Elmer Fudd Hunters NRA
Previous Post
Next Post

It’s Time for Hunters to Leave the NRA

The Fudds want to stage their own Cincinnati-style revolt . . .

In the NRA, we hunters have an organization that claims to represent our interests and to which many of us pay to belong (half of all NRA members hunt). But we also have an organization that is funding the war on our public lands, while making our beloved sport look like a bastion of far-right crackpots. The NRA is doing all that while using our name and money to further rip this country apart.

For all those reasons, it’s time for hunters to unequivocally break from the NRA.If the group’s bullying of teenage victims of violence or its seeming enthusiasmfor seeing that violence worsen aren’t enough to convince my fellow sportsmen and women of this argument, then two more recent events really should: Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee’s declaration of war on our public lands and the arrest of Russian agent Maria Butina, who is charged with using the NRA to manipulate the American political process.

Gun Control won't work
courtesy townhall.com

Weak Evidence For New Gun Control Laws

It’s almost as if these laws were just opportunistic restrictions on law-abiding Americans enacted in haste after a tragedy . . .

Everyone wants to do something to stop mass public shootings. Unfortunately, these laws will not make Americans safer and surely won’t prevent mass public shootings such as the one in Parkland.

We have to be careful that gun control laws not disarm law-abiding citizens instead of criminals. To the extent that this happens, gun control laws will increase crime. So there needs to be reasonable evidence that the regulations actually reduce crime.  Let’s take a look at the proposals that are getting the most traction right now.

Parkland Kids Book March For Our Lives
courtesy Getty

The March For Our Lives Founders Are Releasing A Book About The Parkland Shooting & It Sounds Like Essential Reading

Only one problem – virtually no one will buy it or read it . . .

The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are not backing down from the gun control debate any time soon. After the tragic shooting in Parkland — in which 17 people were killed and 15 more were injured — the students mobilized to fight back against the politics that allowed such a crime to occur. Not only did they launch the March For Our Lives movement and organize anti-gun violence marches throughout the country, but these remarkable students used their platforms to speak out on social media and in the press about the costs of gun violence and the need for gun control. Now, the Parkland students are taking their message to print. On Monday, Penguin Random House announced that they will be publishing Glimmer of Hope: How Tragedy Sparked a Movement, a book written by survivors of the shooting, on Oct. 16. A portion of Penguin Random House’s profits from the book will be donated to the March For Our Lives foundation.

This official, definitive book from the founders of March For Our Lives will feature first-person essays from the founders, including Emma Gonzalez, and document the policy initiatives they support. According to a Penguin Random House press release, Razorbill, a Penguin Young Readers imprint and Dutton, an adult imprint, have teamed up to sell this title together and will jointly market the book for both adults and young readers. This is important, because these teenagers know better than anyone that people under the age of 18 are affected by gun violence in shocking numbers.

Oh No meme gun control
courtesy knowyourmemes.com

Kavanaugh Could Tip Supreme Court Against Gun Control Laws

That’s the idea . . .

If confirmed, Kavanaugh would join a Supreme Court that has decided remarkably few cases involving gun rights. For most of the court’s history, the justices said little about the Second Amendment, except to suggest that the right to bear arms was meant to apply to militias and weapons for military service. But in 2008, the court for the first time declared that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was meant to protect an individual’s right to own a gun for self-defense in his home. The vote was 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the decisive fifth vote.

The court’s majority opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, a gun enthusiast, but it included limiting language, explicitly endorsing some regulations as constitutional and citing as examples laws barring felons or those with a history of mental illness from owning guns, and laws banning guns from government buildings.

It is widely believed that much of that limiting language was added at Kennedy’s insistence. Now, however, Kennedy is retiring, and a Justice Kavanaugh would have a demonstrably less hospitable view of gun regulation.

DIY 3D-printed guns get go-ahead after Trump administration strikes court deal

This is all still dawning on them . . .

In a statement greeting the news, the Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice-president, Alan Gottlieb, said: “Not only is this a first amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby.”

Defense Distributed, the company behind the blueprint, declared: “The age of the downloadable gun formally begins.”

Gun control advocates were alarmed. Nick Suplina, managing director of law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, said the settlement was “incredibly dangerous” and called on the state department to continue to block the publication of what he described as “deadly information”.

Oh, and the Second Amendment Foundation is giving away a Ghost Gunner. Heh.

Second Amendment Foundation Ghost Gunner

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Attack of the killer Fudds. Sorry, but these people are not big on organizing or taking charge. Never happen!

    • But a big ole dose of Soros/Steyer $, pile of steaming progtard “Organizing for America”, the MSM fools and you get Fudd puppets. Looks much the same as a brain damaged Congresswoman puppet.

    • “Hello fellow hunters” – A writer from New York who has never touched a gun in his life because he thinks they are scary

    • I’d like to see a re-organization of the NRA into “divisions” that would better represent evolving issues. As is, the NRA will continue to represent the constituency that joined 2 decades ago notwithstanding that the issues have changed since then. As a simple illustration, suppose interests consisted of: hunters; marksmen; and, gun-rights. A Fudd might join the NRA’s Hunter division for $30. He might pay an extra $5 to also join the Marksmen division. He would vote for directors of the division(s) of which he were a member. The NRA’s plenary board would be composed of directors of the divisions in proportion to their respective divisional membership. A part of dues (e.g., $5) would be dedicated to the activities (hunting, competition, lobbying) chosen by divisional directors.

      Such a re-organized structure would promote membership and involvement by everyone who is apt to be motivated by just 1, or a few, interests. The plenary board – as I propose – would better reflect the weight and sentiments of each respective division rather than the personal sentiments of “old-timers” who might not be in-step with current membership.

    • Yeah, after that brilliant expose, I expect 3 or maybe 4 defections from NRA, please be careful not to let that door hit you in your fat ass on the way out.


      All y’all.

      I don’t have to cite all of the infringement sh_t that the NRA has been behind. FU if you’re not paying attention.

      The NRA wants you to thank them, and pay them, for every time they put out the fire in your ball-fur. But they’re the ones lighting it. Yeah FU we saw your bullshit backhanded throw of bumpstocks under the bus.

        • They didn’t support Hughes, they supported FOPA that it was attached to. They didn’t throw it away because of the underhanded method of attaching a poison pill. They also later supported NICS, but that was an alternative to a universal waiting period that the libs wanted.

        • Many of us criticize the NRA for what they did/didn’t-do; and I am among them. Nevertheless, most of us are capable of reasoning about difficult decisions (there are some exceptions) and I suggest that we all try to do that.

          It’s NOT ALWAYS easy to figure out what the “right” thing to do when faced with a difficult choice. At the time Regan asked NRA whether to sign the FOPA the NRA had to decide whether the interests of transporting gun-owners should out-weigh the interests of relatively few machine-gun owners. Perhaps they didn’t weigh as strongly as they should have the precedent that they were conceding. Perhaps they weighed too heavily the interests of transporting gun-owners. They probably failed to anticipate that states such as NY would simply thumb-their-statist-noses at FOPA and arrest transporting gun-owners with impunity. (I’ll argue here that most of the states left transporting gun-owners alone; a few states continued to harass transporting gun-owners. The net improvement was too small to have made a worth-while difference.) We are enjoying 20:20 hindsight here; and, that’s not the situation anyone is in when the shot must be called.

          NICS was not merely a trade-off between essentially instant clearance vs. universal waiting periods. It was also a PR consideration. NICS erected a virtual sign in every gun-shop window: “Criminals & Crazies need not apply”. We, the legitimate PotG, drew a “line” around legitimate commerce in arms and marked-off the black-market as distinct from the legitimate market. Thereupon, PotG could better defend legitimate gun users against claims of criminal/crazy conduct. The FFL got a “PROCEED” from Washington; it’s not the legitimate gun users’ and merchants’ fault! The NRA could probably have anticipated that advantage to NICS; and, in 20:20 hindsight, we ought to be able to see it as well.

          I’m not claiming that these – nor any other decisions NRA has made – were “right” in my opinion. I’m only claiming that any of us might be mistaken in believing that they made the “wrong” decision.

          In any case, the NRA is the 400 lbs. gorilla on capital hill. That simply can’t be replaced even if you were in a good position to try (e.g., that there was a consensus among PotG as to what a new and improve National Gun Association might look like). Our community of PotG are far too divided and unwilling to fund a serious effort to build a new organization. Therefore, there is no rational choice but to:
          1) continue to support the NRA;
          2) undertake serious efforts to reform the NRA in ways that PotG might agree that it ought to be reformed; and,
          3) ALSO support competing organizations such as Second Amendment Foundation that serve particular purposes (e.g., litigation in this case).

          Gun owners would be in a much better position if – instead of 5 million – NRA’s membership numbered 50 million. The NRA is whatever its membership allows it to be. If YOU are NOT a member then YOU do NOT count in any way in deciding wha NRA ought to be.

          If YOU fancy yourself as having all the “right” ideas, then there ought to be a lot of like-minded (and NRA-disgruntled) gun-owners. If ALL of you signed-up for life memberships then YOU-ALL would be be able to write your own ticket and re-make the NRA in whatever it is that you would see fit. If you don’t see things this way then you might begin to question whether your ideas are really as popular as you would like to believe.

        • Instead of embracing the need to fucking demand 500% push back, up-to and including physical violence against the assholes pushing it.

          It’s an eventuality, not a maybe.

          “Law, on the other hand, requires the affirmative acquiescence of the parties [all parties]
          under its jurisdiction, and without. However, Law but only provides lesser remedies to the half of a society that is wronged by the other half who has not upheld either the law or society.
          Law too, often hails as legal quite a bit of what is abhorrent and damaging to a society
          and to societal agreement. Law hides behind the need to mediate that which society has decided to prosecute absolutely, in society’s efforts to more quickly restore to itself a position it will come to in a more littered eventuality.” [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, Pt. 38]

    • The problem with the Fudds has been that they don’t come out and vote against the gun control politicians. Many hunters DO support the 2nd Amendment and while the 2nd does not protect a right to hunt, they are very aware of the need. Most of them are more competent with firearms then the wanna-be’s. I’m a range officer at the local IWLA range and may who visit with their brand new AR’s and Glocks are the ones we have to watch the most. Safety and range etiquette are serious issues.

  2. So they think hunters don’t hunt with ARs? Or carry handguns? Or vote 2A minded? I don’t think they know many hunters.

    • I know a ‘hunter’ who always votes Dem, never sights in a gun, thinks anybody who deliberately practices with a gun is a potential serial killer, and hates the NRA. Sometimes he goes to deer camp without a license or a gun, just to hang out. Usually he buys a license and ‘hunts’ for an hour or two a day.

      He’s the hunter that the article is aimed at, but he’s never been an NRA member, and never will be, so how can he and his ilk ever ‘leave the NRA’?

    • The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. As a 2A organization, why do we as NRA members care what these walnut loving, shotgun owning douchebags think. The 2A is about preserving the right for good citizens to own and carry military grade weapons to be able to shoot bad HUMANS in the face. PERIOD.

      • yep and those BAD HUMANS include the govt if and when they become tyrannical in fact it is especially aimed at tyrannical govt, after all what was the war of independence fought over in the first place

        • “… those BAD HUMANS include the govt if and when they become tyrannical…” If? Too late. We’re already there.

        • yes i well realize that. it is just going to take enough people realizing that for it to reach critical mass before what needs to be done can be done. lets hope it is in time

        • Aha……..”SIC SEMPER TYRANUS”….to quote NCIS New Orleans.
          …..Heard that one before……..

      • I agree that the 2A has nothing – or perhaps little – to do with hunting.

        OTOH, the NRA isn’t necessarily a 2A-activist organization. It IS whatever its current membership would wish it to be.

        Once, NRA was a marksmanship organization because that is what its founders thought was needed. It became a hunters’ organization because that is what concerned its membership. Post Cincinnati, it became a 2A organization; albeit, it continued to cater to hunters and marksmen.

        We ought to think about the NRA as a unifying vessel to represent the collective interests of all gun owners. If – one day – silencer owners or AOW tinkerers become really important then they ought to be able to leverage the collective force of the national organization.

        Today, (I think) gun-rights and gun-popularization are the most important issues. We all ought to be able to contribute to supporting these two issues. Perhaps – well beyond the horizon – gun rights will be as firmly established in America as they are in Switzerland. Guns might be as popular here as they are in Israel. In that happy day, the most important issue might be conservation of hunting lands or marksmanship competition.

        How could we make the NRA more responsive to whatever might – today and tomorrow – be the most important issue? How could we attract membership from every constituency (youth, women, left-handers, etc.) who would contribute to the weight of the overall community notwithstanding their narrow focus?

        • I was going to comment the same, there *is* a SAF, but it is distinct from NRA, which is, at least in part, about hunting.

  3. I guarantee you that the organization that is trying to divide hunters away from the NRA has been started and is funded by the same anti-gun crowd that wants to take guns away from American citizens hands. Their mistake was how they worded their press release.
    “But we also have an organization that is funding the war on our public lands, while making our beloved sport look like a bastion of far-right crackpots. The NRA is doing all that while using our name and money to further rip this country apart.” and “If the group’s bullying of teenage victims of violence or its seeming enthusiasm for seeing that violence worsen aren’t enough to convince my fellow sportsmen and women of this argument…” are right out of the left’s playbook on how to describe us.

    • Anyone who cites the VPC as an organization stating “facts” is either sadly misinformed or definitely NOT an NRA member. More, the author contends that “large capacity magazines” are central to gun manufacturers’ profits, and that is why the NRA defends such magazines. And I am going like, really? The absence of logic is truly stunning. The tome of the article is so far left that it reeks that it is a pure propaganda hit piece.

      What I see happening is the same thing that is happening to Trump supporters. If you can’t defeat the message, attack the messenger. Smearing the NRA and castigating its members as right wing loonies who don’t give a flip about the environment, or that a contribution to a politician is an adoption of that politicians views on ALL subjects is disingenuous.

      • Exactly. VPC is on record opposing Heller and fully supporting any juristiction a 50.1% vote totally banning all firearms form all owners.

  4. I love how the media likes to trumpet what the smallest demographic of gun owners think about the NRA and gun rights issues in general. Less than 10% of Americans hunt, and most of those who do, like myself, support gun rights broadly. In contrast, a third of Americans are legal gun owners. I wish the FUDDS would recognize that antis want scoped rifles and shotguns as well as handguns and MSRs.

    • I don’t think there’s that many actual fudds. At least not anymore. I think the continual democrat overreach has convinced the vast majority of gun owners of their true intentions of a total gun ban. Another factor is age. From what most people describe, real fudds have mostly passed on by now. Most gun owners of the past 40 years are far more gun rights oriented then those of the early and mid 20th century.

      • Yep. Gun owners don’t have to look very far to see what happens…”common sense” gun restrictions become “safety laws” become microprinting requirements become slow motion handgun bans. They want us all to use black powder single shots…then will ban those as too dangerous since you can make bombs with black powder. It’ll never end…so we have to push back. Silencers are a good start, but we need to also make the case that “weapons of war” are EXACTLY what the 2nd Ammendment protects. With good reason. Any non-felon citizen or legal resident who hasn’t been adjudicated a danger to themselves or others should be allowed to pony up and buy any (yes any) small arm people want to sell. Won’t make the country any less safe, and will almost certainly do the opposite.

      • Agree. I think most of what we call Fudds are the “I am a gunowner” type, gunowners because daddy left me a gun and I don’t know how to get rid of it without touching the scary thing. Not even hunters, much less firearm enthusiasts. And the only “reasonable” interpretation/restriction I’d consider reasonable would be that a protected weapon must be man-portable, reasonable because of the word “bear” in 2A. No battleships unless you can carry it.

  5. This sounds like FUDD flavored astroturf to me…and probably consists of Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser and this Wes Siler clown. He’s probably looking for some of that sweet, sweet Soros and Bloomburg money.

  6. “…This official, definitive book from the founders of March For Our Lives will feature first-person essays from”

    I can’t wait to not buy a copy when it hits the shelves of the local book store.

  7. The 2A has nothing to do with hunting. The NRA is a pro 2A organization. If the gun owning hunters want to come along for the ride while standing on the sidelines while we protect black rifles, 30 round mags, normalize suppressors and pass National Reciprocity, we’ll allow you to continue contributing. Don’t like our agenda, GTFO. Truth is, we don’t really want you walnut loving, shotgun owning dirtbags anyway.

    • So, the fellow who is saying we need to quit the National Rifle Association isn’t even associated with our nation?

      Yeah, let’s all listen closely to him, his words are precious jewels.

      • He lives in Boseman. Apparently he is a British expat. I imagine he likes living in MT and does hunt, but just wishes is was a bit more like his old home. Maybe he is even a citizen now. He markets a lot of stuff and appears to fancy himself a model – likes shirt off shots. I am not interested enough to read more about him.

        • And he’s far from the only Progressive Socialist in Bozeman.
          If this keeps up, MT is going to start sending Feinsteins to the Senate.

    • He’s a bonafide leftist who has spent his life writing for such leftist trash as GQ, Rolling Stone, Wired and Jalopnik. He follows Hillary Clinton on Twitter and has retweeted recently questioning who’s side Trump is on, regarding the Russians.

  8. Wow, the win is how many laws passed, over the objections of designated bad guys. It’s almost like the point is who, whom, as Stalin said.

  9. Time for hunters to leave … because they hunt without guns, and nobody’s coming for all the guns. Except for Di Fi. And Mother’s against things that don’t do anything by themselves.

  10. All you need to know about Wes Siler… He follows Hillary Clinton on Twitter and on July 15th, he retweeted the following tweet by her, “Great World Cup. Question for President Trump as he meets Putin: Do you know which team you play for?”. It’s obvious that’s he’s a filthy, Liberal Terrorist™️. He also spent years writing for such leftist rags like Wired, GQ, Rolling Stone and Jalopnik. Anything and everything he says should be summarily dismissed for the anti American domestic enemy he is. Also, he’s supporting 2 former army rangers who opened factories in Afghanistan so we can “stop doing harm in that country”. Support his cause at your own peril.

  11. Yeah….hunters…keep believing that the anti gunners who side with the left wing vegans will allow you to keep your semi auto shotguns…..keep believing that. Meanwhile, everyone else can watch the video of the CNN Townhall where the anti gunners screamed they want to ban all semi automatic weapons….you know, including shotguns and other hunting weapons. Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.

  12. The tactics progressives are using now revolve around using what is considered “conservative” imagery like middle aged white guys shooting or enjoying the outdoors, and lots of American flags in their ads. They use “conservative” themes to mask a progressive agenda. Americans for Gun Safety and the American Hunters and Shooters Association were examples of the technique. It’s pathetic how progressives have to lie about who they are and what they want.

    Fudds think they’ll be left alone, but one day their deer rifles will be demonized as “deadly sniper rifles” and banned.

    The Initiative in the State of Washington that is going to be steamrollered into law defines EVERY semi auto pistol, rifle, and shotgun as an assault weapon subject to waiting periods and registration. Mr. Fudd’s Browning Auto 5 shotgun, or Auto 22 rimfire rifle will eventually be confiscated by the State when the time comes.

  13. Kavanaugh, like Gorsuch, looks pretty strongly to the governing charter, applicable law, and established precedent, to determine what’s lawful and not. They don’t so much look to the policies they prefer themselves, nor especially some notion or broadly organizing society to make it “better.” This confuses the agenda-mongers. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch aren’t so much “conservative” in policy preference as “conservative” in the role of the judiciary.

    Similarly, and oddly, as much as I dislike the ultimate policy outcome of Roberts’ swing-vote decision on the Affordable Care Act, I think it was well done. Issues like this should be resolved in the political process. The Judiciary should show deference to what the legislature said, and what it set out to do.

    Of course the anti’s hate that they’ll have to compete in the legislature to get what they want; not just stampede some politicians, or co-opt some high-handed administrators. Worse, add Roberts’ bias toward limited scope, they’ll have to be concrete, precise, and complete in what they want. No, you don’t get to vaguely state broad authorities, then have the agency run amok, for a mile on the inch you put in writing. You want them to do it, say it.

  14. “The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School’s”

    15 minutes have long since past,Hogg who.

  15. I never hunted and really don’t anticipate ever wanting to hunt. But I do buy a lot of shooting accessories and supplies, and my money goes to fund these fudd’s hobbies.

    I wonder if they realize that there are simply more recreational shooters than hunters now?

    • Which is undoubtedly true but at the same time problematic. Money from taxes and fees paid by hunters pays for more conservation funding than any other source. Without their money, who will fund conservation efforts that preserve wildlife and wild spaces? the one thing this guy pointed out with which I agree is that more and more people are crowding into cities (which is true all around the world, actually), and thus fewer and fewer hunt. I have never hunted. I was born and raised in Chicago. I only knew one hunter throughout my childhood. I was never exposed to, much less taught, anything about hunting. And this is true for most children who live in the large population centers.

  16. “the group’s bullying of teenage victims of violence or its seeming enthusiasm for seeing that violence worsen”

    Where’s the evidence of this? I saw no bullying, but I did see people angrily respond to being called murderers and terrorists by these so-called teenage “victims.” I’m sorry, but if you’re going to get into a debate about firearms and slander all law-abiding citizens who belong to a group that defends that civil right, you can’t hide behind the “I’m just a kid” label.

  17. How many hunters actually read Outside Magazine? I’m pretty sure the usual outlets, Outdoor Life, Field&Stream focused on the hunting sport wouldn’t touch this propaganda.

  18. People hunting with firearms is falling every year. the second amendment has exactly 0 to do with hunting and any jurisdictions can totally ban hunting with no constitutional or bill of rights recourse for any hunter.

    The writer of the article is a left wing British expat who lives in Montana where no one has threatened removal of gun rights for all citizens.

    he completely mischaracterizes what happened with the NRA talking a more robust line in the 1980’s. NRA did that because more and more US jurisdictions were totally banning basic self defense guns from law abiding Americans — including banning having even a revolver at home.

  19. Trolling, Trolling, Trolling how else is the Author going to make a buck, the NY papers laid off workers, probably not radical enough to work in phony TV

  20. Haven’t any of you idiots ever heard of the phrase “divide and conquer”? By breaking up the NRA into several smaller factions only serves one agenda, to more easily dismantle the entire organization. The NRA was never about hunting, sport shooting, or any of the myriad of activity associated with the 2nd amendment. It was established to protect your GOD given RIGHT to protect yourselves from a tyrannical government bent on controlling and enslavement of you as an individual. That is why the NRA is a representative of 5 million+ individuals and not just hunters, shooting sport enthusiasts, shotgunners etc. Wake up and smell the coffee folks. Stand strong and don’t waiver. Remember, It’s really easy to give up your GOD given Rights, but it will be impossible to get them back once that mistake is realized.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here