Another hunter thinks guns are bad

She does realize that a lot of people hunt illegally? The hunting regulations she obeys are easily broken by others.

I wonder how she would like them to ban hunting because of a few bad apples.

Not to mention a hunting rifle becomes a "sniper" rifle in the wrong hands. As long as there is hunting, this will never change.

Luckily most hunters seem to side with the NRA.
 
There is an idiot. She better hope her kids get used to guns and lock downs, because the terrorists are headed this way. A lot of people don't agree with the wars we started in the middle east, but I am guessing it kept a lot of the trouble makers over there. Once we pull out of the middle east they will concentrate on Europe and the U.S.
 
The hunters should band together to give the NRA a beat down.
Click to expand...
What she fails to explain is that the hunting culture in this country would be nonexistent without the NRA.

McCaulou's been making the rounds on HuffPo and the Atlantic for the last year or so. She has all the right talking points, which leads me to believe she's on the Brady/Bloomberg payroll.

They learned not to demonize gun owners after the 1994 dustup. Following Newtown, they decided to make the NRA a strawman. The narrative is that the NRA collects hundreds of millions of dollars in blood money from the gun industry, which it uses to buy every politician on Capitol Hill.

From there, it's easy to imply that their proposals don't gain traction because they're fighting a gallant David vs. Goliath fight.

In reality, they are lying. No, actually lying. They're deliberately mixing up the budget of the NRA Foundation and the NRA-ILA. The Foundation is where our membership dues go. It's a 501(c)(3), so it can't engage in political lobbying.

The NRA-ILA is the lobbying arm, and it is supported by direct donations. So, what's their budget? Barely enough to even get noticed on Capitol Hill.

Compare that ~$4 million with the $20 million Americans for Responsible Solutions (Gabrielle Gifford's PAC), or with the $50 million pledged by Michael Bloomberg for Moms Demand Action and Everytown.

So, how does the NRA keep winning? They don't. It's the members who do it, by putting pressure on their elected officials. The NRA helps raise awareness, but the idea that they're buying Washington is utter drivel.

The fact is, the gun-control lobby is blowing wads of cash, and they have only a couple ineffectual laws in a couple of states to show for it. That frustrates them to no end, but they don't dare admit that they're losing because the majority of the population doesn't really want what they're selling.

And that hacks them off to no end. Thus the recent lapses into insults and petty frustrations we've seen from them, going all the way up to the Oval Office.
 
Good points all, I think another point is that the NRA is a big large easy Target. When you read the dribble that the anti’s come out with it sounds like the NRA is what the Brady/Bloomberg payroll actually is, big money supplied by a few liberals.
Whereas the NRA is a political group that is supported not by a couple of rich creeps but its members.
I always find it funny in a sick way, when the liberals write about the BIG EVIL NRA and what it has done in DC. Yet groups like the Bloomberg and Clinton groups/foundations and many many more, they only do GOOD things.
When I read an article like McCaulou's only one thing comes to mind. Everything that is coming out of her mouth is BS without an ounce of truth.
 
If you were to put a dollar value on the allegedly journalistic anti-gun screeds that attempt to pass for thoughtful, objective, reporting on gun ownership in this country, the NRA is being outspent by far more than the 20 to 1 the gun control organizations have in their war chests, it's more like 150 to 1 or similar.

Every time a journalist is confronted with one of their errors in print, their reputation and livelihood come at stake. They'll change their mantra somewhat if they're honest.
 
There is a common thread to pieces from a 'gun' person.

I'm a gun supporter because I'm a veteran or I'm a hunter. However, said person is against ARs, concealed carry and the like. In favor of draconian bans and permitting.
 
Isn't this a typical FUDD response?
Leave the hunting laws alone but it's ok the pass "common sense" compromises? Just because she doesn't want to carry concealed I guess it's ok to legislate that, right?

This sums up all we need to know about her views:

Because hunters aren’t frequent gun buyers, gun sale restrictions aren’t a big deal to us. Even relatively extreme gun control proposals would be irrelevant to our pastime. Mandatory waiting periods, for example, would inconvenience only the rare hunter who needs to replace a gun just before a season opens. High capacity magazines are only used by varmint hunters wishing to avoid the hassle of reloading.
Click to expand...


What a self-centered hypocrite.
 
She was on National Public Radio, being presented as the "reasonable" gun owner. The left wing media trots out these paid consultants for Gun Control lobbies, which I have no doubt this woman is, as they propagandize the public to accept gun bans.

Back for the build up for the Brady Gun Ban bill, the left wing media was trotting out Police Chief's as the experts for "reasonable" gun control. It is all about taking away our rights, as it has always been.
 
She is not a "hunter." She is an urban yuppie who has learned to hunt. In my mind, there's a significant difference.

Lily said:
There’s a disconnect between hunters and the organizations that claim to represent us. Like the majority of gun owners, we support policies that gun rights groups oppose, like universal background checks. But there’s a reason why sportsmen and sportswomen in particular have long been absent from the national debate on gun control: Hunters don’t like to talk about guns.
Click to expand...

Point 1 from the above quote: I do not believe for a nanosecond that anything near a majority of gun owners support universal background checks. The only ones who support UBCs are the people like her, who don't care about the Second Amendment or constitutional rights as long as they can have their deer rifle.

Point 2 from the above is that the closing statement is simply untrue. I haven't ever met a hunter who doesn't like to talk about guns. (Except maybe bow hunters, and they talk about bows.) I have a good friend in another state who is a hunter. Whenever we talk on the phone, guns takes up at least 75 percent of the conversation -- and the conversations may go on for an hour or more.
 
Meh, looks like astro turf to me. The author has been writing gun-control advocacy pieces going back to at least 2012 and the website itself is a gun control advocacy site backed by none other than Michael Bloomberg.

Honestly, this is an old trick that gun control advocates like to pull out of their sleeves. They still believe that most gun owners only want guns to hunt and shoot clay pigeons with so they plant a few people who shoot a clay pigeon now and then to promise that no one is going to take our double-barrels and deer-rifles away.

Fortunately, this trick hasn't been effective for about 20 years now. First and foremost, the majority of people buying guns these days aren't buying them just to be used for hunting. Even the "big box" stores like Gander Mountain, Bass Pro Shops, and Cabelas are selling lots and lots of handguns and black rifles these days. If a poll were taken, I'd be willing to bet that "self defense" or "security" would rank way above "hunting" or "sporting" for reasons people buy guns.

Also, we've become pretty adept at spotting their plants. Anyone remember the American Hunters and Shooters Association? It's not surprising if you don't because it never really went anywhere and quietly died after about 5 years.
 
Dang! I read her book 'Call of the Mild'
http://www.amazon.com/Call-Mild-Lea...1444606766&sr=8-1&keywords=Lily+Raff+McCaulou
quite some time ago and liked it. Imagine having NO hunting experience or exposure and trying to take hunting up in your mid twenties. She explained how she got into hunting birds, deer, elk etc. and didn't seem at all sqeemish about dressing them out. She was luke warm about the gun issue in the book and now I've seen she's totally whacked out about gun control. Sigh. In the book it seemed like she had a lot of common sense. Too bad.

P.S. I read the book from the library, didn't buy a copy, but that's just 'cause I'm cheap.

P.P.S. Yeah. I sure understand how National Public Radio would just wet themselves with joy over having a woman AND a hunter bad-mouth the NRA. Me and NPR have another love/hate thing.
 
It's been said much more eloquently already, but she's just another paid gun control shill. I hope no one actually believes this stuff.
 
The linked article in the OP cites the link below as evidence that:

"There’s a disconnect between hunters and the organizations that claim to represent us. Like the majority of gun owners, we support policies that gun rights groups oppose"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...9c96b0-6c41-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html

There is absolutely no evidence for her assertion at the link...No stats, poll numbers, nada...

Smoke, mirrors, fluff, and pablum...
 
No surprises in the article considering that "The Trace" is a web site dedicated to the advancement of gun control in all forms.
 
Dear Lily -

You might want to think a bit about this famous quote from Martin Niemoeller, made with reference to the much larger issue of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, but if, instead of communists, socialists, etc. you substitute CCW, ARs, handguns, and all the other forms of guns that you personally find unnecessary, you'll get the point. Or maybe not.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

But don't worry, because of the NRA and organizations like the NRA there will always be someone there to speak out for you and your hunting buddies.
 
There is an idiot.
Click to expand...


I tend to disagree. While you may not agree with her opinions, she does talk a lot of intelligent truth such as this....

The fact is, those hardliners are right: a lot of hunters aren’t that interested in guns. We see them as tools that are required to participate in a far more intriguing hobby. A hunter like me would rather talk about where the mule deer have moved during the ongoing drought than about the kind of rifle I’m carrying. Besides, my rifle is the same one I carried last year and the year before that.

Because hunters aren’t frequent gun buyers, gun sale restrictions aren’t a big deal to us. Even relatively extreme gun control proposals would be irrelevant to our pastime. Mandatory waiting periods, for example, would inconvenience only the rare hunter who needs to replace a gun just before a season opens. High capacity magazines are only used by varmint hunters wishing to avoid the hassle of reloading.
Click to expand...

While maybe not the mindset of the majority of gun owners, it certainly is the mindset of many hunters.

What a self-centered hypocrite.
Click to expand...


....from my experience, the majority of gun owners are self centered when it comes to their firearms. This is why we get so many arguments when it comes to the "which caliber/gun for deer/bear" threads. This is why folks argue over grip color and barrel/receiver/frame finishes. Hunters look at ARs the same way Goldwing riders look at Harleys....They don't care if the government bans loud pipes, just leave motorcycles themselves alone. Just Human Nature, the old "I got mine boys!" philosophy. But...instead of alienating hunters more and driving them farther from our midst with derogatory comments and belittling, we need to embrace them as fellow gun owners and attempt to convince them that by not supporting the rights of all gun owners, they are simply endangering their own. This is easier than convincing a non-gun owner of the same.
 
Another Hunter thinks guns re bad

I don't know her history. It may be just a pretend Hunter to assault the Second Amendment.
Doesn't matter. Everyone can have their own opinions. It does not chage our Right to defend our selves/our Second Amendment.
It is not up to her opinion nor to the Judicial Surpremists.
Our Constitution is the Supreme Law and the Courts have no ability to change it or infringe on it even though they have illegally.
I've seen similar views by Outdoor/Hunting Magazine Writers .
Seems the anti Constitution anti our Rights bunch is infiltrating our segment of the media.
The reason so many got into Journalism or all levels was to change not be Reporters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top