New York Times Finds World’s Only Anti-2a Hunter

I recently lauded The New York Times for publishing an article about guns that wasn’t anti-gun. I pointed out that the post was a proverbial black swan. And here’s proof: I Hunt, but the N.R.A. Isn’t for Me. Don’t get me wrong. The NRA and I have our differences. But this? This is odd. “I’m a hunter and a sportswoman. I own guns, but not for self-defense. I support gun control laws. I would happily vote to repeal the Stand Your Ground law in my home state of Oregon. In other words, the N.R.A. does not represent me.” Clearly. But wait! It gets better/worse . . .

Lily Raff McCaulou [photo above, blog here] wants to reclaim guns for . . . greens. And greens alone. If I’m reading this right, the author reckons shooting animals is OK because it puts the hunter in tune with nature. But NRA members aren’t OK because they don’t support politicians who support a ban on domestic drilling. Or something like that.

On its Web site, the N.R.A. calls itself the “largest pro-hunting organization in the world.” Yet during election season, the N.R.A. makes endorsements based largely on candidates’ voting records on gun control — with little if any concern for their views on other issues of interest to hunters. Candidates who voted to allow the ban on assault weapons to expire, for example, are labeled “pro-sportsmen” often despite their weak voting records on environmental issues . . .

If Americans’ hunting traditions are threatened, it isn’t because of bans on rifles and shotguns. The more likely culprit is the oil and gas drilling proposed in the San Juan Mountains of New Mexico — a beloved destination for elk and antelope hunters. Or the devastating effects of global warming on migratory game birds like snow geese and sandhill cranes. Or the fact that thousands of acres of United States farmland — and deer habitat — are lost to sprawling development every day.

And the NRA’s support for pro-domestic energy pols can’t possibly square with environmentalism, right?

Maybe Ms. McCaulou should have gone beyond the headlines and Googled “NRA environmental protection.” If she had she might have discovered the gun right org’s ECHO program to protect natural habitat (amongst other efforts). To wit:

Environment, Conservation and Hunting Outreach (ECHO) Program works to advance conservation efforts, encourage hunter safety and ethics, and promote hunting as a beneficial and responsible use of our wildlife resources. ECHO projects include, but are not limited to: restoring and enhancing wildlife habitat for both game and non-game wildlife species, conservation education programs, improving hunting access and opportunities, and shooting range projects.

Anyway, there you have it: a shotgun-toting tree-hugger who’s attempting to hive-off hunters from Americans who believe—with ample reason and legal precedent dating back to the Founding Fathers—that the Second Amendment protects their right to armed self-defense. Kinda funny, really.

Mr. Romney may have endeared himself to N.R.A. members when he vowed to “safeguard our Second Amendment” and to not create new laws that would “only serve to burden lawful gun owners.” But he has yet to explain what he would do for hunters.

Did you catch that? An anti-2a writer answered her own question on gun rights and then ignored the answer. Now that is dumb.


  1. avatar napoleon says:

    Oregon doesn’t have an SYG law on the books to repeal. Obviously she is informed on the topic. Welcome to Oregon and thanks for visiting, now GTFO of here, Lily.

    1. avatar V.McCann says:

      Yeah, you’re right. I just skimmed their statutes, and they’re about as vanilla as they come. Must be those multiple layers of editors and rigorous fact checkers you hear so much about.

  2. avatar killer99 says:

    I’m a left-leaning, environmentalist, gun owner and hunter and I dislike the NRA for the same reason, however, saying that gun control is no threat to sportsmanship is ignorant of the facts.
    Look at England gun control has all but killed sportsmanship.

  3. avatar gej88 says:

    I disagree with her on SYG etc, but she does have a valid point about habitat destruction. If you read old copies of Field and Stream or American Rifleman until the late 1970, you get much of the same view. It wasn’t that long ago when hunters were also tree hugging conservationists. Being pro-2A and pro-environment isn’t mutually exclusive.

    1. avatar TSgt B says:

      Well, gej, REAL hunters are TRUE CONSERVATIONALISTS, and do much moch for the environment than paint-throwing PETA tree huggers. Add to this that the Pitman-Robertson Act, enacted with over-the-top support from hunters and other sportsmen and women, imposoes a tax on just about all things outdoorswise, from camping equipment to guns to ammo to fishing rods – the list is just about endless. We’ve done more for the environment than any other group, period.

      1. avatar gej88 says:

        I missed the disagreement. PETA are not tree huggers because their issue is not so much about environment as it is specificially animals, and I used “tree hugger” to include conservationists. I like wilderness more than golf courses and strip malls. That makes me a tree hugger and a redneck. Other than that, I agree.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    She should join the Sierra Club. This is the Sierra Club’s hunting policy:

    Acceptable management approaches include both regulated periodic hunting and fishing when based on sufficient scientifically valid biological data and when consistent with all other management purposes and when necessary total protection of particular species or populations.

    Because national parks are set aside for the preservation of natural landscapes and wildlife, the Sierra Club is opposed to sport hunting in national parks.

    In other words, they might tell her to ram that gun up her coulie. If it saves one animal. . . .

  5. avatar Robert Farago says:

    I think you guys are missing my point. Being a hunter and pro-environment is SOP. Being a hunter and anti-armed self-defense makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, you can shoot defenseless creatures (other than bears, bobcats and the like) but a human can’t use a gun to defend themselves against another human? Go figure.

    And say what you will about the NRA’s political machinations, their as pro-habitat an org as you’ll find in the US or A. Copy added to make the point.

    1. avatar Sanchanim says:

      Whew thanks for clearing that up I was so confused about how one goes with the other! LOL
      You can be a hunter.
      You can be concerned with our environment.
      You can be concerned about protecting your family and yourself.
      If you are not Pro 2A you could loose two out of the three above!

      You can be a hunter and not give a rats ass about the environment, and you might not be a hunter but care about our environment. None is really related, but in a way they are.
      Now maybe she could just not care for the executives or the overall presentation of how the NRA has been run the last few years. It has nothing to do with her being pro gun or not, but to say you don’t care about 2A specifically when you are a hunter seems, well stupid!
      I really did wish that all states had some form of SYG, or castle law.
      I live in CA, and I thought about the post from a week or so ago when some one in Washington shot an intruder: I thought how long do I need to wait, what if they verbally threaten me but don’t have a weapon? What if I do everything this guy did? I have three kids in three different bed rooms. Now I would have to collect them all and hide in a room. I am not even sure if getting them all up would work? They aren’t babies and carrying them probably isn’t an option, although if I was motivated I am sure I would manage something.
      It is kind of like baseball. You think about what would you do before it happens. You have a game plan. Question is what is the right game plan?

  6. avatar Chris Dumm says:

    I think this demonstrates that only one of the world’s largest newspapers could locate a single anti-gun hunter.

  7. avatar person from the interwebs says:

    Anti 2nd Amendment Hunter=Walking Oxymoron

  8. avatar Frank says:

    That little airhead probably never thought for one second about why do deer have antlers. Or why some plants are poisonous.

    I just don’t believe anti-self-defense people. They can’t possibly mean it. Self-defense is not a right (God given or otherwise), it’s a fact of life.

  9. avatar Geoff says:

    it appears they had to go all the way from New York to Oregon to find someone willing to say that.

  10. avatar Johnny says:

    Anti self defence? So if some crackhead tried to steal her gun and shoot her, she’d hand it over? Some people…

  11. avatar Matt Gregg says:

    The only anti-gun hunter???

    What happened to Jim Zumbo?
    “I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”

    Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our “sporting firearms.””

