NYT: I Hunt, but the N.R.A. Isn’t for Me

[MolonLabe2008]

Hey, Lily!

First of all, you failed in trying to make Mitt into a gun nut. He is no different than you are when it comes to gun rights.

Secondly, the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.

And thirdly, you don't represent me.

EARLIER this month, Mitt Romney delivered a speech at the annual National Rifle Association convention, calling for a president “who will stand up for the rights of hunters, sportsmen and those seeking to protect their homes and their families,” presumably with guns. I’d like to remind Mr. Romney that those are distinct groups. Too often — especially during an election year — hunters and N.R.A. members are lumped together as one and the same. I’m a hunter and a sportswoman. I own guns, but not for self-defense. I support gun control laws. I would happily vote to repeal the Stand Your Ground law in my home state of Oregon. In other words, the N.R.A. does not represent me.

More...

I Hunt, but the N.R.A. Isn’t for Me (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/opinion/i-hunt-but-i-oppose-the-nra.html)

[jwkincal]

Meanwhile, on AOL's coverpage today, there is a HuffPo Style article on CCW clothing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/concealed-carry-clothing-gun-holsters_n_1449890.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl19%7Csec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D154981). ..

(to see it in situ, hit aol.com and flip thru the cover stories until you see the picture of the girl with the hearing protection.)

[Bhobbs]

Sounds like the typical hunter who owns a 12 gauge and a .22. Maybe a .30-30 too. IMO, they are more harmful than antis.

[MolonLabe2008]

Sounds like the typical hunter who owns a 12 gauge and a .22. Maybe a .30-30 too. IMO, they are more harmful than antis.

...otherwise known as weekend warriors.

[m03]

http://i658.photobucket.com/albums/uu305/nniiddookkiinngg/elmer-fudd.jpg

[dwtt]

She's just a tool of the gun banners like the Brady Bunch who claim hunting is the only legitimate reason for owning a gun. We call them Fudd.

eta: Doh! m03 beat me to it.

[YubaRiver]

To hear you guys, it sound like she achieved her goal of splitting us into
factions.

Go to the hound hunting thread and call your rep to stop the bill. We need to
build alliances rather than make fun of each other.

[joe_sun]

...otherwise known as weekend warriors.

Fudds as in Elmer Fudd. I've never heard anyone call a Fudd a weekend warrior before.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[OleCuss]

Unlike Lilly, I take no pleasure in killing and eating defenseless wildlife.

Fortunately, the RKBA is primarily about defense -and that is a duty which we should all take seriously.

Net effect is she likes killing things and I don't. Somehow that makes her superior to me.

(And no, I don't have a problem with hunters even though I'm not one. I just don't see how she can figure that she has the high moral ground.)

[chicoredneck]

Don't fall into this divisive logic. Divide and conquer has been one of the most effective means of denying people their rights. Most hunters fully support 2a. This person is an exception to the rule, not the rule.

And while I'm at it, our right to bear arms is not just about self defence, it is also about national defence and deterrance of tyranny. There is a reason militias were expressly mentioned in the 2A. An individal can not count solely on the military (especially if your own military is the aggressor) to defend his property from invasion and the fear of armed civialians is another check on government power.

[thomashoward]

Anyone who owns a gun of any kind regardless of their reason, should be a member of the NRA.

[Ubermcoupe]

If we had it Lily’s way we’d be in England...

:rolleyes:

[Sutcliffe]

Left a few comments and whatnot. If you don't like the NRA fine. Don't be a member, but be a member of some similar group or even the ACLU(they may actually evolve into something we can applaud).

The elitest point of view she has towards firearms is troubling. The elite can usually rationalize any of their values as being superior.

[SilverTauron]

The divide and conquer strategy is as old as it is commonplace.

There is no difference in the interests of hunters and the interests of any other kind of gun owners.If the author is convinced of her writings on this topic, perhaps a conversation with hunt-, ahem, former hunters in England will set her straight.

[gunsmith]

I do my hunting in the supermarket - hunting for bargains.
I carry a handgun while I'm there, like I do everywhere.

I would try hunting, if I could figure out how to make the animals stand still when I'm shooting them.

[Capybara]

I read this, it was an encouraging headline to see on the NY Time page but when I got to her line about "I support gun control", I stopped reading. She just doesn't get it. And yes, I would expect nothing but an elitist to write for the NY Times. She has a book she is pushing and she is a brainwashed Oregon liberal as far as gun control.

Amazing that she can shoot and eat an animal yet supports gun control, kind of a weird dichotomy. She is probably of the, "oh, I should be able to have guns but not you" variety like a lot of California liberals. Aren't a surprising amount of gun control advocates CCW holders?

