Are "Hunting" and "Liberal" mutually exclusive terms?

[Northcountryman]

As I'm sure youve all noticed, theres been alot of controversy around here as of late centered around my man VH lol.  Based on several of the posts that I've read, it appears that there is a belief shared by, at least some, that hunting and the holding of liberal political views are incompatible, a belief that --I assume-- is mostly centered on  2nd amendment rights and its protection.  Now, In NO WAY am I speaking for anyone, but I think its fair and accurate to describe the vast majority of members on this forum as fairly conservative  and who tend to vote Republican.  I , myself   am included in the masses assumed here and identify my views as being predominantly Center-right .  I'm pro-gun, pro strong national defense, pro capitalist and VERY patriotic; however, I'm also prochoice and , although not fond of gay marriage,  I would not oppose it either as I find such a position to be hypocritical to our values and belief system (i.e., everyone has a right to invidual pursuit of happiness, you know, that sort of shit lol).  

Anyway, a few guys on here appear (an assumption i'm making purely on the content and nature of their posts, mind you) to hold political views that I would describe as liberal, or left leaning at the very least.  Thats totally fine w me and actually, I've enjoyed much of the discourse weve had the past several weeks.  Sometimes it gets a little nasty--which is regrettable-- but other than that, I think that debate and sharing of ideas is a good thing and truly hope it continues. 

So overall, I would say that hunting and being liberal are NOT mutually exclusive AS LONG AS THOSE LIBERAL VIEWS YOU HAVE DO NOT INFRINGE/RESRICT OR REDUCE THE PROTECTIONS PROVIDED BY THE 2ND A. IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!!.  If your political belief system  however, does include a weakening/removal of said rights , then I admit --and i think many others on here would agree with me on this--that I dont get you!!

 

What do you think?

[BowmanMike]

I am very left of center in my beliefs but love hunting. Mostly with a bow though i can take or leave the gun hunting. 

I grew up in Germany and as an outsider i have to point out that the gun craze is a strictly american cultural thing. I think it is a little cray cray personally,but how one grows up of course shapes ones values. 

I never in my life was in a situation where I thought that i needed a gun.

I realize a lot of people on here dont get me,but that's fine and a fairly mutual feeling. I dont claim to be right or wrong and people have to figure out their own belief systems. That is the beauty and also the ugly side of living in a democracy. There is whackiness on both extremes,but generally the more moderate majority keeps things in check.

If you dont like some folks posts here dont read them. I dont engage with a few characters on here because it is pointless. 

[Buckmaster7600]

I am socially very liberal and fiscally very very conservative.

Basically I don’t care what anyone or business does as long as they’re not hurting anyone or leaching off my tax money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Splitear]

I like to think of myself as middle left on most issues. I really just try to hear all viewpoints and go with my gut on things, which admittedly isn't always right. For the most part, I do try to see all sides of an argument, and most of the time end up staying on the fence about a lot of things. I always get myself in trouble when I get too far into the weeds on a position, because I get lost easily, usually because I'm not nearly as passionate/knowledgeable as the other side. While this makes me less of an expert on anything, I am usually not to entrenched in any position to not be occasionally swayed. 

As far as being mutually exclusive, I really don't know. I changed my political affiliation this past summer from Democrat to Independent because I didn't like the far left swing that appeared to be happening in the Democratic party, and I don't want to have to be defending things I don't necessarily agree with just because I'm sharing an umbrella with someone. 

So, that is as good of a "non-answer" as I can muster

Edited January 29, 2021 by Splitear

[Steuben Jerry]

Registered Republican, but actual Libertarian here.

I respect every sane person's opinion.

But I cannot agree when their actions work to restrict my current freedoms or work to take money from me that I have earned, to give to others who can't be bothered to earn it themselves. 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Steuben Jerry

[Versatile_Hunter]

My 'QAnon not mixing with hunting' thread was a commentary about the lack of judgment and the woods. Although the number of QAnon believers is astonishing, it doesn't actually align with conservative ideology. That said, we should certainly not impose a political litmus test when inviting newcomers to a hunt. Doing so would be the fastest way to further alienate hunting from the largely uninitiated citizenry. 

