Democrats don't hunt...

[RoeBear]

I've seen it bandied about on these pages that Democrats don't hunt.
Or conversely stated that hunters are 95% Republican. And since Democrats don't hunt there is no reason to worry about their vote.

But this poll that was conducted on the DU General Discussion page,
seems to refute that.

The results as I write this are: I hunt 32%
I don't hunt, but support it 52%
I don't hunt and don't support it 17%

The entire thread is located at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1100163&mesg_id=1100163

There were a lot of positive responses from longtime (1,000 or more posts) members, members that have a gold star next to their name. Members whose opinions should carry lots of weight. Let me mention that there is certainly no fear that this poll was 'freeped'.

With that in mind let me say that the number of people identifying themselves as hunters surprised me, I wouldn't have expected it to be this high.

Some sample 'gold star' quotes:

"I don't hunt, but know many dems who do."

"There is a significant chunk of North Dakota who will never vote
for someone who is going to take their gun away (a.k.a., the Democratic Party). That is one reason I so staunchly support Howard Dean."

"I know a fair number of Dem hunters but I also know many hunters in my state (Wisconsin), even a few Dems, who will vote repug because of their fear mongering over RKBA."

"I Hunt"

"Four of the five dems in this family hunt."

"Where I grew up everyone hunts. It has nothing to do with politics."

"I hunt and fish and my family eats what I kill."

"I don't but hubby does and plenty of liberal/progressive friends do also"

"You would probably find quite a few Dem hunters up here, which is why gun control is a contentious issue in this state."

What it boils down to is this; if we want to win elections we can not ignore or worse yet alienate the vote of hunters.

[lcordero]

1. The bottom 90% of the income tax bracket makes about

$24,000 a year. Blocking a person or family from a way of getting food is cruel and unjust.

[Wickerman]

9. Don't want to dispute your complaint here

but I'd suggest that hunting can't be economical in 2004 as a food source. Hunting licenses, lease fees, ammunition, (lets assume you have the $400 to $700 entry level gun) locker fees, etc. Hunting is recreation, a hobby, a way of life, but I can't see it as economical. Not an original idea, I think I saw a breakdown elsewhere several years ago. If you want economy, become a vegetarian. Shoot (uh, pun intended) holes in this argument. Ready, go!

[RoeBear]

15. I did a little research...

...at: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_14518-32241--,00.html


A combination license gets a hunter two deer tags and costs $28 bucks.
Throw in a hand me down rifle or shotgun (no cost) and a box of ammo
$10 bucks and a guy is good to go. Plenty of no charge state land in Michigan or access to private land for free (I don't charge people to hunt on my little 'farm')is available so people don't have to travel to get to a spot with deer. Two deer must put 150 pounds of meat in the freezer, so I'd think that people that are inclined to make it economical can do it.

[Wickerman]

61. thanks to you and sybylla

been wondering about that.

[sybylla]

23. very economical

Never bought a new gun in 28 years of hunting. Buying used you can get a good hunting rifle or shot gun around $100-$200. Of course you can use these guns, if they are cared for, for decades, so you can divide that number by say 20 to be reasonable. My guns have all been hand-me-downs, hence, free. I might spend $100 a year on fishing and hunting licenses and maybe another $50 on ammunition. And my freezer gets filled with between 100 and 300 pounds of food depending on the year. Even in a bad year that's less than $2/pound for good quality, free range meat. Additionally, I know people who spend much more time at it than I do.

[NWHarkness]

2. Don't alienate hunters

Write it down, lock it up, commit it to memory: if the Democrats disparage hunters, we will be wrapping Michigan's 17 electoral votes in a big red bow and giving them to Bush.

I am sure the same is true in a lot of other states.

[Alopenia]

3. You go against hunters in the general election, you lose.

Just ask Al Gore. Gore lost usually reliable West Virginia because he was perceived as anti-gun. This is a state where many counties cancel school the first day of deer season because most of the students are gone anyway. Those five electoral votes made the difference.

[iverglas]

4. what it boils down to

What it boils down to is this; if we want to win elections
we can not ignore or worse yet alienate the vote of hunters.

I'll bet far more people grow potted plants, or wear glasses, or buy underwear, than hunt.

None of those are federal election issues in the US, as far as I know. No one feels compelled to come out in favour of, or against, any of them. They are things that people do if they feel like it, that tend to be none of anyone else's business unless they affect someone else.

In other words, Democrats and Republicans alike quite happily "ignore" the votes of potted plant growers, glasses-wearers and underwear-buyers.

If the Democratic Party were opposed to the growing of cannabis plants (which I gather it is), would it be proper for anyone to represent this as the Democratic Party being opposed to the growing of potted plants? Would the Democratic Party tolerate such demagoguery? Would the Democratic Party not be perfectly capable of distinguishing between the growing of potted plants in general and the growing of cannabis plants, and of defending its reasons for having no position on the first (because it is none of its business) and proposing laws against the second (because it is a matter of public safety)?

(We all know that *I* am not opposed to private cannabis plant growing and do not support the Democratic Party's position on it, so obviously this is just an example I am using. And hey, all analogies are ultimately dumb, eh?)

Why is it not possible for the Democratic Party to take no position on hunting and the legitimacy of possessing weapons properly and ordinarily used for hunting, while defending its reasons for proposing laws to control weapons not properly and ordinarily used for hunting? Why should the party do anything but acknowledge the legitimacy of hunting as a personal, private activity on which the party has, and needs, no policy? Just like they might do if asked for their policy on potted plant growing.

Now ... if a lot of people were in the habit of tossing their potted plants off high buildings and killing people down below (and some of them had purchased potted plants specifically for that purpose), or leaving their potted plants on precarious windowsills from which they fell and killed people, or leaving their poisonous potted plants within reach of their children so that significant numbers of children became gravely ill or died from eating the plants, the Democratic Party might indeed want to take a position on private access to potted plants, or certain kinds of potted plants.

In addition to understanding that opposition to cannabis plant growing had nothing to do with opposition to growing tomatoes and geraniums on balconies, I'd expect your average potted plant grower to understand the party's reasons for proposing restrictions on and regulations to govern the acquisition, possession and use of potted plants. And to understand that their private pleasure in their diefenbachias and poinsettias just didn't outweigh the lives of the children who died from eating them when less responsible people bought them -- and that the inconvenience or privacy invasion they felt they suffered by having to demonstrate their fitness to own potted plants, and having their ownership of potted plants recorded and having to account for their whereabouts, just didn't outweigh the lives of the people killed by unfit individuals who acquired potted plants legally or obtained them from legal owners by theft or private transfer.

Just as I would expect that your average hunter would understand that the deaths of children and other people outweighed whatever private reasons they might have for wanting to own certain types of firearms or not wanting to demonstrate their fitness to own firearms or account for their possession and use of them.

And y'know, if they didn't understand and agree to that, I wouldn't have been expecting to get their votes in any event. Because people who don't understand and agree that there are legitimate reasons for minor interferences with their own activities, that other people's lives and safety outweigh such minor inconveniences, would just vote Republican for a whole bloody lot of other reasons anyway, no matter what position the Democrats took on potted plant growing. And I would not want to do what it would take to get their votes, because what it would take to get their votes would be contrary to all my principles.