[hvengel]

It is a common tactic of the anti's to pretend they are "hunters" or "NRA members" or "gun owners" when writing/speaking in favor of gun control. IE. I am a gun owner/hunter/NRA member BUT ... I would bet dollars to donut holes that the person writing this has never so much as held a gun let alone gone hunting.

[Wherryj]

Hey, Lily!

First of all, you failed in trying to make Mitt into a gun nut. He is no different than you are when it comes to gun rights.

Secondly, the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.

And thirdly, you don't represent me.



I Hunt, but the N.R.A. Isn’t for Me (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/opinion/i-hunt-but-i-oppose-the-nra.html)

To a point she is correct. I don't support HER right to self-defense either.

[taperxz]

Unlike Lilly, I take no pleasure in killing and eating defenseless wildlife.

Fortunately, the RKBA is primarily about defense -and that is a duty which we should all take seriously.

Net effect is she likes killing things and I don't. Somehow that makes her superior to me.

(And no, I don't have a problem with hunters even though I'm not one. I just don't see how she can figure that she has the high moral ground.)

it's statements like this that also divide gun owners and hunters. I suppose your meat just drops out of the sky and lands in the supermarket?

News flash: for those of you who think the use of firearms was guaranteed for self defense primarily, you are gravely mistaken. Except for a few cites most lived where they NEEDED TO HUNT FOR FOOD, when the 2A was drafted.

The thing that cracks me up about those of you who down grade hunting in the light of the 2A is that us HUNTERS actually use our weapons to kill things unlike all the paper shooters who carry IN CASE something happens.

[IVC]

...killing and eating defenseless wildlife.

Hardly defenseless. Also, if your pleasure are plants, they are much more "defenseless" than the wildlife.

There is very little unorganic food we can process or use. You can't live off of salt alone and you can't photosynthesize anything. Until we evolve into unicorns ourselves, we have to eat things that used to be alive.

[Jack L]

A lot of people do not enjoy killing animals. I see no issue with his statement. He was just expressing that to each his own the way I read it. Forest and wetlands are for killing your food, super markets and farmers markets are for paying someone else to do it and exchange money for their efforts.. Both have a place.

[taperxz]

A lot of people do not enjoy killing animals. I see no issue with his statement. He was just expressing that to each his own the way I read it. Forest and wetlands are for killing your food, super markets and farmers markets are for paying someone else to do it and exchange money for their efforts.. Both have a place.

Surprisingly, OleCuss who is knowledgable, is dividing gun owners with hs statement and the context in which he conveyed it.

[OleCuss]

Oh, for Pete's sake.

First of all, I'm a lifelong vegetarian. I don't eat dead animals whether you shoot them or if they fall out of the sky.

Lilly was trying to be holier than thou by saying that she was somehow superior to the NRA and the RKBA crowd. So I played the liberal card - I don't take any pleasure in killing animals, and I don't eat them either. I one-upped her with the liberal crowd and then pointed out that I don't see how it is better to kill animals than to defend yourself.

That said, I really don't like killing stuff. Yeah, I was a soldier and if it had been my task I'd have killed the enemy just like I'd go hunting if I needed to kill an animal. But I do not like killing things - and I'm not too happy when someone tries (like Lilly) to claim moral superiority by killing things rather than defending themselves.

The flip side is that a firearm is just a tool. It is a tool which can be used for a variety of purposes.

You can use it for self-defense.
You can use it for hunting.
You can use it to defend your community.
You can use it to defend your country.
You can use it to shoot various targets.
You can use it as art.
You can use it to write stuff.
You can use it to demonstrate your devotion to liberty.

The legitimate uses of a firearm are at least numerous if not innumerable.

To deprive of us a tool which is so useful and is (at times) essential, is idiocy and evil combined.

And for those who think I'm being divisive? Sorry, my intent was to one-up Lilly at her own game.

Any responsible adult should be able to have and to use firearms as long as they are not harming others. But if I ever go hunting with one of you the only thing I'm going to shoot game with will be my camera.

And I'm the token vegetarian on CGN. Probably useful to remember that at times.

[Sgt Raven]

It is a common tactic of the anti's to pretend they are "hunters" or "NRA members" or "gun owners" when writing/speaking in favor of gun control. IE. I am a gun owner/hunter/NRA member BUT ... I would bet dollars to donut holes that the person writing this has never so much as held a gun let alone gone hunting.

I don't know if I'd make that bet. I know a guy I went to High School with is a big time hunter, but is against owning hand guns and AW's.

[Demonicspire]

I don't mind how many or how few people own guns, or how often they do or do not use them. She can hunt and sport and not defend herself all she wants. Similarly she can editorialize all she wants because of her first amendment rights. I can somewhat sympathize as I don't agree with many things the NRA says, I'm a very left wing kind of guy, but I do appreciate their efforts to preserve the second amendment.

