NRA Warns Hunters to Prepare for War

[airlocksniffer]

NRA Warns Hunters to Prepare for War

Methinks the NRA should focus on the real enemies of hunters, advocates of public land transfer. Per hunter/conservationist/all around good dude Randy Newberg:

The NRA does not have credibility with hunters to the degree some think,” said Randy Newberg, a professional hunter and TV host, after reviewing the NRA’s new ad campaign. “To those of us with an eye on the future of wildlife, clean air, clean water, and productive lands, this message isn’t going to change our direction. It will be taken for what it is, an effort by the NRA to increase their penetration among hunters.”

However, Newberg added, the tactic of playing to fears of outsiders and framing political fights as existential crises “works very well for [the NRA] in other arenas, so it only makes sense to do the same when trying to gain more appeal among hunters.

Until the NRA advocates against PLT (which they could end that nonsense given all the Congressmen who are in their pocket), they will never get my support.

 

[MOHunter]

It frustrates me to no end that they won't throw their support behind stopping PLT. I'm with you, if they can't support public lands they won't get my backing

 

[Where's Bruce?]

The NRA sticks to it's core objective...protecting the rights of gun ownership under the Second Amendment.....period. That's what they should do. Splintering off into other concerns would only serve to divide their base.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

The NRA sticks to it's core objective...protecting the rights of gun ownership under the second Amendment.....period. That's what they should do. Splintering off into other concerns would only serve to divide their base.

exactly... I'm a life member of the NRA and a member (considering life) of BHA but I belong to both for different reasons. I don't expect BHA to go to bat for my gun rights and I don't expect the NRA to do the same for PLT.

 

[buttehunter]

exactly... I'm a life member of the NRA and a member (considering life) of BHA but I belong to both for different reasons. I don't expect BHA to go to bat for my gun rights and I don't expect the NRA to do the same for PLT.

Very well said

 

[Loco4dux]

^nailed it. Amen. I'm a BHA member and a NRA life member but the 2nd is THE most important to me, period. You're a fool if you do not support the NRA IMO.

 

[airlocksniffer]

The NRA sticks to it's core objective...protecting the rights of gun ownership under the Second Amendment.....period. That's what they should do. Splintering off into other concerns would only serve to divide their base.

Bullshit, the NRA claims to stand for hunters. If they make that claim they better back it up. Interestingly per the link:

Notably, the NRA campaign does not advocate for any specific policy changes. Instead, it just asks for donations.

Just in the way they convince the public that scary brown people are going to hurt them (therefore necessitating donations), they are trying to convince hunters that PETA and HSUS (comparted to Al Queda) are going to end hunting. Once again, bullshit. Meanwhile we have politicians that are trying hard to get federal lands transferred (sold) to the states. That will impact the majority of hunters. So NRA, stop with the stupid fear-mongering bullshit and if you are going to claim to stand for hunters, then f'in do it.

 

[Beendare]

Until the NRA advocates against PLT (which they could end that nonsense given all the Congressmen who are in their pocket), they will never get my support.

Do we really want to paint the NRA as the bad guys here? NRA has thrown their support towards hunters in the past......but thats not good enough for you?

I'm not trying to pick on you or Randy specifically here......I think as long as you belong to at least one of the orgs fighting for hunters rights; BHA, SCI, etc....then fine.

The folks that aren't supporting ANY of the hunting rights orgs are just along for a free ride. .....and that ain't right. To my thinking Randy would have been better off with the NRA as an ally......

Edit; we are talking an ad campaign to get hunters involved. The problem ISNT the ad campaign....ITS the huge % of hunters that are apathetic to the issues that face our sport. I bet 50% [and I hope I'm wrong!] of the supposed "Hard Core" hunters here don't belong to an org fighting for their hunting rights....

 

[airlocksniffer]

Do we really want to paint the NRA as the bad guys here? NRA has thrown their support towards hunters in the past......but thats not good enough for you?

I'm not trying to pick on you or Randy specifically here......I think as long as you belong to at least one of the orgs fighting for hunters rights; BHA, SCI, etc....then fine.

The folks that aren't supporting ANY of the hunting rights orgs are just along for a free ride. .....and that ain't right. To my thinking Randy would have been better off with the NRA as an ally......

