot of Neanderthals in the environmental arena (like GWB.)

But Art's right in that if real enviros and real sportsmen ever got together, it would be a hard group to beat.

 

[fallingblock]

I like it when we agree, Malone....

"But Art's right in that if real enviros and real sportsmen ever got together, it would be a hard group to beat."
************************************************************

Why this has not occurred is a mystery to me. I speak to a number of really dedicated conservationists here in central Australia, and nearly all of them have a poisoned view of guns and hunters....and yet in the same conversation they will espouse the need for 'trained rangers' to reduce the massive feral animal problem here!

It may be an insurmountable divide on the perceived politics of both sides, but it would be a great improvement for both causes if they could recognize their common goals and pull together.

Is there really that much difference between loving the wilderness for the freedom of the hunt and the majesty of the animals or seeking the wisdom of nature and wishing to see habitat preserved? Both require the same basic appreciation sets, I think.

O.K., someone chime in with how the hunters want to kill the poor animals now.....

 

[BenW]

I find Ducks Unlimited to have a good blend of hunter rights and conservation goals. Unfortunately, as Falling Block said, I also have never met a Green/Enviro who wasn't in favor of pretty stringent gun control -- even the ones who otherwise seem pretty pro-freedom. For the record, stringent gun control to me (called common sense gun control by the enviros I know) means hunting rifles and shotguns are okay, everything else is evil. Also for the record, that seems to apply to a lot of Ducks Unlimited folks as well. A lot of the hunting community needs to be educated on gun rights just as much as the enviro (and general) community does.

edit Just to clarify: I personally think any gun control is stringent. I was using that term above to denote that what too many people like to call "reasonable" gun control is really a pretty fascist definition and shows no understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[boltaction]

greens?

The reason it is hard to get MOST gun folks and MOST MODERN environmentalists together is that since Silent Spring (1962), the environmental movement has been high-jacked by neoMarxists who use scare tactics that are epistemologically and pedagogically analogous to those used by the anti-gun crowd. A large proportion of the enviros are interested in big government, collectivist, anti-individualist, and ultimately anticapitalist programs that are anathma to the individualist gun owner.

I speak as a scientist with 25 years research experience who has done research in Earth Science for that entire time. I could write volumes here about where the environmental movement went wrong. You think pesticides are a major problem? Well over 99% of the pesticide you ingest is NATURALLY OCCURRING in food. C'mon, we all believe in self defense. So does nature. Plants have been producing pesticides for millions of years. Oh, yea, and your response is that they are natural? Sorry, that is an emotional "Sarahbradyism". Look up the toxicological data. the most potent poisons are natural: cobra venum, botulinum toxin, etc. Remember that the Dose makes the Poison. Sure dioxin is a potent carcinogen. But all the top enviro groups will lead you to believe you are in danger from it, whereas if you look at the various polychlorinated dibenzo double ethers that are the dioxins, look at their proportions and concentrations in our ingested materials, and compare that to their actual carcinogenicity, you are in more danger of getting cancer from the beer you had this afternoon watching NFL football. The best literature on this stuff is by, believe it or not, a Berkleley research team. Do a Google search for Bruce Ames and Lois Gold.

I, of course, am concerned for the REAL environment: I have children, and will have grandchildren. However, good luck trying to figure out what the real environmental problems are (I strongly recommend the book by Bjorn Lomborg - look him up - The Skeptical Environmentalist - I came to many of the same conclusions as he, independently in the course of my own research: his book will give you an idea of the real status of the environment sans politics and political correctness - I have seen him speak - he also is a big government-type, but at least he is an honest scientist). To those of you who care about the environment AND the TRUTH, I suggest you try to rest that movement from the socialists who are trying to use it to bring down capitalism, and bring it back to its Teddy Roosevelt roots.

 

[fallingblock]

Right On! boltaction......

The highjacking of the environmental movement by the left and resulting extremism is certainly a major factor contributing to the inability of gun-owners and environmentalists to get together.


************************************************************
"To those of you who care about the environment AND the TRUTH, I suggest you try to rest that movement from the socialists who are trying to use it to bring down capitalism, and bring it back to its Teddy Roosevelt roots."
************************************************************


I remember discussing this phenomenon on a THR thread a while back.
It seems like many greenies do regard 'environmentalism' as a sort of pseudo-religion, where their belief is enough to carry any question

A good example of this would be the wacky British animal-rights folks who come out to Australia and tell us to stop 'murdering' our kangaroos for meat and leather.

They have nothing to support their argument but their 'lurve' of animals.

There are dead kangaroos strung along the roadsides on every outback road, and the aerial surveys, culling programmes and tagging projects all come to the same conclusion....the species harvested for commercial purposes (chiefly reds and eastern greys) are reproducing faster than they can be culled under the current system.
"Stop the slaughter", they insist. When confronted with the question of what the 'roos will do when they have exhausted the forage due to overpopulation, the animal right folks go kinda blank and mumble about kangaroo birth-control projects.

The arguments of environmentalists that big government intervention is needed to stop big corporations from raping the planet is perhaps partly true....but perhaps it's the concept of locking away from most human activity relatively vast areas of wilderness or back country that galls most hunters and woodsfolk (that to differentiate them from ecofreaks).

Any ideas on how to achieve reconcilliation between the two groups?

 

[c_yeager]

Its sad. The STATED goals of both groups are pretty much in line with each other. Its the unstated agendas that stand in the way. Shame things have gotten so polarized lately.

 

[twoblink]

Rabbit population control, rat population control etc.. is a very good thing that hunters do, but most don't get the credit.

Also, throw an empty bottle into a marsh, and watch a hunter choke you to near death.. You want enviro-nazi's? Throw something in the upland, and you are tempting the hunters to point their guns at you.

Same agenda... really..

Agreed, shame on both sides for the under-the-table agendas..

We all want clean environments, healthy herds, healthy next generation of herds..

 

[Silver Bullet]

Can somebody identify the "good" vs "bad" green groups ? Some of them are plainly terrorists, and some of the others seem to have well-intentioned members but are controlled by folks with a socialist or pc or even fascist agenda. I hope that there are at least some green groups that do more good than harm, that actually work with society instead of trying to hijack it.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

You want enviro-nazi's? Throw something in the upland, and you are tempting the hunters to point their guns at you.

What do you base this statement on? This makes as much sense as the folks who paint all enviros, liberals, etc with a single broad stroke.

Believe me, I work in a National Forest. The messes some of these slob hunters leave behind is little better than the dope growers and meth lab dumpers. Most of the people I work with hunt, but in general we dread the opening of deer season.

 

[fallingblock]

It's not just the 'slob hunters'......

When I worked for the Las Cruces, N.M. office of the BLM, the quantity and variety of shot-up junk left in the desert amazed and disgusted me.

Appliances, televisions (although I agree with the sentiment), car bodies & parts, engines, fire extinguishers, glass containers, improvised target frames made of shopping carts, coat racks, bookshelves, building materials from wall boards to blocks to window frames, mannequins....well, you get the picture

Not only did this junk convert lovely desert landscape into landfill scenery, but it was at least partly the work of shooters (certainly some of it was dumped earlier and later became TOO).

I'd like to say that it was a local problem, but it's not.

It seems that to some folks throughout the political spectrum, "Public" land is that space where one has no responsibility for the property

 

[Orthonym]

I think it's not just guns, hunting, and wildlife,

it's all forms of what I like to call "normal human behavior" those people object to. For example; my own particular hobbyhorse is model airplanes (free-flight, NO radios) which requires a huge field, maybe 2 miles square, to enjoy the sport properly. (Just the same kind of big field the .50 cal aficionados require.)

Why can't all of us who like to have fun in the great outdoors get together and consolidate our political influence?

 

[Art Eatman]

I also recommend Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist". What he says is certainly eye-opening about the pseudo-science and willful BS of the extremist environmentalists...

Art

 

[c_yeager]

I think that the "good" hunters rout there are among the most dedicated and realistic environmentalists around. Unfortunatly they are becoming more and more outnumbered by a newer(?) breed of hunters who dont appear to care one bit about the woods that they are hunting in. That and every unsupervised range i have ever seen has been CHOKED with debris. This more than anything else is what leads to these places being closed down.