I mean, I'd never in a million years vote for romney (in fact I am enthused about exactly 0 of the candidates in the 2012 election), but I don't think he's a gun nut or anything, he's just doing what romney does best; pandering to any demographic that will listen.

Still, I think it is quite valid to say that the NRA does not represent the totality of shooting opinions.

[masameet]

I just looked through her website and read some of the blog comments regarding her NYT op-ed piece.

Who can disprove her point -- that the NRA, with a membership of 4.3 million people, does not represent hunters?

She wrote that "about one in five American adults own one or more guns. That’s nearly 50 million people. That means roughly 90 percent of gun owners do not belong to the N.R.A." and ...
"the N.R.A. calls itself the 'largest pro-hunting organization in the world.' Yet during election season, the N.R.A. makes endorsements based largely on candidates’ voting records on gun control — with little if any concern for their views on other issues of interest to hunters. Candidates who voted to allow the ban on assault weapons to expire, for example, are labeled 'pro-sportsmen' often despite their weak voting records on environmental issues."

The broader question is, Why has the N.R.A., with a potential membership pool of 50 million Americans, failed to draw more members?

BTW she is a young, attractive woman who had a baby boy in January. She's definitely the kind of gun owner that the N.R.A. should be able to attract.

http://www.lilyrm.com/Lily_Raff_McCaulou/Blog/Entries/2012/4/25_Taking_up_arms_files/shapeimage_1.png

[Cowboy T]

Gotta agree with OleCuss on this one. His argument was an effective slap back at Lily, and a good one at that.

BTW, Liberal I may be, but Lily doesn't represent me, either.

[FastFinger]

I don't mind how many or how few people own guns, or how often they do or do not use them. She can hunt and sport and not defend herself all she wants. Similarly she can editorialize all she wants because of her first amendment rights. I can somewhat sympathize as I don't agree with many things the NRA says, I'm a very left wing kind of guy, but I do appreciate their efforts to preserve the second amendment.

I mean, I'd never in a million years vote for romney (in fact I am enthused about exactly 0 of the candidates in the 2012 election), but I don't think he's a gun nut or anything, he's just doing what romney does best; pandering to any demographic that will listen.

Still, I think it is quite valid to say that the NRA does not represent the totality of shooting opinions.

As good a reason as any to join the NRA. If more gun owner join the pols will pander to us.

[IVC]

First of all, I'm a lifelong vegetarian. I don't eat dead animals whether you shoot them or if they fall out of the sky.
...
That said, I really don't like killing stuff.
...
But I do not like killing things
...
But if I ever go hunting with one of you the only thing I'm going to shoot game with will be my camera.
...
And I'm the token vegetarian on CGN. Probably useful to remember that at times.

Your position is pretty clear and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, but I really wish vegetarians remembered that it's a diet, i.e., what you eat, not a philosophy, i.e., animals shouldn't be eaten.

The "diet" part is a personal preference, no different than saying I like fruits better than vegetables (no pun intended). The "philosophy" part is a belief which happens to be contrary to all contemporary science, as well as being incorrect in assumption that animals are not killed when one commits to a vegetarian diet, not to mention that plants, being living things, must be killed for consumption.

So, eat what your pleasure is, but if your choices are because you "don't like killing things/stuff," you might want to reconsider the validity of your theory.

Otherwise, I get your post and you are very clear about your positions on hunting. This is more of a general comment about vegetarians since most of them are vehemently against hunting.

[IVC]

Still, I think it is quite valid to say that the NRA does not represent the totality of shooting opinions.

It is quite valid to say it, but it's also quite valid to say that the NRA strives to protect the totality of shooting activities regardless of the opinions. That's the whole point of being a single issue organization - everyone has a different opinion, but there is just one common interest.

[jmpgnr24k]

Totally divide and conquer tactics. This just shows the opposition is readjusting their strategies for eliminating our gun rights because they have been losing ground with their other failed polices and legislation. Look at "fast and furious" they went as far as to break the law to fool people into believing we need more gun control. Now that that didn't work they're hitting straight at us personally by saying not all gun owners like all gun owners and what they stand for, so we should get more gun control. Don't be fooled by this rhetoric. Better keep your eyes open.

[OleCuss]

Your position is pretty clear and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, but I really wish vegetarians remembered that it's a diet, i.e., what you eat, not a philosophy, i.e., animals shouldn't be eaten.

The "diet" part is a personal preference, no different than saying I like fruits better than vegetables (no pun intended). The "philosophy" part is a belief which happens to be contrary to all contemporary science, as well as being incorrect in assumption that animals are not killed when one commits to a vegetarian diet, not to mention that plants, being living things, must be killed for consumption.

So, eat what your pleasure is, but if your choices are because you "don't like killing things/stuff," you might want to reconsider the validity of your theory.

Otherwise, I get your post and you are very clear about your positions on hunting. This is more of a general comment about vegetarians since most of them are vehemently against hunting.