If some hunters do not believe that the Democratic Party has their legitimate interests at heart, that is one issue, and it may need to be addressed -- IF there is serious reason to believe that those hunters would actually vote Democrat if this little misunderstanding were cleared up. If some hunters are merely saying that they do not vote Democrat because they do not believe that the Democratic Party has their legitimate interests at heart, that is a very different issue. And attempting to address it would be a big old waste of time, at the very best.

It would in fact also be a big strategic error, since it would amount to allowing non-Democrats who will never be Democrats to set the Democratic Party's agenda.

It would be playing a game that one cannot win -- treating demagoguery and dishonesty as if it were sincere, honest political discouse. One can only win, if one plays that way, by selling one's soul; by becoming the other side, or by pretending to be the other side, in order to win. And I don't regard either as winning anything.

The only way to deal with demagoguery is to reject it.

Hunting is not a political issue. Period. Hunting is a private activity that is only an issue to the extent that the activity needs to be regulated in the pursuit of a legitimate public interest, just like any other private activity. It is a matter of personal preference, and as a matter of public policy, all personal preferences are equal. And no party's or candidate's preference in the matter of hunting is a proper basis for anyone's vote, any more than his/her taste in shoes or hot dog toppings is.

Some people do indeed have more emotional investment in their preferences when it comes to hunting than they do in their preferences in shoes or hot dogs. Just as some people have more emotional investment in their religious preferences or their preferences for the colour of the people they serve in their restaurants or the sex of the people they hire in their businesses. And some people vote on the basis of those private preferences rather than on the basis of the public policy positions of the parties and candidates. The preferences are largely irrational, and the greater the emotional investment in them the more irrationally the person can be expected to behave. And the more some people will play on that irrationality to get their votes.

But it is still a fact that only demagogues play to those emotions and prejudices when they play politics. Democrats, of the small "d" variety, appeal to people's self-interest and public-spiritedness, and their ability and desire to balance the two when they discuss and vote on public policy.

A whole lot more people need health care than go hunting -- in fact, everyone who hunts needs health care, while not everyone who needs health care hunts. Why spend time and effort addressing a subset of the electorate who may not vote for you no matter what you do that you might not even want to do, when you have an opportunity to persuade much larger numbers of voters to vote for you because of what you actually want to do?

Surely Democratic time and talents would be better spent addressing an actual political issue that affects everyone, that is central to D/democratic principles and policies, and that Democrats could actually win on -- without ever engaging in anti-democratic appeals to emotion and prejudice and without exposing themselves to such appeals by their adversaries to the extent that they will if they spend time and effort addressing a complete non-issue like hunting.


"You would probably find quite a few Dem hunters up here,
which is why gun control is a contentious issue in this state."

No, sorry. Look at that statement -- does it make any sense at all on its face? Of course not. The fact that there are "quite a few Dem hunters up here" is **NOT** why gun control is a contentious issue in that state.

Gun control is a contentious issue in that state because non-Democrats have persuaded hunters that they have hunters' interests at heart by saying things that either

(a) have nothing to do with hunters' interests and merely appeal to emotion and prejudice to portray Democrats as opposed to hunters' interests, or as people who just aren't good folks like hunters all are, or

(b) appeal to hunters' selfish interests only, and pander to the unwillingness of some of them to accept minor inconvenience in relation to their acquisition, possession and use of firearms as a trade-off for other people's lives and safety.

(a) is dishonest, and (b) encourages people to act in a way that is contrary to how issues are supposed to be resolved in a free and democratic society in which no one's interests automatically trump anyone else's, or the public interest.

Why would a Democrat want to legitimize dishonesty by acting as if "hunting" IS a political issue and acting like demagogues by also appealing to emotion and prejudice?

Why would a Democrat want to pander to people's selfishness and unwillingness to compromise, to subordinate their minor interests, in convenience or "privacy" or having a good time, to the interests of others in their lives and safety?

I dunno. But I'm just a furriner.

.

[MrBenchley]

5. As a matter of fact

the number of Americans that hunt is at 6% and DECLINING rapidly....

<sarcasm>But clearly, with a quagmire in Iraq based on lies, open corruption, three million jobs down the toilet and a total assault on huan rights and the environment, the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE is whether Democrats show enough deference to that 6% of the population.</sarcasm>

After all, just look at what a boon that gaudy A rating from the NRA is proving to be for Dr. Dean...those gun owners are just streaming to the polls for him, aren't they?

[demsrule4life]

6. I don't know if your 6% is right or not

but there is more people involved then that, you have to add all the people that make a living off the hunters.

[Superfly]

7. And the families and friends of hunters

who are of voting age.

[iverglas]

12. not disagreeing

As I've said numerous times, I recognize that in Canada

(a) some people hunt for subsistence or to supplement diet, and they are entitled to do that;

(b) some people hunt in order to protect the source of their income (crops or livestock) from predators, and they are entitled to do that;

(c) some people hunt recreationally, and they are entitled to do that (it being a matter of personal preference, and my personal feelings about it being of no relevance to public policy);

(d) some people, and communities, are dependent on the revenue from hunters from elsewhere, and they are entitled to earn that revenue.

(None of these are applicable to the UK to any significant extent, just by the bye.)

So ... IF anyone in Canada or the US were proposing to abolish hunting, or to make it extremely inconvenient or difficult to hunt, or to otherwise, in some way, seriously interfere in hunters' ability to feed their families or protect their source of income or earn an income or engage in their hobby, I'd see an issue.

I don't see anyone proposing to do that, either in Canada or in the US, so I don't see an issue.

So what is it?

Is it that Republicans portray Democrats as big bad hunter-haters? Why does anyone have a problem with calling that what it is -- dishonesty and demagoguery? Why not attack Republicans for courting voters by lying to them and appealing to their emotions and prejudices?

Is that not what Republicans would do if Democrats thought it politically useful to call them big bad potted-plant-grower-haters because they support outlawing the growing of cannabis plants? Would the Republicans spend much time courting the votes of potted plant growers to counter this lie? If they were smart, they would ask what potted plant growing has to do with a federal election in the US, and proclaim their respect for the right of everyone everywhere to grow potted plants ... except for cannabis plant growers, and except that the cultivation of poisonous plants might need to be regulated ...

What the hell is wrong with Democrats saying that hunting is not a political issue, and that they respect the right of everyone everywhere to hunt -- as long as they obey the laws that are in place for the protection of everyone else from the dangerous things that some hunters might do?

The fact that some hunters might object to some firearms control measures that Democrats might support DOES NOT MEAN that Democrats hate hunters, any more than the fact that some gardeners might object to municipal bylaws prohibiting the cultivation of deadly nighshade would mean that city council hates gardeners.

Hunters are just as subject to laws that are designed to protect other people and the public as anyone else is. If they don't agree to that, then I don't know why anyone would want their votes anyhow. Soul-selling is a slippery slope.

.

[MrBenchley]

18. You might recall

that not even Kerry's participation in a hunt earlier in the campaign kept the, er, enthusiasts here from screaming that Kerry was "antigun." But then they routinely recycle any bit of right wing shit they can dredge up from Newsmax and the like.

[RoeBear]

10. Well duh...

...isn't it obvious?

If a candidate said "Women shouldn't vote" he'd piss off at least half of the voting population. And stand no chance of getting elected.

If a candidate said "people shouldn't hunt" he'd piss off at least
6% (your number) of the voting population. And stand no chance of getting elected IN A CLOSE ELECTION.


Are YOU willing to give away all the close elections?

[iverglas]

14. perhaps you can tell us

If a candidate said "people shouldn't hunt" he'd piss off at least
6% (your number) of the voting population.

