While in Britain, fox hunters raised hell over Tony Blair's plans to end fox hunting by pushing an anti-hunting bill through Parliament, incumbent president George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are both striving for the rifle hunting vote, as if they fear a similar backlash by not backing sports hunters.
While I think the National Rifle Association is correct to interpret the Second Amendment as the right to own a gun for protective purposes, rifles are clearly meant for the purpose of hunting. The NRA obviously takes under its wing a lot of hunting enthusiasts … er, "nature's noblemen."
Well, perhaps the hunter is a nobleman of nature. He is thinning the herds, he is giving quick death to animals that may not survive a hard winter or become the prey of ruthless predators, he is careful never to kill more than is necessary (sometimes). Hunters are in tune with nature, no doubt. Perhaps because, much like nature itself, they are cold and callous about death.
While I think hunting animals with rifles, ensuring an accurate shot for as little suffering as possible, is preferable to a pack of dogs ripping a creature to shreds as with fox hunting, hunting is nevertheless a cruel practice. But I also don't think that it’s the government's job to outlaw hunting - people will only torture animals anyway, if they're so inclined, and it is up to the individual whether or not they respect life.
Having said that, back to the issue at hand: Why prey so hard for the hunter's vote?
It's the culture; a machismo sentiment that stipulates that you have to be hard. Hard men make hard choices, and that's whom we want in the Oval Office. As far as I'm concerned, Bush already made a hard choice by launching the "unilateral" toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime. He does not need to shoot quails to be seen as tough.
In travelling through swing states such as Ohio and West Virginia, Bush and Kerry both laud the hunter's tradition and say they discover their love of the "sport." If you want the hicks on your side, this is what you do, come election time.
Somehow, I think even rifle-owning Jack, Larry, Chuck and Bubba can be made to understand that there are more important issues dominating the nation's welfare than whether or not the president shares their love of donning a deer-stalker and creating loud noises and seeing the blood flow or the feathers fly. But nevertheless, you gots to be killin' or on Election Day you be illin'.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ran
"Why do George W. Bush and John Kerry both feel the need to pander to the hunting hicks?"
"True nature lovers don't hunt for sport."
"Perhaps because, much like nature itself, they are cold and callous about death."
"[ ] even rifle-owning Jack, Larry, Chuck and Bubba can be made to understand that there are more important issues dominating the nation's welfare [ ]"
"[ ]I balance my conservatism with a concern and love for animals, and [ ]"
..."and" a serious dose of snobbery, knee-jerk emotionalism and bigoted, arrogant rhetoric. I apologize if that sounds harsh. With due respect, Mr. Manning, your comments were insulting and poorly informed.
Firstly, on the purpose of the Second Amendment, Thomas Jefferson offers this illumination:
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."
Blunt, perhaps, but clear. He was not talking about small revolvers or pitchforks for home defense. He was referring to assault weapons, full military grade personal arms, big scary rifles, call them what you will. Born of revolution, Jefferson's contemporaries knew that the Government must at all times and in the last resort be subordinate to the will of the electorate.
Secondly, hunters are hicks! Holly cow, I didn't know. Please forgive my ignorance. Tell me: Are all hicks hunters?
Thirdly, I'm a nature lover, bird watcher, small donor to various conservancies, I'm concerned for endangered species and the strength of the ecosystem. I'm teaching my kids to be kind and to be wise. We also enjoy eating dead animals, thanks. Don't know about you, but my ancestors evolved that way.
In summary Mr. Manning, you've managed to show profound disrespect for an entire class of individuals, to show preference for governmental interference, and to pontificate on matters about which you've learned little. Those are modern socialist characteristics.
2 - Mark Edward Manning
Oh yeah, Ran, I'm a big socialist, me.
In fact, I'm such a staunch socialist that I'm still planning on voting for Bush in Nov. Why don't you read some more of my work before you label me?
Yeah, I'm anti-hunting, but I'm still a conservative.
