Companies that are Non-Supportive of Hunting

[rookhawk]

I have to say reading these threads, the NRA is often a troublemaker that causes problems for the hunter, the merchant, and the public perception that is completely unnecessary. I see companies being blamed (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) for being "anti hunting" or "anti gun" when they are really just terrified of what the NRA will do to them next.

Examples with Yeti: Yeti was sweating it out as the NRA was making some fairly stupid statements that were going to endanger the bulk of Yeti's non-hunting customers. (e.g. campers, tailgaters, fisherman, boaters, etc.) Yeti took a wise and simple step, they said privately to the NRA "we do not wish to be part of your cross-branding program any longer where an NRA decal is put on our products". That's a pretty legitimate request, one that I as a conscientious hunter might say to some conservation organizations that go off the rails that would injure my clientele if I'm literally selling cross-branded products that assert my 100% support. In response to this private correspondence between Yeti and the NRA, NRA conflated it to make a scene and publicly shouted "yeti isn't with us anymore, they are anti-NRA" creating division. Yeti didn't say they wouldn't work with the NRA or that they didn't like hunters, they just said they didn't want cross-branded merchandise that would alienate the majority of their clientele. NRA caused a division by escalating and conflating a small position and making it public to HARM yeti. I don't consider someone my ally if they decide to destroy me or my company if I don't acquiesce to every business interaction with them. If I owned Yeti, I don't know if I could control my anger at what they had done, I might have made a much more powerful retaliatory position so that my company wasn't embarrassed or harmed by an affiliated entity in the future.

Then there is the reason for these companies to run from the NRA because the NRA is frankly, behaving stupidly. Let's talk about bump-stocks. Bump stocks are an item that should be outlawed using logic from nearly EVERY ethical position. Let's say that I think Machine Guns should be legal, one of many reasoned positions that a person could take. What are machine guns designed to do? They are to accurately and effectively kill the enemy. Does a bump stock adhere to even this litmus test of what is a reasonably effective and purpose-built weapon? No, a bump stock is an inaccurate device that launches a poorly controlled weapon's projectiles at objects with recklessness and inaccuracy, something a machine gun doesn't do. Thus, the NRA, coming off a horrible Las Vegas atrocity, decided to defend a stupid product that has no legitimate peace or wartime utility. Would the NRA support the ban of a gun that shoots bullets in a 270 degree pattern with 12" accuracy at 50 yards? Probably not, even though such a device would only be used for indiscriminate death and maiming and would be an uncontrollable weapon. In both cases, only bubbas and psychopaths want a weapon that kills randomly and indiscriminately, as opposed to in a controlled and purposeful manner. So even with the strongest, broadest definitions of the 2nd amendment the principles, the NRA is kowtowing to more bizarre stakeholders today, their actions aren't fully justifiable. Thus, they are polarizing many people and therefore companies are trying to get their distance from bizarre positions so they don't go down with the poorly chosen positions of the NRA at present.

Lastly, the NRA has become a cheezy, disgusting, scam-oriented organization in how they treat their members. You may have noticed that they send out horribly unprofessional emails trying to get you to sign up for a variety of products and services for which the products suck, are overpriced, and not in the best interests of their members. For example: the gun insurance they provide is practically a scam with the rates so high compared to prevailing market costs for similar products as to be an embarrassment. I would not sell my customers an inferior and bloated product yet the NRA has no shame in doing so. The complaints about pay-outs from the free and upgrade-for-fee insurances are tremendous, yet they do not care. Then they are violating their role as champions of the 2nd amendment by engaging in for-profit businesses, directly competing with the private sector. Have you noticed they are now selling their own concealed carry classes and literally destroying private-sector businesses that were NRA supporters by directly competing? That's a really broad reach past their charter. I don't see the ACLU selling free-speech legal defense services for a fee, yet the NRA sells products and services while claiming to be a political action non-profit?

In conclusion, let's not judge all the companies that distance themselves with the NRA as being "against hunters" or even "against the 2nd amendment" but rather they may be against letting a bully destroy their company and customers through threats, intimidation, or direct competition with their own businesses.