... what candidate has ever said such a thing? Al Gore, maybe?

If you can't name a good few such candidates, my question then is:

why are you erecting these straw people and pretending they are a problem that needs to be addressed?

What exactly IS your problem?

.

[sybylla]

11. Source, Benchley?

Cough it up. You can't get away with making blanket statements and pulling numbers out of your backside. I thought you'd been in the gun dungeon long enough to know that.

[MrBenchley]

22. Posted again and again

"The number of American hunters has been in a slow but steady decline for the last 20 years, and in the last five years alone fell from 14 million to 13 million, one of the steepest drops since the USFWS began keeping records in 1955. And as the general population has swollen to 290 million, hunting has become important to an ever shrinking minority. Today, only 6 percent of Americans 16 and older hunt.
More unsettling, the average age of hunters is increasing. Sixty-seven percent of all hunters are now over the age of 35. Only 14 percent are between 16 and 24—and just 4 percent are 16 and 17 years old. In the language of wildlife biology, the sport of hunting is having "recruitment failure"—a condition that, in the wild, ultimately leads to extinction. "

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/hunting/article/0,13199,458090,00.html

What comes out of a backside is what the RKBA crowd routinely tries to peddle down here.

[Superfly]

25. 13 million...

well....that's an entire state. And as the last election showed, do you want it to come down to a single state again?

[MrBenchley]

29. 13 million and declining fast.....

[Superfly]

30. Fast enough for this year's election?

me thinks not.

[MrBenchley]

36. Hahahahahahaha....

*the World Trade Center was blown up and the guy who did it got away because his family's in canoots with the Bush crime family;
*three million jobs have gone down the toilet while the GOP has pushed for tax breaks for billionaires;
*More than 500 Americans have died and thousands more have been wounded, and thousands of innocent Iraqis have been murdered and maimed in a war built entirely on lies that continues to go on months after this unelected drunk dressed up like a pilot and declared victory;
*The church/state wall is being torn down and the Constitution has been trashed;
*The courts are being packed with right wing loonies;
*Open graft and corporate crime have become commonplace; and
*the clock is being turned back daily on the environment, civil rights, labor law, public education and public health.

Yeah, the primo issue is whether the Democrats are respectful enough of hunters....NOT.

And we yet to see why a "hunter" needs a hidden popgun OR an assault weapon....not to mention why he can't get by a backgrround check at a gun show or elsewhere.

Face it ,the voter from whom "guns" is the all-consuming concern is the Tim McVVeigh wanna-be.....and the GOP cemented its appeal to the lunatic fringe long ago.

[Superfly]

38. That was the absolutely most IN-coherent post

I've read down here yet.

[slackmaster]

62. Straw Man

Yeah, the primo issue is whether the Democrats are respectful enough of hunters...

Nobody here has advanced anything resembling that alleged claim.

[demsrule4life]

33. And just how fast is that?

[demsrule4life]

41. As Fly said the hunters and their familys

as I said all the people involved making a living off hunting, the corrupt gun industry, ammo, lures, cammo, tree stands, the people involved in selling licenses, the nasty private hunting farms, clothing, outfitters hell prob even types of vehicles and their familys, millions upon millions more. You get my point, your crying about 13 million is just a tip of the total iceburg.

[iverglas]

47. and as I said

- do all those people believe that their personal interests supercede the interests of anyone else, or of their society?

Some people certainly do. People who like to dump toxic waste in rivers, or spew it into the air, to maximize their profits, come to mind. And they like to vote Republican too.

Do all hunters -- and their friends, families, suppliers and accommodators -- believe that they must be allowed to pursue their own interests at no matter who else's expense?

If they do -- why do you want their votes, and how do you think you could get them without losing a whole lot of others?

If someone thought that s/he oughta be allowed to dump toxic waste in the river despite the fact that it would cause harm to humans and the environment, would a Democratic candidate withdraw the proposal to prohibit toxic waste dumping?

Why would Democrats sell their soul to people who think that their own interests may never be interfered with in the interests of other people or in the public interest, and abandon policies that they believe to be in the public interest? Wouldn't that make them Republicans?


- do all those people believe that Democrats are trying to interfere in hunters' pursuit of their interests for no good reason?

If they or some of them do, and if Democrats believe that they have good reason for whatever interference they propose, why don't Democrats do what election campaigns are meant to be for -- explain their policy proposals to the electorate??

If someone thought that a candidate proposing to prohibit the dumping of toxic waste in the local river was just trying to interfere in the pursuit of his/her own interests for no good reason, but was likely to agree if s/he understood the good reasons, would it not be a good idea to explain those reasons?

If Democrats have good reasons for whatever firearms control measures they propose, why would they withdraw those proposals? Why wouldn't they explain them?

If the people they are explaining them to are decent and honest, and do not intend to put their own interests above everyone else's no matter what, why would those people not listen with an open mind to what Democrats say? Why would they believe, or claim to believe, what Republicans say about Democrats instead? Maybe because they really are *not* decent and honest and do indeed intend to put their own interests above everyone else's no matter what? So then who cares what they believe or claim to believe?


I still just don't get it, I'm very much afraid.


Oh yeah -- for any dim or disingenuous readers in the vicinity: hunting *is not* like toxic waste dumping. Acquiring, possessing and using firearms in a manner that is contrary to the public interest (and there may be genuine disagreement about what that is) *is*.

.

[sybylla]

35. Thanks

You're so sweet to tolerate us infrequent visitors. The gun dungeon just wouldn't be the same without you.

Not surprised by the decline. Our population has shifted from rural to urban in the last 100 years. Decline is an expected product of that shift. However the numbers surprise me since in my state a much greater percentage of the population takes to the woods for November deer season alone. Source, population divided by published accounts provided by state department of natural resources on license sales.

I noticed that Field and Stream didn't cite any specific sources except a hunting think tank. Perhaps I should just take their word for it. After all, they wouldn't have any reason to scare hunters into thinking hunting might come to an end, that they they are losing a battle for the right to do so.

[iverglas]

42. well, friend

Besides thanking Benchley for providing you with information that has been provided over and over in the past (I've certainly seen it) and that a newcomer might just politely ask for, you might wanna retract the allegation you made:

You can't get away with making blanket statements and pulling numbers out of your backside.

Now, maybe it was just a sorta general statement of principle and you weren't specifically alleging that Benchley had done any of that ...

I noticed that Field and Stream didn't cite any specific sources except a hunting think tank. Perhaps I should just take their word for it.

Or you could acknowledge that a prima facie credible fact has been provided by a prima facie credible source, and do some research of your own if you thought there was reason to doubt it, or just wanted to confirm it.

Or you could just pull some wild speculation out of ... somewhere ... as a "reason" why the fact presented, or the source from which it came, should maybe not be believed:

After all, they wouldn't have any reason to scare hunters into thinking hunting might come to an end, that they they are losing a battle for the right to do so.

No, I suppose they wouldn't, eh? Or ... are you saying they would? Hmm -- if that were so, I think I'd discount it as wild speculation and a very lame attempt (based on a completely unproved premise, that "losing a battle for the right" silliness) to discredit a source and disbelieve what it stated as fact.

.

[sybylla]

45. Is that a polite request for me to take my pretty little head out of the

debate?

No, I won't retract anything I said in my first post. I have yet to see Benchley do anything with respect and that includes towards me. He gets what he gives.

Second, as a moderate on the issue, all I can say is that you all deserve each other down here. Everything's discussed in extremes, no middle ground allowed. Your backs are up before you even look at a thread.

Lastly, sarcasm. I know it doesn't come across well in type, but it's there, intended to point out said extremes. No prima facie research needed. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything except that in this argument, like most, there is a fair amount of middle ground. And it's not a no-man's land.

[iverglas]

48. oh well

Second, as a moderate on the issue, all I can say is that you all deserve each other down here. Everything's discussed in extremes, no middle ground allowed. Your backs are up before you even look at a thread.

I guess that "you all" includes me. And I guess you must have something you could offer to substantiate the allegations about me you've made there. And I don't expect you'll offer it.

I doubt that you have a clue what my positions on any of the issues are, in fact, so I can't imagine what basis you'd have for describing any of them as "extreme". But never let absence of facts deter a good generalization.


I have yet to see Benchley do anything with respect and that includes towards me. He gets what he gives.

So much for being the moderate newbie.

.

[sybylla]

57. Newbie?

Didn't say I was a newbie. Just tend to avoid the place. Or am I mistaken? Perhaps you were calling me a name. Oh, well.

And yes, friend, it includes you. Obfuscating with rhetorical legalese is, intended or not, an intimidation tactic. Which is just par for the course in the gun dungeon. I know you are an excellent debater. Hiding behind obtuse language only detracts from your skills and closes off debate with someone who might just have a reasonable statement to make.

And last I knew, being moderate doesn't mean being a door mat. I've tangled with Benchley before. I know who he is. But he is too busy arguing extremes to know that I agree with him on a few points. It has become obvious since first meeting him so long ago that he prefers war to compromise. No reasonable debate allowed.

[MrBenchley]

58. Gee....

Guess actually bringing facts to a debate is "arguing extremes" these days.

But then in order for there to be a reasonable debate, there has to be reason on both sides of the aisle....and it's pretty clear that all the RKBA crowd has is what comes out of a backside, to use someone's pretty little phrase.

[iverglas]

66. I'm sorry

But I'm just not seeing any ground for accusing him of posting false information as if it were true, or for not retracting that allegation.

And that's really all I was talking about and the only thing I could really have been understood to have been talking about.

And you know, it just ain't my fault that I write flawlessly, at a level and referring to facts and concepts that are suitable for the discussion of serious issues, and that someone might (choose not to exert the effort to) understand it all.

I've tangled with Benchley before. I know who he is. But he is too busy arguing extremes to know that I agree with him on a few points. It has become obvious since first meeting him so long ago that he prefers war to compromise. No reasonable debate allowed.

And I still haven't grasped how accusing someone who has actually cited a fact for which he has a credible source, whether you know what it is or not, of doing something considerably less honourable is any part of a "reasonable debate".

The fact that you "tend to avoid" this place, and have feelings about any particular posters from previous experience, does not justify accusations, however veiled, that any other poster is being anything less than truthful and straightforward.

Like I said, that was my point and my only point. And the only response that was needed was recognition that one had perhaps jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and ought not to have done so, and apologizes. Just not that big deal, really, although of course best avoided by aiming for a more moderate reaction.

Me, I've tried to focus on the issue in this thread ... if only I could figure out what it's supposed to be.

.

[sybylla]

76. Wasn't accusing him of posting false information

But, as Benchley is fond of doing, I pointed out in my response the fact that there are no specific references to a specific poll in that story. Hence, no credible source. Only a nebulous reference to a hunting think tank who has all kinds of reasons for making the claims they do, including both telling the truth and misleading the public. It was quite clearly a remark intended for Benchley, framed in a manner I thought Benchley would be able to understand. He is so fond of closely scrutinizing everyone's reverences and sources. I had initially hoped that he would respond with a link to an actual poll, since he is so astute in finding facts. But, alas, I was greatly disappointed. This link doesn't cut the mustard. I could pump out industry articles left and right supporting all kinds of opinions with vague references to polls and surveys. That doesn't mean I'm telling the truth or that I haven't misconstrued the facts. If that's what passes for sources in the gungeon, things have changed dramatically.

In GD, we like to see the poll/survey questions, examine the conductor of the poll/survey and the methods of analysis, compare poll to poll, survey to survey. Like I said, I don't dispute that there has been a decline. I really would like to see the surveys/polls that demonstrate that.

"does not justify accusations, however veiled, that any other poster is being anything less than truthful and straightforward."

And I never said Benchley wasn't telling the truth. No veiling, no implications. And your continued assumptions to that affect are offensive. Is questioning the source now to be automatically construed as calling someone a liar? Who's making assumptions now?

[iverglas]

80. facts and sources

Let's just stick with them.

I've found a secondary source for a figure of 5% -- nobody will like the secondary source, but it cites a verifiable primary source that I may be able to cite as I google around (I asked for "united states" "population hunts" hunting):
http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fswild1.html

Although less than 5 percent of the U.S. population hunts,<4> ...

<4> United States Fish and Wildlife Service, “National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife—Associated Recreation,” Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2001: 5.

(Who knows, maybe PETA has misrepresented what the survey said ... - ah, well, maybe not misrepresented, but was less than straightforward about -- see ** below)

Another less than stellar source, that doesn't cite its own source for the 6% statistic:
http://www.animal-law.org/commentaries/oct24.htm

A publication of the Marketing Office of the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism:
http://www.discoversouthcarolina.com/documents/Sport_Hunting.htm

Hunting is big business in the United States. According to the <U.S. Fish and Wildlife> Service’s 1996 survey, there were nearly 14 million hunters in America, 16 years of age and older, ...

- population about 250,000,000, somewhat conservatively, in 1996? That's 5.6%. (see ** below)

According to the 1999 South Carolina Recreation Participation and Preference Study, 14.4 percent of South Carolina’s residents age 12 and older participated in some form of hunting in 1999.

... Hunting by South Carolinians decreases in popularity with age, from 26.8% participation in the 12-17 age group, to 10.8% in the 46-64 age group. In South Carolina, 27% of males hunt, while only 3% of females do. Participation increases slightly with family income--nearly 19% of the families reporting $75,000+ income like to hunt.
(Emphasis in the original)

I might guess that South Carolina is more rural than other states, where smaller percentages of the population hunt. Interesting, that bit about hunting activities increasing with income, hm?

Over one-third of the nation's hunters live in the South, along with disproportionate numbers of African-American, Hispanic and female hunters. The US Fish and Wildlife Service reports that approximately 35% of the nation’s hunters live in the South, as do 73% of the African-American hunters, 39% of the Hispanic hunters and 29% of the female hunters.

Yup, distribution of hunters is indeed (and predictably) not even. More than 6% in the south ... a whole lot less than 6% in some other states, obviously, if the 6% average is accurate. Possibly some other states that the Democrats have a hope of getting elected in, in any event?

A source cited:

1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation South Carolina, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, April 1998, 60 pp (approx. with appendices), available on the Internet http://www.fws.gov

A Montana site says that 1/4 of the population hunts:
http://www.worldclassoutdoors.com/montana_hunting.htm
I won't disbelieve it just because it's operated by hunting outfitters, I guess ...

The 5.5% - 6% figure seems to have some strong basis, to me. The search engine at http://hunting.fws.gov didn't work, so I couldn't find the surveys in question. Aha, tried the links link, and here we are:
http://fa.r9.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html

The U.S. Census Bureau collected information for the Survey in two phases. The first phase was the screen which began in April 2001. During the screening phase, the Census Bureau interviewed a sample of 77,000 households nationwide to determine who in the household had fished, hunted, or wildlife watched in 2000, and who had engaged or planned to engage in those activities in 2001. In most cases, one adult household member provided information for all household members. The screen primarily covered 2000 activities while the next, more in-depth phase covered 2001 activities.