[Versatile_Hunter]

4 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

As I'm sure youve all noticed, theres been alot of controversy around here as of late centered around my man VH lol. 

A sourpuss or two complaining that my posts don't comply with far-right quackery hardly rises to the level of controversy... 

[Versatile_Hunter]

There's a reason why many outspoken life-long Republicans and lifetime NRA members are voicing distaste with where Trump took the party. But this isn't anything new. The debate about which party best represents hunters had been ongoing for decades. 
Here's a short interview with Randy Newberg, a conservative pro-gun hunter. Take note of the date before you read:
https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/hook-and-bullet-politics-many-sportsmen-fed-up-with-gop/article_6754d86a-11f0-543d-88d5-795dca2166fd.html 

[Northcountryman]

1 hour ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

A sourpuss or two complaining that my posts don't comply with far-right quackery hardly rises to the level of controversy... 

A tad more than a sourpuss or two , I'm afraid , VH lol

[Northcountryman]

Oh ok, just noticed; I will check out your article 

[Versatile_Hunter]

21 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

A tad more than a sourpuss or two , I'm afraid , VH lol

How would you spell that? Sourpusses? 

[DoubleDose]

Are "Hunting" and "Liberal" mutually exclusive terms?

I'll respond literally.  No, they are not mutually exclusive.  My wife would argue that I am definitely a liberal hunter.  Saying I hunt what I want, whenever I want, as much as I want,  and never ask her about it.  I would argue that I am definitely a conservative hunter, I only hunt certain species, only when in season, never as much as I would like, and always tell her when I am going.  

Edited January 29, 2021 by DoubleDose
typo

[Northcountryman]

37 minutes ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

How would you spell that? Sourpusses? 

Yup !! 

[BowmanMike]

40 minutes ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

How would you spell that? Sourpusses? 

Or sourpussies?

[rachunter]

The REAL pussy's are the few that have two accounts both left right up down total wacko's in my opion.Grow some balls and voice your opions like REAL men.

I'm taking a break from this political crap both on and off here.

[Grouse]

17 hours ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

There's a reason why many outspoken life-long Republicans and lifetime NRA members are voicing distaste with where Trump took the party. But this isn't anything new. The debate about which party best represents hunters had been ongoing for decades. 
Here's a short interview with Randy Newberg, a conservative pro-gun hunter. Take note of the date before you read:
https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/hook-and-bullet-politics-many-sportsmen-fed-up-with-gop/article_6754d86a-11f0-543d-88d5-795dca2166fd.html 

That article actually bashes the Democrats more than the GOP.  It seems to settle the debate about which party best represents hunters by saying some things a few GOP members have proposed, but never passed, have aggravated some hunters, but the Democrats are far worse.

[Grouse]

I think it's important to realize conservatives and liberals actually support many of the same things.  They both support the Constitution and individual liberty, but liberals extend their support to many things considered fringe rights, or even radical rights, by conservatives.  They both support the 2nd Amendment, though liberals may be more open to infringement, based on the misguided belief it improves safety.

The problem is the leftists.  They do not support the Constitution, individual rights, the 2nd Amendment or hunting.  They are the people who think the government should be bigger and all powerful and dictate how everyone can live their lives.  At best, they might support European style aristocratic rule over all hunting.  These leftists have infiltrated the liberal groups to the point of hijacking many of the issues they get involved in.  That's why the Democrat party has taken such a hard left turn of late.

Leftists and hunting do not mix well at all.

[Northcountryman]

17 hours ago, Versatile_Hunter said:

There's a reason why many outspoken life-long Republicans and lifetime NRA members are voicing distaste with where Trump took the party. But this isn't anything new. The debate about which party best represents hunters had been ongoing for decades. 
Here's a short interview with Randy Newberg, a conservative pro-gun hunter. Take note of the date before you read:
https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/hook-and-bullet-politics-many-sportsmen-fed-up-with-gop/article_6754d86a-11f0-543d-88d5-795dca2166fd.html 

VH, the article you provided is kind of luke-warm , at best in support of your contention that Democrats serve hunters interets more sufficiently than Republicans, dont you think? I mean, this article is centered mainly around regional/state poltics in Montana and refers more to local republican party rule than anything. Moreover, one guy who's quoted in the article even mentioned  that the it is dubious that the Dems would be even better, and probably worse.  This article is hardly a ringing endorsement for convincing Hunters to support Dems--you can do better!!

[Northcountryman]

21 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I think it's important to realize conservatives and liberals actually support many of the same things.  They both support the Constitution and individual liberty, but liberals extend their support to many things considered fringe rights, or even radical rights, by conservatives.  They both support the 2nd Amendment, though liberals may be more open to infringement, based on the misguided belief it improves safety.

The problem is the leftists.  They do not support the Constitution, individual rights, the 2nd Amendment or hunting.  They are the people who think the government should be bigger and all powerful and dictate how everyone can live their lives.  At best, they might support European style aristocratic rule over all hunting.  These leftists have infiltrated the liberal groups to the point of hijacking many of the issues they get involved in.  That's why the Democrat party has taken such a hard left turn of late.

Leftists and hunting do not mix well at all.

Depends on how Liberal they are IMHO.  I know several Libs--my sister included--who , if they had their way, would revoke the 2nd A. cuz they feel its antiquated and a relic from the past indicative of a more "primitive and violent society" and is no longer needed. Remember big mouths like Rosie O'Fattell (O'Donnell lol)?  The hard core ones are VERY  dangerous IMHO.

[Grouse]

The hard core "liberals" are not liberal at all.  To be liberal means to allow liberty.  If they support repeal of any right, they are leftists.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Grouse

[Northcountryman]

28 minutes ago, Grouse said:

The hard core "liberals" are not liberal at all.  To be liberal means to allow liberty.  If they support repeal of any right, they are leftists.

Oh, I see what your'e saying; youre referring to classic Liberalism, go it.  You know, I was curious, so I looked it up in the online dictionary.  Heres the offical def accdg to Merriam:

Liberal' shares a root with 'liberty' and can mean anything from "generous" to "loose" to "broad-minded." Politically, it means "“a person who believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change."

To simplify it , I often view liberals as those who actively embrace change , when they deem it necessary, whereas conservatives typically are more traditionalists, tending to be content with status quo governmental systems to remain as-is.

Poiltical positions, of course, vary over time as society changes. For example, during the early years of our countrys foundation , the 2nd A. right was considered a liberal idea because it was new and a "change".  Now, its viewed as a Conervative idea because it has become tradition.

 

Go figure!!

[Grouse]

The 2nd A was never an idea, nor is it a tradition.  It merely enumerates an inalienable God given right to self defense and prohibits the government from infringing on the right to self defense.  The founders believed it to be something men were born with and the government had no right to mess with.  That is why it was listed, in the 2nd spot, in the Bill of Rights.

Liberals do believe in change.  Changing laws is often what they seek to do.  Conservatives believe in the Rule of Law as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Liberals cross over into the leftist arena when they believe individual rights are subject to change.  They aren't.

[Dinsdale]

14 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 God given right 

 

Thou shall always have a weapon.

Its commandment #11. Them liberals chopped it off the tablets back in the day. Wanted to outlaw slings too after that kid killed the big dude. You can take an eye out with them things.

[steve863]

What more proof do you need that guns are a "God given right"?  Moses even became the NRA president in his later years.     

 

 

[Northcountryman]

"The 2nd A was never an idea, nor is it a tradition."--Grouse

 

Sure it is, I mean, it had to originate from somewhere , right? America was the first--but not only--nation on earth whose governement clealry delineated a guaranteed right to possess firearms. This originates , I believe, from  our system of values borne out of the Revolution, fighting against tyranny and oppression. Since weve possesed this right for roughly 230 years, it has now become tradtiion which,  in large part is why it has been immemsely difficult for the left to rescind this right.  Granted, they have made progress in certain  aspects of this right--which is disturbing--but , overall, this liberty remains largely undisturbed and intact. Upon comparison with other nations holding  no such tradition (Russia, China, Japan, etc.) , their denial of this precious right was relatively easy to enact and even easieer to sustain (i.e., the populace is accustomed to not possessing firearms, now  for multiple generations ,so they dont "miss" what they never "had"in the first place).