NRA Warns Hunters to Prepare for War

[backcountry_hunter]

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.

This is a thoughtful response, I respect that... despite not agreeing with it. Just try to understand that not every gun owner owns a gun for hunting. I personally have never gotten the impression they are trying to push a secret agenda. More that if they give an inch, someone will take a mile.... to you or I a 30 round mag might be absurd, to a law abiding person that is an AR enthusiast, bannign them is probably just as ridiculous

 

[airlocksniffer]

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.

As I stated, yes the NRA does a good job of protecting the 2a. I just don't think painting anti's as a bigger threat to hunting than public land transfer is honest. Once again, if the NRA claims to stand for hunters, they should do it with action rather than scare tactics.

 

[5MilesBack]

It seems like any attempt to pass such restrictions the NRA yells "unconstitutional."

For good reason........."shall not be infringed". I have no idea how that could have been written any clearer, but many still seem to be confused by it. But their confusion doesn't override our rights.

 

[5MilesBack]

Once again, if the NRA claims to stand for hunters, they should do it with action rather than scare tactics.

They stand for hunters in regards to gun rights. That's what the NRA does........they fully support the 2nd Amendment and all citizens rights to own and use firearms regardless whether they are for hunting or not. That's their cause. Actually.....private land rights has more in common with their cause than public land does.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

As I stated, yes the NRA does a good job of protecting the 2a. I just don't think painting anti's as a bigger threat to hunting than public land transfer is honest. Once again, if the NRA claims to stand for hunters, they should do it with action rather than scare tactics.

I gotcha and in a sense agree with you. I have friends and relatives that are anti's, youre more or less disgruntle with who they're targeting as the big bad wolf.....

for total transparency, I'm sure the NRA has chosen this route vs the PLT issue as a few of their politicians that receive "A" or "B" ratings on firearms are also advocates for PLT. This is just the NRA's attempt not to crap where they eat.... Anti's are a threat, a bigger threat though? not at this time.

the two questions that need to be posed are:
1) if you have a candidate on the ballot that is pro for one, but not the other (these are few and far but there are some), which issue is more important? guns or public land.... then vote accordingly
2) would you rather the NRA not support hunting period, or support hunting but target anti's vs. PLT?

 

[bigdesert10]

As I stated, yes the NRA does a good job of protecting the 2a. I just don't think painting anti's as a bigger threat to hunting than public land transfer is honest. Once again, if the NRA claims to stand for hunters, they should do it with action rather than scare tactics.

Keep in mind that public land transfer is very much a western hunting issue. When you consider that there is an awful lot of hunting that goes on in the eastern half of the country, where public lands are few and far between, it becomes pretty clear how a person could feel that anti-hunters are the biggest threat to their ability to hunt. Furthermore, I think that you would find most PLT advocates far more open to debate and more susceptible to a change of heart than you would your average PETA or HSUS member. For me, these two issues are of fairly equal gravity and both require constant vigilance and persistent effort to manage.

 

[Randy Newberg]

Hmmm. Didn't know that would end up in print somewhere, but I probably shouldn't be surprised. Below is the response I provide to his email with his sentence italicized below being the focus of my reply....

.....a very slick new website that is surprisingly heavy of angry, politicized rhetoric - previously I had only seen that kind of tone from the NRA regarding concealed carry, assault weapons, and campaigns. NRA Hunting | Home​

His email gave me the understanding he was seeking to learn from hunters, especially a hunter who is a Patron Level Life Member of the NRA, as I am. My response, from which a few pieces were cut and pasted is in full text below. Had I known it would get used as it did, the substance of my comments would not have changed, just more precision and context so nothing would be cut/pasted that might change a reader's understanding of my response.

The articles that make up the underlying pieces of that NRA campaign seemed pretty good to me. If you haven't read those, you should. Writers like Allen Morris Jones, Mike Schoby, and others, are smart minds in our community and I don't view their writings as "rhetoric."

To me, other than some good writers being the basis for the campaign, the campaign itself and call to action around those articles is a "yawner." Not surprising and nothing real eye-opening; business as usual. Maybe I'm too immersed in the daily throws of these topics for a web campaign influence me much. I found it interesting that others outside the hunting world found it to be a big deal.

Alex:

I got your message. Sorry I was in meetings all day.

Thanks for the link to that hunting campaign. I had not seen that. I personally know most the folks who contributed the articles to that website.

The tone of the website is typical of a “call to action” that the NRA would put together. Working on fears and putting things in very black v. white contrast, to create an “enemy.” Anti-hunting folks do have stated goals, and take actions, to eliminate hunting, so I am not too surprised that some in the hunting world use the term “enemy.” And less surprised that the group who would use that approach is the NRA. It works very well for them in other arenas, so it only makes sense to do the same when trying to gain more appeal among hunters.

That said, there is not much in those articles that I find rhetoric or politicized. Most of it is pretty much fact and the pieces are written by some very sharp minds with backgrounds in history, anthropology, sciences, etc. I do not split the world into enemies or allies, as does the NRA, though I don’t see this as politicizing. I don’t think I read about a single party/partisan/person/platform in any of it.

I don’t fear that the animal-rights movement is going to end hunting. They are an annoyance that operates on the same emotions some in the far fringe of the hunting world operate on; fear, distrust, anger, worry. That movement will not be the end of hunting. Yes, they will cause some disruptions and will be an obstacle to wildlife conservation models as has been used in America for the last 125 years.

Most hunters will read it and move on without donating or taking action. The NRA does not have the credibility with hunters to the degree some think. This campaign will appeal to some hunters who operate on fears. 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. That low penetration among hunters, especially western hunters is not a fact they want the world to know. This is an NRA-style marketing campaign to improve their standing among hunters.

That said, I am curious what parts you find to be rhetoric and politicizing. I ask that, as I am always interested in how others see the debate/discussion from outside the ring of hunting and conservation that often engulfs me and might blind me to what others see as obvious.

Thanks for reaching out. Feel free to call tomorrow. I am open other than from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm Mountain Time.

Best,

Randy

 

[cuerro viejo]

As I stated, yes the NRA does a good job of protecting the 2a. I just don't think painting anti's as a bigger threat to hunting than public land transfer is honest. Once again, if the NRA claims to stand for hunters, they should do it with action rather than scare tactics.

Actually via the numbers they are right. Montana is 26th(2013) in hunting license holders, there isn't one western state in the top 18 states of license holders. So majority of hunters fall in states with very limited public land.

This isn't meant to discount the seriousness of the public land transfer issues in any way. It's a very serious deal, especially since the state with high public land percentage have highest percentage of hunting populations. Aka anti's ain't getting anti hunting pushed through in Montana like...say they did nixing spring bear season in NY

Point is if We don't find away to reach and resonate with 1.2 million hunters in Texas, 500k in Alabama, the 545k in NC, 969k in PA..etc we will lose our public land. FYI those state have similar respective % NRA memberships.

Pissing on the NRA isn't helping our cause, we need to help them see the light

 

[JWP58]

Did anyone actually watch the ads linked in the article, or are you just excepting the title and garbage in the "journalism" piece as fact? Just go look at the other headlines on the website and tell me if you can figure out what "fusion" is all about....

 

[TR909]

This kind of Trumpie hyperbole is to hype up rednecks. It totally works too. They use the same fear-mongering tactics and misinformation as their adversaries.

 

[JWP58]

The Trace - A new source of reporting and insight about guns in America. - The Trace

There go to that shit stain of a website (where the pathetic article was first published) and read all the headlines. It is a anti gun website for Christ sake.

Nowhere did I hear anyone in any of the linked videos say "its time to go to war". But the liberal turds are counting on you not reading the entire story. They want you to read the headline and go "oh my gosh that evil nra".

I am not a member of the NRA for numerous reasons, one being Im not a big fan of them. BUT that doesn't mean I wont look at things objectively in regards to the NRA and what they do (on a case to case basis)

This piece of "journalism" is nothing but sensationalism and their website is a Fing joke. So before you post links to craptastic articles that make unsubstantiated claims and just purport false information as fact, do some digging first. (unless you actually believe this garbage)


Oh and FYI "ChrisC", since you've never heard of anyone wanting an outright ban on firearms....apparently you don't listen to a Democrat from Kalifornia very often because she's been at it for a couple of decades....

Feinstein Ban them all - YouTube

 

[mmw194287]

Nowhere did I hear anyone in any of the linked videos say "its time to go to war". But the liberal turds are counting on you not reading the entire story. They want you to read the headline and go "oh my gosh that evil nra".

Funny...if you read the article, the NRA Hunting spokesperson, Josh Powell, literally says "we are in the middle of a war...it's like you're dealing with Al Qaeda" and the article provides a link immediately thereafter to the video in which he says it. And the NRA Youtube account mentions the "middle of a war" warning in its description of the video.

 

[JWP58]

Funny...if you read the article, the NRA Hunting spokesperson, Josh Powell, literally says "we are in the middle of a war...it's like you're dealing with Al Qaeda" and the article provides a link immediately thereafter to the video in which he says it. And the NRA Youtube account mentions the "middle of a war" warning in its description of the video.

Oh yes snippets taken out of context surely mean that the NRA is telling hunters to "prepare for war", which of course as you well know has an entirely different meaning in contrast to what Powell said in the video. But that's cool, read the liberal trash as fact and keep believing it.

If you have a problem with either video linked in that article, I would venture to guess its only because the NRA produced it, because it sounds an awful lot like the same stuff we hear from folks that are held in high regard 'round these parts.

