NRA Warns Hunters to Prepare for War

[airlocksniffer]

Your agruement shouldn't be pissing on the NRA like it currently is, it's should be how can the NRA work to educate the 8 plus million hunters that don't hunt public land on how loosing the people's land would cause us to loose a huge voice in congress. A voice that is solidified via a high hunting population percentage in western states.

One main reason I piss on the NRA is that like many other entities I despise, it primarily uses fear to generate support. Fear of big gubmint taking my black rifle away, fear that brown thugs will murder my family, fear that Obama will implement Sharia law, etc. To bring this back around, the campaign pushing onto hunters that anti's are a major threat to hunting in this country is more of the same fear mongering I expect from the NRA. We have some great organizations like BHA and TRCP that are trying to educate folks that the public land in this country belongs to all of us, hunters or otherwise. Even an official statement from the NRA opposing PLT would be a great start. All I've heard from the NRA on PLT is crickets.

 

[cuerro viejo]

One main reason I piss on the NRA is that like many other entities I despise, it primarily uses fear to generate support. Fear of big gubmint taking my black rifle away, fear that brown thugs will murder my family, fear that Obama will implement Sharia law, etc. To bring this back around, the campaign pushing onto hunters that anti's are a major threat to hunting in this country is more of the same fear mongering I expect from the NRA. We have some great organizations like BHA and TRCP that are trying to educate folks that the public land in this country belongs to all of us, hunters or otherwise. Even an official statement from the NRA opposing PLT would be a great start. All I've heard from the NRA on PLT is crickets.

Ok so now it fearmongering... let's just ignore the new west coast gun laws and the 100plus proposals introduced to congress over last 6 years

 

[tipsntails7]

Says the guy yelling at the NRA about public land when the top 18 states via hunting license holders have very limited Public land. So ya your agruement is a little pointed.

How many hunters does Cali have for there 35 million in public land? 300k compared to Montana 483k. Cali has a lot more public land then Montana. Why less hunters?

Texas has over a Million hunters yet only 1.5 million acres of public land vs Montana's 30 million. Explain that? Even if you double the size of Montana and the amount of people public land and hunting licenses then you are looking at 60 million acres of public with still less hunters then TX? How is that possible via your agruement?

Alaska has 271 million acres of to hunt yet only 106k licenses.

So tell me again what you think the majority of the 14million hunting licensed hunters feel is more of a doom for hunting... public land or gun laws.

Again like I said earlier I'm not trying to discount the public land situation. Losing our public land would be like losing the corner stone of our hunting heritage.

Your agruement shouldn't be pissing on the NRA like it currently is, it's should be how can the NRA work to educate the 8 plus million hunters that don't hunt public land on how loosing the people's land would cause us to loose a huge voice in congress. A voice that is solidified via a high hunting population percentage in western states.

I'm sure you will call this troll post also, ironically it mirrors my first post on this thread ...: roll eyes...

The NRA's approach in this is not about protecting gun rights but "help us expose the evils of the animal rights movement". Has zero to due with gun rights.

It makes no sense to target public lands as what you've already pointed out. They want money, targeting states that are a small portion of their pie makes no sense.
It would be nice if the NRA exposed people to proper wildlife management, the SCIENCE behind it, and how it really works. But from their TV spots, it looks like they are just going to shit talk anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I don't live on the east coast, and I've rarely visited, so I have no idea if there is a routine assault on peoples privileges related to hunting.

In my experience the NRA does a poor job of convincing people who are on the fence about a subject to side with them. It's easy to get a gun owner and hunter to agree guns are great. It's not easy to convince a person who has never hunted, who has never taken an animals life that it's actually beneficial for all parties involved. It's even more difficult to explain how someone who willingly kills something appreciates and loves that species more then animal rights groups can comprehend.

Unfortunately hunting restrictions or bans on methods won't go to the Supreme Court, they don't have a constitution(some states do now) to fall back on for protection, it's not a right given to us by the founding fathers.

This battle will be won or lost in the court of public opinion, and in that realm the NRA turns ALOT of people off that don't already side with them.

I don't really care what the NRA does regarding this along as they don't make us look bad. But they are not going to be the white knight who rides in and saves us all.


Another thing that I wonder, are these monies collected going to be held separately from gun donations? Are they going to be use solely for hunter benefit? Or is it just going to add to the pot?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

For the most part I don't disagree tips and have similar questions !

