Anti-Gun Democrat Buys Controlling Interest in Meateater Hunting Show

Simple enough, quit supporting the Show, sponsors, events and products. Let it fail. After all it's his money to lose isn't it. He can blow it up if he so desires. The hunters and sports men and women will find other resources and venues to take their business.

So again, let them all dry up and plow away!
 
Simple enough, quit supporting the Show, sponsors, events and products. Let it fail.
Click to expand...

It may not be a matter of "letting" it fail. I see only two possibilities.
1) they are willing to look past their personal biases in order to make money (which might be considered hypocritical..)

2) They bought it with the intent to shut it down, or run it into the ground so it does fail. (if that is the case, should we really "help" them do it??)

This kind of touches on something I've been wondering about, the uber-wealthy who claim to be concerned about "gun violence" and the proliferation of firearms.

Seems to me that if they were really concerned about what they claim to be concerned about, they would buy gun makers and either shut them down or convert their factories to other products.

And yet, they don't do that. They do give large amounts of money to gun control causes and politicians, though. Makes one wonder how honest they are about their claimed concerns.....
 
There are ways to try and combat this type of takeover. One way would be to have a group like the NRA purchase non-compete and confidentiality rights from pro-hunting pro-gun media companies.

The NRA can act as an incubator for new pro-gun / pro-hunting media formats, and retain the rights to approve sales, making sure the incubated companies are only sold to gun-friendly owners.

The fact that AR's and AK's are easily manufactured by hundreds of companies has blocked groups like this from taking over a say "Colt" and shutting down the sale of AR's to civilians. You can thank the '89 import ban for that unintended consequence.

We really should brainstorm to see what other methods can be used to stop ultra-wealthy bloomberg-types from simply buying gun companies and pro-gun publications for the purpose of shutting them down.
 
2) They bought it with the intent to shut it down, or run it into the ground so it does fail. (if that is the case, should we really "help" them do it??
Click to expand...

Yes. Because this one will take bad money with it and someone will fill the niche with a more successful show.
 
Skans said:
There are ways to try and combat this type of takeover. One way would be to have a group like the NRA purchase non-compete and confidentiality rights from pro-hunting pro-gun media companies.

The NRA can act as an incubator for new pro-gun / pro-hunting media formats, and retain the rights to approve sales, making sure the incubated companies are only sold to gun-friendly owners.

The fact that AR's and AK's are easily manufactured by hundreds of companies has blocked groups like this from taking over a say "Colt" and shutting down the sale of AR's to civilians. You can thank the '89 import ban for that unintended consequence.

We really should brainstorm to see what other methods can be used to stop ultra-wealthy bloomberg-types from simply buying gun companies and pro-gun publications for the purpose of shutting them down.
Click to expand...
Well, the seller has some responsibility in this, no? A little goggle-foo and it would be pretty easy to learn who any potential buyer of anything, is.
 
Seems to me that if they were really concerned about what they claim to be concerned about, they would buy gun makers and either shut them down or convert their factories to other products.

And yet, they don't do that. They do give large amounts of money to gun control causes and politicians, though. Makes one wonder how honest they are about their claimed concerns.....
Click to expand...

But if they did that, what would their armed security details do? ;)
 
Seems to me, it could be a simple case of either the buyer or seller disregarding their personal ethics for greed. Happens all the time. Could be they both did. Is the buyer looking for a hunter based platform to push his anti-gun ideals? Unless he is targeting "Fudds", I wonder how that will work out. Could the seller just be looking for the most profitable way out, without any concern to what will happen to his "baby" down the road? I'm thinkin' this is probably the case.

Thing is, what one does to make money, or how one spends money should be of little concern as long as it's done legally. Ethics is a moot point as is how it will affect us personally. We as gun owners and hunters should follow our own ethics, and not be that brand loyal that we will follow blindly. Pretty simple.
 
Edited: that was a pretty strong “we’re not changing” just because we have a liberal investor.
 
Last edited:
Meateater’s Editorial Director is Ben O’Brien - you may know him as the former marketing manager at Yeti who broke off the relationship with the NRA. Or you may know him as the head of a DemocraticPAC that spent $1.2 million to get Jon Tester re-elected. Or you might know him as a board member of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers - a group that also supported Tester (and a group quoted in Meateater’s most recent article on the effects of the government shutdown on hunting).

If some asks you if you support a ban on semi-autos, there’s a simple answer if you don’t - “No, I don’t support a ban on semi-autos.” Question asked and answered.

In his reply, Rinella starts with “I support the Second Amendment.” That’s literally the exact same phrase every politician who has proposed gutting the Second Amendment uses so it doesn’t tell us much. For all we know, the Second Amendment he supports is the collective rights view advocated by Justice Stevens.

He then changes the question to what he hunts with and states he prefers to use bolt-actions but he has friends who use semis and he gives them good-natured ribbing. In other words, he sidesteps the question of whether he supports semi-auto bans entirely. Why would he do that?

Semi-autos have existed since the late 19th century. Saying this technology shouldn’t be banned is hardly controversial except among people who don’t hunt or shoot at all.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, for any who might of missed it, Mr. Rinella does state in the audio clip at 3:31 "I have never supported or endorsed any bans on classifications of guns or limits on ammunition possession or any other attempts to infringe on our constitutional liberties."
 
Thank you for the correction. I heard ot as he was just saying there was no evidence he had ever supported any bans. But he does clearly say he has never supported or endorsed them. I guess his use of the present perfect tense threw me.
 
As an avid listener of the Meateater podcast, I can say that from what I have heard, Stephen Rinella is one stubborn son of a gun. He is also strongly apolitical as the article says, aside from his stances on hunting and public land protection. I'd say I feel pretty confident that the show and podcast won't be changing. It won't become more or less pro-gun. It'll just stay pro-hunting and pro-public land. Hee may be a little bit of a fudd but he seems to be a single issue activist.
 
The issue, of course, is that if you listen to the podcast you are funding anti-gun efforts, because Chernin will use the money earned from Meateater to fund anti-gun politicians and groups. Rinella isn't really in the equation.
 
New update, on the podcast, Rinella hosted Larry Keane and Mark Oliva of the NSSF and very openly discussed his opposition to universal background checks and his support of the Hearing Protection Act. The Armed Chicagoan makes a really good point though.
 
Armed Chicagian do you do a background check on everything you purchase?


Do you drive a gasoline/diesel car? If so you are supporting the Saudis, sharia supporting slaveowners...

You have some sort of Electronic device otherwise you wouldnt be online, so you support commies?

Any form of ak or milsurp? You mind as well donate straight to Putin...


Rinella is great

To view guncontrol as a rep vs dem or right vs left is doing it a disservice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top