And if "The Trace" is on your daily reading list, move to Chicago and live the dream.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Pissing on the NRA isn't helping our cause, we need to help them see the light

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

 

[mmw194287]

Oh yes snippets taken out of context surely mean that the NRA is telling hunters to "prepare for war", which of course as you well know has an entirely different meaning in contrast to what Powell said in the video. But that's cool, read the liberal trash as fact and keep believing it.

If you have a problem with either video linked in that article, I would venture to guess its only because the NRA produced it, because it sounds an awful lot like the same stuff we hear from folks that are held in high regard 'round these parts.

And if "The Trace" is on your daily reading list, move to Chicago and live the dream.

Easy there. You're making a lot of assumptions and you can't seem to type out a post without a bunch of references to crap, shit, turds, garbage, trash, etc. I just pointed out that you're lecturing people about not reading things fully and then claiming that no one in the videos said anything approximating the headline. If your point is that there's a meaningful difference between the NRA spokesperson saying "it's time to go to war" and him saying "we're in the middle of a war," that's fine, though I'd disagree with you.

If we want to talk about taking things out of context, do you believe that the article that the OP originally linked to intends readers to think the NRA is warning about actual armed combat? No, it clearly doesn't. It's examining the rhetoric being deployed by the NRA, per the crux of the piece:
"...it has launched a national, us-vs.-them identity campaign that employs the same dark, bombastic rhetoric as its political messaging." And I would disagree with your asssertion that everyone in the hunting space uses the same language as the NRA--I have a hard time imagining Steve Rinella calling anti-hunters "nothing less than evil" and comparing them to al Qaeda, talking about this as a war against the "diminishment of humanity."

I'm not reading "liberal trash as fact." The NRA is using inflammatory language [comparing anti-hunters to al Qaeda, calling them "nothing less than evil"], and anti-gun types are pointing out that the language is inflammatory. As for me... I shrug my shoulders because it's what I expect from both parties.

 

[hodgeman]

Not to wade into this thing too deep...but with the NRAs primary cash cow (Obama) out of office and a GOP majority in Congress, it's a tough sell to keep folks sending checks to protect gun rights.

Enter...anti-hunters.

I won't debate whether the NRA has protected gun rights. They certainly have, but their fundraising mechanism depends more than a bit on fear and outrage and on the gun rights front- there isn't any for the first time in a long time.

While we can endlessly argue about gun rights, hunting, anti hunting, PLT et al..... the NRA's first priority is to get members to fund its operations and that largely requires the presence of an identifiable threat.

 

[JWP58]

I'm not reading "liberal trash as fact." The NRA is using inflammatory language [comparing anti-hunters to al Qaeda, calling them "nothing less than evil"], and anti-gun types are pointing out that the language is inflammatory. As for me... I shrug my shoulders because it's what I expect from both parties.

Inflammatory language? You mean like the shock value title used for click bait? If you read the writings of animal rights extremists, like peter singer, and understand they believe animals have the same rights as humans and are equals(in a moral and legal sense), I don't think comparing them to a religious extremist group is inflammatory.

Your mind is made up, which is fine, but its obvious the articles writer has an agenda. And sorry for my vivid descriptive terms, I don't intend to trigger anyone.

 

[Beendare]

Glad you chimed in Randy. So you are a devout NRA supporter...you have put your money where your mouth is.....and your comments are to inform/direct the higher ups in the NRA. Thats a 10 out of 10 score.

We agree on most everything except you might be underestimating the antis. They have some incredibly rich supporters...are playing the long game...and have many psychotic members willing to do crazy things for "The Cause" I live in an area where we see some of the "psychotic"

I would like to hear your comments on the elephant in the room, which of course is what the NRA is trying to address, "Hunter apathy"

 

[mmw194287]

Inflammatory language? You mean like the shock value title used for click bait? If you read the writings of animal rights extremists, like peter singer, and understand they believe animals have the same rights as humans and are equals(in a moral and legal sense), I don't think comparing them to a religious extremist group is inflammatory.

Your mind is made up, which is fine, but its obvious the articles writer has an agenda. And sorry for my vivid descriptive terms, I don't intend to trigger anyone.

Again, why do you need to add the "sorry for the trigger" bit? Just can't type some words on the internet without trying to sound like the bigger man?

Inflammatory means "provocative." Yes, I think that the reference to al Qaeda, a mass murdering terrorist group with whom we're currently engaged in a literal shooting war, is meant to provoke a certain reaction from the video's viewers (on both sides). If you think it wasn't intended to be a provocative remark, fine. We'll disagree on that point, and I won't insult you.

 

[elkduds]

To fully understand NRA, reference Fearmongering and Cui Bono. Not coincidentally, ditto to His Trumpness. No Fear stickers have not helped all the fanboys one iota. Still comprehending the world through their amygdalas.