 

[204guy]

Let me try to understand this messed up thread. The NRA is bad because they use fear mongering to boost funds and membership. Which they do. And PLT is the GREATEST THREAT to all hunting today in 2017? Is that kind of hypocrisy difficult to bear?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

One main reason I piss on the NRA is that like many other entities I despise, it primarily uses fear to generate support. Fear of big gubmint taking my black rifle away, fear that brown thugs will murder my family, fear that Obama will implement Sharia law, etc. To bring this back around, the campaign pushing onto hunters that anti's are a major threat to hunting in this country is more of the same fear mongering I expect from the NRA.

Not trying to be an ass, but you don't think BHA does a little fear mongering to raise money? Not a member of either, and doubt I'll ever be, but anyone can see these organizations using the worst case scenario to boost $$$ numbers.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Not trying to be an ass, but you don't think BHA does a little fear mongering to raise money? Not a member of either, and doubt I'll ever be, but anyone can see these organizations using the worst case scenario to boost $$$ numbers.

This^^^^
Virtually every org I've belonged to or currently belong to uses fear as a recruitment tool.
BHA- PLT
NRA- lefts going to take your guns
PF- CRP Loss
NWTF - need more turkeys
DU- wetland loss
Delta- predators will kill all the ducks

Some others I've came across in my life:
Armed forces- your country needs you, terrorists, Sadam, etc...
Local union when I was a municipal employee- every employer is out to screw you over

The list could go on forever. Every organization needs members. If a common interest is threatened then you have a leg to stand on, especially the if the fear is legitimate or warranted.

 

[elkduds]

Let me try to understand this messed up thread. The NRA is bad because they use fear mongering to boost funds and membership. Which they do. And PLT is the GREATEST THREAT to all hunting today in 2017? Is that kind of hypocrisy difficult to bear?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

This is exactly why we have to ask, "who benefits?" (Cui Bono). Who benefits financially from BHA advocating against PLT? Take your time. Who benefits financially from NRA paranoia? A thorough list would include many legislators, every manufacturer of guns/ammo/accessories, including those based in foreign countries. That is the business model of the NRA, wrapped up as 2A for voter consumption, and it stinks.

 

[StrutNut]

I really believe that I benefited by being a life member of the NRA. I am still able to go out and shoot when I want. I am able to buy ammo when I want and I can still buy and shoot black guns, hand guns, long range guns with extended magazines if I want. I really think if the results of this last election where different, I would soon not be able to make the above statement. So I believe I benefited from being a Life Member of the NRA.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I do agree, having the NRA as a voice against PLT would end that damn talk overnight. I'm just not convinced they care.

The NRA can never voice an opinion against PLT because those republican politicians they support every election cycle are the very same ones pushing for PLT, and it is very much a republican agenda. That would be like cutting their own throat.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

The NRA can never voice an opinion against PLT because those republican politicians they support every election cycle are the very same ones pushing for PLT, and it is very much a republican agenda. That would be like cutting their own throat.

While what you said is overall true, it's probably worth noting that not every republican is in favor of PLT, but you are likely correct as to why the NRA remains neutral or doesn't voice one way or another in regards to PLT.

Ryan Zinke is a republican but seems to be very much in support of public lands.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

I really believe that I benefited by being a life member of the NRA. I am still able to go out and shoot when I want. I am able to buy ammo when I want and I can still buy and shoot black guns, hand guns, long range guns with extended magazines if I want. I really think if the results of this last election where different, I would soon not be able to make the above statement. So I believe I benefited from being a Life Member of the NRA.

X's 2.... I've cut some checks to other orgs in the past that I've been happy to support, but I've never felt I've benefited by belonging to any special interest group more than being a lifer of the NRA

 

[spaniel]

My guess is that those who wrote these documents wanted some level of ambiguity so that it could be changed over time to better fit the current needs of the country. That's a good thing, in my opinion.

Ah, the whole living Constitution argument. This is a fun one. OK, so let's apply this evenly to ALL Amendments, starting with the 1st.

When Freedom of Speech was recognized, the most one could do was stand up on a soap box in the town square and reach perhaps a hundred people with a loud voice. Perhaps with a hand type set printing press you could put out one pamphlet a month, and reach a few hundred people.

Now you can post on the internet, or Tweet, and reach millions of people. Hundreds of millions, if it goes viral. Surely, the Founders never intended for one person's provacative speech to be so influential and have such potential to incite reactions in people. So therefore, in the context of modern times, it is reasonable for the government to censor such dangerous media with incredible potential to incite people. If a 30-rd AR mag is dangerous, it is but a footnote to the power of social media. So we must support the government's role to regulate and censor social media.