Edit; we are talking an ad campaign to get hunters involved. The problem ISNT the ad campaign....ITS the huge % of hunters that are apathetic to the issues that face our sport. I bet 50% [and I hope I'm wrong!] of the supposed "Hard Core" hunters here don't belong to an org fighting for their hunting rights....

As much sway as the NRA has, you think they would identify real threats to hunting. If their job is protecting the 2a, then focus on that. Just don't tell me that bunny huggers are a more imminent threat to hunting than public land transfer advocates. It's dishonest. Funny how we haven't heard anything about PLT from the NRA. Like stated above, their objective is protecting the 2a, which they are quite good at. Given complete R domination in our gov't, maybe they can really support hunters and voice objection to PLT as the threat to the 2a isn't really at the forefront at the moment.

 

[ChrisC]

^nailed it. Amen. I'm a BHA member and a NRA life member but the 2nd is THE most important to me, period. You're a fool if you do not support the NRA IMO.

I believe people who do support the NRA are foolish. It's interesting how people who have similar interests, such as hunting, can have such opposite views on related topics. I imagine I'm in the minority here, but i don't believe they do any favors for hunting.

 

[Felix1776]

I believe people who do support the NRA are foolish. It's interesting how people who have similar interests, such as hunting, can have such opposite views on related topics. I imagine I'm in the minority here, but i don't believe they do any favors for hunting.

You can't say that NRA supporters are foolish without elaborating on that statement. Foolish how?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

It took me all of 30 seconds to google a case of NRA fighting to keep BLM lands open for shooters....I didn't read the whole thing..but one can assume that goes for hunting too.
NRA-ILA | Montana: Management Plan Closes Public Land to Target Shooting

I know the NRA was working with SCI and other orgs to open up wolf hunting a few years back too. I'm thinking it might be an eye opener for some folks to search the legislative section of the NRA website [at link]

 

[Beendare]

..... Just don't tell me that bunny huggers are a more imminent threat to hunting than public land transfer advocates. It's dishonest..... .

I disagree.
My guess is that our different locations have a lot to do with that. Let me guess, you have never had a vehicle destroyed by "Bunny huggers" at the TH? My buddy and I have. So living where you do...you flat out reject it as an important issue just because in your backyard it doesn't affect you? Antis are a big problem in many parts of the country.

You are ignoring the population centers on both coasts....the vast majority of voters my friend. I'm glad it hasn't affected you yet....but its short sighted. Its easy to snub your nose at Ca....or Mass...but when those states enact legislation it sets a precedent that will trickle down. Heck, it already has affected you with wolves and Gbears.

IMO, NRA has it right....we have been in a war for a long time....because some haven't seen it in their backyard doesn't mean it isn't happening

 

[airlocksniffer]

I disagree.
My guess is that our different locations have a lot to do with that. Let me guess, you have never had a vehicle destroyed by "Bunny huggers" at the TH? My buddy and I have. So living where you do...you flat out reject it as an important issue just because in your backyard it doesn't affect you? Antis are a big problem in many parts of the country.

You are ignoring the population centers on both coasts....the vast majority of voters my friend. I'm glad it hasn't affected you yet....but its short sighted. Its easy to snub your nose at Ca....or Mass...but when those states enact legislation it sets a precedent that will trickle down. Heck, it already has affected you with wolves and Gbears.

Fully agree with you. You are correct that my location affords me greater acceptance as a hunter than perhaps yours does. But quite simply, if you had to choose between anti's and public land transfer goons, which would you say is a greater threat today? My point is the NRA is pointing at the former as a greater threat, while any logical and informed individual would point to the latter. So for that point alone, I fart in the general direction of the NRA.

 

[5MilesBack]

They should be telling every gun owner to prepare for war, not just hunters. Why should only the hunters prepare for war? There are a heck of a lot more gun owners out there than hunters.

 

[Chucklehead]

I really hope the NRA gets on board and gets behind the PLT issue. It would be a huge win for all involved. More public lands means more places to shoot which means more potential/more enthusiastic firearm owners.
Their are issues where I really don't agree with the NRAs, but their influence is undeniable. If they were to put their full weight behind it, the transfer of public lands would be DOA.
The biggest problem I see is the potential conflict of some big money donors to the NRA could also be the same guys who want our public lands. Sad but probably true....