Just my opinion, one that is based on legitimate grievances, empathy for many of the companies listed above, and with reasonable bonafides of who and what I have supported in order to make my critique:

-Rookhawk
NRA Life Member
NRA Life Endowment Member
NRA Life Patron Member
NRA Life Benefactor Member
NWTF Member
TU Member
PF Member
RMEF Member
SCI Member
Registered Republican (that votes Libertarian)

 

[Hank2211]

@rookhawk, what you say makes a lot of sense. Note that as a Canadian, the NRA has really no impact on me, so I will allow others to agree or disagree with your specific issues related to it. I do, though, want to address one general issue, which you allude to in your comments about bump-stocks.

We (well, lawyers do anyway) often talk about the "slippery slope" when discussing policy matters. In the case of firearms, it's pretty easy to see what that slope looks like. Laws which would restrict law-abiding gun owners in some fashion are proposed, and gun owners argue that by going after law-abiding people, the suggested laws will be ineffective. Nevertheless, the laws are adopted and, as predicted, they are ineffective at preventing crime or mass shootings. What is the public reaction to that result? There are two possible reactions. One is to acknowledge that the adopted law was, in fact, ineffective. It targeted the wrong people, so to speak. Note that I have never seen an example of this response. It does not seem to be in the DNA of politicians or regulators to admit error, any more than it's in the DNA of gun-control advocates to suggest that diminishing the rights of lawful gun owners doesn't impact the behaviour of unlawful gun owners. But even if miracles happen, and people do admit that the first law was ineffective because it went after the wrong target, the odds of the law being repealed are virtually nil - again, laws tend to multiply, not to reduce.

The second potential reaction is to argue that if the law was ineffective it's because it didn't go far enough. So more needs to be done, and another law is proposed, building on the first, law which is no more likely to be effective than the first, but it gets adopted anyway, on the same basis as the first law was adopted. This is the far, far more likely result, and by going down this path, rights are lost by accretion. The ultimate result is that we end up in a situation which, if it had been initially proposed, would have been dismissed as far too draconian and unreasonable, but each small step in itself didn't seem so bad. The frog in the boiling water, in other words.

I believe the NRA has become fixated on this threat, to the point where even measures which appear reasonable on their face are dismissed as existential. Of course, that seems unreasonable, but let's assume we all agreed that banning bump-stocks is a good idea. Is there any realistic likelihood or probability that doing so would reduce mass carnage? Likely not, for at least two reasons. Firstly, anyone considering the mass shooting of innocent people is unlikely to be deterred by a law that criminalizes something like bump-stocks. After all, we already criminalize murder, and by definition, the person in question intends to ignore that law. Secondly, our criminal, perhaps not having access to a bump-stock, because they were banned and are now unavailable, has at his or her disposal so many other methods to fire rapidly (and perhaps with more accuracy) that the bump-stock issue is essentially moot. (I note that in all of the mass shootings in the US since 1991 (the farthest back I have seen stats), I don't think bump-stocks were used in any of them except in Las Vegas).

Understand that I like to think I know something about firearms, and most of my friends know my passion, and don't hesitate to ask me questions when hunting or firearms issues are raised. I try to be informed, and to be balanced. When the Las Vegas tragedy occurred, I was asked what a bump-stock was. I admitted to never having heard of such a thing and, when it was described to me, wondering what the point of such a thing could possibly be. I get the desire to put lead in the air, but indiscriminately? I see no point to that whatsoever, even in a war, where (I hope) I'd prefer to use my ammo more effectively. Personally, I would not hesitate to ban bump-stocks for at least two reasons. The first is substantive. I really see no useful purpose for such a device. The second is less substantive but no less important for that. It's that we, as gun owners, need to send a message to non-gunowners that we too care about these mass shootings.

I think the NRA position is understandable and is one which could be logically and consistently held. Note, though, that personally, I don't agree with it. I believe that if our rights as hunters and gun owners are to survive, we need to worry less about slippery slopes and more about what the public in general thinks or feels about these issues (with feelings being as, if not more, important than logic here). What the NRA has not done, and what it needed to do if it was going to come out against banning bump-stocks or anything else, is to say what it would do to prevent or at least reduce the incidence of mass shootings. If an organization is just viewed as being against everything all the time, it will quickly become viewed as part of the problem and not part of the solution. And when that happens, it's pretty easy to justify ignoring the organization.

 

[tigris115]

Gonna be honest, I'm not sure how many of these groups are truly anti hunting and just slap a PR sticker on their products for the sake of trying to encourage growth. Obviously if they do it multiple times, that's a good indicator but if some shoe or ice cream company just slaps a slacktivist sticker on a box once, I wouldn't consider it much to write home about

 

[sgt_zim]

@rookhawk, what you say makes a lot of sense. Note that as a Canadian, the NRA has really no impact on me, so I will allow others to agree or disagree with your specific issues related to it. I do, though, want to address one general issue, which you allude to in your comments about bump-stocks.

We (well, lawyers do anyway) often talk about the "slippery slope" when discussing policy matters. In the case of firearms, it's pretty easy to see what that slope looks like. Laws which would restrict law-abiding gun owners in some fashion are proposed, and gun owners argue that by going after law-abiding people, the suggested laws will be ineffective. Nevertheless, the laws are adopted and, as predicted, they are ineffective at preventing crime or mass shootings. What is the public reaction to that result? There are two possible reactions. One is to acknowledge that the adopted law was, in fact, ineffective. It targeted the wrong people, so to speak. Note that I have never seen an example of this response. It does not seem to be in the DNA of politicians or regulators to admit error, any more than it's in the DNA of gun-control advocates to suggest that diminishing the rights of lawful gun owners doesn't impact the behaviour of unlawful gun owners. But even if miracles happen, and people do admit that the first law was ineffective because it went after the wrong target, the odds of the law being repealed are virtually nil - again, laws tend to multiply, not to reduce.

The second potential reaction is to argue that if the law was ineffective it's because it didn't go far enough. So more needs to be done, and another law is proposed, building on the first, law which is no more likely to be effective than the first, but it gets adopted anyway, on the same basis as the first law was adopted. This is the far, far more likely result, and by going down this path, rights are lost by accretion. The ultimate result is that we end up in a situation which, if it had been initially proposed, would have been dismissed as far too draconian and unreasonable, but each small step in itself didn't seem so bad. The frog in the boiling water, in other words.

I believe the NRA has become fixated on this threat, to the point where even measures which appear reasonable on their face are dismissed as existential. Of course, that seems unreasonable, but let's assume we all agreed that banning bump-stocks is a good idea. Is there any realistic likelihood or probability that doing so would reduce mass carnage? Likely not, for at least two reasons. Firstly, anyone considering the mass shooting of innocent people is unlikely to be deterred by a law that criminalizes something like bump-stocks. After all, we already criminalize murder, and by definition, the person in question intends to ignore that law. Secondly, our criminal, perhaps not having access to a bump-stock, because they were banned and are now unavailable, has at his or her disposal so many other methods to fire rapidly (and perhaps with more accuracy) that the bump-stock issue is essentially moot. (I note that in all of the mass shootings in the US since 1991 (the farthest back I have seen stats), I don't think bump-stocks were used in any of them except in Las Vegas).

Understand that I like to think I know something about firearms, and most of my friends know my passion, and don't hesitate to ask me questions when hunting or firearms issues are raised. I try to be informed, and to be balanced. When the Las Vegas tragedy occurred, I was asked what a bump-stock was. I admitted to never having heard of such a thing and, when it was described to me, wondering what the point of such a thing could possibly be. I get the desire to put lead in the air, but indiscriminately? I see no point to that whatsoever, even in a war, where (I hope) I'd prefer to use my ammo more effectively. Personally, I would not hesitate to ban bump-stocks for at least two reasons. The first is substantive. I really see no useful purpose for such a device. The second is less substantive but no less important for that. It's that we, as gun owners, need to send a message to non-gunowners that we too care about these mass shootings.

I think the NRA position is understandable and is one which could be logically and consistently held. Note, though, that personally, I don't agree with it. I believe that if our rights as hunters and gun owners are to survive, we need to worry less about slippery slopes and more about what the public in general thinks or feels about these issues (with feelings being as, if not more, important than logic here). What the NRA has not done, and what it needed to do if it was going to come out against banning bump-stocks or anything else, is to say what it would do to prevent or at least reduce the incidence of mass shootings. If an organization is just viewed as being against everything all the time, it will quickly become viewed as part of the problem and not part of the solution. And when that happens, it's pretty easy to justify ignoring the organization.

So then why ban something that won't affect crime stats or criminal behavior? As a sop to people who emote rather than think?

Other than that, I largely agree with you both.

We already have literally thousands of gun laws in this country, both at the federal and state level. None of them has been effective.

If you really get out into the weeds on crime stats, at least in the US, what you discover is that while it is true that certain states and cities have higher rates of violent "gun crime" than others, this is largely irrelevant. Digging down, what you really find as that most of the violent crime is concentrated in maybe 75 or 100 neighborhoods in the whole country. This represents less than a fraction of a percent of the republic's total population, and an even smaller percentage of the republic's land mass. Excluding those neighborhoods, violent crime rates in the rest of the US are lower than they are in most of Europe.

I used to be a cop in Houston, and patrolled one of those neighborhoods. In neighborhoods like that, the turds will actually break into patrol cars and steal the radios and so forth out of them. It happened to an officer who worked in my beat. If you don't ever go into neighborhoods like that, the worst you can ever really expect is to be the victim of burglars or auto thieves. Violent crime does of course happen outside those neighborhoods, but it is rare and is the reason we always see those instances in the news. A murder or sexual assault in Houston's 5th Ward or the Gulfton Ghetto - gets maybe 20 or 30 seconds on the 10 o'clock news, and that's it. A shooting in River Oaks...that would be in the news for weeks.

We are (at least nominally anymore) a free people. So long as what we do doesn't bring injury to other people, what we own is really and quite literally nobody else's business, no matter how distasteful or useless those things are to other people.

I completely understand the NRA's position. We've negotiated with the antis at arm's length for almost a century now. All it ever gets us is more gun laws. The NRA, I suspect, has finally reached that "this far you have come, and no further" point.

Many urge "compromise," as if it is some sort of intrinsic good. Metaphorically speaking, the antis want us to drink a glass of cyanide. The one possible compromise with that is to only drink a half glass of cyanide. The problem we have is there is a great divide on what "the good" actually is. Suppose you and I were legislators, and we had 300m USD to spend on defense bills which were important to us. It is my contention that the USMC needs armor upgrades to the tune of 200M USD, and it is your contention that the Army needs upgrades to self-propelled artillery, also to the tune of 200M USD. We compromise and agree to only spend 150M USD each on the two projects. That's a compromise where you and I already agree on what the good is. That's how governance is supposed to work - but if we don't agree on the basics, then any compromise is always an agreement to drink a half glass of cyanide.

 

[Scott CWO]

Rookhawk,
The slippery slope is not a figment of imagination. It happened in Great Britain and Australia. Illinois, California, Massachusetts and New York aren’t far behind. I would not live in those states. Funny how people most critical of the NRA tend to be from those states. Is the NRA perfect? No. Is anyone? When you publicly bad-mouth the NRA, you are not helping. If you have donated so much time and treasure to the NRA, perhaps you should try to use your influences directly with the NRA. If you tried but were out-voted, that’s the breaks. Still no reason to publicly trash the NRA.

 

[rinehart0050]

Still no reason to publicly trash the NRA.

I don't think Rook is trashing the NRA. It's both completely acceptable and fundamentally important to have public discussions about the actions of an organization representing our interests.

 

[markm]

I have to say reading these threads, the NRA is often a troublemaker that causes problems for the hunter, the merchant, and the public perception that is completely unnecessary. I see companies being blamed (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) for being "anti hunting" or "anti gun" when they are really just terrified of what the NRA will do to them next.

Examples with Yeti: Yeti was sweating it out as the NRA was making some fairly stupid statements that were going to endanger the bulk of Yeti's non-hunting customers. (e.g. campers, tailgaters, fisherman, boaters, etc.) Yeti took a wise and simple step, they said privately to the NRA "we do not wish to be part of your cross-branding program any longer where an NRA decal is put on our products". That's a pretty legitimate request, one that I as a conscientious hunter might say to some conservation organizations that go off the rails that would injure my clientele if I'm literally selling cross-branded products that assert my 100% support. In response to this private correspondence between Yeti and the NRA, NRA conflated it to make a scene and publicly shouted "yeti isn't with us anymore, they are anti-NRA" creating division. Yeti didn't say they wouldn't work with the NRA or that they didn't like hunters, they just said they didn't want cross-branded merchandise that would alienate the majority of their clientele. NRA caused a division by escalating and conflating a small position and making it public to HARM yeti. I don't consider someone my ally if they decide to destroy me or my company if I don't acquiesce to every business interaction with them. If I owned Yeti, I don't know if I could control my anger at what they had done, I might have made a much more powerful retaliatory position so that my company wasn't embarrassed or harmed by an affiliated entity in the future.

Then there is the reason for these companies to run from the NRA because the NRA is frankly, behaving stupidly. Let's talk about bump-stocks. Bump stocks are an item that should be outlawed using logic from nearly EVERY ethical position. Let's say that I think Machine Guns should be legal, one of many reasoned positions that a person could take. What are machine guns designed to do? They are to accurately and effectively kill the enemy. Does a bump stock adhere to even this litmus test of what is a reasonably effective and purpose-built weapon? No, a bump stock is an inaccurate device that launches a poorly controlled weapon's projectiles at objects with recklessness and inaccuracy, something a machine gun doesn't do. Thus, the NRA, coming off a horrible Las Vegas atrocity, decided to defend a stupid product that has no legitimate peace or wartime utility. Would the NRA support the ban of a gun that shoots bullets in a 270 degree pattern with 12" accuracy at 50 yards? Probably not, even though such a device would only be used for indiscriminate death and maiming and would be an uncontrollable weapon. In both cases, only bubbas and psychopaths want a weapon that kills randomly and indiscriminately, as opposed to in a controlled and purposeful manner. So even with the strongest, broadest definitions of the 2nd amendment the principles, the NRA is kowtowing to more bizarre stakeholders today, their actions aren't fully justifiable. Thus, they are polarizing many people and therefore companies are trying to get their distance from bizarre positions so they don't go down with the poorly chosen positions of the NRA at present.

Lastly, the NRA has become a cheezy, disgusting, scam-oriented organization in how they treat their members. You may have noticed that they send out horribly unprofessional emails trying to get you to sign up for a variety of products and services for which the products suck, are overpriced, and not in the best interests of their members. For example: the gun insurance they provide is practically a scam with the rates so high compared to prevailing market costs for similar products as to be an embarrassment. I would not sell my customers an inferior and bloated product yet the NRA has no shame in doing so. The complaints about pay-outs from the free and upgrade-for-fee insurances are tremendous, yet they do not care. Then they are violating their role as champions of the 2nd amendment by engaging in for-profit businesses, directly competing with the private sector. Have you noticed they are now selling their own concealed carry classes and literally destroying private-sector businesses that were NRA supporters by directly competing? That's a really broad reach past their charter. I don't see the ACLU selling free-speech legal defense services for a fee, yet the NRA sells products and services while claiming to be a political action non-profit?

In conclusion, let's not judge all the companies that distance themselves with the NRA as being "against hunters" or even "against the 2nd amendment" but rather they may be against letting a bully destroy their company and customers through threats, intimidation, or direct competition with their own businesses.

Just my opinion, one that is based on legitimate grievances, empathy for many of the companies listed above, and with reasonable bonafides of who and what I have supported in order to make my critique:

-Rookhawk
NRA Life Member
NRA Life Endowment Member
NRA Life Patron Member
NRA Life Benefactor Member
NWTF Member
TU Member
PF Member
RMEF Member
SCI Member
Registered Republican (that votes Libertarian)

Very well stated

 

[Scott CWO]

I don't think Rook is trashing the NRA. It's both completely acceptable and fundamentally important to have public discussions about the actions of an organization representing our interests.

He thinks the NRA should give up some ground and compromise. Most of us don’t agree so he complains and talks about the insurance programs, etc... Just throw those mailings in the trash like most of us.

 

[rookhawk]

He thinks the NRA should give up some ground and compromise. Most of us don’t agree so he complains and talks about the insurance programs, etc... Just throw those mailings in the trash like most of us.

That’s not what I said. In summary:

1.) NRA present leadership behaves unethically with supporters. Anything but 100% is not an enemy, it’s a frequent ally. They don’t see it that way.

2.) they get involved in uncompromising positions that are not explicitly 2nd amendment. Bump stocks are not a defensible product supported by logic or the constitution. If they want to legalize machine guns, that may be a reasoned argument based on case law, bump stocks are not essential or useful for a well armed militia, they are inaccurate gimmicks designed to spray fire uncontrollably for entertainment (or atrocity) purposes.

3.) the NRA leadership advertises unethical products and services tarnishing their reputation. If I’m a cancer foundation but I also suggest my supporters purchase a Ponzi scheme, what does that do to my core purpose and reputation?

4.) NRA leadership enters for-profit businesses that compete with legitimate companies. Is it right for a political action group to start businesses that run their supporters out of business? Where is this found in the NRA charter I relied upon to donate large sums of money? I didn’t think I was giving to a business, I could just donate money to Walmart and US Steel instead.

I support the 2nd amendment and the opinions of its scope as defined by the bill of rights, originalist legal opinion, and the intent as elaborated by the authors in the federalist papers. End of story on my beliefs. How is the NRA violating the intentions of my support by drifting into unuseful arguments, actions, and enterprises?

 

[sgt_zim]

2.) they get involved in uncompromising positions that are not explicitly 2nd amendment. Bump stocks are not a defensible product supported by logic or the constitution. If they want to legalize machine guns, that may be a reasoned argument based on case law, bump stocks are not essential or useful for a well armed militia, they are inaccurate gimmicks designed to spray fire uncontrollably for entertainment (or atrocity) purposes.

Where is the federal government's constitutional authority to regulate something like this? They don't even have constitutional authority for NFA '34, which I suspect would have been overturned entirely had
1. Miller not been dead and his attorney showed up
2. the AUSA not lied his ass off in orals in front of the USSC.

I concede the point that the federal government does a great many things for which it has no lawful authority. That is not justification for them to exceed their lawful authority in this case.

 

[wesheltonj]

Where is the federal government's constitutional authority to regulate something like this? T . . .

Commerce Clause.

 

[Paul Homsy]

Rookhawk,
The slippery slope is not a figment of imagination. It happened in Great Britain and Australia. Illinois, California, Massachusetts and New York aren’t far behind. I would not live in those states. Funny how people most critical of the NRA tend to be from those states. Is the NRA perfect? No. Is anyone? When you publicly bad-mouth the NRA, you are not helping. If you have donated so much time and treasure to the NRA, perhaps you should try to use your influences directly with the NRA. If you tried but were out-voted, that’s the breaks. Still no reason to publicly trash the NRA.

Lumping American states with the rest of the world is more than far fetched. Last time I checked California switched from a very republican state to a liberal state in 1982.

To put a couple of things in perspective before making my point, I suppose you more than likely don't know that California's economy ranks it 5th or 6th in the world, that is including the United States in the count. The GNP of Southern California (Los Angeles to San Diego) excluding Imperial county is superior to that of Australia and the GNP of Los Angeles county is superior to that of Mexico.
The population of California exceeds 38 million. It is in more than one way as large as a country, therefore it has the same variety of minds that a large country has. All three very distinctly American inventions, the television, transistors and computers come from California. It is not just nor appropriate to judge California in the narrow optic you've used to describe its resemblance, in your view, to countries where people are subjects. And who in large part are proud to be and belong. They are certainly entitled to feel that way. I hope you can make the distinction, and you should, that when it comes to the enactment of laws and the impossibility to dispute them with governments arbitrarily confiscating firearms and gun laws that are enacted such as in the U.S. Let me remind you of the words of Thomas Jefferson in a short paraphrase; " when the people are afraid of their government there is tyranny, when the government is afraid of the people, there is liberty".

Last time I checked California was still in the United States with a large population made of citizens, not subjects.

People are entitled to voice their opinions. I'll agree with you that at times, it may be better to refrain from doing so but in general, in a free country, people are entitled to their opinions and have a right to their voices particularly when they have a reason to.

Please don't see my post as an invitation to experience California, it isn't. To put it down as you did however, doesn't sit well with some of us.

 

[Scott CWO]

Lumping American states with the rest of the world is more than far fetched. Last time I checked California switched from a very republican state to a liberal state in 1982.

To put a couple of things in perspective before making my point, I suppose you more than likely don't know that California's economy ranks it 5th or 6th in the world, that is including the United States in the count. The GNP of Southern California (Los Angeles to San Diego) excluding Imperial county is superior to that of Australia and the GNP of Los Angeles county is superior to that of Mexico.
The population of California exceeds 38 million. It is in more than one way as large as a country, therefore it has the same variety of minds that a large country has. All three very distinctly American inventions, the television, transistors and computers come from California. It is not just nor appropriate to judge California in the narrow optic you've used to describe its resemblance, in your view, to countries where people are subjects. And who in large part are proud to be and belong. They are certainly entitled to feel that way. I hope you can make the distinction, and you should, that when it comes to the enactment of laws and the impossibility to dispute them with governments arbitrarily confiscating firearms and gun laws that are enacted such as in the U.S. Let me remind you of the words of Thomas Jefferson in a short paraphrase; " when the people are afraid of their government there is tyranny, when the government is afraid of the people, there is liberty".

Last time I checked California was still in the United States with a large population made of citizens, not subjects.

People are entitled to voice their opinions. I'll agree with you that at times, it may be better to refrain from doing so but in general, in a free country, people are entitled to their opinions and have a right to their voices particularly when they have a reason to.

Please don't see my post as an invitation to experience California, it isn't. To put it down as you did however, doesn't sit well with some of us.

I knew that my comments on CA would rile some of you up. Lol. My wife is from CA so don't get your panties in a bunch too much. I have lots of CA clients as well and most of them wonder what the heck they are doing still living there.

I know all about California's economy, it's status as a sanctuary state, liberal politics, gun control, no hunting or even POSSESSION of a legally killed mountain lion from another state, etc... and I wouldn't want to live there so you certainly don't have to worry about me thinking you are offering an invitation. If you choose to live under such foolishness, that's your choice. Transplants from CA have changed Colorado politics as well. No thanks.

Obviously I know that CA is a state, not a country. My point was that gun control in CA is following the same slope as what happened elsewhere. It doesn't work so it gets worse and worse. More and more laws.

 

[Scott CWO]

NRA case with NY is going to be heard by the US Supreme Court. This is why I support the NRA.

Interesting that the current liberal members of the SC are from CA (Breyer) and NY (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg). Previuos liberal members were from IL (Stevens), MA (Souter), MN (Blackmun), etc... Seems to be a pattern here. CA hasn't had a true conservative on the SC since Warren.

The current conservative members are from CO (Gorsuch), GA (Thomas), NY/IN (Roberts born in Buffalo but raised in IN), MD (Kavanaugh) and NJ (Alito), Previous conservative members were from TX/AZ (O'Connor), WI (Rehnquist), NJ (Scalia) and a swing vote from CA (Kennedy).

 

[Fred Gunner]

Received the following note attached to a reply from my shipping agent:
Yellow Shark Logistics, Olympia - Windhoek, Republic of Namibia.

“The following Airlines refuse to accept your hunting Trophies /Taxidermy Work for transport on their International Flights. These carriers need to be avoided at all costs for Business and/or Leisure travel. If we, Hunters don’t try to make a difference, in the very near future, you will not be able to bring your trophies home”
“KLM, British Airways, Air France, Austrian Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Eithad, Singapore Airlines, Cargolux, Cathay Pacific and Lufthansa refuse to accept Taxidermy work/Hunting Trophies for transport … STOP SUPPORTING THESE CARRIERS.”

The good news my Trophies are ready to come home...Maybe for Christmas???

 

[Major Khan]

LAND ROVER

Now , l feel deeply ashamed . I owned and used a Land Rover Series 1 , during my career as a professional shikaree .

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

I knew that my comments on CA would rile some of you up. Lol. My wife is from CA so don't get your panties in a bunch too much. I have lots of CA clients as well and most of them wonder what the heck they are doing still living there.

I know all about California's economy, it's status as a sanctuary state, liberal politics, gun control, no hunting or even POSSESSION of a legally killed mountain lion from another state, etc... and I wouldn't want to live there so you certainly don't have to worry about me thinking you are offering an invitation. If you choose to live under such foolishness, that's your choice. Transplants from CA have changed Colorado politics as well. No thanks.

Obviously I know that CA is a state, not a country. My point was that gun control in CA is following the same slope as what happened elsewhere. It doesn't work so it gets worse and worse. More and more laws.

I’m a native Californian and I don’t think anyone has pointed out anything negative that isn’t true.

The state is overtaxed and mismanaged at every level. Many politicians are openly hostile towards the constitution.

Our gun rights have slowly been chipped away at. The slippery slope is real and it happened here. You can own a gun (as long as it’s not too scary) but people are now having to take their passports to the store to buy lead free ammo (if you hunt) for the background check we now have.

And yet spineless Californian gun owners continue to vote away their rights because the NRA is too extreme or Republicans are too corporate, even as they pass shanty towns built by decades of Democrats “helping” the poor.

 

[ack]

Facebook

Don't remember why but Zookerberg just got fined something like 10 billion

 

[Fred Gunner]

I’m a native Californian and I don’t think anyone has pointed out anything negative that isn’t true.

I had no idea how bad things are for hunters in the "Golden State" until I read this week:

Go west, young man. That’s what California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife is telling hunters and anglers.

That is, of course, as long as hunters are willing to pay a fee for the privilege to purchase ammunition in the Golden State and pass a state-required background check. There are a couple more minor stipulations. Hunters can’t bring their own ammunition into the state if they’re traveling there and they can only use expensive non-traditional ammunition.

California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife is putting on a full-scale blitz to bring hunters out of the woodwork and back into the woods. The wildlife officials are noticing a crisis. Hunters and anglers are largely responsible for wildlife conservation funding. On the left coast, though, that funding pool is drying up.

It’s hardly a surprise. For decades, elected officials have scapegoated gun owners and hunters for political advantage. The state has some of the strictest gun control measures in the country. State biologists blamed hunters’ use of traditional ammunition for the plight of the California condor and since banned the use of it throughout the state. They’ve levied increasingly burdensome regulations and squeezed out hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts. Now, the state’s wildlife and public lands are feeling the results.

It’s no wonder licenses sold to California hunters year decreased approximately 70 percent, from over 750,000 in 1970 down to 225,000 last year. Those licenses fund the state wildlife conservation and management efforts, along with the Pittman-Robertson excise tax paid by firearms and ammunition manufacturers. That fund has contributed more than $12.5 billion since 1937.

Compounding the problems, the state raised hunting fees to overcome the loss of hunters. This, along with increased fees to buy firearms and ammunition, is pricing would-be hunters out of the woods and marshes. In fact, studies show that ammunition costs for hunters and recreational shooters in California could jump as high as 284 percent or higher just to meet the state’s strict ammunition regulations. It’s no surprise hunters feel spurned by their state, especially since it was hunters that contributed to wildlife populations growing to their healthiest levels in decades. Even iconic firearms maker Weatherby left its California roots for more friendly Western skies in Wyoming.

So if you were ever thinking about a hunting trip to California think twice?

https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/19/california-facing-self-imposed-public-lands-funding-crisis/

 

[Charles Rosamilia]

I haven't read the entire thread, but Subaru lists as one of its 4 major charities the ASPCA. The ASPCA spends a significant portion of their annual budget fighting sport hunting, and as their Website says, even if the hunted animal is consumed