3 - Mark Edward Manning
Furthermore, Ran, just because I'm conservative and a Bush supporter, by and large, doesn't mean I won't criticize him when I feel it's necessary, or whenever his policies run perpendicular to mine. In fact, I have criticized him. Many ... times ... over ... the years.
4 - Ran
Fine, you're a conservative. With a perfectly respectable hunting preference. (I, too, do not prefer to hunt.) And yeah, I was wrong to imply the ad hominem.
I'm just not sure how your demonstrated command of the Second Amendment, your attitudes towards hunters, your views on hunting legislation and your belief that animals are sentient beings fit into normative conservatism.
There is a libertarian instinct that had historically been an underpinning of conservatism, which flies in opposition to your anti-hunting rhetoric and your choice comments about hunters.
Hunters have a saying: "If it walks like a duck, and it squawks like a duck..." But then again, what would a pack of callous hicks know?
5 - Andy
What would you propose we do about the overpopulation of deer and other wild life that we'll have in this country if hunting was to be outlawed? And if it ever is...I suggest you buy an SUV with a monster front bumper on it and plan on bears in your back yard. I love animals as they say..they're very tasty!
Deer and other wildlife no longer have any natural predators so how does the herd get culled? Or maybe we should just leave the poor little things alone to die slow miserable deaths. I'll tell you this much, no hunter I know would ever go into the woods with Kerry behind him sporting a gun!
6 - Lono
Come on, neither of these guys hunt... or give a shit about hunters. I don't even think it is a macho issue, I think it is because every politician in the world must appease the great and all powerful NRA.
I have nothing nice to say about the NRA. There is no indication of any kind that anyone anywhere is going to fuck with the second amendment. guess what, you STILL don't need assault weapons.
I regard the NRA as a macrocosm of all that is wrong with lobbying and lobbyists.
7 - Bob A. Booey
The brain-dead right-wingers turn on each other. I love it.
Hunters aren't important per se, they're important in that they represent working-class, white male voters in suburban collar counties and rural areas in Rust Belt swing states. Hunting and gun rights are only ONE issue for these men among several. The NRA, however, IS important because they are fanatics: proven organizers and fundraisers who will spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in advertising to defeat candidates with vicious attack ads that prey upon these white male voters' sensitivities and fears about government regulation, individual liberty, and crime (read: race). It really has nothing to do with hunting at all, as a sport or as politics. In fact, hunting's almost an ancillary theme in these ads and statements by the NRA and gun rights advocates (note Ran's comment above).
As far as the election is concerned, here's all you need to know: Hunting is code for law-and-order, blue-collar white male voters who are socially conservative, have fears about racial diversity, and are ambivalent about the government even as they struggle with lost manufacturing jobs and unemployment. There are lots of these voters who AREN'T hunters or gun voters -- it's just that gun rights is a good issue to target the most motivated (read: fanatical) of these voters.
That is all.
8 - DJB
All the BS rhetoric aside, the points raised by both candidates are completely disingenuous. Purchasing a firearm at a gun show, whether it be an Uzi (still illegal despite the expiration of the Clinton Gun Ban) or a shotgun, a federally licensed dealer must comply with the law and contact the FBI. The so called “gun show loophole” the Brady Campaign and other anti-firearms organizations scream about refer not to actual gun shows but to sales between private citizens. The premise is that I might sell someone a weapon without checking with the FBI and if I turn out to be a bad judge of character that person could use that weapon for evil. Those people account for what percentage of violent crime? Licensed FFL dealers DO run background checks whether at their retail stores or at a gun show in a convention center.
Hey America, this is the clue phone ringing: criminals don’t buy guns from normal folks, because your average joe citizen cannot legally own, much less sell, a fully automatic weapon of any sort. That law has been on the books since Prohibition! Automatic weapons are illegal, period, unless someone actually goes through the arduous process of becoming a federally licensed class 3 dealer, or pays a massive federal tax to transfer ownership of an automatic weapon. Both involve huge invasions of privacy, which no one but the most die-hard collector would be willing to undergo. Criminals somehow forgo that process and end up with the weapons anyway.
Bush sidestepped the issue because the assault weapons ban sucked since it only addressed cosmetic features of firearms and there are plenty of people in this country who think owning something that looks like what real soldiers carry is cool. There is another group of people who think driving Hummers is cool, too. And guess what, cars kill a lot more people than guns do each year. So called “assault weapons” are the least likely to be used in crime according to FBI statistics. Where is the outcry against gas guzzling Hummers? If anything, they do a lot more to increase our dependence on foreign oil than civilian possession of a Colt AR-15 does.
Kerry on the other hand, claimed to support the second amendment, which was laughable considering the fact that he supported a bill to further restrict firearms available to law abiding civilians. The AK-47 the Kerry specifically referenced during the debate has been illegal since Bush senior was in office! The fact that a drug dealer might have one should come as no shock to anyone. Hello! He’s dealing illegal drugs, obviously he’s less concerned about obeying the law than most people. I am not really shocked or taken aback by any of this, if anything it reinforces the position that making guns illegal is ineffective to curbing their use in crime.
Let’s be clear, just this once, crimes committed with firearms are criminal acts. Anyone willing to undertake a criminal act is not likely to be dissuaded by local, state, or federal law against the possession of firearms. Why is this so hard for most people to understand? Criminals are by definition operating outside the law, therefore they have much cooled guns than a normal law abiding citizen could hope to get their hands on. For people with money and the right contacts, acquiring illegal weapons is child’s play. Instead of further criminalizing legitimate ownership of firearms, we should crack down on illegal firearms possession. Bush mentioned this, but it is still not enough.
A Glock is a Colt is a Corvette is a Hummer. None is inherently illegal until the owner uses them for an illegal purpose like shooting up a school or plowing through a downtown crowd. None is strictly necessary, they are the toys of people who can afford them. People who like fast cars aren’t demons and neither are gun collectors, until someone has too much to drink and does something stupid. Owning a SUV is no different than owning a gun. Both are dangerous and you have to be responsible using either.
Ultimately, guns are dangerous. So are cars. There are a lot more cars in this country than guns. Cars pose a greater risk to most people than firearms (legal or illegal) do, so why is there a national debate about what guns or magazine capacities private citizens can own when any idiot with $100k can buy a Hummer? Bush has tried to make more oil available to the people who choose to stimulate the economy by sinking $100,000 into a Hummer, and at the same time did little to restrict the freedom of choice for people who have $1,000 to spend on a rifle. At the same time, Kerry wants to make owning a shotgun capable of firing more than three rounds without reloading illegal. That is the equivalent of restricting Corvettes to two gallon gas tanks. Where is the benefit and to whom?
Neither candidate took a really strong position on the issue, at least Bush isn’t being a complete pansy and liar about his views on it though.
9 - Mark Edward Manning
Lono: "guess what, you STILL don't need assault weapons. I regard the NRA as a macrocosm of all that is wrong with lobbying and lobbyists."
I actually agree with you on these two points, Lono. Well said.
10 - Mark Edward Manning
Andy: "What would you propose we do about the overpopulation of deer and other wild life that we'll have in this country if hunting was to be outlawed? ... Or maybe we should just leave the poor little things alone to die slow miserable deaths."
Andy, that, as far as I'm concerned, is why the government as a fisheries and wildlife department, to professionally "thin the herds," so to speak.
So, animals are prone to overpopulation, starvation and slow, miserable deaths? So are human beings. Let's talk about thinning our herds. Whoa. Right. Let's not go there. Sacred ground, don't you know.
The pious and religious among us believe that humans, as masters of the planet, have carte blanche right to breed as much as we like; indeed, it's a command from God! And, to appease the politically correct Left, we don't teach third-worlders about abstinence. We lecture them about "safe" sex and drop boxes of condoms into their lands.
Religion and the politically correct may be two opposite poles, but both would squawk bloody murder at the thought of trying to control the human population.
11 - andy
Ihave no problem thinning our "herd". Let's start with the liberals!
12 - Mark Edward Manning
I have no problem thinning our "herd". Let's start with the liberals!
LOL. I'm with you there, Andy! In fact, see this for what I consider a great way to solve human overpopulation. Not that it's technically or economically feasible, but still ... wonderful to fantacize about!
13 - andy
I like it! Nice site. I love these blogs, don't agree with everything I read, but I enjoy the exchanges.
Let me say this, I am not what you would call an avid hunter, I do it more for the time I get to spend with my father and my brother than anything else. I do eat what I kill, which happens to be one buck in 8 years. What I don't eat, I donate to local food banks. They gladly except 80 pounds of meat any day of the week.
I was in the USN for 20 years and after I retired and actually was in the states on a regular basis I started going to NJ every December to spend the week with my family and go hunting with my dad and younger brother. Sure we could find other things to do with our time. There are plenty of go-go bars and that in NJ, but I kinda like the nature thing every once in a while.
I believe it really is a necessary thing, culling or thinning the herd annually. There are no natural predators for deer in most of the US anymore since wolf and bear have been irradicated from most rural areas.
As far as fish and game taking care of herd thinning, I don't think they have the manpower to handle it. In most cases around the country the way they do handle it is to hire "professional" hunters to do it for them. Why hire someone when there are plenty of us out there to do it for them.
There are limits. The week that I hunt in NJ every year I am only allowed to take 2 bucks. Prior to that and after, there are also limits. Hunters are limited by weapon of choice and bag limits.
I also don't believe that some hunts should be allowed. In NJ last year they had a bear hunt in the NE corner of the state. This was spurred on because a couple of well-to-do's saw a couple of bears in there backyard and freaked! I don't believe the bear population is high enough to warrant a hunt in NJ.
I don't believe in sport hunting. That's to say, strictly hunting for a trophy. If you're not gonna eat it, don't kill it.
And one laast note, I would be all for say maybe, cat hunting, as I'm a dog type of guy. hehehe just kidding.
14 - Shark
Manning's greatest flaw is an inability to think beyond some junior-high level combination of illogic, emotioni, and piss-poor analysis.
15 - Shark
As to an answer to your ridiculous question:
"Why are hunters considered such a vital voting bloc?"
Pogo [Walk Kelly] said it best:
"A man wif a shotgun is always right."
16 - Shark
I might add that recently in another thread, Manning accused me, Hal Pawluk, and a few others of celebrating the imaginary death of President Bush.
Now he writes this:
I have no problem thinning our "herd". Let's start with the liberals!
Yet another example of The New Conservatives underlying philosophy.
Sieg Heil, babe.
17 - andy
That was me...not Manning!
18 - andy
and I'm a registered Independant...more of a Libertarian than anything else!
19 - andy
and it was a joke...you bonehead!
20 - Shark
No apology to Manning.
An additional "Sieg Heil" to Andy.
21 - andy
so now I'm a nazi because I don't follow your liberal philosophy?
22 - Shark
No.
You're similar to a Nazi in that you casually recommend exterminating an entire category of humans.
Your "thinning the herd" was Hitler's "final solution" -- and the fact that you can make a joke out of genocide kinda says something about you, pal.
23 - andy
Maybe it does, because there are a lot more I'd like to include in the "herd". But it's not really fair to say that I'd like to "thin" this particular "herd". "Thin" is way too "liberal" a word.
And how did we become pals all of a sudden?
24 - Mark Edward Manning
Shark talks tough to compensate for the lack of a backbone, Andy. He also demands apologies from someone he calls "MacDemon" (real blogger name, MacDiva) for apparently attacking her first; but no apologies to anyone else. Typical. He runs around attacking and insulting everyone in political blogs who dares to write conservative entries. He lives for this. Then when I do understandably lose my cool at times, he plays the "gotcha" game. Fuck him. I'm not playing into his hands anymore. Just ignore him. Lots of others do.
Thanks for the compliments.
25 - Mark Edward Manning
Furthermore, Andy, do you seriously believe someone of Shark's ilk would be terribly upset if Bush got assassinated by some whack-job who hates him as much as he (and a planet-load of other liberal extremists) does? Do you seriously think he'd resist writing an entry about what a wonderful event it was?
Nope, I didn't think so.