    How about David Petzal?
    “Gun owners — all gun owners — pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons. The American public — and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public — would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma. An Uzi or an AKM or an AK-47 should be no more generally available than a Claymore mine or a block of C4 explosive.” David E. Petzal 1994

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The Soviets would have called them “useful idiots.” I”m sure that the Brady wingnuts would say the same.

      1. avatar psmcd says:

        Why malign Soviets? America is full of useful idiots, epitomized by Barack and Mitt.

        1. avatar "Dr."Dave says:

          I wouldnt go so far as to call either of them usefull.

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          Oh, too true, too true…

    2. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Close but no cigar. Anti-modern black home sporting defense rifle is one thing. Anti-armed self-defense—period—is another.

      1. avatar Matt Gregg says:

        Close enough for me, you said anti-2a not anti-self defense in the title.

        1. avatar Robert Farago says:

          The two are one and the same, IMHO.

    3. avatar napoleon says:

      Add to the list:

      Donald “H&H O/U for me and no pot metal guns for you” Trump.

      And how quickly we forget the late Bill “no honest man needs more than 5 rounds” Ruger.

  12. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    that’s a chick? Really?

  13. avatar CarlosT says:


    I’m getting pretty tired of all this ignorance around SYG. Not that it’s surprising, most people are as stupid as rocks, but still….

  14. avatar napoleon says:

    A 5sec googlpedia search would have yield the same answer to our beloved guest or the NYT editor.

    As a ‘hunter’ in Oregon, she’d be well served to stop at her local gun shop pick up a current copy of the Oregon Firearms Federation Guide to Gun Ownership before she trips over one of those pesky gun laws meant for ‘real criminals’ and loses her right to hunt or handle firearms. Unfortunately, she’d be handing money to an org with an evil black rifle on their homepage.

  15. avatar Big J says:

    Let’s be clear. In America gun rights has absolutlely nothing to do with hunting. The 2A does not say “the right to keep and bear arms to bag game” it says the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The 2A exists in America for the purpose of self defense. Our founding fathers made that very clear in their other works and personal correspondence. This woman is clearly part of the NETUREI KARTA of the gun world. The kind of useful idiot that can stand arm-in-arm with the gun grabbers and say “I own guns, and I am a hunter, and it’s perfectly ok to take away handguns/assault rifles/CCW because that doesn’t pertain to me” and justify their actions.

    1. avatar "Dr."Dave says:


  16. avatar "Dr."Dave says:

    I’ve said it before, and i’ll say it again, hunters are no freinds of the firearms community. They’ll sell out everyone elses gun rights as long as they can keep their scoped rifles and can murder animals.

    Good thing the NRA isnt for them. They can GTFO. The firearms community, I beleive, would be better off with out them.

    Further, they know that the second ammendment offers no specific protection for sports, and that threatens them.

    1. avatar LT says:

      I’m actually the opposite, kinda – I love guns, want to own plenty of ’em for various reasons, support pro-gun legislation, yadda yadda… but I’m not a fan of hunting. I’m amenable to those who do it for sustenance and whatnot but the idea of killing anything for sport is rather reprehensible to me.

      Still, I’m not in any hurry to take away the privileges those folks enjoy.

      Anyhoo, handsome young boy in that photo; I’m sure his ma and pa are real proud of him.

  17. avatar Aharon says:

    She is doing her part to keeping Oregon Weird. Lily grew up in a ‘cool hippie suburb’ of Washington DC, went to a liberal college, lived in NY, now lives in Bend Oregon, and calls herself a professional journalist. Lily is best described as naive.

    1. avatar LT says:

      That’s being awfully charitable.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        Ok, she’s also a: fnbaslbcohhmcmamalaf
        Don’t ask me what the acronym above stands for since it might offend some folks.

  18. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

    I don’t see the problem with being a hunter and not supporting the 2A. It’s unusual, for sure, but I don’t see the conflict.

    Wht you guys keep doing wrong in these discussions is confusing the 2A with your continued ability to own guns. I say if the 2A disappeared today, you’d still be able to have your guns, you just wouldn’t be able to elevate your gun ownership to the level of the sacred and inviolable.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      Oh, right. Because that’s gone so well elsewhere.

    2. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Tell that to all the people of the world without gun rights. Especially those countries that had them and lost them. Say . . . Mexico. Would you want to live in Juarez without a gun? Or America’s inner cities?

    3. avatar jkp says:

      Little Alan Colmes is back for more!

      At least you’re finally being honest that you want the 2d Amendment to be repealed.

    4. avatar Parthenon says:

      “if the 2A disappeared today, you’d still be able to have your guns”

      Only until someone objects.

  19. avatar Hal says:

    Mikey: “I don’t see the problem with being a hunter and not supporting the 2A. It’s unusual, for sure, but I don’t see the conflict.”

    Of course you don’t. You’re…. you

    1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

      Actually, Hal, there are lots of gun owners and hunters who don’t see things like you do. They’re called reasonable people. Some of them actually agree with my side, even about the 2A being obsolete. It’s a fact.

      1. avatar Hal says:

        There are. But where you see reasonable people, I see people who have been insulated from actual adversity to the extent that they are now naive enough to have “it can’t happen to us, not here” syndrome.

        Fortunately there are enough of us who don’t fall for such Sith mind tricks to ensure that people like you don’t determine our civil rights for us. Your side has lost, and my side will ensure it stays that way.

        How have you been Michael?

      2. avatar Tim says:

        “Actually, Hal, there are lots of gun owners and hunters who don’t see things like you do. They’re called reasonable people.”

        Really? “A lot.” Where does “a lot” fall among Arabic numbers? My guess is not as far up on the scale as you would like us to believe.

        “They are called reasonable people.” So that’s all you got? Nebulous numbers and insinuations that only people who agree with you are “reasonable”? If you’re the best the gun-grabbers have I’d like to take this opportunity to declare victory on behalf of the NRA, SAF, RTKBA, etc. It’s Miller time!

        Seriously Robert, would you please ban this troll? He’s not reasonable, he gets abusive, he constantly contradicts himself and his thought process is about as well thought out as the Winchester House.

        1. avatar Hal says:

          He’s pretty exhausting.

        2. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Would my guessing at the number improve what I said very much? Is considering people who agree with me reasonable, unreasonable? Don’t you do the very same thing?

          Tim, you guys who comment here are in a tiny minority. You guys are seriously passionate about guns and gun rights. You don’t think that applies to most gun owners, do you?

        3. avatar Tim says:

          No, Mike. If you “guessed” (your word, not mine) at a number it wouldn’t improve what you said—but it might lend credence to your arguments vice just making random assertions with no backing.

          “Is considering people who agree with me reasonable, unreasonable?” Yes, when you imply that anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable. That means you think that you, and you alone, are the possessor of the “truth” and the rest of the population is just too ignorant to see your brilliance. (BTW that would be an incorrect assumption on your part)

          “Don’t you do the very same thing?” No, I believe that those who disagree with me are, for the most part, very reasonable—just misinformed. However, if they are presented the facts, e.g crime does not rise when more people have CCW permits, but make assertions in opposition to the facts, e.g. insist that more CCW permits “will result in the wild west “, then I begin to question their reasonableness. But I do not believe that disagreeing with me makes an individual unreasonable until I see/read/hear evidence to the contrary.

          “Tim, you guys who comment here are in a tiny minority. You guys are seriously passionate about guns and gun rights. You don’t think that applies to most gun owners, do you?” One again you resort to your nebulous assertions—“tiny minority”. Most gun owners I know are passionate about their guns but don’t involve themselves in online discussions such as this. Not all that uncommon, really. Go to a board on politics and I believe you’ll find that the number of people commenting is not the same as the number who will vote in the next election. If you wish to believe that there are only a few passionate gun owners out here and that the rest wouldn’t mind too terribly much if you placed greater restrictions on their gun ownership, feel free to do so. But fair warning — you can ignore reality. But you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

  20. avatar Hal says:

    I like how the times almost certainly set out looking for a hunter to interview with this exact endstate in mind… and they didn’t find one until the hit the opposite side of the continent. Ha.

    NY hunters were clearly on hand. Could it be that NY shooters don’t want anything to do with gun control and are fed up seeing their Pennsylvanian neighbors getting all the good toys?

  21. avatar GS650G says:

    If Lily finds herself in a situation where that hunting gun saves her life I think her very soft brain will have different opinions.

    1. avatar Levi B says:

      Armed self defense works in practice, but does it work in theory?

      1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

        Maybe someday we’ll get a chance to find out.

  22. There are plenty of reasons to not support the NRA, this does not strike me as one of them…

  23. avatar CVAN 68 says:

    Hey- cut her some slack. She took up hunting recently and hasn’t had all that much time to see the big picture, and the hypocrisy of the “Don’t worry, I don’t want your gun(yet)” crowd. It took my wife until after the birth of our daughter to realize that liberalism isn’t a good idea. Give Lily some time.

  24. avatar Silver says:

    The NY Times manages to find a braindead, hypocritical moron…no surprise here. The NYT is obviously very attuned to sniffing out its own kind.

    I wonder…if someone breaks into her house with deadly intent, you think she’ll go for that warm, cuddly hunting rifle? Of course she will. And she won’t even see the hypocrisy in it.

  25. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “I’m a hunter and a sportswoman. I own guns, but not for self-defense. I support gun control laws. I would happily vote to repeal the Stand Your Ground law in my home state of Oregon. In other words, the N.R.A. does not represent me.”

    I wonder if Lily Raff McCaulou would be willing to post a sign on her door advising neighbors and passers-by that she will not use a gun to defend herself? Just to make her fellow greenies feel safe.

  26. avatar rogue 1 says:

    She’s a complete fake.

    Either she’s completely ignorant of Oregon gun laws (in which case she is a fake for projecting some tyope of expertise), or she’s not really from Oregon.

    We have no Stand Your Ground law.

    1. avatar Tom says:

      Interesting. Straw Hunter.

  27. avatar JERRY DOUCET says:


    1. avatar 40&2000 says:

      She isn’t from Oregon. She grew up in Tacoma Park MD. Anyone from MD knows the type-yes I am generalizing. I know many people from the area they affectionatly refer to it as the “east coast Berkely” She is only hunting because it is a “green” alternative to buying meat. I actually applaud that but I would be surprised if she follows through for any measurable length of time.

  28. avatar karlweiss says:

    Of course – u KNOW u can trust the source & integrity of the story coming thru the NYT’s!! … {hah}

    ; )

    1. avatar Tom says:

      I always do! Bwahahahaha!

  29. avatar Mike says:

    Myself and others are horrified to see and hear hunters and gun owners who support anti-gun politicians. I think a lot of people would be surprised at how many gun owners hate the NRA and “Right Wing Republicans”. Our gun rights are being lost because of these so-called gun owners. They are responsible for it and their only response is, “Oh that wont pass”, “They dont want to take our guns” or the “NRA is just a special interest money hungry, fear mongering, lobbyist”. But GOD forbid if somebody wants to drill for oil or put people to work…….

    I hate to say it, but its only going to get worse.

  30. avatar REW says:

    FORGET ABOUT HER – she’s what the LIBS call “a useful idiot”.

    (and Pretty Da^# Stupid she IS, too! Haha… feel more sorry for the ‘castrated’ she’s married too tho, than her -actually. ouch!)

  31. Excellent news for iPhone and Ipad consumers! Do u desire to have Kamen rider on your hand?. You’ve seen heroes a few times on television, now It’s ideal time to think&guessing them
    download game kamen rider hp

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email