No particular disagreement except sort of around the edges. I was raised a vegetarian and I find the idea of eating a dead animal to be disgusting. You can argue about whether that is philosophical.

But I figure that if I'm not going to eat it I shouldn't be killing it unless it is a pest or there is some other really good reason the animal should be harvested (there can be lots).

Plus, I really don't like killing things.

That said, I greatly respect hunting. It was sort of built into us at some point in either creation or evolution. Plus, vegetarianism is sort of an unnatural state which is more appropriate in a fairly technological society - Vitamin B12 is the key to understanding this.

Net effect is that hunting is something humans were meant to do. The fact that I'd prefer to hunt with a camera doesn't mean that others should do the same.

More of an aside, however? In the US we generally get more animal protein than is good for us, however. Our vegetable intake is probably too low and our meat intake too high for the best of health. So my pointing out that vegetarianism is an unnatural state is not meant to be endorsing a meat-heavy diet.

But I'm getting a bit off the topic now. Let me go back to the right topic by referring to legislation which is out there right now.

Humans and wolves/dogs likely started their close association tens of thousands of years together. Together they are better at defense and at hunting. The idea that this association should be broken by people somewhat like me who don't like hunting is stupid and is an insult to human progress and to dogs/wolves everywhere.

[The Original Godfather]

No particular disagreement except sort of around the edges. I was raised a vegetarian and I find the idea of eating a dead animal to be disgusting. You can argue about whether that is philosophical.

But I figure that if I'm not going to eat it I shouldn't be killing it unless it is a pest or there is some other really good reason the animal should be harvested (there can be lots).

Plus, I really don't like killing things.

That said, I greatly respect hunting. It was sort of built into us at some point in either creation or evolution. Plus, vegetarianism is sort of an unnatural state which is more appropriate in a fairly technological society - Vitamin B12 is the key to understanding this.

Net effect is that hunting is something humans were meant to do. The fact that I'd prefer to hunt with a camera doesn't mean that others should do the same.

More of an aside, however? In the US we generally get more animal protein than is good for us, however. Our vegetable intake is probably too low and our meat intake too high for the best of health. So my pointing out that vegetarianism is an unnatural state is not meant to be endorsing a meat-heavy diet.

But I'm getting a bit off the topic now. Let me go back to the right topic by referring to legislation which is out there right now.

Humans and wolves/dogs likely started their close association tens of thousands of years together. Together they are better at defense and at hunting. The idea that this association should be broken by people somewhat like me who don't like hunting is stupid and is an insult to human progress and to dogs/wolves everywhere.


I don't have anything against vegetarians, but, aren't you still killing things when you eat flora? :confused:

[OleCuss]

I don't have anything against vegetarians, but, aren't you still killing things when you eat flora? :confused:

Yup! But the flora generally aren't thinking beings and that does make them a bit different. I'll stick to the flora for food.

I'm not one of the serious nutjob absolutists on this stuff, I do wear leather shoes because I haven't found anything else that will do the job. That (and when I have to wear a leather belt) does contribute to the killing of an animal.

When necessary for things to work well I think harvesting an animal is the right thing to do - even for me. So I'm not an absolutist and truly believe that sometimes killing an animal is the right thing to do - but I don't like it.

[chicoredneck]

Yup! But the flora generally aren't thinking beings and that does make them a bit different. I'll stick to the flora for food.

I'm not one of the serious nutjob absolutists on this stuff, I do wear leather shoes because I haven't found anything else that will do the job. That (and when I have to wear a leather belt) does contribute to the killing of an animal.

When necessary for things to work well I think harvesting an animal is the right thing to do - even for me. So I'm not an absolutist and truly believe that sometimes killing an animal is the right thing to do - but I don't like it.

I respect your position and highly appreciate your respect and tolerance of those who wish to live a different life style. One thing I would like to point out to you however, is that the farming of roe crops and most vegtables kills far more animals than does the eating of beef and other domestic animals that are raised for most of their life by grazing. The cattle may dispalce a few grazers, but most of the aniamls that lived on the ranch land will continue to do so. When a plot of wheat or an orchard goes in, the natural habitat that supported the native wildlife and their successive generations is gone for the remainder fo the farm. Then you bring in discing, sprying, and other changes to further destroy the few aniamls that might be able to coexist with the new limited habitat of a farm.

I don't mean to dissuade you from your choice, I just don't want someone to be dissilutioned as to the realities of their choice. I wish that more vegetarians had the same attitude as yourself and less of the militant "everyone must be like me" or the "holier than thou" attitude. Your tolerance of others choices really is a breath of fresh air.

[The Original Godfather]

Yup! But the flora generally aren't thinking beings and that does make them a bit different. I'll stick to the flora for food.

