Whitetails Unlimited Pres. What is he thinking?

B

Beentown71

New member
Well I am done attending the Whitetails Unlimited "Deer Camp" and spending so much money. Denny Malloy the Head of Whitetails Unlimited seemed to support some "compromise" as he thinks we shouldn't look like "die hard gun guys". He was on Dan River's show on WKBN 570 endorsing the Manchin/Tooney compromise to expand background checks.

If anyone else is interested is at the beginning of hour three. Posted below this will be what was said before commercial one.

Dan Rivers
Click to expand...

What does this gun legislation do right now as far as you know.

Denny
Click to expand...
This is more or less closing the public sale loophole per se and. A lot of people are against background checks, private gun show sales to private individuals. And this one was put together mainly by Joe Manchion Who I am kind of glad is carrying the ball on this because he is a definite pro gun guy from West Virginia. And he came out early on and said we would be willing to budge a little bit which really went against all the diehard gun guys. And by him dealing with this issue I trust him in the sense that well you know when he ran for Senate he was the one depicted in his commercial shooting a rifle at the stimulus plan. He's always been good own guns and buy him bartering and bargaining this deal I trust that the gun owners interest are good.

Over talk Denny / Dan

Denny.
Click to expand...

I would rather do something rather than NOT do Anything or look like they're just being stubborn and not doing anything.
Click to expand...

The Podcast to listen for yourself... http://www.570wkbn.com/cc-common/podcast.html

Bottom line to me, and the way that Danny expressed it in my opinion was he's glad Manchin was the one compromising on gun legislation because its better to give them something like universal background checks than look like we stubborn "diehard gun guys" unwilling to compromise.

The rest of the show was "Pro-gun" but his line of thinking and actually saying it baffles me. This could and should hit the fan for them like what happened at the Harrisburg Sports Show.
 
Talk show on WBAP Dallas-Ft.Worth said about the same thing yesterday morning. Even claiming at the same time it will not help prevent gun violence. They don`t seem to understand that when the anti`s see this is not working they`ll ask for more laws.Wonder what they think will be O.K. next time. People don`t seem to undestand when you compromise on 2A you lose Rights.
 
They understand the idea of compromise. They are just too lazy to fight the hard fight. They may step on a couple toes and don't wanna deal.

The money I seen thrown around at the last WTU "Deer Camp" for a chance to win many guns....I would like to see those guns being used as auction/prize pieces for the GOA or NRA.

Do they do anything like the WTU and their dinners?
 
Sound familiar?

*Credit due someone; I do not know the author(s):

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.

Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".
 
Last edited:
destryr

Didn't LawDog (Ian) write that? Or did he borrow it from you?

It is exactly what I was thinking when I read Beentowns description of WU's Denny Malloy saying we need to give them something so we don't appear too unreasonable.
 
Baba,
That is not mine and I edited my post to reflect that, which I should have included at first. I do use this example frequently with family, co-workers and acquaintances. I get a blank stare all too often, then I say, "Go look it up."
 
If memory serves me (and sometimes it doesn’t) this isn’t the first time Whitetails Unlimited went public in support of firearm restrictions. There were parts of the Clinton era ban that Whitetails Unlimited supported.

It proves a point. The average hunter doesn’t think the Government will ban a hunting firearm. The average hunter knows very little about the Constitution, likewise, the average citizen. I’m not saying all hunters are ignorant, but too many are. My opinion, yours may vary.
 
The way I see it, is just more fractioning the divide of firearm owners. OK, so WTU supports more restrictions. They have that right because of freedom of speech/choice. I have my right not to support WTU or any more restrictions.

Also, as a lot of fudds locally here are all about opening more land for hunting, I have my right to speak out against it, due to the fact that they do not support my view on this, I should not help them on something that does not affect me, but does them. If they would like to stand firm against more restrictions, I would support them in opening more areas to hunt. As it is, why should I help those who are against me?
 
Hunters do not automatically equal gun rights supporters.

From what I've seen hunting turn into, it's increasingly a rich man's venture. It's less and less about nature, sport and tradition and increasingly about consumerism.
 
This is an obvious case of, "Well, it's not really going to affect me and what I do, so let's compromise so we can get them off my back."

I used to live in a small town in Alaska. As most of us are aware, Alaska is mostly a red state. Well, the town I lived in, I referred to as "The Little Blue Spot in the Big Red State." The thing is, almost every household had at least one gun, most had two or more. A large (as in, more than 50%) number of people in the town hunted at least once a year. But, if you were to poll the entire city, you'd find that the majority would be for a magazine capacity limit, an AWB, much stricter background checks, etc.

Why you ask? Because in their eyes, the only legitimate use of guns is to shoot Bambi. No one needs more than 10 rounds to kill Bambi. No one needs a scary black gun to kill Bambi.

Hunters, and even other types of people who own guns aren't always 100% pro-gun. They'll be happy to tread on your rights, as long as they can keep their guns for what they want to do. This honestly doesn't surprise me at all. A hunting conservation group deciding they'd rather not step on any toes, as long as they get to keep doing what they want to do. I've seen this attitude all the time when I lived in Alaska.
 
I may be a bit paranoid, but I can't see how deer hunters think that once the push for semi-autos with "evil" features are regulated thier "deer rifles" won't be.

All those deer rifles are are high powered military style sniper rifle. Nobody needs a 10x scope and .300 Win Mag to kill a deer.

We, as gun owners, are our own worst enemies sometimes.
 
Hunters do not automatically equal gun rights supporters.
Click to expand...
Nor do IDPA shooters, bullseye competitors, or recent combat vets. The thing those groups have in common? Some of each has tried to convince me that universal/expanded background checks just aren't that big of a deal.

So, let's look at our respective peer groups before we go throwing others under the bus. There are many hunters and affiliated organizations who do much more for the 2A than the guys stocking their basements full of PMAGs and ammo.
 
Hunters do not automatically equal gun rights supporters.
Click to expand...

That's why I said, "automatically" and "hunters" could be replaced with most any other sub-group of gun owners.

As others have said, many want their rights protected for their sport or purpose with guns while caring little for others sports or purposes.

The left loves to split people into groups and chip away at them, turn them on each other. That's why we should all be in the NRA to have some unity.
 
As others have said, many want their rights protected for their sport or purpose with guns while caring little for others sports or purposes.
Click to expand...
True, but that could be said of any other group of gun owners. We're very fragmented as it is.

Still, the "hunters only care about their deer rifles" is a counter-productive and pejorative generalization. Many of them are just as politically active as, say, IDPA shooters, and some much more so.

From what I've seen hunting turn into, it's increasingly a rich man's venture.
Click to expand...
Rich men know lawmakers and people of influence, and they are often willing to spend money in that direction.

Even the ones who are only in it for selfish reasons (and in a way, aren't we all?) are at least doing something. We create these stereotypes and divisions at our own peril.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top