The second phase of data collection consisted of three detailed interview waves. The first wave began in April 2001, the second in September 2001, and the last in January 2002. Interviews were conducted with samples of likely anglers, hunters, and wildlife watchers who were identified in the initial screening phase. The Census Bureau conducted these interviews primarily by telephone, with in-person interviews in the first and third interview waves for those respondents who could not be reached by telephone

Respondents in the second Survey phase were limited to persons at least 16 years old. Each respondent provided information pertaining only to his or her activities and expenditures. Sample sizes were designed to provide statistically reliable results at the State level. Altogether, interviews were completed for 25,070 respondents from the sportspersons sample and 15,303 from the wildlife watchers sample. The response rate for the screen phase was 75%. For the sportspersons sample it was 88% and for the wildlife-watching sample, 90%.

Over 82 million U.S. residents 16 years old and older fished, hunted, or wildlife watched in 2001. During that year, 34.1 million people fished, 13.0 million hunted, and 66.1 million participated in at least one type of wildlife-watching activity including observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife.
(Emphasis added)

That would be 13 million out of 285 million ... or 4.56%.

Now, granted, those are not voters. That is number of people aged 16 and over expressed as a percentage of the entire population, and that's *not* good statistics. (This is the ** I referred to above.)

But the report provides its own figure -- exactly the one initially cited; I calculate from the percentage it gives that the population of people aged over 16 would be 216 million (13 million divided by .06), and that seems reasonable.

Hunting — Six percent of the U.S. population 16 years old and older, over 13 million people, hunted in 2001.

The entire report is at:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/FHW01.pdf

So all in all, I would feel pretty safe asserting that 6% of the US population over 16 years of age hunts -- using the credible source that Benchley's source had cited in the first place. And, of course, that a considerably higher proportion of some state populations, and a considerably lower proportion of some other state populations, hunt.

Now, then there are the quibbles raised about hunters' families, friends and suppliers.

Yup, hunters are overwhelmingly male. So any wives and mothers and daughters and sisters they have are mostly not counted in that figure. Since not all hunters are married (and their mothers and daughters and sisters might be married to hunters and we wouldn't want to double-count them -- or might be married to non-hunters ...), we couldn't double the figure, but we could certainly add to it -- although we really wouldn't want to assume that all wives of hunters opposed firearms control measures, any more than we'd want to assume that all hunters do.

Hunters' friends? Well, in locales where largish proportions of the population hunt (say, rural South Carolina or Montana), I think we'd already be counting quite a few of them -- because they'd be hunters too. And if they aren't, well, I wouldn't want to assume that they vote on the basis of their hunter friends' supposed interests.

And I'd say ditto for the people who sell the hunters their guns 'n ammo. Probably a pretty high rate of hunters among them? Also among the other suppliers of goods and services they patronize when they hunt, which would presumably be in locales where relatively high proportions of the population hunt?

So hell, even if we did double the hunter figure, to account for wives and for non-hunters who benefit from hunting, we'd still only have 12% of the population over 16 -- more in some places, fewer in other places.

Just some fun with numbers, which I'm far too easily entertained by finding and playing with.

But can anybody name any other recreational activity (it seems to be at least a largish part of the time recreational) participated in by 10% or so of the electorate, directly or indirectly, that anybody would think dictates how that bunch of people votes? or that anybody would think it reasonable for a bunch of people to vote on the basis of? ... or that anybody would believe that a bunch of people really do vote on the basis of?

.

[sybylla]

85. Another activity?

Church-going - or more specifically the lack thereof. The non-religious tend to have quite strong feelings about this activity vote their ideals. They total, by the last census, approximately 25 million, considerably more than any other number you mentioned for hunters, not counting the non-hunting supporters, which no one seems to have any statistics for. They are a bigger constituent and both parties regularly act to alienate them.

But all this will do is hijack the thread. No solutions here.

[iverglas]

49. oh, btw

Is that a polite request for me to take my pretty little head out of the debate?

No, it wasn't, and I can't imagine why you would ask me whether it was.

It was a polite request that you refrain from making unsubstantiated and unpleasant allegations, and that if you happen to, oh, accidentally make actual false allegations you retract them when they are proved false.

Civil discourse, and all that.

Benchley stated something as fact. If you doubted that it was fact, all you needed to do was ask for a source.

.

[sybylla]

59. Look

I will always have great respect for you, Iverglas. I apologize if my points were too obscure. Unsubstanciated allegations were the point. And so was hijacking a thread.

You are missing the fact that whether or not what any of you here hold as fact is true, Republicans and their factions spend their hard earned dollars and air time scaring good Democrats into voting Repuke and that effects how the Democrats should address the issue. It doesn't matter if it isn't an issue to 80% (just pulling that out of my backside as an example) of Dems who vote Dems. It doesn't matter if all hunters are idiots. The puke character assination works with these factions and that, unfortunately, sets the context of the debate. That means I agree with Roebear (paraphrasing) that careful use of language may bring a few one-issue voters back to the fold and prevent a few more from leaving. That's why we call ourselves the big tent.

Wisconsin elected Thommy Thompson-R (Reptile) governor for 16 years in large part because of puke fearmongering over RKBA and hunting. Pukes learned it works here and it won't go away anytime soon. It is a situation that can be diffused with a little caution and consideration for the power of fear. Al Gore won this state by only 6000 votes and the fearmongering was rampant. I'd hate to see my state turn red because the Dem party refused to take steps to diffuse the RKBA issue.

[MrBenchley]

60. Hahahahahaha.....

"Republicans and their factions spend their hard earned dollars and air time scaring good Democrats into voting Repuke and that effects how the Democrats should address the issue."
Evidently the RKBA "Democrats" here think the best tactic is to pass that horseshit along as if it were fact.

[iverglas]

68. alrighty then

Republicans and their factions spend their hard earned dollars and air time scaring good Democrats into voting Repuke and that effects how the Democrats should address the issue.

So what IS the answer? How SHOULD Democrats address the issue?

This reminds me of recent abortion-rights debates, and the need some people perceive to respond to the "baby-killers" propaganda. I took exactly the same position there as I take here: it does not merit response.

The evil motives or moral shortcomings of women who have abortions are none of anyone's business, and have nothing to do with their right to have an abortion, and it is merely self-defeating to legitimize the notion that anyone's feelings about the evil motives or moral shortcomings women who have abortions is relevant to women's ability to exercise their rights.

Believe me, if anyone were actually carrying on about the motives or moral shortcomings of hunters in an effort to persuade the public to outlaw or unjustifiably interfere in hunters' activities, I'd say the same thing. Their motive for hunting could be that they are horrible bunny-hating freaks and want to kill anything with long ears, and it would not matter, so long as we did not have any justification for interfering in their pastime.

So I would avoid expressing my personal opinion about them and their evil motives and moral shortcomings if, say, I were trying to pass some law that I *did* offer justification for -- like protecting some endangered species of bunny. For me to deviate from the proper way of debating public policy options in a democracy -- honestly, sincerely and with good will -- would be for me to become my enemy. The end does *not* justify the means in such a case, because the means are the end: the end is, ultimately, democracy, and democracy is not achieved by anti-democratic means.

Of course ... that does not mean that I see anything at all wrong with pointing out that one's opponents are acting out of pure, selfish self-interest and exhibit no concern for the public interest or willingness to accept limitations on their pursuit of their own interests in the public interest, if that happens to be the case. Kinda like how I'd point out that Cheney's statement of reasons for invading Iraq might not be perfectly transparent, given his own interests and the absence of any grounds to believe he acts in anything but his own interests ...


It is a situation that can be diffused with a little caution and consideration for the power of fear. Al Gore won this state by only 6000 votes and the fearmongering was rampant. I'd hate to see my state turn red because the Dem party refused to take steps to diffuse the RKBA issue.

So the question remains -- what does the Democratic Party DO? I have no problem with what it should *not* do: demonize hunters as a class, for instance. I also have no knowledge of it ever having done that.

I just don't think that one deals with demagoguery by legitimizing it in any way. If the notion being spread abroad is "Democrats hate hunters and hunting", I would say "so what?"

What have Democrats ever proposed that is inimical to hunters and hunting because they hate hunters and hunting, and not because they are proposing to act in the interests of society as a whole, and of course particularly, in this case, in the interest of vulnerable groups and individuals like children, abused women, and any other group that is particularly susceptible to harm by firearms?

One wins by having an agenda that people support. One gets people's support by explaining that agenda honestly and straightforwardly. There will always be people who will not support one's agenda, no matter how crystal clear it is to them -- either because they honestly and sincerely and in all good will disagree that the solutions one is proposing are workable or desirable in the public interest, or because they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

In the first case, compromising with them may be necessary and good; in the second case, you either write them off, while continuing to explain why their agenda is wrong, or you sell your soul to them.

I really do want to know exactly what it is that anyone is proposing for dealing with Republican fearmongering on this subject. All I'm seeing is vague finger-pointing and blaming of the victims of it. What should a political party that is the victim of lies and fearmongering do to persuade people who believe the lies -- and who would vote for them otherwise -- to vote for them??

.

[Redneck Socialist]

86. By not responding to the Republicans

on this issue allows them to control the message. The perception out there is that Democrats don't respect gun owners or their values. If we just throw up our hands and say "so what" that sends the message to hunters that we don't care about them or their issues.

You write that "One wins by having an agenda that people support." I would amend that to read one wins by having an agenda that people who vote support. Hunters and gun owners vote. That is why we can't write them off.

"What should a political party...do to persuade people...to vote for them" on this issue do?

In order to immunizes itself against the charge that it does not support gun owners rights I would like the Democratic party to say that the Second amendment supports the right of the individual to bear arms. I would like the Democratic party to say that we are going to let the assault weapons ban expire because it is ineffectual in stopping crime. That would be a good start.

Then I would go on the offensive and show how the Republican agenda in general and bush in particular is hurting your ability to hunt and fish. Hammer them on enviro issues. Guns are only part of the equation. It is tough to hunt if Chimpy put up an oil well in the middle of your favorite grouse cover.

We can take these voters back if we are willing to fight for them and we should do so.

[MrBenchley]

90. Hahahahaha...."gun owners or their values"

Values like THESE?

Well, Negros kill more Americans every uear than the Total of Americans killed by Muslim in the last 10 years.
Every day PRO-DEATH libers kill more American babies than all ther Americans every killed by Muslims.
So, WTF, why the big deal about some towel heads ??? "

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=941&hl=racist



http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/hci_catalog.htm

"I just got sent your site from a friend, it is great! enough said, oh yeh.. Sara Brady and Janet Reno were caught screwing each other today, (no suprise) but the dildos were shaped like toy guns!!!!!!! ha ha ha ha WW"

http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/fan_mail_3.htm http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/fan_mail_3.htm

Yeah, let's pander to those ignorant hate-filled humholes and ignore the majority....NOT.

[demsrule4life]

91. What makes the world go round

people hating blacks, people hating whites, people hating people that own guns, people hating each other's religion on and on and on.

[sybylla]

87. You want solutions from me?

I would have thought that the veterans of the gundgeon, after years of rational, civil debate would have this sort of thing worked out. I was hoping someone here would have some answers. Okay, I'll float a balloon.

The borders of the country of Switzerland have remained in tact and unviolated for centuries because of a strong determination to remain neutral. Seems like a good idea that might apply to this situation. Apparently it also seemed that way to Howard Dean who, remaining neutral, claimed gun control should be a local issue. This does many things. It takes the debate regarding gun control out of the national spotlight and the repukes won't get the free air play for fear mongering and finger pointing. It forces the powers that be on both sides to divy themselves up into numerous smaller local organizations to deal with the local issues, rather than holding all the power and the war chest at the national level. No national candidate or perhaps even state legislator will have to face a nasty ad campaign of targeted fearmongering and finger pointing. The power to regulate guns resides in the lowest jurisdictions and therefore is closest to the people it will effect though still under the supervision of the judicial system.

But I'm sure there is someone here with more experience than me who will see problems with my idea and perhaps propose a more proper solution.

[alwynsw]

82. Want to substantiate that number?

It's certainly very low in my neck of the woods. I realize that most urbanites cannot hunt, but I believe the numbers might be a little higher than 6%. I do know that quite a few city dwellers who don't hunt engage in recreational shooting - target, sporting clays, trap, etc.

[RoeBear]

8. WOW!

You missed it completely and fortunately I only had to read the first couple of paragraphs to figure that out too.

"I'll bet far more people grow potted plants, or wear glasses, or buy underwear, than hunt."

Nobody here made the claim that 95% of hunters are Republicans. Nobody here said hunters concerns should be ignored. I say if you try to piss off hunters they'll go to the polls and crush the offending candidate.

:* KISS

[iverglas]

13. not surprised

that you "missed" it, of course.

I say if you try to piss off hunters they'll go to the polls and crush the offending candidate.

And I said:

1. Who the hell is trying to piss off hunters?

2. What the hell does hunting have to do with any election issue?

3. If someone else is portraying you as haters of hunters, even though hunting is *not* an election issue, why the hell would you let that someone else control your electoral message by dignifying a statement that has nothing to do with any election issue with a response?

4. If hunters perceive proposals for reasonable restrictions on their activities, in the public interest, as sufficient grounds to vote against you, why the hell would you care?

.

[RoeBear]

16. 1. Who the hell is trying to piss off hunters?

People in the gun dungeon, duh.

[Superfly]

17. But all the antis are accomplishing

making themselves look like complete and utter buffoons.

[CO Liberal]

19. You Progunners Don't Have to Bother

You guts have buffoons like Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, and John Lott/Mary Rosh on your side.

:-)

[Superfly]

20. 3 people I've never met...what's your point?

[MrBenchley]

26. The leading figures of the "gun rights" movement

And you will notice not a word from "hunters" about their shameful acctions and statements.

[Superfly]

28. And they mean exactly what to me?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

32. I don't care who they are or what they stand for

and you alleging that they somehow speak for me is absolutely ludicrous.

[MrBenchley]

37. Hey, you're the one parroting their rhetoric....

and trying to pretend they're just fringe figures instead of the ACTUAL PRO-GUN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP.

[Superfly]

40. Like I said, I don't give 2 shits

who they are or what they say. I speak for myself, thank you very much.

[demsrule4life]

44. Didn't I post a poll once about who belongs to the NRA?

If I'm not mistaken you listed yourself as a non member along with myself. Why is it that every fucking reply by the idiot anti's allways say we support what NRA boardmembers have to say when we aren't members? Maybe I'm just confused, time for another beer. :)

[Superfly]

46. It's their

limp attempt at trying to discredit us. There's only one person who speaks for me, and that's me. I don't care what or who is on the board of trustees of the NRA, ASPCA, ACLU, NASA, or whatever. They do not speak for me.

[slackmaster]

63. Kind of a one-dimensional portrayal of human thought

That if two or more people feel the same way about a particular issue however trivial that one of them must be the de facto "leadership" of some kind of movement or organization.

[CO Liberal]

50. Bear That In Mind, Superfly...

...next time any pro-gunner on this board accuses us pro-control folks of marching in lock-step with anything Sarah Brady, Diane Feinstein, or Rosie O'Donnell says.

I have a brain, and can think on my own. Unfortunately, many people on your side rely on morons like Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, and John Lott/Mary Rosh to do their thinking for them.

If you don't like YOUR side painted with a broad brush, then speak up the next time you see someone on your side painting MY side in such a manner. If you remain silent, I will take that as your acceptance of the paint job.

[Superfly]

52. No...

I meant to paint only a few exceptional anti-RKBAers as complete and utter buffoons, and I stick by that. And by the responses, I was right on target.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[demsrule4life]

34. Guts?

[CO Liberal]

51. Missed That Typo - Can't Change it Now

That should have read "You guys...."

[demsrule4life]

53. Just wondering

My gut is about the only thing I own outright. :)

[alwynsw]

89. If my gut is all I own outright,

I'm the fleshy equivalent of a land baron.

[NorthernSpy]

54. Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre aren't on my side

Neither is John Lott nor any of his hilarious alter-egos (which I've been reading about: can't decide whether he's more funny or more contemptible). I'm pretty sure I've never cited any of those fascist clowns as authorities on anything.

It's just not true that support for liberal gun rights necessarily goes hand-in-hand with any kind of right-wing ethos or reactionary agenda. Where I am, the same legislature that has passed progressive healthcare legislation,and has easily rebuffed the few attempts made to establish a death penalty, has also repeatedly refused to enact nearly any kind of gun control -- an outcome that would seem to run contrary to what some pro-control people here might expect.

Mary

[MrBenchley]

55. Gee

"It's just not true that support for liberal gun rights necessarily goes hand-in-hand with any kind of right-wing ethos or reactionary agenda."
Guess that's why the RKBA crowd posts crap dredged out of right wing cesspools like the Washington Times and Newsmax so often....and slurs just about every Democrat anyone's ever heard of.

[CO Liberal]

56. And Where I Live...

...the brain-dead Republicans in the State Legislature do whatever the gun lobby tells them to do.

[iverglas]

39. bald assertions

... unsupported by any facts.

"Who the hell is trying to piss off hunters?"
People in the gun dungeon, duh.

Scusi, but, um, so what, duh?

If a candidate said "people shouldn't hunt" he'd piss off at least
6% (your number) of the voting population.

*I* am still wanting to know what *candidate* is doing this. I haven't seen your answer to that question (which I have indeed asked already) yet.

Proof by blatant assertion. "People in the gun dungeon are trying to piss off hunters." No names, no dates, no facts.

Nothing to worry about, I'd say. Just an appeal to the emotions and/or prejudices of someone ... somewhere ..., it looks like to me.

Calling for about as much answer as any other such appeal does.

None.

Of course, you could always say that someone advocating restrictions on the acquisition, possession and use of all firearms, or some particular firearms, was "trying to piss off hunters". I'd respond that someone advocating the prohibition of cannabis growing was obviously trying to piss off potted plant growers.

The truth of both of our statements would depend on whether

- hunters (and potted plant growers) are all necessarily pissed off by proposals that their activities be restricted or regulated in the public interest;

- the intent of the person advocating the restrictions was to piss somebody off.

Since the intent of someone advocating restriction or regulation of firearms acquisition, possession and use, in the public interest, cannot fairly or honestly be described as "trying to piss off hunters", and since not all hunters are pissed off by such proposals, I just don't think you could make your case anyhow.

But feel free to try.



You're the one who quoted someone else as saying:
"Where I grew up everyone hunts. It has nothing to do with politics."

I agree. Don't you? If you do, why the hell not just say so, instead of blaming people in your own party for the dirty tricks played by your adversaries?

.

[MrBenchley]

43. You know, leaving aside

the question of whether any candidate is "trying to piss off hunters".....the fact remains that the RKBA crowd is more than happy to pass along anti-Democratic slurs any time they can find one...such as the "Kerry is anti-gun" rubbish the board has been rife with lately.

[MrBenchley]

24. You will notice Dr. Dean's NRA support

has so far added up to a lot of nothing.

[Withergyld]

27. I'll reply to #3

I think part of this has to do with support for renewal/strengthening of the AWB. Most if not all of our Presidential canidates support renewal of the AWB. Some of them support strengthening the AWB. Some hunters use rifles that will be affected by strengthening the AWB. So in some ways this COULD be seen as a hunting issue. You CAN hunt with an AK-47. It may not be the best choice, but it is certainly capable of killing a deer.

[jimsteuben]

21. guns used for hunting

"Why is it not possible for the Democratic Party to take no position on hunting and the legitimacy of possessing weapons properly and ordinarily used for hunting, while defending its reasons for proposing laws to control weapons not properly and ordinarily used for hunting?"

Why make the distinction? It's just steel, wood and a bit of plastic. Guns used for hunting Bambi and Thumper can also be criminally misused. Typical hunting rifles - such as the Remington 700 or the .270 Winchester - are in fact far more powerful than the an AR-15 and far more accurate than an AK-47.

"Why would a Democrat want to legitimize dishonesty by acting as if 'hunting'IS a political issue and acting like demagogues by also appealing to emotion and prejudice?"

Many Democratic politicians like to have their photo taken while they are out hunting in order to deflect attention away from their position on gun control.

[Redneck Socialist]

64. Just a few points

You have a lot in here so I will just respond to a few of your points.

1)Your potted plant analogy is rather in apt. I don’t recall potted plants being mentioned in US constitution. However you choose to interpret the 2nd amendment the mere fact that guns are mentioned there at all raises the issue above that of the potential misuse of potted plants by individuals.

2) "Hunting is not a political issue. Period. Hunting is a private activity that is only an issue to the extent that the activity needs to be regulated in the pursuit of a legitimate public interest, just like any other private activity. It is a matter of personal preference, and as a matter of public policy, all personal preferences are equal. And no party's or candidate's preference in the matter of hunting is a proper basis for anyone's vote, any more than his/her taste in shoes or hot dog toppings is."

Hunting is a political issue. Hunting is heavily regulated by the states and as a matter of public policy it is inherently political.

Saying that “no party’s or candidate’s preference in the matter of hunting is a proper basis for anyone’s vote” is dismissive and arrogant. It is not up to the party to determine what basis the voters should use when determining who to vote for.

3) "But it is still a fact that only demagogues play to those emotions and prejudices when they play politics. Democrats, of the small "d" variety, appeal to people's self-interest and public-spiritedness, and their ability and desire to balance the two when they discuss and vote on public policy."

Appeals to self-interest and public-spiritedness are precisely why big D democrats keep losing elections. We play too nice, rationality and self-interest are not often involved in how people decide whom to vote for.

4) "A whole lot more people need health care than go hunting..."

Sure more people need health care than hunt, but to say that those people who take hunting into account when determining who to vote for are irrational is again, arrogant and dismissive. I wasn’t aware that rationally had much of any thing to do with voting. People don’t necessarily vote based on self-interest. They vote because the candidate has a nice smile, looks good in a suit or seems like someone they would like to have a beer with. None of those are “rational” reason to vote for a candidate, but they are legitimate ones. It is not necessarily demagoguery to reach out for those votes. A political campaign is one big sales pitch. It is all about marketing. You identify a market (hunters) that is likely to buy (vote for) your product (candidate) and craft your sales pitch to reach those consumers. Hunters and gun owners are a very active voting block. A recent poll for Americans for Gun Safety showed that 47% of voting households have a gun in them. Should we ignore nearly half the voting households in the county simply because the Republicans have been more successful selling their product? That doesn’t sound like a strategy for electoral success to me. We ignore these voters at our own risk. By being silent on these issues we only allow the perception that we don't care about these voters or worse are hostile to them to grow. This is too important a voting block to cede to the Republicans without a fight.

[MrBenchley]

65. Ahem

Actually what is mentioned in the Second Amendment of the Constitution is the people collectively keeping and bearing arms in defense of a free state as a wellregulated militia. There's nary a word about hunting.

"A recent poll for Americans for Gun Safety showed that 47% of voting households have a gun in them."
And the same poll found
--90% of Americans want to close the gun show loophole
--86% want increased penalties for gun trafficking, just like Charles Schumer proposes
--79% want background checks for ALL firearm transactions
--77% want an assault weapons ban....
--67% want ALL firearms registered

[demsrule4life]

67. Link for these stats please

[iverglas]

70. obviously

... you meant to ask the person who cited the poll in the first place, right?

I mean, unless we have some reason for thinking that Benchley is ... being less than truthful ... when he says that his stats come from the same poll that the person in question cited.

Me, I'd say that someone who cherrypicks one stat from a whole bunch of stats that are all just as relevant to the issue s/he is addressing, but don't support his/her proposed conclusion quite as neatly, is the one who is being less than ... well, straightforward.

.

[MrBenchley]

74. Hey, when you can't refute the numbers

You have to try something else....

But one has to wonder why somebody who previously joined in the discussion of that survey is now pretending to be unaware of its existence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=29642

[Redneck Socialist]

84. Actually the poll does support my conclusion

which is why I used it.

"Gun owners have such strong preconceptions about where Democrats stand on guns that silence spells certain defeat for Democrats..." The poll analysis goes on to say that "one of the reasons that gun owners tend to vote for Republicans is the gun issue itself." and "If Democrats want to close the gun gap, they need to jettison their existing strategy of silence..." "There is a significant opportunity for he Democratic party to gain gun owner support..." (Emphasis added)

The question is do we want to continue to leave this significant and active block of voters to the Republicans or do we, as a party, want to get those votes? I want those votes. We can debate how to tailor the message to get those voters but to simply dismiss them, or worse denigrate them is a recipe for continued electoral failure.

Here is a link to the poll http://keepandbeararms.com/downloads/dlc-ags.pdf

[MrBenchley]

71. It's the DLC/AGS study

the RKBA crowd started FIVE different damn threads on it, but hilariously never read much beyond the first two paragraphs...

Try ANY of these, download the pdf document and read all the way to page eight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=29642

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22777

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22775

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=18116

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=17033

[RoeBear]

69. Put this plank on the agenda

--67% want ALL firearms registered

And I guarantee bad outcomes in November.

[CO Liberal]

72. Show That To The NRA....

...and prove to them how far from reality their position is.

[iverglas]

73. well hey now

Put this plank on the agenda
--67% want ALL firearms registered
And I guarantee bad outcomes in November.

Was it two years ago? the people of Alabama were asked, at the polling booth, whether to abolish the provision in the state constitution outlawing interracial marriages. (It was inoperative already, phew, thanks to a 1967 US Supreme Court decision.)

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/alabama.interracial/

Alabama voters on Tuesday repealed the state's century-old ban against interracial marriage, an unenforceable but embarrassing throwback to the state's segregationist past.

The vote was running 59 percent to 41 percent, with 58 percent of the voted counted.

... Alabama became the last state with such language in its organic law in 1998 when South Carolina voters approved a measure to remove similar wording from their state's constitution. In South Carolina, about 62 percent of voters favored lifting the ban.

Just imagine if someone had decided it would be wise to pander to that 41%! After all, 41% opposed to allowing interracial marriages is more than 33% not in favour of registering all firearms ...

I don't quite get it. How would "bad outcomes" be guaranteed by advocating something that 2/3 of the electorate apparently favours??

.

[RoeBear]

75. Thanks for proving my point...

...polls shouldn't be used for determining a proper course of action.

[iverglas]

78. actually, that was my point too

But you were the one who said that a particular plank would be unpopular enough to guarantee "bad outcomes" (despite the apparent evidence to the contrary) and apparently saying that this should be a determining factor in picking planks -- and I was the one wondering not just how that could be when it appeared to have 67% popular support, but why popular support for a wrong-headed policy, or popular opposition to a right-headed policy, would be the determining factor in adopting a policy.

Surely political leaders should be expected to lead, not just follow, eh? Seems to me that this kind of support for firearms registration might actually be, at least in part, the result of just that kind of leadership: persuasion to a position, by the presentation of facts and argument.

Or hey, maybe 67% of the US population just hates hunters, eh?

.

[RoeBear]

79. No my point is that there would be a

...bad outcome. In simpler words Democrats would lose elections.
It doesn't matter if 95% of people polled agreed with gun registration. Not if the 5% who are against it vote enmass for the 'other guy'. Assuming a close election.

[iverglas]

81. I'm sure there's some sense there somewhere

The 67% of people who support firearms registration would just up and vote for somebody who opposed it, because after all, they either don't really give a shit about firearms registration or are idiots who vote at random ...

Whereas the 33% of voters who oppose firearms registration also support the attack on Iraq, support a huge public debt created for no purpose, support whatever other obnoxious and insane things Republicans do and therefore vote Republican (in which case I don't know what would make anyone think that anything would make them vote Democrat) ... or vote Republican because they are so fiercely opposed to firearms registration that they'd vote Republican even though they oppose the attack on Iraq, oppose the Republicans' destructive fiscal policy, oppose all the other obnoxious and insane things that Republicans do ...

I dunno. Who isn't giving the voters credit for intelligence here?

.

[FeebMaster]

83. If people are voting Republican

expecting the Republicans to do pro-gun things, then I would call the intelligence of those voters into question or at least their memories.

[MrBenchley]

77. I believe roe means

that we'd be in for another furious round of lies from the likes of Larry Pratt and Ted Nugent....like that's not going to happen anyway.

"Just imagine if someone had decided it would be wise to pander to that 41%!"
Want to bet what the stance of that 41% is on guns?

[Stoker]

88. If the jobs keep leaving...

You'll probably find the number of hunters going up, just to stay fed!

I hunt, and eat what I hunt. I've worked in a slaughterhouse, and I've seen how the stuff in the grocery store gets killed. It's humane enough, but hunting, in my opinion, is far more humane. You can either buy it being railroaded down a ramp with hundreds of your kin, the smell of death and butchery heavy in the air, or you can buy it while standing in the woods munching on some clover, where your last though might be "Huh?" and then it's lights out.

If I was a critter, I'd choose the latter.

Stoker