My Storify mini-rant on what happens if Donald Trump wins the nomination.
Do not fall in love with politicians. They will only break your heart.Read More »
Okay. Okay. Call us gluttons for punishment.
But we spend a lot of time reading the enemy’s propaganda so you don’t have to.
And no one is more inimical to the Second Amendment than the New York Times.
So it caught our attention when, on April 26, the Times published an op-ed by a lady who moved out of New York City six years ago, took up hunting so she could write a book, and now purports to speak for all hunters. [“I Hunt, but the NRA Isn’t for Me,” by Lily Raff McCaulou]
Gun control laws pose no threat to hunters, she reasons, because “hunting could continue as it has for more than a century, with rifles and shotguns.”
Setting aside the pesky matter of the Constitution, Lily may want to consider whether anti-gun regimes like Canada, England, Australia, and –- oh, yeah, Nazi Germany — have disarmed citizens trying to defend themselves and their families –- and simply left it at that. [Hint: They haven’t.]
Make no mistake:
If Senator Chuck Schumer’s legislation to allow the Obama administration to disarm anyone by simply placing their name on a list is passed into law, granola-eating book-writing hunters-of-convenience will not be exempted.
If the UN Treaty to register gun owners is signed and ratified, Starbucks-guzzling “vermin-hunters” will have their names listed as well.
And when BATF trolls ObamaCare’s federal database for “prohibited persons” with ADHD, PTSD, and Alzheimer’s, obsessive-compulsive New York-expatriates-on-Zoloft won’t be able to keep their shotguns by claiming they just want to use them to shoot Bambi.
But the New York Times op-ed interested us for another reason:
It embodies the talking points which anti-gun Leftist politicians are using to run for election in “red states.”
Take Montana Senator Jon Tester. Tester was the “deciding vote” in favor of ObamaCare. And he refuses to cosponsor the Thune-Vitter reciprocity bill because it protects “constitutional carry” states (like, ahem, Montana).
So Tester can hardly run in pro-gun Montana on his gun record.
So what does he do?
He attacks his pro-gun opponent for the Senate seat, Congressman Denny Rehberg, because Rehberg opposed locking up massive amounts of Montana lands as wilderness areas.
Argues Tester, Tester’s anti-gun record in the Senate is irrelevant to his position on firearms (!).
Rather, liberal anti-gun Democrats like Tester claim that they should be viewed as “pro-gun” because they side with Leftist environmentalists to lock up million of acres of federal land “where Bambi can prosper.”
There are a bunch of problems with this logic, but the most obvious is a lawsuit currently being appealed in Michigan which, if successful, would totally ban hunting in wilderness areas. This is the most recent in a slew of litigation brought by liberal environmental groups (i.e., those groups allied with Tester) to ban hunting in a lot of the country.
And, ultimately, if Obama is successful in appointing more and more anti-gun federal judges, one of the anti-gun suits will prevail.
So, as more and more fake “sportsmen’s” groups try to convince gun owners that anti-gun extremists are really pro-gun, and vice versa, remember this: Caveat emptor. “Let the buyer beware.”
Because what “red state” Democrats are trying to sell you is not something you want to buy.
by Michael E. Hammond, former General Counsel Senate Steering Committee 1978-89 and a Dunbarton, New Hampshire resident.