So I guess it's more of you don't like killing animals, rather than things, since I know several botanists who will gladly disagree that vegetables/fruits aren't thinking beings :)



I'm not one of the serious nutjob absolutists on this stuff, I do wear leather shoes because I haven't found anything else that will do the job. That (and when I have to wear a leather belt) does contribute to the killing of an animal.



You mean a vegan? :D

When necessary for things to work well I think harvesting an animal is the right thing to do - even for me. So I'm not an absolutist and truly believe that sometimes killing an animal is the right thing to do - but I don't like it.



I have a friend who doesn't eat meat and can't have most spices, mainly due to health complications as a kid, which was probably just a scare due to poorly kept and prepared meat. He hasn't had meat since he was a pre-schooler, and this is a guy who grew up on a ranch. One of my life long goals is to get him to eat a steak before either of us leaves this earth. I'll add you to that list. :D

[OleCuss]

chicoredneck:

Right, sort of.

But there are different ways of doing things. I can remember decades ago putting up many tons of hay. This was being done to feed cows (and maybe a few horses). I can tell you that the original habitat was heavily disturbed in order to create those hay fields. (I also ran over a lot of mice. Eeek! ;))

Range cattle are one thing - but even some of them are finished under very different circumstances.

The net effect is that if we are going to live we will alter our environment. But it has always been thus. I don't care how far back you go into our prehistory and such - we have affected our environment. But then, a beaver changes the environment - as do birds, bees, fish, or any other critter you can imagine.

I consider myself to be an environmentalist. To be more specific, I want a great environment for humans. I don't much care for the snail darter except if the snail darter's existence is important to humans. I don't care about the Spotted Owl unless their existence is important to human existence.

I frankly have contempt for those who think other animals are the same as us. I'm a human animal and that means that trying to take on a non-human perspective is just silly.

I want to preserve the environment for humans. That means that if humans need the soil tilled they should till the soil. If we need to have deer for whatever reason - we should preserve deer. If we need to harvest some bear - we should harvest some bear. If we need to use internal combustion engines in order to have a productive and joyful existence - we should use the internal combustion engines.

To go a little further?

One of my favorite pet peeves is the idea that we should be driving electric vehicles. Before that makes sense someone needs to figure out how and where the electricity was generated, need to know the transmission loss, the inefficiency of charging the batteries, the loss of energy pulling the electricity out of the battery and transmitting it to the wheels. It is not at all clear that an electrical vehicle is less polluting than a regular old smoke-belching Jeep.

[OleCuss]

.
.
.

You mean a vegan? :D
.
.
.

Not sure all vegans are absolutist nutjobs, but a lot of them are. . .

[chicoredneck]

chicoredneck:

Right, sort of.

But there are different ways of doing things. I can remember decades ago putting up many tons of hay. This was being done to feed cows (and maybe a few horses). I can tell you that the original habitat was heavily disturbed in order to create those hay fields. (I also ran over a lot of mice. Eeek! ;))

Range cattle are one thing - but even some of them are finished under very different circumstances.

The net effect is that if we are going to live we will alter our environment. But it has always been thus. I don't care how far back you go into our prehistory and such - we have affected our environment. But then, a beaver changes the environment - as do birds, bees, fish, or any other critter you can imagine.

I consider myself to be an environmentalist. To be more specific, I want a great environment for humans. I don't much care for the snail darter except if the snail darter's existence is important to humans. I don't care about the Spotted Owl unless their existence is important to human existence.

I frankly have contempt for those who think other animals are the same as us. I'm a human animal and that means that trying to take on a non-human perspective is just silly.

I want to preserve the environment for humans. That means that if humans need the soil tilled they should till the soil. If we need to have deer for whatever reason - we should preserve deer. If we need to harvest some bear - we should harvest some bear. If we need to use internal combustion engines in order to have a productive and joyful existence - we should use the internal combustion engines.

To go a little further?

One of my favorite pet peeves are the idea that we should be driving electric vehicles. Before that makes sense someone needs to figure out how and where the electricity was generated, need to know the transmission loss, the inefficiency of charging the batteries, the loss of energy pulling the electricity out of the battery and transmitting it to the wheels. It is not at all clear that an electrical vehicle is less polluting than a regular old smoke-belching Jeep.

You're awesome :thumbsup:
Couldn't agree more

[Spartan]

It really pi$$es me off when fellow hunters have their heads up their *****es and cant see the big picture.

[AragornElessar86]

I call Bull*#% on her claim that she doesn't own guns for defense. Send a child rapist to her house at 3am to break into her kids' bedroom and see whether she doesn't grab a gun.

[Glock22Fan]

snip

To go a little further?

One of my favorite pet peeves is the idea that we should be driving electric vehicles. Before that makes sense someone needs to figure out how and where the electricity was generated, need to know the transmission loss, the inefficiency of charging the batteries, the loss of energy pulling the electricity out of the battery and transmitting it to the wheels. It is not at all clear that an electrical vehicle is less polluting than a regular old smoke-belching Jeep.

Not to mention that (AFAIK) the raw material for the batteries is mined in Canada, transhipped to China for processing (because nowhere in our western hemisphere will accept the pollution of processing it) and then shipped back here. And, of course, the batteries have to be replaced every few years at great expense (as my self-professed 'bleeding heart liberal' SiL just discovered for her s/h Prius I strongly argued against her buying less than a year ago).

But on the original post, someone should tell the article writer the saying "They came for the intellectuals, and I didn't speak out . . . . "

[Demonicspire]

As good a reason as any to join the NRA. If more gun owner join the pols will pander to us.

Agreed insofar as unity goes, but honestly our troubles are more local than national. I may or may not join the NRA, I haven't decided tbqh (I don't like getting put on mailing lists), but I do write my representatives about gun control issues quite frequently. I thin the NRA definitely makes it easier to legislate for certain things in unison, but its not a necessity to making our voices heard. Speaking of which, does this site ever do letter writing campaigns or such?

[tpuig]

I hope she is never put in a position in which she'd have to defend her life with a hunting firearm. That would be a real dilemma...

[Meplat]

I read this, it was an encouraging headline to see on the NY Time page but when I got to her line about "I support gun control", I stopped reading. She just doesn't get it. And yes, I would expect nothing but an elitist to write for the NY Times. She has a book she is pushing and she is a brainwashed Oregon liberal as far as gun control.

Amazing that she can shoot and eat an animal yet supports gun control, kind of a weird dichotomy. She is probably of the, "oh, I should be able to have guns but not you" variety like a lot of California liberals. Aren't a surprising amount of gun control advocates CCW holders?

Not here in the heartland!

[Meplat]

A lot of people do not enjoy killing animals. I see no issue with his statement. He was just expressing that to each his own the way I read it. Forest and wetlands are for killing your food, super markets and farmers markets are for paying someone else to do it and exchange money for their efforts.. Both have a place.

I do not enjoy killing animals either. I do it because it helps keep me grounded in the real world. The way that statement was phrased it came off as being pejorative to hunters. It is a sign that divide and conquer is working. I don’t take every opportunity to point out that super market people hire there killing done and their food animals lead much crueler lives and meet much crueler deaths than do harvested animals that lived wild and free. Everyone needs to put away their moral superiority and work together here.

[Meplat]

chicoredneck:

Right, sort of.

But there are different ways of doing things. I can remember decades ago putting up many tons of hay. This was being done to feed cows (and maybe a few horses). I can tell you that the original habitat was heavily disturbed in order to create those hay fields. (I also ran over a lot of mice. Eeek! ;))

Range cattle are one thing - but even some of them are finished under very different circumstances.

The net effect is that if we are going to live we will alter our environment. But it has always been thus. I don't care how far back you go into our prehistory and such - we have affected our environment. But then, a beaver changes the environment - as do birds, bees, fish, or any other critter you can imagine.

I consider myself to be an environmentalist. To be more specific, I want a great environment for humans. I don't much care for the snail darter except if the snail darter's existence is important to humans. I don't care about the Spotted Owl unless their existence is important to human existence.

I frankly have contempt for those who think other animals are the same as us. I'm a human animal and that means that trying to take on a non-human perspective is just silly.

I want to preserve the environment for humans. That means that if humans need the soil tilled they should till the soil. If we need to have deer for whatever reason - we should preserve deer. If we need to harvest some bear - we should harvest some bear. If we need to use internal combustion engines in order to have a productive and joyful existence - we should use the internal combustion engines.

To go a little further?

One of my favorite pet peeves is the idea that we should be driving electric vehicles. Before that makes sense someone needs to figure out how and where the electricity was generated, need to know the transmission loss, the inefficiency of charging the batteries, the loss of energy pulling the electricity out of the battery and transmitting it to the wheels. It is not at all clear that an electrical vehicle is less polluting than a regular old smoke-belching Jeep.

Actually it is quite clear that unless the electric vehicle gets its power from wind, solar, or atomic power plants there is a net increase in pollution.

[nicki]

Here is my e mail response to her. I tried to be constructive, who knows, she may eventually evolve to our side.

Nicki


Dear Ms. Lily Raff McCaulou,



I found a link to your article via the Calguns.net website under the second amendment forum. Yes I am a NRA member even though I don't always agree with them lock step.



You certainly made some very valid points that if we don't protect our environment, we won't have any game to hunt.



Like you, I used to live in New York City, growing up in New York I remember how bad crime was. When I left New York City, the city averaged around 1400 plus homicides per year, I know that crime has dropped significantly since I left.



I will acknowledge that Mayor Guilliani and the NYPD did reduce crime although I do have issues with some of the methods since I am a civil libertarian.



You story of how you started fishing and then evolved into hunting was a great read. In all honesty I have never gone hunting in my life, although I support hunting as means of controlling and maintaining our wildlife.



I personally have no issue with people hunting for food, considering how our commercial meat is processed, hunting actually may be a preferable way of getting meat short of raising it yourself or buying free range meat products.



I am a member of the NRA because I support gun rights. The reason I support gun rights is because I view civilian gun ownership as an important safeguard to preserve our free society. My grandfather had to fight for the freedom of his country from an oppressive occupier who in the 19th century created a situation to where an estimated 4 to 8 million Irish peasants starved to death while food was being exported to England during the Irish Patato famine.



Now of course the concept that we can't have any gun laws is absurd, certainly we should have laws restricting ownership of guns from dangerous criminals and people who are mentally unbalanced.



In California we have a 10 day waiting period on gun purchases in addition to the national insta check. While it is an annoyance, it isn't really that big a deal to me. What is a big deal are gun licensing systems such as New York's which effectively deny the general population access to guns.



I myself am a post op Transexual, so the issue of violent hate crimes is a significant concern to me.



Where the homicide rate for the general population is roughly 5 per 100,000, for me it is at least 300 per 100,000. Depending on whose numbers you use, the rate could be significantly higher.



This is why I am a member of the Pink Pistols and I am in the process of taking over and restructing the organization. Our position is simple, armed gays don't get bashed. Armed defense isn't for everyone, but if you are in a group that is being targeted and the police won't protect you, your choice is self-defense or pray that your socio-pathic gay bashers have some mercy.



My friend Scott Hall who runs the Gay American Heroes foundation tells me that 90 percent of the hate crime murders happen outside the home and many attacks involved multiple attackers. A gun in the home provides defense 10 percent of the time.



Claifornia is a "may issue" state with regards to CCW permits. You have to show "good cause" to your local sheriff in order to get a CCW permit unlike Oregon where you live.



In California I don't have "good cause" to get a ccw permit even though I am at significantly higher risk of being a victim of violence than campaign contributors to the local sheriff. Seems like the only people who have good cause in Santa Clara County are those that are "connected" and this pattern exists in all the major urban areas of California.



Stand your ground laws aren't licenses to kill, they were enacted because many states required people to try to retreat. I don't know about you, but I can't run when I am wearing heels.



I am glad you enjoy hunting, perhaps you may want to look at the other shooting sports as well.



Many in the gun community are concerned about violence and there are many things that could be done to significantly reduce gun violence.



If I was given free reign, the first thing I would do would be to end our disastrous drug war which IMHO is a 1 trillion dollar plus a year drain on our society, ending the drug war would probably cut gun violence at least in half since half the crime in our country is directly and indirectly a byproduct of the black market.



I would replace what we are currently doing with the following:

1. Truthfully drug education for our children

2. Detox and rehab for those who want to turn their lives around

3. Regulated sales of drugs to underprice and bankrupt illegal drug dealers.



I would push for Industrial Hemp nationwide since this is something that could easily evolve into a green 500 billion dollar per year industry.



I would promote respect for each other's basic human rights in our schools so that the next generation of school children would have respect for each other. This would be a strong anti bully campaign.



I certainly support the right of people to carry arms for self defense, but with rights come responsiblities. Fortunately based on the overall track record with CCW permits across the nation, CCW holders are not a public menace, they are infact a public benefit.



The Zimmerman/Martin shooting was a tradegy and since all the facts are not out yet, I won't comment.



Feel free to contact me anytime.



Nicki Stallard

San Jose Pink Pistols


yes I had spelling mistakes, just wrote off the top of my head, a personal letter that may or may not get read.

I figure she probably got thousands of e mails, many probably not so nice

[Meplat]

Like you, I used to live in New York City, growing up in New York I remember how bad crime was. When I left New York City, the city averaged around 1400 plus homicides per year, I know that crime has dropped significantly since I left.





:rofl2:

Sorry Nicki, I just couldn't resist!:43:

[nicki]

:rofl2:

Sorry Nicki, I just couldn't resist!:43:

Yes, when I was a young one I was a predator on the streets of New York, after all, the streets were full of helpless prey.;)

Some people have told me that I am so bad that heaven doesn't want me and hell is afraid I will take over.:43:

I just couldn't resist commenting to your comment.:p

There is a glimmer of hope for the author, after all, just as Luke saved Darth Vader from the dark side, perhaps as the author spends more time away from the "Rotten Apple", she too will see the light and evolve our way.

Many of our strongest proponents of gun rights started out on the other side, few if any strong supporters of civilian disarmanent started on our side.

Nicki

[OleCuss]

Actually it is quite clear that unless the electric vehicle gets its power from wind, solar, or atomic power plants there is a net increase in pollution.