If you support the living Constitution view on the 2nd Amendment, this will sound entirely reasonable to you, but scary to the rest of us.

The Founders DID provide a mechanism for change to the Constitution. It is called the Amendment process, and it has been used multiple times. The bar for change is deliberately set high, to prevent the whims of society or a simple majority from trampling the carefully protected freedoms of the population. This living Constitution you are championing is nothing more than a callous trampling of the intelligently designed controls already available in the Constitution. You simply champion ignoring the bar they set for the convenience of meeting your own beliefs.

 

[Billinsd]

X's 2.... I've cut some checks to other orgs in the past that I've been happy to support, but I've never felt I've benefited by belonging to any special interest group more than being a lifer of the NRA

Amen, me too!! The NRA is not perfect by any means, and I'm not crazy about Wayne LaPierre, however overall they do a great job. They probably don't weigh in on PLT, because Republican politicians are OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of it and their supporters are divided. Bill

 

[ChrisC]

Surely, the Founders never intended for one person's provacative speech to be so influential and have such potential to incite reactions in people.
...
So we must support the government's role to regulate and censor social media.
...
The Founders DID provide a mechanism for change to the Constitution. It is called the Amendment process, and it has been used multiple times. The bar for change is deliberately set high, to prevent the whims of society or a simple majority from trampling the carefully protected freedoms of the population. This living Constitution you are championing is nothing more than a callous trampling of the intelligently designed controls already available in the Constitution. You simply champion ignoring the bar they set for the convenience of meeting your own beliefs.

What a generalization that is! If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that since I agree with the power to amend the constitution, i support that there is a need to amend it? That if i support a change to the 2nd amendment, that I support a change for every existing amendment? Just because it can be changed doesn't mean it must be changed. It just happens to be my opinion that, in regard to 2A, people who use 2A to deny any restrictions on firearms is incorrect.

I agree that it shouldn't be easy to change the constitution, but I believe it is important to have the ability to. Unless i am misunderstanding your definition of a living constitution, I am not "championing" anything that isn't already there. like you said, the amendment process is already in place, so I'm not sure what "callous trampling" you are referring to.

 

[Billinsd]

What a generalization that is! If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that since I agree with the power to amend the constitution, i support that there is a need to amend it? That if i support a change to the 2nd amendment, that I support a change for every existing amendment? Just because it can be changed doesn't mean it must be changed. It just happens to be my opinion that, in regard to 2A, people who use 2A to deny any restrictions on firearms is incorrect.

I agree that it shouldn't be easy to change the constitution, but I believe it is important to have the ability to. Unless i am misunderstanding your definition of a living constitution, I am not "championing" anything that isn't already there. like you said, the amendment process is already in place, so I'm not sure what "callous trampling" you are referring to.

I recommend googling "living Constitution" and reading up on the Constitution, especially Amendments. Our government is like no other in the world, now or in the past. The Founders were geniuses and I believe devinely inspired. Whenever we stray from it we suffer and the more we stray the more we suffer.

 

[ChrisC]

I recommend googling "living Constitution" and reading up on the Constitution, especially Amendments. Our government is like no other in the world, now or in the past. The Founders were geniuses and I believe devinely inspired. Whenever we stray from it we suffer and the more we stray the more we suffer.

I must be misunderstanding you...when you say stray, do you mean amend the Constitution? So amending the Constitution causes us to suffer? That cant be what you mean...

 

[Billinsd]

I must be misunderstanding you...when you say stray, do you mean amend the Constitution? So amending the Constitution causes us to suffer? That cant be what you mean...

That's the problem with email and the internet, sorry. Suffer was not a good choice of a word either. When I said when we stray from the Constitution I meant when we ignore it or purposely interpret it incorrectly for our own interest we suffer as a nation. Loss of liberty and freedom is what I meant by suffer. No, the Amendment process is great, but not perfect. We should use the Amendment process. What is terrible is when politicians go around the Amendment process. For instance the 2nd Amendment states "it shall not be infringed upon" pretty strong and clear language. Here in California liberals have IMO illegally infringed the hell out of the 2nd Amendment and its citizens have lost a lot of freedom and liberty.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

One thing that scares the heck out of me concerning the future of our country and, what we will leave as our legacy, is the obvious political influenced life that many live. A few here piss and moan about the NRA's tactics, yet praise their club of choice, that uses the same tactics to get your money. Because of their own political affiliation. Is there really ANY doubt about what is driving the NRA? Not to any person willing to think for themselves.

 

[realunlucky]

All lobby groups are driven by money

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk