Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Al Jazeera tells hunters not to fight for gun rights

The fight is yours, too, hunters
The fight is yours, too, hunters
Photo © Oleg Volk. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Writing for Aljazeera America, Jamie Tarabay tells hunters that "Gun rights have nothing to do with hunting." Describing a supposedly growing number of hunters who reject the NRA (and, presumably, other, less compromising, gun rights organizations, but only the NRA is mentioned by name), the article is a transparent effort to divide and conquer gun owners, by splitting hunters off from others with a vested interest in protecting private gun ownership.

The article starts with a quote from 73-year-old hunter Donald Macalady, who has hunted for decades:

“I think the majority of hunters — at least the hunters who hunt because they love to be outdoors — they like to commune with nature and they like to be connected,” he says. “My big thing is being connected with nature and what I eat, so I think that genre of hunter is more likely to be less concerned with the weapon than the event.”

Macalady may be "less concerned with the weapon," but 73 is probably a bit old to learn how to use the atlatl (or even how to pronounce it).

“The weapon” has been the focus of gun groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA), which has opposed moves by Congress to ban magazines that hold 11 or more rounds of ammunition.

Well, yes--the organization takes its name from a "weapon"--it can hardly be said to have been deceptive about its focus on the guns themselves.

There are now some 4 million members in the NRA, and their ability to organize, write elected officials and rally together is something their opponents stand in awe of. Yet because of the group’s continued embrace of Second Amendment issues, and seeming growing distance from what some hunters consider to be issues that matter most to them, the NRA is no longer seen as their greatest advocate in Washington.

Ah--their "continued embrace of Second Amendment issues"--how strange for a gun rights advocacy group.

The article goes on to quote a hunter who wished to remain anonymous, and frankly it's not difficult to see why one would prefer not to have one's name associated with this:

But hunters say the differences persist. "We don't care about how many bullets go into a magazine," one said on condition of anonymity, referring to action by the NRA to oppose moves by Congress to ban magazines that hold 11 or more rounds of ammunition.

“We don’t care about semiautomatic weapons or armor-piercing bullets or extended clips."

In other words, these hunters don't want the NRA advocating on the behalf of any gun owners except hunters (and only those hunters who don't use semi-automatic firearms--which have been used for hunting for over a century). The rest of us are to be thrown under the bus, or as per a different metaphor, fed to the crocodile first. By the way, about those "armor-piercing bullets"--apparently Mr. Bravely Anonymous Fudd doesn't realize that nearly every centerfire rifle round is "armor-piercing" in the eyes forcible citizen disarmament lobby.

Efforts to separate hunters from other gun owners are hardly new. Readers may remember the short-lived "American Hunters and Shooters Association," started by gun ban zealot John Rosenthal, in 2005 or so, and disappearing shortly after Obama's election as President--its purpose apparently served.

The fact remains, however, no matter how many obscenities Ari Levaux spews to the contrary, that hunters do need to protect their gun rights. That may seem an odd position to take in a column that just yesterday laid out the argument that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. That statement is true, but also true is the fact that attacks on the Second Amendment have very much to do with hunting.

From the above mentioned attempts to define "armor-piercing" ammunition in such a way as to net all centerfire rifle ammunition, to the Violence Policy Center's efforts to have accurate bolt-action rifles banned as "sniper rifles," to the International Action Network on Small Arms' (IANSA) call for a ban of all rifles that can kill at 100 meters (all rifles, in other words), hunting guns may be toward the end of the list of gun ban zealots' ambitions, but they are on it, and if we gun rights advocates have been taken out of the picture, who will speak for you, hunters?


If you're a regular St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (Kurt Hofmann) and Twitter (@45superman), and telling your like-minded friends about it. Also watch for Kurt's articles for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Report this ad