Pro-Gun, Anti-NRA

[Mr VJP]

Just because a hunter might be "new to the forum" doesn't mean he's a "new hunter".

 

I started hunting in 1964 so I don't think you are intitled to some kind of hunting seniority rights that demand subserviant behavior from "new hunters".

 

As far as I know, we are all equals here. I show respect when it is reciprocated.

 

Excuse me if I forgot to bathe your feet.

 

 

First off, I think I'm older than you are, even though I don't look it.  

 

Second, I wouldn't let you touch my feet unless you were female and much younger.  

 

Third, you need to go back and read the original post I was referring to regarding the one you just quoted in order to understand that one.

 

Fourth, when people do take up the sport of hunting for the first time, they do better if they watch and listen, than if they try to pontificate on ethics, equipment and methods they have heard is the best way to approach it.  Especially if they go about insulting the past practices of more experienced hunters they hope will accept them.  The same can be said of new members of this particular forum.  Come in here and preach to me about how your way is better and more acceptable or respectable and I will debate you with the same disregard.

 

Lastly, it's not about seniority or service, it's about etiquette.  Decorum suggests dignity and a sense of what is becoming or appropriate for a person of good breeding.

[Curmudgeon]

First off, I think I'm older than you are, even though I don't look it.  

 

Second, I wouldn't let you touch my feet unless you were female and much younger.  

 

Third, you need to go back and read the original post I was referring to regarding the one you just quoted in order to understand that one.

 

Fourth, when people do take up the sport of hunting for the first time, they do better if they watch and listen, than if they try to pontificate on ethics, equipment and methods they have heard is the best way to approach it.  Especially if they go about insulting the past practices of more experienced hunters they hope will accept them.  The same can be said of new members of this particular forum.  Come in here and preach to me about how your way is better and more acceptable or respectable and I will debate you with the same disregard.

 

Lastly, it's not about seniority or service, it's about etiquette.  Decorum suggests dignity and a sense of what is becoming or appropriate for a person of good breeding.

 

This is what happened metaphorically. You called my mother a street walker. In response, I called your mother a street walker. Then you went ballistic.

 

[Mr VJP]

 Do you not think that the attitudes such as VJP's affect new hunters, especially young women, negatively?

 

I give everyone an equal chance to prove themselves.  I dislike no one at the beginning, they earn my disapproval when they show a good reason for it.

 

I have brought more than 2 dozen people into the world of hunting over the years, men and women both.  I taught them how to hunt.  Later I taught them about threats to hunting.  They were taught how to think, not what to think.  I'm proud to say most of them would not like your politics either.

[Mr VJP]

This is what happened metaphorically. You called my mother a street walker. In response, I called your mother a street walker. Then you went ballistic.

 

 

Not so.  You've never seen me go ballistic..... yet.

[nyantler]

nyantler -

 

Hey, you hurt my feelings. As you can tell from all my posts, I am extremely sensitive to criticism.

 

But back to being serious. I have a lot of respect for your intelligence. I read what you write. Do you not think that the attitudes such as VJP's affect new hunters, especially young women, negatively?

 

I guess it would depend on the person... although I agree that VJP can get a bit overboard at times, I am not the type that coddles anyone eiher... if you want to play in the game with the big boys, you need to be able to handle how they play. I am however for making a strong point without having to include childish name calling... not everyone is going to like what I say, especially those that talk about things they know nothing about... misinformation and hearsay as a basis for someone's "opinion" should always be outted, yet done respectfully. But there will always be those that take offense to being proven wrong... if calling out someone's BS is to be considered "bullying" then I suppose sometimes I am going to be considered a bully... I'm okay with that... if new hunters or young women are going to get involved in a blood sport like hunting and the people involved in it they may want to consider getting a thicker skin... they may need it.

[Mr VJP]

although I agree that VJP can get a bit overboard at times

 

C'mon antler, can't a guy have a little fun every now and then?

[nyantler]

C'mon antler, can't a guy have a little fun every now and then?

 

LOL... just an observation.. nothing personal. Quit scaring the women and newbies!

[Nomad]

Life member . I don't get calls or emails . To those that do why do you give out that info if you don't wish to be contacted ?

[nyantler]

Life member . I don't get calls or emails . To those that do why do you give out that info if you don't wish to be contacted ?

 

Same here Larry... never had an issue.

[Mr VJP]

LOL... just an observation.. nothing personal. Quit scaring the women and newbies!

 

I'll do my best as half monk, half hit man.  I know I scare children, but that's only if I take my shirt off.

[wildcat junkie]

First off, I think I'm older than you are, even though I don't look it.  

 

Second, I wouldn't let you touch my feet unless you were female and much younger.  

 

Third, you need to go back and read the original post I was referring to regarding the one you just quoted in order to understand that one.

 

Fourth, when people do take up the sport of hunting for the first time, they do better if they watch and listen, than if they try to pontificate on ethics, equipment and methods they have heard is the best way to approach it.  Especially if they go about insulting the past practices of more experienced hunters they hope will accept them.  The same can be said of new members of this particular forum.  Come in here and preach to me about how your way is better and more acceptable or respectable and I will debate you with the same disregard.

 

Lastly, it's not about seniority or service, it's about etiquette.  Decorum suggests dignity and a sense of what is becoming or appropriate for a person of good breeding.

Your pompous attitude is such that if everyone isn't a flag waving right wing "conservative" you start throwing around names like <<<SHUDDER>>> "liberal" like it's some sort of insult. I would much rather be a "liberal' as in someone that THINKS rather than oh say a narrow minded zombie that marches lock step with everthing that the untra conservative rule book dictates. I must say, you are a useful little tool for the pupeteers that control you.

 

You started the snide remarks & tried to bully me & when you got it thrown back at you, you couldn't take the heat. And, when your buddies didn't pile on to bail you out, you wilted, just like any bully. Don't start adolecent school yard spats if you can't take a (verbal) licking.

 

NOW, you want decorum & dignity? Sounds just like the guy that got a black eye when he picked a fight running, whining to the teacher to tell her how he is getting picked on.

 

Like I posted elsewhere, the "conservatives" in 1776 were kissing King Georges a$$. Thank God for our progressive, liberal founding fathers or we would all still be doing the same thing..

 

Kiss the Koch brother's a$$es if you like. I will stand up for progress 7 right for everyone.

 

Now hike your pants up & quit whining . Be a big boy & accept that others have a right to their opinions too.

[wildcat junkie]

Not so.  You've never seen me go ballistic..... yet.

OOOOOO, scarey!

[mike rossi]

Without the NRA, which has been around a long time, (100 years?) gun ownership in the USA would likely have been already outlawed. Most definitely it would be more restrictive than it already is.

 

However, their expertise is second amendment law / constitutional law. They should stick to that and stop talking about conservation because not only do they know nothing about conservation, they do not care about conservation, and very often advocate for UNWISE practices. They urge or suggest their members support their conservation perspective. Part of this is just the donation game. Create an enemy and the donations roll in. Anti hunting organizations do this as well. So do other pro hunting and pro gun organizations. For all they do to preserve gun ownership, the NRA works against conservation and good public relations.

 

And they are not always sensitive to other cultures. They stick their chin out and go out of their way not to be politically correct. There is a difference between standing with your viewpoint when it is not politically correct and going way out of your way  to "pick fights". Picking fights dumbs down their supporters and generates donations. With their attitude toward conservation AND habit of picking fights, they hurt the image of gun owners, hunters, and hunting.

 

Gun ownership is protected by the constitution. However there are few such protections for hunting. And hunter numbers will continue to drop if we have a bad image. The bigger the drop, the more aggressively and creatively will states and the FWS will look toward non hunters to fund their agencies. More emphasis will be put on developing, improving, and USING non lethal wildlife population control methods. The bad image will hinder the broad - based public support that is necessary to pass pro hunting legislation and defeat anti hunting legislation. Confusing hunters about conservation makes them support what they should not, oppose what they should support, or ignore what they should pay attention to. If all this corresponds to less hunting opportunity due to both greater restrictions and less places to hunt, and smaller game populations, then what? Even if hunting was afforded to be a legal right and therefore untouchable, how will conservation be funded if the number of us gets precipitously low? Would such a legal right prevent banning any thing, I don't think so. Where is the public support to block anti hunting proposals if we have a bad image? Likewise does a right to hunt guarantee that new pro hunting proposals will be put into law? No it does not. Where is the public support needed to enact pro hunting proposals if we have a bad image?  

 

 

 

[Mr VJP]

Without the NRA, which has been around a long time, (100 years?) gun ownership in the USA would likely have been already outlawed. Most definitely it would be more restrictive than it already is.

 

They've been around since 1871.

 

However, their expertise is second amendment law / constitutional law. They should stick to that and stop talking about conservation because not only do they know nothing about conservation, they do not care about conservation, and very often advocate for UNWISE practices.  For all they do to preserve gun ownership, the NRA works against conservation and good public relations.

 

Pretty strong accusation.  Best to back it up with some evidence for credibility and counter point.

 

And they are not always sensitive to other cultures. They stick their chin out and go out of their way not to be politically correct. There is a difference between standing with your viewpoint when it is not politically correct and going way out of your way  to "pick fights". Picking fights dumbs down their supporters and generates donations. With their attitude toward conservation AND habit of picking fights, they hurt the image of gun owners, hunters, and hunting.

 

Political correctness is one of the worst things that has ever happened to this society.  The NRA doesn't pick fights, they don't back away from attacks!

 

Gun ownership is protected by the constitution. However there are few such protections for hunting. And hunter numbers will continue to drop if we have a bad image. The bigger the drop, the more aggressively and creatively will states and the FWS will look toward non hunters to fund their agencies. More emphasis will be put on developing, improving, and USING non lethal wildlife population control methods. The bad image will hinder the broad - based public support that is necessary to pass pro hunting legislation and defeat anti hunting legislation. Confusing hunters about conservation makes them support what they should not, oppose what they should support, or ignore what they should pay attention to. If all this corresponds to less hunting opportunity due to both greater restrictions and less places to hunt, and smaller game populations, then what? Even if hunting was afforded to be a legal right and therefore untouchable, how will conservation be funded if the number of us gets precipitously low? Would such a legal right prevent banning any thing, I don't think so. Where is the public support to block anti hunting proposals if we have a bad image? Likewise does a right to hunt guarantee that new pro hunting proposals will be put into law? No it does not. Where is the public support needed to enact pro hunting proposals if we have a bad image?  

 

And you think the NRA is to blame for all of these image issues?  If not for the NRA, our image issues, which are forced on us by everyone except the NRA, would be about one step above child molesters at this point.  No other organization I know of is defending hunters.  All the rest seem to be telling them they have to be politically correct and subject themselves to the will of the collective masses.

 

[Doc]

It appears that all we really want to do is nit-pick and find fault with the only gun advocacy organization that has the size, infrastructure, track record, and resources to actually make a difference. 

 

I hear all kinds of people here who have found one issue after another to justify their reasons for withholding support but I have yet to hear anyone explain just what it is that they individually do to ensure protection of gun owner's rights. One guy wants to let Ducks unlimited handle gun rights issues. We have another who ran into an obnoxious NRA employee so that justifies withholding support of the whole organization. Another guy thinks that just because he has bought guns and uses them that somehow he is doing something to hold back the tide of anti gun legislation. And most gun owners don't even invest the thinking that it takes to conjure up any kind of reason why they don't support the NRA. They just simply jam their head in the sand, cross their fingers and hope for miracles. Or maybe they comfort themselves in the thought that during their lifetime  nothing terrible will happen. Who gives a damn about the rights of future gun owners, hunters, enthusiasts of shooting sports and those concerned with personal and home defense.

 

But the truth is that there is only one organization who really is doing something about 2nd Amendment issues, and everyone is conjuring up their own little reasons for turning their backs and throwing themselves on the mercy of the anti-gun and anti-hunting  organizations.

 

It is amazing how these same people will register with a particular political party and ignore all the idiots and goofy and even illegal and immoral activities of the politicians who they represent.  And yet will use every little pet peeve under the sun to justify letting those who fight for our 2nd Amendment rights swing in the breeze completely unsupported. 

[Mr VJP]

Your pompous attitude is such that if everyone isn't a flag waving right wing "conservative" you start throwing around names like <<<SHUDDER>>> "liberal" like it's some sort of insult. I would much rather be a "liberal' as in someone that THINKS rather than oh say a narrow minded zombie that marches lock step with everthing that the untra conservative rule book dictates. I must say, you are a useful little tool for the pupeteers that control you.

 

Your hatred of conservatives seems to prove you don't think.  Everything you say sounds like it comes right out out the leftist's guide to politics.  You seem to think what you are told to think.

 

You started the snide remarks & tried to bully me & when you got it thrown back at you, you couldn't take the heat. And, when your buddies didn't pile on to bail you out, you wilted, just like any bully. Don't start adolecent school yard spats if you can't take a (verbal) licking.

 

Another little boy who cries "bully" when someone doesn't agree with his whining.  That's another card always played by leftists when they are put in their place.  I didn't back down, I ignored you, because you're insignificant.

 

 

[genesee_mohican]

It appears that all we really want to do is nit-pick and find fault with the only gun advocacy organization that has the size, infrastructure, track record, and resources to actually make a difference. 

 

I hear all kinds of people here who have found one issue after another to justify their reasons for withholding support but I have yet to hear anyone explain just what it is that they individually do to ensure protection of gun owner's rights. One guy wants to let Ducks unlimited handle gun rights issues. We have another who ran into an obnoxious NRA employee so that justifies withholding support of the whole organization. Another guy thinks that just because he has bought guns and uses them that somehow he is doing something to hold back the tide of anti gun legislation. And most gun owners don't even invest the thinking that it takes to conjure up any kind of reason why they don't support the NRA. They just simply jam their head in the sand, cross their fingers and hope for miracles. Or maybe they comfort themselves in the thought that during their lifetime  nothing terrible will happen. Who gives a damn about the rights of future gun owners, hunters, enthusiasts of shooting sports and those concerned with personal and home defense.

 

But the truth is that there is only one organization who really is doing something about 2nd Amendment issues, and everyone is conjuring up their own little reasons for turning their backs and throwing themselves on the mercy of the anti-gun and anti-hunting  organizations.

 

It is amazing how these same people will register with a particular political party and ignore all the idiots and goofy and even illegal and immoral activities of the politicians who they represent.  And yet will use every little pet peeve under the sun to justify letting those who fight for our 2nd Amendment rights swing in the breeze completely unsupported. 

 

You nailed it Doc.

 

[Mr VJP]

Even after seeing what has happened in NY, a lot of gun owners still don't get it.

 

[Curmudgeon]

For nyantler, doc, culver and any others who can discern the subtleties of this issue, I have a request. Here is a hypothetical situation:

 

You have a new hunter - maybe a woman. This person did not grow up with firearms. They do not understand gun culture. They learn what they need to know at a course. They buy a gun as a tool to hunt. They have been exposed to main stream media their whole life. They are environmentally conscious, politically liberal and concerned about pure food.

 

Could someone explain to me how you would present the relationship between hunting and gun rights to this person? How do you convince them that gun rights is a compelling issue without scaring them, or, coming across as a zealot? How do you get them on your side?

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, our job is to make sure the members follow the TOS of the site, which everyone agrees to upon joining. We dont discriminate in who gets their posts edited, deleted. If they break the rules over and over, they get suspended or banned. Ive actually had to suspend a few people that I really like on here, and I didnt even send them a PM to say "sorry, I didnt really want to suspend you but you broke the rules". Ive been called Hitler, a bully, a bad moderator, etc all because I have to enforce the rules, sometimes on people that disagree with me. Thats probably where most of the butt hurt comes from. Oh, and Ive been told im not allowed to participate on several occasions lol.

 

Our job is not to tell people they can or cannot argue their point or opinion. We dont want to be babysitters. The site owner does not want it censored with the exception of cursing or rule breaking, and if a thread gets out of hand, we shut it dopwn. This topic keeps coming up, and it really boils dow to the point of, if you dont like the site, feel free to go elsewhere. We have been told for years that the site is on the verge of failure. Guess what? Its still here and its still successful.

 

 

WNY -

 

Thanks for addressing the point. Many seem to miss the point of my more provocative posts. The ones I start always have a purpose. I do not post them just to see fireworks.

 

• The post on Mentoring Young Women discussed how one woman was treated at the gun club she joined. It may be yours (anyone's).
• The post on coyote and crow contests was about the public image of hunters.
• The post on ethics was about the public image of hunters.
• The post on Why People Hate Hunters was about image of hunters.
• This post is about how people who do NOT follow the party line are treated on this site. Thus, it is about whether new hunters  - who have different values - will be welcomed. 

Since I try to always be civil (and apologize for any lapses) and rarely curse, I have no recollection of the rules. I have no need.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2014 by Curmudgeon

[Ford]

Same here Larry... never had an issue.

 

 

I had maybe one call that I can remember.

 

That is the only "sales call," I do not mind.

I actually have two separate memberships.

 

I cant imagine what it would be like without them for all these years. We might be screwed on the local level, but they put their (our) money on the candidates that support the 2A, much more so nationally.

[Curmudgeon]

Your pompous attitude is such that if everyone isn't a flag waving right wing "conservative" you start throwing around names like <<<SHUDDER>>> "liberal" like it's some sort of insult. I would much rather be a "liberal' as in someone that THINKS rather than oh say a narrow minded zombie that marches lock step with everthing that the untra conservative rule book dictates. I must say, you are a useful little tool for the pupeteers that control you.

 

You started the snide remarks & tried to bully me & when you got it thrown back at you, you couldn't take the heat. And, when your buddies didn't pile on to bail you out, you wilted, just like any bully. Don't start adolecent school yard spats if you can't take a (verbal) licking.

 

NOW, you want decorum & dignity? Sounds just like the guy that got a black eye when he picked a fight running, whining to the teacher to tell her how he is getting picked on.

 

Like I posted elsewhere, the "conservatives" in 1776 were kissing King Georges a$$. Thank God for our progressive, liberal founding fathers or we would all still be doing the same thing..

 

Kiss the Koch brother's a$$es if you like. I will stand up for progress 7 right for everyone.

 

Now hike your pants up & quit whining . Be a big boy & accept that others have a right to their opinions too.

 

Wildcat -

 

To be lectured this way on "Decorum and dignity" is the most ironic thing to happen to me all month.

 

 

[nyantler]

For nyantler, doc, culver and any others who can discern the subtleties of this issue, I have a request. Here is a hypothetical situation:

 

You have a new hunter - maybe a woman. This person did not grow up with firearms. They do not understand gun culture. They learn what they need to know at a course. They buy a gun as a tool to hunt. They have been exposed to main stream media their whole life. They are environmentally conscious, politically liberal and concerned about pure food.

 

Could someone explain to me how you would present the relationship between hunting and gun rights to this person? How do you convince them that gun rights is a compelling issue without scaring them, or, coming across as a zealot? How do you get them on your side?

 

I don't do hypotheticals... they are like Big Foot... they aren't real... and a waste of time

Edited December 17, 2014 by nyantler

[Curmudgeon]

I guess it would depend on the person... although I agree that VJP can get a bit overboard at times, I am not the type that coddles anyone eiher... if you want to play in the game with the big boys, you need to be able to handle how they play. I am however for making a strong point without having to include childish name calling... not everyone is going to like what I say, especially those that talk about things they know nothing about... misinformation and hearsay as a basis for someone's "opinion" should always be outted, yet done respectfully. But there will always be those that take offense to being proven wrong... if calling out someone's BS is to be considered "bullying" then I suppose sometimes I am going to be considered a bully... I'm okay with that... if new hunters or young women are going to get involved in a blood sport like hunting and the people involved in it they may want to consider getting a thicker skin... they may need it.

 

You are correct about needing "thicker skin". And, calling out BS is one thing. Different values, and debates over whose science is better do not fall into the category of BS. Please let's not confuse legitimate differences of opinion with BS.

 

[Huntscreek]

Not everyone is progun, but to think independent's Democrat's don't own guns that's why I don't think party lines when thinking Gun control I view it your either with us or against us. I don't care what

organization you support, as long as its a Progun. So when I see people who support the same issue but fighting its the very thing the Gun Grabbers want, puts the brakes on the GUNS UP Movement. What scares them the most is the message Voters sent in NOV.