Your point is good, but I'm not sure I'm even willing to accept the electricity sources other than the nuclear power plant (and even then only maybe).

Wind turbines and solar panels and such are pretty expensive. Much of the reason for that is that it takes a lot of energy to make them.

Also, there are many places in the country where they are very inefficient - and that means that wind and solar power may have to be transmitted long distances to get to your electric vehicle. That means pretty big transmission losses.

Nuclear is the one that I think has the greatest potential to reduce at least fossil fuel consumption and C02 emissions. Of course, it is also the form of electricity generation most hated by the greenies. Go figure?

[Meplat]

Your point is good, but I'm not sure I'm even willing to accept the electricity sources other than the nuclear power plant (and even then only maybe).

Wind turbines and solar panels and such are pretty expensive. Much of the reason for that is that it takes a lot of energy to make them.

Also, there are many places in the country where they are very inefficient - and that means that wind and solar power may have to be transmitted long distances to get to your electric vehicle. That means pretty big transmission losses.

Nuclear is the one that I think has the greatest potential to reduce at least fossil fuel consumption and C02 emissions. Of course, it is also the form of electricity generation most hated by the greenies. Go figure?

It amazes how tree huggers just assume that wind and solar have less of a detrimental effect on the planet than fossil fuel. Anything that is used to supply the tiny percentage that wind and solar do now is not going to show huge negative effects soon, if ever. But do they really believe that if they shade over enough of our southwestern desert to supply the bulk of our electricity it will not have huge, possibly catastrophic effects on our climate and environment? The same goes for wind power. How much energy can we pull out of our naturally flowing rivers of atmosphere before it has detrimental effects on our whether?

If I can figure this out so can the supposed scientists who are supposedly seeking the holy grail of cheep clean energy. The bottom line is they know it won’t work, but they don’t care. All they are really after is to destroy the economy of the United States of America.

[IVC]

Yup! But the flora generally aren't thinking beings and that does make them a bit different. I'll stick to the flora for food.

This is just a personal justification of your moral choice. The argument is not valid in our discussion since your stated internal conflict is the killing, and you are still doing it, whether flora can think or not. First you have to accept that if you want to live you have to kill. Once you are at peace with that thought, the harmony with the nature can begin.

[OleCuss]

Nope. There's a choice, but no conflict. And the killing is not the reason I don't eat meat - but I still really don't like killing.

For that matter, I don't particularly enjoy killing plants (weeding is just not my thing). But I've never known a plant to look back and me and I've never known them to apparently have feelings, and I never grow to love them.

But what I don't really get is why people really give a rat's rear end that I don't eat dead animals. I don't, but many others do.

As long as you raise, slaughter, hunt, or whatever the animal in as responsible a manner as you can - I support you in your carnivorous/omnivorous ways. I've even been known to give suggestions to hunters as to where I'd seen wildlife they were hunting (don't know if it proved helpful).

I don't want to eat meat. God bless you if you do.

If you want to get things back to RKBA related stuff while still trying to examine all my oddities - I'll throw out another.

I don't even like shooting all that much. I shoot from time to time because I think it is the duty of our citizens to be able to defend themselves and their community/country - and firearms competence is a part of that responsibility.

Have at it.

For me, the upshot is that I like who and what I am and I like most people the way that they are even when they are very different from me. I'm kind of libertarian - you don't harm me and I don't harm you and we can most likely get along.

[taperxz]

Wow, this thread took a left turn. I was only pointing out that your reference to "killing harmless wildlife". Was a term IMO that really divides gun owners. It makes it sound like a derogatory remark for those who use guns in a legal way.

[OleCuss]

Yeah, and you were right. And my real opinion is actually a little different. Especially if you've ever seen someone who was severely harmed by that "harmless" wildlife (or seen the pictures).

I was guilty of using inappropriate language to make my point. In my defense, I did have my tongue at least somewhat in my cheek.

[IVC]

Nobody cares who eats what. The problem is the usage of negative phrases such as "eating dead animals" - we don't eat "dead animals" either, we eat meat.

As long as we stick to the vegetarian diet and avoid typical vegetarian nomenclature, we should have no issues.

[taperxz]

Yeah, and you were right. And my real opinion is actually a little different. Especially if you've ever seen someone who was severely harmed by that "harmless" wildlife (or seen the pictures).

I was guilty of using inappropriate language to make my point. In my defense, I did have my tongue at least somewhat in my cheek.

OK i see your point but, I don't want to see you on any pro-advocate weed wacker forums because im a real defender of grass, plants and trees!!! :D

[OleCuss]

I'll try to stay away from those forums. Do I have to sell my edger as well?

[taperxz]

I'll try to stay away from those forums. Do I have to sell my edger as well?

NO! that would be considered good maintenance and a manicure:D