 

[ChrisC]

You can't say that NRA supporters are foolish without elaborating on that statement. Foolish how?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

I'll assume me needing to elaborate and the fella supporting the NRA not asked to elaborate is a confirmation that I am in the minority. Without getting too involved, I believe they are fighting for something and using the 2nd amendment out of context for justification. They always claim people want to take everyone's guns away, when I have yet to see anything close to an outright ban and confiscation. nobody is looking to take my bolt action, shotgun, and handgun, then again, i dont break the law and still expect to have them. as someone said...fear mongering. I think it's crazy that we dont have universal background checks, allow 30 round magazines, etc. It seems like any attempt to pass such restrictions the NRA yells "unconstitutional." You have freedom of speech, but you cant scream fire in a crowded movie theater. why is it unreasonable to put restrictions on the second amendment.

And the worst part is that anti-gun folks group hunters with these pro-gun with no limits people because we use them. so we as hunters get a bad rep even when we dont necessarily support what they push.

Im rambling and fear I'm not putting enough time into typing this out. Without getting anyone worked up, im happy to have someone tell me why I should support them.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Fully agree with you. You are correct that my location affords me greater acceptance as a hunter than perhaps yours does. But quite simply, if you had to choose between anti's and public land transfer goons, which would you say is a greater threat today? My point is the NRA is pointing at the former as a greater threat, while any logical and informed individual would point to the latter. So for that point alone, I fart in the general direction of the NRA.

I'm not trying to start an argument and you are certainly entitled to your educated opinion, which you clearly have and I have no qualms with. Just simply realize that (based on your location) you have been VERY blessed to live in a state that has been generally supportive of both public hunting and firearm ownership both. In many, many states across the country there are still battles going on in regards to firearm ownership. Just because there's an R controlled whitehouse doesn't mean the NRA will or should let their gaurd down.

If someone doens't support the NRA I get that... I wish more would but it's a personal choice and if you live in 'Merica you still have that choice. They are aggressive and sometimes belligerent with their stance on firearm ownership. What ever Randy N said, like it or hate it, he is correct that this is a ploy on the NRA's part for recruitment. They probably see a demographic of firearm owners that aren't members in hunters so can you really blame them for launching a marketing campaign geared at a user group they might some people on? At the end of the day no other special interest group has done more for firearm rights than the NRA and since guns are near and dear to me, they'll continue to get my support.

 

[Beendare]

Fully agree with you. You are correct that my location affords me greater acceptance as a hunter than perhaps yours does. But quite simply, if you had to choose between anti's and public land transfer goons, which would you say is a greater threat today? My point is the NRA is pointing at the former as a greater threat, while any logical and informed individual would point to the latter. So for that point alone, I fart in the general direction of the NRA.

Debating the issues I've seen with anti hunting vs public land transfer is a waste of time- both important.

Just take a look at your moose population [MT] and ask yourself who is the good guy....antis...or the NRA that worked to help?

 

[Felix1776]

I'll assume me needing to elaborate and the fella supporting the NRA not asked to elaborate is a confirmation that I am in the minority. Without getting too involved, I believe they are fighting for something and using the 2nd amendment out of context for justification. They always claim people want to take everyone's guns away, when I have yet to see anything close to an outright ban and confiscation. nobody is looking to take my bolt action, shotgun, and handgun, then again, i dont break the law and still expect to have them. as someone said...fear mongering. I think it's crazy that we dont have universal background checks, allow 30 round magazines, etc. It seems like any attempt to pass such restrictions the NRA yells "unconstitutional." You have freedom of speech, but you cant scream fire in a crowded movie theater. why is it unreasonable to put restrictions on the second amendment.

And the worst part is that anti-gun folks group hunters with these pro-gun with no limits people because we use them. so we as hunters get a bad rep even when we dont necessarily support what they push.

Im rambling and fear I'm not putting enough time into typing this out. Without getting anyone worked up, im happy to have someone tell me why I should support them.

I respect your position. I'll get back to you later when I'm on my laptop.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk