I want to point out that one who enjoys firearms is not necessarily a right-wing paranoid freak who thinks that the US should get out of the UN before they take us over. If that's your thing, go to the John Birch Society page!

It is an unfortunate sign of the times that, in this country, one must often choose between two beliefs that could easily go together: the right to own firearms and environmentalism.

Looking at this objectively, one may believe in small government and the sacred nature of the Constitution, realising that the right to bear arms is not a holdover from a time when one had to defend one's family against "cougar and b'ar," but was rather put in the Constitution originally to prevent the sort of totalitarian governmental rule that the founding fathers had just escaped, and should remain there to prevent the advent of a similar situation. The problem with this point of view is that when a government becomes too small, the large corporations become, in a way, the government, destroying the natural heritage of this country in attempts to grab what they can before it has all been grabbed. Also, since drugs and other aspects of what could be considered personal choice are immoral, they are outlawed, protecting citizens from themselves and, presumably, Hell.

Or, on the other hand, one may believe that, since there are no large predators to speak of and that all the meat we could ever want is produced in huge factory farms, we do not really need the right to bear arms any longer. This is naturally extrapolated to the belief that guns are bad--after all, violent crime uses firearms every day. Big government helps the little guy, and prevents "money-grubbing" from destroying what little natural environment we have left. It also protects the little guy, the common citizen, of enforced or legislated morality, such as bans on drugs, abortion, and other aspects of personal choice.

So, what's the problem?

Many shooters, such as myself, love the outdoors. I am an ecologist, birder, hunter, and fisherman; the outdoors is a way of life as well as a career choice for me. However, I also feel threatened by the fact that firearms ownership is constantly under attack. If I am forced to give up my firearms due to a new ban, how am I to protect myself from someone who, by the nature of their actions, obviously doesn't care about the law enough to not rob me--why on earth would he surrender his gun just because of another law?

The problem doesn't end there, obviously. The NRA, champion of firearms rights, supports such "wise use movement" politicians as Helen Chenoweth. As a result, gun rights are protected, but our national forests are being raped by short-sighted individuals and corporations for a quick buck.

However, I also cannot justify surrendering myself to the protection of the police by surrendering the right to defend myself. As the old saying goes, "There's never a cop around when you need one."

Where does this leave me?
It leaves me with a strong hatred for the two-party system...as Chuck D. of Public Enemy said, "Neither party is mine/Not the jackass or the elephant." How does one vote? Does one vote for the Republicans and gun rights, hoping that enough people vote Democrat to counter-act their anti-environment agenda? Or does one vote Democrat, hoping that enough vote Republican to counter the Democrats' war on guns? It is a problem that has, literally, kept me up nights. I have come to the conclusion that one should vote against whomever one believes will win; the only possible victory for both the environment and gun rights is equal numbers of both parties, to the end that neither gets anything done.